Can Fallen Ministers Be Restored?

By Clifford Rapp, Jr.

Clifford Rapp earned his B.A. degree from Biola University and a Th.M. degree in Old Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. He was formerly a professor of Old Testament and general biblical studies at Chafer Theological Seminary. Cliff also pastors Clovis Free Methodist Church, Clovis, CA. His email address is blest2bless@msn.com.

Introduction

October 1, 1999, brought great sorrow into my life. Word came that a colleague and friend of 23 years had confessed to “unauthorized borrowing” of church funds. He had resigned and surrendered his ordination credentials. It was the first of several sleepless nights that October of dealing with this unwelcome news.

While wondering what would happen to my friend, writing a paper on what the Bible says about restoring fallen ministers seemed therapeutic. This process was helpful both for me and for the committee working toward restoration of the fallen pastor.

After having attempted to determine a biblical process for restoring fallen ministers, a restlessness still lingered. The study had assumed the possibility of restoring some, but not all, fallen ministers, but is this a safe assumption? Many leading evangelicals think that fallen ministers can be forgiven but not restored to ministry. Those who think that a fallen minister can be restored disagree about the extent of the restoration. Some argue for full restoration, while others see only a lesser or limited ministry as a possibility. Can fallen ministers properly be restored? Can they be fully restored? It was not initially clear where the Bible would lead me, for every discussion of this topic refers to Scripture.

I came to view full restoration as a biblical possibility. This article does not attempt to answer every issue raised by those who have a different opinion. My study of the Bible led me to nine lines of evidence favoring full restoration. This article reorganizes the data into four arguments against the background of the current debate. [1]

The first part of this article presents a case for the restoration of fallen ministers by discussing four propositions. The first deals with the interpretation and application of Scripture. The second examines the nature of forgiveness, and the third the matter of God’s calling to ministry. The fourth focuses on the greatness of our Father’s grace to us sinners. Despite seeking to answer topics raised by the general debate, this article occasionally addresses specific arguments. The particular case of my former colleague is always in my mind, but this first section of the paper frequently applies the argument to other forms of misconduct. The second part of the paper considers whether or not a church should restore a fallen minister—even if restoration is theoretically possible.

A Case for Restoring Fallen Ministers

1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 do not create legal regulations

The qualities for elders and deacons in the pastoral epistles are not juridical dictates. Approaching these passages as though they were law requires coming up with legal definitions for the various requirements. As Duane Litfin notes regarding the requirement that elders are to be husband of one wife, “This ambiguous but important phrase is subject to several interpretations. The question is, how stringent a standard was Paul erecting for overseers?” [2] If Paul were writing laws and “erecting standards,” then it is incumbent upon interpreters to define precisely those standards. This kind of approach has yielded “several interpretations.”

Before joining the battle over definition of these requirements, perhaps we should ask the question, “What is the intent of the passage?” Is Paul trying to legislate? At least three reasons preclude interpreting these statements as law. First, the vocabulary that Paul uses does not contain the legal terminology of the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch. Second, Paul’s statements about law in 1 Timothy and Titus preclude the possibility that he could think of himself as writing legal dictates. Third, Paul’s theology of sanctification by faith and not by law excludes any thought of him legislating to the churches.

In writing to Timothy about what kind of men to chose for elders, Paul uses the Greek term dei (“must” or “ought”) to introduce (in 1 Timothy 3:2) and conclude (in 1 Timothy 3:7) his comments. Paul also uses dei in the instructions to Titus about what kind of men to appoint as elders (Titus 1:7). The Septuagint translation of the law does not use dei to formulate commands. If Paul wanted to issue legislation, he could have made that intent clear by following the pattern and vocabulary of the Pentateuch, but he did not. In fact, Paul uses dei in 1 Timothy 3:15 to every believer how we ought to conduct ourselves in the household of God. [3] If one interprets dei as introducing legal requirements for the elders earlier in the chapter, consistency requires doing the same for everyone in the household of God on the basis of 1 Timothy 3:15.

Looking at the statements Paul makes about the law in 1 Timothy and Titus, it is clear that he does not intend to impose a new law on church-age believers. In 1 Timothy 1:6–10, Paul states that those who want to be law-teachers have turned aside from the true faith. Law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate (1:9). In 1 Timothy 4:1–4, Paul views the legalistic teachings of abstinence as doctrines of demons. In Titus 3:9, Paul warns, shun strife and legal (nomikas) fights. [4] If the descriptions of elders in 1 Timothy and Titus were intended as juridical statements, they would be inviting strife and fights over the legal definitions of the terms. It could not have been Paul’s intent to write law.

Finally, Paul’s theology of sanctification is a sanctification by faith apart from works of law. He heatedly challenges the Galatians, This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh (Galatians 3:2–3)? No, perfection cannot be attained by works of law for as many as are of works of the law are under the curse (Galatians 3:10). It is the work of the Spirit that produces a sanctified life (Galatians 5:16–23).

If Paul’s intent were not to legislate, what was he trying to do? He describes an elder in the church in ideal terms. Similarly, Proverbs 31:10–31 describes a noble wife in ideal terms. If we treated Proverbs 31:10–31 as law, we would all be bachelors. No real-life woman could do everything the ideal woman of Proverbs does. But the idealized description of a noble wife helps us to select a good wife and to appreciate the noble things she can do. The idealized description of an elder gives us a picture of the kind of leader to select and helps us to appreciate his strengths.

Elders are to be blameless (1 Timothy 3:2), but as Francis Schaeffer has noted, “if we demand, in any of our relationships, either perfection or nothing, we will get the nothing.” [5] The requirements for church leaders are concerned with character and with growth in Christlikeness. The kind of elders the church needs are sincere men of faith whose progress is manifest to all (1 Timothy 4:15).

Still it might be argued that some sins are worse in the eyes of God. Thus, these sins would unalterably exclude someone from office in the church. For example, God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) so divorce excludes a person from leadership in the church. But God makes similar statements of disapprobation about other sins that He clearly does forgive. For example, sodomy is an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22), but that sin is specifically forgiven in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. The fact that God expresses His odium about some sins, does not make them unforgivable or permanently debilitating with regard to leadership.

Distinguishing restoration to fellowship from restoration to ministry is not biblical

How absolute is forgiveness? Does a stigma remain for some sins even after forgiveness? Certainly consequences of sin may remain. A person who acquired AIDS through a sinful life style may not be physically healed when the Lord forgives his sins, but does this disqualify him from leadership? For example, a pastor in Washington who contracted AIDS during a backslidden time in his life is now restored and has an effective ministry in his church and in outreach to AIDS sufferers. The consequences of his sin remain in his body, but the forgiveness he received is complete and God blesses his service. The Lord’s forgiveness is total as seen both in the definition of the New Testament verbs “forgive” [6] and in the explicit statements of Scripture, like Psalm 103:3, 12, who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases … as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

Kent Hughes and John Armstrong argue vigorously against this view of forgiveness. [7] They emphasize the biblical demand for “blamelessness” and marshal statements from church history against restoring fallen ministers. [8] Basically their argument rests on a concept of degrees of sin. Some sins are greater than others and those great sins become even greater when ordained leaders in the church commit them. Such limitations to God’s grace are not biblical. The greater the sin is the more glory in its forgiveness. Or as Paul puts it, where sin abounded, grace abounded much more (Romans 5:20).

One might also ask, “Is a person truly forgiven, if trust is withheld?” If some sins carry a stigma that makes a person a second-class citizen permanently, can it truly be said that this person is forgiven? For example, is a divorced person a lesser quality of Christian who can never be an elder? Are embezzlers, who stole from the church, forever excluded from office in the church? That a person might temporarily be unqualified for leadership is certain from the fact that he is not to be a novice (1 Timothy 3:6). Also, Galatians 6:1 indicates a process for restoration, during which a person might be unqualified for leadership. On the other hand, a permanent disqualification from leadership would seem to defeat grace implying that at least for some sins grace does not abound.

Does Galatians 6:1, Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, exclude leaders? Is the restoration spoken of in this verse only restoration of lay people? If it includes the restoration of leaders, is it only partial restoration? Are they restored to fellowship, but not to leadership? Neither this verse nor the context restricts the restoration in any way. As Gordon MacDonald notes,

The person receiving grace cannot be patronized. The granting of grace does not give one Christian an opportunity to ‘lord it over.’ It does not suggest that the grace giver is a first-class citizen of the kingdom and the grace receiver is a second-class citizen. [9]

One does not forfeit God’s call to ministry by human failure

Does Romans 11:29, For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable, apply to the individual? [10] Does God change His mind about a call to leadership that he has placed on a person? One could argue that an individual call to leadership is revocable because the call to service in the church comes through the church, rather than directly from God. [11] The argument is that if the church calls the individual into leadership, then the church can revoke that call.

Certainly a local church can call an individual to a particular ministry and can, subsequently, revoke that call. A parallel appears in Paul inviting John Mark for the first missionary journey, but refusing to allow him on the second. [12] But the refusal by Paul to allow Mark to serve with his team did not revoke God’s plans for Mark’s life. Mark continued in leadership with Barnabas (Acts 15:39), with Peter (1 Peter 5:13), and eventually with Paul once again (Colossians 4:10, cf. 2 Timothy 4:11). God even used Mark to write one of the Gospels.

The Scriptures abound with examples of leaders who failed in various ways but retained God’s call to leadership. Some instances do require careful consideration. That God rejected Saul from being king (1 Samuel 15:26) might appear, at first sight, to be an unequivocal example of God’s call being lost. But further examination leaves room for doubt. Clearly the rebuke to Saul means that he will not found a dynasty and that God’s blessing is withdrawn or reduced. On the one hand, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:14). But on the other hand, Saul continues to reign and continues to have victories over the Philistines (1 Samuel 17; 18:30; 23:26–24:1). David consistently recognizes him as the Lord’s anointed (1 Samuel 24:6; 26:9; 2 Samuel 1:14). In fact, Saul dies a king, having never been forced out of office.

Observing other scriptural examples, God seems to delight in restoring fallen leaders to office. His grace is sufficient to overcome the most vial offenders. For example, the worst king of Israel, Ahab, repents and is forgiven.

But there was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do wickedness in the sight of the LORD, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up. And he behaved very abominably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites had done, whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. So it was, when Ahab heard those words [of judgment from Elijah], that he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his body, and fasted and lay in sackcloth, and went about mourning. And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, “See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his son I will bring the calamity on his house” (1 Kings 21:25–29).

God had announced judgment on Ahab (1 Kings 21:20–24), but because of his humility and repentance God kept him in office.

Likewise, Manasseh, the worst king of Judah (2 Chronicles 33:1–11), was restored to office. He did all manner of wickedness and refused to respond to God’s word, so God sent the Assyrians who took him prisoner to Babylon. However,

Now when he was in affliction, he implored the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God (2 Chronicles 33:12–13).

God seems to delight in saving the chief of sinners in various generations and employing them in leadership. Certainly these examples could argue for irrevocable calling. Tim LaHaye regards it as a possibility. He writes,

While this verse [Romans 11:29] comes in the midst of a heavy, doctrinal passage about God’s call to Israel, who can say it is not one of God’s principles that can stand alone? A number of fallen ministers have taken that principle as a challenge to return to ministry in due time and have served the Lord effectively for many years. [13]

God delights to work through broken and sometimes errant people

Not only does God restore or retain some of the poorest leaders in the Bible, but he often chooses people with blatant sins as leaders. He chose murderers (Moses, Samson, David, Paul), adulterers (David, Samson), idolaters (Abraham), blasphemers (Paul), and cowards (Barak, Gideon, etc.). These Old Testament examples are given for the benefit of the church (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). Paul refers to himself as the worst sinner (1 Timothy 1:15).

We can also learn from Mark’s failure. When John Mark deserted Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia, he was disqualified from service in Paul’s mind. Paul refused to allow Mark along on the next journey and argued heatedly with Barnabas (Acts 15:36–41). But eventually Paul changed his tune. His two later remarks about Mark, show that Paul has accepted him as a bona fide leader. In fact, the references to Mark in Colossians 4:10 and 2 Timothy 4:11 are incidental to the arguments of those epistles. God may have included them to show us that where sin abounded, grace abounded much more (Romans 5:20). Mark’s failure did not disqualify him from leadership as Paul initially thought.

But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty (1 Corinthians 1:27). Nearly all leaders in the Bible have blemishes. God is very aware of our failings and of how we will perform. Our sins do not surprise Him and do not keep Him from working through us. God is magnanimous in His assessment of us. As the Psalmist points out, God is not looking for reasons to reject people: If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared (Psalm 130:3–4). That God does not keep a record of sins is abundantly clear from God’s statements about some of His wayward leaders. Of David, the Lord says, … my servant David, who kept my commandments and who followed me with all his heart, to do only what was right in my eyes (1 Kings 14:8). An observant reader of the books of Samuel could list a number of things that David did that were not right. Yet our great heavenly Father says that David kept my commandments and who followed me with all his heart, to do only what was right in my eyes. When one reads the priestly interpretation of Israel’s history, God’s assessment shines through—no mention of the sin with Bathsheba appears in 1 Chronicles. It is totally expunged from the record. The Lord remembers our sin no more (Jeremiah 31:34).

Our Lord Jesus makes a similar statement about His disciples during His high priestly prayer. He says of the eleven apostles they have kept your word (John 17:6). At the moment He was praying this, they were probably sleeping rather than watching with Him in prayer as He requested. Earlier that evening, they were arguing about who is the greatest in the kingdom (Luke 22:24). Not long after the Lord Jesus prays this prayer, His disciples would desert and deny Him as He had predicted. Yet, His assessment of them is they have kept your word. Truly God is not looking for reasons to exclude people. There is forgiveness with Him.

My consideration of Scripture leads me to conclude that a person can be completely forgiven and restored to leadership.

Theoretically, everyone could be restored. There is no lack in God’s grace, mercy, and power. MacDonald writes well about the grace that he calls restorative grace.

Restorative grace is God’s action to forgive the misbehavior and to draw the broken-world person back toward wholeness and usefulness again. It is God’s response to the acts of repentance and brokenness. Restorative grace doesn’t mean that all of the natural consequences of misbehavior vanish, but it does point toward a wholeness of relationship between God and the one who has returned in repentance. [14]

He adds a cautionary note, “If the misbehavior is great enough in consequence that others are also greatly affected or offended, it may become necessary for restorative grace to be received also from those involved.” [15] But who can withhold forgiveness? Joseph Kenneth Grider writes,

There are to be no limitations whatever to forgiveness of one’s fellows. In Luke 17:4 it is to be “seven times in a day,” and until “seventy times seven” in Matt. 18:22, both of which signify limitlessness. It is to be an attitude of mind even before the offending party asks for pardon, as is implied by Jesus, “if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts” (Matt. 18:35). [16]

Should Fallen Ministers Be Restored?

Although theoretically no one is beyond God’s grace, on the practical level I would suggest that not everyone ought to be restored to leadership. My perspective is that most ministers with serious charges that have been proved or acknowledged as true should not be restored. There are two reasons behind this opinion. First, it is such a very small percentage of ministers that have charges of misconduct acknowledged or proven against them, that their ordination may have been a mistake. Extrapolating from the figures provided by Paul Chaffee, it would seem that less than two and a half percent of ministers are dismissed for misconduct. [17] Knowing the imperfection of human judgment, some people are going to be ordained to ministry who are not morally and spiritually qualified to lead. Some of the two and a half percent of ministers who are involved in misconduct should never have been ordained.

The second reason for my opinion is the many warnings about false teachers in the church. [18] These false teachers are ministers of Satan masquerading as angels of light. As Christians we do not want to shoot our wounded, but we also do not want to give place to the devil. Since false teaching often results in or is associated with sinful behavior (2 Peter 2:1–14), we must be suspicious of the two and a half percent of ministers terminated for misconduct, some of them must be among the false teachers about whom Scripture warns us. Doctrine as well as conduct must be examined in the case of an errant pastor.

To determine which ministers are suitable for restoration to ministry one must consider the content of their teaching and the extent, duration, frequency, and conditions of the lapse. These considerations are not a matter of one sin being worse than another, but that the extent, duration, frequency, and conditions in which the sins took place reflect something of the heart of the sinner.

With regard to a teacher’s doctrine, it must be kept in mind that one can teach accurately with limited knowledge. Apollos was mighty in the Scriptures and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John (Acts 18:24–5). Not all pastors have had extensive opportunity for education and study. So care must be taken not to penalize one for lack of knowledge. Ignorance is not false doctrine. A teachable spirit and a love of learning are marks of good teachers. The key areas for testing the truthfulness of a person’s doctrine are the areas of the person of Christ (1 John 4:1–3) and the content of the gospel (Galatians 1:6–9).

In the matter of the extent of the sin, there seems to be a difference between someone who misuses his expense account, and someone who is misusing his expense account and also stealing offerings, submitting bogus bills, and falsifying reports. The person who is taking money from the church in a number of different ways and then covering it up seems more likely to be shamefully greedy (1 Peter 5:2) [19] and to have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness (2 Peter 2:15). The same kind of distinction would hold true with a minister involved in sexual misconduct. The person who acts inappropriately with one other person seems to be qualitatively different than those with eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls (2 Peter 2:14).

In terms of duration, the person who sins and quickly repents seems to be in a different category than someone who persists in sin for years. The book of Hebrews warns against hardening the heart (Hebrews 3:15; 4:7). Paul wants Timothy to hold on to faith and a good conscience to avoid shipwrecking his faith (1 Timothy 1:19). Someone who hardens his heart against God’s word and allows his conscience to be defiled year after year is in no position to lead God’s people. Can such hardening of heart permanently disqualify one from leadership among God’s people? It did for Esau, of whom it is written, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. for he found no place for repentance though he sought [the blessing] diligently with tears (Hebrews 12:17).

In the matter of the frequency of the sin into which a leader falls, there seems to be a difference between the pastor who takes his wife out to dinner and charges it to his expense account one time and the pastor who steals money time and time again. For the pastor in sexual misconduct, there seems to be a difference between a pastor who watches a pornographic movie in a hotel room on a trip and the pastor with an addiction to pornography, involving daily use of such material. Even a single lapse is serious, but it may not be fatal to leadership.

Conditions of the lapse refers to things like cover-ups, conspiracies, deception, and the like. The pastor who conspires with the bookkeeper to embezzle money from the church seems more depraved and intentional about his sin than the pastor who misuses church funds. The pastor who uses his authority to defraud vulnerable people seems more predatory and hard-hearted than someone who does not reimburse the church for long distance, personal phone calls. A pastor who preys upon minors, the elderly, or other powerless victims is certainly worse than one who misuses his expense account. A pastor who voluntarily admits his sin seems to have more potential for rehabilitation than one who denies wrongdoing or blames others for his sin.

In the end there may be ambiguities. Whether a person is a fallen brother or a false brother may not be clear even after thorough investigation. In such a case one might wonder whether it is better to try to protect the congregation by denying the fallen person full restoration, or to restore the person and be vulnerable. The Lord Jesus anticipated this dilemma and promised His aid. In Matthew 7:1–6, Jesus told us not to judge. But He also told us not to give what is sacred to dogs or to cast pearls before swine. The obvious question is how can one determine who is a dog or a pig, if we are not to judge others? The Lord Jesus answers that with a marvelous prayer promise,

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; and he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened (Matthew 7:7–8).

We cannot fully know what is in a person’s heart, but God does. If we seek an answer from Him, it will be given. Similarly in Matthew 18, in the context of church discipline, the Lord Jesus says, I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven [20] (Matthew 18:18). How is the church on earth to know what has been bound in heaven? Again, our gracious Lord has anticipated our helplessness and promised His aid. The following two verses (Matthew 18:19–20) read,

Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.

As we seek heaven’s judgment in prayer, the Lord promises to reveal it.

Conclusion

This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work (1 Timothy 3:1). The vast majority of those who aspire to serve Christ and are called by a church to be the pastor serve without a major moral failure that leads to their dismissal. Among the very small percentage of those who are dismissed from service, there are bound to be some who were framed like Joseph was framed by Potiphar’s wife. (One could wish that the church was above such deception.) They should be exonerated and restored fully to service.

There are also some who lack the gifts or ability to pastor, who should not have been called in the first place. There are bound to be some who are false brothers who should not be restored to service in that condition. Then there is a portion of gifted ministers who sin, but who are repentant and would be fruitful if restored to service in Christ’s church. The church should not be closed to this possibility, but should extend God’s grace. As Paul writes to the Corinthian church about an offending brother, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him (2 Corinthians 2:2, 8)

—End—

Notes

1. Unfortunately, the current debate suffers from lack of historical perspective. However, this article will not deal with that matter.
2. A. Duane Litfin, “1 Timothy,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 736.
3. All Scripture quotations from the New King James Bible (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982), unless otherwise noted.
4. Author’s translation.
5. Francis Schaeffer, No Little People (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1974), 47.
6. The verb charizomai means “to deal graciously with” and aphiēmi means “to send away.”
7. R. Kent Hughes and John H. Armstrong, “Why Adultrous Pastors Should Not Be Restored” in Christianity Today (April 3, 1995): 33ff.
8. They conveniently fail to remember the gracious and powerful arguments of Augustine against the Donatists, as well as other opinions in favor of forgiveness and restoration throughout church history.
9. Gordon MacDonald, Rebuilding Your Broken World (Nashville: Oliver Nelson, 1988), 190.
10. The Greek term underlying the word gifts in Romans 11:29 is charismata. Generally this term, in its plural form, is used as a technical term for spiritual gifts given by the ascended Christ to the church. This reference about gifts given to Israel in ancient times does not seem to be used in this technical sense.
11. Editor’s note: According to Acts 20:28, the overseers (elders or pastors, cf. 20:28 with 20:17) receive this role from the Holy Spirit. The church’s place is to recognize and honor what God has done.
12. See Acts 13:4–5 and Acts 15:36–41.
13. Tim LaHaye, If Ministers Fall, Can They Be Restored? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 110.
14. MacDonald, Rebuilding, 189.
15. Ibid.
16. Joseph Grider, “Forgiveness” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 226.
17. Paul Chaffee, Accountable Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997), 5.
18. Acts 20:29–30; 2 Corinthians 11:13–15; 2 Timothy 3:1–9; 2 Peter 2:1–22; Jude 3–19, etc.
19. Author’s translation.
20. Author’s translation.