Arsenokoites: Be Bold, Be Accurate, Be Truthful

The stranger's home, long to see the church's fold The chosen race and heart and soul Sing thy redeeming praise

You may be seated.

I hope you have a writing instrument, and I don't mean what you give to the kids to scribble on the bulletin. I mean the real thing. And I hope you'll notice that there are note pages in the bulletin available to you, because here's the goal today, and it's an important one.

I want to speak to every person in this room. I do not believe that what we're going to be talking about is beyond anyone. You can be a new believer. You can be a mom. You can be a dad. You can be a taxi driver.

I don't care what you do. This is for you, and I am simply stating that I believe that the Lord would have us, at Apologia Church or if you are watching from other places, if you are a believer, you need to be prepared, ready, bold in your proclamation of God's truth in our day while we have the freedom to be able to speak the truth.

Now, we were joking a little bit with Pastor Zack's statement that I certainly chose a very heartwarming Mother's Day topic, because the term arsonokoites, if you're wondering, means homosexual, and that's the whole issue.

Because today, and some of you saw this, I've addressed this literally for two decades now, multiple, multiple times. And you might say, why are you doing it again? Well, because the fact that there is a tremendous amount of social media, I learned only this past week that there is a movie being made called 1946 that will present the idea that when the Revised Standard Translation Committee translated arsonokoitai, the plural of arsonokoites, at 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 1 Timothy 1, 10, write those references down, know where they are, we'll be looking at them, that when they translated arsonokoitai as homosexuals, that they mistranslated the text and inserted an anti-homosexual bias into the Bible that had never been there before, and that all the problems we've had, all the non-affirming churches, all the Jerry Falwells, and I'm gonna date myself here, Anita Bryant's, there's only three of you in this room old enough to even get that one, all of those issues that have come up in the opposition of the Christian church, the subject of homosexuality, is because they blew it, and all the other translations have simply slavishly followed along after the Revised Standard Version.

Now, I personally find that laughable on so many grounds that I wouldn't have time today to lay them all out. Anyone who reads the New Testament's original language knows that this argumentation is absurdly fallacious.

The problem is, the vast majority of the people in our society do not do that, and the vast majority of Christians don't either, and hence, a lot of Christians go, well, then I can never really address this issue.

I need to leave that for the specialist. The problem is, that's not being left for you. That movie isn't gonna be just shown to specialists, that's going to influence, and it already is influencing for many, many people, their whole understanding of the accuracy of the Bible and the accuracy of the Christian response to the subject of human sexuality.

And so we have no choice but to be prepared to give a response, not just simply to shut up and back off and go, well, I don't know anything about the RSV Translation Committee, and I don't read Greek, and I know a few people that do, but it's their experts versus our experts, and can anyone really know?

That's exactly what they want. This is not actually a disputable issue. There is not a single representative of the other side that could possibly survive a live, moderated debate on this subject. They would be destroyed, and they know it.

They know it. I don't care what scholar it is, how many books they've published, they will not debate this issue. I can tell you that, because I've challenged most of them to do it. And we've done it.

Isn't it interesting, those of you that know the debates we've done on this subject, where have the last debates on homosexuality been done? In the United States?

No.

I can't get anybody in the United States to do it, because they know they already have the media, they already have the culture. Why in the world risk it? The last two major debates I've had on this subject were done in South Africa.

That was the only place we could find someone who could really engage it. We need to seize the opportunity. There is an opportunity being presented to us, where this cultural moment is being presented to us, where this argument's out there, and if we know our scriptures, and there's no one in this room that is not able, with the Spirit's help, to know these scriptures well enough to give a incredibly strong response, and then to move directly into the proclamation of the gospel.

In fact, when you hear someone saying this, you should get excited. You should be, oh, yes. They're opening the door. They're giving me a perfect opportunity to speak with boldness to this issue. But there's another reason why we need to do this today, because the fact of the matter is, there's something called the Equality Act in Congress right now.

And even if it doesn't pass this year, or the next year, you and I have started to figure something out, I hope, by now, and that is, it's not so much what's happening in Congress, but in the halls of Google and Facebook that determine what will and will not be allowed to be said in our culture.

And once you get the two of them coming together, I could foresee a time when a movie like that could be released, and we would not even have the opportunity in social media to give a full response to it, because that would be considered breaking the law, or being hate speech.

That's already how all the universities are functioning. Could you imagine if we tried to rent a facility at ASU to talk about this subject?

Right, sure.

Even if we somehow managed to get a room, what would happen? People would show up banging on drums in the windows and everything else. We've seen it happen over and over again. We know what's going on.

So now's our time. And even if they do shut us down in social media, online, on the internet, we still have the opportunity. Somehow the Christian church survived before the internet. It's an amazing thing.

But they did, and they turned the world upside down because of the boldness of their proclamation. So the question is, what about you? When you hear someone saying they mistranslated this, the Bible doesn't say that.

Are you wanting to open your Bible to 1 Timothy 1 .10, to 1 Corinthians 6, and say, let's look at this. Let's think about what it's actually saying. We need to have that kind of boldness. But first, we need to understand what the texts are saying.

So my goal is, let's look at the text. We're only looking at two. We're not looking at all of them from the Old Testament. We will have to make reference, of course, to Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. Leviticus 18 .22 and Leviticus 20 .13.

We will have to just reference those texts. But our focus will be upon the New Testament. And it won't even be on Romans 1. We're not covering the whole subject here. The issue is when people say, this subject was never a part of the Bible before.

I'm not sure what they think sodomite means, but this was never a part of the Bible until 1946. And the Bible isn't talking about what we're talking about today. Can you all foresee a situation where you might have that conversation?

I mean, I can't imagine anywhere in our society anymore where that's not a part of the conversation. On a bus, on a train, on a plane, on a street corner, in the grocery store, over the back fence, every place, this is now part and parcel of where we are.

My grandparents did not have to have this conversation. And they never dreamed that their grandchild would stand in the pulpit of a church and preach this sermon. I can assure you of that. But here we are.

And we have to be faithful to what Scripture says. Especially if we're called upon to suffer for what it says. Because right now, everybody in this room knows that if you were to openly and boldly state your understanding of what the Scripture states on this subject in almost any major corporate position in this society right now, you'd lose your job.

Minimally, you'd be told to shut up. But we all know, most of us would lose our job. I happen to have a job where that's not really the issue. It's okay. Rich isn't gonna fire me for this. Let's start with probably the least used, but shouldn't be, the least used text.

First Timothy chapter one. First Timothy chapter one. And I want you to hear what is being stated to Timothy. The background is that there are, in fact, people who are misusing and abusing the Mosaic law in the early church.

We know that from the book of Galatians, right? Notice what Paul says to Timothy. But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Now, there is a lot there. There is a lot there as to how law and gospel relate to one another, who the law speaks to in a particular fashion, and that the reality that the law is good, that there is a lawful use of the law, an appropriate use of the law, and that this has to do with what is sound teaching, whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.

So everything that was listed as violations of the law is contrary to sound teaching according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted, specifically in regards to his apostleship to the Gentiles, but here the glorious gospel of the blessed God is associated with a clear recognition of the violations of God's law.

People who want to have a gospel that does not speak to man's sin are not gonna find that kind of a gospel in the pages of the New Testament. It will address the issue of man's sin, and when you live in a day where every restraint is being thrown off, when you live in a culture where it is becoming morally good to be as morally bad as possible, then there is gonna be a great conflict between the gospel and that culture, but I want you to see something here that a lot of people have not seen.

I'm sure she won't mind if I mention this, but I was on a webcast. You may have heard about before called Sheologians. I am not going to discuss the origination of the name, nor Pastor Luke's role in the recording of any of the sound effects therefore.

Some of you are now going to be asking why I said any of that. You know who to ask, don't ask me, but we were talking about the issue of homosexuality, and when we got to 1 Timothy chapter one, Summer will admit, when I pointed this out, it was like, I've never seen that before, and most of us haven't, so you're gonna see something, hopefully, and see if you see it, then hopefully if you really grasp hold of it, you will be able to express it to others, but it has to be firmly in your own mind because the more clarity you have in your own thought, the greater the clarity of your explanation to someone else.

If it's muddled in your own thinking, it's gonna be muddled when you explain it to somebody else, but did you see the list of sins? The law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane.

Now stop right there, and when you look at those sins, unholiness, godlessness, profane, those are references to violations of what's called the first table of the law, the first three commandments of honoring God as God and not having other gods before him, being in subjection to the one true God, but then notice what comes next.

For those who kill their fathers or mothers, now think back to Sunday school, think back to what you're doing in homeschooling kids. If you know the 10 commandments, I think, aren't they on the wall back there?

I think that's where they are back there. If you know the 10 commandments, then you know we've covered the first three. Interestingly enough, there's nothing specifically about number four there, but what's the fifth one?

Honor your father and your mother. Huh, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, what's the sixth commandment? You shall not murder, you shall not kill. Now it seems like there's in Paul's crafting of this, he's connecting them together because he says killing fathers and mothers, that would certainly be a violation of the fifth commandment, but then by using killing, you're sort of sliding and connecting those together with the next commandment for murderers and then you have immoral men and homosexuals.

Now I'm reading from the 1977 edition of the New American Standard Bible at that point, which still remains one of my favorites. And what you have in this particular section is you have, of course, pornoise.

Pornoise, pornia is the general broad category of sexual sin, which includes the commission of adultery, the next commandment, sexual sins. So he has pornia, pornoise, those who commit pornia and remember Jesus used that terminology when he talked about, except for pornia, committing of sexual sins, remember he used that terminology in regards to marriage.

And then the next term is arsenikoitais, our key term, translated by the NASV as homosexuals. But then before we define the term, what's next? Kidnappers and liars and perjurers. Hmm, kidnappers, you shall not steal.

And while the strongest applications of that in the Jewish thinking of the commandments was you shall not steal a man to make him a slave. And then of course, not taking the Lord's name in vain was being honest, oaths, et cetera, et cetera.

So what is Paul doing? Well, if you read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which Timothy would have, which anyone at Ephesus or Corinth or Colossae or Philippi or Rome would have, then you already have picked up just naturally what Paul is doing.

Paul is summarizing and expanding upon the Decalogue. He's saying the law is good and the law has application and the law speaks to all these different aspects of man's sin and he's drawing that from the 10 words, from the 10 commandments.

He's using the same terminology, but what does that mean? Well, that means that when he's gotten to the section on sexual sin, he defines it using the broad term, pornia and the term arsenokoites. He brings them together.

So whatever arsenokoites is, it's related to pornia. It is a sexual sin. Now, is there really any great conflict as to what this word means? Because a whole movie is gonna be coming out saying, yep, they blew it.

It doesn't refer to homosexuality at all. Well, what do they say it refers to? Well, they're not all that sure. It might have something to do with rich men who paid to have boy toys available to them.

And that did happen. I mean, Roman society was a debauched society and was becoming worse and worse and would continue over the next centuries until Rome collapsed as a society. That certainly did take place.

The Greeks certainly spoke of that kind of sexual sin and relationships. But when you ask the question, what does a word mean? Scholars who actually try to do scholarship rather than try to press politics.

And by the way, I hate to tell you this. If you have the idea that seminaries and Bible colleges are free of political influence, I need to disabuse you of your naivete. Even published lexicons today, you can see clear evidence of a push toward a particular direction.

No question about it. But in sound scholarship, if you're reading Paul and 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Pauline, though you go to the Christian bookstore, if such things still exist, and you buy commentaries, you'll discover very quickly there are many people who believe Paul did write 1 Corinthians, but he didn't write 1 2 Timothy or Titus.

There are people who have a limited Pauline canon. It says at the beginning of 1 Timothy 1, Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus. Right, they're saying it's a forgery. They're saying it's a forgery. I could go through and have, on the dividing line in the past, go through all the reasons for that and respond to them, but that's what you're gonna encounter.

The point is how would you answer the question where, what does this word mean? Well, the first thing you do is you'd go, did anyone use it earlier? And the answer is no. There's one possible source that we're not really sure exactly when it was written.

Most people would say this is, the Pauline use, is the first use of this term. Well, that's interesting. Then where did it come from? Where would this come from? Well, arsenikoites, if you read Greek, is made up of two words.

Now, I have studied a lot of different languages. One of them is German. Anybody here do a little German? Sprechen Sie ein bisschen Deutsch?

Nein?

Was ist los? Ja, das ist gut.

What my German friends do is if they want to describe something in a way that's not been described before, they just take a bunch of currently existing words and cram them into a word that can be like a paragraph long.

I remember I was in Germany. I may never get to go back again, but I was in Germany just a few years ago and out in the parking lot, I found a sign and I took a picture, I remember sending it to my family from over there, and it was like two lines long, but it was just a bunch of different German words crammed together into one word.

And that's just how they do it. And it makes for tremendously long, doesn't work well on Twitter, let's just put it that way. Well, in this case, what you have are two words. Arsinos is the technical term for a male.

It is a male, it is a man. And they were not confused as to what that meant. They did not have anybody with PhDs in gender studies back then, thankfully. So everybody understood what a male was, everybody understood what a female was.

And arsinos is not a female, but coitein, coiteo, that's what men do with men in bed. That's sexual intercourse. So arsino coites would be what men do with men in bed. It's homosexuality, if that's what the word means, unless you've come up with some new meaning of it.

And later on in history, we find people using that to describe all sorts of other bad relationships. It's even used in regards to animals. So no one was confused about what the second word meant. But most importantly, if Paul's the first one to use it, did he coin it?

And you might think it's strange, who makes up new words? Actually, in the past, a lot of people did. Only in our day has it become pretty common that you don't just come up with new words. Well, I guess we do.

Meme didn't exist a few decades ago, and we do come up with stuff. But the apostle uses a number of terms that we do not have evidence of having been used before him. And when we encounter one of these, the first thing we do is we go, is there anything in his Bible?

And what Bible did he have? Well, Paul could read Hebrew, no question about it. He could read the scrolls. But what Bible was he preaching out of? He was preaching out of what's called the Greek Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

All the apostles quoted from the Greek Septuagint. And it just so happens, there are two passages in the Mosaic Law, in what's called the Holiness Code, Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, that specifically make reference to men lying with men as you would lie with a woman.

And the terms that are used in the Greek Septuagint are arsenos and coetane. They're right next to each other. Everybody who knew the Mosaic Law and had the Greek Septuagint, who read 1 Timothy 1 .10, was not confused as to what Paul was talking about.

Right there in Leviticus 18, right there in Leviticus 20, you have the very source of the term. And this is how you would interpret it for anything that Paul would speak on, where you're asking the question, well, what does that term specifically mean to Paul?

Its use in the Old Testament and in the Greek Septuagint would be absolutely determinative, except when it comes to something as politically useful as homosexuality. When all of a sudden you will have people who would never think about doing this on any other subject are running off to references from four centuries after Paul to try to say, well, this has something to do with economic things and oppressing people.

Isn't that what everything has to do with anymore? It's all some type of economic oppression, I guess. Anyone who would handle Paul correctly would want to hear what Paul is saying in looking at 1 Timothy 1, would stand back and go in light of what Paul says.

He's just said the law is good. Where do you find the law? Leviticus 18 through 20. Does it use this language? Yes, it does. Are all the other terms found in the Greek Septuagint? Yeah, they sure are.

So you come to one reference, one word, and it's sitting there right in front of your face in Leviticus chapter 20, in the law itself, and he connects it with pornia. He's going through the 10 commandments.

So what does that mean? That means 1 Timothy chapter one identifies homosexuality as a sin before God, just like all these other sins that are being listed, period, end of discussion. Now you can stand on your head and you can spin in circles and you can say, well, Paul didn't understand any type of monogamous, committed homosexual relationship.

I guess you'd really think Paul was naive. Well, no one back then knew anything like this. That's ridiculous. The Greeks had their homosexuals and they wrote about it and they talked about it and he was a man of the world.

He had been around. He well knew about all these things. It is simply an attempt to get around what is being said here. When you follow the text, what you have is Paul identifying the sexual sins part of the Decalogue as pornia and arsenicoitis.

There's no question about it. There's no question about it. Well, where else is it used? Well, it's used in 1 Corinthians chapter six. I will not spend as much time on this because we've now looked at it because I wanna make some application but 1 Corinthians chapter six, it's important to remember, very important to remember that in 1 Corinthians chapter five, Paul had had to deal with a very, very difficult situation in Corinth, if you remember.

He had had to deal with a situation of incest. Now, where do we find the scriptures saying that incest is wrong? Well, in the same sections they say that homosexuality is wrong. So that's the preceding chapter.

And now we get into 1 Corinthians chapter six and Paul says these things. Verse eight, on the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud and that your brethren, or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers shall inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit of our God. It is stunningly clear that what the apostle is saying, do not be deceived.

These behaviors do not mark those who will inherit the kingdom of God. People who are engaging in these activities will not inherit the kingdom of God. Don't let anyone there in Corinth, and Corinth was the Las Vegas of the ancient world.

It really was.

And so there was a danger that there would be people who would come along and would say, you know, we're so used to this kind of behavior. We're so used to this kind of lifestyle. Can't we sort of meld Christianity together with what we're used to?

That'll be a lot more attractive to people. We could build a building a lot faster. And Paul says, do not be deceived. Do not be misled. That means there's a danger it could happen. But as you know, the issue is, right at the end of verse nine, interestingly enough, in the context of adulterers, well, where have we seen that one before?

Again, going back to 10 Commandments, the broad category of pornia. Here you have specifically idolatry and then moikoi, and then you have two words. And if you're looking at the ESV, you may be going, your verse is a little longer than my verse.

Right?

Because the ESV simply has homosexuals, whereas the NASB has homosexuals and effeminate, or effeminate and homosexuals. Why is that? Again, amongst those who are seeking to honestly handle the text, this isn't all that much of a controversial issue.

But there are some areas of disagreement, and I'll lay them out for you so you can understand them. The two terms are moikoi and arsenikoites. The moikoi is used in the Gospels of people, of men who have soft clothing.

And it is a term that we know of from other sources outside the New Testament, referring to a soft or effeminate man. Not a soldier, not a guy in the SEAL teams, but every time these days that I see some fashion show someplace, I go, ah, moikoi.

Have you seen that stuff? Oh my goodness, doing everything possible to turn a male into something utterly unrecognizable. It's just so obvious what is going on. We don't want any toxic masculinity. Moikoi is soft, effeminate, and so there are those who would say, no, we need to translate this as homosexuals and those who are effeminate.

We need to have a category of effeminacy as sin. Well, I think you have that one way or the other, whether you, whatever you do with this particular text. But why does the ESV simply say homosexuals? Does it, is it just getting rid of the phrase moikoi, the soft, the effeminate?

No.

Never thought I'd be preaching on this from behind a pulpit, but we need to be honest with the text. Many people today, and I think they make a very strong case, see the use of these two terms together as something that's very important.

And that is that arsenikoites would be the active, aggressive man, and the moikoi the receiver of the action. Hence, the aggressive male and the submissive male in a homosexual situation. I won't go any farther than that.

You can figure out the rest for yourself. What they're saying is, because there were, the idea was there were people in the ancient world that thought that being the aggressive male was perfectly fine.

You're just being a man. And if there wasn't a woman available, why not? But what was truly wrong was being a man who would submit to that, be the moikoi, the soft, effeminate one. That was a denial of your manhood.

And so there were Greek philosophers and moralists who made a distinction. And if that's what's behind this, then what Paul's saying is, no, there's no distinction at all. Because the entire relationship is a denial of the created order that God made.

And so if that's the case, and putting the two words together like this, that's what the ESV is saying. Homosexuals, doesn't matter what role you play. So you will find conservative, believing theologians who will line up on those two sides.

They're not arguing that this text is not condemning homosexuality. They say it is. But is it doing so by being so specific as to identify those two roles? Or is it just one word referring to homosexuality and one word referring to some general category of effeminacy?

All right?

Once again, it's the same term that Paul uses in 1 Timothy 1 .10. It's the same term derived from Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20. It's the same language. And it was never a mistranslation. The most you could ever try to argue, and this is what they do try to argue, is that, well, but Paul didn't, Paul wasn't talking about what we think should be accepted and celebrated and made part of the greatest good of mankind in our day.

And that is a monogamous, loving homosexual relationship. May I point something out? Every study that's ever been done says that monogamous homosexual relationships make up less than one half of 1 of male homosexual experience.

Less than one half of 1%. 99 .5 are never monogamous. So if you're trying to make the argument based upon half a percent, you may be trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. You may be missing the real reality.

The real numbers say that male homosexuals are incredibly promiscuous and that that is the normal experience. Now, they'll claim, you force us to be that way. By what? Refusing to compromise this? Refusing to give up to your rebellion?

No.

So when someone says to you, put yourself, okay, so we've looked at 1 Corinthians 6. I'm not done looking at it because I wanna make an application. But let's, I'm almost tempted, but I won't because it's a sermon, but I'm almost tempted to role play in this situation.

I used to do that a lot in training people to deal with Mormons. And Elliot's palms just began to sweat. Soon as I said role play, heart rate went up 47 beats per minute. I can tell all the way from up here.

But I won't. I'll do it with Wade instead. No, since he's turning around and talking to you anyways. I want each one of you, because everyone in this room, every teenager in this room, knows that you could find yourself in this situation in our day.

You could literally stop at a store on the way home tonight and find yourself talking about this subject. You know it's true. Where are you coming from? Oh, we were just at church. Oh, what church is that?

Apologia Church. Really, is that an affirming church? Some of us never even heard the terminology, affirming. Yes, we affirm that God's law is good. That's not what they mean. Or are you people that hate people?

No, because if I hated people, then I wouldn't tell them the truth of what God's law says and what the gospel is. See, most of us have already had a lot of these conversations and know how to challenge the presuppositions.

But sometimes when someone comes along and says, well, wait a minute, is that a church where you accept the inserted mistranslation of homosexuality in the Bible? Now see, a lot of you have been trained to deal with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and things like that.

And as soon as a Mormon says some certain things, we just automatically know, they're heading for James 2 .20, I'm gonna get there before them and I'm gonna use it right, and then I'm gonna, we know how to go there.

We need to be just as bold here. When someone says, so do you use a Bible as mistranslated about homosexuality? What are you gonna do? Here's what I would suggest. Well, you haven't run into one of those TikTok videos recently that says that homosexuality is the improper translation when Paul used it in 1 Timothy 1 .10 or 1 Corinthians 6 .9, is that what you're referring to?

Now, already 99 of the people you're talking to are going, uh-oh, because yeah, it was a TikTok video I saw and that sort of sounds like the reference,.

But I don't know,.

I never looked it up, I don't have a clue. But you need to know it. You need to know what the references are. And so you wanna take the advantage. And so, I think it's just great to hear about the opportunities out in Mesa again.

I just hope King James Only guys don't show up. That's a long story there too. But I'm excited about that opportunity to get a chance once again to talk to, try to get to talk to some Mormons. I can guarantee you Mormons are not as easy to talk to today as they were when I first rode out there during the Easter pageant on the back of a Kawasaki 440 with my brand new bride in 1980, oh, oh, I'm getting the, I'm getting the eye.

Excuse me, I'm melting up here. A few decades ago. Okay, we need to be honest in church. It was 1983 and she was two. Um, little carrier on the back.

It was really cute.

Anyway, what was I talking about there?

Oh, the point is, ever since that point in time, I've been training people, this is how you control the conversation. Not in an improper way. You need to know the material well enough to control the conversation, to get where you need to go.

Where do you wanna go if this subject comes up? Okay, if you don't have a goal, guess what? You won't get there. It's like your GPS, you know, when I tap the screen in my car, I finally have a car that has tech in it.