Divorce and Remarriage: May Both Parties in a Divorce Remarry?

My answer to this question is going to cause some people to jump off my bandwagon. Many Apostolics believe that the "innocent party" may remarry, but the "guilty party" may not remarry. In most cases, terms like "innocent" and "guilty" are are misleading. The Bible does not discuss the MDR question in terms of guilt or innocence. Rather, it discusses MDR in terms of covenant. The concept of covenant brings me to my first question. 

Whom Does A Broken Covenant Release?

For those who do not believe both parties are freed to remarry in divorce I have a question:

• Is a broken covenant still in force? The answer to this question is, "No, it's broken." If it is broken enough for the party who did not break the covenant to remarry without committing adultery, then it must no longer be binding. If the covenant is no longer binding, then what covenant is being violated if either party remarries? The covenant can't be binding for just one party; it's either binding for both or neither. The only biblical answer is that once the covenant has been broken legitimately then both parties are free to remarry. 

In Deuteronomy 24.1-3 the woman in whom the uncleanness was found was free to go be another man's wife after she was put away with a bill of divorce.  She could not be another man's wife just being put away, because there was a covenant still in place. But if she was given a bill of divorce—even though the uncleanness was in her—she was free to remarry. There was no way to release just one party from the covenant. Again: it's both or neither. So the answer to the question about the so-called guilty party remarrying is, "Yes, they can!"

MDR: Easy on Adultery

I was reminded again tonight in a conversation about divorce and remarriage how often people misrepresent the other side. This is going to appear self-serving as I will be pointing out how the other side misrepresents my side. I do this with full awareness that my side does it's fair share of misrepresenting too. Now that we have that out of the way...

I hold the view—as I have for a long time—that there are valid reasons for divorce and remarriage. The no divorce and remarriage advocates equate remarriage after divorce with adultery (Luke 16:18). Consequently, they say about people who allow divorce and remarriage that they allow adultery, they are easy on adultery, or their churches are full of adultery. 

Obviously I find this absurd for several reason, But allow me to flip the table and frame it in the following way. There are scores of women in no remarriage churches who have lived with abusive, serial cheaters for years as a consequence of that doctrine. They tolerate the abuse and cheating with all of its consequences because they think they can never remarry. And in many cases, the cheating husband will continue to cheat because they know the wife won't do anything about it. 

I suggest the view that judges the adulterous spouse by divorcing them is the one being strong against adultery. And the view the makes someone feel like they have to tolerate adultery or live alone is the view that facilitates adultery. That's the view that is more conducive to adultery thriving. 

Admittedly this does not prove one way or the other whether the Bible teaches that a divorced person may remarry. But it is a good response to an extra-biblical argument. 

Not Under Bondage: The Pauline Privilege?

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 KJV

There are two marital demographics that Paul addresses in this text, “the married” and “the rest.” I am going to demonstrate that “the married” refers to marriages where both spouses are believers, and “the rest” refers to marriages where one is a believer and the other is a unbeliever. Paul never explicitly addresses marriages where both are unbelievers, although I believe that he implicitly refers to them in 1Corinthians 7:14.

Unto The Married

An important point to be made at the outset is the audience that Paul is addressing is the Church. The instructions in this text are given to Christians, unless otherwise stated; therefore, are to be understood as regulating marriage within the Church. Let us demonstrate that when Paul says, “unto the married (verse 10),” he is speaking to Christian marriages, and not to marriages of unbelievers or to mixed[1] marriages.

He is writing to those who had written to him (1 Corinthians 7:1). He is writing to people who pray and fast (1 Corinthians 7:5). He is writing what he ordained in all the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17). He is writing to the called in the Lord (1Corinthians 7:22-24). He is writing to the brethren (1Corinthians 7:29). He is writing to those who care for the things of the Lord how they may please and serve him without distraction (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).

These are the people that Paul is writing to in verse 10, namely believers. “The married” cannot be speaking of marriages where one is believer and the other is not. Paul addresses the religiously mixed marriages in verse 12 and calls them “the rest,” and “such case.” I think it is obvious from the context that “the married” are both believers. I am not alone in this understanding as the majority of scholarship also agrees.

““the married,” 1Co_7:10, where both husband and wife are believers”[2]

“in which he has respect to such as were upon equal foot in matters of religion, who were both of them believers in Christ”[3]

“to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10).”[4]

The text as well as these scholars agrees that “the married” refers to marriages where both spouses are believers. The rules that Paul gives concerning equally yoked marriages is: The first rule says, “Let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10b)…and let not the husband put away his wife(1 Corinthians 7:11b).” The second rule says, “let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” This going to be set in contrast to the rules that Paul gives about marriages where one is a believer and the other is an unbeliever.

But to the Rest

What does Paul mean by the phrase, “but to the rest,” and what are the implications? “But to the rest” must refer to the marriages of a believer to an unbeliever. Paul says, “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him (1 Corinthians 7:12-13).”

Notice Paul modifies his language for the unequally yoked marriages. To “the married” he says, “let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10);”however, “to the rest (unequally yoked marriages of a believer to an unbeliever),” he modifies his command to, “if he be pleased dwell let her not leave him (1 Corinthians 7:13).” Paul does not place this qualifier on “the married;” their command is unequivocal, do not depart.

Paul gives a different rule to the equally yoked marriages than he does to the unequally yoked marriages. Evidently Paul and God viewed the two classes of marriages differently and placed different rules on them. It could not be clearer to the open mind that two different rules about departing exist in contrasting these two groups.

Not only did the departing rule differ, but the response rule for if they do depart differed also. For “the married (equally yoked)” the rule is “let them remain unmarried or be reconciled;” however, the rule for “the rest (unequally yoked)” is quite different. Instead of remaining unmarried or be reconciled like “the married,” Paul says the believer is, “not under bondage in such cases.”

The question is, what bondage are the believers, in such case that the unbeliever leaves, not under that the other cases are? The bondage that these deserted believers are not under are exclusive to their case alone. No one else has this particular liberty.

Those that hold to a no exception, or to a fornication only exception view of divorce and remarriage, argue that “not under bondage” does not refer to the marriage bond. They argue that what Paul is saying is that they are not obligated to follow them or make them stay, and that they can let the unbeliever go, but they can’t remarry.

Remember now, whatever “not under bondage” refers to is exclusive to “such cases;” no one else would have this liberty. If I can show that no one is under the bondage of merely cohabitating if they are deserted, then I can prove that “not under bondage” do not mean mere cohabitation.

“The married” of verse 10-11 are also “not under bondage” to cohabitate in any way, because they can also depart or be departed from and “remain unmarried.” So what is the bondage that “the rest…in such cases” are not under that “the married” are under? The only possible answer is “the married” are under bondage to “remain unmarried,” if they divorce; however, “the rest…in such cases” are not under that bondage. That can be the only liberty that this particular circumstance has that is unique to “such cases.”

---

[1] Religiously mixed, not racially mixed.

[2] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

[3] John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

[4] Vincent’s Word Studies, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

Are All Marriages Equally Bound?

DISCLAIMER!!!: THE FOLLOWING POST IS NOT SOMETHING I AM CONTENDING FOR HERE, JUST POSTING IT FOR CONVERSATION. PLEASE COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENT. I WANT PEOPLE TO DISAGREE WITH IT!

1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There has been much discussion about what Paul means by, “the unbelieving husband is SANCTIFIED BY the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.” A number of different views have been forwarded as possibilities. Inherent to each interpretation are necessary implications. The practical implications of a given interpretation must be considered while deciding which position is true.

CLARIFICATION:

1 Corinthians 7:12 KJV

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

One thing that I would like to clarify before engaging this text is the particular type of marriage that is being discussed here. The kind of marriage that is being discussed is one where a husband or wife is converted and the spouse remains unconverted. Paul is not addressing in this text, though it MAY apply, one who is already a saint in the Corinthian church and becomes “unequally yoked together” with an unbeliever.

“If either husband or wife is converted, and the other is not, they must not on this account forsake the unbelieving helpmeet, provided he or she is pleased to remain.”[1]

“This is a new problem, the result of work among the Gentiles…Paul has to deal with mixed marriages as missionaries do today in heathen lands...The Christian husband married his wife when he himself was an unbeliever.”[2]

“He has been speaking to the unmarried (1Co_7:8) and to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10). By the rest he means married couples, one of which remained a heathen.”[3]

“A Christian man, have a wife that believeth not, i.e. who is a heathen, not yet converted to the Christian faith, and she be pleased to dwell with him, notwithstanding his turning Christian since their marriage, let him not put her away because she still continues in her heathen superstition.”[4]

“that is, if any man who is now a brother, one called by the grace of God, and is in church fellowship, has a wife to whom he was married whilst in a state of unregeneracy and infidelity; who is as she was when he married her, entirely destitute of faith in Christ; not one that is weak in the faith, or only makes an outward profession, but that has no faith at all in Christ, nor in his Gospel, not so much as an historical one; who disbelieves, denies, and rejects, the truths of the Gospel:”[5]

“This might move a scruple in many minds, whether converts to Christianity were not bound to put away or desert their mates, continuing infidels.”[6]

Keep this idea in mind as we continue to study through this text. If one concedes that this interpretation is true, it changes and greatly impacts the way the text is viewed.

INTERPRETATION:

What is Sanctification?

The purpose of this blog is to set forth one of the interpretations as a possibility and briefly explore its practical implications. What does “sanctified” refer to? The various views are laid out by Albert Barnes:

“But the expression cannot mean here: (1) That the unbelieving husband would become holy, or be a Christian, “by the mere fact” of a connection “with” a Christian, for this would be to do violence to the words, and would be contrary to facts everywhere; nor, (2) That the unbelieving husband had been sanctified by the Christian wife (Whitby), for this would not be true in all cases; nor, (3) That the unbelieving husband would gradually become more favorably inclined to Christianity, by observing its effects on the wife (according to Semler); for, though this might be true, yet the apostle was speaking of something then, and which rendered their children at that time holy; nor, (4) That the unbelieving husband might more easily be sanctified, or become a Christian, by being connected with a Christian wife (according to Rosenmuller and Schleusner), because he is speaking of something in the connection which made the children holy; and because the word ἁγιάζω hagiazō is not used in this sense elsewhere. But it is a good rule of interpretation, that the words which are used in any place are to be limited in their signification by the connection; and all that we are required to understand here is, that the unbelieving husband was sanctified “in regard to the subject under discussion;” that is, in regard to the question whether it was proper for them to live together, or whether they should be separated or not. And the sense may be, “They are by the marriage tie one flesh. They are indissolubly united by the ordinance of God. As they are one by his appointment, as they have received his sanction to the marriage union, and as one of them is holy, so the other is to be regarded as sanctified, or made so holy by the divine sanction to the union, that it is proper for them to live together in the marriage relation.””[7]

For the reasons listed above Albert Barnes argues that sanctification in this text refers to the sanctification of the marriage bond; the right for this believer and unbeliever to be married. Paul cannot be arguing for personal sanctification in the salvific sense. It appears to me the only possibility is sanctification of the marriage bond.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown says:

“It is the fact of the husband being a “brother,” that is, a Christian, though the wife is not so, that sanctifies or hallows the union.”[8]

JFB also agrees that sanctification refers to the marriage union and not to the individual person of the unbelieving spouse.

It is impossible to read this text without knowing that Paul has in mind Ezra 10:1-3 and the command to put away strange wives. The wives were to be put away solely on the basis that they were heathen. It is important to note that these marriages between Jew and heathen were treated differently than marriages between Jew and Jew. God had command his people not to marry those from other nations (Exedous 34:12-17); therefore the rules of marriage did not apply.

Paul corrects the idea in the church at Corinth that one can put away a spouse solely because they are pagan; however, he too gives a different rule for marriage with two believers than he does marriages where one is a believer and the other is an unbeliever.

Paul says to the married (equally yoked marriages), “let not the wife depart from her husband, but and if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).” Then Paul says, “but to the rest…if any brother hath a wife that believeth not (1 Corinthians 7:12),” he shifts from equally yoked marriages to unequally yoked marriages. To the equally yoked marriages in verses 10 and 11 his instructions are, “let them remain unmarried, or be reconciled.” When addressing the unequally yokes marriages, and the unbeliever deserting the believer, instead of saying, “remain unmarried or be reconciled,” he says, “a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.”

Why the different instructions if God views both marriages equally? Because even though God sanctified the marriage because of the believer, he still views it differently than He does when two believers are married. Why? What is the difference? Why the different rules?

Sanctified, but How?

(1 Corinthians 7:14)

We have clearly demonstrated that there is some sort of difference in God’s eyes between equally yoked and unequally yoked marriages. I suggest to you that the difference is faith. How did sanctification come to the mixed marriage union in 1 Corinthians 7:14? According to the text, sanctification comes “by the believing.”

The unbeliever is “sanctified by” the believer. What does it mean when the Bible uses the phrase “sanctified by?” In every case, whatever the bible says someone or something is sanctified by, it cannot be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT it. “Sanctified by” describes the means through which the sanctification occurs. Let’s Illustrate.

Acts 26:18 KJV To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Could they have been sanctified BEFORE or WITOUT faith? No!

Romans 15:16 KJV That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Could the Gentiles have been sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the Holy Ghost? No!

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Can one be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the name of Jesus and the Spirit of our God? No!

1 Timothy 4:5 KJV For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Could this food have been sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the Word and prayer? No!

Jude 1:1 KJV Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Can sanctification occur BEFORE or WITHOUT God the Father? No!

Now my friends, apply the same principle to 1 Corinthians 7:14. The marriage of unbelievers cannot be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT a believer, because the believer is the means by which the union is sanctified. Marriage without a believer is not sanctified!

Before you insist too heavily that all heterosexual, first marriages are inherently sanctified by God, and are therefore subject to the same rules of marriage, let me remind you of Ezra 10 where marriages were to be put away entirely and solely because an unbeliever/pagan was involved. Ezra 10 and 1 Corinthians 7 proves that God judges marriages that include unbelievers differently and that they have a different set of parameters.

Else Were Your Children Unclean

(1 Corinthians 7:14)

I am not going to spend a lot of time here, but Paul further illustrates my previous point by saying, “else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” “Unclean,” is set in the same context with and in contrast to “sanctified.” Whatever sanctified means, unclean means the opposite. “Sanctified” refers to the marriage union being sanctified in the ceremonial sense, and so “unclean” and “holy” must refer to the ceremonial condition of the children depending on whether the marriage is sanctified or not.

If the marriage is sanctified, then the children are holy; however, if the marriage is not sanctified, then the children are considered unclean (illegitimate). Else, meaning if the union is not sanctified by having a believer in it, the children are illegitimate. The union is sanctified, not because they are legally married. The union is not “ sanctified by the law,” but the union is “sanctified by the believing.” This means that children from a marriage union that is not sanctified by having at least one believer in it are considered unclean.

IMPLICATION:

So, the implication and practical application is that since marriage unions are not sanctified without one of the spouses being a believer, whenever someone comes to Christ and they are divorced for whatever reason they can remarry in the church. A divorced person who becomes a Christian can remarry in the Church regardless of the reason for the divorce, since his faithless marriage was never sanctified.

---

[1] Peoples New Testament, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[2] Roberson’s Word Pictures, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[3] Vincent’s Word Studies, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[4] Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[5] John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[6] Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[7] Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[8] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

Fornication: What Does It Mean? Part 2

In my post, Fornication: What Does It Mean? Part 1, I used sources to prove that in both the English and the Greek fornication includes sexual intercourse by a married person with someone other than his/her spouse. The objection raised by those that hold to a no divorce and remarriage view is that when both adultery and fornication are used in the same text, fornication cannot refer to a sexual act committed by a married person.

In other words, if the word adultery is also used in the text (Matt 19:9), then fornication cannot also refer to adultery. They argue that both words cannot be used in the same text to refer to the same act. This is the point that I want to focus on in this post, and I am going to demonstrate that argument to be false by the scripture.

"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds." Revelation 2:20-22 KJV

In verse 20 John says that Jezebel seduced God's servants to commit "fornication;" yet, in verse 22 it is said that they committed "adultery" with her. Here is a case where both "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the same text and refers to the same act. This verse alone proves their argument wrong.

The same point can be made about Israel, God's wife, in the Old Testament. The reason that God put Israel His married wife (Jer 3:14) away was adultery (Jer 3:8); however, when she went after other nations God called it fornication (Ex 16:26 & 29), and said it was as a wife that commits adultery (Eze 16:32) and breaks wedlock (Eze 16:38). I must also point out that God is married to Israel at this point because she had borne him children (Eze 16:20).

The point is, what Israel did with the cities and nations about her was fornication, but the same act was adultery against God. Is was fornication with the nations because she was not in covenant with, but it was adultery against God because she was in covenant (married to, not espoused to) with God.

Apply this same logic to Matt 19:9 and you will understand why both "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the same verse. It is abundantly clear that Matthew 19:9 is referring to the married wife when you read the flow of the text. The wife of Matthew 19:9 is the same wife of Matthew 19:5-6, which all agree is the married wife.

Fornication: What Does It Mean? Part 1

In my experience a great deal of the divorce and remarriage debate centers on the definition of “fornication” in Matthew 19:9. The “no divorce” advocates argue that the use of fornication proves that Matthew 19:9 is addressing espoused (engaged) couples and not married couples. This is based on the idea that fornication can only be committed by a person who has never been married. I think that it is clear from the context of Matthew 19 that is not the case, but let that be as it may, I want to focus on the definition of fornication from both the English and the Greek.

ENGLISH:

“voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.”[1]

It is clear from this definition that fornication is not limited to people who are not married at all, but also to people who are not married to each other, although they may be married to someone. Anytime two people who are not married to each other have sexual intercourse it is fornication. Married people can commit fornication by having sex with someone with whom they are not married.

When a married person has sex outside of their marriage it is both fornication and adultery. It is fornication because they had sex with someone they were not married to, and it is adultery because the sex violated a covenant.

“voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage”[2]

Here fornication is defined as, “voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage.” The question that must be asked is, can a married person have sexual intercourse outside of their marriage? The answer must be yes. If a married person has sex outside of their marriage they have committed fornication.

“sexual immorality in general, esp adultery”[3]

This dictionary includes adultery in its definition of fornication. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery.

GREEK:

The following are quotes from Greek scholars defining fornication. Greek scholarship virtually unanimously includes adultery in the definition of “pornea,” the Greek word for fornication.

“sexual intercourse in general…used of adultery.”[4]

“harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.”[5]

“in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 it stands for, or includes, adultery”[6]

“it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (porneia) which is technically adultery.”[7]

OTHER TRANSLATIONS:

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 ESV

“I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 ISV

“And I say to you, That whoever leaveth his wife not being an adulteress, and taketh another, committeth adultery. And whoever taketh her that is divorced, committeth adultery.” Matthew 19:9 Murdock

“And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.” Matthew 19:9 Webster

“And I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 WNT

“And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.” Matthew 19:9 YLT

CONCLUSION:

It is undeniable from the Greek that fornication includes adultery. It is also certain that the English word fornication is not limited to sex between two people who have never been married, but includes married people who has sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

Matthew 19:9 correctly uses the term fornication as an exception to the divorce and remarriage law, because sex outside of the marriage bond (i.e. fornication) is a valid reason for the innocent person to divorce and remarry.

---

[1] "fornication." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[2] "fornication." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[3] "fornication." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[4] Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 532

[5] James H. Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 364

[6] W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishing), p. 465

[7] Robertson’s Word Pictures, Quoted from E-Sword version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.24.10, http://www.e-sword.net/