Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews

By Moisés Silva

Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California

This article is an expanded version of part of a paper read before the Evangelical Theological Society, Far Western Region, in November, 1975.

The verb τελειοῦν and its derivatives occur fourteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews (an average of more than one occurrence per chapter); indeed, about a third of the New Testament occurrences are found in this epistle. This high frequency, which can hardly be explained as a mannerism, suggests that the concept referred to by the terms was of more than average importance for the author. The suspicion is confirmed by even a cursory examination of the contexts where the words are found: Old Testament saints are perfected only with us (11:40; cf. 12:23), for only the divine arrangement mediated by Christ, who is the perfecter of our faith (12:2), may be called perfect (7:11, 19; cf. 9:11), and consequently only his blood can perfect the conscience (9:9; 10:1, 14); further, the author calls Christians to perfection (5:14; 6:1), and even Jesus, we are told, experienced perfection through his sufferings (2:10, 5:9; 7:28).

The modern reader (who, to complicate matters, naturally associates perfection with moral and ethical qualities) feels less than comfortable with this lumping together of quite disparate items. What possible experience is there common to Jesus, to divine-human arrangements, and to sinful men which may be described as the undergoing of perfection? Can we define the word(s), or formulate the concept, in a way that is consistent with these various occurrences?

F. F. Bruce, commenting on 2:10, defines perfection in Hebrews as “unimpeded access to God.”[1] To be perfect, in other words, constitutes inward fitness to approach God. Presumably, Bruce bases his interpretation on the Septuagintal use of τελειοῦν in ceremonial contexts, particularly in the Pentateuch. Gerhard Delling[2] has summarized the evidence by pointing especially to Exodus 29, which speaks of the priestly consecration of Aaron and his sons (verses 9, 29, 33, 35). The Hebrew idiom in these passages (millēʾ yad, “to fill the hand,” translated literally by LXX, τελειοῦν τὰς χείρας) is linked with qiddēsh in verse 33 and clearly means “to consecrate, to qualify someone for priestly service.” We cannot assume, however, that these passages provide the linguistic background to the use of the verb in Hebrews unless we can show (1) that τελειοῦν by itself could be used in this cultic sense and (2) that such a use is called for by the contexts of the verb in Hebrews. Fortunately, we can meet both of these requirements. In Leviticus 21:10 the Greek verb independently translates the Hebrew idiom;[3] in addition, τελείωσις translates mélluʾîm (“consecration, ordination”) in various passages in Exodus and Leviticus. Further, the Epistle to the Hebrews does support this view by bringing together the idea of perfection with that of sanctification (2:10–11; 10:14) and with the broader notion of our approach to God (7:19).[4]

This interpretation, then, evinces sound exegesis and is, I am convinced, correct as far as it goes. A careful study of the material, however, compels the reader to look for more. For example, the use of the term with reference to Jesus, who is blameless (7:26), continues to be a problem, since the consecration of priests did involve moral cleansing.[5] To be sure, an author is at liberty, when drawing an analogy, to ignore whatever elements he wishes,[6] and so the writer of Hebrews may have set aside the notion of moral cleansing when speaking of Jesus as one who was being prepared for His priestly Messianic work; nevertheless, perhaps we can find another interpretation that minimizes, or even eliminates, the suggestion of moral progression in Jesus’ character. A more serious objection to the purely cultic interpretation is that it cannot be carried through consistently.[7] For example, can we say of Old Testament saints that they could not approach God, as would be suggested by 11:40? This too is not a fatal objection. We cannot demand, before adopting a particular lexical meaning, that the author use the term with absolute consistency. But again, if we can find some acceptation that eliminates the objection, surely such a meaning would commend itself to us as highly preferable.

The solution proposed in this article finds its theological basis in the statement at Hebrews 1:4, where we are told that God’s Son has inherited a name superior to that of the angels. But when we ask what is the name that this Son has inherited, the answer is, oddly enough, Son again (verses 5ff). It is, I think, surprising that very little has been made in the past of the apparent fact that the author uses the word Son in two different senses in these verses. In verse 2 it indicates what Jesus is, and has always been, by divine nature; in verses 4ff it is the Messianic title He receives in connection with some type of change in his human nature. Surely this temporal distinction—that after completing his work Jesus became something he was not before—accords naturally with the context: the participle γενόμενος (rather than ὤν) is used in verse 4 and the Father is quoted as addressing to Him the words, “Today I have begotten you” (verse 5). Some commentators in the past have ignored the problem altogether; others have simply asserted that verse four does not affect the truth of Jesus’ eternal sonship, but they fail to explain adequately in what sense the name was inherited at the resurrection; still others have resorted to the questionable expedient that verse 4 refers merely to a divine declaration of what in fact has always been true.[8]

Interestingly, we find a very similar problem in the opening verses of Romans, where Paul speaks of Christ as τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ in connection with his resurrection.(Romans 1:4). Traditionally, commentators have assumed that the phrase refers to Jesus’ deity, in contrast to his humanity;[9] then, in order to avoid some form of adoptionism, they have suggested that ὁρίζειν here means “to declare,” rather than “to ordain, appoint,” which is the established sense. As a matter of fact, the contrast between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα (which ironically was thought to support this traditional interpretation) should have alerted expositors to the eschatological concerns of the passage.

The contrast is not between the two natures of Christ, but between two successive stages in his human-messianic existence. At the resurrection Christ became life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45) and received the exalted sonship which is the crown of his messianic work (in contrast, υίοῦ αὐτοῦ in verse 3 does refer to that sonship which has always been his by virtue of his divine nature). It should be noted, however, that the resurrection does not affect Jesus alone. Insofar as he gives of his life-giving Spirit to his people, he introduces the new age and makes us partakers of his resurrection (Romans 8:9–11; 2 Cor 3:17–18; Eph 2:6; Col 3:3; Phil 3:20).[10]

Now is it possible that the same eschatological concern has affected the opening of Hebrews? To ask the question is to answer it, for the author himself tells us in verse 2 that he is dealing with an event that has taken place ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμέρων τούτων (a Septuagintalism vividly recalling the prophetic formula, béʾaḥärîth havyāmîm). Although the significance of the eschatological perspective is not so widely recognized for the author of Hebrews as it is for Paul,[11] the evidence is no less clear.[12] Verse 2 of chapter 1, coupled with the description of νυνί as συντελεία τῶν αἰώνων in 9:26 (cf. 1 Cor 10:11, which itself is in a passage strongly reminiscent of the argument in Heb 3–4, esp. 4:1–2), lends an unmistakable note of fulfillment to the whole epistle, surfacing particularly in such passages as 2:5–9; 6:5; 7:12; 8:6–13; 11:39–40; 12:18. But further, if the epistle is truly informed by an eschatological perspective, and if that perspective in turn gives meaning to the exaltation of the Messiah, we may in effect have our clue to the significance of “perfection,” not only in reference to Jesus, but throughout the epistle.

We may note that the connection between the perfecting of Jesus and his exaltation is not even dependent on a strong eschatological approach. Already in the 19th century, Henry Alford (who, following Bleek, had rejected the ceremonial interpretation on the grounds that the meaning ‘consecrate” did not suit the other passages in the epistle) insisted that the context (verse 9, δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον) leads us rather to the very ancient view that perfected means “glorified.”[13] Indeed, no fewer than seven passages relate the sufferings of the Messiah either to an explicit reference to the exaltation (1:3-4; 2:9; 10:12), or to the notion of perfection (2:10; 5:8–9; 7:27–28), or to both exaltation and perfection (12:2).

The accompanying chart is particularly instructive in that it brings out the parallelism between 2:10; 5:9 and 12:2. Any interpretation of τελειωτής in 12:2 that is not consonant with τελειοῦν, in 2:10 and 5:9 stands self-condemned.[14] It is clear, further, that ἀρχηγός and τελειωτής have the same fundamental significance for the author of Hebrews that ἀρχή, ἀπαρχή and πρωτότοκος have for Paul (Col 1:18; 1 Cor 15:20; Rom 8:29; cf. Col 1:15). Ridderbos rightly insists that in these Pauline passages “what is intended is not merely that Christ was the First or formed a beginning in terms of chronological order; he was rather the Pioneer, the Inaugurator, who opened up the way….In him the resurrection of the dead dawns, his resurrection represents the commencement of the new world of God.”[15] We find the same thought in Hebrews 2:11 (really an explanation of verse 10, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα): Jesus sanctifies His people because He is one with them.[16] Therefore, the perfecting of human conscience (9:9; 10:1, 14) is not a reference to forgiveness or fitness to approach God, which Old Testament saints did experience (cf. Ps 32 and Rom 4), but to the enjoyment of the time of fulfillment, the new epoch introduced by the Messiah through his exaltation. Through him we have been sanctified: we enjoy direct access to the more perfect tabernacle not made by man (9:11). The Old Testament heroes of the faith were not made perfect without us—a statement further defined by the author with the words, οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν (11:39f). In other words, the least in the kingdom of heaven (= the time of fulfillment) is greater even than the greatest of the prophets.[17]

	1:3–4	2:9	10:12
suffering	καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος	διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου	ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν
exaltation	ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾶ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης… κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων	δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον (contrast: βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον)	ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ

	2:10	5:8–9	7:27–28
suffering	διὰ παθημάτων	ὢν υἱὸς ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν	ἐφάπαξ ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας
perfection	ἔπρεπεν…αὐτῷ… τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν… τελειῶσαι	τελειωθεὶς ἐγένετο πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ αἳτιος σωτηρίας	υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον

	12:1
suffering	ὑπέμεινεν σταυρόν
exaltation/perfection	τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦν…ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ κεκάθικεν

This viewpoint is confirmed by the fact that the author links the theme of perfection with that of the new covenant. In chapter 7 (verses 11, 19) he states that the Levitical economy could not perfect anything. Then in chapter 8 (verses 6ff) he argues that the superiority of Jesus’ ministry may be gauged by the greatness of the covenant which he mediates, a covenant founded on the “better” promises of Jeremiah 31:31–34, where God, finding fault with the people (cf. Rom 8:3), speaks of the coming days (yāmîm bāʾîm) when he will make a new covenant. The use of the adjective “new,” claims our author, renders the former covenant obsolete. Clearly, then, the writer of Hebrews is unwilling to call the Mosaic economy perfect, not because there was anything intrinsically wrong with it, but because in the divine arrangement it was designed as a shadow, anticipating the substance. The substance, therefore, far from opposing the shadow, is its fulfillment—this is perfection!

This eschatological interpretation of perfection in terms of fulfillment (though not to the exclusion of the cultic interpretation) both yields an excellent sense and results in a more consistent use of the word-group in Hebrews. However, two passages remain that present some difficulties. (1) Hebrews 5:14 to 6:1 speaks of solid food for the perfect and encourages us to go on to perfection. (2) Hebrews 12:23 speaks of God’s people in heaven, in contrast to those on earth, as πνεύματα δικαίων τετελειωμένων. I should like to emphasize that, even if we should decide that the two passages are not consistent with the eschatological interpretation, we need not for that reason set the interpretation aside. No one will argue that the non-technical use of a word by an author rules out the possibility of his using the word technically elsewhere. Thus, it would seem reasonable to suggest that in 5:14–6:1 the author reverts to the usual sense of “maturity” and that in 12:23 the thought of moral perfection is present, without assuming that the other passages are thereby stripped of their eschatological concern. In point of fact, however, one could argue that even these two passages evince some connection with the author’s usual sense.

First, Hebrews 5:14–6:1. In the Pauline epistles the Holy Spirit is the sign of fulfillment, the coming of God’s kingdom; indeed, to use the word πνευματικός (1 Cor 2:15 in comparison with verses 10–12) in reference to people is to make an eschatological statement regarding all Christians. Nevertheless, Paul can also restrict the use of the word so that it has reference to those who give proper manifestation of their spiritual status. For example, he hesitates to call the immature Corinthians spiritual (1 Cor 3:1); similarly, in Galatians 6:1 he speaks of those who are spiritual in contrast to those are caught in a fault. Could we not argue therefore that the author of Hebrews in some contexts may restrict the meaning of perfect to those who are giving proper manifestation that they belong to the age of fulfillment? Indeed, the danger faced by the recipients of the letter was that of going back to the old, obsolete, pre-eschgtological (!) covenant.[18]

Hebrews 12:32 is more difficult. We may ask, however, whether “the spirits of righteous men made perfect” necessarily refers to those who have died. For one thing, verse 9 contains the word spirits without any suggestion of death. Further, one could argue that a distinction is intended between “the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven” (=all God’s people or else those who have died, since they are with the angels) and “the spirits of righteous men made perfect” (=those who remain?). But even if the reference is indeed to those who have died, perhaps the author intends us to understand that finally they too have received the promises; that is, they have now, though in heaven, been perfected together with us (11:40), and thus the eschatological note is present here too.[19] Even more satisfactory is an interpretation recently put forward by W. J. Dumbrell, who argues that Hebrews 12:22–24 directs the reader to the thought of “covenant conclusion, modelled on the Sinai definitive pattern.” Since scrutiny is one of the elements in the covenant conclusion, “spirits of just men made perfect” may give expression to the “formal approval” of God as the judge. That is, the phrase does not at all refer to a group different from “the church of the firstborn”; on the contrary, it is a climactic expression, referring to the “total redeemed community,” who enjoy in festivity the arrival of the coming age.[20]

We may note in conclusion what appears to be a striking and fundamental theological agreement between Paul and the author of Hebrews. No doubt the peculiar use of τελειοῦν in Hebrews might be thought to provide additional evidence for the common view that the New Testament contains a number of theologies, not one.[21] In point of fact, however, the terminology of Hebrews indicates a difference in form, not in content, and a close study of that terminology reveals some patterns in the very structure of the author’s theology that are hardly distinguishable from Paul’s. The discipline of biblical theology, with its emphasis on the distinctive features of the individual New Testament authors, far from disturbing our commitment to the unity of Scripture, establishes it.

Notes

1. The Epistle to the Hebrews, New International Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 44.
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. teleiovw, VIII, 79–84, esp. pp. 80f. The suggestion can be traced back at least as far as Calvin (who translated the verb with consecrare in his commentary on Hebrews 2:10), but it received only moderate support until it was revitalized by Olaf Moe in his short article, “Der Gedanke des allgemeinen Priestertums im Hebräerbrief,” Theologische Zeitschrift 5 (1949), 161–169, especially pp. 165ff. Most recent commentators, though to varying degrees of emphasis, acknowledge the “cultic” significance of the term(s). Note further Paul Johannes du Plessis, TELEIOS: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1959), p. 213.
3. In other words, this is proof that the technical sense of the idiom did transfer to the “head word.” Such an ellipsis or shortening is “due to the syntagmatic association which had developed between names occurring frequently in the same context; so frequently indeed that there is no need to pronounce the whole phrase: the sense of a contiguous word is, so to speak, transfused into its neighbour which, through a special kind of semantic ellipsis, will act for the complete construction”’ (Stephen Ullmann, The Principles of Semantics, 2nd ed. [New York: Philosophical Library, 1957]), p. 238; for a classic study, see Gustaf Stern, Meaning and Change of Meaning, with Special Reference to the English Language. [Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckei, 1931], Ch. X, esp. pp. 265-277). Although this is a common semantic change (“capital”=“capital city,” etc.), we cannot simply assume that a “head word” may in any situation acquire the sense of the whole phrase; we need to prove it by adducing examples where the usual meaning of the word no longer makes sense.
4. J. A. Bengel astutely comments regarding ejggivzomen in 7:19 {Heb 7:19}: “Haec vero teleivwsi”” (Gnomon Novi Testamenti, ed. tertia [Tubingae: Sumtibus Ludov. Frid. Fues., 1855]).
5. Some authors, in fact, feel that ethical considerations do play a role even in those passages where Jesus is said to be perfected. Cf. Allen Wikgren, “Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” NTS 6 (1959–60): 159-167.
6. Fransisco Rodriguez Adrados, Estudios de lingüistica general (Barcelona: Editorial Planeta, 1969), p. 52, notes that linguistic creativity, particularly the use of metaphors, is only possible because of our ability to neutralize certain distinctions.
7. “Es ist jedoch die Frage, ob der Sprachgebrauch des Hb durchgängig in diesem kultischen Sinn gedeutet werden kann”; so Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 13. Abteilung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), p. 77. Indeed, Delling himself devotes a separate section (in TDNT, VIII, 83f and 86f) to the use of the term(s) in the later chapters of Hebrews (see below, note 14).
8. This last viewpoint has sometimes been linked to the idea that “today” in verse 5 {Heb 1:5} is a reference to eternity. Fortunately, very few commentators in recent times have insisted that the author of Hebrews had in mind the doctrine of eternal generation.
9. See especially Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, orig. 1886), pp. 19f. This interpretation has misled many to conclude that the primary theological significance of Jesus’ resurrection is that it is evidence of his deity.
10. See especially Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 64-68, 214ff. For the comments above I depend primarily on John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), pp. 6ff, and on Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Pauline Soteriology (unpublished Th. D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 1969; Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1969), pp. 104ff, 141ff. Notice in particular, with regard to 1 Cor 15:45, the interesting turn suggested by James D. G. Dunn that “life-giving Spirit” can only be interpreted “as a reference to the spiritual experience of the early believers”; indeed, he adds, “the believers experience the life-giving Spirit is for Paul proof that the risen Jesus is sw’ma pneumatikovn” (“1 Corinthians 15:45—Last Adam, Life-giving Spirit,” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley [Cambridge: The University Press, 1973], pp. 131f).
11. For example, Jean Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Epworth Press, 1970), esp. p. xii, denies it.
12. Perhaps the earliest to recognize fully this fact was Geerhardus Vos, although his work on The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), was not published until 1956, after his death. Du Plessis (see above, note 3) refers on p. 209 to a work by Grosheide, Het eschatologisch karakter van der Brief aan de Hebreën, unavailable to me. In his important article, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews” (pp. 363-393 in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatalogy, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube in honor of Charles Harold Dodd [Cambridge: The University Press, 1956]), C. K. Barrett comments: “The characteristically Christian conviction…that eschatological events have already taken place…is found as clearly in Hebrews as in any other part of the N.T.” (p. 364), adding that “the thought of Hebrews is consistent, and that in it the eschatological is the determining element” (p. 366). Note finally the recent and useful little work by Bertold Klappert, Die Eschatologie des Hebräerbriefs, Theologische Existenz Heute, 156 (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1969), which places much emphasis on “das eschatologische Christusgeschehen als verbürgte Verheissung” (see p. 54).
13. The Greek Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co., 1870), IV, 44. Alford quotes Theophylact: teleivwsin ejntau’qa noei’ thVn dovxan h{n ejdoxavsqh.
14. For example, Delling considers that teleiwthv” in 12:2 {Heb 12:2} means either “the One who has brought believing to completion,” or “the One who exercises complete faith” (TDNT, VIII, 86f), but neither fits the contexts of 2:10 {Heb 2:10} and 5:9 {Heb 5:9}. Klappert (see above, note 12), who recognizes that in the Epistle the ideas of Jesus’ high priesthood and of His exaltation are inseparable (p. 34), argues that teleiou’n refers to Jesus’ suffering and exaltation in 2:10 {Heb 2:10}; 5:9 {Heb 5:9}; 7:28 {Heb 7:28}; 12:2 {Heb 12:2}; however, he tries to preserve the cultic meaning elsewhere, thus assuming that the author deliberately uses the term(s) in two different senses. He then cleverly seeks to link both meanings with the remark that “gründet für den Hebräerbrief das ‘Schon’ des kultisch-eschatologischen rEkEtoov in dem ku i-eschatologischen Perfekt, so begründet die Vollendung Christi das ‘Noch-nicht’ des futurisch-eschatologischen teleiou’n” (p. 57). However, this raises some fresh problems. It seems more productive to say, not that the author uses the term(s) in two distinct though related senses, but that both senses are present throughout the epistle. That is, the cultic note ‘Provides the background for the use of the term(s), but the eschatological exaltation of Christ, as the fulfillment of the promises, constitutes their concrete designation. With some hesitation, I would suggest that the latter idea may be described as denotation, the former as connotation (however, these terms often serve to confuse, rather than to clarify, the issues).
15. Paul, p. 56.
16. This sanctifying work is carried out by the Holy Spirit, as our author himself may be hinting at with 6:4. Paul in particular emphasizes that what Jesus obtains for His people is applied to them by the Spirit (see above, p. 5 and note 10).
17. Matthew 11:11. For a defense of this interpretation, see Herman Ridderhos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), pp. 53f.
18. In addition, we may note that teleiovth” in 6:1 {Heb 6:1} does not necessarily mean “maturity.” Du Plessis (p. 209) argues for the translation, “Let us address ourselves to the question of perfection.” If this interpretation proves correct, then the passage ceases to be a problem.
19. Cf. G. Lünemann: “The divkaioi, however, are called teteleiwmevnoi not in the sense of the ‘perfect just ones’…, nor yet because they have finished their life’s course and overcome the weaknesses and imperfections of the earthly life, but because they have already been brought by Christ to the goal of consummation” (Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. H. A. W. Meyer [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890], pp. 718f). Notice also Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952 [orig. 1857]), II, pp. 352f. (also p. 291).
20. “‘The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect,”’ in The Evangelical Quarterly, 48 (1976): 154-159 (the quotations are from pages 158–159). Dumbrell speaks of “complete divine favour and acceptance” as the thought expressed by “made perfect”; this view, as I have suggested, implies that the OT saints had not received divine acceptance (contra Romans 4:1ff). Nevertheless, Mr. Dumbrell is sensitive to the eschatological note of the epistle, as the concluding comments of his article clearly show.
21. Cf. most recently Werner G. Kümmel who states that for the purposes of dogmatics, “biblical theology is unable to exhibit any unitary teaching in the New Testament” (The Theology of the New Testament According to Its Major Witnesses [Nashville: Abingdon, 1973]), p. 15.