on our hearts, that the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week would transform how we think about not only our weeks, but particularly each Sunday as we gather to be nourished for him and his class, that he would help us as he presents his research today, that we would be edified by it. And so this research would be used not only for his undergraduate grades, but also for the benefit of the local body. I pray this in Jesus' name. Good morning. So I was, like Ryan said, here last semester. Came weekly. Really enjoyed coming here to grace you. You're a great congregation. I really enjoyed worshiping with you for the whole semester. But like Ryan said, this is my senior thesis that I did to graduate from the Religious Studies Department. And what I did is try to solve what a lot of people and some scholars see as a contradiction with our scriptures. And so some of these secular scholars try to tell us that the Bible contradicts itself. As Christians, we know that isn't true. But it's also nice to be able to show this with scripture. So these accusations don't really account for the fluidity of language. And what I'm going to be doing is telling you guys a little bit about a Greek word that both men use, both saints use as justification. So first, I'm going to define terms and tell you what I mean by justification. Justification, what I mean is the divine declaration that changes the legal status of a sinner from guilty to not guilty based on the work done by Jesus Christ. And I'm arguing Partly, this is by faith alone. That's one of my presuppositions, is that it is fully by faith alone. The scriptures support this. So what I'm going to be doing is examining two verses that are very similar to each other. They seem like they would contradict each other if they're taken out of context. And one is from Paul, and the other is from James. So to compare the texts, Romans 3, 28, Paul's letter to the Romans says, for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of love. And James 2.24, James is writing to the 12 tribes of Israel. He says, you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And this has been hard for some Christians. It was hard for me when I first saw it, because one of our battle cries, so to speak, is by faith alone is salvation. And one of the only instances of scripture that we see faith alone is where it says, not by faith alone. So what we need to do, most importantly, is look at the context. But what I'm going to be arguing is that the word for justified was not a monolithic term. It wasn't systematically used to describe one area. The doctrine was present. The doctrine of justification, a man is declared righteous by God by faith alone, that was present. But different authors in the scriptures used the word for justification in a couple of different ways. And I'll get to the different ways that we see the scriptures use this word. But first, I'm going to tell you a little bit about this guy Clement of Rome. So Clement of Rome is one of the earliest fathers of the church that we have after the writing of the New Testament. He wrote at the end of the first century. There may be a text earlier that dedicates a liturgical book, so it doesn't really deal with justification. But Clement of Rome wrote one letter to the Corinthian church. And I know we're going through First Corinthians now as a sermon series. But the Corinthians messed up again and they expelled their elders from the church. So Clement had to write to them and tell them that they messed up. So Clement was a presbyter of the Roman church. Roman Catholics consider him to be the fourth pope, although looking at the letter, he writes as a we and not an I, so it's more likely that it was a council of elders. like I said, one epistle to the Corinthian Church, and he's the earliest post-New Testament writer to use the word for justified, which is the kaia'o. And so here's my claim, that in light of the discussion of justification by Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthian Church, it is evident that James' discussion of justification in his epistle to the 12 tribes does not contradict the Apostle Paul's views. So what I'm going to do for this is I'm going to look through a few texts, two texts by Clement, and Clement is going to use justify dakaio in two different ways, and by that I'm going to prove that dakaio was a fluid term, not a standardized term, if that makes sense, in the early church. The concept was the same, like I said, but the term itself was used for a couple different things. So first, what I want to show is that words are flexible, like I said. One of the perfect examples for this is in the epistle of 1 John. John uses the word kosmos for world, and he uses that a couple different times within just five chapters. He uses that to just represent Gentiles. He uses that to represent the entire population of the world. He uses that to represent the worldly way of life and also unbelievers. So we can see that in Greek as well as in English, to some extent, words are determined extraordinarily by their context. So first I'm going to show you some of the different ways that we see Dikaiotu used in scripture. You may see that I have Old Testament references up there and you may say the Old Testament is written in Hebrew. Why is there a Greek word there? The Old Testament was translated into Greek around the first century, second century BC, this is called the Septuagint, and it's because Greek basically became the standard language at the time as Alexander the Great spread his Greek empire. And this came to Israel eventually, and so they translated it into Greek. And most of the New Testament writers use this translation or translations when they quote the Old Testament. So, it can be used to mean the taking up of a legal cause. We see this in Isaiah 117. He says, learn to do good, seek justice, reprove the ruthless. Defend the orphan and plead for the widow. Plead for is the term dicaeato. The pronunciation of a favorable verdict. This is what we mean by a declared righteousness. This is the term that we mean by justified. We see that in Deuteronomy 25.1. If there is a dispute between men and they go to court and the judges decide their case and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked and it continues, then they will be blessed. The third term is for a release of an institutional claim. And we can see that in Acts 1339. Through him, everyone who believes is freed from all things from which you could not be freed through the law of Moses. And then the last one is what I'm arguing that James uses, which is a demonstration of righteousness. And it's most clearly given here in 1st Timothy 3, 16, where it's talking about Jesus Christ. He who was revealed in the flesh was vindicated in the spirit. And so we know that the second term or even the third or first or third can't be used because Jesus Christ as a sinless man committed no sin and did not need to be declared righteous. He was righteous. And so we see that he's properly listed as proven righteous. He displayed evidential works through the power of the Spirit. And in my paper, I defend some of these terms. Some people attack them. And if you're interested in getting deeper in that, then I'd love to answer your questions later. But we don't have time for that right now. So first, I'm sorry. I'm going to break a huge PowerPoint rule and put a block of text on there. So first I'm going to read 1 Clement 30 to you, and then we're going to see how Clement uses justified. He says, seeing then that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all things that pertain to holiness, forsaking slander, disgusting and impure braces, drunkenness and rioting and detestable lusts, abominable adultery, detestable pride, for God, it says, resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander. being justified by works and not by words. For it says, the one who speaks much shall hear much in reply. What does a talkative person think that he is righteous? Blessed is the one born of woman who has a short life. Do not be overly talkative. Let our praise be with God and not from ourselves, for God hates those who praise themselves. Let the testimony to our good deeds be given by others as it was given to our forefathers who were righteous. Boldness and arrogance and audacity are for those who are cursed by God. But the graciousness and humility and gentleness are with those who are blessed by God. So as you can see here, it looks like that Clement himself is contradicting the Apostle Paul. He says we're justified by works and not by words. But as I'm going to keep saying, context is key. It's going to keep telling us what these guys mean. And in fact, to relieve maybe some of your worries a few chapters from now, he's going to say justified by faith only and not by works. So the author begins this section by exhorting the Corinthian church to live in a degree of holiness because they're in the Holy One's possessions. Therefore, they must be watchful to do things pertaining to holiness. And Clement ends his list of sins with the testable pride and then proclaims the truth that God despises pride but loves humility. He exhorts the Corinthian church to clothe themselves with righteousness, saying, let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words. And so should the coyote be translated there as being declared righteous, then this would indeed say that we are made righteous because we do good things. But context is key. To get the context, we can go a little further into the next chapter, where Clement concludes his passage by exhorting the Corinthians to let their praise and attestation of their good deeds be from God and other men, not from themselves. So he says, let our praise be with God and not from ourselves, for God hates those who praise themselves. Let the testimony to our good deeds be given by others, as it was given to our forefathers who were righteous. So this series of verses shows that Clement is discussing demonstrating yourself to other people. and I argue not God's declarative action that the person is righteous. So Clement ends his chapter and begins the next by further clarifying what he means. He says, boldness and arrogance and audacity are for those who are cursed to God, but graciousness and humility and gentleness are with those who are blessed by God. Let us therefore cling to his blessing and let us investigate what are the pathways of blessing. Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning. And here he's going to go and talk about Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and these verses he asserts that there are certain types of people, either people who are blessed by God or people who are cursed by God. So then he goes into the next section, how is a person blessed by God? And notice he separates that from being justified by works. So in chapter 31, Clement discusses the faith of the Old Testament saints who attained this blessedness. And I don't have it up there, but he says, why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he attained righteousness and truth through faith? So it's clear from this text that Abraham attained righteousness and truth through faith. Ex Clement talked about Isaac going up to the altar of sacrifice by confidence, and Jacob left his homeland with humility. And so God blessed all of these patriarchs through their inward characteristics, faith, confidence, humility, and not by the actions that they completed. Clement continues into chapter 32. to discuss why faith-based salvation is a reality for the Corinthian church. And considering this blessedness by faith in chapter 31 and in a demonstrative context in chapter 30, I think the assertion that Clement in chapter 30 is talking about a demonstrated righteousness stance, especially after looking at chapter 32 here. All the Old Testament saints, therefore, were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or through their own works or the righteous actions that they did, but through his will. And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning to whom be the glory forever and ever, amen. And so, right off the bat, it seems like Clement is contradicting himself. And when I first read through Clement, I was confused by this as well. And he's actually the person who inspired me to seek this reconciliation, so-called reconciliation at least. So, like I said, the first point that appears here seems like it's a blatant contradiction between this and Chapter 30. But if Clement would contradict himself, why would he do so within paragraphs of himself? So I think one of the proofs here is that it shows how fluid words are, even to the early church writers. So these verses only contradict one another if they're read separately and interpreted at face value. But when they're read together, they not only complement each other, but also help give a possible solution to the James and Paul dilemma. So when Clement uses the kaia'o in this, he's referring to a declared righteousness, like I just argued. And not only for the New Testament saints, but also for the Old Testament saints. Just like we know from Genesis 15, 6, Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, which is the same verse we'll see Paul and James use. And so it's interesting to note that faith is a tool by which God saves through Jesus Christ, and that it's not through works just like he says here. So, going on to the Apostle Paul. We're going to talk about Romans 3, 20 through 30. And I'll read this real quick. Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe, for there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God, he passed over the sins previously committed. For the demonstration, I say, of his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works as law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. So the first thing that most people argue when looking at Romans 3.28, we maintain that man is justified by faith apart from works of the law. People who affirm a works-based salvation, like several denominations, argue that works of the law here does not refer to the entirety of the Mosaic law. It doesn't refer to the moral law. They say it refers to ceremonial laws that we don't hold anymore, circumcision or some of the feast days or ritual cleansings that the Jews used to do. But we can see in the previous chapter, chapter two, that Paul is speaking to the Jews once more. And he's telling them, basically, that they don't stand up. They don't hold up to the law. He tells them to honor thy mother and father from Exodus 20, 12. He says what he means by this phrase in Romans 3, 20, though, more clearly. Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin. So it's impossible for Paul here to be talking about a ceremonial law because circumcision does not tell us that it's wrong to dishonor your mother and father. It doesn't tell us it's wrong to murder. The ceremonial law doesn't tell us that it's wrong to commit adultery. So the only logical conclusion for Paul using works of the law here would be to talk about the moral law. And so that would be at odds with saying that Faith does not save here. This isn't really the passage that was controversial at all. Most people, at least in our camp, agree with this interpretation of the passage. And so I'd like to spend more time on James, actually, just to make sure I don't run out of time. And so I argue this is the one that Paul was using. A favorable verdict. I declared righteousness. A lot of order here. Okay. So let's look at the passage that has troubled us a little bit. It even troubled our great forefather Martin Luther to an extent, although I think he reconciled it in the end. But he says here, James says, what use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, go in peace, be warmed and be filled, and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so, faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, you have faith and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one, you do well. The demons also believe in shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac, his son, on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected. And the scripture was fulfilled, which says, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. And he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. So, James begins this section by posing a question. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but has no works? Can that faith save him? Thomas Manton, in his commentary on James, he's a Reformed fellow, states that James' word choice is notable. He does not say, what use is it if someone has faith, but has no works. James uses the phrase, says he has faith. To note that this claim is not necessarily a reality, this person just proclaims to have faith, which is something many people do. So, James... Also notes that this is a particular type of faith. We see, can that faith save him? The faith that he says he has. Can that faith save him? This is noted by the definite article in Greek, which is talking about a particular item. And the one in context is a faith that does not have works. So, next he gives an example of sinful behavior. And after submitting to sin, he again says that faith cannot save anyone if it's not accompanied by works, it's dead. It's important to pay attention to the following verse because it will set up the type of dikayo, the type of justified that James intends to use. He says, but someone may well say, you have faith and I have works. Show me your faith without the works and I will show you my faith by my works. So James quotes an imaginary opponent here, or possibly a real opponent, who questions what he's saying. And the opponent doesn't seem to understand the connection between faith and works. And so in response, James challenges the opponent to show his faith without having works. And so the point of this passage is that works are evidence displaying a true faith. In the Greek, James wrote, kagosoi dexo ecton ergon mu chaen piston. So he uses the word ek here, is the only reason I mention the Greek, to demonstrate agency. And so the works he shows here are his faith. And so this phrase is essential to understanding why James uses the term that he did later for justified. But like Paul and many other Jews, or now Christian, James proceeds to use Abraham as an example of the rule of faith. So he says, was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac, his son, on the altar? This is the first instance that James uses Dakaio in his epistle. And you can see why determining the definition is crucial, because this seems to just blatantly contradict Paul. especially in light of what seems to be a clear interpretation of Romans 3. And so when comparing James and Paul, it's important to understand their intentions. James White, a Christian scholar, points out that Paul speaks of justification before God. We see that in Galatians 3.11 or in his site in Romans 3.20. But in the context of James, it's a Greek phrase, dexon moi, which is show me. show me, meaning that James wants to be the recipient of that. So a demonstration of righteousness is the likely usage here, because so far James has demanded that evidence be given for faith. In the context of this passage, James is alluding to God says, now I know that you fear God since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me. And so we wouldn't say that God didn't know beforehand whether he would do this or not, but it was a demonstration that that faith that he already had back in Genesis 15.6 was a reality. And so James next quotes the same verse that Paul quotes in Romans 4. where he talks about Abraham being what we would call justified, and he says, and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. He says that scripture was fulfilled, that Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he was called a friend of God. So now he connects Genesis 22, 12, where he talks about Abraham taking his son up to the altar with the fulfillment of Abraham's earlier belief. So James implores his readers to see that Abraham's faith worked together with his works. Now what's important to note at first is people see that phrase, faith was working with his works, and we think that immediately means justification, especially since We're already on edge because it seems like it contradicted us already. But what's important to do is continue to look at the context. This verse is not saying that Abraham's salvation was brought forth by the perfecting power of works and faith, but the works perfected the faith in Genesis 22-12 that Abraham already had and was justified by in Genesis 15-6. And so James does not indicate in his passage that Abraham's relationship with God was changed after he offered Isaac up, after the works perfected his faith. But to quote James earlier, I will show you my faith by my works. So therefore, as the following verse indicates, Abraham's faith was reckoned as righteousness, not his works. So Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac up. But what justification meant to James must be clarified. And I'm going to argue it means a demonstration of righteousness. It's not as if this work, the work in Genesis 22-12, was the final one in a list of works that deserve righteousness. In that case, the passage could have used similar language and said, Abraham offered up his son and was reckoned to him into righteousness. James does not say that, though. The work simply perfected the faith, as I said earlier, that Abraham had when righteousness was reckoned to him in Genesis 15-6. Nothing in the text indicates that the faith that Abraham had in Genesis 15-6 was not enough to be reckoned to him only that it was perfected later. And so this is the reason why James says the scripture was fulfilled, because Abraham's belief in God and reckoning of righteousness is fulfilled and demonstrated by his offering of Isaac. So, now James offers up the most controversial of his verses. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. So what we must understand here first is that James uses the Greek word dikaio differently. Some scholars, like Douglas Moo, who some of you may have heard of, have tried to reconcile this passage with Paul's theology by saying that the faith James refers to in this verse is still not a real faith, but a dead faith. Even if that were the case, which I don't think it is here, we still have to deal with why it says justified by works. And so that's why it's so crucial to say that Takaya Ohira is not talking about someone's salvation. So let's analyze the word dikayo. The previous phrase used in James 2.18 says, I will show you my faith by my works. And this signals, as through the rest of the passage, I demonstrated righteousness, faith working with his works. And as a result of the works, faith was perfected. All through this passage, he's talking about demonstrating yourself to other people. And he still affirms in 23, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned him into righteousness. So some people think that the most we can do is say that James isn't contradicting Paul, but I think we can do better. I think we can actually say that James is also proclaiming a faith alone salvation in verse 23, as long as we don't conflict the terms with verse 24. So James does not relate to Caiaphas here directly to the crediting of righteousness like Paul does in Romans 4. And so he's talking about a different event in Abraham's life. He's talking about Genesis 22, 12 as being the event of someone's justification while still affirming the reckoned righteousness in Genesis 15, 6. A Lutheran scholar, Dr. David Maxwell, says, James then does not see Genesis 15.6 as the description of Abraham's justification, but he sees justification as the fulfillment of Genesis 15.6. So in a similar manner, Christians nowadays can be justified in Paul's sense of the word when they believe, and they can be justified in James' sense of the word when they accomplish evidential works. Now, we wouldn't preach that and we wouldn't say that because it's important in our systematic theology to accurately define our terms and what they mean. But the authors of scripture, because they don't think in some of the systematized styles that we do, can use words in different ways. And so, we see that it's most likely that James was using the demonstration of righteousness here, vindication. And so in conclusion, we can conclude with a couple different things. One is that we are counted righteous by God when we believe. You see that in Genesis 15, 6, Romans 3, 28, and Romans 5, 1. Abraham believed God. It was reckoned in his righteousness. We see that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law. And therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God. We see here, a true and living faith will always display works. That's an important conclusion for us to come to, because that's the whole point of James's letter, that if we truly have faith, like Christ says, a good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree does not bear good fruit, nor does a good tree bear bad fruit. So, as Christians, living holy lives is the evidence to other believers that we are indeed in fellowship with God and adopted as his children. To see this, it's James 2.24, what we just exegeted. Matthew 7 is the good fruit verse. And Ephesians 2.10, saying that God prepared these works for us to do beforehand. So just as he elected us to salvation and chose us before the foundations of the world, he also elected us to have these evidential works. This also shows us a hermeneutical principle, so just an interpretive principle, how we should be reading scripture and interpreting scripture, that just because an author uses a word one way does not mean that another author will use that word in a different, will not use that word in a different way. being inspired by God still retain distinct styles. They still retain the way they talk about things. And so even though the scriptures are without error, infallible, and all completely inspired by God, each author has a different way to talk about things. And finally, the most important conclusion, the Bible does not contradict itself. Not the most important. I'd say the first one is the most important. But the Bible does not contradict itself. 2 Timothy 3.16 is that the Word of God is breathed out by God, and in Malachi 3.6, the Lord God does not change. So, something from the Confession, just to show that I am not being a heretic. From the first chapter in the scriptures, we proclaim the infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself, and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, which is not manifold but one, it must be searched out by other places that speak more clearly. So when we come to a troubling passage of scripture, What's best to remember is that there's other passages of scripture, too, that we can compare this to. The scriptures do not contradict each other. We know that. And so we come to them knowing that another passage of scripture can easily explain what's less clear in this passage of scripture. Then in chapter 11 on justification, faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness is the alone instrument of justification. Yet it is not alone in the person justified but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces and is no dead faith but worketh by love. So the confession also affirms that a true faith is always gonna be accompanied by works just like James says. And that is the end. Does anybody have any questions? We have a little bit of time left, so. Yes, sir. Yes. Right. There are instances where we are to be judging other people's professions based on their works. And what context would you say that? Well, absolutely. One, our Lord says, you will know a tree by its fruit. He says, judge with righteous judgment. And I can't remember which Corinthian, but one of the Corinthians. Paul says to judge within the body, not outside of the body. So we do know that we should judge other works. What I would say for that is looking at habitual sin. So say I have a brother, and maybe he stumbles once into some really bad anger. I should probably still talk to him a little bit. But if it becomes habitual, that's when I really do talk to him. So we talk to brothers and sisters who we see continuously living in sin. Does that help? Does anybody have any other questions? Yes. Well, depending on, well, what do you mean by that, I guess? Well, how would you... Right. And we have plenty of time. I wonder if you could call this words. But when a person has an intellectual faith, they believe it. They're not ready to surrender. They're not ready to accept the world and to basically do a work of saying, forgive me and accept me and I surrender my life to you. Could that be considered the first rule of words? That, you mean that first faith, the surrender? So I would say that that faith, a faith that is not immediately accompanied by surrender, I would say is not a faith. And I think, just to think of a passage, I can't think of anything else besides James 2. I think James 2 is probably our best passage on that, that even just saying the Jewish Shema is what God is one is. Even saying the most orthodox confession we could say, God is one, still isn't enough if we just say it and not actually believe it, which will cause worse. Jesus addressed that. He said, in verse, you probably are good, but you're not when in your heart you're wrong. Right. Yes. I think something that we talked about a few months ago, I think one of the Sunday schools touches on that a little bit, that our works and works of faith would be considered part of our sanctification. And all that is also monarchistic works of God and not something that is something of ourselves that we're abiding without. It means that Jesus is not born. Any other questions? If you'd like to see some of my discussion on, a lot of people will say that these definitions of the Greek word are not what the secular Greeks would have used. But there's a partial defense of, I would say actually a full defense of that in my paper if anyone would like to be interested in further apologetic material. Well, the biggest pushback was just scholarly tradition. One of my professors is, I was fortunate enough to have two believing professors on my panel, so they were very helpful, but one of them is not a believer, and she was kind of stuck in the, I'm almost certain, I'm absolutely certain he's contradicting, there's no way he can convince me otherwise, kind of mindset. At least that's how she came off. And so the biggest pushback is just against tradition. Mostly the objection that I got had to do actually with the use of the Greek words of one of my believing professors. said that he couldn't figure out where in Greek literature or anywhere else the Greek word for dikaio was used as a declared righteousness to say that someone is innocent. And so I defend that in my paper using the Septuagint, the Old Testament, to say that Jewish literature, which would include the New Testament, if we want to put it under that, translated one of their Hebrew words. I don't know Hebrew, actually, so I can't remember which word it is. But they consistently translate it with the kaiot, and it does refer to a pronunciation of innocence. And so using that, it's most likely that the Christian writers were using Greek terminology, or Jewish terminology as opposed to secular Greek. Any other questions? Let's take a minute and pray for Ben. I'm excited about what he's going to do if he passes my philosophy class.