Baptism at the End of the Mosaic Covenant
John’s Baptism in water was a preparatory ritual of cleansing repentance made available to the last generation of the circumcised, so they could be made ready to receive the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and escape the Last Judgment in AD 70.
Of Baptism and Covenant Eschatology
The conclusions below are all drawn from my recent critical study on the meaning and purpose of baptism within Covenant Eschatology. The two previous posts on this blog were a prolegomenon of this study, and an excursus of that prolegomenon. The post after this one is an excursus on the the meaning of the words baptize and baptism. All three are recommended reading before this one.
Study Sections
A. Baptism: NT Usage and Terminology.
B. Covenant Eschatology: The Circumcised.
C. Covenant Eschatology: List of Last Things.
D. The Four Last Days Baptisms of the Circumcision.
1. Repentance: John’s water baptism.
2. Commission: The Apostles’ water baptism.
3. Justification: The Apostles’ holy spirit baptism.
4. Judgement: Jesus’ spirit and fire baptism.
E. The Two Inauguration Period Baptisms of the Uncircumcised.
1. Salvation: The Lord’s holy spirit baptism.
2. Confirmatory: Apostles’ pseudo-proselyte water baptism.
A. Baptism: NT Usage and Terminology
In the Greek New Testament, the verb to baptise (baptizō) means “to ritually wash.” The noun baptism (baptisma) refers to the act of “ritual washing.” Therefore, according to NT usage, if a person has been baptised, then he is considered ritually clean.
Moreover, since a baptism is a ritual washing, no empirical standard of hygiene or thoroughness is implied. For this reason, the method of baptism (immersion, aspersion, dousing), or medium of baptism (water, spirit, fire), has no bearing on the action or on its result. That is, regardless of which ritual is undergone, a person can definitively be declared baptised, in the same way as a garment is declared to be dyed, whether tinted in whole or in part, regardless of the dying agent used, or how it was applied.
So, in short, according to NT usage, undergoing the act ascribed (e.g. John’s Baptism of Repentance), by the medium prescribed (water), is how one achieves the state described (penitence). This is the same for NT water baptism, holy spirit1 baptism, or fire baptism.
B. Covenant Eschatology: The Circumcised
The internal time period covered by the New Testament books spans nearly the entire length of the prophesied final days of the Mosaic Covenant, from the Gospel appearances of John the Baptist to the last epistle of Paul, written just a few years shy of the covenant's termination in AD 70. While none of those last couple of years are recorded in the NT, there are prophesies made in the Gospels, and in the book of Revelation, predicting the significant events occurring in them, up to and including the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple. The inauguration period of the New Covenant also begins and ends during the Mosaic Covenant’s last days. That period started immediately after Christ’s Resurrection, and ended along with the Mosaic Covenant in, again, AD 70.
Everyone who had undergone circumcision according to the Law of Moses during these last days makes up the last generation covered under the Mosaic Covenant2 – including Jesus. This Torah-observant demographic is variously called the “circumcision,” the “circumcised”, the “Jews,” even occasionally the “sons of the kingdom” (Mt 8:12; 13:38). It is this last generation who will face the Last Judgement vividly described by Jesus in his “Sheep and Goat” prophecy of Matthew 25 (Mt 25:31–46), and by the Revelator in the “Great White Throne” scene of his Apocalypse (Rv 20:11–15).
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus condemns the unrighteous cohort of this last generation of the circumcised for being “faithless and twisted” (Mk 9:19; Mt 17:17; Lk 9:41); a phrase recalling the accusation of apostasy of Israel from Deuteronomy 32:5. In his Pentecost speech in the second chapter of Acts, Peter calls the same group a “crooked generation” (Ac 2:40). The Apostle Paul, decrying their ethnocentric opposition to the church in Philippi (Pp 1:28; 3:1–3), makes use of the full Deuteronomic phrase, and calls them “a crooked and twisted generation” (Pp 2:15).
The Greek word for “twisted” in these verses is the past participle form of the word diastrephō, meaning either “misled,” “perverted,” or “turned away from,” depending on the context.3 The Greek adjective translated “crooked” is skolios, “a figurative extension … pertaining to being unscrupulous and dishonest.”4 Both diastrephō and skolios are found together in Philippians 2:15 and LXX Deuteronomy 32:5.
C. Covenant Eschatology: List of Last Things
As it is this last generation of the circumcision that will either “inherit the kingdom prepared for [them]” (Mt 25:34), or be held accountable to God for “all the righteous blood shed on earth” (Mt 23:35), and then hurled headlong “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25:41; cf. Rv 20:10), they appear first on the following list of last things relevant to our study.
1. The last generation under the Law of Moses.
2. The last commandment of the Law.
3. The last days of the Mosaic Age.
4. The last prophet of God (John the Baptist, the “Second Elijah”).
5. The last work of the Law (John’s water baptism of repentance, pre-Crucifixion).
6. The last sacrifice (the Crucifixion).
7. The last Day of Atonement for collective sin (a propitiation; see Rm 3:25; He 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10).
8. The last Passover / lamb (Jesus; see Jn 1:29; 1Co 5:7).
9. The last Judgement of God on Israel (AD 70).
10. The last act of mercy (to those who “fear God”).
11. The last call of God to come back to the Law (no more exiles of punishment, “wilderness wanderings”).
12. The last covenant between God and his people (the New Covenant).
D. The Four Last Days Baptisms of the Circumcision
With regards to the last generation of the circumcision, we find a different baptism for each of the four consecutive stages of the end of the Mosaic Age, which I have named Repentance, Commission, Salvation, and Judgement.
1. Repentance: John’s water baptism
John’s Baptism in water was a preparatory ritual of cleansing repentance made available to the last generation of the circumcised, so they could be made ready to receive the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. As mentioned above, Jesus also had to undergo this baptism, because he too was circumcised under the Mosaic Covenant, as was every Jewish boy of his day (Lk 2:22–24). Indeed, as the writer of Hebrews reminds us, “he had to be made like his brothers in every respect” (He 2:17).
Until John’s death, the disciples of Jesus performed John’s baptism on this same generation (Jn 3:22–23, 26; 4:1–2). After John’s death, there are no more mentions of them having anything to do with water baptism until the so-called “Great Commission.” However, in the “Lesser Commission” (Mt 10:1–42), the twelve disciples were sent out to preach, endowed with “authority over unclean spirits … and to heal every disease and every affliction” (Mt 10:1). As with the charismata given at the greater commission (See 3. Salvation: The Apostles’ holy spirit baptism below), these were miraculous sign gifts to confirm to the circumcision that these preachers of the coming kingdom (Mt 10:5–8) were every bit as legitimate as their teacher (Jn 3:2). In this way, the second part of John’s kerygma – following Messiah after baptism – continued to be brought to the circumcised.
While the lesser commissioning does not explicitly mention John’s baptism, given its crucial importance to the mission of the last prophet of the Old Testament, it seems highly improbable that Jesus and his disciples abandoned it without comment, only to later insist on another water baptism in the greater commission.
Just how crucial John’s baptism was in God’s Last Days plan for dividing the last generation of the circumcised into sheep and goats is underscored by Luke, in the seventh chapter of his Gospel (cp. Mt 21:31–32):
Luke 7:28–30
“I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him).
Parenthetically, the Greek phrase translated above as “declared God just” is literally “all the people ... justified God,” an obvious application of the aphorism “Wisdom is justified by all her children,” found six verses later (Lk 7:35). In both of these verses the word justified is the same Greek verb, dikaioō. Disappointingly, of the five popular modern versions I typically use for comparison (ESV, NET, NIV, NKJV, NRSV), only the New King James Version translates the two phrases similarly enough for English-only readers to easily spot the connection. Undoubtedly, this is due to their editorial policy of only changing the more antiquated wording of the venerable, old King James Version, which has justified in both verses.
2. Commission: The Apostles’ water baptism
After the Resurrection, the eleven remaining disciples were commissioned to continue making disciples of the circumcised, and baptising them “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit,” (Mt 28:18–20); which we see later in the NT is the name “Jesus” (Ac 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:4–5; cf. Rm 6:3; Ga 3:27). It must be remembered that the phrase “in the name of” means “by the authority of,” that is, the Lord is authorising the Apostles to carry on the final leg of his own messianic mission; hence the term commission.
However, this time, post-crucifixion, instead of preparing the circumcised to receive the coming atonement through their obedience to the kerygma of John, this new believer’s water baptism of repentance prepares them to receive the atonement of holy spirit baptism through belief in the kerygma of the resurrected Messiah’s apostles (Mt 28:18). By accepting the Apostles’ claim that Jesus is the prophesied Son of Man now ascended to Heaven to receive his everlasting Kingdom (Dn 7:13–14; Ac 7:56), and acknowledging their communal guilt for his execution, those of the circumcision who wish to “save themselves” must now undergo the water baptism of the Son of Man’s Apostles. Only then will they be ritually clean enough to receive the atonement that is holy spirit baptism (Ac 2:40).5
That this water baptism is different to John’s water baptism is clearly seen in the incident in Ac 19, where Paul baptises a dozen Ephesian disciples6 “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” despite their claim to have already undergone John’s baptism of repentance (Ac 19:1–6). So, it would appear that John’s water baptism of repentance for the national sin of spilling “all the righteous blood” (Mt 23:35, 36; Ac 7:52; cf. Josh. 2:19) was now a believer’s water baptism of repentance for the additional national sin of spilling the blood of the righteous Son of God (Mt 27:24–25; Ac 2:23, 36–49; 3:15; 4:10; 5:28; 7:52).
The need for the circumcision to undergo the Apostles’ water baptism before spirit baptism is further explained by Peter in his first epistle, which he wrote to the believing Jewish diaspora of his day (1 Pet 1:1). He tells them that water baptism “now saves you” because it is the way to “appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (3:18). Peter’s “appeal to God to be given a good conscience” is what we modern English-speaking Christians might more typically express as “a prayer for a clean conscience,” that is, an internal purification of our guilt, by God, through the power of his holy spirit. So, in short, what Peter is saying here is that his believer’s water baptism is how one is now purified to receive holy spirit baptism.
3. Justification: The Apostles’ holy spirit baptism
John the Baptist himself distinguished qualitatively between his washing with water, and Jesus’ washing with the holy spirit (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:33). John knew that his external ritual washing merely symbolised a purified conscience, whereas the Messiah’s washing would be a divine, internal, and therefore eternal, purifying of the consciousness. In drawing this distinction in this way, John also drew the metaphoric connection between baptism and rebirth, vis-à-vis salvation. With this connection in mind, we read Jesus’ injunction regarding the need to be born again with both water and with holy spirit (Jn 3:5–8) as speaking of the same two-step requirement, but using a different salvation metaphor, that is, birth instead of baptism.7 This is why John, who was the last prophet of the Mosaic Covenant, was commissioned by the Lord to preach Messiah, and to baptise with water only, prior to the Crucifixion; whereas the Apostles, the first prophets of the New Covenant, were commissioned by the Lord to preach Messiah as Lord, and to baptise with both water and holy spirit, after the Resurrection. It is also why they again needed to be filled with holy spirit at their greater commissioning.
This connection with the so-called Great Commission and the Apostles’ endowment with charismatic gifts is found in decidedly different ways in the first, second, and fourth Gospels, and the book of Acts (Mt 28:16–20; Lk 24:44–49; Jn 20:19–23; Ac 1:4–8).8 John’s version is the most succinct, occurring as it does in the same short passage (Jn 20:19–23), which neatly helps us connect the related dots scattered throughout Acts and the two Synoptics.
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
Notice that, in this instance, the holy spirit is given to enable the Apostles to forgive sins, a power heretofore reserved for God and his Christ (Mt 9:2–8; Mk 2:1–12; Lk 5:17–26). Notice, too, that these words are paralleled in Jesus’ promise to give to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19; cf. 18:18). Of course, the power to forgive sins implies the concomitant power to discern the genuineness of a sinner’s faith; a notion confirmed by those all too familiar instances in the Gospels where Jesus proclaims that a person was “saved/healed” (Greek sozō means both) by their faith (Mt 9:22, Mk 5:34; 10:52; Lk 7:50; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42).9
The author of Luke–Acts has a more protracted account of the Apostle’s commissioning and endowment. It begins at the end of his Gospel (Lk 24:36–50), then continues through the first chapter of Acts (Ac 1:1–9), and culminates in the famous Pentecost event of Acts 2. Although in these commissioning verses there are no explicit mentions of the gifts of discernment and forgiveness of sins, these abilities are detailed specifically in later events in the book of Acts – for solid examples of these, see the Ananias and Sapphira incident (Ac 5:1–12), and the Simon Magus story (Ac 8:9–24), taking note of how the Apostles deploy the holy spirit, whilst remembering that all these people are Torah-observant members of the last generation of the circumcision.
4. Judgement: Jesus’ spirit and fire baptism
The judgement aspect of John’s reference to “holy spirit and fire” might possibly escape the modern reader of the NT. This is due in part to the tendency of today's ministers and popularisers to downplay any connection between Jesus and judgement, and focus exclusively on his role as loving Saviour. The result being, when they come across this combination of holy spirit and fire baptism, they are apt to conflate it with the same combination seen in Acts 2:3, and thereby read the hendiadys10 as “fiery (bright) spirit baptism,” rather than as “fiery (burning) spirit baptism;” which the salvation and judgement imagery of John’s kerygma, in both the Matthean and Lucan accounts, strongly indicate is the correct reading.
Among the scholars, there is much debate surrounding what they see as Matthew's addition of “and fire” to Mark's “with holy spirit.” To begin with, many do not read “spirit and fire” as a hendiadys at all, but instead see it as a prediction of two separate Messianic baptisms. Presumably this is because they conclude along with Nolland that it is contextually more appropriate “to distinguish between the [baptizing] function of the Holy Spirit as purificatory and of fire as destructive.”11 Marshall, on the other hand, finding a great deal of OT background support (Is 4:4; 29:6; Ml 3:2, 3; et al), has no difficulty with Jesus’ spiritual baptism being simultaneously purifying and penal, when he writes, “This evidence shows that in the first century the pouring out of the Spirit in the last days could be understood as a means of cleansing and salvation and/or as a means of fiery judgment.”12
I side more with the Marshalls, than the Nollands, on this one. Although, I would add that, in the case of those first century Jews who believed the Apostles, their fiery judgement was a progressive refinement, that started from the moment they were justified, that is, when they had their hearts “cleansed by faith” (Ac 15:09), and continued until that day and hour in AD 70, when they were finally glorified at the Parousia of their Lord.
1 Peter 4:12 –19
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
E. The Two Inauguration Period Baptisms of the Uncircumcised
All that is left to do to conclude this study is to briefly mention the meaning and purpose of baptism for the uncircumcised of the NT, by whom is meant the first generation of Gentiles brought into the New Covenant during its inauguration period. Their exclusion from the Mosaic Covenant is the instrumental difference between how the uncircumcised and the circumcised are treated in God’s salvation plan. Having no contract with God meant they had no part in any of the contractual blessings or curses of God. It also meant that they did not share in the circumcision’s corporate guilt for either the blood of the righteous prophets, or for the blood of the Messiah. They were not compelled, therefore, to follow any rituals, ordinances, or sacrifices as were the circumcision.
Similar to the last generation of the circumcision, there are consecutive baptisms for the uncircumcised in the New Covenant inauguration period, albeit only two, which I call Salvation, and Confirmation.
1. Salvation: The Lord’s holy spirit baptism
The paradigmatic event of Gentile salvation is the Cornelius narrative in Acts 10. It is here we read of the Apostle Peter, and the handful of “circumcised who had come with [him]” (Ac 10:45), discovering that the Lord himself instantly baptises with holy spirit any Gentile who hears and receives the Gospel (Ac 10:44–47); an act which Peter later calls “cleansing their hearts by faith,” at the Jerusalem Council (Ac 15:09). In both of these events, Peter notes that this bestowing of the holy spirit on the Gentiles was done in the same way as it was given to the Apostles (Ac 10:47b; 11:15–17; 15:8–9), meaning, presumably, at Pentecost (Ac 2:1–4), and when they later prayed for the boldness to continue evangelising the circumcision (Ac 4:31).
As has been mentioned in previous studies, nowhere is there any requirement for Cornelius and his house to repent, be baptised, or saved from this wicked generation, before receiving the gift of the holy spirit. The only thing required was a confirmatory sign for the circumcision in attendance, in order for them to see that these Gentiles had genuinely received the holy spirit of Yahweh; which in this case was their “speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Ac 10:45–46).
2. Confirmatory: Apostles’ pseudo-proselyte water baptism
That there was no requirement for Cornelius to be water baptised in order to receive the salvific holy spirit baptism of the Lord did not preclude him from receiving the Apostles’ believer’s water baptism (Ac 10:48). Many have wondered why this seemingly unnecessary baptism was done. After all, reason alone dictates that, since the faith that comes with holy spirit baptism is what saves both Jews and Gentiles (Ac 15:11), a baptism after salvation is redundant, at best. Well, to make a long study short, I believe the solution to this puzzle lies in the relationship between the later events of chapter 10 and chapter 15.
It seems reasonable to me to presume that the primary purpose of the author of Acts in recording both the Cornelius and the Jerusalem Council events was to preserve how the Apostles managed the terribly difficult job of integrating the circumcised believers, and the uncircumcised believers, into a single church. The former group’s culturally ingrained animosity of the latter group hardly needs mentioning, except to note that this animosity was chiefly focussed on matters of purity, that is, ritual cleanliness. The more religiously fastidious members of the believing circumcision were as convinced of their own racial purity every bit as much as they were convinced of the uncircumcision’s racial impurity, and that their consequent need of an external cleansing, was every bit as acute as their need of an internal one.
It is not until the end of the first century BC that [the Jews] begin to reckon a Gentile personally impure. Obviously the intention is in this manner to prohibit mixed marriages of Jews with Gentiles. … The further complicated history of the regulations concerning the impurity of the Gentiles … does not concern us here. Only we may remark that in many places in the New Testament the impurity of the Gentiles is presupposed. What we have said shows with certainty that proselyte baptism reaches back to pre-Christian times; for in that moment in which it was acknowledged that the Gentiles were impure, the necessity of a bath of purification on conversion was admitted.13
Therefore, as with the recommendations in the letter resulting from the Jerusalem Council debate (Ac 15:19–21), the water baptising of the uncircumcised was a way to make them more ritually acceptable to the sensibilities of the more xenophobic members of the circumcision.14 This worked well because, as with circumcision, water baptism was then a familiar, one-time initiatory cleansing rite in the proselyte process, whereby a Gentile died to his old life, and was born anew in the Kingdom of God, unsullied by his perceived hereditary impurity. In this light, it’s possible to see water baptism as the proselyte baptism of the New Covenant for the circumcision, too.
John performed his rite primarily on Jews who, of course, were never subject to Jewish proselyte baptism. Thus, one may argue that John was practicing proselyte baptism on Jews, which suggests that he did not feel their heredity was an adequate safeguard from God’s coming eschatological wrath.15
So, finally, in light of what we learned in previous studies happened to the Lord’s Supper, and the Parousia of the Lord, it is anything but surprising that believer’s water baptism was also continued, and eventually ritualised along superstitious lines, by the primitive church, long after the Mosaic Covenant’s termination made associating with large numbers of believing Jews a rare occurrence, and the consideration of their separatist sensibilities entirely unnecessary. This relatively sudden inversion of the ratio of uncircumcised to circumcised believers also allowed the church to eisegete herself permanently into the texts of the NT books as the object of every verse referring solely to circumcised Christians, thereby forever blurring the clear distinctions made between the two, and forcing a futurist reading of the NT’s imminency language with regards to baptism, the Parousia, and Judgement Day; as can be seen in this excerpt from Jeremias’ classic book on infant baptism in the early church.
In conclusion, reference must be made to the fact that baptism in the primitive church was an eschatological sacrament. It meant that the person baptised was snatched out of a world delivered over to the immediately impending judgement of God (Acts 2.38; Col. 1.13) and incorporated into the company of those redeemed by Christ’s saving work, an eschatological sealing in the last hour before the catastrophe.16
2. Any daughter born to a circumcised man was understood to be “covered” by his circumcision.
3. Johannes P. Louw, and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Vol II (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 61.
4. Low and Nida, s.v. “σκολιός”.
5. “The Greek text [of Ac 2:40] is literally ‘save yourselves from this wicked people.’ But what Peter means is that those who hear are to try to save themselves from the fate which God will bring upon the wicked people who have crucified Jesus.” Barclay Moon Newman, and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1972), 61.
6. These “disciples” are clearly “Jews,” since they had already undergone John’s circumcision-specific baptism, were called “disciples,” and were met near or just outside the synagogue in Ephesus – judging from how the narrative of verse 1 (“And it happened … Paul … came to Ephesus.”) continues in verse 8 (“And he entered the synagogue ….”), immediately after the re-baptism incident.
7. “The NT uses a variety of images to explain the meaning of baptism, such as dying and rising with Christ, sharing in his death and being cleansed from sin.” Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies, (London: Martin Manser, 2009), 7908 baptism, significance of.
8. As it is spurious, I have excluded the longer ending of Mark’s commissioning here, and its prediction of certain “signs [that] will accompany those who believe” (Mk 16:14–18).
9. I think it likely that Paul is referring to this gift of discernment in Galatians 2:7–9.
10. For those unfamiliar with the term, a hendiadys is “the expression of a single idea by two words connected with ‘and’, e.g. nice and warm, when one could be used to modify the other, as in nicely warm.” Google’s Oxford Languages search result.
11 Emphasis mine. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005), 147.
12 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1978), 147.
13 Emphasis mine. Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, LHD (London: SCM Press, 1960), 25–26.
14. Even Peter found it difficult to overcome this cultural conditioning, despite his vision in Acts 10, as Paul recounts to Peter’s shame (Gal 2:11–13).
15. Emphasis mine. B. Witherington, III, “John the Baptist,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 386.
16 Emphasis mine. Jeremias, Infant Baptism, LHD (London: SCM Press, 1960), 23.
Comments
Post a Comment