Today we come to Paul’s first missionary journey, the first major step in the ‘uttermost parts’ expansion of the church. My theory is that Ac 12 sees the apostles generally forced out of Jerusalem for their own safety, the basic foundation of the church is laid in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, and now the Lord is using the apostles to push the church farther into the civilised world.

Our first message concentrated on the stoning at Lystra, with a summary of the whole first missionary journey (Ac 13-14). The title was “They Returned to Lystra” and the basic theme was evangelism. Here is my proposition: Gospel work needs Christian men and women who are willing to risk themselves for the sake of the witness. I began by showing the persistence of Paul and Barnabas by giving the overall survey of their ministry, then their persistence in the whole region, especially Lystra, after the stoning. The thing that is amazing about the healing or resurrection of Paul is that he returned to the city. He wasn’t about to let the opposition keep him from his task or from his flock. The next day he went to Derbe and evangelised many people there. When the work in Derbe was finished, They Returned to Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioc, the places where the most fierce opposition had been fomented. Their purpose was to encourage and stabilise the saints and to appoint elders – they persisted. Were they successful? Well, consider Ac 16.1 – Timothy is the fruit of this ministry, he was from Lystra. Consider Ac 20.4, and Gaius of Derbe. The work was significant. I closed the message with these words: We are plagued with a pathological desire to be well liked and well thought of. Have you ever considered what an idol that desire is? One of the reasons we are ineffective for Christ is because we will not risk ourselves for his gospel. None of us in our church have ever been slugged for the gospels sake, but we have been evil spoken of. For our precious ‘id’, we are tempted to keep silent!

The second message saw us turn to Galatians. I believe Galatians was written from Antioch of Syria immediately after the first missionary journey, making it the first of the Pauline epistles and second book of the NT to be written (unless Matthew got his gospel out before it). After Paul’s departure, false teachers, Judaizers, came in exalting circumcision and teaching that it was required for salvation. They were also apparently attacking Paul’s authority and apostleship. The first two chapters mostly defend this second charge, so our second message was “The Authority of Paul”. This is significant because over one half of the NT is written by Paul. It is important to establish right away that Paul possesses equal authority with the other apostles. Paul makes assertions concerning his apostleship, he was appointed directly by the Lord not by men, he received his gospel of the Lord, not from men. Paul points out that he had two visits to Jerusalem since his conversion, both times he was accepted by the apostles and affirmed by them. He was not required to change anything, and Titus, a Gentile accompanying him, was not required to be circumcised. These claims are important because the Galatians could write to the apostles Paul named for independent confirmation. Furthermore, Paul established his equal authority in his rebuke and correction of Peter (something that I think happened before the 1st missionary journey). Paul corrected the pope!! (Just kidding, there is no pope!) The point is, however, that Peter accepted his correction, backing Paul up a few months later in the Jerusalem counsel (Ac 15) and calling Paul ‘our beloved brother’ in his 2nd epistle. Why is the authority of Paul important? It is important for the integrity of the NT as I mentioned, but it is important for us as well. When Paul speaks in the epistles, we are obligated to listen. My proposition explains why: “Paul’s teaching carries the authority of the literal voice of God because of Paul’s role in God’s kingdom.” When Paul speaks, it is the voice of God. You are obliged to listen and obey.

Our last message covered Gal 3-4 and “Justified by Faith“. I call this the ‘first doctrine of the church’ because it is the first one articulated and it is the founding genius of the New Testament church. It is the ‘so what’ of Peter’s confession, Thou art the Christ. I showed how Paul defended justification against the charge of antinomianism; defended it by the witness of Christian experience (the baptism of the Spirit) and the witness of the Abrahamic promise, where the gospel was preached in the OT by the promise of blessing to the nations; defended it by explaining the curse of the Law and Christ being made a curse for us; and finally defended it by explaining the function of the law as the schoolmaster bringing us to Christ. In this message I made a big point that you can’t be saved by the Law or any law. You can’t be saved by prayer. (I used an illustration of a friend of my wife, living in sin, who wrote her a letter saying, “Oh, I’m all right. Remember that prayer I prayed with you that time?” – you can’t be saved by prayer, you must be saved by faith alone). You can’t be saved by going forward at an invitation, by baptism, by church attendance, by any work you think should get you credit with God. You are only saved by faith. “The true church has always held this doctrine.”

All in all, it was a great day today. We had one visitor, someone whom we have had a good deal of contact with in the past. This person has been living a very wicked lifestyle and is now back, claiming to want to break with the past. In attendance for all three services, we hope that the commitment is real this time. There was openness on the face and seemed to be some honesty in the look. I hope it is real and not just seeing what I want to see.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I am sure the other preachers out there know what I am talking about. The sermon that looks golden in the study and tastes like sawdust in the mouth. Wednesday night was one of those.

The topic was excellent, the material superb (it is the Word of God!), the content was orthodox and the delivery was dry. Ashes, ashes, ashes… Perhaps this comes of depending too much on the intellect and not enough on the Spirit.

At any rate, our through the New Testament series took us to the last three chapters of the book of James for a summary type message. I chose the text Jas 3.13-18, the passage on ‘the wisdom from above‘ to summarize the whole. The main concept of the message was that James (and the Lord) wants us to really live our testimony of wisdom and understanding – ‘Who is wise and understanding among you?’ Show your wisdom! The message is that the disciple of long standing ought to be wise. He ought to be understanding (a word that implies expertise as the result of long experience.) So why the trouble with the tongue? (3.1-12) Why the trouble with quarrels and strife? (4.1-12) Why the boastfulness? (4.13-17) Why the greed? (5.1-6) Replace it with the wisdom from above, patient endurance, fervent prayer, concern for others (5.7-20). Live your wisdom, just as James urges us to live your faith in ch. 1-2.

I don’t know why excellent material sometimes seems like such dry technical sawdust in the mouth. In the dead of the rainy winter here, I frequently feel this way, though I don’t often preach this way. May God help us depend only on his Spirit for power in the pulpit! Get self out of the way and let our dear Lord be seen.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

And that would be me, my wife, and starvin’ kids.

Well, they’re not ‘starvin’, but three of them are in University. The adjective just sounded good.

Almost two years ago I purchased a duplex for the purpose of subdividing it into two titles and reselling it. Along the way the place would need extensive renovation. I little knew how extensive it would be. My projected six month job stretched into two years. One little surprise for me was waiting in the crawlspace – six inches of standing water, i.e., drainage problems. So we hired a contractor to dig up the sidewalks and decks and install new perimeter drains. The city also ended up requiring me to remove the old firewall in the crawlspace and install new, cover the floor of the crawl space in 6 mm poly, and install a sump pump on each side. I think we have the drainage problem as licked as it is going to get.

I had to install exhaust fans in the bathrooms (4 of them), upgrade the insulation in the attic to R-35 value, install gable vents and ‘whirlybird’ vents in the roof. In the renovated side we replaced all bathroom fixtures, the kitchen cabinets, all the flooring and painted. We put ‘click’ flooring in the family room and dining room. We build two decks. And on and on… I am sure there are other smaller things, and of course fixing our mistakes too! (I recall ruining one of my interior doors by shortening it too much!)

All in all, many hours were spent on this project, working a day or two a week for about a year and a half.

Last Wednesday, the city gave me approval for the subdivision. I put the sign in the lawn. Came down for prayer meeting. One of my men prayed that the pastor would get a quick sale. We walked out of our meeting room and my phone rang. The next night I had a written offer from a nice young couple – Christians, it turns out. Today before supper they called to let me know the financing has been approved and everything is unconditional now!

I spent eighteen years all told as a realtor. I have never had a sale happen that easily! Praise the Lord for his grace and goodness.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I mentioned earlier that I recently finished reading the book The King James Bible Translators by Olga S. Opfell. The book is an excellent source for brief sketches of most of the translators.

One of them, Sir Henry Savile, was a member of the Second Oxford Company, responsible for the translation of Matthew-Acts and Revelation. He held two positions when the translation work was done, warden of Merton College and provost of Eton. He was a strong disciplinarian and from Opfell’s description sounds like an agressive, ambitious leader. In Opfell’s account of him, this little gem falls from his mouth as an evidence of his philosophy:

Like the students at Merton, the Etonians were subject to Savile’s strict discipline. Once when somebody recommended a young scholar as a good wit, Savile retorted, “Out upon him … give me the plodding student. If I would look for wits, I would go to the prison [Newgate]; there be the wits.” p. 79

There is a good deal of wisdom in that statement. We live in the age of the cheap laugh. Low comedy fills the television hours, coarse and profane humour is proffered by the great wit of the job site, laughter and scorn is on the lips of the indolent youths hanging out at our local coffee house. The sober-minded and serious are hard to find.

Now I would not advocate that the Christian leader be humourless. Good humour can relax tense situations, if deftly used. Good humour makes the parson seem somewhat human. But humour and wit is in plentiful supply these days. Better that we be known for love of God and thoughtful spiritual leadership than for our wit.

I recall talking to some of our then teens about their favorite camp speaker over the years. They liked the ones who were funny best. The preachers who seriously exposed the word made little impression, but the clowns were liked. And the lives of these teens reflected what their hearts delighted in.

Let us be known rather for our witness than for our wit.

Proverbs 10:23 It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.

Proverbs 26:18 As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, 19 So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sunday was a day where we saw several unsaved visitors. I knew some of them were coming ahead of time and one of our messages involved a clear presentation of the gospel and what conversion means. I had written the message before the news of their plans to attend, so it seemed clear to me that the Lord was directing our paths once again. So far we have no more than ‘friendly’ comments from those who visited. In a way, I would rather have some tension, since that would indicate conviction of sin, but at least it is a step and an open door to further contacts.

The first message covered Ac 8-11 and four conversion scenarios. I entitled it “Unlikely Converts“. The proposition was: The living examples of life-change (and church-change) recorded for us in Acts are samples of the kind of change possible for anyone who is not a Christian. (Kind of an unwieldy sentence, I think! I need to work on that. The introduction to this message was too wordy also.) The message involved highlighting the dramatic changes that occured in the lives of various peopel, starting with the Samaritans (from demonism to Christ) with possibly a conterfeit convert in Simon the sorcerer. Next we covered the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, a high government official who gladly humbled himself to the rite of baptism as a testimony of his faith in Christ. Next was Saul, from persecutor to preacher. And last was Cornelius, opening the door of his heart to Christ from a background of paganism, and participating in the opening of the gospel to the rest of hte world. The theme of this message was change, the possibility of change, the variety of change, the need of change in the most desperate to the most high in society.

The second message centered on Ac 12, but reviewed aspects of the preceding chapters as well. It was called “To the Uttermost Parts” as I showed how the Lord was moving the church out of Jerusalem. First, we reviewed the foundational ministry of the apostles for the church. In Ac 8, Peter and John are sent to validate and confirm the work of Philip in Samaria. Peter uses the keys to the kingdom and through his prayers the Holy Spirit is sent to the Samaritans. Then when Saul is converted, Peter meets with him (see also Gal 1) and confirms the work of God in Saul’s heart. Later, Peter follows in the footsteps of Philip (trace the geography of Philip’s movements in Ac 8, compare with Peter’s in Ac 9-10), apparently again in a supervisory and confirming role. In this work, Peter again is employed in using the keys to the kingdom in opening the door to the Gentiles. I pointed out here that the apostles are seen as the foundations of the city of God, the bride of the Lamb (Rev 21) and that the Lord gave them this role in Mt 16.19 in announcing the keys to the kingdom, the binding and loosing, etc. All of this foundational ministry occurred while the apostles were centered in Jerusalem from Ac 1-12. After Ac 12, the apostles are mentioned as a group on only one more occasion, the Jerusalem council, Ac 15-16. They are never mentioned as a group again. It appears that they may have been called back to Jerusalem for the council. In Ac 12, events occur that appear to be driving at least some of the apostles out of Jerusalem. James the brother of John is killed. Peter is imprisoned and slated for execution. On his release, he realizes he has to leave town, sending a message to ‘James and the brethren’. Who are ‘the brethren’? It could be the other apostles, but perhaps it is not. Perhaps, like Peter, they are now on their way out of Jerusalem for their own safety and future ministry. At any rate, it does appear that they are eventually no longer needed in Jerusalem. In Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, he meets with James and the elders, no mention of apostles (Ac 21). This leaves James, the Lord’s brother, as the head of the church of Jerusalem, and it is in this context of persecution and trouble that he writes, probably in the next year, that most pastoral of epistles, the epistle of James. He is ministering to the needs of saints under pressure as they are being scattered all over the world.

The last message of the day, then, turned to the book of James. We covered just James 1-2 in a message entitled “Faith Under Trial“. Proposition: The Christian needs real, living, practiced faith in order to stand for God in times of trial. First, we covered The testing of your faith (1.1-18), then The living of your faith (1.19-2.13), and last The reality of your faith (2.14-26). The general thrust of the message was on genuine conversion. You can’t just talk, you must do, you can’t just say you believe Christ, you must live like you believe Christ. This message seemed the strongest of the three, yet there are hearts that still seem hard to it. May God’s Holy Spirit use the words to bring conviction.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. Here is the link to the notes from last Wednesday night’s message.

I picked up a little book on writing in a thrift store last spring. I think I payed all of one dollar for a hardback… The book is On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction by William Zinsser, a former professor at Yale, well known editor, etc. If you can find this book, I highly recommend it. It is actually a very enjoyable read with some laugh out loud sections on various points of writing. I don’t know if it has improved my writing, although I do find myself paying more attention to how I phrase things.

In a section where Zinsser pushes writing with active verbs, he has this interesting little quote:

If you want to see how active verbs give vitality to the written word, don’t just go back to Hemingway or Thurber or Thoreau, I commend the King James Bible and William Shakespeare. [p. 112]

Zinsser is not a believer, I am sure. But this observation is interesting. I would like to know how well the modern versions have followed this pattern by the KJV translators. Perhaps this element of the KJV explains some of its enduring quality. While I am not against the need to modernize, I do love the KJV phraseology on so many points. Sometimes the newer versions seem just kind of wimpy and anemic. Perhaps we could start a new slogan, “Real men read the KJV.”

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

In this message, we covered Acts 6.8-8.3. The stoning of Stephen is one of those pivotal events in the life of the church where God moved the people of God out of Jerusalem in keeping with his plan in Acts 1.8. Our proposition for this message was: Man’s fight against God is futile – it is doomed to fail. Better to suffer on the side of God than ‘win’ on the side of Satan. The first thing that we see is that the fight against God depends on false charges – the synagogue that opposed Stephen (or synagogues, commentators hold to 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 synagogues) was likely Stephen’s own synagogue. There is even some speculation that Saul was a member of this synagogue also, but that isn’t clear. At any rate, these men were fighting against Stephen, but they were really fighting against God. And the fight against God depends on false charges, like “God isn’t fair” or “How could a loving God allow my loved one to suffer so?” etc.

Stephen’s answer shows that the fight against God cannot silence the faithful witness. Now Stephen’s sermon doesn’t sound like much of a defense to our ears, but the Jews definitely got his point. The Bible Knowledge Commentary has an excellent summary and suggests these three threads working their way to the conclusion of his message: 1) God has always used change to develop the true worship from Abraham to now, so the change under Christ isn’t unexpected 2) God has blessed his people outside of Israel, so God’s worship is not limited to this land or this temple [an important point especially for the Hellenistic Jews] and 3) Israel through its history has resisted and disobeyed God, virtually from the beginning until now. This last was Stephen’s main point, which got through loud and clear, and stirred up the opposition.

The Jews thought they would silence the church with this opposition, but the last point of my message was the fight against God will find the seeds of defeat in its moment of apparent victory. Stephen’s death was a victory for Christ in itself, as his vision of the standing Christ proves. But even Saul, filled with rage and wreaking havoc of the church proves the victory for he becomes the answer to Stephen’s final prayer, “Lord lay not this sin to their charge.” And the church is scattered all over Judea and Samaria, in keeping with Acts 1.8. And they go preaching. Tertullian’s famous saying, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” Well, that isn’t actually what he said, but it is close. Here is what he really said: “The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.”

May God help us to preach the word and expand the kingdom without being martyrs, but if necessary, let us be martyrs.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I have a rather long article on 1 Cor 10.31. I will post highlights here, with a link to the full article in pdf format here. Somehow it is possible to make long posts expand to a separate page, but I can’t seem to figure it out. I think it might have something to do with the new and ‘improved’ Blogger format. I shouldn’t be sarcastic! Some features are better. But I still can’t get sidebar comments to work at all, and I can’t figure out how to make long posts expand… one day I will get a real blog.

Here is the highly edited version of the article, the pdf is here. What follows is still rather long (sigh), but it gives my main points. The parts left out are marked by ***.

********************************************************
In some recent discussions on the blogosphere, I have contended with individuals for what I think is a misapplication of 1 Cor 10.31 “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

1 Cor 10.31 is universally cited as support for the notion that we must glorify God in everything that we do. The commentaries and almost all the literature I have seen use the verse in this way. In favour of the interpretation, one must acknowledge the general truth of the principle that we should glorify God in everything. I agree! But I don’t agree that 1 Cor 10.31 teaches this.

As you read through my studies on this topic, you may come to the conclusion that I am straining at gnats. I hope that is not the case. I believe that it is important to interpret Scripture in its context and to let it say what it says. We have a tendency to reduce Scripture to slogans, to extract texts out of the framework of the argument the apostles are making with them and use them as spiritual pegs on which to hang our spiritual hats. They become home for us, and we live in a world that Lloyd-Jones described as a kind of cult like practice, treating the Scriptures as “a drug” for our spiritual security. (See his sermon on Eph 6.10, the first in his ‘Call to Battle’ series, available here from the Martyn Lloyd-Jones Recordings Trust, listen especially from minute 12 to 14). In handling Scripture, I am against spiritualizing, proof-texting, and misapplication. I believe it betrays at best a shallow understanding of the Word of God and may betray a cavalier irreverence for the God of the Word. We should endeavour always to examine the way we approach Scripture and make our arguments for Christian living in exactly the way Scripture makes them. Let us refrain from proof-texts! Let us eschew slogans!

As for 1 Cor 10.31, it is evident that many, many commentators take the passage to mean that Paul is here teaching a general principle that applies to every situation of life. For example, here is G. G. Findlay in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, a fine set edited by W. Robertson Nicol and published by Eerdmans. (My set has no publication date on it — I believe it is out of print.) Findlay comments on the verse by saying that “vv. 31, 32 conclude the matter with two solemn, comprehensible rules, introduced by the collective oun [see below] … relating to God’s glory and to man’s salvation. The supreme maxim of duty, [“all things into the glory of God be doing” – my translation of Findlay quoting the Greek] applies to all that Christians ‘eat or drink’ (including the idolothyta), — indeed, to whatever they ‘do’; cf. Rom 14.20ff., Col 3.17.” Findlay proceeds to talk about verse 32 as “A second general rule…” You can see that Findlay is taking 1 Cor 10.31 as a general rule superimposed into the argument of 1 Cor 10. This approach is imitated in one way or another by almost all the commentators. In my desperate search for someone who agrees with me (a true scholar!), I have found no one to ally myself with, including the venerable Charles Hodge and many others. In some of my correspondence, I have described myself as in the minority on this question. It increasingly appears that I am in a minority of one, thus, I may be a theological Don Quixote, tilting at windmills and offering a private interpretation. Nevertheless, I do think that my consideration of the text should at least be examined before it is simply dismissed by ‘majority rule’.

First Consideration

The first thing to consider in this verse is its relation to its context.

***

The consideration of the context of the verses following 1 Cor 10.31 show that while Paul is using general language, he is not stating in verse 32 a general rule which applies to every possible action he might do. Rather, Paul is teaching a rule that applies to a limited set of circumstances. I would suggest that the limited set of circumstances is first of all the circumstances that involve meat offered to idols. This is the primary consideration of the context that follows 1 Cor 10.31.

Second Consideration

The second thing to consider is the kinds of things that are discussed in this sentence.

***

If I am right about the meaning of the eating and drinking, that is, eating and drinking as a class of things related to things offered to idols, what then is the meaning of ‘whatsoever ye do’? Is Paul just throwing in a general phrase meaning ‘any old thing you do regardless of the context about which I have been going on for three chapters now’? Or is Paul speaking about a choice in the same category or class as the eating and drinking? I suggest it is the latter. The choices before a believer in someone’s house at a meal first are these: ask or don’t ask. Paul says don’t ask. But he goes on to say, ‘If your host mentions that you are eating something offered to an idol, then don’t eat it.” So on the one hand you choose to eat and don’t ask questions. On the other hand, you choose not to eat. Applying the ‘drinking’ category, you on the one hand may drink and don’t ask questions, but once you have knowledge, you don’t drink. Now comes the principle: ‘Whether therefore you eat or drink [not having asked any questions] or whatsoever you do [having been informed, i.e., whatever = not eating and not drinking], do these things to the glory of God.” There are only really two options. Eat or don’t eat. Drink or don’t drink. The ‘whatsoever’ covers both the ‘don’t eat’ and ‘don’t drink’ category. The context of the passage and the grammatical structure indicate that each of the three actions in the list are all of a sort, all one category, and they are all related to the choice whether to eat meat offered to idols or not.

Third Consideration

The third thing to consider is the word ‘all’ in the phrase ‘do all to the glory of God’.

***

This leaves us with Thayer’s first possibility, “of a certain definite totality or sum of things, the context shewing what things are meant”. What is the definite totality or some of things to which Paul is referring here? What does the context tell us? Eating, drinking, or whatever you do [i.e., not eat or not drink, see discussion above] – the totality of things Paul is referring to is the list of options he has already provided.

The point of the passage is to teach that the choices you make with respect to meat offered to idols is to make those choices glorify God. You do this by having respect to a weaker brother whose conscience you might offend and who you may cause to stumble, or you do this by taking into consideration the importance of the gospel and eschew some things you have a right to since the gospel is more important than your rights, or you are very cautious because of the deceptiveness of your own heart and the examples of others who have gone before reveals that you yourself may easily stumble and be brought under the power of darkness. In every case, you shouldn’t so easily rationalize away your own scruples against doubtful things, but tend to abstain for a variety of reasons.

Conclusion:

***

Am I merely straining at a gnat on this one? I don’t think so. I think there is a widespread casual use of the Bible that fails to take the Bible seriously. This particular passage is only a small example. There are other examples where the consequences are much more serious. I plan to take up another of them in a new post to come in a few days. The failure to read and understand the Bible in context leads to some bizarre Pharisaisms being imposed on the people of God. Let us be faithful to the Word as it stands in context and as the Holy Spirit intended us to understand it

The fundie blogosphere is in a furore over video of a rap performance at John Piper’s church in Minneapolis, with the smiling approval of Piper himself. I first noticed it over at Scott Aniol’s blog here, and it created an over 20 page discussion on Sharper Iron in less than a day here (I went away for a bowl of cereal and two pages of discussion were added in the 15 minutes I was gone!).

And there are other comments elsewhere, no need to link to them.

My view is that music does have an inherent moral quality, just like painting/literature/sculpture and all forms of art.

But my post isn’t about that. Here is what I am seeing: the reaction to this incident clearly shows who the fundamentalists are and the poseurs are. Read through the 20 something pages on SI and you will see who is and who isn’t a fundamentalist out of that group.

Thanks, JP, you really were a help on this. Perhaps some will get it and stop walking with the compromisers who want to wear the label of fundamentalist but walk the walk of the evangelical.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I ran across this quote in my studies today:

The notion pervades the popular mind that interpretation is ascribing a plausible meaning to scripture. That is, it is generally thought of as attributing a meaning to a passage, rather than discovering what the meaning really is. A possible interpretation is thought out, it is applied to the passage under consideration, and if it ‘fits’ it is regarded as correct. The would-be expositor is totally oblivious to the fact that the passage was written by a real living author, whose purpose it was to convey a definite idea, and that the passage consequently has but one meaning, and that meaning likely lies on the surface instead of being ‘hidden in the depths of the scriptures,’ as is frequently supposed.

Source: Dr. H. E. Dana, Searching the Scriptures, p. 11, quoted in Dallas Theological Seminary. (1937; 2002). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 94 (Oct 1937 94:469). Dallas Theological Seminary.