1 Cor. 10, Gentiles, Jews, and Our Fathers

mishnahEvery now and then you come across an interesting blog you’ve never read before. I had the pleasure of discovering the Sibboleth blog by Daniel Kirk in San Francisco. Sibboleth is a reference to Judges 12:5-6. Shibboleth refers now in popular idiom something you have to say to pass muster. Sibboleth is, of course, the thing you must not say or you will be scorned/slaughtered/something bad. I guess Daniel sees himself as saying the dangerous things — and he does.

In particular, I read this post and the gears started turning. Daniel touched on an idea which is close to the heart of a major issue in Messianic Judaism: the role of non-Jews in our community. Here at Messianic Jewish Musings, I am spending time this summer reading, reflecting, and commenting particularly on this issue. By summer’s end, I hope to articulate a theology of non-Jews and their role in Messianic Judaism.

We’ve already talked about a more inclusive Messianic Judaism, Gary Tobin’s book Opening the Gates, and more (use the category tool at right to find articles on the category Gentiles to find many posts on this topic).

I feel that Daniel’s Kirk’s post, “Our Fathers: Mishnah and Paul” makes an interesting contribution. So here is my summary and expansion of Daniel’s thoughts.

The Problem
In Jewish ceremony (the issue then was the Temple and the issue now is the synagogue), how are the Gentiles to participate in various blessings which refer to the patriarchs as “our fathers”?

On a related note, there are other situations in synagogue life, such as the blessings over the Torah, in which the one making the aliyah says “who has chosen us from all peoples” and “who has given us true instruction” and so on.

The Mishnah’s Response
In the section on Bikkurim (Firstfruits offerings), the Mishnah deals with the question of non-Jews (Proselytes) and how they will recite the traditional formula from Deuteronomy for the offerer to the priest. The Deuteronomy text says the offerer should recite, “I acknowledge this day before the Lord your God that I have entered the land that the Lord swore to our fathers to assign us” (26:3).

The problem is obvious, for a convert to Judaism or any other non-Jew (by birth), the patriarchs are not their literal fathers.

Here is how the Mishnah deals with the problem:

These people bring firstfruits but do not recite:
A proselyte brings but does not recite, because he is not able to say, “…which the Lord swore to our fathers to give us.”
But if his mother was an Israelite, he brings and recites.
And when the proselyte prays in private, he says, “God of the fathers of Israel.”
And when he prays in synagogue he says, “God of your fathers.”
But if his mother was an Israelite he says, “God of our fathers.”
(Mishnah Bikkurim 1:4, adapted from the Neusner translation).

In other words, a convert to Judaism, since he or she is not a born Jew, should reflect this in the wording of blessings. The Mishnah advises that substitute phrases be employed. Note that this could work to the embarrassment of the convert for the rest of his/her life, but perhaps there were no theological concepts which permitted the sages to do otherwise.

Paul’s Practice
Contrast Paul. Paul is dealing with a community in which a non-Jews relationship to the patriarchs is understood differently.

Abraham is considered the father of the nations by faith. In fact, Paul notes that God’s promises came to Abraham before he was circumcised, including the declaration that Abraham was credited with righteousness due to his faith (Gen. 15:6) as well as the promise of land, nation, and blessing. Paul discusses this in Romans 4:9-12 and concludes:

[Abraham is] likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This fatherhood by faith which is the birthright of all who call on Abraham’s God leads Paul to a practice that differs from the Mishnah’s ruling.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1, Paul is deriving a lesson for the congregation at Corinth (largely non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah). In describing the patriarchs, Paul does not choose to distance these non-Jews from the patrirachs. He doesn’t say “the fathers of us Israelites” but, including them as the continuing context makes clear, Paul says “our fathers”:

I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. . .

Implications
How does Paul’s practice affect our decisions in Messianic Judaism? Should non-Jews be allowed to make aliyahs and say, “who has chosen us from all peoples”?

On the one hand, we do not wish to deny Israel’s election as the people of God.

On the other hand, we do not wish to deny that from the nations God has called a priestly people as well.

There are practical issues on the one hand: Jewish identity could be lost if no distinction is made.

And there are practical issues on the other hand: is Messiah divided?

What drove Paul to include his non-Jewish readers as descendants of Moses and the Israelites of the Exodus generation? Was he being careless or, as usual, a genius?

Note that none of Paul’s inclusive statements go against the idea of a binary ecclesiology (there is one people of God, but it has two missions: one for the Jewish people and another for the nations). The non-Jews in Messianic Judiasm should realize they are participating in the mission of Messiah to his own Jewish people.

What if, in that context, a child of Abraham (and Moses) by faith wishes to bless the Torah and say that God has chosen us instead of intoning a modified blessing?

Thoughts?

……………………
Postlude

A commenter raised a few counter-arguments. In order to further clarify, let me address them:

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: While Paul does say Abraham is father to those of the nations who follow Messiah, he is talking here about Moses and the Israelites of the Exodus. There is no theological basis for these to be the fathers of non-Jews.

If Abraham is also a father to those of the nations who follow Messiah, it follows that there is a connection by faith between Israel and faithful non-Jews. Paul is not being inconsistent, neither should he be read as advocating a replacement of Israel by Christianity. It is possible that the true connection is neither as simple as replacement or separation. Israel and the nations are joined by the covenantal promise and yet distinct. Paul is comfortable with these subtle distinctions and so must we become comfortable.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Paul’s “our fathers” meant “the father of us Jews” and was not intended to include the Corinthians.

The context argues against this. Further down he says, “these are warnings for us” and “we must not indulge in immorality.” The us and we of this argument is seen to include the Corinthians.

About Derek Leman

IT guy working in the associations industry. Formerly a congregational rabbi. Dad of 8. Nerd.
This entry was posted in Bible, Gentiles, Judaism, messianic, Messianic Jewish, Messianic Judaism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to 1 Cor. 10, Gentiles, Jews, and Our Fathers

  1. “In 1 Corinthians 10:1, Paul is deriving a lesson for the congregation at Corinth (largely non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah). In describing the patriarchs, Paul does not choose to distance these non-Jews from the patriarchs. He doesn’t say “the fathers of us Israelites” but, including them as the continuing context makes clear, Paul says “our fathers”” “What drove Paul to include his non-Jewish readers as descendants of Moses and the Israelites of the Exodus generation? Was he being careless or, as usual, a genius?”

    I am sorry Derek, I think you’re stretching it to say something that it doesn’t. Paul is speaking about the Israelites during the time of Exodus from Egypt. Are they too now the spiritual forefathers of all Gentiles believers, according to your interpretation? It doesn’t make much sense and there’s very little support for this in the scripture. Paul is merely speaking about the forefathers of his people.

    Most of the Jewish blessings, prayers and references to our forefathers and to HaShem tend to be COMMUNAL in nature. This is why we say “Avinu Malkeinu” OUR Father, OUR King, or ‘Avraham Avinu”, Abraham OUR Father – instead of “My Father”, etc. So, it’s not at all strange of Shaul to use “Our” when talking about ancient Israelites without including his Gentile audience.

    Forevermore, Ya’akov/Israel is never referred to or even implied as the spiritual father of the Gentile believers – only Abraham has such distinction and only he is called the “father of many nations”. One Law folks tend to include Ya’akov as their father – I see this claim quite often in their statements of faith. I think it’s a slippery slope in Messianic Judaism.

  2. Gene:

    I added a postlude to answer your counter-arguments.

    Derek

  3. Derek… you said:

    “If Abraham is also a father to those of the nations who follow Messiah, it follows that there is a connection by faith between Israel and faithful non-Jews. Paul is not being inconsistent, neither should he be read as advocating a replacement of Israel by Christianity. It is possible that the true connection is neither as simple as replacement or separation. Israel and the nations are joined by the covenantal promise and yet distinct. Paul is comfortable with these subtle distinctions and so must we become comfortable.”

    My counterargument: the initial point of this discussion is NOT whether or not there’s now a spiritual connection between Israel and other nations – there certainly is, ever since the Gentiles have shared in the spiritual blessings of Israel’s covenant. You are, however, proposing that Ya’akov and all the generations of Jews after him (INCLUDING all the disobedient Jews to whom the bad things happened) are ALSO spiritual forefathers of Gentile believers. Whatever you want to call this, it does indeed smell of replacement theology (the reform kind) – the NEW “spiritual” Israel, now populated primary by non-Jews, have overtaken the physical Israel. Perhaps you Derek won’t take this into the replacement theology direction – but others in the messianic fringes certainly will and already do.

    “Paul’s “our fathers” meant “the father of us Jews” and was not intended to include the Corinthians. – The context argues against this. Further down he says, “these are warnings for us” and “we must not indulge in immorality.” The us and we of this argument is seen to include the Corinthians.”

    For example, suppose I make a speech about MY American warhero grandfather who fought on the beaches of Normandy to an audience of highschoolers from France, and tell them that he died for their freedom and he’s an example to them for their fight for freedom as well. Will this imply to them that my grandad is now THEIR grandad and their forefather? Of course not. Paul is making a very similar analogy here – using his forefathers as an example. No need to read between the lines.

  4. Gene:

    Then please do provide a very concise summary of 1 Cor. 10:1-4 in which the we and us mean one thing in vs. 1 but shift in vss. 2-3.

    If you cannot make sense of 1 Cor. 10:1-4 from your paradigm, then please admit it.

    Meanwhile, truth is often more complex than the simplistic options people feel the need to choose from. Maybe replacement versus complete separation is too simple.

    Either way, Paul’s use of “our fathers” here needs to either be rejected, assimilated into our theology, or explained as not meaning what it seems to mean (people usually opt for the third when they are uncomfortable with something). I am trying for the second.

    Derek

  5. rebyosh says:

    Derek-

    Very thought provoking post, and something I have been thinking alot about lately. I agree that it is one of BOTH/AND (something not unknown in a Jewish mindset).

    There are also positions of inclusiveness within certain segments of Judaism toward non-Jews/prostelytes. For example, within orthodoxy a non-Jew peparing for conversion may take on aspects usually reserved for Jews – for example, the wearing of tzitzit.

    Part of this is an understanding that in some respects, the non-Jewish participant is acting on behalf of the entire community. So in some brachot (one could argue for example, the Torah blessing), it is argued the person is speaking on behalf of the community. In the same way Paul is being inclusive AND at the same time not superceding Israel’s unique covenental identity. In Paul’s understanding, these non-Jews were part of a sort of commonwealth WITHIN ISRAEL. Although not Jews, in Ephesians, he also writes NOT STRANGERS as well.

    As we wrestle with Messianic Jewish halachic application toward non-Jews within MJ, there are indeed aspects I would argue must also be considered:

    1) The NT makes clear that non-Jews who come to faith in Yeshua are no longer in a category of complete “otherness.” They are not Jews, but neither are they complete strangers (or “pagans.”).

    2) The Besorot, Acts, and the Letters all speak of non-Jews no longer being regarded as tamei, or “unclean,” in regard to certain halachic practices – prayer, community life, etc.

    3) Yeshua also teaches in Math. 23:23 an emphasis in ethical considerations in regard to halachah. In Yeshua’s teachings on halachah, people come first. And the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faith must also be considered.

    Just to clarify, I am not saying there must be no distinctions in a MJ congregation between Jewish and non-Jewish participants. However, I would also argue there is a sort of messianic mandate to include those among the nations. THIS IS OUR CHALLENGE. To create authentic communities within the larger Jewish community that maintain our distinct covenant identities as Jews and a Jewish majority, but yet are welcoming and inclusive – also taking into persective that ALL PEOPLE are created in the image of HaSHem.

    Although this will not be an easy task, it is also one we can no loger just keep sweeping under the rug. As our sages once said, “It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it” (Avot 2:21).”

  6. “Then please do provide a very concise summary of 1 Cor. 10:1-4 in which the we and us mean one thing in vs. 1 but shift in vss. 2-3. If you cannot make sense of 1 Cor. 10:1-4 from your paradigm, then please admit it.”

    I think I already laid out my case clearly – first, Paul speaks of his people’s forefathers (but not in any way implying that they are Gentile spiritual ancestors – if his audience is primarily Gentile – but he could have been speaking to Jews in the audience), and then uses Israel’s sinful forefathers that rebelled and fell in the desert as examples for ALL.

    Can you show me OTHER instances in the Bible where “our forefathers” imply that ancient Israelites are spiritual forefathers of Gentile believers? If you cannot, this would mean that the rest of the scripture doesn’t support your singular interpretation of 1 Cor. 10:1-4. Shouldn’t we interpret the scripture as a whole, without picking out individual (and very arguable) verses and building a new theology around them?

  7. Gene:

    Let’s keep the argument simple. Arguing that Biblical theology should have rules about how many verses make a concept worthy of consideration is not helpful at this point.

    Also, saying that maybe the “our” in verse 1 is directed to the Jews in the Corinthian congregation while the “us” in vss. 6-8 is for everyone is not helpful either.

    So, here is my simple summary of how the pronouns work. Please critique:

    I say to you, Corinthian disciples of Yeshua, that our fathers [experienced the Exodus and wilderness] . . . these warnings are for us, Corinthian disciples of Yeshua, and we must not indulge in immorality . . .

    There is no note of a change in the ones being addressed. Please show me where I am wrong. The problem with your reading is that you want Paul in the same context to mean our, us, and we differently.

    Derek

  8. “I say to you, Corinthian disciples of Yeshua, that our fathers [experienced the Exodus and wilderness] . . . these warnings are for us, Corinthian disciples of Yeshua, and we must not indulge in immorality . . .”

    So, you are saying that when Paul says “us” above, he only means “Corinthian disciples of Yeshua”, and not all believers everywhere? Not only that, when he says “us”, Paul doesn’t include himself (in this instance)? If you choose to interpret “us” and “our” in this liberal fashion, than my own interpretation is no less valid (and heck of a lot more consistent with the rest of the scripture, IMHO).

    “The problem with your reading is that you want Paul in the same context to mean our, us, and we differently. ”

    Derek… if you viewed this in the light of “binary ecclesiology” that you yourself advocate, everything would fall into place. Yes, Paul can speak of HIS people’s forefathers (as exclusively Israel’s forefathers), and yet – he could take them as examples for both Gentiles and Jewsl. There’s no contradiction.

  9. Paul means himself and the Corinthian disciples when he says we, us, and our. Sorry if I was not clear.

    Yes, what he says applies to all disciples of Yeshua, but it is always important to remember an epistle is first addressed to its specific audience. Sometimes it makes a big difference.

    Derek

  10. Derek…

    Can you get someone from Hashevenu/MJTI to comment on this? I am curious about their views on the idea of ancient Israelites (specifically, descendants of Ya’akov, not just of Avraham) as spiritual forefathers of Gentiles believers and it’s implications for Gentiles in Messianic Judaism, if any.

    Also, won’t this effectively make Ya’akov the father of MANY nations (and not just the tribes of Israel), just as his grandfather is? Am I the only one who can forsee far reaching (and not very positive) consequences for Messianic Judaism and Gentiles within it if this theology takes root? Will this novel theology, if widely accepted, help reverse or will it accelerate to the trend of non-Jews making up the majority of MJ congregations and further blur the Jewish identity?

  11. I’m getting a little lost as you two debate the semantics of the word “our.”

    Am I off base in identifying the real point of disagreement between you … namely, whether Paul’s references to the children of Abraham also imply the children of Jacob?

    Let’s remember that Abraham had six (five?) other sons. And not all of his descendants are descendants of Jacob.

    For example, Derek has 8 children. All of his children will be considered “descendants of Derek,” but his oldest daughter’s children will never be considered descendants of his oldest son.

  12. Monique…

    Many things have been written… but it’s quite simple:

    I say: only Abraham can be counted as the forefather of all Gentile believers – he’s prophesied by G-d to be father of many nations.

    Derek says: Abraham, Isaak AND Jacob / Israel, in addition to all the children of Jacob himself (our ancestors, the Israelites), including all those who sinned in the desert during Exodus and were slain by G-d are ALSO forefathers (spiritual) of Gentile believers.

    I find it especially STRANGE that Shaul would identify the sinful Israelites that G-d destroyed as spiritual forefathers of Gentile believers. I can see how these destroyed sinners would be Jews’ physical forefathers (which is a sad fact), but to spiritualize them to make them forefathers of ALL believers – why on earth would they deserve such an honor?

  13. kendman1 says:

    Another great thought-provoking, stimulating essay posted by you, Derek. As well as many brilliant points and counter points in the replies that follow. I’d like to comment on one line in particular you wrote:

    “There are practical issues on the one hand: Jewish identity could be lost if no distinction is made.”

    Looking at it from a potential “loss of identity” issue, I think that the big problem concerning this would be ethnic Jews who inter-marry with gentiles (any gentiles, but for purposes of this discussion we’ll assume them to be Christians), and then take on their spouses denomination (Presbyterian, Methodist, Roman Catholic, whatever…), and proceed to forget (or should I say “lose”) their Jewish heritage and (purposely or not) rarely bring it up. This is the primary place where Jewish identity is lost. I would think that on the other hand, any gentile who accepts Y-shua and who sojourns with the Jews in worship (as well as in certain festivals and other customs), considers him or herself a messianic “grafted” Jew, and raises a family as such, would be most welcome to the ethnic Jews in the Messianic Jewish community (not to mention a boon to Jewish identity preservation)!

    Personally, I wouldn’t argue against Messianic Jewish gentiles who consider themselves “adoptive”, or should I say “grafted”, descendants of the Abrahamic /Mosaic covenants (in addition to the NT covenant). Nor do I worry too much about Jews becoming Christians (in a strictly NT sense) and drifting from their Jewish identity. As discussed here previously, that is in G-d’s hands. And if it is in fact G-d’s plan to have a significant contingent of Jews right up until the ultimate Judgment Day, then of course it will be so!

    “Who is a Jew”? or “What makes one a Jew”? This is a difficult enough issue when discussed in the mainstream Jewish sense, let alone a Messianic Jewish one! But it is all part of the serious issue of striving for proper interpretation of scripture and guidelines for worship, so I can see why it is such an important debate topic (as it was in Biblical times!).

    Again, thanks to Derek and everyone on this board for your continued thought provoking discussions.

    Ken

  14. tbyjanicki says:

    Derek,

    Great post to generate discussion! Don’t forget about the Rambam’s words to Obadiah the proselyte:

    “Anyone who becomes a convert throughout the generations and anyone who unifies the Name of the Holy One as it is written in the Torah is a disciple of our father Abraham, and all of them are members of his household … Hence you may say: “Our God and God of our fathers,” for Abraham, peace be upon him, is your father … Because you have come beneath the wings of the Divine Presence and attached yourself to God, there is no difference between us and you … You certainly may recite the blessings, ‘Who has chosen us,’ ‘Who has given us,’ ‘Who has caused us to inherit’ and ‘Who has separated us,’ for the Creator has already chosen you and has separated you from the nations and has given you the Torah.”

    Also note Clement’s (himself a Gentile and an alleged disciple of Peter) words in 1 Clement where he calls Jacob “our Father.”

    Additionally in FFOZ’s forthcoming book “Grafted In” by Daniel Lancaster we have an appendix that discusses some of these issues called “To Pray as a Gentile.”

  15. tbyjanicki says:

    Derek,

    Great post to generate discussion! Don’t forget about the Rambam’s words to Obadiah the proselyte:

    “Anyone who becomes a convert throughout the generations and anyone who unifies the Name of the Holy One as it is written in the Torah is a disciple of our father Abraham, and all of them are members of his household … Hence you may say: “Our God and God of our fathers,” for Abraham, peace be upon him, is your father … Because you have come beneath the wings of the Divine Presence and attached yourself to God, there is no difference between us and you … You certainly may recite the blessings, ‘Who has chosen us,’ ‘Who has given us,’ ‘Who has caused us to inherit’ and ‘Who has separated us,’ for the Creator has already chosen you and has separated you from the nations and has given you the Torah.”

    Also note Clement’s (himself a Gentile and an alleged disciple of Peter) words in 1 Clement where he calls Jacob “our Father.”

    Additionally in FFOZ’s forthcoming book “Grafted In” by Daniel Lancaster we have an appendix that discusses some of these issues called “To Pray as a Gentile.”

    Shalom,
    Toby

  16. ckinbar says:

    Derek, there are several flaws in Daniel Kirk’s logic, but I only have the time to point out the two most significant weaknesses:

    1. Even assuming that “our fathers” in 1 Cor. 10 refers to Shaul and the Corinthians (and therefore to all Jews and to non-Jews who believe in Yeshua). . .

    [Pause: At this point, I’m only willing to assume that interpretation for the sake of argument.]

    . . . iut is a major fallacy to interpret the language in a homiletic passage as if it referred to halakhic categories. This basic Jewish thought: aggadah and halakhah are related but not to be confused.

    2. In its context, Shaul is exhorting the Corinthians. The sins of “our fathers” are given as an example to us so that we should not commit idolatry or immorality. He does not take the opportunity to point out that “This fatherhood by faith which is the birthright of all who call on Abraham’s God leads me to a practice that differs from the Mishnah’s ruling.” Whatever the implications of the passage, Shaul doesn’t say a word to indicate that the Corinthian’s relationship to Jewish mitzvot had changed in the slightest.

    (I should also note that in the previous chapter, Shaul has clearly distinguished those who are “under obligation to Torah” and those who are not. If he believed that a full or partial change of status takes place upon faith in Yeshua, he had a wonderful opportunity to say so. He didn’t.)

  17. CKinbar:

    I am not, of course, arguing for equating Jews and non-Jews in relation to Torah.

    I am arguing for a both/and as Rebyosh put it, that the roles remain distinct and yet the faithful from the nations can regard Israel as their fathers.

    Aggadic or halakhic, it seems relevant that Paul felt comfortable calling Moses and the Israelites the fathers of his Gentile audience. As I stated, in a clearly halakhic or theological passage (Romans 4), Paul called Abraham a father to the faithful from the nations.

    Derek

  18. “Aggadic or halakhic, it seems relevant that Paul felt comfortable calling Moses and the Israelites the fathers of his Gentile audience.”

    Derek… you keep repeating it as if this is what the passage says – that Paul is calling Moses and all the subsequent generations of Israelites the fathers of all the Gentile faithful. The overall body of scripture, including ALL the other references of “our fathers” points to Paul simply referring to the heritage of HIS people (his people’s fathers) as an example for everyone.

    Only and ONLY Abraham has the distinction as being the spiritual father of BOTH groups of believers (Jews and Gentiles). This is a case of taking things out of context. Oh well…

    CKinbar… care to comment on that?

    Gene

  19. kendman1 says:

    An insightful, relevant Old Scripture reading relevant to this discussion:

    “Also the sons of the foreigner, Who join themselves to the Lord to serve him, And to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast to my covenant – Even them I wil bring to my holy mountain, And make them joyful in MY house of prayer…
    Their burns offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. The Lord G-d, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, Yet I will gather to him Others besides those who are gathered to him.”

    – Isaiah 56: 6-8.

    An interesting prophesy from Isaiah hundreds of years before the New Testament age began!

    • It’s a really beautiful passage, indeed. This is a slightly uninformed guess, but I think this passage has in mind a different context and set of circumstances than we are currently dealing with.

      The passage seems to assume that the triumphal return of Messiah ben David will have taken place (hence the reference to “gathering in,” which is usually understood as the task of Messiah ben David, rather than the suffering Messiah ben Joseph), and that there will be a Holy Temple in existence (hence the reference to burnt offerings and sacrifices).

      Neither of those things have taken place yet, so the really important question is how we should interpret this passage in the context of 21st century Jewish life that’s missing the Holy Temple and still waiting on Messiah ben David.

      I think this passage paints a really beautiful picture of the World to Come, and we should try to reflect its principles in our 21st century community if we claim to be serious about bringing the heavens to earth and “preparing the way.” But we’re still functionally limited as participants in a Judaism without a triumphal Messiah (yet) and without a Holy Temple.

      Curious to hear your thoughts.

  20. ckinbar says:

    Gene asks “CKinbar… care to comment on that?”

    I agree, Gene. My only point was that even with Derek’s reading . . .

    [Pause: I read Derek as claiming that “our” in 1 Cor 10 = Jews (of all varieties) + Gentile Yeshua-believers”]

    . . . there are no halakhic implications whatsoever.

  21. Pingback: Observations June « Christian for Moses

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s