We are a Christian Fellowship meeting in North London with a strong interest in teaching the Bible and understanding our time in
the light of Bible prophecy
Article Titles
Book Chapters
Jesus - a Jewish Freedom Fighter? Page 1
Wasn’t Jesus just a Jewish teacher or freedom fighter whom Paul re-invented as the divine Saviour of Christianity?
Can we believe the New Testament record?
What did Paul know about Jesus?
Who were the Ebionites and the Nazarenes?
You may be thinking ‘All this is interesting, but why should we believe the Bible and the New Testament anyway?’ Haven’t they been disproved by science and argued away by liberal theologians to the point where no one takes them seriously any more? It is beyond the scope of this book to write a defence of the Bible and its inspiration. For those who wish to investigate this further I recommend ‘Evidence that demands a verdict’ by Josh McDowell as a good starting point.
On the scientific side it is interesting how many flaws are now being discovered within the scientific community to the theory of evolution, which is the main cause of scepticism in regard of the Bible today. From my study of this subject I have come to the conclusion that it takes more faith to believe that the universe and all life on earth came about as a result of the Big Bang and evolution than it does to believe it came about as a result of the work of an all-powerful and all-knowing God. Again it is beyond the scope of this book to go into this subject, but I recommend books and pamphlets produced by Answers in Genesis which may be obtained from Penfold Book and Bible House, PO Box 26, Bicester, OX26 4GL.
On the issue of Jesus and the Jewish people there is a great deal of collusion between liberal Jewish and Christian scholars who wish to reinterpret the Gospels and present an altogether different portrait of Jesus from the one generally believed by Christians today. These scholars are popular with the media, especially TV, which is heavily loaded in prejudice against biblical Christianity. They usually come out at times of Christian festivals (Christmas and Easter) to give an entirely different interpretation of the events which took place at the time of Jesus. (Incidentally I consider the way Christmas and Easter are celebrated today have little or nothing to do with the real Jesus, but that does not mean that I agree with the way our media use these festivals as an excuse to attack Christian beliefs).
Such a programme was broadcast on Channel 4 before Christmas 1999, entitled ‘The Real Jesus’. I felt so incensed at the distortion of the truth presented on this programme that I wrote the following article which I sent to Channel 4. I challenged them to put on a programme in which we were able to respond to the issues raised in ‘The Real Jesus’. As usually happens on these occasions I received virtually no response.
According to this programme Christianity arose out of a split in the ‘Jesus Movement’ between Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. The programme questioned the record of events we have in the New Testament and proposed an entirely different scenario in its place. This was based mainly on the theory put forward by the writer, Hyam Maccoby, that the real Jesus was a Jewish freedom fighter who was executed after a failed uprising against the Romans.
A brief summary of the alternative Jesus presented by the programme
Jesus came from a poor family who were probably illiterate and yet were also strict Jews and observers of Jewish law. Jesus was born in the normal way and grew up under the Roman occupation of Israel, which was seething with revolutionary fervour. He was himself caught up in this fervour, largely under the influence of John the Baptist, who combined religion with politics and was leading a political movement rather than ‘preparing the way of the Lord’ by his preaching. John was in the tradition of the Essenes, and proclaimed a coming ‘Messiah’ who would not be offering spiritual redemption from sin, but political deliverance from the Romans which would in turn lead to the ‘kingdom of God’, God’s righteous rule on earth. Herod Antipas, the Roman puppet ruler, considered him a threat and had him executed.
After John’s death, Jesus began to capture the imagination of the people. He was not only a successful political leader, but also earned a reputation as a healer and a miracle worker. His followers were a revolutionary band of which Peter was a member. When Peter declared that Jesus was the ‘Christ’ / Messiah, he did not mean that he was a divine figure, but the promised Davidic king who would be anointed with a mission to free the Jewish people from oppression and usher in the kingdom of God. Jesus’ preaching was subversive saying how God would change the world order. He was married to Mary Magdalene.
His rebellion reached its climax with his entrance to Jerusalem, which was a bid for power and a challenge to Roman authority. The Jewish zealots were on his side, and his attack on the Temple was the beginning of the uprising, aiming at the Roman occupation of the Holy Place. The Romans decided to take Jesus off the streets and had him crucified under the brutal governor, Pontius Pilate, as was their way of dealing with dissent. Those executed were left on the cross, as a deterrent against any would be followers who might want to carry on the rebellion.
Jesus was not buried, as this never happened to crucifixion victims. Yet despite this his followers maintained a belief that he would rise again from the dead and rekindle the process of rebellion. Those who held this view would continue as the Jerusalem church led by Jesus’ brother James. Despite the non-appearance of a resurrected Jesus re-kindling the rebellion against Rome, this faction of his movement kept their faith in him for at least another 30 years.
Their problem was that another version of the story was concocted by a late interloper to the movement called Paul. There arose a great struggle for control of Jesus’ legacy between Paul and James. Paul had a view of Jesus, which directly conflicted with James’ view. According to Paul, Jesus was a divine figure who came into the world by virgin birth, proclaimed a message, which centred on a spiritual experience with God, was crucified because of this message, then rose again from the dead to give eternal life to believers. According to James, Jesus was born in the normal way, and was an ordinary man, whose message was about a political change in the way the world is run.
Paul began to preach his message to Gentiles, unlike James who only recruited Jews into the movement. However, despite the fact that James and Paul were apparently preaching different messages, James seemed willing to co-operate with Paul. James’ main concern was over the keeping of Jewish dietary laws and circumcision. Their dispute came to a head in 50 CE as a result of which James backed down on his insistence that Gentile recruits to the movement should be circumcised and keep dietary laws. James agreed that Gentiles did not need to keep these laws, but Jews should. Two separate missions resulted, one led by James to Jews and the other by Paul to non-Jews.
In 58 CE there was a further conflict between James and Paul. Paul came to Jerusalem with a donation he had collected from churches in Asia. James refused to accept the donation, making a new charge against Paul, that he was teaching Jews not to keep the Torah. James told him to prove his loyalty to the Torah by going to the Temple and taking part in purification ceremonies. Paul did so, following his principle of being a ‘Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks’, even though he did not believe in what he was doing in his heart. In the Temple he was accused of being the man who was inciting Jews to break the Torah. A riot ensued in which Paul was protected by the Romans as he claimed Roman citizenship. This was seen as a betrayal of the Jewish people and resulted in the total split between Paul and James. Paul won the ensuing struggle and the New Testament story was written from his perspective. James’ perspective was written out of the story, and his followers were branded heretics, eventually becoming the sect of the Ebionites. If James had won the battle for supremacy there would have been no such thing as Christianity.
Does this portrait of Jesus make sense?
The story is told of the German philosopher Hegel that he was propounding his philosophy of history with reference to a particular series of events. One of his hearers, a student of history, interrupted him and saying, ‘But Herr Professor, the facts are otherwise.’ ‘So much the worse for the facts,’ replied Hegel. One is tempted to make the same observation of this programme.
The programme presented the view that the New Testament is an unreliable source of information about the life of Jesus. While I do not accept that view, I will not begin by defending the New Testament, but by taking a critical look at the line taken by the programme itself.
· ‘Jesus and His followers were not only poor, but also illiterate.’ Yet at the same time they were pious Jews, according to the information presented by the programme. Following the principles of Deuteronomy 6.6-7, ‘These words which I command you this day shall be in your heart, and you shall teach them diligently to your children’, pious Jews would be unlikely to be illiterate. There is evidence of a school system in operation amongst the Jews in the first century BCE. Apocryphal gospels contain stories of Jesus as a schoolboy. The great value placed on learning in Jewish life is shown in the Talmud, ‘Parents bring children into the world, whereas teachers bring them to the life of the world to come.’ (1)
· ‘Jesus’ crucified body would have been left on the cross and not buried.’ Yet according to the programme, Jesus’ followers believed he would rise from the dead and rekindle the rebellion against Rome. Such a belief could easily be discredited by the Romans who would have the most to fear from it. All they would have to do would be to point to the corpse of Jesus and scotch the rumour. Furthermore we are asked to believe that the Jerusalem church persisted in this vain belief for almost 30 years despite nothing happening. In fact there could be no possible motivation for such a belief persisting. It would quickly have died out and Jesus would have been forgotten as other leaders of rebellions were (see Acts 5.35-39).
There is a parallel to this amongst some members of the modern Jewish Lubavitch movement, who believe the late Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson, was the Messiah. After he died the belief in Schneerson’s Messiahship persisted in a handful of his supporters who still believe that he will rise from the dead. However this belief in Schneerson’s resurrection is held in ridicule by most supporters of the Lubavitch movement and all non Lubavitch Jews. As the Rebbe continues to fail to rise from the dead, so belief in this becomes increasingly difficult to hold. Ultimately it will cease altogether.
The programme implied that James’ movement was a serious one, which attracted support throughout the Jewish community as late as 58CE. We are asked to believe that they considered Jesus to be merely a human figure, the leader of a failed revolt who had been crucified but would rise again from the dead to rekindle the revolt. Despite the fact that such a resurrection never took place, they managed to maintain this belief for about 30 years. Psychologically this is utterly implausible.
· The dispute between Paul and James. According to the programme there was a fundamental difference between James and Paul about who Jesus was. James believed Jesus to be a human figure born in the normal way, who led a political movement against Rome and had pretensions to be the Messiah. Paul believed Jesus to be the Son of God, born in a supernatural way, who died and rose again as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Despite the fact that they believed totally different things about Jesus, the issue which caused the split between them was not a fundamental one (i.e. who Jesus really was), but a relatively minor one, concerning circumcision and dietary laws. We are asked to believe that despite the fact that James totally disagreed with what Paul was preaching about Jesus, he made an agreement that Paul should preach to the Gentiles, provided he taught Jews to keep the laws of the Torah. If the nature of the disagreement between them was a fundamental one over the nature of who Jesus was, surely there would not have been any grounds for the two coming to an agreement at all, even if only temporarily. It is like saying that I could come to an agreement with Hyam Maccoby about how to go about preaching the message of Jesus, even though we believe totally different things, as long as any Jewish people who accept my message are encouraged to continue to eat kosher.
· External sources to the New Testament. The implications of the programme are that Paul invented an untrue story about Jesus through his followers after the split with James in 58 CE. Despite the fact that Christianity was itself a persecuted movement, opposed by both Jews and Romans, we are asked to believe that Paul’s faction of the church managed to suppress all traces of the James’ faction and utterly remove it from public view without any contrary record being preserved. If, as the programme implies, the New Testament is a false account of what took place, it was written at a time when the events were well known, and yet no one contradicted this.
One source external to the New Testament is Josephus who was commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee in 66 CE and was captured by the Romans and became attached to their headquarters. In his history he describes how Ananus the High Priest ‘assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others and having accused them as law breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.’ (2) The accusation against James is one of breaking the Torah, not sedition against Rome. If the facts had been as presented in the programme surely Josephus would have had some inkling of this and written something of James’ beliefs and the way Paul had altered the message of Jesus. And yet there is nothing about this in his writings.
Josephus also has a hotly disputed section in his Antiquities which says, ‘Now there was about this time Jesus a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had him condemned to the cross, those who loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.’ (3) The authenticity of Josephus writing that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah), is strongly disputed by many academics, but it is significant that roughly the same material also appears in an Arabic translation of Josephus, strengthening the grounds for using this portion as a non-Christian testimony to the events recorded in the Gospels and Acts. For a detailed investigation of references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus see ‘Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament’ by F.F. Bruce.
The Talmud is hardly a sympathetic commentary on the life of Jesus, and yet it too knows nothing of the portrait of Jesus presented by ‘The Real Jesus’ programme. It states: ‘On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he has practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel.’(4) The accusation that Jesus practised sorcery is close to Matthew 12.24: ‘This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of demons.’ If the truth was as presented in the programme one would expect a hostile source like the Talmud to pick up on this and use it in its critique of Christianity.
There are hostile references to the beliefs of Christians in the writings of Roman historians, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, (5) all of which however confirm the nature of Christian belief recorded in the New Testament. One has to ask why Jewish and Roman writings opposed to the spread of Christianity and close in time and location to the events did not use the arguments of ‘The Real Jesus’ programme. If events were as they were presented in this programme, surely someone would have known about it and blown the story, exposing Paul and his followers as frauds. As a persecuted minority movement the early Christians were in no position to suppress all hostile or contradictory material to their cause. Yet no dispute about the Christian faith in the early church period has any record of the scenario presented by this programme. Should we really believe that academics in British and American universities nearly 2000 years later, know more about what happened than both sympathetic and hostile eyewitnesses?
What about the New Testament record?
The academics behind ‘The Real Jesus’ may like to discount evidence from the New Testament, but at least it is there, which is more than can be said for evidence for the version they are putting forward. It is beyond the scope of this article to give a detailed defence of the historicity of the New Testament, but I would refer readers to the book by F.F. Bruce, ‘The New Testament Documents – Are they reliable?’ He gives good reasons to believe in the early dating of the Gospels and Acts, their apostolic inspiration and historical accuracy.
With reference to Acts, the crucial book in this debate, F.F. Bruce testifies to the accuracy of its historical details. The place names, the geography, the titles of the various public figures are all remarkable in their accuracy and could only have been produced by someone who genuinely was an eye witness of the events, or who had access to those who were. Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote of Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.’ (6)
Was there a split between Paul and James?
We do find that there was a difference of opinion between Paul on one hand and James (whose real name incidentally was Yakov, not James!) and Peter on the other. (Peter became a relatively minor figure in the programme, despite being recognised by all strands of Christianity, including Gnostic heresies, as a leader of the early church). The fact that this difference is written about at all gives the lie to the accusation of the programme that the New Testament is just Pauline propaganda. It would not be difficult to write the dispute out of the text, if that was the intention of the New Testament writers. As it is, the inclusion of this is a testimony to the honesty of the writers who are willing to show that the people involved were human and had their differences. Any new movement would be expected to come up against unforeseen situations, which would need thinking through as to how to deal with them. In the process of working this out it is likely, even inevitable, that there would be differences of opinion. It is also likely that in this process people will change views they once held as they come to understand how the message they are preaching affects how they are to live. A possible reconstruction of what happened is as follows.
James, the brother of Jesus (i.e. one born by the natural union between Joseph and Mary), was not one of the twelve disciples and did not accept Jesus’ claim to be Messiah during his lifetime (Mark 3.20, John 7.3-5). It was seeing Jesus after the resurrection that James became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah (1 Corinthians 15.7). He then became a member of the Jerusalem church led by Peter (which according to Acts 2-5 preached exactly the same message about Jesus as Paul did). Because of his piety he became a pillar of the church and was one of the elders left in charge after Peter began to travel outside Jerusalem.
Within the Jerusalem church there were a variety of influences, including those who were strict Pharisees and Hellenists (Greek speaking Jews) and Galileans, who were generally less strict in their observance. They all believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but coming from different backgrounds, had different views regarding Torah observance. The Pharisees maintained their strict adherence to Torah regulations on such issues as circumcision, Sabbath observance and kosher food regulations. Some of them tried to make less observant Jews follow their example.
As the message of the Gospel began to spread to Gentiles the question of whether non-Jews had to be converted also to Judaism became an issue. As ‘The Real Jesus’ programme correctly observed, accepting Jesus as Saviour was one thing, but having the knife applied in circumcision was not exactly an attraction to Gentiles! Peter is in fact the first one to confront the question of whether it is right to take the message to the Gentiles in the discussion recorded in Acts 11. Here the ‘circumcision party’ in Jerusalem protest at Peter going in to eat with the Gentile Cornelius and his household. Peter explains how God confirmed his witness to the Gentiles by sending the gift of the Holy Spirit to them and those questioning him are satisfied with this.
Following Paul’s conversion he began to preach the Gospel as commissioned by Jesus. He conferred with the Jerusalem church, meeting Peter and James three years after his conversion (Galatians 1.18-19) and again going up to Jerusalem 14 years later after he had begun his mission to the Gentiles (Galatians 2.1). On the latter occasion it would seem that the circumcision party were still active and tried to have Titus, a Greek convert who was travelling with Paul, circumcised. On this occasion Paul recognised James, Cephas (Peter) and John as ‘pillars of the church’ and they endorsed his ministry (Galatians 2.9) and took his side against the circumcision party. By this time the issue was becoming clearer: the requirement for entrance into the Christian community was repentance and faith in Jesus as Lord and Messiah alone and baptism in his name. Gentile converts were not required to become Jews first in order to become followers of Jesus.
The next question to be faced was: ‘How should Jewish and Gentile Christians relate to each other? Should they have separate fellowships? Is one superior to the other?’ This is the issue in Galatians 2.11-12, which takes place in Antioch after Paul has visited Jerusalem. This time Peter is doing the visiting. He has come to meet with Paul’s congregation in Antioch. While this is predominantly made up of Gentiles, there are also Jewish believers in the congregation.
While Peter is in Antioch a delegation of Torah observant Jews who also believe in Jesus comes down from Jerusalem to check out the situation for themselves. This group is close to James. Peter is faced with a question of whether to eat with the Gentiles and demonstrate the principle that Jew and Greek are all one in Messiah Jesus, or whether to give offence to the Torah observant Jewish believers.
Peter, who has not really had to face this situation yet in his ministry and has not worked out how to handle it, makes the wrong decision. When the people from James come along, he stops eating with the Gentiles and separates himself from them. Paul on the other hand has faced this situation daily, and has come to understand that the priority concern – getting the Gospel across to the Gentiles – has to take precedence over the secondary concern, not offending religious Jews. This passage, and the further development of it in Acts 15, reveals that there were differences in the strictness of observance amongst Jews in those days as there are today. Paul recognises that an important principle is at stake and he rebukes Peter for not eating with the Gentiles (Galatians 2.11-21):
‘But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus the Messiah.’
Galatians was probably written around 48CE and the next significant event to take place in this ongoing question was the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), probably the following year. This was to give an apostolic ruling on the question of whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be circumcised and made to keep the Torah. By this time Peter had worked out the issue and changed his view on issues relating to the relations between Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. He had come to perfect agreement with Paul on the matter of observance of the Law:
‘Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they also were.’ Acts 15.7-11.
James endorses this (Acts 15.13-21) and a letter is sent from the Jerusalem church to the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia setting out the decision of the Apostles on the matter and affirming the ministry of Barnabas and Paul. It also refutes the teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and must keep the law and says that those who teach this have no authority to do so from the Jerusalem church (Acts 15.23-29). Presumably the producers of ‘The Real Jesus’ programme would dismiss this crucial passage in Acts as ‘Pauline propaganda’ yet it reads with much more of the ring of truth about it than anything they managed to present.
Despite the record of some disagreement and debate between Peter and Paul there is no difference in their teaching concerning the basics of the Gospel as recorded in the New Testament. In fact Peter writes of ‘our beloved brother Paul’ who ‘according to the wisdom given to him has written to you, as also in all epistles, speaking in them of these things.’ (2 Peter 3.15-16)
The programme’s version of the next event in the development of this issue, when Paul visited James in Acts 21, required the text to be re-written to say the opposite of what it does say. According to the programme James refused the collection Paul had made from the churches in Asia. Yet the text says, ‘And when we had come to Jerusalem the brethren received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. When he had greeted them, he told in detail the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they glorified the Lord.’ (Acts 21.17-20). The academics behind this programme may claim that this is not the true account of what happened, and the opposite took place, but what evidence do they have for this? On this basis one could read any ancient text and re-write it to make it fit in with one’s own pre-suppositions.
It is true that there follows an accusation made against Paul about what he taught: ‘They have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs’ (Acts 21.21). We do not have a record of how Paul answered this accusation, because in his defense of his position in the Temple the following day he is cut short by the riot which follows his statement ‘I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’ However he does testify before Jews and Gentiles that he has ‘lived in all good conscience before God until this day.’ (Acts 23.1).
In Romans 14 Paul gives his definitive teaching on Torah observance, which ties in with what we know of the development of early Christianity: that the believer is free to observe or not observe feast days and food regulations, and that these things do not affect eternal salvation, which comes only through faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord.
There is no hint that James sided with Paul’s accusers after the Temple riot, as was claimed by the programme. Acts gives no further mention of James, but Josephus does. As has been already quoted, Josephus records that James was ordered to be executed by the same High Priest before whom Paul stood in Acts 23 some two years later, on the accusation of being a law breaker. According to Josephus then, it is the Temple authorities who have James put to death for violating Jewish law, not the Romans for sedition. That hardly suggests that James and Paul were in opposing camps.
Interestingly the question of whether Jewish believers in Jesus should keep Torah laws in matters of circumcision, kosher food regulations and Sabbath observance is still a lively issue of debate in Messianic Jewish circles today, which again authenticates the record we have in Acts. These are the struggles, which real people went through and continue to go through in trying to apply their new faith to real life situations.
What did Paul know about Jesus?
According to Hyam Maccoby Paul knew nothing about the real earthly Jesus and received all his information from his communications with a ‘heavenly Jesus.’ Paul may not have known Jesus in the flesh but that would certainly not prevent him from finding out about him from those who did. The accusation that Paul invented a different Jesus from the real one and is himself the true founder of Christianity is in no way supported by the New Testament. The fact that Paul does not write in detail about the life of Jesus recorded in the Gospels in his epistles is not significant. He was writing letters to Christians whom he assumed to be familiar with the Gospel story telling them how to apply their faith to life situations. Neither do the epistles of Peter, James, John and Jude contain references to events in the Gospels other than the death and resurrection of Jesus, apart from 2 Peter 1.18 which refers to the Transfiguration.
All that Paul does write about Jesus is in harmony with the Gospels. He knew that he was divinely pre-existent and yet also a real human being descended from Abraham and David; that he lived under Jewish law, was betrayed after eating the Passover with his disciples, endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion, was buried and rose again from the dead. He knew the disciples and was familiar with details of their lives, including the fact that Peter was married (1 Corinthians 9.5, Mark 1.30). His teaching is in harmony with the teaching of Jesus on all ethical matters. Both Jesus and Paul lay great emphasis on personal integrity and speaking the truth. In Ephesians Paul writes, ‘We should no longer be children tossed to and from and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into him who is the head – Christ’ (Ephesians 4.14-15).
To page top
To page 2
To page 2