Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Church Write-Up: …in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth

Last Sunday, the pastor continued his series on the Apostles’ Creed. Here are some items.

A. The pastor has recently been to Alaska, and he talked about his experience seeing a moose. There are aspects of creation that intrigue and inspire us. But there is also a fearsome side to creation, which includes earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. The pastor was likening this to Moses seeing God in Exodus 33. Moses wanted to see God, but God replied that no one can see God’s face and live. God then revealed himself to Moses in terms of his mercy and compassion. Similarly, people since Christ’s coming see the face of God in Jesus Christ (see John 1:18; 14:9; II Corinthians 4:6). From Jesus, we see that God is merciful, loving, and compassionate.

Actually, this item engenders sub-items:

—-The pastor seemed to be suggesting that God causes natural disasters. In past teachings and sermons, he has somewhat wavered on that. In a past sermon, he said that natural disasters are God’s judgment of the cosmos after the Fall; that does not necessarily mean that God directly causes each and every natural disaster that occurs, but rather that natural disasters are part of God’s general judgment of creation due to the Fall of Adam and Eve. In a past Bible study class, he said that God does not cause natural disasters but can use them for his glory, as God did in the story of Joseph. I asked him in that class about Genesis 41:25, 28, and 32, which appear to suggest that God indeed did cause the famine. Here in this post, I will not try to tackle the question of whether God causes each and every natural disaster. Such a concept has troubling theological implications. Still, can we learn something about God from natural disasters? God often in the Bible says that he will shake the earth (see here), and, in Psalm 29, a thunderstorm is a theophany of God. Through natural disasters, we can be reminded of God’s power and fearsome aspects, not to mention how small human beings are. I hope I (or my loved ones) do not experience a natural disaster, though.

—-Do people see the face of God in Jesus Christ? Looking at those passages above, they do not seem to suggest that. Rather, they say that we see God’s glory in Jesus. The principle that no one can see God’s face and live continues through the New Testament. In the eschaton, however, believers will see God’s face (I Corinthians 13:12; Revelation 22:4). Could the New Testament still be playing, in some manner, with the Old Testament idea that no one can see God’s face and live? John 1:18, after all, says that no one has seen God, but Jesus has made him known. We do not see God physically, in terms of the vastness of his spiritual presence, but, in Jesus, we see more of what God is like than we saw before.

—-The Gospel of John regards Jesus as the revelation of God. But what exactly does John think that Jesus is revealing about God? Many Christians will say that Jesus reveals that the Father is merciful and compassionate. But does John explicitly teach that? This question came to my mind after I read Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Before the Gospels. Ehrman argues that the synoptic Gospels treat Jesus’s miracles as acts of compassion, whereas John regards them as signs of who Jesus is: Jesus in John’s Gospel authenticates his status through doing miracles. That said, John, on some level, still depicts Jesus as sensitive and compassionate. John 3:16 says God sent Jesus because God so loved the world. Jesus wept when his friend Lazarus was dead (John 11:35). Jesus teaches the disciples service by washing their feet (John 13). Jesus’s act of healing a lame man on the Sabbath is like the work that God does (John 5:17).

B. The pastor told a story about when he and his brother were children and got to walk to school by themselves for the first time. Unknown to them, their mother had an entire network of people watching them and making sure they were safe: the crossing guard, the teachers, etc. The pastor likened that to how God is the creator, but God has used people to help us. Many people are involved in the production and distribution of food. People have developed cures or amelioration for diseases.

C. The pastor said that the Old Testament regards God as the Father in the sense that God is the creator, whereas the New Testament takes God’s Fatherhood further, to a more intimate level, treating God as the Father of believers. Actually, God is a father, or is like a father, in a variety of ways in the Old Testament. God is the father of Israel and the Davidic king, and his fatherhood in those cases entails more than being the maker but includes parenting and discipline (Deuteronomy 8:5; II Samuel 7:14). God is also like a father to those who fear him and towards orphans (Psalms 68:5; 103:13). Still, does the New Testament take the fatherhood of God to a higher, more intimate, and more glorified level? I think so, which is why the New Testament makes such a big deal about God being the father of believers.  Believers relate to God as a father, not just as creator and suzerain.

I will stop here, though. I will leave the comments open. I will not publish abusive comments that accuse me of being nitpicky. I will leave the comments open in case anyone wants to add an insight.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Book Write-Up: All Things New, by Brian J. Tabb

Brian J. Tabb. All Things New: Revelation as Canonical Scripture. Apollos/IVP Academic, 2019. See here to purchase the book.

Brian J. Tabb teaches biblical studies at Bethlehem College and Seminary and edits the online journal Themelios. As the title indicates, this book is about the biblical Book of Revelation.

Here are some thoughts:

A. Where the book is especially strong is that it shows how Revelation echoes or alludes to the Old Testament, in order to make its own point. For instance, the Book of Revelation alludes to themes in the Book of Exodus, and Revelation, like Exodus, is about the deliverance of God’s people from an oppressive despot. Others have done this, as Tabb himself acknowledges. But Tabb further solidifies this argument by demonstrating verbal parallels between the Book of Revelation and the Septuagint. The book also has helpful information about Revelation’s possible allusions to pagan motifs of its time.

B. Like other books in the NSBT series that I have read, the conclusions are not mind-blowing or earth-shakingly new, but they are safe. In evaluating the idealist, preterist, and futurist approaches to the Book of Revelation, for example, Tabb states that they are all true. Overall, Tabb contends that Revelation is about the supremacy of God over all other powers. That is a rather obvious conclusion.

C. As another example of (B.), Tabb in a couple of instances attempts to interpret the phrase “testimony of Jesus” in the Book of Revelation. This phrase has loomed large in my own religious background, since I attended Seventh-Day Adventist churches for some time. In light of Revelation 19:10, an SDA pastor interpreted the “testimony of Jesus” as the “spirit of prophecy,” which he said was God’s provision of prophets, particularly the prophetess Ellen G. White. I doubted this interpretation in my mind, for I thought other explanations were plausible. Maybe the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy in that the message about Jesus’s work and supremacy is the point of Old Testament prophecy, I thought. Tabb surveys scholarly interpretations of the “testimony of Jesus,” and he concludes that the testimony of Jesus is the Book of Revelation itself. In addition, he effectively disputes the idea that “spirit” means “point.” Tabb’s argument is convincing, for he looks at the occurrences of the Greek word for “testify” and “testimony” throughout Revelation. The conclusion itself was rather lackluster, though. This is not to suggest that Tabb should have tried to be sensationalist or gone with the more intriguing view rather than the view that he thinks is correct, based on the evidence. It’s just that, when I am determining whether I “love” or “like” a book, whether the conclusions are interesting to me factors into my own subjective judgment, rightly or wrongly.

D. One especially helpful point was Tabb’s interpretation of Jesus’s statement in Revelation 2:5 that he will remove the lampstand of the church of Ephesus, if she does not repent. Does this imply a loss of salvation? Tabb argues that Jesus is saying that the church of Ephesus will no longer be a light to others, if she fails to repent. In this scenario, it does not necessarily relate to a loss of salvation.
E. In reading other NSBT books, I often think that the arguments that the authors critique and dismiss are more interesting and intriguing than the arguments of the authors themselves. In reading this book by Tabb, my response to some of the arguments that Tabb critiques was, “How can anyone possibly believe that?” On page 17, for example, Tabb states: “Royalty provocatively charges that ‘Revelation swallows the biblical subtext’ and ‘subversively reinscribes the Hebrew Scriptures to effectively eliminate the prophets as authoritative texts’ in order to control John’s readers and condemn his opponents.” Tabb interprets R.M. Royalty to be saying that John was claiming to replace the Old Testament prophecies with the Book of Revelation, and Tabb’s response to that is that John still deems the Old Testament prophecies to be authoritative.

F. Related to (E.), I initially thought that Royalty’s conclusion looked bizarre and eccentric, and I wondered why Tabb even felt a need to address it. On second thought, though, I am curious as to whether Royalty’s argument can inform my own struggles with the Book of Revelation. In Old Testament prophecies, the focus is on God’s restoration of national Israel, and there often seems to be an implication that this dramatic, eschatological restoration would occur soon after the prophets’ own time. The Book of Revelation, however, does not obviously speak to the restoration of national Israel. In that case, was John faithful to the Old Testament prophecies? Did he see himself as faithful to them, and, if so, how? One proposed solution is that John regards Christians as the new Israel, but could another possible solution be that John believed Revelation was God’s final eschatological plan that supercedes previous eschatological plans, even if it resembles them, in areas? Royalty may not engage those questions explicitly, but I wonder if his analysis could shed light on them.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Church Write-Up: “I Believe”

At church last Sunday, the pastor began a series on the Apostles’ Creed. The topic in his sermon was “I believe.”

Here are some items, drawn from his sermon:

A. The creed was developed so that Christians throughout the world would be affirming the same thing. The Greek word for “confess” is homologeo and means saying the same thing.

B. The youth pastor said that, when we speak the creed aloud, we strengthen our own belief in it. The pastor in his sermon explored another dimension of confessing the creed. When we speak the creed, we bring it from our hearts to the outside world, which is what Christians are supposed to do with their Christianity, in general. The pastor contrasted this with people’s tendency to compartmentalize, having a church box, a job box, a relationship box, etc. Christians in antiquity brought their faith into the outside world, even though they were considered odd, when they established hospitals and treated lepers.

C. Believing is about more than ethics or embracing a set of facts, contrary to how the Enlightenment influences people to see faith. It is trust, making the truth one’s own. That occurs through the Holy Spirit. God did not simply give us a list of facts but came to us where we are in Jesus Christ. In so doing, Jesus revealed the Father.

Monday, July 8, 2019

Book Write-Up: The Canon of Scripture, by F.F. Bruce

F.F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture. IVP Academic, 1988. See here to purchase the book.

F.F. Bruce was a renowned evangelical biblical scholar. As the title indicates, this book, originally published in 1988, is about the canon of Scripture: which religious books Judaism and Christianity treat as canonical, and which ones they reject.

Here are some thoughts:

A. In 2004, I attended a debate between Protestant James White and Catholic Gary Michuta about the canon of Scripture, specifically the question of whether the deuterocanonical writings are divinely-inspired and authoritative. White, of course, said “no” and Michuta said “yes.” White argued that the New Testament largely agrees with the Palestinian Jewish canon that eventually emerged out of Jamnia, which excludes the deuterocanonical books. The early church fathers, by and large, treated the deuterocanonical books as non-canonical: as useful for edification, but not as authoritative for Christians. It was the Catholic Council of Trent in the sixteenth century that declared that the deuterocanonical writings were canonical. Michuta, however, presented a different historical scenario. In his scenario, the deuterocanonical books were accepted by the early Christians, and the New Testament even alludes to some of them. It was the Jewish Council of Jamnia that later excluded the deuterocanonical books from the canon. The Council of Trent affirmed what Christians have long believed. To which of these scenarios is Bruce closer? Probably the White model, at least overall. But Bruce acknowledges some messiness, as when church fathers treat non-canonical books as authoritative.

B. Bruce lays out the conventional historical data that are relevant to canonization, making this book an effective primer on the topic. The book is rather lacking, however, in laying out the canons of different Christian communities, preferring instead to focus on Catholics and Protestants. There were interesting details that I learned from this book. For example, many students in introductory New Testament courses learn about Tatian, a second century Christian who combined the four Gospels into a single narrative, a harmony of the Gospels, if you will. Students are usually taught that the New Testament is not like this, for it preserves the distinct accounts of four Gospels. Bruce provides more information about Tatian, saying that Tatian believed in vegetarianism and showing how that belief impacted Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels. Bruce also highlights when church fathers changed their minds about the inspiration of certain books.

C. The book includes a presentation by Bruce on the “Secret Gospel of Mark.” This must have been delivered before scholars concluded that the “Secret Gospel” was a forgery concocted by biblical scholar Morton Smith. Bruce evaluates its authenticity and concludes that the author of Mark’s Gospel did not write it. He is not aware, though, that Morton Smith created it, for he thinks that it was something that Clement gullibly accepted as authentic, just as Clement gullibly accepted other sources as authentic.

D. There is not a whole lot of theology in this book. For example, Bruce argues that Daniel 11 depicts the fall of Antiochus Epiphanes in light of the fall of the Assyrian in Isaiah 14 and 31 as well as the destruction of Gog in Ezekiel 39. This is an important detail, but Christians may then wonder, in this scenario, how all three biblical writings are true: is Daniel relating what Isaiah and Ezekiel are saying to a situation that is outside of their frame of reference, when they may have been relaying what they thought would occur in their own times? The dearth of theology, at the same time, allows Bruce to be honest with the sources. For instance, Bruce says that Justin Martyr’s belief that it was Christ who appeared to Moses at the burning bush contradicts the view of Jesus, who thought God the Father appeared to Moses.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.

Monday, July 1, 2019

Book Write-Up: The Old Testament in Seven Sentences, by Christopher J.H. Wright

Christopher J.H. Wright. The Old Testament in Seven Sentences. IVP Academic, 2019. See here to buy the book.

Christopher J.H. Wright has a Ph.D. from Cambridge and is the international ministries director of the Langham Partnership.

Tremper Longman III astutely comments that this book “gives readers an essential and impressive orientation to the life-giving message of the Old Testament.” Beth Stovell of Ambrose University states that it is “A tour de force, capturing the heart of the Old Testament, its epic drama, and God’s passion for his people with clarity and depth.” I would not say that the book is particularly deep, but it is an orientation to the Old Testament, a book that presents what Wright believes is the Old Testament’s essence.

Wright bases each chapter on a Scriptural citation. The topics include creation, Abraham, the Exodus, David, the prophets, Gospel, and Psalms and wisdom. “Gospel,” of course, primarily refers to Jesus’s saving work, but Wright also discusses it in terms of the good news that the prophet in Isaiah 52:7 brought concerning Israel’s restoration from Babylonian exile. Wright’s discussions do comment on the biblical verses, but Wright does not feel bound by the verses; instead, he uses the verses as a launchpad for a more extensive discussion of the topics.

There were a few things that I learned from this book. For example, in commenting on Amos’s statement that the poor are righteous, Wright says that does not necessarily mean that the poor were morally upright but rather that they were “in the right” in God’s justice against their rich oppressors; in their case, as it existed before God, they were the right party, whereas the rich oppressors were the wrong party, so God decided in favor of the wronged poor. Wright also offers an interesting thought on the authorship of Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55). I read a commentary a while back that said that Isaiah of Jerusalem could not have written Second Isaiah, for its message about the Jews’ restoration from Babylonian exile would have been utterly irrelevant to Isaiah’s contemporaries. Wright says, however, that Isaiah’s disciples could have preserved Isaiah’s message in Isaiah 40-55 until it became relevant. Wright is not committed to Isaian authorship of Second Isaiah, but he does engage it as a possibility.

Overall, though, I cannot say that I learned much from this book. I found that to be true about another book by Wright that I read, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. I do have degrees in religious studies and have read academic books about the Bible, so some things that I know may not be as familiar to readers without an academic background. For instance, Wright states that Cyrus not only let the Jews return to their land but let other peoples return to their countries of origin as well. Those who think that Isaiah predicted Jesus, and that’s it, may be surprised to read that Isaiah’s prophecies that are later applied to Jesus also related to Isaiah’s own time. But, overall, I doubt that laypeople who have read the Bible cover to cover, or who have a basic familiarity with its storyline, will find much that is earthshakingly new or unfamiliar to them in this book. Wright’s conclusions may even strike them as obvious (i.e., God is the creator, God is concerned about earthly politics, etc.). This does not have to be the case with an introductory book about the Old Testament, for there are introductory works, particularly by John Goldingay, that intersperse fresh insights, such as examples, scholarly debates, or interesting biblical trivia (not “trivia” in the sense that it is unimportant but in the sense that it is a detail that people may not readily know).

In a few cases, Wright makes an interesting point but does not develop it. On page 171, he says that meditation on Scripture in the Bible is not thinking about it but rather is reciting it over and over. He calls this an “active engagement with the text, chewing it over, as we might say.” How is repeating a text over and over an “active engagement” or “chewing it over”? Should meditation not include thinking about the text’s meaning and implications, to qualify as such?

This book is still winsome and edifying, though. It lays out how the Old Testament displays the righteous character of God, and how that character plays out in God’s interaction with humans. God, in Wright’s telling, established a political order that would instruct Israel and make her distinct from the nations. Wright allows the reader to chew on that and he marinates it, as he sets forth different facets of it. I have eaten pizza before and know what it tastes like, but it is still enjoyable to appreciate its distinct flavors. Wright’s book is like pizza, in that respect.

Overall, at least in this book, Wright does not treat the Old Testament primarily as a foil for the New Testament, viewing the law as an opportunity for Israel to screw up and see how much she needs Jesus. Jesus is prominent in this book, though, and Wright affirms Jesus’s salvific work, but he seems to see Jesus as building on the institutions and principles of the Old Testament rather than correcting them or tearing them down. Such an approach may differ from how Paul treats the law in Galatians 3, but it is consistent with parts of the New Testament that present Jesus as the culmination of Israel’s story.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.

Sunday, June 30, 2019

Bernie Sanders on School Busing

I found this discussion on ABC This Week to be interesting:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to pick up on an issue that came up in Thursday night’s debate. It was between Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, who are raising his opposition to busing back in the 1970s. I want to bring the debate forward. You’ve mentioned — you’re concerned about the idea of resegregation of our schools. Does that mean that busing should be on the table today?

SANDERS: Well, I think what we — resegregation is a very, very serious problem. And the federal government has failed in fighting for fair housing legislation. We need basically in this country well funded public schools, we need to honor our teachers, respect teachers, make sure that they’re earning a living wage. We need to take care of those schools today, which have a lot of kids who are, in some cases, actually hungry, coming from troubled families. We need to build public education in this country. We need to make sure that kids go to community schools, which are integrated and that means we have to focus on fair housing legislation and enforcement.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But does that also mean busing? Because your website actually says that you are coming out for repealing of the ban on funding for busing.

SANDERS: No, we’ve — busing is certainly an option that is necessary in certain cases, but it is not the optimal. Does anybody think it’s a good idea to put a kid on a bus, travel an hour to another school and to another neighborhood that he or she doesn’t know? That’s not the optimal. What is the optimal is to have great community schools which are integrated, that’s what I think most people want to see. That’s what I want to see.
Sanders is candid about the problems inherent in school busing. His solution seems to be to work on the integration of communities, and that will lead to the schools being integrated, as opposed to busing children each day to another community altogether.

Here are Rich Lowry’s comments:

LOWRY: If [Biden] starts down that path of apologizing for everything, that’s the path of destruction for him. Now, clearly he should have been — he should have been better prepared, but he also should have said, busing was largely a failure. It ended up being unpopular with everyone. And this debate is a policy nullity now, no one is going to seriously argue for a widespread forced busing again.

Church Write-Up: Neither Do I Condemn You; Go and Sin No More

At church this morning, the topic in both the service and the Sunday school was the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11.

Here are some items:

A. The story in John 8:1-11 is in around nine-hundred manuscripts but not in the earliest manuscripts. Is the story consistent with what Jesus says and does elsewhere? Jesus comes to the Mount of Olives in John 8:1-11, and Jesus frequently goes to the Mount of Olives for teaching and prayer (Matthew 21:1; 24:3; 26:30; Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:26; Luke 19:29, 37; 21:37; 22:39). Interestingly, John 8:1 is the only place in the Gospel of John where the Mount of Olives explicitly occurs. Does that show that the pericope is not Johannine?

B. The pastor commented on details in the pericope. John 8:2 says that Jesus sat down and taught; according to the pastor, Jesus sat down, while everyone listening to him stood up out of respect. Jesus in John 8:10 calls the adulteress “woman” rather than by her name. Did he not know her name? The pastor said that the author of the story preferred to keep her anonymous rather than naming her to the public, due to the shame that comes with being an adulteress. The pastor referred to other occasions in which Jesus called women “woman,” and in these cases we know their names: Mary the mother of Jesus (John 2:4; 19:26) and Mary Magdalene (John 20:13, 15). The pastor did not explain this, though. His point was probably that John 8:10 is consistent with Jesus addressing women as “woman.” Incidentally, as far as I can see, that mostly occurs in John. Does that show that the pericope is Johannine?

C. The pastor talked about Matthew 12:30-37, which concerns blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The pastor said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unbelief. That is why Jesus said at the beginning of that pericope that whoever is not for him is against him: he was stressing the importance of faith in Christ, of being for Jesus. Peter denied Christ and spoke idle words, but he never blasphemed the Holy Spirit because he had faith in Christ; he never sunk towards complete unbelief. Jesus in that pericope says that corrupt words come from corrupt hearts. In such a situation, the pastor said, the response should be, not unbelief, but going to Jesus for spiritual heart surgery. This interpretation makes some sense, but questions still occur in my mind. For one, Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven, but God forgives unbelief, right? Paul was an unbeliever before he became a Christian, and he received forgiveness from God. That is why people come back and say that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is persistent unbelief: never, ever believing. If you never believe in Christ, you will never receive forgiveness of sins. Second, Jesus says that speaking against the Son can be forgiven. How is that different from blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Is not speaking against the Son unbelief? Or does that refer to what Peter did: he spoke against the Son, but he was still a believer? The same would be true with Paul: he spoke against the Son, but he then became a believer rather than persisting in unbelief.

D. Jesus said to the adulteress, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” The pastor noted that Jesus did not say, “Go and sin no more, and I will not condemn you.” I am in an online grace group, and people there made that sort of point. They said that God, in Christ, never condemns us or keeps score, even if we sin. That does not entirely set right with me. Jesus in John 5:14 tells a man he healed to sin no more, lest a worse thing befall him. That probably refers to temporal consequences rather than eternal consequences, but there is still the implication that a person needs to stop sinning to avoid punishment, even after Jesus forgives and heals. Still, the Gospel, especially as Paul defines it in his letters, affirms that God’s forgiveness of sin (justification, no condemnation) precedes the bearing of spiritual fruit. One gets to live, not in light of one’s old identity as a sinner, but in light of one’s clean slate and forensic righteous standing before God.

E. The pastor said that Jesus was taking the law more seriously than the people accusing the woman of adultery, notwithstanding their pretense of devotion to the law. Jesus said that whoever is without sin among them should cast the first stone. The oldest left, since, due to the brokenness and self-awareness that comes with age, they knew that they were sinners. Others, not wanting to look like they thought they are holier than the most respected among them, the oldest, then left as well. Indeed, there was an Old Testament tradition that all have sinned. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says that. But how were the woman’s accusers sinners? Well, they were plotting to kill Jesus, and one commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.” They did not even take the law about stoning adulterers seriously, for, even though they caught the woman in the act of adultery and saw the man with her, they did not bring the man to Jesus for stoning, even though Leviticus 20:10 stipulates that both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. Their goal was trapping Jesus, not faithfulness to the law. In the story of the Pharisee and the publican, the Pharisee despises others and boasts about himself and his own adherence to a checklist of legal righteousness rather than seeking God. That contradicts the command not to hate one’s neighbor but to love him or her as oneself (Leviticus 19:17-18), and also the command to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5).

F. The pastor quoted H.A. Ironside’s definition of repentance as changing one’s mind about self, sin, God, and Christ. That, in my mind, is preferable to defining it as ceasing to sin and instead to do good, since it entails more of a mindset and an orientation. Sinning less and doing good may flow from such an attitude, though.

G. The pastor talked about a tension regarding the law. Under God’s law, we are all condemned. If God does not condemn us, then God is being lax with respect to the law. The solution, for the pastor, is that Christ bore the punishment for our sin. I have long wondered if that solves the problem. God punishes an innocent party, and that allows God to be lax with respect to the law? The thing is, though, the Gospel can be a pathway towards sinning less. When we recognize our flaws, we turn to God for mercy, meaning that we cultivate an orientation towards God. We can recognize our own helplessness and inability and open ourselves up for God to work within us.

Search This Blog