http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1215
The Principle of Authority
Perhaps no other doctrine is emphasized so frequently in scripture as
the principle of authority. Yet, perhaps no other doctrine is so
discounted, ignored, rejected, or misunderstood. But the Scriptures make
clear that, from the beginning of human history, God has required
people to structure their behavior based upon His will. We human beings
have no
right to formulate our own ideas concerning religious truth.
We must have God’s approval for everything we do.
Who could successfully deny that current culture is characterized by
disrespect for authority? The “do your own thing” mentality that has
been so pervasive since the 1960s has resulted in subsequent generations
viewing themselves as autonomous (self-governing) with no higher
authority than oneself. Authority is seen to reside inherently within
the individual. This circumstance is reminiscent of the dark ages of
Jewish history (the period of the Judges) when “everyone did what was
right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
COLOSSIANS 3:17: "IN THE NAME OF"
If the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that all human beings are
under obligation to submit to the authority of God and Christ. Paul
articulated this extremely important principle in his letter to the
Colossians: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of
the Lord Jesus” (3:17). What did the apostle mean by that statement?
What is the meaning of the expression “
in the name of the Lord”?
Luke corroborated Paul’s statement by providing the answer. Shortly
after the establishment of the church of Christ on Earth (Acts 2), the
Jewish authorities were extremely upset that the apostles were spreading
Christian concepts throughout Jerusalem. So, they hauled Peter and John
into their assembly and demanded to know, “By what power or by what
name have you done this?” (Acts 4:7). The word “power” (
dunamei) bears a close correlation to and relationship with the concept of
authority (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 108), and is closely aligned with
exousia—the
usual word for authority (cf. Luke 4:36; Revelation 17:12-13). W.E.
Vine listed both terms under “power” (1966, p. 196). “Authority” (
exousia)
refers to power, rule, authority, or jurisdiction (cf. Betz, 1976,
2:608)—“the power of authority, the right to exercise power” and “the
right to act” (Vine, pp. 152,89,196). It includes the ideas of “absolute
power” and “warrant” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 277), as well as
“the ‘claim,’ or ‘right,’ or ‘control,’ one has over anything” (Moulton
and Milligan, 1982, p. 225). These religious leaders were demanding to
know by what authority the apostles were acting. Who was giving them the
right to teach what they were teaching? What authoritative source
approved or
sanctioned
their particular actions? Peter’s answer was “by the name of Jesus
Christ” (vs. 10). In other words, the apostles had not been advocating
their
own ideas. They were simply presenting what Jesus had previously
authorized
and commissioned them to present (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18; 28:18-20).
He placed closure on the incident by concluding: “Nor is there salvation
in any other, for there is
no other name under heaven given
among men by which we must be saved” (vs. 12). Salvation may be achieved
only by the authority, approval, sanction, and requirements of Christ.
No one else on the planet has any
right or authorization to extend salvation to anyone.
“In the name of ” frequently is used in Scripture as a parallel
expression to “by what power/authority.” Hans Bietenhard noted that the
formula “in the name of Jesus” means “according to his will and
instruction” (1976, 2:654). In Acts 4:7, therefore, “[n]ame and
‘power’…are used parallel to one another” (2:654). Vine said “name” in
Colossians 3:17 means “in recognition of the authority of ” (1966, p.
100; cf. Perschbacher, p. 294). Moulton and Milligan said that “name”
refers to “the authority of the person” and cited Philippians 2:9 and
Hebrews 1:4 as further examples (p. 451). Observe carefully: “Therefore
God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the
name which is above every name, that at
the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth”
(Philippians 2:9-10, emp. added; cf. Ephesians 1:21). This is precisely
what Jesus claimed for Himself when He issued the “Great Commission” to
the apostles: “All
authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18, emp. added). Paul’s reference to the
name of Jesus was a reference to the
authority and jurisdiction
of Christ. Jesus’ name being above every name means that His authority
transcends all other authority. As Findlay explained: “ ‘The name of the
Lord Jesus’ is the expression of his
authority as ‘Lord’ ” (Spence and Exell, 1958, p. 155, emp. added). A.T. Robertson cited the use of
onoma in Matthew 28:19 as another example where “name” “has the idea of ‘the authority of ’ ” (1934, p. 740).
After Moses presented God’s demands to Pharaoh, he returned to the Lord
and complained that Pharaoh’s reaction was retaliatory: “For since I
came to Pharaoh to speak
in Your name, he has done evil to this people” (Exodus 5:23, emp. added). For Moses to speak
in God’s name meant to speak
only those things that God wanted said. After healing the lame man, Peter explained to the people: “And
His name…has
made this man strong” (Acts 3:16, emp. added). He meant that it was
Christ’s authority and power that achieved the healing. Likewise, when
Paul became annoyed at the condition of the demon possessed slave girl,
he declared: “I command you
in the name of Jesus Christ to come
out of her” (Acts 16:18, emp. added). He, too, meant that he had
Christ’s backing and authorization to do such a thing.
So when Paul stated that everyone is obligated to speak and act “in the
name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17), he was indicating that all
human conduct must be conformed to the directives of Jesus Christ.
Everything a person says or does must have the prior approval and
sanction of God. Writing in 1855 from Glasgow, New Testament scholar
John Eadie well summarized the thrust of Colossians 3:17: “It…strictly
means—
by his authority, or generally, in recognition of it. To speak in His name, or to act in His name, is to speak and act not to His honour, but
under His sanction and with the conviction of His approval” (1884, 4:249, emp. added).
OLD TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATIONS
This biblical principle has enormous implications. No human being has the
right
to introduce into religious practice an activity for which the
Scriptures provide no approval. We human beings are simply not free in
God’s sight to fashion religion and morality according to our own
desires. Cain learned that the hard way when he did not offer the
precise sacrifice that God had designated (Genesis 4:5-7; Hebrews 11:4; 1
John 3:12). The lives of Nadab and Abihu were snuffed out by God
because of what they viewed as a minor adjustment in their offering
(Leviticus 10:1-2). They were the right boys, at the right time and
place, with the right censers, and the right incense—but the wrong fire.
This deviation from God’s precise specifications was “unauthorized” (
NIV) fire “which He had not commanded them” (
NKJV). The change failed to show God as
holy and give Him the
respect He deserves (Leviticus 10:3).
Saul was rejected by God when he presumed to offer a sacrifice he was
not authorized to offer (1 Samuel 13:8-14). He was censured a second
time for making slight adjustments in God’s instructions (1 Samuel
15:22-23). He lost His crown and the approval of God. Justifying his
adjustments on the grounds that he was merely attempting to be
“culturally relevant” would not have altered his status in God’s sight.
Uzzah was struck dead simply because he touched the ark of the
covenant—though his apparent motive was to
protect the ark (2
Samuel 6:6-7). David admitted that they had deserved the Lord’s
displeasure because they were not seeking God “after the due order” (1
Chronicles 15:13; cf. Numbers 4:15; 7:9; 10:21). In other words, God had
given previous information concerning proper or
authorized
transportation of the ark, but these instructions were not followed.
Their handling of the ark was not done “in the name of the Lord,” in
that they did it
their way instead of according to the
divine prescription.
Notice that these cases involved people who were engaged in
religious activities. These people were religious. They were not pagans, skeptics, or atheists. They were attempting to worship the
one true God. They were
believers!
Yet their failure to comform precisely to divine instructions elicited
the disapproval of God for the simple reason that their actions were not
authorized.
NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATIONS
The New Testament illustrates this principle repeatedly. Authority
begins with God. He delegated authority to Jesus (Matthew 28:18; John
5:27). Only Jesus, therefore, has the authority to define and designate
the parameters of human behavior in general, and religious practice in
particular. Consequently, no human being on Earth has the right to do
anything without the prior approval of Christ. John said that those who believe on Christ’s
name (i.e., those who accept His
authority) have the
power or right to become children of God. In other words, faith is a necessary prerequisite that gives a person divine
authority to become a child of God. All other human beings, i.e., unbelievers, lack divine sanction to become children of God.
A Roman centurion, an officer who commanded one hundred men, understood
the principle of authority. He said to Jesus: “For I also am a man
under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’
and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant,
‘Do this,’ and he does it” (Matthew 8:9). This centurion recognized that
individuals who are subject to the authority of a higher power must
receive
permission for everything they do. They must conform themselves precisely to the will of their superior.
Even the religious enemies of Jesus understood and acknowledged the
principle of authority. One day when Jesus was teaching in the temple,
the chief priests and elders confronted Him with this question: “By what
authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority”
(Matthew 21:23). Commenting on the use of the term “authority” in this
passage, Betz noted that the Pharisees used the term
exousia to
refer to “the power to act which given as of right to anyone by virtue
of the position he holds” (1976, p. 601). They were asking, in essence,
“Who was it that conferred upon you this authority which you presume to
exercise? Was it some earthly ruler, or was it God himself?” (Spence and
Exell, 1961, 15:321). Even these religiously warped opponents of our
Lord at least grasped correctly the concept that
one must have prior approval from a legitimate authoritative source
before one can advocate religious viewpoints. As Williams noted: “No
one could presume to teach without a proper commission: where was his
authorization?” (quoted in Spence and Exell, 1961, 15:320). If Jesus
agreed with the majority of religionists today, He would have said,
“What do you mean ‘by what authority’? God doesn’t require us to have
authority for what we do in religion as long as we do not violate a
direct command that forbids it, and as long as one is sincere.”
But Jesus was not in sympathy with today’s permissive, antinomian
spirit. In fact, His response to the Jewish leaders showed that He fully
agreed with the principle of authority. He proceeded to show them that
His teaching was
authorized by the same source that authorized
the teaching of John the Immerser. Yet, these hardhearted religious
leaders rejected John and, by implication, his source of authority. So
neither would they accept Jesus Who received His authority from the same
source (i.e., heaven). In any case, both Jesus and His enemies agreed
that
one must have God’s prior permission for what one advocates in religion.
What did Peter mean when he wrote, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as
the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11)? He meant that whatever a person
advocates in religion must be found in God’s Word. But everyone knows
that baby dedication services, handclapping, instrumental music, choirs,
praise teams, the worship of Mary, non-weekly observance of the Lord’s
Supper, and church raffles are not authorized by God’s Word. Thus, their
use violates the principle of authority—failing to “speak as the
oracles of God.”
What did Paul mean when he wrote, “...that you may learn in us not to
think beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6)? He meant that
whatever we do in religion, first must be found in the Scriptures. But
everyone knows that “sacred drama,” swaying arms, and religious
observance of Christmas and Easter are not found in scripture. Their use
violates the principle of authority—thinking and going “beyond what is
written.”
ILLUSTRATIONS FROM SECULAR SOCIETY
Interestingly enough, even secular society acknowledges the principle
of authority. The average American citizen will walk into a restaurant
and see two doors. The first door has the word “Restrooms” on it, while
the second door has the words “Authorized Personnel.” These messages are
immediately interpreted to mean that the customer has authority to
enter the door that reads “Restrooms,” while he or she is not permitted
to enter the other door. In fact, one instantly knows that no
authority exists to enter the second door—even though the sign does not
explicitly command the customer
not to enter the door. The sign does not indicate who may
NOT enter. It only specifies who
may enter—who has
permission or authority
to enter. The customer is under obligation to use reasoning powers, and
to deduce that he or she has no authority to pass through the second
door.
Entering the first door, the customer encounters two additional doors.
The first door has a stick figure of a woman on it, while the second
door has a stick figure of a man. Once again, the customer is expected
to understand that only women are authorized to enter the first door,
and only men have permission to pass through the second door—
though the word "only" does not appear.
People fathom the principle of authority so easily and so thoroughly
that they can ascertain what they may or may not do even from
pictures—stick figures! But when it comes to the Christian religion and
those who wish to broaden the parameters of God’s Word, recognition of
the principle of authority is set aside in exchange for irrational,
emotional desire to do what one
wants to do.
When a person purchases a new vacuum cleaner or a new car, the product
comes with a factory warranty. This warranty provides the customer with
free repair service for the specified warranty period. However, should a
malfunction occur, the customer is instructed to take the product to a
“Factory Authorized Representative.” Failure to do so will void the
warranty. Does the average person understand the principle of authority
in this case? Of course she does. She understands that the manufacturer
has given prior approval to a select group of repairpersons that is
authorized to repair the product. She understands that she has
authority/permission to take the product to any of those places, but that she is
not authorized
to take the product anywhere else—even though other repairpersons are
not specifically singled out as unacceptable repairpersons.
When a person enters the hospital for surgery, he or she signs a
document authorizing the physician to operate on the patient. What would
you think of a doctor, whom you have authorized to perform surgery on
you, if he were to go out into the waiting room where, say, your child
is awaiting your return, and commence to operate on your child? In
addition to thinking he may be mentally ill, you would protest his
lack of authority for his action. What if he justified his action by insisting that
you did not specifically forbid
his performing surgery on your loved one? Neither you—nor the medical
and legal professions—would put up with such nonsense. Why? Normal
people understand and live by the principle of authority. But religion
is different. Nonsense and abnormality seem to have become the order of
the day.
What if your doctor wrote you a prescription for antibiotics, and you
took the prescription to the pharmacist, who then filled the
prescription by giving you the antibiotic—laced with strychnine? Upon
reading the label, you would immediately protest the pharmacist’s action
and demand an explanation. Would the pharmacist be considered in her
right mind if she offered as her explanation, “The doctor did not say I
was
not to give you the poison. I interpreted his silence to be
permissive”? What if she insisted: “The doctor’s command neither
prescribes nor prohibits strychnine”? Yet proponents of instrumental
music insist that “New Testament commands to sing neither prescribe nor
prohibit instrumental music.”
Their statement is precisely parallel to: “The doctor’s command to give antibiotic neither prescribes nor prohibits strychnine.”
Suppose you send your child to the grocery store to purchase a gallon
of 2% milk and a 1 lb. loaf of wheat bread. He returns with a gallon of
2% milk, a 1 lb. loaf of
white bread, and a box of Twinkies™. Do
you pat him on the head and compliment him for his faithful obedience?
Do you praise him for his effort and sincerity? Or do you challenge his
behavior as being
unauthorized? What if he justifies his actions by insisting that
you said nothing
about the purchase of white bread and Twinkies? Those who seek to
justify instrumental music in worship declare: “You can’t open your
Bible and show me where God forbids it.” So what if your child hands you
the written note you sent to him and declares: “You can’t open your
note and show me where you forbade it.” No, both you and he would know
that he had engaged in unauthorized behavior. He did not have your
permission to purchase white bread or Twinkies—even though you did not specifically forbid it.
When you place an order at a drive through window of a fast food
restaurant, you expect them to conform to your instructions precisely,
neither adding to nor subtracting from your order. Suppose at the
speaker, you order a Chicken Sandwich Combo on a wheat bun, with waffle
fries, and a large Diet Lemonade. You then pull forward to the window
and the cashier says, “That will be $435.87,” as she and her co-workers
begin handing bag after bag of food to you, bags that contain large
quantities of every food item on the menu. You would immediately ask her
to stop, and you would insist that you did not order all that food.
What would you think if she responded: “You did not order a Chicken
Sandwich Combo on a wheat bun, with waffle fries, and a large Diet
Lemonade
ONLY. You did not
forbid us
to give you additional food.” You would think this person is either
joking—or crazy. The restaurant workers receive authority from you based
on
what you say to them—not based on what you do
not say. You do not give them authority for their actions on the basis of your
silence. You authorize them by your
words,
your instructions, your directions. If they go beyond the parameters of
your words—though you do not specifically forbid such actions—they are
proceeding
without your authority. So it is with our
relationship with God and His Word (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 5:32; 12:32;
Joshua 1:7; Proverbs 30:6). God instructed us to worship Him by singing.
He did not instruct us to worship Him by playing. Hence, to worship
with instruments is to worship God without His approval.
AUTHORITY FOR EVERYTHING?
But does that mean that we must have authority for
everything we do in religion?
Everything?
What about the many things we do that the Bible does not mention? For
example, where is our authority for church buildings, pews, lighting,
carpet, television programs, songbooks, and communion trays?
Consider the case of Noah. He was instructed by God to construct a
large wooden boat. God’s instructions included such details as
dimensions, type of wood, a door and window, and decks (Genesis
6:14-16). The principle of authority applied to Noah in the following
fashion. He was authorized to build a boat, but not authorized to build
an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., car, plane, or balloon). He
was authorized to make the boat out of wood, but not authorized to make
it out of some other material (e.g., plastic, steel, or fiberglass). He
was authorized to use “gopher wood,” but not authorized to use some
other kind of wood (e.g., oak, poplar, or pine). He was authorized to
utilize whatever tools and assistance were necessary to comply with
God’s command (e.g., hammers, nails, saws, hired help).
Consider the Great Commission. God commanded His emissaries to “Go”
(Mark 16:15). The Bible describes with approval inspired preachers
going
by a variety of means, including by chariot (Acts 8:31), by rope and
basket (Acts 9:25), on foot (Acts 14:14), and by ship (Acts 16:11).
Gathering together everything in the Scriptures pertaining to this
matter, it becomes clear that the mode of transportation was
optional.
Therefore, the Bible interpreter is forced to conclude that every mode
is authorized today (including, for example, television) as long as it
does not violate some other biblical principle (e.g., the principle of
stewardship).
This process of gathering biblical evidence and drawing only warranted
conclusions is divinely mandatory for every human being (see 1
Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). We are under obligation to weigh the
biblical data on every subject, and conclude only what God wants us to
conclude. [For concise, definitive analyses of the principle of
authority, see Warren, 1975; Deaver, 1987].
The Bible enjoins upon us the act of assembling together for worship
(e.g., Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 5:4; 11:17-18; Hebrews 10:25). But it is
physically impossible for a plurality of individuals to assemble
together without an assembly place. To obey the requirement to assemble,
one must assemble
somewhere. We have approved instances of the
early church assembling together in a third-story room (Acts 20:8-9), in
private residences, as well as in non-private settings (1 Corinthians
16:19; 11:22; cf. Acts 20:20). We are forced to conclude that the
location is
optional and authorized, as long as it does not
violate other biblical principles (cf. John 4:21). Hence, the Scriptures
authorize church buildings and the necessary furnishings (e.g., carpet,
chairs, electricity, air conditioning, lights, restrooms, indoor
plumbing, microphones, drinking fountains).
The same may be said of songbooks. Christians are commanded to sing
(Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), and to worship in an orderly manner
(1 Corinthians 14:40). God wants us to sing the same song together (as
opposed to singing different songs at the same time). Ways to comply
with these stipulations would be to use songbooks, sheet music, or
projectors that give the entire assembly access to the same song at the
same time. Therefore, all such tools are
authorized as expedient ways to comply with the command to sing.
Instrumental music in worship is not authorized. While some people may
think it qualifies as an expedient—an aid to their singing—it does not.
It may drown out their singing, or so overshadow their singing that they
think it sounds better, but in actuality a musical instrument merely
supplements singing. It is
another form of music
in the same way that seeing and hearing are two distinct ways of
perceiving. Seeing does not aid hearing; it supplements one form of
perception/observation with another.
Singing with the voice and
playing on
a mechanical instrument are two separate ways of making music. Singing
is authorized because the New Testament enjoins it (Ephesians 5:19;
Colossians 3:16). God has told us
He wants us to sing. Instrumental music is not authorized—not because Ephesians and Colossians exclude it or don’t mention it—but because
no New Testament passage enjoins it.
Nowhere does God inform us that He desires that we play on an
instrument to Him. To do so is to “add to His words” (Proverbs 30:6) and
to “go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
The Lord’s Supper is to be eaten when the church is assembled for
worship (Matthew 26:29; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20). God wants each
worshipper to partake of both the bread and the grape juice. How may
this be accomplished? Containers or trays are necessarily
required—unless grapes are hand carried to each person who would then
squeeze the juice into his or her own mouth. We do have the account of
Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper and apparently using a single cup.
However, the context makes clear that the container was
incidental—representing a figure of speech known as “metonymy of the
subject,” in which the container is put for the contained (Dungan, 1888,
p. 279). The content of the cup—the juice—was what they were to drink,
and upon which they were to reflect symbolically. We are forced to
conclude that the manner of distribution of the elements of the Lord’s
Supper is
authorized as optional.
CONCLUSION
Every single facet of our behavior, in and out of worship, may be
determined in the same way. God so requires. He expects us to give heed
to His Word, studying it carefully and consistently in order to know how
to live life in harmony with His will. For true Christianity to be
practiced, we must be true to God’s directions. We must be faithful to
the book. Indeed, for Jesus to be the “Lord of my life” 24-7, I must
ascertain
His will in every decision of my life.
Hezekiah “did what was good and right and true before the Lord his God”
(2 Chronicles 31:20). To what do the words “good,” “right,” and “true”
refer? The next verse explains: “And in every work that he began in the
service of the house of God, in the law and in the commandment, to seek
his God, he did it with all his heart” (2 Chronicles 31:32). Hezekiah
was faithful to God, doing what was good, right, and true—in the sense
that
he obeyed precisely the law and commandment of God, and did so from the heart (cf. John 4:24).
Many churches that claim to be Christian have introduced into their
belief and practice all sorts of activities, programs, and practices
that have no basis in scripture—i.e., no indication from God that He
approves. Upon what basis are these innovations justified? “Well, it
meets our needs”; “It gets more people involved”; “It brings in lots of
people”; “It generates enthusiasm”; “It allows us to get things done”;
“We really like it”; “It stimulates interest”; “It keeps our young
people’s attention”; “It creates a warm, accepting environment”; "it is a
good mission strategy." It is absolutely incredible that so many
Christians could drift so far from biblical moorings. However, their
failure to recognize the principle of Bible authority will not exempt
them from God’s disfavor (1 Samuel 13:13).
When all is said and done, when we’ve gone through all the
rationalizing as to why we do what we choose to do in religion, we still
are faced with whether what we do is, in fact, in accordance with God’s
instructions. By definition, being
faithful to God entails
conformity to divine directives—right doing (1 John 3:7; Acts 10:35).
When one “transgresses (i.e., goes ahead), and does not abide in the
doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9), he becomes
unfaithful and removes
himself from the benefits of God’s grace (2 Peter 2:20-22; Hebrews
10:26-31; Galatians 5:4). Remaining within the grace and favor of God is
dependent upon our compliance with the all-important, God-ordained
principle of authority.
Must we conform ourselves to
the name of Christ? That is, in
order to be saved, must I have His prior approval, His sanction, His
authorization, for everything I do in religion? Listen to Peter: “Nor is
there salvation in any other, for there is
no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
REFERENCES
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Betz, Otto (1976), “
exousia,”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Bietenhard, Hans (1976), “
onoma,”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Deaver, Roy (1987),
Ascertaining Bible Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House).
Dungan, D.R. (1888),
Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Eadie, John (1884),
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1982 reprint),
Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Perschbacher, Wesley, ed. (1990),
The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Robertson, A.T. (1934),
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Spence, H.D.M. and J.S. Exell, eds. (1958 reprint), “Colossians,”
The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Spence, H.D.M. and J.S. Exell, eds. (1961 reprint), “St. Matthew,”
The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint),
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Warren, Thomas B. (1975),
When Is An “Example” Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
