ON LOVE; PART MCCXCIV
FIRST IS THE GREAT COMMANDMENTS: “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” (Mark 12:29-31).
WHAT THEN IS LOVE? In a general sense love is benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men. While this IS from an older definition of Charity, which IS rendered in the King James Bible from the same Greek word agape which IS generally rendered as Love, we should amend our own definition here to include the idea that in the reality of Love a man will accord to ALL men ALL things that he would accord to himself and to say that Love IS our thoughts and attitude of the equality of ALL men regardless of their outward nature or appearance…that ALL ARE equally children of Our One God.
PLUS THE EVER IMPORTANT AND HIGH IDEAL TAUGHT TO US BY THE CHRIST: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12).
We ended the last essay with some thoughts on the last word from the Apostle Paul’s list of “the fruit of the Spirit“: egkrateia. While this IS rendered in our King James Bible as temperance and by others in terms of “self -control” and “control over desires“, the doctrinal understanding of the idea generally goes to the sexual realm with a touch of gluttony regarding alcoholic drink. We cited two in the last post that put these ideas out front in their rendering of egkrateia as “modesty, continency, chastity” and temperance, continence, chastity“. The general idea of egkrateia IS self control, this IS Strong’s definition 9a, but the sexual and gluttony ideas ARE furnished by the church as these ideas ARE NOT furnished by the texts in which the word appears. In our subject text the word IS used to define an aspect of “the fruit of the Spirit” and while we can see this as such fruit will alter the carnal attitudes of a man, the greater Truth IS that such fruit will ONLY come to the man who has largely overcome his carnal pangs….the man whose focus has changed away from the self and onto the things of God. For us egkrateia offers a man that spiritual self-control by which the whole of the list of “the fruit of the Spirit” works out in the Life of a man in this world; it IS the final ingredient in Paul’s assessment of what it IS that this fruit represents in the Life of a man. In the last essay we posed the idea that in this idea of egkrateia we can see the idea of NO turning back from the spiritual Path and here we should also try to see that this becomes a part of the expression of the man who IS truly on that Path. The root word here IS egkrates which Strong’s defines as: strong in a thing (masterful) and here we can see that strength which stands on the Truth despite the fact that this Truth IS contrary to the ways of the world of men. This word IS used but once in the New Testament; in Paul’s letter to Titus, the apostle IS writing that a leader of men in spiritual ideas “must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:7-9). Here we should see that the carnal proclivities of men ARE previously dealt with and that the idea of egkrates, rendered as temperance IS the fitting end….the expression of the holy.
Our subject word IS also little used in the New Testament; egkrateia, as a feminine noun IS used but three times, and his use in “the fruit of the Spirit” in IS Paul’s ONLY use of the word. Egkrateia IS used in the Book of Acts as Luke writes of the state of mind of Procurator Felix saying: “as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee” (Acts 24:25). While Luke’s use of this word here IS NOT clear, to be sure it IS NOT used in reference to sex nor to strong drink; it seems to relate ONLY to Felix’s state of mind upon hearing from Paul regarding his plight. It IS paired with righteousness and perhaps the judgement that Felix must make regarding Paul. Then there IS the use of this idea by the Apostle Peter who uses this in a strongly spiritual sense saying:
“And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-8).
Peter’s list here should be understood in the same way as Paul’s list of “the fruit of the Spirit“; here we should try to see that the idea IS for these spiritual ‘virtues’ to become the Way of Life for the man who Truly seeks the Lord. We should understand here that Peter’s list IS an appendage to his words on our becoming “partakers of the divine nature” and if we can see that his point IS to show the manner of Life of such a partaker, the manner of Life of the man who has “escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust“, we can again better understand the Master’s words saying “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). We should try to see that we can KNOW the man who has received the “exceeding great and precious promises” (2 Peter 1:4) by his expression of “the fruit of the Spirit” which IS to say the same as his expression of Peter’s list. And again we should note that the common understanding of the rendered words in Peter’s list ARE NO more accurate that the common understanding of Paul’s. Peter begins with pistis which IS rendered here as faith but which should be related to his previous words with the understanding that those who ARE “partakers of the divine nature” DO KNOW God. We should try to see that the nebulous ideas of doctrinal faith DO NOT make one such a partaker and if we tie this to our previous essays regarding the True meanings of pistis and pisteuo we can see that Peter’s words here ARE in accord with the Master’s usage of these word ideas. Both words reflect on KNOWING and here we should see the most basic spiritual idea which IS KNOWING God. NOT KNOWING of God but Truly KNOWING Him from the perspective that the Apostle John gives us saying “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (1 John 4:7-8). The connection here IS between Love and keeping His words and this IS clarified for us in the apostle’s saying that “hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4). Can we see the point here? Can we see the connection between Love and keeping His words in the same way that this IS presented by Paul’s words leading up to his list of “the fruit of the Spirit” as he tells us that “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Galatians 5:14)? While doctrines will take John’s words on Jesus as our propitiation to heart they take it out of the context in which it IS offered and ignore the True idea of KNOWING God and the reality of this that IS made apparent in one’s expression of “the fruit of the Spirit“.
Doctrines separate John’s words saying “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” from the words that follow, words connected by the conjunction kai rendered as and. The apostle tells us “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:1-4). From Paul’s words to Peter’s to John’s there IS a dynamic connection regarding what it takes to become “partakers of the divine nature” yet doctrinal thinkers pose themselves as being such without having “escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust“; without keeping His words as John shows us IS required to KNOW God, which idea CAN NOT be separated from being “partakers of the divine nature“; and without some measure of expression of the fullness of “the fruit of the Spirit” which begins with Paul’s lead in that clearly tells us “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself“. In ALL of these we have the reality of KNOWING God which IS also the promise of our trifecta of spiritual reality; in Jesus’ words we read:
- “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).
- “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).
- “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me” (John 14:21-24).
Our point here IS that the Christian doctrinal approach to the Lord IS steeped in their nebulous idea of faith as they discount ALL the written Truths regarding agape and keeping His words. In our trifecta we see that it IS “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them” that has His Presence which idea IS tantamount to being “partakers of the divine nature“. It IS the one who will “continue in my word” that will have the Truth which IS the reality of KNOWING God. And it IS he that “doeth the will of my Father” that has access to His Kingdom in which we ARE perforce “partakers of the divine nature“. Can we see here how that it IS a mainstay of doctrinal ideas to use the out of context to establish a new context that IS NOT rooted in the Truth? Nor IS it Truly “rooted and grounded in love” as Paul tells us IS the gateway to being “able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God“. Instead doctrines teach that it IS “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” and that this nebulous faith replaces the continuing idea of being “rooted and grounded in love” (Ephesians 17, 18-19). Both pistis and pisteuo ARE always founded in KNOWING when applied spiritually and KNOWING is ever founded in Love and in keeping His words. Add to this the words of the Master, words of carnal impossibility, as He tells us that it IS in KNOWING that one can move the mountain or plant the sycamine tree in the sea and this idea of KNOWING IS NOT hidden as He tells us such things as “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove” (Matthew 17:20); “If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done” (Matthew 21:21); and “whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith” (Mark 11:23). ALL of these point ONLY to KNOWING, KNOWING without doubt, and here we should see that this KNOWING comes to those who will
“continue in my word“. The nebulous doctrinal ideas of faith and believing CAN NOT approach the Power of this KNOWING which IS the linchpin of the Master’s words saying “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). Again, these ideas of pistis and pisteuo ARE NOT hidden but, at the same time, the doctrinal thinker DOES NOT see this Truth; the doctrinal thinker sees his nebulous ideas of faith and believing as his KEY and this despite there being NO sure definition of just what these ideas mean. We should try to see here how that even the doctrinal ‘go to’ saying on faith, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1) points us squarely toward KNOWING and when we understand this as as Young’s Literal Translation renders this saying “And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction” we can then see the idea on a higher level. Vincent tells us: On the whole, the Rev. assurance gives the true meaning 4, and here we should also note that elpizo which IS rendered as hoped means: to expect or confide 9a according to Strong’s. Add to this that the Greek word elegchos which IS rendered as evidence IS defined as: proof, conviction 9a and we can more clearly see that this idea of faith requires that one should KNOW. Again, this idea of pistis as KNOWING IS the basic reality of those who ARE “partakers of the divine nature“, those who DO KNOW God. Pistis IS the starting point for Peter’s list of the totality of those ‘virtues‘ at work in the Life of those partakers and IS as well the defining quality, much as agape IS the defining quality of Paul’s list of “the fruit of the Spirit“.
Peter goes on to list a number of ‘virtues‘ which ARE rendered in the King James Bible as being ‘added to’ the previous idea but before we go more deeply into this we should look at John’s word above, propitiation. This word IS used ONLY twice in the New Testament by John; it IS called a root word by Strong’s which means that there ARE NO other ideas that feed into the defining quality of hilasmos. We should note here that this word has become a symbol of atonement for much of the doctrinal church despite the lack of clarity regarding its meaning and use. Vincent tells us that the Greek word hilasmos IS: From ἱλάσκομαι to appease, to conciliate to one’s self 4 which IS at odds with Strong’s designation that hilasmos IS a root word. He goes on to show us the use of ἱλάσκομαι in Luke’s Gospel and in Hebrews where this word, hilaskomai, IS rendered as “be merciful” (18:13) and “make reconciliation for” respectively; in this same verse from Hebrews (2:17) another word, eleēmōn, IS rendered as merciful. There seems a general consensus among our word sources that the idea of hilasmos IS an appeasing although Strong’s takes us directly to atonement in his definition. Based in atonement theology the idea has become atonement in most ALL translations where the renderings range from the straightforward “He is the offering for our sins” to “And Christ himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven” and “he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins“. These ideas ARE the effect of the doctrine defining the words rather than the words defining the doctrine. The English word propitiation IS defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary as: The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person 1, they then go on to give a separate meaning titled ‘in theology’ where the idea IS specifically doctrinal saying: the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men. Rom.3. 1 John 2. These cited entries ARE NOT from the same word that Vincent references above but from another Greek word that IS rendered as propitiation, hilasterion, in Romans; we DID NOT find Webster’s reference in John’s Gospel but there IS another entry in Hebrews where the King James Bibles renders hilasterion as mercyseat. On the use of hilasterion in Romans where the context IS “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:25), Vincent tells us that from this context: This word is most important, since it is the key to the conception of Christ’s atoning work 4 as the opening line in a lengthy dissertation on this idea. Much of the idea of atonement here should be seen in regard to the Old Testament and the rendering of similar ideas from Hebrew into Greek in the Septuagint. Here the Old Testament ideas regarding the Jews’ ritual use of sacrifice carries over to the doctrinal view of the New Testament as the Old’s covering for sin purpose of such sacrifices. Vincent adds this comment: Ἱλαστηριον , A.V., propitiation, is almost always used in the Old Testament of the mercy-seat or golden cover of the ark, and this is its meaning in Hebrews 9:5, the only other passage of the New Testament in which it is found. In Ezekiel 43:14, Ezekiel 43:17, Ezekiel 43:20, it means a ledge round a large altar, and is rendered settle in A.V.; Rev., ledge, in margin. This term has been unduly pressed into the sense of explanatory sacrifice. In the case of the kindred verbs, the dominant Old-Testament sense is not propitiation in the sense of something offered to placate or appease anger; but atonement or reconciliation, through the covering, and so getting rid of the sin which stands between God and man 4.
We should try to see that the whole idea of atonement in regard to Jesus relies upon the ideas of sacrifice from the Old Testament and NOT upon the teachings of the Master who IS “the author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2); the doctrinal wranglings of men regarding atonement have from the beginning formed the basis of the Christian religions. We should understand here that there IS a Judaeo-Christian misconception regarding the very nature of God and His relationship to the men of scripture who speak for Him as prophets; and we should ever remember that such prophetic words ARE always filtered through the personalities of men and in accordance with the nature of the times in which they lived. Here, if we can understand that the whole idea of sacrifice, as well as many others of Moses commandments, were the carnal approach to God for the man of those times and NOT deep spiritual realities, we can go a long way toward seeing how that tying Jesus’ own sacrifice to this IS an ill placed idea. The ideas of atonement however have been the primary focus of Christianity from the beginning and while this IS based in verses from the New Testament, these ARE most ALL taken out of context and strung together as doctrine. It IS in the idea that men need forgiveness of sins, that God holds men accountable for their missteps in Life, plus the archaic ideas of heaven and hell that have made atonement theology the choice way of salvation. In its various forms this theology frees men from responsibility for their actions based in the nebulous doctrinal ideas of faith and believing and this despite the many contrary sayings from Paul as “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap“. The idea here IS a combination of what a man may DO, his thoughts, attitudes and actions, and the focus of his Life which Paul shows us as he continues saying “he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Galatians 6:7, 8). Can we see the idea of focus here? And can we see the great divide between this idea of reality and the ideas accepted by doctrines from this same apostle by which they take their atonement through the nebulous doctrinal ideas of faith and believing based in his words saying:
“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” (Romans 10:9-10).
Jesus DOES NOT speak in these terms, Jesus DOES NOT imply that one IS lost until they come to attest and confess the facts of His Life, death and resurrection, and, to be sure, Paul DOES NOT either as can be discovered in by taking these words in their context and NOT as standalone ideas. Jesus tells us, albeit mostly in parables, that it IS never too late to Truly repent and change the focus of one’s Life from sowing “to his flesh ” to sowing “to the Spirit“. The crux of Paul’s words DO show us that the man who can profess the Truth of the Master and KNOW the Truth of His resurrection IS as Jesus tells us of Peter saying “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). This IS the reality of one who IS saved, that he IS in Union with his own Soul; that his own God Within, his own unction, can make KNOWN to the heart of the man in this world the deep secrets; the Truths by which a man’s Life becomes an expression of Love….an expression of “the fruit of the Spirit“. Paul’s words here ARE part of a lesson in the approach to God and a lesson in the radical change that has come with the teaching of the Christ. NO longer will men need the rote of the law in ALL of its 613 mitzvot which largely ignore the deeper Truths of men’s relationship to God and to his fellowman, they need ONLY the original Truths of the Great Commandments of which Paul later tells us that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). Paul’s words that surround these ideas of confession and affirmation that have become the keystone of Christian theology ARE a lesson in the failure of Judaism much more than they ARE a specific prescription to salvation. The specific prescription IS found later in Paul’s words as he tells us that “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:1-2). Doctrines however have adopted Paul’s words as their prescription while diluting the real idea of being “conformed to this world” by asserting that through the precepts of doctrines one IS NO longer so conformed. Peter however shows us quite a different reality as he tells us that to “be partakers of the divine nature“, to be in such Union with God, one must have “escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” which IS to take spiritual control over one’s Life and to focus upon the things of God. Doctrines have chosen to allow men to focus upon both the self and the doctrinal view of God as they have developed their own mitzvot according to the various denominations and sects, a mitzvot that still ignores the deeper Truths of men’s relationship to God and to his fellowman which ARE summarized for us in the Great Commandments which we read again from the Master’s words saying: “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” (Mark 12:29-31). It IS through the doctrinal ideas of propitiation, the various doctrinal views of atonement, and the resultant doctrinal belief that in His death and resurrection Jesus ‘covered’ the sins of ALL men for ALL time that leave everyman who ‘believes‘ free to ignore the law and the words of Jesus. It is this misplaced sense of freedom that keeps such men “conformed to this world“, and keeps them in “the corruption that is in the world through lust“, a “bondage of corruption” (Romans 8:21) which consumes us ALL until such time as we can Truly be made free by the Truth found by those who will “continue in my word” as the Master instructs.
Coming back then to the words of the Apostle Peter’s list of virtues which, in some bible translations as our King James, ARE rendered as that one should be added to another, we begin again with pistis. As we continue from the primary ‘virtue’ of faith which we understand as KNOWING and then as that KNOWING which IS the purview of those who ARE Truly “partakers of the divine nature“, those who DO Truly strive to “continue in my word” as the Master instructs, we should note that there IS another KEY word used by the apostle….spoude which IS rendered as diligence. While diligence DOES offer us a view of the importance of the task, the primary meaning of spoude IS speed9a according to Strong’s and haste 9 according to Thayer’s; with this in mind we should at a minimum apply this idea to those that ARE commonly rendered as diligence, “take every care“, “make every effort“, ect.. In the ideas of haste and speed we should be able to understand that Peter’s point here IS that once one comes to KNOW some measure of the Truth, the objective becomes to express that KNOWING in the words that follow. We should also try to see that the idea of adding each virtue to another fails to show us the True working of the “fruit of the Spirit” in one’s Life….that the ingredients in Paul’s list ALL work together in harmony. Vincent has several notes on the beginning ideas rendered as adding ‘virtue‘ upon ‘virtue‘ by many beginning with “And beside this“; addressing the King James version which says “And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge” he makes several points. First he tells us that “beside this” IS: Wrong. Render for this very cause, as Rev. Lit., this very thing. Just as τί , what? has come to mean why? So the strengthened demonstrative acquires the meaning of wherefore, for this very cause 4. The point taken here should be that because one IS become a partaker “of the divine nature“, he should manifest and express the ‘virtues‘ that follow in his Life; the Weymouth New Testament captures this as they render Peter’s words as “But for this very reason–adding, on your part, all earnestness– along with your faith, manifest also a noble character: along with a noble character, knowledge“. Vincent goes on to show us that it IS in the phrase “giving all diligence ” that we find the idea of adding; he says: The verb occurs only here in New Testament, and means, literally, to bring in by the side of: adding your diligence to the divine promises. So Rev., adding on your part 4. We should try to see here the idea of personal responsibility; the idea that when such ‘virtues‘ flow into the heart of a man, they must be expressed.
Going on, Vincent tells us that in the rendered idea of “add to your faith ” that: The A. V. is entirely wrong…. In the New Testament the word has lost this technical sense, and is used in the general sense of supplying or providing as he gives some examples of the verb’s use elsewhere. He goes on to say that: The A. V. exhorts to add one virtue to another; but the Greek, to develop one virtue in the exercise of another: “an increase by growth, not by external junction; each new grace springing out of, attempting, and perfecting the other” 4. If we can understand this ALL in terms of the idea “of the divine nature“, we can then better understand that it IS in the flow of these ‘virtues‘ that the man should express them, NOT singularly but as a spiritual set of Truth. While most ALL translations use the ideas of add to or supply in as they link Peter’s list of ‘virtues‘, the better understanding comes from the idea of with as the ideas ARE rendered by some. Again, the Weymouth New Testament shows us Peter’s words as:
“But for this very reason–adding, on your part, all earnestness– along with your faith, manifest also a noble character: along with a noble character, knowledge; along with knowledge, self-control; along with self-control, power of endurance; along with power of endurance, godliness; along with godliness, brotherly affection; and along with brotherly affection, love. If these things exist in you, and continually increase, they prevent your being either idle or unfruitful in advancing towards a full knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ“.
While these ideas may settle the intent of the overall idea given to us by Peter, there IS yet the matter of the translation of the individual Greek words which ARE generally rendered in strictly carnal terms and in accord with the predilection of the doctrinal world to see too much of a sexual nature in words that ARE intended to reflect a spiritual idea. We will continue with Peter’s list in the next post.
We will continue with our thoughts in the next post.
- 1 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1828 and 1913 from https://1828.mshaffer.com/
- 2 New Testament Greek Lexicon on BibleStudyTools.com
- 4 Word Studies in the New Testament; Marvin R Vincent D.D. 2nd edition
- 9a The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible on blueletterbible.org
- 9 Thayer’s Greek Lexicon on blueletterbible.org
Those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road.
Voltaire, Writer and Philosopher