Read Galatians 5:16. What does the concept of “walking” have to do with a life of faith? Deut. 13:4, 5; Rom. 13:13; Eph. 4:1, 17; Col. 1:10.
“Walking” is a metaphor drawn from the Old Testament that refers to the way a person should behave. Paul, himself a Jew, makes use of this metaphor often in his letters to describe the type of conduct that should characterize the Christian life. His use of this metaphor is also likely connected to the first name that was associated with the early church. Before the followers of Jesus were called Christians (Acts 11:26), they were known simply as followers of “the Way” (John 14:6, Acts 22:4, 24:14). This suggests that, at a very early date, Christianity was not merely a set of theological beliefs that centered on Jesus but was also a “way” of life to be “walked.” 1
In what way is Paul’s metaphor about walking different from that found in the Old Testament? Compare Exod. 16:4; Lev. 18:4; Jer. 44:23 with Gal. 5:16, 25; Rom. 8:4.
Conduct in the Old Testament simply was not defined as “walking” but more particularly as “walking in the law.” Halakhah is the legal term Jews use to refer to the rules and regulations found in both the law and the rabbinic traditions of their forefathers. While Halakhah usually is translated “the Jewish law,” the word actually is based on the Hebrew word for “to walk” and literally means “the way of going.”
Paul’s comments about “walking in the Spirit” are not contrary to obedience to the law. He is not proposing that Christians should live in a way that violates the law. Again, Paul is not opposed to the law or to obedience to the law. What he is opposed to is the legalistic way in which the law was being misused. The genuine obedience that God desires never can be achieved by outward compulsion but only by an inward motivation produced by the Spirit (Gal. 5:18).
What has been your own experience of “walking in the Spirit”? How do you do that? What practices in your life make this kind of walk more difficult?
You may also enjoy these possibly related posts:
- Sunday: The Law and the Promise “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God?”(Gal. 3:21, ESV). Sensing that his comments might lead his opponents...
- Sunday: Christ Has Set Us Free “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke...
- Sunday: Our Condition in Christ Keeping Galatians 3:25 in mind, read Galatians 3:26. How does this text help us understand what our relationship to the law is, now...
- Sunday: The Heart of Paul Read Galatians 4:12–20. What is the thrust of Paul’s message in these verses? The initial indication of the concern that...
Category specific posts by Email
Hi,
I am requesting to be helped regarding the issue of tithe and offering because I find it difficult to appreciate. I feel it is another form of taxing which was happening in the Mosaic law since they had no tax system. Currently, we have a tax regime which is taking care of this issue. Anyhow, how was it happening in the time of Jesus? Were they paying tax as well as tithe and offering? I know the issue of give Caeasar what belongs to Caesar but what was basically the the tax system vs tithe and offering. I ask this in line with the walking in the Lord and legalism of 10% tithe and 10% offering. I want to improve, by the grace of the Lord, in this issue. Honest doubt please, help!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In Jesus time they had both tithe specific for preist. Offerings are free will % if you have to giving % that might be legalism you don’t have to u want to give in order to b free will
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Bestone … its is possible that we can return our tithes in a legalistic way…
our relationship with Christ should be motivated by Love and everything we do should be a result of that love.
there are persons who return their tithes because in the local church because if they don’t they will not get any office or they may feel if they don’t return the tithes they will not be blessed materially etc.
Remember in Jesus time the Jews were paying taxes to Rome, yet the tax collectors were Jews who oppress their Jewish brothers but the taxes belonged to Rome.
The tithes on the other hand was a part of God’s plan in taking care of the sanctuary and the levites, this had nothing to do with the Roman Government. there is a difference between tax and tithes..
The offering was of freewill and in no way was of any set %. It was, is, and always will be free willed.. by hearts responding to God’s Graciousness
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
Andy… I have one concern, when u talk about you cannot serve God and Mammon, and contributing to kingdoms, what exactly are you saying?
I get the impression that you are saying that Christians should not pay taxes
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Andy, your verse about God or mammon requires some clarification. In the Greek “serve” is a present case infinitive (douleuein) which carries with it the idea of an ongoing or continuous action. Jesus point is that no one is able to continuously serve two masters. If He meant all service, even momentary service as in the payment of a tax for instance, then we would have a fundamental disagreement between the words of Jesus and those of Paul in Romans 13:5-7.
Another perspective is that it is the person who refuses to pay taxes that is probably more in danger of serving mammon than not. This is because the one choosing not to serve Jesus and the one choosing not to pay taxes may be motivated by the same idea. They may believe that they are better able to determine what to do with their lives or their money than someone else. For these people God’s tithe becomes “my” tithe, and the taxes the government levies become “my” money that they are trying to take away. Once we feel that way, it is hard to let go. In this instance, it is the one who refuses to pay taxes or tithe that is truly in love with mammon.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
I’d like to address the implication that we should not pay taxes.
Paul gives this counsel:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Rom 13:1-7 NKJV).
To me it is quite obvious that he was not advocating not paying taxes. Furthermore his counsel to Titus is basically the same, “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work” (Titus 3:1 NKJV).
Some use Mat 17 to support not paying taxes. On the surface it might seem to do so if we ignore other revenue-raising campaigns being done in that period of history. The SDA commentary has a very interesting view of what happened with Peter and Christ’s reaction to it.
On verse 24: “They that received tribute. Literally, “they that receive the double drachma [Gr. didrachmon].” These were not the publicans, or taxgatherers (see on Luke 3:12), who collected toll and tax for the civil authorities, but designated men who were appointed in each district to collect the half-shekel Temple tax required of every free male Jew 20 years of age or older, for the support of the Temple. This tax was not compulsory in the sense that the tithe was, but its payment was nevertheless considered a religious duty” (5 BC 441)
“Doth not your master? . . . In the Greek the word for “your” is in the plural. The tax collectors thus made the matter one of concern to all the disciples, not to Peter only” (page 442).
On verse 25: “But, as upon later occasions (see ch. 22:15–22), the scribes and Pharisees here sought to confront Jesus with a dilemma from which He could not escape. Levites, priests, and prophets were exempt (DA 433). To refuse to pay the tax would imply disloyalty to the Temple, but to pay it would imply that Jesus did not consider Himself a prophet, and thus exempt from it” (page 442).
In this instance it had nothing to do with the Roman tax and was only a trap the scribes and Pharisees set for Jesus. While we are dealing with what Jesus taught we should also look at another trap they tried to set .
“Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. ‘Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?’ But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, ‘Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the tax money.’ So they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’ They said to Him, Caesar’s. And He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’” (Mat 22:15-21 NKJV).
So the money is Caesar’s and he has a right to expect a portion of it. Jesus said we should pay taxes and Paul said that we should pay taxes. As for me and my household I think we have an obligation to support the government God put in place and so I will pay the taxes levied on me because that is what the Bible tells me to do.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Dear Andy,
Your latest comment again promotes the non-payment of taxes on a faulty premise. Peter’s mistake was not what you declare, but it was that Jesus did not have to pay the temple tax because he was exempt, due to his status as a teacher. Tyler Cluthe made this clear in his comment. Please read it again.
Even though Jesus was not legally required to do so, He paid the temple tax for Himself and Peter, but His manner of paying it demonstrated that He was actually exempt. He went the “second mile,” as He taught in the sermon on the Mount. (Matt 5:41)
Jesus made clear that His kingdom is not of this world. He came to free us from the bondage of sin, not from human governments. Jesus also made it clear that He expected His followers to pay taxes to secular governments.
Please also consider seriously what Stephen Terry pointed out:
Essentially, the attempt to keep as much money as possible to ourselves reveals a self-centered focus which is the kind of focus that started sin and rebellion in heaven. Christians are to demonstrate by their lives that they are not focused on the mammon of this world. Thus they should be the most generous people on earth.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
Andy, you reference Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew and hold it up as something superior to scripture that has come down to us from close to the first century. Shem Tov was a 14th century Jewish physician who may well have gotten much of that work from various sources since it is similar to several other works. Furthermore it seems that the original work was interspersed with commentary which according to some is difficult to separate from the actual text.
It is a work that is rather anti-Christian as was a lot of Jewish literature up to that time. What amazes me most is that you seem to have accepted it as Gospel when the vast majority of theologians throughout Christendom have not. To me this is just like an apparent discovery of Noah’s ark and the Ark of the Covenant some years ago that was being heralded by a handful of people trying to raise money for their exploits. The problem was that there weren’t any scientists including anthropologists flocking to that so called discovery. There are reasons why theologians, linguists, and historians are not too excited about Shem Tov’s work. In fact there is quite a bit of debate over it on many levels.
As far as I am concerned I am going to stick to the Bible as it is written which has been preserved better that any other literary work in history.
Concerning your treatment of Matt 22:15-21 Jesus teaching is abundantly clear, we give to Caesar what he claims and if that means our tunic so be it. The kingdom of God is not in the abundance of things but a molding of characters into His likeness who laid down His life before the roman crucifixion and never said one nasty word to any of His executioners. Jesus never argued against many of the social injustices including slavery and women’s rights. And from what I can see neither did he argue about politics. For Him it was our relationship to God that mattered because that is what determines our standing before the judgment.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Thank you Tyler,
Yes, I am well aware of the fact that Shem Tov, as you say, lived and worked in the 14th century.
I am also well aware of the opinions which you reflect, and which are the opinion of a majority of scholars.
Nevertheless, I have found that, as a rule, the majority is rarely if ever right.
If you think about it, God’s People are to be the head and not the tail. Part and parcel of that concept is the obvious truth inherent in the fact that the front line man, in any pursuit, is never in the majority. Whenever someone first discovers something previously unknown or forgotten he or she will be the only one recognizing the discovered thing. He or she will then stand as a loner with a contrary opinion to most everyone else. That is a characteristic of God’s true People, and I have learned to appreciate the value in recognizing that the opinion of the majority of scholars can never be relied upon.
I am not sure how fluent you are in the Hebrew language, but I have learnt to understand that language well enough to be able to recognize for myself the truth inherent in the fact that there are a number of characteristics of Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew which makes it quite clear that Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew is a transcript from an original Hebrew text, which text was translated first into Aramaic, then from Aramaic into Greek, and then from Greek into most of our various other languages. Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew is obviously not one among the various Hebrew New Testament translations which are reverse translations out of the Greek.
And, yes, I totally agree with your last sentence “For [Jesus] it was our relationship to God that mattered because that is what determines our standing before the judgment.” In particular I am always reminding myself that that God, the God of Truth, the God of all things real, is the originator of all things. It behooves us to return to the very beginnings, re each and all specifics, if we are ever to have any hope of reaching the ultimate truth. So also re the original Hebrew manuscripts upon which Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew is based. (However, that is not to say that Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew is a perfect copy of that original manuscript. Among other things, as you say “the original work was interspersed with commentary which according to some is difficult to separate from the actual text…” However, for those fluent in ancient Hebrew, it is by no means impossible to distinguish those comments of Shem Tov.)
May the peace of our Creator rest upon each our families and homes in a special way this Sabbath,
Andy ©
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Hello Andy, I generally agree with you concerning the minority vs. the majority. The problem with using this as a hard and fast rule is that it opens the door to any little wind of doctrine that wafts under our nose. That means that by using that rule I can accept any minority view on anything and consider it the correct view solely on the basis of a minority consensus. I think you would have trouble with that on some things just as I would.
Furthermore if that version of Matthew was that great certainly Ellen White would have said something about it but she doesn’t. Besides why would Matthew write his Gospel in Hebrew when the most widely used language of the time was Greek. We need to ask our selves why the persecuting Jews became silent when Paul addressed them in Hebrew (Acts 22:1). Was it because that was the language the Jews used at that time? No, Aramaic was the regional language. Perhaps they kept silent because Hebrew was the priestly language of the temple and not the common language in use by the people around Jerusalem.
It might also be the reason why the Septuagint was produced, because Greek was the main language of the Jew. So, if Matthew wanted to reach as many Jews as possible why write in a dying language why not write to the majority?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
I don’t believe it’s correct to say that the amount of Roman taxes was “small” or infrequent. The tax collectors or “publicans” collected taxes for the Roman government, and apparently there were many of them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I’ve heard it said that we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.
“So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.” (II Corinthians 9:7 NKJV)
Bestone, if you have purposed in your heart to give a certain percentage in offerings, by all means give it. If you are doing so as a cheerful giver, then I personally can see no reason to call it legalism.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Hi Bestone,
You asked about tithing and offerings, expressing some confusion on the issue. I would like to respond to your question by first telling you how my wife and I relate to the support of Christ’s kingdom, that is, His remnant church.
We return one tenth of all our income as tithe which supports the ministry, pastoral, religious educators, and administration of the church. Then we give another ten percent of our income to support the local church and mission work and other worthy projects. We believe that giving a percentage of our income is a simple way to give “as God has blessed.” (Otherwise it is too easy get into a rut and give an amount that is not representative of the blessings of God.) This is for God’s kingdom. We also pay the taxes due the government. We have been doing this for almost fifty years of married life. We are far from wealthy by this worlds standards.
When asked why do you do this? Or, are you crazy? I can only answer, ‘God has blessed us all these years protecting us from even the results of our own mistakes.’ Its been a good life. Its been a privilege and not a legalistic obligation. Its even been fun, turning in our tithes and offerings in particularly tight circumstances an wondering how God is going to work out the situation. He always came through.
By returning the tithes and giving offerings we have demonstrated to ourselves that God’s kingdom is a reality in our lives. We trust Him completely. Our natural tendency of selfishly looking out for our own interest is rebuked, and we are free to serve the interest of others.
Well liked.
4 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
You imply that a Christian is “compromising him or herself by pulling out his Government issued Driver Licence, or ID card, to show proof of identity.”
This is a faulty argument — most glaringly so in a representative form of government, such as a democracy. The showing of identity cards recognizes the authority of the state in civil matters, not the state’s right to spiritual allegiance. And as Tyler has clearly demonstrated, Paul consistently taught that Christians are to submit themselves to civil governments. (Please review his comment carefully.)
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. (Rom 13:1 NKJV) See also Rom 13:6-7, Titus 3:1, 1 Pet 2:13
We demonstrate our allegiance to the God of heaven in our obedience to the instruction given through His servants. Thus a rebellion against earthly governments, including “civil disobedience,” may in reality be rebellion against God as well. (There are exceptions, of course, where we must obey God rather than men.)
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
The lesson asks……
“In what way is Paul’s metaphor about walking different from that found in the Old Testament? Compare Exod. 16:4; Lev. 18:4; Jer. 44:23 with Gal. 5:16, 25; Rom. 8:4.”
I think this is a mis-leading implication that creates a “false dilemma.”
The way the scriptures are used in the context of the question would imply that the old covenant was a system of legalism that we now transcend by “walking in the spirit”.
The old covenant is not a system of legalism. As someone has pointed out, any exhortation can be misunderstood as placed in a non-biblical meaning and application.
To assume no one understood the true function of the old covenant, or, the old covenant was, ipso facto, legalism is not correct. Yet this seemed to be the implication of the authors of this question by the scriptures they used in the context of the question.
Bill Sorensen
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I believe that the difference pointed out is indeed instructional for us. It’s not that the gospel has changed since Old Testament times. However, there is a progressive revelation of truth. I am convinced that we miss the implications of Paul’s emphasis on walking in the Spirit (and not only in the law) only at the peril of our souls.
*
As the lyrics of “Once to Every Man and Nation” say: “Time makes ancient good uncouth. One must ever onward, upward, who would keep abreast of truth.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Andy, you wrote “once we have each put ourselves under any given law” regarding Romans 13. The Biblical text makes no such qualification to obeying the authorities. Instead the text clearly states that God has established these authorities over us. Your conjecture appears to be based on personal opinion rather than a clear reading of the text. You may want to review your position on this particular matter of civil disobedience. I don’t see it supported in Scripture.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
Dear Andy,
Contray to what you imply, by quoting only half of one text, the rest of Romans 13:1-8 clearly teaches that all authorities/governments are “appointed by God.” (That’s kind of a hard pill to swallow, but I believe it means that God is sovereign over all, and governments rule under His authority.) And in this same passage, Paul clearly directs believers to be “subject” to governments and to pay taxes.
You appear to be suggesting something that is in direct contradiction of the words of Paul. Paul leaves not the least bit of wiggle room to argue that we should not pay taxes to a particular government because we think it’s not a good government. Paul’s counsel has the effect of making good citizens out of all Christians who do what he says.
The blessings and cursings of Deut 11:26-28 tell of blessings attendant to obeying God and the “cursings” that naturally follow disobedience. The passage says nothing about the “organization” of the “Kingdom of Death.”
The Bible is not difficult to understand if we will refrain from imposing arcane meanings on the text.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
Hi, Andy. Of course I would pay taxes to those various authorities should I choose to live in their dominions. by choosing to live there, I acknowledge their suzerainty and defer to their laws.
Jesus Himself said that the power of civil government is derived from God when he said to Pilate “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” John 19:11, NIV
I guess I do not understand why you are making such an issue of this. Are you advocating some sort of rebellion against the existing government? If so, you may want to consider 1 Samuel 15:23. E. J. Waggoner correctly states of this passage in his book “The Glad Tidings” that it should properly be rendered “rebellion IS the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness IS iniquity and idolatry.” Nihilism does not appear to have much Biblical support.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
Dear Andy,
Most of what you say in your comment sounds right. I just have a problem with what I think you mean. But my thinking may be wrong. So I am going to ask you to clarify, so that I may understand you. Please answer these questions directly, as briefly as possible.
In your view:
1) Is it God’s ideal that Christians should not be subject to “worldly governments.”
2) Should Christians avoid filling out tax forms, passport applications and other such forms in order to avoid being “subject to worldly governments”?
3) Are Christians free not to pay taxes if they do not declare income or fill out any tax forms?
4) Is a Christian’s subjection to “worldly governments” contrary to God’s plan.
The questions above can probably each be answered by YES or NO, with little explanation.
Please explain what you mean by “God’s wish is for each and all of us to be truly and optimally free under none but Him alone.” How does this ideal look in 21st-Century society?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated.
0 
3
Dear Andy,
Thank you for clarifying your understanding of how Christians are to relate to the “authorities” and governments of this world. It now seems clear that you are advocating not being “subject” to any governments because you see them as usurping the place of God.
According to our understanding, this is contrary to what the Bible commands and what the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches. We have already mentioned the teachings of Jesus and of Paul, which tell us to pay taxes and to be subject to the governments of this world, as long as they do not oppose the clear commands of God given in Holy Scripture.
Additionally I can think of one example in the Old Testament. (There may be more.) When the people of God were captured and taken into exile into Babylon, they were naturally not very happy with the situation. Yet God’s prophet gave this message: “And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will have peace.” (Jer. 29:7) These words imply cooperation with the authorities of Babylon.
If Christians follow the counsel contained in the Bible, they will be model citizens in whatever place they find themselves. By contrast, Christians who refuse to subject ourselves to lawful civil authorities are also in a state of disobedience to the commandments of God.
Since you have made your position clear, we ask you not to submit any more posts suggesting that we should not pay taxes and not to submit to civil authorities.
Thanks for understanding,
Inge Anderson,
Editor of Sabbath School Net.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Dear Inge,
Please consider also… God’s instruction per Ellen White, re the importance for each one to be allowed to experience for themselves the consequences of each their own choices in life. I am referring to Ellen’s words per Patriarchs and Prophets p. 361.2!
Sabbath peace to all,
Andy ©
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
With all due love and respect, Andy, that’s what I think she is doing — letting you experience the consequences of your choice to persistently advocate unscriptural views. I sincerely hope that you will not also have to suffer the consequences of rebellion against the God-appointed civil authorities. I guess that some of have to learn things the hard way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[Comment to the moderator: The following comment of mine has been modified so as to conform to the suggestions put forth by Tyler Cluthe, the moderator who edited out my original post. I trust that the below modified comment of mine will allow you to accept it for what it is... Thanks!]
Thanks R.G.!
You are hitting the nail on the head! That which you and others may view from a perspective such that you call it “unscriptural” and “rebellion” is very much a matter of what side of the fence you are standing upon…
Think about it from a more common point of view: How many soldiers haven’t sacrificed their very lives for each their own country while in the process of shooting down their “enemies” on the other side of the front line boundary?!! And yet, the soldiers on both sides of that fence are absolutely committed to each their own conviction that their side, and theirs alone, is God’s side, the one and only lawful side, the one and only side based upon the Holy Scriptures?
Please consider this: Which stand was in accord with the precepts taught by God?, 1. The stand of the elders referenced in 1 Samuel 8:4 and of the people referenced in 1 Samuel 8:7 (KJV,) or else 2. the stand of the three men among “the Jews… Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego” referenced in Daniel 3:12? And also, please notice the focal point within Ellen White’s devotional per TMK 357: “A doctrine that has not a “Thus saith the Lord” may be accepted by the whole world, but that does not make it truth…. ”
And, sorry to say, isn’t it very true that all of those soldiers, on both sides of those national boundaries, do have to learn their lessons “the hard Way?” That is, if they don’t die first…
My wish and prayer is for all of us, myself not excluded, to be willing to climb high enough along the Way – the one Way taught in the Holy Scriptures – that we may each be able to perceive each our own position from an ever higher and higher vantage point!
Praise the Lord of Hosts for being each our Guide along the Way! – Even while yet, unbeknownst to us, we are still in enemy country!
May the peace of our Savior be real enough to each of us that we may truly dare to look ourselves in the mirror of God’s own eyes as did Noah per Genesis 6:8
“And Noah looked into the eyes of ‘I Am’ and saw ‘the mirror image of his very own name’ ” (that’s a literal translation of mine from the Hebrew text.)
Andy ©
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0