Defining The Oneness of God-Part 1
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]
Defining the Oneness of God
March 1994
The
oneness of God is undeniably revealed in the Scriptures. Both Old
Testament and New Testament contain numerous references to God’s
oneness. But while all professing Christians believe in the oneness of
God, they are irreconcilably divided over the actual meaning of His oneness.
Millions
of fundamental evangelical Christians have adopted the view that God’s
oneness means that God is literally “one” in number, not realizing that
this teaching stems from ancient philosophy rather than from Scripture.
As one author who espouses this belief states, “In reference to God,
oneness means the state of being absolutely and indivisibly one, or one in
numerical value....Oneness (capitalized) [is used] to mean the doctrine that
God is absolutely one in numerical value, that Jesus is the one God, and that
God is not a plurality of persons. Thus Oneness is a modern term
basically equivalent to modalism [of the ancient philosophers] or modalistic
monarchianism” (Bernard, The Oneness of God, pp.
321-322).
Modalistic
Oneness
Ancient
philosophers called Modalists taught that God is a single divine Being Who
manifests Himself in different modes or ways. Based on this philosophic
concept, whole denominations of Christians firmly believe that God has always
been only one divine Being. In Old Testament times He was known as Jehovah, and since the New Testament, they say, He is both the
Father and the Son—a single Being. Leaders of these
denominations claim that this belief is Scriptural: “What is the
essence of the doctrine of God as taught by the Bible—the doctrine we have
labelled Oneness: First, there is one indivisible God with no
distinction of persons. Second, Jesus Christ is the fulness of the
Godhead incarnate. He is God the Father—the Jehovah of the Old
Testament—robed in the flesh. All of God is in Jesus Christ, and we
find all we need in Him. The only God we will ever see in heaven is
Jesus Christ” (Ibid., p. 304).
The
God of the Old Testament, according to this definition, was a “one in one”
God, and the New Testament God appears to be a “two in one” God. The
author of the above definition of oneness readily admits that this doctrine,
embraced by tens of millions of fundamental evangelical Christians, has its
origin in ancient Modalism. He also shows that this Modalist belief is
actually similar to the Trinitarian belief in a “three in one” God. Notice
his summary statement in the glossary:
“Modalism.
Term used to describe a belief in early church history that Father, Son, and
Spirit are not eternal distinctions within God’s nature but simply modes
(methods or manifestations) of God’s activity. In other words, God is
one individual being, and various terms used to describe Him (such as Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit) are designations applied to different forms of His
action or different relationships He has to man....Also called modalistic
monarchianism, Patripassianism [the teaching that the Father suffered on the
tree], and Sabellianism [the philosophy of Modalism as taught by the
philosopher Sabellius ca. 100 A.D.]. Basically, modalism is the same as
the modern doctrine of Oneness....Modalistic monarchianism held that God is
one individual being and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are terms which
apply to different modes of action of the one God. Unlike dynamic
monarchianism, modalistic monarchianism identified Jesus Christ as God Himself
(the Father) manifested in flesh” (Ibid., pp. 318-319).
Modalism
holds that while only one divine Being exists, that single divine Being can
manifest Himself in three different modes at once—as Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Although Modalism supports a “three in one” God, the author who
espouses the Modalist definition of oneness asserts that “Oneness believers
... reject trinitarianism as a departure from biblical monotheism” (Ibid.,
p. 319).
Trinitarian
Oneness
The
majority of Christians around the world hold the Trinitarian view of God’s
oneness. In the Western world, most of these Christians follow the form
of Trinitarianism that is based on the Athanasian Creed. To these Christians,
the term “oneness” means that three distinct deities coexist in a single
divine Nature or Substance. These three distinctions are called “Persons,”
but are not actually persons in the true sense of the word. Here is a
statement of the Trinitarian belief: “There are then (as the statement
may run) three Persons (Hypostases) or real distinctions in the unity of the
divine Nature or Substance....As a ‘person’ in Trinitarian usage is more
than a mere aspect of being, being a real ground of experience and function,
each divine Person, while less than a separate individuality, possesses His
own hypostatic character or characteristic property” (W. Fulton,
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, “Trinity,” pp. 459-460).
The
doctrine of Trinitarianism states that there are three distinctions, called
“Persons” or “Hypostases,” in one divine Substance, but only one
distinction or “Person” can be manifested at any given time.
This definition of God contradicts that of the Modalist, who claims that the
single divine Substance can manifest itself in all three modes (or “Persons”)
at the same time.
Trinitarianism
views God as a sort of hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo God who has neither body nor
personality, but who can manifest Himself as Father or Son or Holy Spirit—only
one at a time. Unlike the Trinitarian belief, the God of Modalism can
manifest Himself as Father, Son or Holy Spirit all at the same time.
According
to the Trinitarian statement of belief, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit are all divine “Persons,” but each is “less than a separate
individuality.” In other words, these “Persons” are not actually
individuals. This statement is confusing and contradictory because it is
expressing philosophical concepts that were deliberately intended to be
interpreted in different ways. These philosophic constructs have always been
ambiguous statements of belief. A word or phrase used in these
statements may be given a variety of philosophic definitions. The result
is that more than one meaning can be drawn from the same statement.
When
we read such statements, we should be aware that the problem in understanding
them is not due to our own lack of intellect but to the ambiguous construction
of the statements themselves. This type of grammatical structure is
known as “amphiboly.” Statements which are worded in an amphibolous
manner allow room for a variety of interpretations. Amphiboly has long
been a favorite tool of philosophers and politicians. “Amphibolously
worded predictions [and philosophic constructs] have long been exploited by
astrologers [ancient Magi/Chaldean philosophers], tea-leaf readers, political
columnists, and even ancient oracles [demonically inspired mediums]” (Rescher,
Introduction to Logic, p. 75).
To
add to the confusion, the names used in philosophical statements are often vacuous;
i.e., the names as they are used actually designate nothing!
Names are properly used to designate a thing or entity or to describe
an aspect of a thing or entity—a quality that the entity has or a
relationship it bears to something else. Names that do not
represent such actual things or entities are vacuous—empty and
meaningless. Here is a warning against being misled by such names:
“A name that literally designates nothing [the “One” or the “Hypostases”
of philosophy] is called a vacuous name. Because of vacuous
names, care must be taken when some name is presented to avoid the conclusion
that there necessarily exists a thing which answers to this
name. A subtle but important line of separation must be
drawn between names with fictitious or imaginary designations [such as
characters in plays, novels or movies] and vacuous names. This
distinction is sometimes obscured by the fact that one and the same name may
fall into either category, depending upon how it is understood”
(Ibid., p. 23).
The
names “One,” Hypostases, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, God, Person and Being
can be categorized either as authentic names or as vacuous names, depending on
how they are used. These terms are vacuous as used in
philosophic statements about the Trinity. These names are not
vacuous when we understand them in the light of God’s Word. To
define these terms solely in the artificial framework of philosophic
constructs and then attempt to superimpose this philosophy upon Scripture
makes these names vacuous and meaningless.
Those
who profess allegiance to the God of the Bible and then proceed to distort God’s
Word, elevating the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle above His Word, are not
Christian but pagan. The paganism of ancient and modern philosophers is
not compatible with the Holy Scriptures. As the pagan philosopher
Mortimer J. Adler so forcefully and honestly wrote in How to Think About
God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan: “The God that
is the object of pagan philosophical thought is not the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, or of Moses, [or] Jesus ...” (p. 28).
Tritheistic
Oneness
One
school of thought among Trinitarians insists that God’s oneness is
manifested in three individual Beings, each possessing a separate personality,
body and intellect. Modalists and Trinitarians are quick to brand
Tritheism as a form of ancient pagan polytheism, the belief in a plurality of
gods. Polytheism taught that the gods bore human shapes, animal shapes,
or half human/half animal shapes, and human or animal characteristics; i.e.,
personality, self-awareness, form, intellect, emotions. Other human
characteristics attributed to these false gods were procreation, family
structure, industry and warfare. The process of attributing human
characteristics to deities is called anthropomorphism.
While
it is true that many ancient pagan religions were guilty of anthropomorphism,
it does not negate the fact that the true God shares many of the same
characteristics which He bestowed upon humankind! God Himself declares
that He has made us in His image (Gen. 1:26-27). It is utter folly to
assert that Christians are anthropomorphizing God by accepting and believing
what God reveals about Himself in His Word.
Belief
in a personal God Who possesses emotion and intellect, and a spiritual body
with eyes and ears, arms and legs and hands and feet, should not be
discredited and dismissed under the label of anthropomorphism. The
determining factor in evaluating any belief should not be how it is
categorized, but whether or not the teaching agrees with the revealed Word of
God.
Even
pagan philosophers, with all their misguided speculations on the nature of
God, admit that the Word of God clearly reveals Him as a fully personal
Being. Notice this admission in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“In the preceding sections [article “God, Concepts of”] it has been
assumed that God has personality. The assumption is justified by the
fact that... philosophers (in the West, at any rate) have nearly always
described His nature to some extent by analogy with the human self....While
Aristotle’s first mover contemplates Himself, He does not have any knowledge
of the world. Therefore, like Spinoza’s God, He cannot return the love
that He receives....Some thinkers have attempted to mediate between philosophy
and religion by suggesting that concrete images of God are inadequate attempts
to grasp a reality that is suprapersonal. Thus Hegel [the philosophic
father of Nazi Germany] held that absolute spirit can be adequately known only
by speculative intellect [philosophy]. Consequently, when he speaks of
the absolute as God he means by God (as Aristotle meant) self-thinking
thought. The personal God or Theism is a prerational [pre-philosophical]
and imperfect representation (Vorstellung) of the absolute....Christians,
however, are obliged by revelation [the Word of God] to identify the absolute
with a God who is fully personal, both in Himself and in His dealings with
mankind. Such primary images as Father, King, and Friend mediate a
knowledge that cannot be surpassed by abstract speculation [philosophy]”(p.
347).
Ditheistic
Oneness (Binitarian
or Bi-personal)
Another
little known concept of God’s oneness is Ditheism (also called Bi-personal
or Binitarianism), the belief that there are two personal, intelligent,
equally powerful Beings Who are both God. These two Beings possess
personality and spiritual senses, experience emotions, and have spiritual
bodies with arms and legs, and heads with eyes, ears, noses and
mouths.
These
divine Beings are Persons in the true sense of the word. They
communicate with mankind through spiritual thought (prayer) and through Their
written Word. They are revealed in the Old Testament both as Jehovah
and Elohim, and individually as the Ancient of days and the Son of man
(Dan. 7:13-14, 22). They are revealed in the New Testament as God the
Father and God the Son. There is no other God besides these two
Beings. In this sense they are the only God.
Although
few people today have ever heard the terms Ditheism or Binitarianism, the
belief in two divine Beings was widely held among Christians in early New
Testament times. As one authority states,”...the whole history of
early Christianity gives us abundant examples of binitarian thought” (Essays
on the Trinity and the Incarnation, edited by A. E. J. Rawlinson, p.
201).
Contrary
to modern opinion, the doctrine of Trinitarianism did not naturally develop
from the teachings of the early New Testament Church. In fact, a study
of early Christian beliefs shows that “contemporary [New Testament] thought—if
it had been allowed to mould or influence the [modern] Christian conception of
God in any way—would have produced a doctrine not of three, but of two
persons in the Godhead. Further, there is ample evidence to show
that it did actually have such an effect; and that Trinitarianism had to
fight its way and make good its footing against a strong tendency,
both within and without the Church, towards belief in a Godhead of two
persons only” (Ibid., p.162).
Even
early Jewish belief did not totally reject the concept of a Bi-personal or
Binitarian God. Here is a striking admission: “If, then, we find
that, without abandoning his dominant monotheism, the pious Jew was prepared
to admit a divine Being distinguishable in name and function from Jahweh, and
to some degree self-existent, of whom personal relationship with man is
predicable, we must conclude that even this strict school of monotheism
recognised at least the possibility of a bi-personal God” (Ibid., p.
184).
As
the doctrine of Trinitarianism began to develop, the early Binitarian
Christians were caught in a controversy over the two opposing beliefs.
It was “a struggle between a binitarian and trinitarian interpretation of
the Christian facts—a struggle which maintained itself for nearly
four centuries [spanning one fifth of the entire history of Christianity]”
(Ibid., p. 199).
A
major element of the controversy was the relationship of Christ and the Holy
Spirit. Was the Spirit a distinct person, or did the Spirit come from
Christ as His power? Rawlinson, an Anglican bishop and scholar, finds
abundant evidence in the New Testament to illustrate a strong Christian belief
in the Spirit as the power of Christ and the Father. He states, “...in
the New Testament, there can be no doubt that the other strain of thought
in which the Spirit is regarded in the main as an ‘influence,’ ‘gift,’
or ‘power’ sent by the Father and the Son, and not as a distinct person,
is fully represented. M. Lebreton [Les Origines du Dogme de la
Trinite, pp. 347-348] repeatedly admits that large numbers of texts
represent the Spirit as an impersonal force, both in Acts and in St. Paul”
(Ibid., p. 203).
Rawlinson
makes it clear that the apostle Paul did not regard the Holy Spirit as a
distinct person, but as the power of Christ. He writes, “When,
therefore, we are told, as we commonly are, that St. Paul ‘identifies’ the
Risen Christ with the Spirit [II Cor. 3], we must assume the critics to mean
that his theology in the main belongs to the second (or ‘Macedonian’) type
previously mentioned. A second divine being, who may be called
indifferently the ‘Son,’ ‘Image,’ or ‘Wisdom’ of the Father...has
been incarnate among men, and now from his risen sphere extends his fellowship
to men and sheds out his influence [through the Holy Spirit as just
attested] upon those who accept it” (Ibid., pp. 204-205).
Rawlinson
further attests to the contrast between Trinitarianism and the Binitarian
theology of the apostle Paul: “The result of his [the apostle Paul’s]
innovation, however, is to reinforce the conclusion that we cannot eliminate
from his thought a very large admixture of purely binitarian elements, in
which the Spirit—if distinguished from Christ at all—is distinguished as
the thing from the person, the gift from its giver, the influence from its
fount, and not as one hypostasis in the Godhead from another” (Ibid., p.
207).
The
writings of the apostle Paul clearly reveal a Binitarian view of the Holy
Spirit. The predominance of Binitarian thought in early Christianity is
evident not only in Paul’s epistles but also in other New Testament
epistles, as Rawlinson shows in the following summary: “Of the seventeen
Epistles which open with the invocation of ‘grace and peace’ or the like
upon the readers, in thirteen these gifts are specifically mentioned as coming
from ‘God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’; in two there is explicit
mention of the first two Persons of the Trinity in the same context, though
not definitely as the source of grace; in one (Colossians) the reading varies
between ‘from God’ and ‘from God and Christ’; in one only (I Peter) is
there any mention of the Spirit at all, and then not as a source of
grace. Of the formulae of thanksgiving or blessing which in eleven cases
follow the opening salutation, three are addressed to the Father alone, one to
the Father and the Son, six to the Father with an immediate and closely
related mention of the Son (e.g. ‘the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus
Christ’); one is quite vague; but in not a single case is there any mention
of the Spirit at all. The facts are startling in their
importance. Here are formulae as fixed and solemn, in their way, as the
baptismal formula itself; twenty-two of them are definitely binitarian, only
one [in I Peter] is [remotely] trinitarian” (Ibid., pp. 203-204).
The
New Testament bears ample evidence of the Binitarian beliefs of the apostles
of Jesus Christ. Yet in the centuries that followed, the doctrine of
Trinitarianism came to dominate Christian thought. If the apostles of
Christ did not profess the Trinity, upon what authority was the doctrine of
Trinitarianism introduced into the Christian Church? How can the
acceptance of Trinitarianism as a Christian doctrine be explained?
Rawlinson gives the answer when he states that “...if the faith [in the
Trinity] be logically and empirically unverifiable [not supported by the New
Testament], even the fact that the earliest [Roman] Christians held it cannot
vindicate it, unless our appeal be to bare authority [of the Roman church] and
that alone” (Ibid., p. 210).
It
is a historical fact that the doctrine of the Trinity entered the New
Testament church through the influence of Rome. As the influence of the
Roman church grew, belief in the Trinity spread throughout the Christian
churches. In time, the doctrine of Trinitarianism replaced the earlier
Christian belief in a Bi-personal God.
Although
Trinitarianism had the greatest influence on Christian belief in the early
centuries, the doctrine of Modalism also had its effect. Introduced by
the philosopher Sabellius about 100 A.D., the teaching that Jesus and the
Father were one and the same God soon had followers in many churches.
While some Christians embraced this Modalist teaching, other Christians
denounced it as heresy. A record from 170 A.D. shows the Ephesus
brethren resisting the doctrine of Modalism and holding to their belief in a
Bi-personal divinity. Here is that historical account: “Noetus
[a Smyrnan brother who as a devout Modalist founded the Patripassian heresy],
when cited before a council in Asia Minor [the elders at Ephesus], sought to
conceal his Patripassian learning by emphasizing his monotheism, and
pathetically exclaimed: ‘What wrong have I done? I adore the One God,
I know but One God, and none beside Him, who was born, suffered, and died! [Ephiphanius,
Haeres., 57, 1]. The assembled bishops (called presbyteri,
[Polycrates among them]) did not reply that they were Ditheists. They
simply declared: ‘We, too, adore the One God, but in a manner in which
we know that He is adored rightly. And we likewise possess the One
Christ,...the Son of God, who suffered and died” (Preuss, The Divine
Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise, p. 119).
The
elders of Ephesus in New Testament times affirmed their belief in two Beings
who are God—God the Father, and God the Son. Does this statement of
belief fit the Scriptural definition of the oneness of God?
We
should not base our answer to this question on the teachings of philosophers
and theologians. God Himself reveals the true answer in His Word.
Let us examine the Scriptures to find the true meaning of God’s oneness.
The
Scriptural Meaning of “One”
Any
definition of the oneness of God is valid only if it conveys truthful meaning
about the God of Scripture. Truthful meaning will obviously be supported
by contextual use of the word “one” in Scripture. A systematic study
of the use of this word in Scripture will reveal the true meaning of God’s
oneness. The Holy Scriptures reveal God as He really is and not as He is
conceived to be in the vain imaginations and reasonings of pagan philosophers
and modern theologians. We must be careful not to interpret God’s
Word in the artificial framework of ancient philosophy or our modern language
and culture.
The
Scriptures clearly reveal the meaning that God attaches to the word “one.”
This word is used too numerously to check every usage in the Old Testament and
the New Testament. However, we can find prime examples in
Scripture to illustrate that the word “one” is used both quantitatively
(as a cardinal or ordinal number) and qualitatively (as a characteristic or
attribute, or to show unity). We will first investigate the quantitative
usage of the word “one” and then investigate its qualitative usage
in Scripture.
“One”
Used as a
Cardinal Number
“One”
is most often used in Scripture as a cardinal number. Cardinal numbers
tell us how many units there are in a group. A good example of this
usage is found in Deuteronomy 1:23: “...and I took twelve men of you, one
[Hebrew echad] of a tribe.” The obvious meaning of
“one,” as defined by the context, is that one person (the unit) was to be
chosen from each of the twelve tribes (the group). Other examples in
Deuteronomy are: “... that fleeing unto one [the unit] of these cities
[the group]” (Deut. 4:42); “...the Lord shall choose in one [the unit] of
thy tribes [the group]” (Deut. 12:14).
We
find other examples of the usage of “one” as a cardinal number in Isaiah:
“seven women [the group] shall take hold of one man [the unit]” (Isa.
4:1); “...ten acres [the group] shall yield one bath [the unit of
measure]” (Isa. 5:10).
“One”
Used as an
Ordinal Number
“One”
is also used in Scripture as an ordinal number. An ordinal number
denotes order, succession or degree. Ordinal numbers are expressed as
“first, second, third,” as opposed to “one, two, three.” We find
many examples in the Old Testament of this usage of “one.” In the
first chapter of Genesis we read, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’
and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and
the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the
first [Hebrew echad] day” (verses 3-5).
The
word “first” is the same Hebrew word that is elsewhere translated “one.”
In this verse it is translated “first” and is used as an adjective to
qualify the noun “day.” The meaning of “day” in Genesis 1:5 is
limited or qualified by the adjective “first”; it is the first day of
seven days. “First” is an ordinal number which positions this day in
relationship to six others; it is the first day or day one in a series of
seven. It is thus the first of a unit of seven days.
Another
Old Testament example of the word “one” as an ordinal number is found in
Isaiah 41:4: “Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the
beginning? I the Lord [Jehovah], the first, and with the last; I am
He.” A similar example of “one” as an ordinal number is found
in Isaiah 48:12: “Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called; I am
He; I am the first, I also am the last.” And again in Isaiah 44:6:
“Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts;
‘I am the first, and I am the last; and beside Me there is no God.’ “
When God states, “...beside Me there is no God,” He is revealing that He
is the only God! Here God Himself defines what He means by the
statement, “I am the first, and I am the last.”
The
above statement is also found in the New Testament in reference to the
glorified Jesus Christ: “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as
dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me, ‘Fear not; I
am the First and the Last’ “ (Rev. 1:17).
Another
example of the ordinal use of “one” in the New Testament is found in
Matthew 28:1: “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward
the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the
sepulchre.”
The
Greek word translated “first” in Matthew 28:1 is the feminine mia. The
word “day” in this verse is not found in the Greek text. A more
accurate translation is “the first of the weeks.” This day
that was dawning was the day of the Wave Sheaf, the day from which seven
sabbaths or weeks were numbered to Pentecost; it was the beginning of
the first week of seven weeks.
“First”
is an ordinal number which positions this week in relationship to six others;
it is the first week or week one in a series of seven. “In
the end of [Greek opse ge, meaning “after the close of”]the sabbath
[Greek sabbaton, sabbaths(plural)], as it began to dawn toward the
first of the week [Greek mia sabbaton, the first of sabbaths or weeks],
came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre” (Mat. 28:1).
The
account in the Gospel of Mark also uses “one” as an ordinal number.
Mark confirms that this day was the “first of the weeks.” In Mark
16:2 we read, “And very early [Greek proi] in the morning the
first day [”day” is not in the Greek text] of the week [Greek sabbaton,
sabbaths or weeks] they come to the tomb, having risen the sun [Greek anateilantos
ton helios]” (Berry, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament).
Luke’s
account also confirms that this was the “first of the weeks,” which began
the seven weeks leading to Pentecost. “Now [But] upon the first day
[the word “day” is not in the Greek text] of the week [Greek sabbaton,
sabbaths or weeks; the expression “first of the weeks” designates the Day
of the Wave Sheaf], very early in the morning [Greek orthros bathus, at
deep or early dawn], they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which
they had prepared” (Luke 24:1).
John
records of these events, “The first [Greek mia] day [not in the Greek
text] of the week [Greek sabbaton, weeks or sabbaths] comes Mary
Magdalene early [Greek proi] when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre,
and sees the stone taken away from the sepulchre” (John 20:1).
John
records that as Mary Magdalene approached the tomb of Jesus it was yet dark,
but the darkness was beginning to be tempered by the first glint of light at
daybreak (Greek proi). Bullinger equates Greek proi with 3
to 4 A.M., a period of time well before sunrise! John’s testimony
affirms that by the first light, the stone had already been rolled back by the
angel. Jesus had been resurrected before sunrise.
All
four Gospel writers agree in their use of “one” as an ordinal number to
pinpoint the Day of the Wave Sheaf as the day immediately following the
resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We
have studied Scriptural examples of the use of “one” as both a cardinal
number and an ordinal number. Now that we have examined the quantitative
use of “one” in Scripture, let us take a close look at Scriptural
examples of the qualitative use of “one.” In
qualitative usage, “one” may be used either to show unity or to designate
attributes or characteristics. Let us first examine the Scriptural use
of “one” as an expression of unity.
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ] |
