Tag: gospel

Ecumenism: The Death of Evangelism

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

Pope Francis & Pastor Rick Warren, 2014 Vatican Family & Marriage Conference

 

The Gospel

The appointed means that God uses to save sinners is through the proclamation of the gospel: “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation….” (Rom. 1:16, NASB[1]). The gospel (good news) is clearly defined as the atoning cross work of Jesus Christ, including His incarnation. It is the work of the Son alone, not the meritorious works of man.

 

  • Mark 1:1: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

 

  • Romans 1:1, 3: 1 “The gospel of God…. 3 concerning His Son.”

 

  • 1 Corinthians 15:1-4: “Now I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which I preached to you, which you also received, in which you also stand… 3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

 

  • 2 Timothy 2:8: “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel. . .”

 

Paul’s gospel consists of the person, nature, and finished work of Jesus Christ, God the Son. This gospel is the same gospel of the OT, which was, and is, the very means of salvation:

 

  • Acts 10:36: “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all).”

 

  • Acts 10:43: “All the prophets testify of Him, that everyone believing in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (my trans.).

 

So, proper biblical evangelism is simply proclaiming the gospel, that is, the person, nature, and finished work of Christ, which is the very ground of justification through faith alone.

 

Ecumenism –The Enemy of the Gospel

Ecumenism (adj. ecumenical), from oikoumenē, “the inhabited earth.” (e.g., Matt. 24:14) is an effort to promote “unity” among the diverse professing “Christian” traditions and denominations worldwide. It seeks to collaborate and achieve better relationships among these denominations.

 

Today, the ecumenical movement aims to diminish the historical, cultural, and theological divisions that exist between the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox (EO), and their traditions to achieve a so-called unified Christian body—a “Can’t we all get along” kind of thing. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), for example, under Pope John XXIII, vigorously pushed an ecumenical agenda promoting Catholic unity with other “Christian” and even “non-Christian” cults and world religions. With absolutely no regard for the Lord nor His Word, note paragraph 841 in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church (Lumen gentium):

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God….”

 

Ecumenism encourages initiatives such as cooperative worship, fellowship services, and theological discussions for the purpose of building relationships among various sects and denominations, which is the ultimate goal. Such as the ecumenical organization, “World Council of Churches” (WCC), which inspires “the worldwide fellowship of churches to work together for unity.” Unsurprisingly, the WCC’s web address is www.oikoumene.org.

 

Ecumenism is anti-biblical and antithetical to the Gospel.

 

So, what’s the problem? Does not the Bible in many places teach that we are to be unified showing love to all? Yes, it does. However, the places that teach unity among believers – Ps. 133:1; John 17:20-23; Eph. 4:3 et al. – is unity around the essentials of the Christian faith—not in spite of them. For example, we do not seek nor do we have theological nor spiritual unity with Mormons, JWs, or Muslims. As shown, the gospel (biblical evangelism) consists of correct theology and correct soteriology[2] (justification).

The teachings of Rome and EO are patently heretical and idolatrous. Although they both would affirm important theological truths such as the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, the resurrection etc. they both categorically and aggressively deny justification through faith alone—apart from works. In other words, Rome and EO separate the person and nature of Christ from His atoning cross work as the sole ground of justification. Especially Romans and Galatians, which should be a stark reminder to Christians that God’s method of justification is through faith alone—the only recognized gospel—which Rome and EO reject.

 

Furthermore, they both hold to meritorious works (water baptism, practice of sacraments, etc.) as requirements for salvation. Both practice functional religious worship to creatures (Mary, saints) and icons. To avoid the sin of idolatry, both posit (i.e., invent) a distinction between so-called veneration/service and worship. However, the Bible (cf. OT, Septuagint, NT) makes no distinction: to venerate or serve in a religious context is the same as divine worship, which is reserved for God alone (Exod. 20:5; 2 Kings 7:17; Gal. 4:8).

So heretical was a denial of justification through faith alone, that twice, Paul pronounced a divine curse (“anathema”) on the ones rejecting it (viz., Judaizers).

Yet, the ecumenist has no problem in accepting Rome and the EO as having the same gospel as that of Protestants—either in obvious ignorance of what these groups teach, and/or a conspicuous biblical illiteracy (which seems to be the primary case), or just plainly unconverted. Either way, it’s a mockery and offense to the Lord. Clearly, the gospel of ecumenism is false—having no resemblance to the biblical gospel, since it excludes justification through faith alone as a vital part of the gospel.

 

Because of the philosophy and inaccurate view of the gospel of the ecumenists, the biblical mandates to Christians are ignored:

 

  • 1 Cor. 5:11 “[Do not] associate with any so-called brother if he is … an idolater … not even to eat with such a person…”

 

  • 2 Cor 6:14: “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers; for what do righteousness and lawlessness share together, or what does light have in common with darkness?

 

  • 5:7: “Therefore do not become partners with them.”

 

  • 5:11: “Do not participate in the useless deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.”

 

By partnering with Rome and EO, ecumenists are in a constant state of disobedience to God. Whether purposefully or ignorantly, ecumenism sacrifices the truth of the gospel for the sake of an unholy and unbiblical union.

 

Polemics, Apologetics, Evangelism

 Polemics is destroying the opposing argument to a particular philosophy while Apologetics is defending a particular philosophy. Both methods are utilized in Scripture (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 1:3; 2 Cor. 10:5). However, we must not confuse this with biblical evangelism. In other words, many ecumenists rely on a strong polemic in their attempt to reach out to, for example, Muslims. But, then what? As shown, the gospel of the ecumenists omits justification through faith alone as essential; while Rome and EO reject it. So, the ecumenist will either preach the same false gospel as Rome (omitting justification, through faith) or no gospel at all!

 

Further, biblical apologetics is defending the faith (gospel), but if the faith being defended is an ecumenical faith, void of essential doctrines—then, it’s not “biblical” apologetics.

 

Conclusion

 Ecumenism is an enemy of the gospel due to its acceptance and approval of the Judaizer faith + works gospel of Rome and the EO, which is a twice cursed doctrine of adding to the work of Christ for justification. Ecumenism utterly shatters and suppresses the gospel of Jesus Christ in its relegation of justification through faith alone as secondary and unessential. It accepts and partners with Rome and EO in the name of unity. The biblical model of evangelism for the first century church and for faithful Christians today was and is proclaiming the full gospel of the Son (Rom. 1:16). Contra, the ecumenical approach.

 

Stated eternal penalties of denying these essential doctrines:

 The Deity of Christ. John 8:24: “You will die in your sins.” Since Jesus is a distinct person, any denial of the Trinity would result in the same consequences (1 John 2:22-23).  

The belief that Jesus is the Son of God. John 3:16, 36: “… The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.”

The physical resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:12-17. 17 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.”

The perpetual incarnation. 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7: the one who denies the perpetual incarnation of the Son, is “the deceiver and the antichrist.”  

Justification through faith alone. Gal. 1:8-9: “Let him be anathema.” A gospel apart from justification through faith alone is “a different gospel”—a gospel without Christ.   

 

 

NOTES

[1] Unless otherwise indicated all biblical citations are from  the NASB.

[2] Soteriology (i.e., the doctrine of salvation), from sōtēria (Gk. “salvation”)

Stated eternal penalties of denying these essential doctrines  

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Deity of Christ. John 8:24: “You will die in your sins.” Since Jesus is a distinct person, any denial of the Trinity would result in the same consequences (1 John 2:22-23).  

The belief that Jesus is the Son of God. John 3:16, 36: “… The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.”

The physical resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:12-17. 17 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.”

The perpetual incarnation. 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7: the one who denies the perpetual incarnation of the Son, is “the deceiver and the antichrist.”  

And a denial of justification through faith alone. Gal. 1:8-9: “Let him be anathema.” A gospel apart from justification through faith alone is “a different gospel”—a gospel without Christ.

 

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission & TRINITARIAN Baptismal Formula

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Matthew 28:17-20

“And when they [“eleven disciples”] saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”

 

 

Affirmation of the Commission

 Previously the gospel proclamation was ethnocentric—to the Jews; whereas this Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is ektocentric (i.e., “beyond” the Jewish people). This direct commission was given to His disciples – to proclaim the gospel to panta ta ethnē (“all the nations”; cf. Rom. 1:8). Paul says in Colossians 1:5-6 5 … you previously heard … the gospel 6 which has come to you, just as in all the world….” (NASB). 

 

The only commandment in verse 19 is “make disciples!” – from the verb mathēteusate, which is an aorist imperative—the strongest way in Greek to issue a command. It stresses urgency.  The verb translated “Go” – is from poreuthentes. The verb is an aorist participle, a non-imperative commandment mood. In this grammatical construction however, the commandment would be: “Go make disciples! of all the nations; Not “as you go,” or “as you are going” – if this were the case, Matthew would have used a present participle, not an aorist participle.

In every case in Matthew, when the aorist participle (mostly involving poreuthentes, “Go”) is followed by an aorist imperative, the participle takes the force of a an imperative[1]. For example: Matthew 2:8: “Go search carefully for the child”; 2:13: “Arise take the child”; 9:13: “Go, however, learn; 11:4: “Go tell John”; 17:27: “Go to [the] lake cast a hook.” *The aorist participles are bolded, and the aorist imperative verbs are italicized.    

 

The only commandment in verse 20 is the aorist imperative, idou (“behold”). As a demonstrative particle, it emphasizes what follows: “I am [omnipresent] with you always, to the end of the age.” These words are comforting.  And in verses 19-20, Jesus describes the means of making a disciple by using two participles: “baptizing” and “teaching”—namely, participles of means.

 

Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

 

Consider the following points:

I. Eis (εἰς ) “into.” The first century lexical meaning of the preposition eis (“into”) could express a transference of/into ownership. Thus, the believer is baptized into the triune God – signifying that he or she passes, or comes into the possession of ownership of the triune God.

 

II. Syntactical- The reading “into the name of THE Father, AND of THE Son, AND of the Holy Spirit” – denote three distinct persons. According to Greek grammar (viz., Sharp’s rule #6) – when the conjunction kai (“and”) connects singular nouns (not proper names) of the same case and the article (“the”) precedes each noun (viz., “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit”), each personal noun denotes a distinct person. Same construction in, 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13 et al. This construction is also abbreviated as ASKAS (article – substantive – kai -article – substantive).     

 

III. This baptismal formula was used historically to affirm the Trinity. Note these pre-Nicaea (A.D. 325) examples:

Didachē (c. A.D. 50-70; chap. 7:1, 3 – same reading: βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.”.

 Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 155; First Apology, 61).

 Tertullian (c. A.D. 213; Against Praxeas, 2, 26): “He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God.”  

 Origen (c. A.D. 244; Commentary on Romans, Book 5, 2:11; 8:7).

 Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. A.D. 260-270; A Sectional Confession of Faith, V, XIII).

 Cyprian of Carthage (c. A.D. 253): “… Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity” (Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, Letter 73:18).

 

IV. Textual Support. Anti-Trinitarian groups especially Oneness Pentecostals (who believe Jesus is the Father) and other unitarian groups (who like Oneness, believe that God is one person; such as, Muslims, JWs et al.) argue that the trinitarian formula is missing from the earliest Greek NT manuscripts (MSS) of Matthew 28:19. They assert that it was added later by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

In response to this assertion, we have almost 6,000 MSS extant of the Greek NT. The earliest ones (mostly from the 2nd – 5th century) were written on papyrus, while later ones were written on parchment or vellum (i.e., on animal skin).

To date, there are no Greek NT papyrus MS that contain any complete NT book due to many passages missing and/or damaged. The fact that no early papyrus MS contain the ending of Matthew 28 is not a valid reason to reject it. Would any Oneness Pentecostal reject 2 Timothy since that book is NOT contained in any early papyrus MS either?  

 

Additionally, there are no early papyrus MS that contains Acts 2:28 either; the earliest papyrus MS containing it is from the 7th century (P74). The earliest parchment MS copy of Acts 2:38, along with Matthew 28:19, is from the 4th century! (viz., Codex Sinaiticus, c. A.D. 350 and Codex Vaticanus, c. A.D. 325). Even more, every single Greek NT MS that contains Matthew 28:19 contains the Trinitarian reading, not a “in the name of Jesus” reading (also – there are no variant readings of the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

 

Lastly, every early NT version that contains Matthew 28:19, such as the MSS of the Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic, Syriac (Peshitta), including Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 150), Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic et al. contains the Matthean Trinitarian reading, not a “in the name of Jesus” rendering.

   

 “Name of Jesus” vs Trinitarian Formula  

 

Oneness advocates insist that the “Apostolic doctrine” of water baptism is in “the name of Jesus” – mainly appealing to Acts 2:38 et al.

 Consider this:

1. In Acts, there are approximately eleven cases or recorded baptisms,- some groups and some individuals.       

Only one case (8:38) identifies the baptizer (Philip the Evangelist). Whereas two cases, the baptizers are implied, but not stated—Paul and/1or Silas in 16:32:33 and Paul in 19:5-6. And only four out of the eleven, even mention a so-called “Jesus’ name” formula – hardly a norm. Although only apostles and appointed church leaders like Philip were most likely the agents of baptism (1 Cor. 1:13-17), Luke makes no emphasis of this.

 

Acts 2:38- Peter commands – no baptizer mentioned 

Acts 8:12-16 – “the Samarians and “Simon” – no baptizer  mentioned.     

Acts 8:36-38 – Eunuch – Philip baptized Him – no formula.

Acts 9:17-19- Saul – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 10:47-48 – Gentiles – no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 16:13-15 – Lydia and household – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 16:27-34 – The Jailor and his household – no formula, no baptizer mentioned (Paul and/or Silas implied, but not stated).

Acts 18:5-8 – Many of the Corinthians – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 19:1-5 Disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus – no baptizer mentioned (Paul is implied, but not stated).

Acts 22:14-17 – Saul (as Paul recounts) – no formula, nor baptizer mentioned (but, “calling on His name”).

 

2. Thus, no standard formula. Only in four places do we see a so-called “Jesus’ name” formula in Acts. Acts provides no standard formula- note the variations below:

 

Acts 2:38: epi [ἐπὶ] tō onomati Iēsou Christou – (variant: en [εν] – B D5th) 945 1739 1891; Irenaeus’ Lat trans. (4th); Didymus of Alexandria (late 4th). Also, in D E 614 945 1739, Iēsou Christou is expanded to tou Kuriou Iēsou Christou (“the Lord Jesus Christ”).

Acts 8:16; 19:5: eis to onoma tou Kuriou Iēsou, “into/in the name of [the] Lord Jesus.”

Acts 10:48: en tō onomati Iēsou Christou, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

 Three different prepositions (epi, eis, en), and three different variations of the formula. Since Oneness Pentecostals pride themselves on and insist that they alone are practicing the “apostolic doctrine” of baptism (i.e., “In the name of Jesus”; contra Trinitarians), you could ask; “If there is no standard “Jesus name baptismal formula” in Acts, which one is the ‘apostolic’ formula?”

 

3. “In the name of Jesus”- not an “audible” baptismal formula. There is no clear grammatical evidence the so-called “Jesus’ name” formula was an “audible” formula used in the recorded water baptism accounts in the Acts narrative. Point 2 also shows this by the lack of a standardized formula. Even if it were, it does not prove the Oneness modalistic notion: Jesus is the same person as the Father.

 

4. Baptism = Identification/unification. Consider, these two points: First, the primary lexical sematic (meaning) of the verb baptizō (“to baptize”) carries the denotative meaning of unification or identification (see 1 Cor. 10:2: “they [Israelites] all were baptized into Moses”). Second, although the Jewish semantic of “name” in both the OT and NT (Hebrew, shem, Greek, onoma) – could indicate the name of a person, place, or thing, the principal meaning is authority or power (cf. 1 Sam. 17:45; Acts 4:7).

 

In light of these two important points, water baptism is an identification ceremony publicly signifying one’s unification or identification into that which the recipient is baptized. So, in Matthew 28:19, just like today; Christian water baptism denotes both unification with and passing into (eis) the possession/ ownership of the Triune God. Jesus gave this commission to His disciples.

 

Since the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, the Christian church has been baptizing new believers “Into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This TRINITARIAN FORMULA was the hope and future glory imprinted in the minds of the OT believers as well as the NT believers to the present day!

 

Appendix: Typical Oneness assertions

Assertion 1. The text reads “into the Name,” not “names” – as with a trinity of 3 gods. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes that represent the singular Name, ‘Jesus,’ into which the apostles baptized.

Response: If the singularity of a word applied to God proves unipersonality, then, a plurality of a word applied to God proves multi-personality. In both the OT and NT plural words are used to describe God: Plural verbs, plural adjectives, and plural pronouns (viz., first person com. plural pronominal suffixes).

Into the singular “Name” (onoma [ὄνομα] acc. singular), not “names” 

Jewish semantic (OT and NT): Heb. shem, Greek, onoma (“name”) –  frequently denoted authority or power. Acts 4:7: “By what power, or in what name ὀνόματι have you done this?”

LXX of Genesis 11:4: “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name [onoma, Heb., shem] for ourselves….”

1 Samuel 17:45:  “But David said to the Philistine, ‘You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name [LXX, onomati, Heb. shem] of the Lord God….” 

 

Assertion 2. The Trinitarian formula reading in Matthew 28:19 is missing from the earliest Greek NT MSS (papyri); it was added later by the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

Response: True, but no Greek NT papyrus MS contains any complete NT book (passages missing and/or damaged). Would any Oneness advocate reject 2 Timothy because it is not found in any extant Greek NT papyrus MS?  

 

Ironically, no Greek NT papyrus MS contains Acts 2:38 before the seventh century (P74). As seen: Earliest Greek MS of Acts 2:38 (along with Matt. 28:19) is from the fourth century—Codex ℵ (c. 350) and Codex B (Vaticanus, c. 325). *P45 contains only Acts chaps. 4-17.  

 In fact – Every single Greek NT MS where Matthew 28:19 appears, it contains the Trinitarian and not a “Jesus’ name,” reading – No variant of the Triune formulaic reading.   

NT versions. The MSS of Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic, Syriac (Peshitta), including Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 150), Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic et al. that contain Matthew 28:19 contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The early church primarily used the Matthean Trinitarian formula starting with the early first century document, the Didachē.

 

Assertion 3. Eusebius (fourth century). 

Twenty-eight times in ten of his works, Eusebius cites or alludes to Matthew 28:19, partial or paraphrase (viz., “short readings” – only some with “in the name of Jesus”), or the passage in full. Oneness advocates only point to Eusebius’s short readings and argue that he never cites a Trinitarian baptismal formula, rather, he cites “in the name of Jesus” as the baptismal formula.

 

In response: First, Eusebius and many other church Fathers (and NT authors, cf. Phil. 2:10-11 – Isa. 45:23), abbreviate or paraphrase passages. Second, Eusebius does cite the Trinitarian reading five times (four times he includes “baptism”) and one time prior to Nicaea.

 

Eusebius’s usage was not at all constant

He used three basic forms – alluding or citing Mathew 28:19: Note: the phrase “In the name of Jesus” is never mentioned.

 

1. “Go (‘Going,’ ‘Go ye,’ ‘Go forth’) make disciples of all the nations”- six times, five variations – No connection with baptism.

2. “In My, in His Name” – seventeen times, with variations – No connection with baptism.

3. Eusebius cited the Trinitarian formula five times, no variations, all but one are connected with water baptism; and one prior to Nicaea.

 

Theophania (c. A.D. 313-318; Book 4, sec 8).

Letter on the Council of Nicaea to Caesarea (c. 325; sec. 3).

Against Marcellus (c. 335;  twice – Book 1, chap 1). 

Ecclesiastical Theology (c. 335; Book 3, chap 5; but also cites the short reading in chap. 3 – citing Marcellus).

Notes

[1] Syntactically, an “attendant circumstance” (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics).

Matthew 28:17-20

 

Christian Evangelistic Accountability    

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Romans 10:15: “How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written [Isa. 52:7], ‘How Beautiful’ [or ‘timely’] [are] the feet of those [“the man in motion”] [euaggelizomenwn] gospelizing good things.”

 2 Timothy 2:15: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

The phrase “accurately handling” is from the Greek base verb, orthotomeō, from orthos (“correct, straight”) and temnō (“to cut”)—thus, “to cut straight,” the term denotes the idea of precision.

 2 Peter 3:16: “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught [ἀμαθεῖς] and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

 

The gospel (good news) biblical defined as the substitutionary atoning work of God the Son, from His incarnation, His perfect vicarious life to His death, burial, and physical resurrection, which is the very ground of justification (apart from works; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). All those who believe in this gospel calling upon the Lord, the Son of God will be saved (Rom. 10:9). The gospel is the sole work of the Son (not the work of man) but the “result” of the gospel is man believing, repenting, obeying, etc. 

Evangelism (from euaggelion, eu, “good” and aggelos, “message”) is simply proclaiming the gospel. All Christians are called to grow in doctrine (2 Pet. 3:18); defend the faith (apologetics; 1 Pet 3:15; Jude 1:3); and evangelize (proclaim the gospel, Matt, 28:19; Rom. 10:9, 15). We must ensure that our passion in evangelism is biblically accurate and consistent; since the gospel is the gospel of the Son (Rom. 1:1, 3). Proclaiming the truth is a loving and obedient act (Gal. 1:10).

 

Salvation & the Power of God through the Gospel

In Romans 1:6, Paul affirms that the gospel is the power of God for salvation. Thus, it is God’s ordained and normal means He uses to save sinners. The gospel has the same efficacy today as it did in the first century. In spite of that, we see a noticeable difference between biblical evangelism and modern evangelism. Far too many Christians today use unbiblical methodology and concepts in evangelism, such as implying that one’s faith-act is the “cause” of regeneration.

In the same way, many replace the content of the gospel with citing Jeremiah 29:11 to unbelievers (“God has a great plan for you”) and the so-called unconditional, universal love of God, or the “Jesus is knocking at your door” concept (Rev. 3:20). Of course, in the NT, we do not find Jesus nor any apostles saying such things to unbelievers. The fact is Jeremiah 11:29 is neither addressing Israel in general, nor the church (note the starting context in v. 1).

And Revelation 3:20 was not an evangelistic statement, rather, Jesus was speaking to already saved Christians. As with all Christians, Jesus is always knocking at our door wanting more fellowship. It is an issue of sanctification in the believer’s life, and not an issue of justification nor evangelism to the lost.  

 

The man or woman of God who proclaims the gospel has an enormous responsibility before God to be biblically accurate.  Christian missionaries, whether here or abroad must be biblically sound to properly evangelize; understanding what the gospel is before they go out. An incomplete or distorted gospel is no gospel at all (Gal. 1:8-9).

 

Paul’s Gospel Definition

In Romans 1:1, 3, Paul speaks of “the gospel of God. . . 3 concerning His Son” As said, it is not the “great” works of man. Paul’s definition of the gospel is also found in 1 Cor. 15:3-4:                   “For I delivered to you as of prōtos [‘first importance’] what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

 

According to these passages, Paul’s gospel account includes in detail: 

 

  1. The Christ that Paul taught was truly God and truly man (Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6-11[1]); forever God in the flesh (Acts 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5).[2]

 

  1. The death of Christ is the ground of justification, which is “apart from works” (Rom. 4:4-8; 5:1; Eph. 2:8-10).

 

  1. His physical resurrection “according to the Scriptures” (cf. Luke 24:37-40; esp. John 2:19, 21).

 

Those who deliver the gospel of the Son to nonbelievers, must be definitive and clear.

 

Hosea 6:6: “For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Prov. 15:8). Again, an incomplete or distorted gospel is no gospel at all.

 

The Importance of Evangelism

 

The proclamation of the gospel is God’s appointed means of saving His people (Rom. 1:16)—it is the power of God.

Romans 10:9, 15: “Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 13 ‘For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [YHWH] will be saved’ [cited from Joel 2:32]. . . . 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How timely [or ‘beautiful’] is the arrival of those who proclaim the good news’” (cited from Isa. 52:7).

Note that confessing “Jesus is Lord” in verse 9 is paralleled with calling on the name of the Lord in verse 13, which is a quotation form Joel 2:32—the same Lord. Paul identified Jesus as the YHWH of Joel 2:32—namely, confessing Jesus as YHWH.

Salvation is a matter of God’s sovereignty, which Paul calls eklogēn charitos (“election of grace”; Rom. 11:5).[3]

 

Evangelism is Two-Fold

1) To the world (Acts 17:30; Rom. 10:15). In Luke 10, after sending out the Twelve Apostles on a similar mission as in Matthew 28:19-20 (and Luke 9:1-6), Jesus sends out Seventy-Two “others” on a larger mission, but the same message: To proclaim the gospel. In Luke 10:2, Jesus said, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few”—a sad thought. Is evangelism not the task of Christians and especially pastors (Rom. 1:15)?

Although the “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few: Jesus says to the Seventy-Two missionaries: “Beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.” Thus, we must pray ALWAYS to the Lord of the Harvest that He may ignite the inactive soldiers for active duty.  In Luke 10:3, Jesus then said, “Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. . . .” In verse 16, Christ stated that “The one who listens to You listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

 Rejecting their words of truth from Jesus’ messengers (now we call them “Christians”) is the same as rejecting Christ Himself and, as Jesus said, rejecting God. Paul said our gospel message is mōron (“foolish,” 1 Cor. 1:18-25) to the world. But again, the gospel of the Son and the proclamation of it is the means God chose to save sinners (Rom. 1:16).  

2) Evangelism is also for the church. Paul said to the church of Rome: “I am eager to ‘preach the gospel’ [euaggelizō] to you also who are in Rome.” Is that not the task of pastors to their church in order for them to learn the gospel better and thus, be more effectual in the proclamation of it? Most likely, this is why Paul was excited to evangelize, that is, preach the gospel to the church in Rome (Rom. 1:15).

In Acts 18:24-28, although Apollos was “mighty in the Scriptures,” “fervent in spirit,” “teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus,” verse 26 says that “when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” As a result: “He powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (v. 28). God requires accuracy when handling His word especially in the presentation of Christ and His cross work.

Conclusion

 Evangelism is the ordained and normal means that God chose to redeem His people. The book of Acts provides a historic narrative of the first thirty years or so of the church in which we read the evangelistic content of the apostles and others. What we find is that their evangelism was simple, accurate, and focused on the substance of the gospel: The atoning work of God the Son, the resurrected Savior and salvation through faith in Christ alone. In contrast to today’s evangelism, which is generally disconnected from biblical evangelism.                 

 

“How beautiful are the feet of those gospelizing of good things” (Rom. 10:15, trans. mine).

NOTES 

[1] Cf. also Colossians 2:9; 2 Timothy 2:8. The deity of the Son was consistently taught in the NT and OT.   

[2] Cf. Acts 1:11; 1 John 4:2-3. 

[3] Cf. Ephesians 1:4-5; 2:8-10; Philippians 1:29.

 

John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

“I and the Father are one.”

Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (Egō kia ho Patēr hen esmen), lit., “I and the Father one thing We are”).     

Also see our YouTube presentation:  John 10 30: “I and the Father one thing We are” – not one person.

 

Both historically and currently, Christians have pointed to this passage to show that Jesus indeed claimed equality with God the Father. As with Jesus’ other undeniable claims to be truly God (Matt. 12:6; John 5:17-18; 8:58-59 et al; Rev. 1:7-8, 17; 2:8; 22:13; etc.).

If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16). It was after Jesus made these familiar and exclusively divine claims that He stated, “I and the Father are one.” Again, not mere unity, rather, unity in ontological coequality. So, it is easy to understand the response of the Jews wanting to kill Him for blasphemy: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God [poieis seauton Theon]” (vv. 31, 33). If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16).

John 10:30 also provides a clear refutation to the Oneness view (as discussed below), which erroneously asserts that Jesus is the Father (the same person). Ironically, Oneness advocates actually use John 10:30 as a so-called proof text to try and show God as unipersonal. Although throughout chapter 10, Jesus and the Father are clearly differentiated as two persons (vv. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 [twice], 37, 38 [twice]).

Note the following points regarding John 10:30, which clearly refute Oneness theology:     

  • Content. In chap. 10, Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father twelve times (and throughout John’s literature).  
  • The Son’s affirmation of ontological Deity (YHWH, Deut. 32:39) in distinction from the Father. 
  •  Grammar. Two subjects, PN neuter adjective, and plural verb.

 

  1. Not one person within conservative recognized Christian scholarship agrees with a Oneness interpretation. Neither historically nor contemporaneously has any Christian writer interpreted John 10:30 in a modalistic (Oneness) way. Rather, all standard scholarly sources (patristics, commentaries, grammars, lexicons et al), interpret the passage in the plain intended way, within the defining context: The person of the Son claiming co-equality with the distinct person of the Father.
  1. Plain reading. Jesus simply says, “I and the Father ARE one.” Only by pretexting can one read something into this text beyond the simple plain reading. Note also throughout chapter 10, Jesus and the Father are clearly differentiated as two persons twelve times (vv. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 [twice], 37, 38 [twice]; also cf. John 1:b, 18; 6:38; 17:5; 1 John 1:1-2; Rev. 5:13-14 et al.                             
  1. Grammar. Egō kia ho Patēr hen esmen (lit., “I and the Father one thing We are”). First, Jesus (“I”) and the Father are the two subjects of the sentence (both in the nominative [subject] case). Second, the adjective hen (“one”) is neuter in gender, literally, “one thing.” This contextually indicates that the “one” is in unity of essence, not one in person. If Jesus wanted to identify Himself as the same person as the Father, He certainly could have used the masculine heis to indicate this (e.g., John 12:4; Rom. 3:10; 1 Tim. 2:5 et al.). While the subjects of the sentence are Jesus and the Father, the neuter adjective hen (“one thing”) is the predicate nominative of the sentence and it precedes the plural verb esmen (“are”), as discussed below.

Grammatically, a predicate nominative describes or tells us something more about the subject(s). Here, it’s describing the two subjects (Jesus and the Father) as being one in essential or ontological unity (viz., the category to which the subjects belong; cf. Wallace, GGBB, 40). The same neuter adjective is used in John 17:21, where Jesus prays to the Father that His disciples “may be one [hen]” even as Jesus and the Father are one, also signifying unity (not person). However, especially in light of the previous passages, in verse 30, the neuter adjective denotes ontological unity (coequality), which Jesus expressed—hence, “The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him” (v. 31).

  1. The plural verb esmen (“are”). Again, in sharp contrast to the false Oneness interpretation (viz., that Jesus is the Father), the Greek contains the plural verb esmen (“I and the Father are one”), and not a singular verb such as eimi (“am”) or estin (“is”) in which case, the passage would read: “I and the Father am/is one.” Robertson (Word Pictures, 5:186) comments on the specific application of the neuter hen in John 10:30: “One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal. 3:28), but one essence or nature.”
  1. Jesus’ claim to deity is not merely found in verse 30. But rather, the passages leading up to verse 30 undeniably prove His claim. In verses 27-29, Jesus claims that He is the Shepherd that gives His sheep eternal life and no one can snatch them from His nor His Father’s hand. Note the same words of YHWH in the LXX of Deut. 32:39:
  •  Deut. 32:39 (LXX): “And there is no one who can deliver ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν Μου [ek tōn cheirōn Mou, ‘out of the hands of Me’].” 
  •  John 10:28: “they will never perish; and no one will snatch them ἐκ τῆς χειρός Μου [ek tēs cheiros Mou, ‘out of the hand of Me’].” 
  •  John 10:29: “no one is able to snatch them ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ Πατρός [ek tēs cheiros tou Patros, ‘out of the hand of the Father’].”

 

The Jews were well acquainted with Deut. 32:39: “And there is no one who can save anyone from My hand” and Psalm 95:7: “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.” The Jews knew that only YHWH could make these claims of having sheep in His hand and giving them eternal life (cf. also Isa. 43:11). It was after Jesus made these familiar and exclusively divine claims that He stated, “I and the Father are one.” Again, not mere unity, rather, unity in ontological coequality. So, it is easy to understand the response of the Jews wanting to kill Him for blasphemy: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God [ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν]” (v. 33).[1]

If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16).- 

“I and the Father one thing We are are” – not one person.

 NOTES 

[1] As in John 5:18, in John 10:33, the reflexive pronoun seauton (“Yourself – 2nd per. sing.) indicates that the Jews understood that Jesus’ claims in John 10, which culminated in verse 30 (“I and the Father are one”) were made by and for Himself—literal: “You … make Yourself God” (σε … ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν). The reflexive pronoun is used to highlight the participation of the subject in the verbal action (Wallace). The reflexive pronoun is where the subject is also the object of the action in that the action is by or for himself or herself.

Gospel Definition

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

According to the NT (esp. in Paul) and OT, the gospel is simply the incarnational and atoning work of the Son. The work of man in his faith-act, repentance, obedience, etc. is the “result” and not the substance of the gospel. In other words, the gospel has nothing to do with man, rather, all to do with the Son.

The gospel is not limited to one doctrine, such as election (as many overly zealous, yet unripe, Christians assume), rather, the gospel is the work of the Son consisting of both His Humiliation (incarnational work, life, suffering, death, being buried) and His Exaltation (resurrection, ascension, seated at the right hand of God, second coming).

Paul clearly summarizes his gospel of the Son definition in esp. in such places as Rom. 1:1, 3; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; and 2 Tim. 2:8 (see below). However, in many other places, the apostle provides a positive detailed delineation of the gospel—namely, the Son’s incarnational and cross work, even without using the term “gospel” (cf., Rom. 5:1, 10; 8:32; 9:5; 1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 5:25; Phil. 2:6-11; Titus 3:5-7 et al.).  

 

The Gospel is the work of God the Son 

 

Rom. 1:1, 3: “the gospel of God. . . . regarding His Son”

1 Cor. 15:1-4 (A.D. 54):

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel [euaggelion] which I preached [euēggelisamēn- aorist ind. of euaggelizō], which also you received in which also you stand, 2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached [euēggelisamēn– aorist ind.] to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as first importance [prōtos] what I also received that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

2 Tim. 2:8: “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel.” 

 

So Rom. 10:15: “How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written [Isa. 52:7], ‘How beautiful [hwraios, ‘timely’] [are] the feet of those gospelizing [euaggelizomenwn] good things.”

 

 

The Necessity of the Incarnation of God the Son

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

David says in Psalm 49:7-8 that “No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him. For the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever.” Hence, “No man” could provide an actual redemption for man. However, Jesus is God in the flesh and as fully God, His atoning work had infinite value; and as fully man, Jesus was the perfect representation of man; thus, He was the perfect sacrifice. Paul states that Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse huper hēmōn [‘for, on our behalf of’]” (Gal. 3:13; cf. also Rom. 8:32).

 

Essential Gospel Element

So important was the incarnation of God the Son that the Apostle Paul tells Timothy to, “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant [spermatos] of David, according to my gospel” (2 Tim. 2:8). The Christ that Paul taught was the incarnate God, the two natured person, “the Lord of glory” (2 Cor. 2:8). Thus, a gospel presentation that omits the deity and perpetual incarnation of Christ would be an incomplete presentation.

The covenant of redemption among the persons of the triune God established that the Son would step into His own creation through His self-emptying—namely, His “being made in the likeness of men and being found in appearance as a man” (Phil. 2:7-8). The incarnation of our Lord was perpetual—namely, He is forever God in the flesh (Acts 1:11; 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5). So essential was the perpetual incarnation that the Apostle John sees it as a defining mark of true Christianity and a denial of it as a distinguishing characteristic of ho planos kai ho antichristos (“the deceiver and the antichrist,” 2 John 1:7; see also 1 John 4:2-3).

 

Accomplishments of God Incarnate:

1. As God-Man, Christ provided a real propitiation.[1] The atoning work of the divine Son accomplished all that was necessity to secure our justification (Rom. 5:6-10; Gal. 2:16, 20; Heb. 10:11-14). His work was definite, eternal, and infallible, “Not dependent on the one willing, or the man running but on the eleōntos theou (‘the mercying God,’” Rom. 9:16). His reconciliatory work was accomplished vicariously on behalf of God’s predestined elect. God the Son satisfied both the penalty required for sin and the requirements of the law perfectly:

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved [‘from the wrath of God,’ v. 9] by His life” (Rom. 5:10).

The Son was God incarnate, the perfect sacrificial offering, who performed a definite atonement in His physical body:

having made peace through the blood of His cross. . . . 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach (Col. 1:21, 22).

The Gospel of John unequivocally highlights the Son’s deity and personal distinction from the Father and Holy Spirit. However, it also features in the same robust way, the Son’s definite atonement (esp. John 1:29; 3:14-18; 6:37-39, 44; 8:43, 48; 10:15). John also enunciates the same in his Epistles. For example, 1 John 2:2: “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” John begins in verse 1, with the affirmation that Jesus Christ “the Righteous” is our Advocate when we sin. It is in light of this affirmation that John then assures his readers that the Righteous Christ “is the propitiation for our sins.”

The term “propitiation” (“atoning sacrifice,” NET, NIV) is from the Greek noun, hilasmos, from the verb hilaskomai, which has the linguistic idea “an appeasing, propitiating” (Thayer); “appeasement necessitated by sin, expiation” (BDAG); “a means by which sins are forgiven, sin-offering” (Newman); “atoning sacrifice, sin offering” (Mounce). The noun is only used here and 1 John 4:10 (verb used only at Luke 18:13 and Heb. 2:17).[2]

The real death of Christ appeased God. The first clause reads, Kai autos hilasmos estin (lit., “And He Himself propitiation is”). Note that the verb “IS” (estin) is in the present tense (“He is”), not a future tense (denoting possibility—as “He will be.” The present action of the verb along with its indicative mood (i.e., a mood of certainty) specifies the definiteness of the propitiatory (atoning) action. This is in contrast to the Arminian notion of a universal, hypothetical atonement, which did not redeem anyone specific.

The Son’s cross work was accomplished in His incarnate state. The NT affirms very plainly that the atoning sacrificial work was accomplished in His physical body (Rom. 7:4-6; Col. 1:21-22; Heb. 10:10; 1 Pet. 2:24), in His life (Rom. 5:10), through His blood (Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:2, 18-19; 1 John 1:7), on the cross (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20; 2:14-15), and in His death (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21-22; Heb. 2:9-10, 14; 9:15).

 

2. As God-Man, Christ is both a priest and a sacrificial lamb simultaneously (esp. Heb. chaps. 8-10). There are only two recognized priesthoods in the Bible, the Aaronic (Levitical) and Melchizedek. Regarding the Aaronic priesthood, in Leviticus we find specific requirements and functions of this exclusive priesthood, which include: 1) Being a literal descendent of Aaron and from the tribe of Levi, 2) Providing sacrifices to God for all the people (Heb. 5:1) and for themselves (Heb. 9:7), 3) Cleansed by way of a special ritual (5:3); 4) Chosen by God for their office (Heb. 5:4).

According to Hebrews, Jesus was considered an eternal priest, in the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:13-17).

Contrasting human priests with the Son, who is the eternal Priest, the author of Hebrews explains that since the human Aaronic priests died, it was a temporary priesthood (Heb. 7:23). Further, the Aaronic priesthood did not nor could it bring perfection (Heb. 7:11). Like Melchizedek, Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi nor was He a physical descendent of Aaron. According to Jewish Law then, Christ (and Melchizedek) would not be qualified for the priesthood (Heb. 7:14).

However, Jesus was distinct and superior from that of Aaron and his successors: “So much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (Heb. 7:22). As God-Man, Jesus’ priesthood, unlike the Aaronic priests and Melchizedek, is eternal:

but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them (Heb. 7:24-25; cf. Ps. 110:4).

Note, Jesus’ unique priesthood, which only Jesus and Melchizedek possessed, was nontransferable: “He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.” The term translated “permanently” (“not transient,” Young’s; “unchangeable,” KJV) is from aparabatos, which carries the lexical semantic of “without a successor, unchangeable, nontransferable,” etc.

Only as incarnate God is Jesus able to abide forever as an intercessory Priest in the order of Melchizedek. As fully God, His priesthood is permanent, eternal, and “without successors”—through which He can save us completely and eternally—“to the utmost.” As fully man, He is the High Priest who offers Himself as the atoning sacrifice and the only intermediary between the Father and man: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). And as man, Jesus identified with man in His weakness and sufferings:

He [Christ] had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted (Heb. 2:17-18).

Only as the incarnate God is Christ priesthood eternal, “a mediator of a new covenant” providing the elect with His “promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). God the Father “offering the body of Jesus Christ once for all”— who is both High Priest and the propitiation.

 

3. Christ is our intermediary between God and man. In 1 Tim. 2:5, Jesus is said to be the mesitēs (“mediator, intermediary”), between God and man: “There is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” An intermediary represents two parties. Jesus is the two natured person, fully God and fully man functioning as both eternal Priest and Mediator (and propitiation). Christ the Son is not merely a representation of God and man, rather His state as eternal Priest and Mediator (or Intermediary) between God and man consists of the Son as God-Man ontologically.

Chalcedonian Creed: “That is, that “the eternal Son of God took into union with himself in the one divine Person that which he had not possessed before–even a full complex of human attributes–and became fully and truly man for us men and for our salvation.”

 The Apostle Paul informs us in his glorious Carmen Christi (Phil. 2:6-11) that God the Son emptied Himself by taking the nature of a servant having been made in the likeness of men and having been found in the appearance as a man (Phil. 2:6-8).

The eternal Word became flesh in order to propitiate the Father, thus redeeming (through His perfect life and sacrificial death) all those that the Father gave Him (John 6:37). The incarnation of God the Son is an essential doctrine, since it is a vital part of the gospel (2 Tim. 2:8), it should be included in our evangelism. The propitiation, priesthood, and mediatorial role is accomplished by Christ, as the two natured person—the God-Man.

 

Rejoice, because of God-Incarnate you now have eternal life!

Hallelujah! Amen.

Notes

[1] Or “atoning sacrifice.”

[2] The verb is frequently used in the LXX (i.e., the Septuagint, Lev. 25:9; Ps. 65:4; 78:38 et. al.).