What was the "yoke of bondage" ?

[8thdaypriest]

Colossians 2:11 “In Him [in Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,”

    There is a circumcision of the flesh, and there is a circumcision of the heart - and we KNOW which one counts for more with the LORD.

    Colossians 3:11  “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.”

[8thdaypriest]

    Philippians 3:2-3  “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,”

 

Paul warns against "the mutilation" - and by it he means physical circumcision (in order to become one of God's people).   

The Pharisees did not cut off more of "the flesh",  in their official approved circumcision, then Abraham did. 

It was the SAME procedure physically speaking.

So it seems from this verse, that Paul is warning against physical circumcision in general - not just the procedure done by the Pharisees.

 

The Pharisees just required more "education" in the law, and a vow to keep the Oral Torah laws before they would do it. 

[8thdaypriest]

CHILD SACRIFICE AND CIRCUMCISION

    The study of Ancient Middle Eastern customs is very interesting when studied in light of the laws given to Israel.  Israel did not exist in a vacuum.  They existed within the greater Ancient Middle East - with all of its customs.  The LORD simply adapted many of those customs to fit His needs as He revealed Himself to Abraham and his descendants.  We all know about the “Blood Covenant”.  Some of us know about the “Threshold Covenant” or the “Covenant of Salt”.  I remember the day that I came to realize that every sacrifice was actually a meal with Yahweh.  Every sacrifice was to be offered with a grain offering, and a drink offering, and sprinkled with salt - all of the elements of a covenant meal.
 
    One custom in many cultures throughout the Ancient Middle East was the sacrifice of sons - especially first born sons, to the god or gods to ensure bountiful harvests or victory in war, or other such “blessings”.    (Israel actually fell into this pagan practice for a time.)  I believe the LORD adapted this custom to give us a beautiful prophecy.  Rather than the life of the infant son, the LORD required a “blood” offering in the form of circumcision.  It was considered  a “blood sacrifice”.  The child was then adopted by Yahweh.  Finally “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,  that whosoever believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life.” 

[Robert]

 

I've not heard that before.  Are you perhaps referring to Timothy?

 

I was wrong....It was pre-conversion:  "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee"  Phil 3:5

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel said:

 

 

 

The study of Ancient Middle Eastern customs is very interesting when studied in light of the laws given to Israel.  Israel did not exist in a vacuum.  They existed within the greater Ancient Middle East - with all of its customs.  The LORD simply adapted many of those customs to fit His needs as He revealed Himself to Abraham and his descendants.

 

There is truth in the above statement.

 

NOTE:  Rachel and I disagree on many points, but not on all of them.

[Robert]

 

There are a few mentions of the man-made traditions regarding circumcision in Scripture. ..... the "custom of Moses" is referring to the oral traditions that were falsely attributed to Moses, not referring to what was customary for Moses himself to do.

 

 

Keep in mind Moses wrote the Pentateuch (the first, five books of the OT).  In book of Genesis we have God's command for Abraham's descendants to be circumcised or they were to be cut off.   

 

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 

10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 

11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 

12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. 

13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 

14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." 

[Robert]

SO what was the man-made reason(s) for circumcision?

 

 

Here's my understanding....It's rather simple, but I believe very accurate.  It's summed in the following:

 

Gal 6:2 Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. ....

13 Not even those who are circumcised obey the law (i.e., the Pentateuch), yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh.  14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

 

Compare this to Phil 3:1-3

 

Watch out for those dogs (i.e., wolves in sheep's clothing) those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 

3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh

 

Paul is attributing circumcision, as taught be the Judaizers, as "confidence in the flesh" or "boasting".  It's a form of self-righteousness. Heaven by circumcision.  Some Adventists do this with the Sabbath, but that's another subject.

[Robert]

 

Keep in mind Moses wrote the Pentateuch (the first, five books of the OT).  In book of Genesis we have God's command for Abraham's descendants to be circumcised or they were to be cut off.   

 

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 

10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 

11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 

12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. 

13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 

14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." 

 

So it comes down to motive....Abraham's motive for circumcision and the Jews, especially the Judaizers, were diametrically opposite.

 

Abraham was circumcised as a sign of having no confidence in the flesh. 

 

The Jews demanded circumcision in order to gain heaven.  That's having confidence in flesh.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 Corinthians 7:18-20  “Was anyone called while circumcised?  Let him not become uncircumcised.  Was anyone called while uncircumcised?  Let him not be circumcised.  Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.  Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.”

 

Everyone must make up his own mind.  But it seems to me that Paul could not have written in any more clearly.  Physical circumcision is a non-issue, so far as the kingdom of God is concerned.

 

If one was called as a Gentile, then he should remain uncircumcised.  That seems plain enough.

 

If you take that in isolation, it does seem plain enough.  Was it written in isolation?  No.

 

Knowing that there were two different kinds of circumcision, simple circumcision like Abraham's, and the traditional man-made proselyte program required for Gentiles by the Circumcision Group, how are you going to decide which kind of circumcision Paul was referring to in the context of his letter to the Corinthians?  

 

Paul spent a year and a half living in Corinth teaching the Word of God. (Acts 18)  That Word of God has some specific things to say about simple circumcision in regard to the covenant given to Abraham.  Do you suppose Paul consistently skipped that part of the Word of God while he was teaching in Corinth?  What Paul personally taught while in Corinth would have a significant bearing on how they understood Paul's letter that arrived later.  If Paul had presided over the simple circumcision of some Gentile believers while he was in Corinth, as he had earlier participated in the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16), that too would have some bearing on how the Corinthians understood Paul's letter when it arrived later.

 

We know that Timothy was called while uncircumcised, yet Paul himself circumcised Timothy.  Did Paul not follow his own advice?  If Paul didn't follow his own advice, should anyone follow it?  It's far more likely that you are misinterpreting Paul's advice. Especially since your interpretation makes Paul disagree with the teachings of Jesus and disagree with the existing Scripture of his day, and also makes Paul disagree with his own testimony about "believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets" (Acts 24:14).  Your interpretation also makes Paul disagree with what he wrote to Timothy about "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching," etc. (2 Tim 3:16-17).

 

Also, there is a contradiction in the way you interpret verse 19 of 1 Corinthians 7.  It says, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."  Simple circumcision is one of the commandments of God for those who are heirs of Abraham, and the verse says that keeping the commandments of God is what matters. So the verse would disagree with itself if we interpret it to mean that simple circumcision is nothing.  If Paul was not talking nonsense, then he was apparently talking about a kind of circumcision that was not a commandment of God. The traditional man-made proselyte program actually fits that description.  Keeping your vows is also a commandment of God. (Num. 30:2)  So it would make much more sense if Paul was saying that if a Gentile had already been through the traditional proselyte program when he was called (as Nicolas probably was in Acts 6), he should honor his vow and continue living as one who had been through the traditional proselyte program; but if a man had never completed the traditional proselyte program, then he shouldn't participate in it.

 

Also, it is rather doubtful that Paul had any authority to set aside the commandments of God. Jesus taught that those who did so would "be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19).  If Paul is called "least" in the kingdom of heaven, why would we be paying any attention to his writings at all?

[8thdaypriest]

Paul never wrote anything about "two kinds of circumcision" - simple and Pharisaic.  In all his letters, doesn't it seem likely that he would have written something about continuing the "simple circumcision?  Instead - he wrote that "circumcision is nothing".  It really does NOT matter.

 

And just to be clear, Paul circumcised Timothy BECAUSE OF THE JEWS, not because circumcision was something required by God.  (Timothy was half Jewish.) Paul did NOT circumcised Titus who accompanied him to Jerusalem, because he was Greek, and his un-circumcision would not inflame the Jews.  

 

So - we have to accept that Paul was NOT inspired, and was preaching heresy.  Or we have to accept that the whole system changed, when Christ fulfilled the ancient Tabernacle/sacrifice prophecy.  

[Robert]

Instead - he wrote that "circumcision is nothing".  It really does NOT matter.

 

You quoted only half what Paul states: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing."  In what context?  Works of the law, but not as a act of faith.

 

...not because circumcision was something required by God

 

 

Again, circumcision was required by God.  See Gen chapter 17....It was an everlasting sign to Abraham & his descendants.  According to Paul circumcision, as given to Abraham, was "a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." (Rom 4:11)  

 

Abraham was justified by faith when uncircumcised.  God gave to Abraham and his offspring circumcision as "a sign of justification by faith", but the Jews perverted this sign and made it legalistic.  

 

How was this odd sign (the removal of the foreskin) become a seal of justification by faith?

[Ron Amnsn]

 

    NOTE: The letter from the Jerusalem Council was sent only to congregations with large numbers from the Gentile converts, who were uncircumcised.  It was not circulated throughout Judea, to congregations made up mostly of Jews.  If this letter was primarily to tell Jews that the Oral Law of the Pharisees was now to be considered non-binding, why send it to the uncircumcised?  I personally do not buy the argument that only the Oral Law was now to be considered obsolete - that this was the “unbearable yoke”.

 

Let's take a closer look at Acts 15.  The letter containing the decision of the council was sent only to the Gentiles in specific regions where "some of our number to whom we gave no instruction" (v.24) had gone around teaching something that Paul opposed (v.1).  The letter was not addressed to any Jews and it was not addressed to the Gentile believers outside of "Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" (v.23).

 

Those "disturbers" that Paul opposed were apparently teaching something that was not found in God's Law of Moses because James said, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." (v.21)  It is rather significant that the Council did not address their letter to the Gentiles in every city, even though they knew the Law of Moses was being read every Sabbath in every city where there was a synagogue.  Remember that when the Council met the traditional "oral law" of the Jews could not be read because it was not yet written down.  If the Council considered the Law of Moses to be a dangerous yoke of bondage that disturbed Gentile believers, they could have addressed their letter to Gentiles in every city where the Law of Moses was being taught, but they didn't.

 

Instead the Council addressed their letter only to the Gentiles in the regions where the "disturbers" had gone teaching something that was not taught in the Law of Moses.

 

Throughout the book of Acts and in Paul's epistles we find that there were Gentiles attending the synagogues where Paul visited and taught. Gentiles are specifically mentioned in connection with virtually every synagogue and congregation except Jerusalem. But not once does Paul raise any objection to the Gentiles being in those synagogues, even though they were being taught the Law of Moses there every Sabbath.  However, when the "disturbers" arrived in Antioch and taught, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (v.1) both Paul and Barnabas had "had great dissension and debate with them" (v.2). 

 

Paul recommends the Scriptures to the Gentiles, and the author of Acts commends the Bereans for testing Paul's teachings by searching the Old Testament Scriptures to see if Paul's teachings were true. (Acts 17:10-12)  If Paul had been teaching what you're teaching, would the Bereans have been able to confirm that teaching in the Old Testament?  No.  So we know that Paul was not teaching what you're teaching.

[Ron Amnsn]

I personally do not buy the argument that only the Oral Law was now to be considered obsolete - that this was the “unbearable yoke”. 

 

I don't think anyone has said that the "unbearable yoke" or the "oral law" was to be considered obsolete.  Which verse in Scripture has been interpreted that way?

[Ron Amnsn]

Colossians 2:11 “In Him [in Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,”

    There is a circumcision of the flesh, and there is a circumcision of the heart - and we KNOW which one counts for more with the LORD.

 

Did you notice what comes in the verses after the one you quoted? Here they are together:

 

Col 2:11  and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

Col 2:12  having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Col 2:13  When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

 

Paul mentions two things, circumcision and baptism, that the believers experienced with Christ.  Why do we assume that all the believers went through actual baptisms, but not actual circumcisions?  Notice that in verse 13 that Paul speaks in the past tense about "When you  were dead in ... the uncircumcision of your flesh". 

 

Just because the Gentiles were buried with Christ in baptism, doesn't mean that they weren't actually baptized physically.  Likewise, being circumcised in Christ doesn't mean that the Gentiles weren't actually circumcised physically.  Especially when in the next verse Paul speaks of a time in the past when they were dead in their transgressions and the uncircumcision of their flesh. If the Gentiles' physical uncircumcision was in the past, what does that say about their physical state now?  It could certainly be similar to Timothy's physical state after Paul finished with him.

[Robert]

 

How was this odd sign (the removal of the foreskin) become a seal of justification by faith?

 

I didn't phrase that right....

 

How did this odd sign (the removal of the foreskin) become a seal of justification by faith?  In other words why was Abraham given circumcision in the first place?

[joeb]

Yes. It was those man-made traditions regarding circumcision and how that traditional proselyte program related to salvation that were the issues at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.  Especially the lengthy instruction in the man-made "oral law" and the vow (or covenant) to observe that "oral law" that was required of the proselytes before the program culminated with circumcision.

 

The "oral law" was the yoke of bondage that Peter referred to. 

 

Jesus spoke against those same man-made traditional laws when he said of the Pharisees, "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." (Matt 23:3-4)

Your first paragraph is one I agree with.  Jesus often quotes from the Jewish laws based upon their traditions, not the scriptures, in His criticisms of the Jewish leaders.  The Jews actually placed their  non-Scriptural laws above the laws given by God.

[joeb]

If the Bible translators were consistent in the way they translated the Greek word "telos", Romans 10:4 would read, "For Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

 

The way the translators wrote the text it is still correct for "the end" of something is the goal.  Webster's dictionary makes this very clear in it's definition of goal.

 

 

1. The mark set to bound a race, and to or around which the

      constestants run, or from which they start to return to it

      again; the place at which a race or a journey is to end.

      [1913 Webster]

Notice that the definition I quoted above is the 1st meaning of the word goal, so it is the most common meaning.  So, any attempt to enforce 8thdaypriest's viewpoint is to actually ignoring the meaning of the the phrase "the end". 

[joeb]

I would recommend a book for for everyone to read to help understand what Ron Amnsn is talking about when he talks about the oral law.  It was written by a Jewish man who converted to Christianity. 

 

http://temcat.com/L-1-adv-pioneer-lib/FCGILBER/PracticalLessons.

[Ron Amnsn]

The way the translators wrote the text it is still correct for "the end" of something is the goal.  Webster's dictionary makes this very clear in it's definition of goal.

 

Notice that the definition I quoted above is the 1st meaning of the word goal, so it is the most common meaning.  So, any attempt to enforce 8thdaypriest's viewpoint is to actually ignoring the meaning of the the phrase "the end". 

 

Many people read Romans 10:4 as if "the end" of the Law means its termination point after which it is no longer relevant.  I believe it should be understood as "the goal" or "the objective", as in 1Timothy 1:5 where it says, " But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," where the word "goal" is translated from exactly the same form of the Greek word telos that is used in Romans 10:4. 

[Ron Amnsn]

 

Before leaving Galatians, we need to look at what happened when those believing Pharisees (the circumcision party) came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.  The text in Galatians says they “came from James” but James makes it clear later, that he did NOT send them.  They must have been very influential or powerful men, because Peter feared them, and stopped eating with the uncircumcised converts.  Paul writes that “the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.”  Well Paul let Peter have it.  He “withstood him to is face” “before them all” - right in front of everyone.  The story is in Galatians Chapter 2.

 

But what was it that Paul rebuked Peter for?  It was not for circumcising Gentiles that Peter was rebuked.  It was for disassociating himself from the Gentiles when the Judeans came.  Under peer pressure Peter reverted to following the traditions of the "oral law" regarding associating with Gentiles. And by his actions Peter was affirming the traditions of the "oral law" that said a Jew couldn't eat with Gentiles, and that Gentiles were not acceptable until they had completed the traditional proselyte program of the Circumcision party.  You won't find anything like that taught in the Old Testament.  We don't know if the Gentiles that Peter started shunning were circumcised like Abraham. We just know that they hadn't been circumcised according to the man-made requirements of the "oral law" required by the Circumcision party.

 

Although it doesn't relate directly to circumcision, what Paul said in his rebuke of Peter is significant. "I said to Cephas in the presence of all, 'If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?' "  In what way did Peter live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews?  Did Peter live like the pagan Gentiles, worshiping idols and living immorally? No. Paul says that Peter lived like the Gentile believers, who were being taught to follow the example of Paul and Jesus.  There was no double-standard, with the Gentile believers living a different lifestyle than Peter and Paul. The Gentiles were still being taught to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as Jesus did and his disciples did. But Peter, by disassociating from the Gentile believers under the peer pressure of the Judeans, had conveyed the message that Gentiles must also comply with the Jewish traditions of "oral law" before they were acceptable. Peter needed to be rebuked for that.

[Ron Amnsn]

         Galatians 2:1,3 “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.”   “Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.”

 

Although this verse doesn't say who it was that was not compelling Titus to be circumcised, and doesn't specify which kind of circumcision Titus was not compelled to receive, this could illustrate the difference between the teachings of the traditional "oral Law" and the teachings of Paul (and the Old Testament).

 

Traditional oral law taught that Gentiles must first be instructed in the Old Testament and the man-made "fence laws" of the oral law, then be circumcised before they were saved and acceptable as fellow worshipers of God.  Paul was teaching that the Gentiles were first saved by grace, then they were discipled and taught to follow the Scriptures (which was only the Old Testament at that time) and the example of Jesus.  Following the Scriptures could include circumcision, as in the case of Timothy, but I doubt Titus or the other Gentiles were compelled to do it according to any timetable.

[Ron Amnsn]

      Acts 16:3 [Concerning Timothy] Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.” [but his mother was a Jew.]

 

How is this different than what Paul rebuked Peter for in Galatians 2?  Peter quit eating with Gentiles "because of the Jews" and got a major public reprimand from Paul.  How is this different?

 

This occurred just three verses after Acts 15, and just one verse before it says, "Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe."  The Jerusalem Council had just determined that circumcision wasn't required before a Gentile could be saved, and Paul was delivering that decision to the congregations.  Why didn't Paul deserve a public rebuke for this, like the one Peter got?

 

If simple circumcision was "mutilation of the flesh", and the Jerusalem Council had decided against circumcision for Gentile men, Paul could have provided a very powerful confirmation of that decision by taking an uncircumcised half-Gentile person around with him when he delivered the decision of the Council to the congregations of believers.  If a half-Jewish man like Timothy hadn't needed to be circumcised, then there would be no question about any Gentile believers needing circumcision, even if they were unsure whether they had Jewish ancestors.  But Paul chose instead to circumcise Timothy and lose that powerful confirmation of total freedom from circumcision for believers.  And he did it for the same reason for which Paul had rebuked Peter, "because of the Jews".  Was Paul a total hypocrite?  I don't think so. 

[8thdaypriest]

How is this different than what Paul rebuked Peter for in Galatians 2?  Peter quit eating with Gentiles "because of the Jews" and got a major public reprimand from Paul.  How is this different?

 

 

 

The Pharisees from Jerusalem weren't going to KILL Peter for eating with Gentiles.  They WOULD kill an uncircumcised man who tried to enter the Temple Court (to offer a sacrifice).  And they persecuted Paul for teaching that circumcision was "nothing". 

 

Galatians 5:11 “And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased.”

 

Eating with uncircumcised Gentiles was against the Law, because it implied a covenant with them.  That LAW was changed in Christ.  A man who believed in Christ and was baptized, was to be regarded AS circumcised. 

 

Col 2:11  and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

 

You CANNOT physically circumcise a man, without the use of "hands". 

 

The "circumcision of Christ" is NOT physical circumcision!

[8thdaypriest]

 And by his actions Peter was affirming the traditions of the "oral law" that said a Jew couldn't eat with Gentiles,

I answered this one before. 

There WERE commands in the Tanak (Old Testament)  which forbade Israelites from eating with the uncircumcised (Exo 23:32, Exo 34:12 & 15, Ezra 9:12, Deut 7:3-4, Deut 23:6).

Sharing a meal IMPLIED a covenant, especially if any food was salted. 

 

These were NOT simply "Oral Law" traditions.   Soooo - there's ANOTHER CHANGE of the Law - by Christ.

[8thdaypriest]

WHAT WAS THE MEANING of circumcision?

 

1.  I believe it substituted for the sacrifice of male offspring. 

 

2.  I believe it was a sign, that this male BELONGED to Yahweh.  Yahweh could then LEGALLY exact Covenant curses upon a circumcised male (with his family).

 

3.  It was a prophecy. 

 

Israelite males were NOT circumcised during the 40 years wandering in the wilderness.

Israel crossed the Jordan on Nissan 10.

THEN Joshua circumcised the people. 

THEN they kept the Passover.

 

So - we will cross the sky (which will roll back just like the Jordan river did).

They followed the ARK, which was a type of Christ.

And Jesus (Joshua) will "circumcise the people".

The (mortal) "flesh" will be removed, and we will have new immortal spiritual bodies.

THEN we will celebrate THE Passover with Christ, in His Father's Kingdom.

 

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint