Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 34 –
May/2008
The Ground of
Unity (2)
Ephesians 4:4–6
CONTINUING OUR STUDY OF THE GROUND
OF UNITY
IN Ephesians 4:4–6, in our last issue we examined
the first
three “spiritual realities” that join all true
believers: one body, and one Spirit,
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. We
continue this month with two
more.
IV. One Lord (v.
5a)
The Meaning
Without question,
this is the most pointed and the most important of all
seven of these spiritual realities. It appears in the
middle of Paul’s list and does seem to be the very heart
of our unity. There truly is only one Lord—the
Lord Jesus Christ who is Savior, Master, and God
incarnate.
How vividly this is
demonstrated in Mark 12:28-34! A certain scribe came to
Jesus and asked, “Which is the first commandment of
all?” Jesus answered: “The first of all the commandments
is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all
thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the
second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment
greater than these.”
The scribe responded with
his own profound statement: “Well, Master, thou hast
said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none
other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and
with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and
with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as
himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and
sacrifices.”
Seeing the scribe’s
understanding, our Lord then said, “Thou art not far
from the kingdom of God.” While the man was not yet in
the kingdom, he was close. Notice that he repeated
everything Christ said except one Lord. He
understood the importance of loving God; all that was
left was to recognize Jesus Himself as
Lord and believe and obey
Him. As we’ll see in our application later, it’s amazing
that the principle of lordship in salvation is a big
issue. Here is a vivid example of its
centrality.
After being
arrested, Peter proclaimed to the Jewish rulers that the
same Jesus that they had crucified was in reality the
“corner stone” that they had rejected (as noted back in
Eph. 2:20). He then declared, “Neither is there
salvation in any other: for there is none other name
under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”
(Acts 4:1-12). The world says there are many lords, but
God says there is only one Lord.
This serves to remind us
of an often-overlooked truth, that our salvation lies
not in our experience but in Christ’s
energy. In other words, there’s a tendency to judge
someone’s salvation because their experience was
different than yours or mine. John Macneil, an early
20th Century Scottish preacher, wonderfully
illustrated this in a sermon. He imagined a conversation
between the two blind men our Lord healed: the one in
John 9 and the other in Mark 8. As we recall, the one in
John 9 was healed when Jesus took some clay, spat on it,
placed it on the man’s eyes, and then told him to go
wash in the Pool of Siloam. In the case of the man in
Mark 8, however, Jesus did none of this. Macneil
imagined these two meeting one day and comparing their
conversion experience. The man in John 9 asked the man
in Mark 8, “What did you feel like when He put that
mixture of clay and spittle on your eyes?” “Clay and
spittle?” answered the man in Mark 8, “I don’t know
anything about clay and spittle.” “What,” said the man
in John 9, “don’t you remember how He spit on the ground
and made the mixture and put it on your eyes? I am
asking, What did you feel?” But the man in Mark 8 just
answered, “There was nothing put on my eyes.” The
conversation continued until finally the man in John 9
said, “Look here, I do not believe you’ve been healed at
all; you must still be blind. If He did not put the clay
on your eyes, you are still blind.” Macneil concluded,
“In other words, two religious denominations came into
being at once: the Mud-ites and the
Anti-mudites.”[i]
That is precisely
what happens when we are looking at our own experiences
instead of the one Lord who
saved us. Some people had a dramatic conversion out of
the depths of wickedness; others were saved when they
were young and untouched by heinous sin. I’ve heard
former gangsters and gang members give their testimony,
almost to the point of glorifying sin, and thereby
giving the impression that their conversion was “better”
than someone else’s. Others tend to think that being
saved as a result of a particular preacher’s ministry is
in some way special.
But none of these
things matter. It’s interesting, in fact, that the Bible
nowhere says that we have to cite that “moment in time”
when we were saved. Of course, many people can do this,
but that doesn’t mean they have to. Neither is it
required that we remember the name of the preacher we
were listening to, or the verse he preached, or an
illustration that he used. What matters is the one
Lord who saved
us.
The key to
understanding this doctrinal reality is, of course, the
term one lord. We dealt with
the question of the Deity of Christ back in Issue 16
(November 2006), “Is the Bible Unclear About the Deity
of Christ?” so we will not repeat that material here. We
would reemphasize, however, that the Deity of Christ is
an absolute cardinal doctrine of Christianity, the
central truth of the Gospel. Anyone who rejects that
truth, in fact, is not a believer and cannot be saved,
as our Lord Himself made clear: “I said therefore unto
you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe
not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (Jn.
8:24).
The Application
The application here
is obvious: unity can only exist with a proper view
of Christ. Christianity is Christ, so how we view
Him is absolutely essential. As noted in TOTT Issue 16,
when used of Jesus in a confessional way,
Lord clearly refers to His
divinity. To argue that point is utter folly and blatant
apostasy.
Countless cults and false
religions, for example, deny the Deity of Christ. To the
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus was not equal to Jehovah and
was not God in human flesh but was rather a created
being and was actually Michael the Archangel in his
preexistent state, having a brother named Lucifer who
rebelled against God.[ii] Likewise, to the Mormon,
Jesus—like all men, in fact—was a preexistent spirit who
took his body at birth in this world; He is set apart
from the rest of us only by the fact that He was “the
Firstborn” of God’s spirit-children.[iii] Other cults, such as
Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, The
Way International, and others illustrate why they are
all called “a cult,” namely, because they deny the deity
of Christ or in some way pervert that
doctrine.
But all this is nothing
new in Church history, rather simply a revival of the
ancient heresy called Arianism. Arius, a 4th
Century parish priest in Alexandria, taught that Jesus
was not coequal with God and was, in fact, a created
being.
A popular book
called The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown (Doubleday,
2003) is another graphic illustration. While seemingly
just another thriller novel set in present-day, it has a
hidden agenda that makes it far more. Starting with the
murdered curator of a Paris museum, the hero and heroin
of the story must decipher the clues left behind by the
murdered man and thereby uncover an ancient and sinister
plot. And what is that ancient
secret? The supposed “true”
story that Christianity has been trying to hide for
1,600 years, namely, that Jesus was just another man who
actually ended up marrying Mary Magdalene.
Not only is that
book Arianism and Gnosticism in a new wrapper, but it’s
also full of countless historical errors that reveal the
author to be either incredibly ignorant or just a
blatant liar. For example, referring to the Council of
Nicea in 325, Brown claims that “until that
moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as
a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a
man nonetheless.” But that simply is not
so. History proves beyond the
slightest doubt that early Christians overwhelmingly
worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord.
Before the appearance of complete doctrinal statements,
early Christian leaders wrote summaries of doctrine
called the “Rule” or “Canon” of Faith that stated this
fact. The canon of well-known second-century bishop
Irenaeus, for example, was prompted by I Corinthians
8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of
whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” There is
no doubt whatsoever that those early Christians viewed
our Lord as God.
This serves to
illustrate a consistent practice of unbelievers, namely,
they must distort history to deny
truth. Why? Because history, as
the old expression goes, is “His Story.” It is what God
is doing in the world, what He is accomplishing. So to
escape the plain truths of God’s Word, men must revise
the facts, reinterpret events, and rewrite the history
books. Another example in our day is the rewriting of
American history. To escape the fact of America being
founded on biblical and moral principles, revisionist
historians totally ignore the godliness of many of our
Founding Fathers.
As mentioned
earlier, the “lordship salvation” debate again comes
into view here. There is something seriously wrong with
a theology that teaches that there is a difference
between “accepting Jesus” as Savior and then at
some later day accepting Him as Lord when
there is absolutely no such dichotomy or distinction in
Scripture and is, in point of fact, an invention of
modern (not historical) Christianity. It is clearly
a denial of one Lord to say that all one must do
is “believe in Jesus” to be saved. After all, “the
devils also believe, and tremble” (Jas. 2:19). They
believe in the facts concerning Christ, and that is
exactly what many today view salvation to be, just some
vague belief, where no repentance is necessary, no
change of life is expected, and no responsibility is
demanded. As mentioned earlier, Romans 10:9-10 makes it
clear that salvation is based not only on the
recognition of Christ as Savior but a confession of Him
as Lord. How could it
be plainer than this? “That if thou shalt confess with
thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt
be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made
unto salvation.”
What one
Lord, and therefore so-called “Lordship Salvation”
means, is that true salvation results in an automatic
change in the person who believes. True
“conversion” (Latin convertere, “to turn around,
transform”) fundamentally speaks of a “new lordship.” No
longer are we Lord, no longer is Satan
Lord, but Christ is Lord. This is the very essence of salvation, as Paul
wrote to the carnal Corinthians, “Therefore if any man
be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are
passed away; behold, all things are become new” (II Cor.
5:17).
So we say again,
unity can only exist with a proper view of Christ and
His salvation. Tolerating false
doctrine and trying to create unity where none can
possibly exist is an abomination. But when this
principle is met, what sweet fellowship and unity it
brings. As commentator Albert Barnes
writes:
There is no better way of
promoting unity among Christians than by reminding them
that they have the same Saviour. And when jealousies and
heart-burnings arise; or when they are disposed to
contend about trifles; when they magnify unimportant
matters until they are in danger of rending the church
asunder, let them feel that they have one Lord and
Saviour, and they will lay aside their contentions, and
be one again. Let two men, who have never seen each
other before, meet in a distant land, and feel that they
have the same Redeemer, and their hearts will mingle
into one. They are not aliens, but friends. A cord of
sympathy is struck more tender than that which binds
them to country or home; and though of different
nations, complexions, or habits, they will feel that
they are one. Why should contentions ever arise between
those who have the same Redeemer?
Paul’s point about
one Lord leads right to
another spiritual reality.
V. One Faith (v.
5b)
The Meaning
There has been some
debate as to whether one faith refers to the
act of believing or the doctrines that one
believes, that is, a system of truth. But as Paul
notes several times in Ephesians (1:1–2, 15–17; 2:8),
what matters most is the object of faith. One commentator and theologian
astutely makes this point when he
writes:
Many commentators
understand faith as the subjective act of believing. But
such acts are one only as they have the same object.
Jews, Moslems, Hindus all believe; but they do not have
the same faith. The faith here mentioned must be the
doctrines believed. [French historian and agnostic
Joseph] Renan believed that Jesus was just a moral
teacher; [German philosopher and liberal theologian
Albert] Schweitzer believed that Jesus was insane;
[German existential theologian Rudolf] Bultman believed
that we could not believe anything that Jesus is
reported to have said or done. It is not the psychology
of the act, but the doctrines believed that constitute
the unity of the many Christians’ many acts of
believing.[iv]
It seems obvious,
then, that Paul is saying that true unity is based on
common doctrine, that is, the system of truth that
we all have in common. Why introduce something totally
subjective into a list of objective
truths? Paul’s emphasis in this list is to present
absolutes, not what we might feel, think, or even
believe about it, but specific, unchanging realities. He
wants to prove what is the basis for unity, so the last
thing he would do is interject something subjective.
Mark it down: subjectivity never proves
anything. The evolutionist
believes that the entire universe came from one Big Bang
billions of years ago. Does that make it so? No, for
it’s not our belief that makes anything true. It’s what
God says that makes something
true.
This is exactly the
point Jude makes in his short but powerful letter, that
believers “should earnestly contend for the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). One
faith, then, refers to “the body of revealed truth
that constitutes Historical, Evangelical Christianity.”
This doesn’t mean an entire system of theology on which
we all can agree; that would be impossible. Rather it
refers again to the unique revelation of God through
Christ. Paul has, of course, dealt with this often here
in Ephesians. Specifically, this body of truth is the
very essence of the Gospel, the redemption by blood
and salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in
Christ alone. This one faith is
clearly stated in Romans 1:16–17: “For I am not ashamed
of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first,
and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness
of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written,
The just shall live by
faith.”
This was the one
faith that was virtually lost for centuries and
restored to prominence in the Protestant Reformation.
This is the one faith for which John Huss and
countless others died. This is the sola
fide (faith alone) that Martin
Luther stood for, against that dark, sinister power of
Rome.
Also implicit in
one faith is where this body of revealed truth is
located, namely, the Scriptures. In other words, it is obviously the completed
Scriptures that contain the record of “the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints.” In fact, a basic
acknowledgment of Scripture as the Word of God is
automatic in salvation. Why? Because the person is
saying, “I believe what the Bible says about sin,
salvation, and the Savior.” Here is an acknowledgment of
Scripture being true in its revelation of Christ. As
Paul also declared to Timothy, “The things that thou
hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit
thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others
also” (II Tim. 2:2). Those early Christians had a body
of basic doctrine (the Apostles’ doctrine; cf. Acts
2:42) that they believed and committed to others.
So important is right
doctrine, that Paul spoke of those who “resist the
truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the
faith” (II Tim. 3:8) and instructed Titus to “rebuke
[false teachers] sharply, that they may be sound in the
faith” (Titus 1:13). We do not tolerate false doctrine
or embrace false teachers. On the contrary, we rebuke
them because they have violated “the faith.” Among
Paul’s last words, in fact, was that confidence that, “I
have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I
have kept the faith” (II Tim. 4:7). Oh, that that would
be our testimony as well!
The Application
The application here is
two-fold.
First,
unity can only exist with a proper view of
salvation. The hallmark of all
cults and false religions is works, that a person
attains salvation either in whole or at least in part by
his own efforts.
To the Jehovah’s Witness,
for example, as its founder Charles Russell wrote, “they
must be recovered from blindness as well as from death,
that they, each for himself, may have a full chance to
prove, by obedience or disobedience, their worthiness of
eternal life.”[v] Likewise, according to
Article 3 of the Mormon Articles of Faith, “All
mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and
ordinances of the Gospel.” According to Herbert W.
Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God,
“Salvation, then is a process! But how the God of this
world would blind your eyes to that!!! He tries to
deceive you into thinking all there is to it is just
‘accepting Christ’ with ‘no works’—and presto-change,
you are pronounced ‘saved.’ But the Bible reveals that
none is yet ‘saved’”[vi] And on it goes from
religion to religion. Of course, the question arises,
“But how many works are needed?” As Shakespeare put it,
“Ay, there’s the rub,” that is, there’s the big
obstacle to their system, because they don’t know
how many works it takes![vii]
Two world religions,
however, stand out as leading more people into error
than all others. One is Islam, which in our day is more
in the spotlight than ever before and is enjoying
unprecedented tolerance. But it, too, is just another
religion of works. It is a legalistic system where a
person must earn his salvation by holding to its five
main doctrines, called the “Five Articles of Faith”
(God, Angels, Scripture, Prophets, and Last Days), and
especially following its “Five Pillars of Faith” (The
Creed, Prayer, Almsgiving, Fasting, and the Pilgrimage
to Mecca). This, of course, flatly denies Jesus’ own
words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). You might
call your god “Allah” or anything else you wish, but the
issue is the Lord Jesus Christ—one Lord and one
faith. It’s not your works, not
what you might do, not how many “infidels” you might
blow up, but in Jesus Christ
alone.
But the most
shocking tolerance of all among evangelicals is that of
Roman Catholicism. Many persist in ignoring that it,
too, is just another works system. As is made clear
in its own Baltimore Catechism, Catholicism teaches “that among the chief means
provided by Christ for our sanctification are the
sacraments. They are outward signs instituted by Christ
to give grace. . . . When the sign is applied to the one
who receives the sacrament, it signifies inward grace
and has the power of producing it in the
soul.”
Particularly troubling is
Catholicism’s teachings concerning Mary. She is
considered to be the “Co-Redemptrix” with Christ, that
is, she cooperates with Christ in the work of saving
sinners. While the Vatican II council (1963-65) brought
certain reforms, it changed nothing of Catholicism’s
underlying theology. In that council it was stated that
Mary was “used by God not merely in a passive way, but
as cooperating in the work of human salvation through
faith and obedience. . . . She conceived, brought forth,
and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in
the temple, and was united with Him in suffering as He
died on the cross.”[viii] In other words, while the
Church does not teach that Mary literally died for our
sins, it does teach that by giving birth to Christ and
nurturing Him through life, she indirectly contributed
to the work of salvation.
Further still, Mary is
also considered “Mediatrix,” that is, she now dispenses
God’s grace and blessings to the spiritually needy.
Again, Vatican II reaffirmed:
This maternity of Mary in
the order of grace began with the consent which she gave
in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained
without wavering beneath the cross. This maternity will
last without interruption until the eternal fulfillment
of all the elect. For, taken up to heaven, she did not
lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of
intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal
salvation.
By her maternal charity,
Mary cares for the brethren of her Son who still journey
on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until
they are led to their happy fatherland. Therefore the
Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles
of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and
Mediatrix.[ix]
How is it
possible that any Evangelical cannot recognize that that
is an abominable perversion of the Gospel? It has
nothing to do with the Gospel, for it is neither one
faith nor “one Lord.” It is
“another gospel,” as Paul said, which is actually not
another gospel (good news) at all. He goes on to make it
clear that any Gospel other than what he delivered
(salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in
Christ alone) is to be “accursed” (Gal. 1:6–9).
Salvation is apart from any outward works that we can do
(Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5; etc.).
Second, because the Lord
Jesus Christ is inseparably linked to His Word (Jn.
1:14), there is another application here that is equally
obvious: unity can only exist with a proper view of
Scripture. Another hallmark of cults is their
rejection of the Scriptures as the sole, absolute, and
sufficient authority. Mormonism, for example, says, “We
believe the Bible to be the Word of God in so far as it
is translated correctly.”[x] But it also teaches that
a correct translation is impossible because the
Roman Catholic Church has subtracted from it. Orson
Pratt, an early Mormon Church “apostle,” wrote, “Who
knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped
pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it
did in the original.”[xi] The real authority
in Mormonism, therefore, resides in three “sacred
books”: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and
Covenants, and The Pearl of Great
Price. Additionally,
contemporary living prophets also contribute to
authoritative pronouncements of the Mormon
Church.
Likewise, while the
founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, claimed
she got her teachings from the Bible, she also claimed
in no uncertain terms that her revelations were higher
than the Bible. Similarly, the writings of Ellen G.
White are considered by Seventh Day Adventists to be
inspired revelations. Some charismatics also claim to
receive new revelations in visions and dreams. And
again, while many today insist on unity between
Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, that is patently
impossible. While Catholicism does teach that the Bible
is inspired, it denies that It is
sufficient. That was, in fact, the very
battleground of the Reformation. Added to the Bible are
the teachings and traditions of the church. It is, in
fact, quite open in this view. Its Catechism of the
Catholic Church boldly states that the Church “does
not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from
the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and tradition
must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of
devotion and reverence.” Further, added to that is the
infallibility of the Pope when he makes “absolutely
authoritative” pronouncements ex
cathedra (from the chair).
Please mark this
down: the common thread through all false teaching is
adherence to a second authority that supercedes the
Bible when the Bible says something that men don’t
like. Even evangelicals, though
they say the Bible is their authority, actually replace
Scripture with their own ideas and opinions. The modern
“ministries” of Pragmatism, Relativism,
seeker-sensitivity, user-friendliness, seeking the
unchurched, and so on are man’s philosophy not God’s
revelation. This issue is imbedded deep in my soul,
because compromise of the truth is commonplace, because
what God says in Scripture is replaced by what men think
based on their own
experience.
The Bible in no uncertain terms
speaks of itself being the sole and sufficient authority
of God. A key verse here is II Peter 1:19: “We have also
a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark
place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in
your hearts.” In
verses 15–18 Peter writes about his witnessing Christ’s
transfiguration, but now he declares that there is
something much surer than “personal experience.” How
important this is in light of how many people today
speak of their “experience,” that they saw Jesus at the
foot of their bed, or they saw a statue of Mary weeping
or Jesus bleeding. Peter declares here that he, too, had
an experience but that it cannot compare with the “more
sure word of prophecy,” that is, the written Word of
God. In
essence Peter says, “Yes, my experience was exciting,
but what makes it true is not that I saw it but that it
coincides with the written Truth of God’s
Word.”
The word “sure” is the
Greek bebaios, which
means “fit to tread on, having a firm foundation,
durable, unshakeable, sure, reliable, and certain.”
Further, used in a legal sense, it meant “valid and
legal.” As one Greek authority writes, “Thus the hope
and confidence of man is firmly secured as by an anchor,
when the object of the trust is the Word of God, which
He has legally confirmed with an oath (Heb. 6:16,
19).”[xii] As another points out,
this word “in the New Testament is not used of persons
but objects (Heb. 6:19), that which does not fail or
waver, immovable, and on which one may
rely.”[xiii] So, and please get
this, as long as we cling to the Word, we will be
firm, unshakable, sure, and certain. The reason for this “surer proof” is because
the Word of God came by inspiration, as Peter goes on to
write in verse 20–21: “Knowing this first, that no
prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were
moved [literally, carried along] by the Holy
Ghost.”
So, the two-fold
application of one faith is very clear: unity
can exist only with a proper view of salvation and
Scripture. The doctrine of salvation today has been
reconsidered, redefined, and even rejected. Likewise,
the Word of God has been mocked, maligned, and
mutilated. But one of the very foundation stones of
unity is that salvation is by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone, apart from any merit or works
and the acceptance of the Bible as the only inspired,
infallible, authoritative, and sufficient revelation to
man. Opinions vary, experiences change, methods will
adjust, but God’s Word lasts forever.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
Cited in Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Christian
Unity, pp.
87-88.
[ii] Jehovah’s Witness publication,
The Kingdom is at Hand, p.
49.
[iii] Mormon publication, Doctrine and Covenants,
93:21–23.
[iv] Gordon Clark, Ephesians, p.
131.
[v] Studies in the
Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 158.
[vi] Why Were You
Born?, p. 11.
[vii] Hamlet,
III.1.73. “Rub” means “obstacle.” It was a “technical
term from the game of bowls, where a ‘rub’ is any
obstruction that hinders or deflects the course of the
bowl” (Hamlet, The New Folger Library Shakespeare
(New York: Pocket Books, 1992), p.
126.
[viii] Walter M. Abott, S.J., General
Editor, The Documents of Vatican II
(New York: Guild Press, 1966), pp. 88, 91.
[x] Articles of
Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, Article
8.
[xi] Orson Pratt’s
Works, 1891, p. 218.
[xii] Colin Brown, New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,
Vol. I, p.
658.
[xiii] Sprios Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New
Testament, p.
331.
