Three Lost Objects: Yet Another Look (Part 1 of 2)

By Randy C. Hillman [1]

Editor's note: Randy C. Hillman pastors Grace Bible Church in San Jose, California, after serving churches in Ohio and Arizona. He received his B.A. in Greek and Judaic Studies from the University of Arizona in Tucson and his M.A.B.S. from Talbot School of Theology. Randy’s email address is: rhillman@concentric.net.

Introduction

Perhaps no passage in the Gospels better summarizes Jesus’ mission to Israel than this:

I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24; cf. John 1:11). [2]

Jesus Christ did not come as an isolated person in history but as the Messiah to Israel, promised and predicted for hundreds of years before. Although some Gentiles responded to Christ’s ministry (cf. Matthew 8:5–13), Jesus’ primary concern was for God’s chosen people, the Jews, and He presented Himself against the background of the Old Testament and as the fulfillment of those prophecies (cf. Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:27, 44–47; John 5:46; 12:31). [3]

The Old Testament context is especially crucial for a full appreciation of the parables in Luke 15. Christians for centuries have much-admired these three parables in Luke 15, especially the last one about the Prodigal Son, which scholars call the “Evangelium in Evangelio, The Gospel within the Gospel.” [4] Despite the admiration for these parables, they have been and continue to be a subject of debate as to their interpretation. Do they envision unbelievers or believers? How do they relate to the subject of repentance? This article will examine the Old Testament background of Jesus’ mission as seen in Luke 15 and other Synoptic passages that clarify the nature of the conflict that initiated the occasion of these parables.

Statement of the Problem

There is no shortage of interpretations for these parables. Some commentators apply them to unbelievers, others to believers, [5] while others to a combination of both believers and unbelievers, [6] and still others refer them to Jews and Gentiles. [7] Martin directs our attention to the differences of opinion regarding Luke 15:

Much to the disgust of the religious leaders, Jesus associated with those who were thought of: as hopeless and “sinners.” The opposition to Jesus was once again, as almost always in Luke, the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law. Because of this opposition Jesus told three parables. All three speak of things or a person being lost and then found, and of rejoicing when the lost is found. 

Some view these parables as teaching a believer’s restoration to fellowship with God. One cannot lose something he does not own, they reason, so the first two parables must represent children of God who come back to Him. Also, a son is already a son, so the third parable must be teaching that people who are believers can be restored to fellowship with God. 

Others understand the parables to teach that lost people (i.e., people who are not believers) can come to Christ. This view seems preferable for two reasons: (1) Jesus was speaking to Pharisees who were rejecting the message of the kingdom. Their objection was that sinners were coming to Jesus and believing His message. In no way could these two groups be adequately represented in the third parable if the point of the parable is a restoration to fellowship by a believer. (2) Verse 22 indicates that the son who came back received a new position which he did not have before. The Jews were God’s “children” in the sense that they had a special covenant relationship to Him. But each individual still had to become a believer in God. It was their responsibility to accept the message Jesus was preaching—that He was the Messiah and that He would bring in the kingdom for the nation. [8]

Hodges sees the parables referring to believers needing repentance for fellowship with the Lord:

Plainly stated, the Parable of the Lost Sheep is not about eternal salvation at all. It is about a Christian who wanders away from God’s flock and pursues the pathway of sin. His restoration to fellowship with his Savior and Shepherd, as well as to fellowship with the Lord’s people, who have not wandered away, requires repentance. When such recovery of a straying believer occurs, the Great Shepherd is filled with joy and heaven itself rejoices with Him. And so, of course, should God’s people as well (a point to be addressed in the story about the brother of the Prodigal Son: Luke 15:25–32). [9]

Whatever their interpretation, all three parables in Luke 15 are consistent and have a common theme that unites them: something is lost (lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son) and when one finds it, it is a time of rejoicing. While many consider Luke 15 the classic text on repentance, it is interesting to note that the words related to “joy” out-number the uses of “repent” two to one (6×/3×). [10] When something or someone is lost and then recovered, the normal response is (or should be) rejoicing; hence, when anyone came to Jesus, that should have been a cause of rejoicing for the Pharisees, but instead they grumbled and criticized Jesus for associating with sinners. Morgan notes this unity:

Now, mark the unity of the three. They are all concerned with lost things,—lost sheep, lost silver, lost son. In every case the lost is found and restored. In each story the issue is joy, whether it is sheep, or silver, or son. The lost things are found, and they are restored, the sheep to his owner, and the flock; the drachma to circulation, and currency, and value; and the boy to the meaning of life in his father’s home. They are all lost. They are all restored. Joy is the issue in every case. [11]

Recognizing this unity, what then is the interpretation of the parables? Do they refer to unbelievers or believers? To determine this, we need to examine two specific issues of debate. The first is the meaning of the “righteous” not needing repentance. Hodges comments on this issue:

Our Lord’s application of this story is crystal clear: “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just [Greek, dikaios, “righteous”] persons who need no repentance” (v. 7… .). The words which we have placed in italics are the key to this parable. The ninety-nine sheep represent people who are “righteous” and who therefore do not need to repent. This is what the text plainly states. 

But this is not how it is interpreted by many who read and/or teach it. Instead, “the ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance” are transformed into “ninety-nine unrighteous persons who only think they need no repentance! That this manifestly contradicts the text and turns it upside down is so clear that this rereading of our Lord’s words is self-refuting [original italics]. [12]

We will return to the issue of the righteous but the second problem is that of possession: that all three lost entities actually belonged to the owner/father. This fact is obvious and causes no reason for debate. However, the question arises, how is “losing” and “finding” related to Jesus’ mission? Does it have a background in the Old Testament?

Before continuing, we should add a word about methodology. Before one can apply the Scriptural text to a modern audience, he must understand what the text meant to the original audience. The interpreter must answer two crucial questions: What does the passage mean in its context, and how did the recipients understand it?

It is significant that Jesus began His three parables with one about a man finding his sheep. Herding was offensive to the Pharisees, and had shock value. It is this writer’s opinion that this “shock” was a conscious technique by Jesus to awaken the minds of the Pharisees and Israel to the Old Testament context and His coming in fulfillment of its prophecies. Trench notes:

The first parable had a peculiar fitness to the spiritual rulers of the Jewish people. They were warned, rebuked, and charged continually under this very title of shepherds (Ezek. xxxiv.; Zech. xi. 14); yet now they were finding fault with Christ for doing that very thing which they ought to have done. There is in sin a centrifugal tendency, and of necessity the wanderings of the sheep would be farther and farther away. Therefore, without the shepherd’s going forth to seek it, it must be lost forever [original italics]. [13]

Donahue also remarks:

The introductory verse of the Lost Sheep carries a special force. From the introduction we know that the parable is addressed to the Pharisees and scribes. In the parable the word “shepherd” is not used but implied. The introductory question, “What man of you, having a hundred sheep… ?” (v. 4), would shock those to whom the parable is directed and amuse the audience. Tending sheep was one of the occupations avoided by observant Jews, as was tax collecting; it was also of a considerably lower social class than a scribe. By saying “Which of you?” the parable “orients by disorienting” (Paul Ricoeur, see above, pp. 15–16 [in Donahue’s book]). [14] Subtly it jolts the Pharisees and scribes out of their accustomed roles and piety and opens them to the parable. The image of the shepherd would also evoke Ezekiel 34, where religious leaders were criticized because God’s sheep “were scattered” and “wandered over all the mountains” and “my shepherds have not searched for my sheep” (34:6–8). Since in Ezekiel and in other places in the OT, God seeks and cares for straying sheep, readers are to see in the parable an allusion to God’s action made present in the ministry of Jesus to the marginal. [15]

Both Trench and Donahue call attention to Ezekiel 34. Moreover, this article began with Jesus’ answer to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:24, I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [16] Other gospel passages demonstrate that the shepherd motif is present in Jesus’ coming to Israel when He told His disciples to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5–7; cf. 9:35–36; 10:16; 18:12; 25:32–33; 26:31; John 10).

Shepherds and Lost Sheep

In the New Testament, as the Chief Shepherd, Christ delegates shepherds to care for His Church (cf. Acts 20:28–30; 1 Peter 5:1–4; cf. Hebrews 13:20). Peter especially warns against being self-serving and exploiting God’s flock for one’s own advantage (1 Peter 5:3). Unfortunately, Israel suffered a long history of abuse by its political and spiritual shepherds.

Sheep were a major part of Jewish society. The Jews of the Bible were first shepherds and then farmers, but they never abandoned entirely their shepherd life. Sheep provided many valuable products such as wool, meat, milk, and were the primary animal of sacrifice. [17] With this background, it is not hard to imagine the rich metaphors available to Jewish society. Many passages speak of God as the Shepherd to Israel, the leaders as shepherds to the people, and the people as God’s flock. [18] Moses, David, and Amos all tended flocks before God promoted them to lead and serve Israel. [19]

A number of passages speak of the Messiah coming to Israel as its Shepherd. Jeremias explains:

The application of the shepherd image to Yahweh is embedded in the living piety of Israel. This may be seen from the great number of passages which use the rich shepherd vocabulary for Yahweh and depict God in new and vivid developments of the metaphor as the Shepherd who goes before His flock, who guides it, who leads it to pastures and to places where it may rest by the waters, who protects it with His staff, who whistles to the dispersed and gathers them, who carries the lambs in His bosom and leads the mother-sheep (Is. 40:11)….…………………Because the shepherds have refused and become unfaithful, Yahweh will visit them; He Himself will take over the office of shepherd and gather and feed the scattered flock…[20]

To be sure, these passages ultimately anticipate the Second Advent. However, they must have influenced messianic expectations in Israel and, furthermore, Jesus presented Himself against the Old Testament background. While we have the benefit of theological hindsight today, distinct views of two advents were not clear-cut to the Jews of Jesus’ time. It appears that the people expected only a victorious king to deliver them from Rome (cf. Luke 1:68–71; John 6:15). Yet, many Old Testament passages show the Lord as the Shepherd who cares about His flock, Israel, and rebukes those human shepherds who do not.

Behold, the LORD God will come with might, With His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him, And His recompense before Him. Like a shepherd He will tend His flock, In His arm He will gather the lambs, And carry [them] in His bosom; He will gently lead the nursing [ewes] (Isaiah 40:10–11). [21] 

For thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest,” declares the Lord God. “I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken, and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with judgment” (Ezekiel 34:11, 15–16, cf. verse 31). [22]

While commentators see the “shepherds” here as political leaders, they also refer this passage to Luke 15. [23] Allen notes that:

It is not surprising that the New Testament took up this shepherd motif and echoed chap. 34 together with other texts that give expression to it. Jesus’ self-proclaimed purpose “to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10) attests the understanding of a divine mission. [24]

These Old Testament passages should help clarify the problem of possession in the parables in Luke 15. Should we not consider that the nation of Israel belonged to God? Moreover, was not God calling them back to His covenant relationship, that is, to repent? Whether believing or unbelieving Jews, they had a special national relationship with God. This is why Jesus can speak in terms of ownership and repentance to the nation. Many seem to distinguish between national repentance and individual repentance; but since a nation consists of individuals, how can there be national repentance without individual repentance?

Following the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus calls on Jews to repent, a repentance, which ultimately centers on faith in Him. Israel always anticipated a messiah (even though not all anticipated the Messiah). Now they needed to understand and accept Jesus as their Messiah (cf. Matthew 3:2; John 20:31). In this way, then, Jesus called for Jews to repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15).25 If one objects that ‘possession’ and ‘unbelief’ cannot coexist, then John 1:11–13 presents a difficulty. Jesus came to His own,26 but His own did not receive Him. Nevertheless, some of His own did receive Him, that is, believe in Him. In this way those Jews who believed became children of God, not from human descent as racial Jews related to Abraham, but by being born again (cf. John 1:13; 3:3; 8:33–59).

Luke 19

This passage is critical because it has many parallels with Luke 15. The question arises, is it possible to speak of a lost person needing salvation? In view of Luke 19, it seems so. Chafer makes a point about Luke 15 using the word found, rather than the word “saved.” [27] However, the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19 shows that the word lost can describe the unbeliever who needs salvation and whom the Lord indeed saves.28 Marshall notes the important background of this encounter between Jesus and Zacchaeus:

The final story in the long account of Jesus on his journey to Jerusalem is meant to be a climax in the ministry of Jesus, and it brings out several notable features which Luke considered important. It is a supreme example of the universality of the gospel offer to tax-collectors and sinners, with Jesus taking the initiative and inviting himself to the house of Zacchaeus … Jesus affirms that, tax-collector though he is, Zacchaeus is entitled to salvation, for he too is a Jew, a member of the people to whom salvation was promised by God in the coming of the Messiah. But salvation comes even to Jews only when Jesus goes after them and brings them home. So the narrative concludes with the great declaration of the task of the Son of man as a shepherd, which may fittingly be regarded as the epitome of the message of this Gospel. [29]

Luke 19:1–10 is another instance of a recurring problem in which a tax-gatherer responds to Jesus and the religious crowd criticizes him (cf. Luke 5:27–32; 15:1–32; 16:14–15; 18:9–14). The legalists grumble about Jesus’ contact with this sinner, but Jesus answers the criticism by stating: Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:9–10).

A number of direct verbal and topical links exist between this chapter and Luke 15. Zacchaeus was also a tax collector, here a chief tax-gatherer (cf. Luke 19:2; 15:1). [30] That he was rich is noteworthy in comparison to the previous incident with the rich young ruler (18:23, cf. 16:4). Zacchaeus was a sinner (19:7, cf. 15:1), but when he showed a positive interest in Jesus, the crowd grumbled against him (19:7, cf. 15:2, the only two uses of this verb in the New Testament). [31] As in Luke 15, Zacchaeus received Jesus rejoicing (19:6, cf. 15:5, 32). [32] Despite his unpopularity, Zacchaeus believed in Jesus and immediately repented of his greedy lifestyle. The story of Zacchaeus, which shows new-found integrity in his money-handling, illustrates what John the Baptist preached to Israel about bringing forth fruits of repentance (Luke 3:8). Moreover, it lines-up with John’s specific exhortation to the tax-gatherers (Luke 3:12–13).

We might pause to consider that the words for “believe” or “repent” do not occur in the text even though I just used them. That “salvation” came to Zacchaeus that day the Lord clearly states and yet passages do not always fit into the tidy theological grids we may desire.

Before leaving Luke 19, an important issue must be resolved related to Jesus’ statement: Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. Disagreement exists as to how Zacchaeus, too, is a son of Abraham. Some take it in a spiritual sense, in that all who believe are sons (huio[s) of Abraham (cf. Romans 4:11; Galatians 3:7). [33] On closer examination such a view is untenable for two reasons. First, the word “… katho[ti [because, Luke 19:9b] is used to introduce an antecedent reason rather than a subsequent proof, so that the point of the saying is that a Jew, even though he has become one of the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ is still a part of Israel; the good Shepherd must seek for such….” [34] In other words, to support the spiritual sonship view, a reversal of the phrases is needed. It would require something like “because today salvation has come to his house, he, too, is a son of Abraham”—but this is not the wording. Second, elsewhere, Luke clearly used the same or similar terms to describe unbelieving Jews who are physical descendents of Abraham (cf. Luke 3:8; 13:16; 16:24–25, 27, 30; Acts 3:25; 5:21; 7:2; 9:15; 13:26). In view of these things, we can conclude, “this [son] denotes membership of the people of Israel.” [35]

Zacchaeus, a physical descendant of Abraham scorned by the religious establishment of his day, had just as much right to the opportunity of eternal salvation as any Jew. While the Pharisees thought they had a monopoly on God, Jesus demonstrated that He came to all Jews. Jesus came to His own and while many did not receive Him, Zacchaeus and others responded and received eternal life. May that continue to be our hope and prayer for Abraham’s descendants.

--To be continued--

Notes

1. Editor’s note: This article is a revision of a paper the author presented in January 1999 at the National Teaching Pastors’ Conference (NTPC) in San Juan Capistrano, CA. Part 2 of this article will appear in the next issue of the CTS Journal, along with a rejoinder article.
2. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture references are from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977).
3. Note that even the clear evangelistic purpose of the Gospel of John (20:31), the apostle presents in Jewish terms that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, that is, the Anointed One, the Messiah. Israel anointed kings (1 Samuel 15:1), priests (Exodus 30:30), and prophets (1 Kings 19:16). Only the Messiah would unite all three functions in one person, ruling as a king with mercy and justice (Isaiah 9:6–7), appointed as a priest (Psalms 110:4), and designated a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15–19). John is the only book that uses the term Messiah (1:41; 4:25). Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Leicester, England: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 284, shows convincingly that “Christ” is “an ascription which could have its fullest relevance only to Jewish people.” Also see the author’s thesis, “The Lamb of God in John 1:29, ” (M.A.B.S. Thesis, Talbot School of Theology, 1988), 8–20, for how John demonstrates that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
4. Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (1861; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1948), 141.
5. Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual: A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 81. Ibid., 79-80, considered Luke 15 one parable in three parts.
6. R. B. Thieme, Jr., The Prodigal Son, 2d ed. (Houston, TX: Berachah, 1974), 3–4.
7. Trench, Parables, 141.
8. John A. Martin, “Luke,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 244.
9. Zane C. Hodges, “The Ninety-Nine Righteous Sheep: Repentance in Luke 15:1–10, ” Grace in Focus 12 (September-October 1998), 3. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas, TX: Redención Viva; Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 151, had previously allowed the possibility of reference to the unsaved, stating, “to be sure, the prodigal son can represent an unsaved man whose repentance gets him turned in the right direction.”
10. Nestle-Aland27, 210–13. Verbal links between the three parables include having (e[chō; vv. 4, 8, 11); lost (apo[llumi; vv. 4 (2×), 6, 8, 9, 24, 32); found (heuri[skō; vv. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 (2×), 24, 32); and joy or rejoicing (chara[; vv. 7, 10), chai[rō; vv. 5, 32), (sugchai[rō; vv. 6, 9), cf. (euphrai[nō; vv. 24, 32).
11. G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to Luke (New York: Revell, 1931), 181. For a recent treatment, see Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 142–45.
12. Hodges, “Ninety-Nine,” 3. While Christian restoration and its subsequent joy are very desirable, the question still remains, is Luke 15 addressing the Church? Most dispensationalists see the Church beginning in Acts 2. From this viewpoint, since the Church had not even come into existence in Luke 15, would any Jew listening to the parables have understood them in a Church/Christian mindset?
13. Trench, Parables, 135.
14. John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988; paperback reprint, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990), 15–16, nn. 31 and 33–34, refers to pages 118–26 of Paul Ricoeur, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 4 (1975), without citing him directly.
15. Donahue, Gospel in Parable, 148–49.
16. The Greek is ouk … ei mē[. Note the context in which Jesus retreated from His pharisaic enemies into Gentile territory (15:21) and the other references to their friction (15:1–3, 12).
17. Hillman, “Lamb of God,” 33.
18. Genesis 48:15; 49:24; Numbers 27:17; 2 Samuel 5:2; 7:8; 1 Kings 22:17; Psalms 23:1; 74:1; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 95:7; 100:3; 107:41; Isaiah 40:10–11; 53:6; Jeremiah 3:12–15; 10:21; 12:10; 13:17, 20; 17:16; 23:1–4; 25:34–36; 31:10; 50:6, 17; Ezekiel 34; Micah 2:12; 5:4; 7:14; Zechariah 9:16; 10:2–3; 11:4–17; 13:7; etc.
19. Exodus 3:1; 2 Samuel 7:8; Amos 7:15.
20. Joachim Jeremias, “poimē[n, archipoimē[n, poimai]nō, poi`mēn, poi`mnion,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–74), 6:487–88.
21. Emphasis added; also see Psalm 100:3; Jeremiah 3:12–15; 23:1–4; 31:9–10; 50:6–7.
22. Emphasis added; Hebrew: LORD God (ʾăd̠ōnāy yhwh); shepherds (rāʿâ); I Myself (ʾānî); seek, vv. 6, 8, 10–11 (dāraš) Cf. Ezekiel 34:1–10.
23. Paul P. Enns, Ezekiel: Bible Study Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Lamplighter, 1986), 153–54; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, ed. Paul D. Hanson and Leonard J. Greenspoon, trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 203–23.
24. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, ed. John D. W. Watts, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 29 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 165. Ibid., 147, cites Luke 15:11-32 in discussing Ezekiel 33:1-20.
25. One must make a careful analysis of every repentance passage, observing the implications of repent and believe as they apply to the doctrines of repentance and salvation—which is beyond the scope of this article. Faith is the only condition for salvation, but one must account for all the other evidence as well. Mark 1:15 states repent and believe in the gospel, thus showing that the two terms are distinct, yet co-existent. It is hard to comprehend how one would repent for fellowship before he believes to have a relationship in which to enjoy that fellowship.
26. The Greek neuter plural of idios is literally, “His own things.”
27. Chafer, Spiritual, 81.
28. I may be open to the criticism of imposing a later passage on an earlier one; however, I note this passage only to call attention to a parallel passage and a consistent pattern throughout the Gospels.
29. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Exeter, UK: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 694–95.
30. BDAG, 139, “architelōnēs,” only here in the NT.
31. Ibid., 227, “diagoggu[zō,” defines it as “to complain, grumble (aloud).” Note the imperfect tense.
32. The Greek is chai[rō.
33. E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, rev. ed., New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974; paperback reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981), 220–21; John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 95.
34. Marshall, Luke, 698; cf. BDAG, 493, “katho[ti,” “in view of the fact that.”
35. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, “huio[s, huiothesi[a,” TDNT, 8:365.