Tim’s Blog

Out of the Mouth of Babes…

January 6, 2025

In Hebrew, Psalm 8:2 says, “Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants, you have ordained strength.” The LXX (which Jesus cites in Matthew 21:16) has that as ainos — “praise.”

Without getting into how on earth the LXX translators got from strength to praise, two things are certainly true:

1) The immediate context underscores strength: “to silence/destroy the enemy and the avenger.” The Hebrew reading is natural and expected.

2) The LXX rendering is legitimate, or Jesus would not have appealed to it in the manner he did.

Somewhat ironically, it is the variation which has “praise” which also has “to destroy the enemy and the avenger,” whereas it is the variation that has strength which has “to silence the enemy and the avenger.” I.e. it could be argued that the LXX variation of the following clause actually fits with the Hebrew of the first clause better, and vice versa.

In any case, Psalm 8 presents, not young men of strength, but infants, as the paragon of Yahweh’s strength over against the enemy. In the Greek variation, in particular, this strength is tied to praise. In both variations, however, this link is contextually appropriate, given that the preceding verse is itself effusive praise (“O Yahweh, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens”).

The question is, how does the statement make sense? Primarily, it makes sense when we understand it as a riff on Genesis 3. Yahweh places enmity between the woman and the serpent, and her seed and his. Since the only way the serpent gets seed is by stealing it from the woman, infant praise is intrinsically a display of Yahweh’s victory over the enemy.

Put simply, infant praise is Yahweh’s show of strength.

The Promises to Abraham: Israel & the Nations

December 23, 2024

A key reason why “conversations” between dispensationalists and hard supercessionists rarely get anywhere (beyond the fact that people are obviously predisposed to their own convictions) is that neither side does adequate justice to the texts, beginning with the Abrahamic promises themselves.

Yahweh’s promises to Abraham distinguish between those who will come from his own body, and those who will be blessed in (not simply by) him. Both these promises are “everlasting.”

On the one hand, this means that “Israel” is not “replaced” by “the Church,” much less by Gentiles. On the other, it means that the covenantal goal of the Abrahamic promises was organic unity between Israel and the nations in one people of God.

Paul maintains this delicate balance in Romans, a letter which each side tends to privilege certain aspects and eviscerate others.

In Romans 2:25–29, Paul says that the uncircumcised (i.e. Gentiles) who “keep the righteous deeds [dikaiomata] of the law” are regarded as circumcised (2:26). As he continues, it becomes clear that he is speaking of the work of the Spirit (2:29). He is thus saying that Christians are … well, Jews.

While this would have shocked his contemporaries, in fundamental respects, it is in fact not at all surprising that personal, physical circumcision is not inherent to being a Jew. After all, roughly half of Jews were not subject to circumcision to begin with, being female.

All Jews recognized this, although on that point, the position of women was considered to be inferior; in the Eighteen Benedictions, one thanked God that he is not a woman. This is because Torah is viewed as life, and for a woman, there is ostensibly less of Torah to observe.

In contrast to this, Paul says that in the Messiah, there is no male and female (Galatians 3:28). This, of course, does not mean that Paul obliterates the roles of male and female, as is clear in his deployment of “household codes” and his other instructions. But it does mean that the ground before the cross is completely leveled. The reason for this, Paul says, is that in baptism, one has “put on” (clothed himself with) the Messiah (Galatians 3:27), and therefore his inheritance belongs to all the baptized. (This is the whole point of Paul’s argument in the latter part of Galatians 3 and into the early verses of chapter 4.)

But if that is so, men and women, young and old, slave and free, Jew and Gentile, are all incorporated into the (circumcised) king of the Jews, Jesus, and therefore they are Jews.

Thus the apparently unprecedented move Paul makes in Romans 2:25–29 is organically related to his view of union with Christ, and necessarily flows from it.

While this all may sound great to the supercessionist, Paul’s discussion of Israel in Romans 9–11 shows that he still envisions things in terms of the original promises to Abraham, including the other side of the coin. Whereas the foregoing shows how God includes and blesses “all the families of the earth” in Abraham, Romans 9–11 reflects upon the correlating promises to those who come from Abraham’s own body; and both hard supercessionists and dispensationalists are wrong to set these in opposition one to another.

In Romans 9, Paul speaks of his grief for his kinsmen; and affirms that they are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, glory, covenants, promises, and so on. Note well that this grief is rooted in their current position of rejection of the Messiah; it is these to whom, he says, all those covenantal blessings belong. That is, while they do not currently enjoy the benefits and blessings of what belongs to them in terms of promise, that does not negate the fact that they really are theirs. There is really no room in supercessionism for this fact, although some will claim it was a very temporary reality.

The problem with taking this situation as temporary, however, is that the very foundation of the existence of these things that belong are the everlasting promises to Abraham. Were those promises not everlasting, Paul’s appeal to what belongs to them in Romans 9:4–5 would have had no place, even then.

Moreover, in Romans 11, Paul very clearly distinguishes between the natural branches and the ingrafted branches. And he makes clear that even the severed branches remain natural branches. God has them demarcated as beloved for the sake of the fathers, even when they are enemies of believers for the sake of the gospel (Romans 11:28).

Paul says that the trespass of Israel was for the sake of “riches for the world” (11:12a). This means, in the first place, that the initial rejection of the Messiah was in fact the means of his sacrificial death which brings reconciliation to the world, but it seems to go much further than that, which implies an ongoing rejection for a more extended period.

But if the initial rejection means “riches for the world,” Paul says, even much more so will their “fullness” (pleroma, 11:12b). This “fullness” must be read as a quantitative and comparative term over against the “remnant” language Paul has been using throughout the context (leimma, 11:5), as well as the “some” whom he himself hopes to rescue (11:14). It is impossible to equate the remnant and the fullness, which is nonsensical on the terminological level, and runs headlong against the grain of Paul’s entire argument.

The initial rejection is the ground of reconciliation for the world, Paul says; the life from the dead, however, is predicated upon their “acceptance” (11:15), which appears to be another way of saying their “fullness,” as in 12b.

Romans 11 has two coordinating themes of fullness/all, having to do with “the world” (i.e. the nations, the Gentiles) and “Israel.” These correspond to the everlasting promises to Abraham regarding the fruit of his body and the families of the earth being incorporated into him. In both cases, Paul anticipates a fullness: the world will be reconciled (11:15a); the “fullness of the Gentiles will come in” (11:25b).

The “partial hardening” of Israel is the context for this ingathering of the Gentiles (again 11:25b); once the Gentile nations have been reconciled in fullness, “all Israel will be saved” (11:26a, again parallel to Israel’s fullness in 11:12). It is when both of these “fullnesses” are brought in that “life from the dead” occurs (11:15b).

That this is the correct reading of Romans 11 is evident from the far too-neglected verses that follow, in particular 11:28–32.

As already noted, the larger mass of Israel, over against the remnant, remain beloved for the sake of the fathers with regard to Israel’s election, even while they are enemies with regard to the gospel (11:28). It is specifically in this connection that Paul says the gfits and calling of God are irrevocable (11:29). Note that. He is not speaking of the irrevocability of the promises to Christian believers. He is specifically speaking of the irrevocability of the promises to the offspring of Abraham, and specifically those who presently do not believe and are in fact enemies of the gospel.

Paul says that “you” Gentiles were at one time disobedient, but have received mercy precisely through Israel’s disobedience (11:30), and even so their present disobedience is part of the unfathomable purpose through which God will extend them mercy precisely through the mercy he has shown to Gentiles (11:31). This consigns the judgment of disobedience upon “all” — and it extends mercy to “all.”

I believe the message of Romans as a whole reinforces several things.

1) Paul fervently believes that which Yahweh had insisted in the prophets: the promises to the offspring of Abraham are utterly irrevocable; they are as settled as the “fixed order” of the moon and stars (Jeremiah 31:35–36).

2) Paul works thoroughly within the distinction between the offspring of Abraham’s body and the inclusion of all the families of the earth in Abraham.

3) The promises in view regarding Israel are not something that occurred in the first century. Quite apart from the fact that there is zero evidence of a mass influx of Jews into the Church after Romans was written (the evidence suggests the opposite; the Church from that point was increasinly Gentile), the text itself insists that the “fullness of the Gentiles,” not the “fullness of Israel,” occurs first; and the fulfillment of the latter triggers the resurrection.

4) Conversely, the promises in view regarding Israel are not post-resurrection promises (i.e. it’s not simply that God will raise up previous generations of Israel to life after the Second Coming). To the contrary, it is Israel’s “fullness” which will trigger “life from the dead.”

5) The promises in view envision the salvation of the world. The promises to Israel and to the Gentile world are mutually reinforcing, and make clear that the last enemies which will be destroyed is death.

“Your Children Are Holy”

June 7, 2024

1 Corinthians 7:14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: since otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy [or, saints].”

In terms of the logic of this verse, what is axiomatic is the hagia (“holy”) status of the believer’s children. That is axiomatic, not least due to what Jesus says in Matthew 19:13–14 and elsewhere.

In the context, Paul is using this to argue that an existing marriage to an unbeliever (as opposed to willfully entering into a marriage with one) remains God’s will. The spouse’s unbelieving status does not render the marriage illegitimate or unholy because the unbelieving spouse is in that respect sanctified by the believing one.

The two words in the verse, “sanctified” and “holy,” share the same Greek root. They are not, however, the same Greek word; the reference to children is an adjective, while the reference to the spouse is a verb.

This opens up a play on words, and certainly shows a relationship, but it is saying too much to say one is simply the verb form of the other. The verb has a broader usage relating to various levels of consecration, dedication, and so on. The use of the noun, however, can be seen throughout the epistle, starting in 1:2, where the letter is addressed to the “called saints” in Corinth (cf 1 Corinthians 16:15). 1 Corinthians 7:14 is identifying the believer’s children as saints.

Aside from lexical issues, the contextual usage within the verse differs. The reference to the believer’s children being hagia means they are holy seed along the lines articulated throughout Scripture.

Remember again: this statement arises because of a question whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse. Paul says no, and he appeals to the saint-hood of the children as a proof. That is, he is reasoning that if the offspring of the marriage are holy seed, we must not see the marriage itself as illegitimate, even though the spouse is an unbeliever.

The form of argument here is formally similar to how Augustine argues against Pelagius, albeit in a different direction. He appeals to infant baptism to demonstrate the reality of original sin. Infant baptism is the axiom (the agreed-upon view), and the logic is that since baptism washes away sin, therefore, infants must be sinners, too (contra Pelagius).

So again, in this case, the axiom is the hagia status of the believer’s children. Since that is a given, the marriage is legitimate (and therefore should not be forsaken); the unbeliever is in that (limited) sense set apart for this marriage — in contrast to what was required by Ezra and Nehemiah.

Christians and Judaism

April 28, 2024

Most discussions regarding Jews and Christians involve oversimplifications on both sides of the equation.

With regard to Jews: modern Judaism is not simply Old Testament religion, minus Jesus. To think otherwise is to pretend that history occurs in a vacuum.

1) The first thing we ought to observe is that even in Old Testament times, a great deal changed from beginning to end. The situation of Israel’s identity was radically different toward the end of the Old Testament period compared to what it had been earlier. This is not merely because Israel had moved through the stages of clan to tribal nation to kingdom, but in particular because there was an early royal rift between the so-called “ten tribes” and the kingdom of Judah (which comprised the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and most of Levi). In the first years of that rift, the first northern king invented new forms of worship for Yahweh so that his people would not be going to Jerusalem; and after a few generations, almost every northern king worshiped other gods altogether. Within a couple hundred years, God judged the northern kingdom and most of the northern tribes were relocated and eventually sown into the peoples of those lands.

The point is that “Jews” does not equal “Israelites” (as Jason Staples has so insistently and ably pointed out). “Jews” is shorthand for “people from the kingdom of Judah,” which is not the same as “Israel.” (This is one crucial point when considering whether a Jewish nation-state actually fulfills the Old Testament promises toward Israel. Answer: it does not, and cannot. The promises envision a reunified Israel, which is not something human beings can achieve.)

2) Even in the first century before Jesus’ ministry, Judaism had evolved and was evolving and was not exactly the faith of the Hebrew Scriptures. Various groups were trying to mark out that faith in various ways, in the face of several centuries of prophetic silence, and in particular, in the face of an awareness of living in a “post-exilic” age of wrath.

This variety of Judaisms already present before the outset of Jesus’ ministry is evident in his interactions with his contemporaries. The Sadducees and Pharisees, quite obviously, were very different, but even the Pharisees had significant differences among themselves; and that does not even take into account other groups (e.g. the Essene community etc).

3) Post-Christian Judaism shifted even further, both from interaction and reaction to the claims of Jesus, as well as to the destruction of the temple and the attending dissolution of what little independence Judea had enjoyed since the return sponsored by Cyrus.

With regard to Christians: modern Christians too are very far removed from the situation of the first generation of believers in the first century. One big reason for this is that early in its history, the Church went from being completely Jewish to overwhelmingly Gentile, and (shortly thereafter) increasingly indebted to thought forms and philosophies more at home in the Greek and Roman world than in the Hebrew Scriptures.

This means that even if we are emphatically opposed to Marcionite tendencies (Marcion pitted the God of the Old Testament against the God of the New as two different, opposing deities), we have to labor significantly to overcome (centuries of) conceptual baggage in order to understand and appreciate the Old Testament. And that understanding and appreciation is actually critical to understanding the New.

It is not the task of Christians to rehabilitate Judaism. Jews who come to Christ will do so by way of seeing Scripture through new eyes.

If we want to be the means God uses toward that end, as we proclaim the good news of Israel’s Messiah, a good start would be in our own backyard, by seeing Scripture through new eyes ourselves.

And, as Paul reminds us, we are not to “boast against the branches.” We have been grafted into our position in God’s people out of mere grace, and God’s purpose is to re-graft branches presently broken off.

Our mission is neither to treat Jews as our enemies, nor to find ways to force some sort of fulfillment of supposed prophecies regarding a Jewish nation-state (there aren’t any).

Our mission toward Jews is the same as our mission toward Gentiles: to treat them with humility and yet with faithfulness, confident in the power and love of the Messiah.

The Church and the Calling to Pray for Healing

April 27, 2024

No matter where a church stands on the issue of cessationism, it should cultivate the biblical practice of prayer for healing.

This practice should be shaped by the Church’s confession regarding death and resurrection, and by the explicit command of Scripture.

The Church confesses that it is appointed to man to die (Hebrews 9:27). This means that in the final analysis, all healings in this life are temporary. They are not ultimate.

The Church also confesses the resurrection of the body. This means that, contrary to the hyper-spirituality common to some parts of the Church, the living God is intimately concerned with our bodies, and in fact infallibly plans to restore us to full and perfect health when it’s all said and done.

Like restoration from sin, liberation from illness and disease is partial in this life. But that doesn’t mean God isn’t serious about it. Just as we would not pray “Lord, if it be your will, remove lust from my heart,” we should not pray, “Lord, if it be your will, heal Jane from her multiple sclerosis.” The Lord has revealed his will, and it is liberation from both sin and ill health. The partiality attendant to that liberation in this life is not an implied reason to pray without faith or seriousness, with regard either to sin or to sickness.

James writes,

“Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.

“And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous is powerful in its working.” [James 5:14–16]

What is in view here is not someone with “the gift of healing” going around. It is the elders of the local church; no special apostolic gifts are requisite. They simply take God at his Word and pray in accordance with his command.

Certainly, not everyone will be healed in this life. Paul, who says little in his letters about the signs and wonders present in his ministry, in fact was God’s instrument for amazing events that we would call miracles of healing (e.g. Acts 14:8–10; 19:11–12; 28:8; cf Acts 15:12). Yet even he left behind a beloved companion who had fallen ill (2 Tim 4:20). So even he did not have power simply to heal whomever he chose; and in any case, all those whom he did heal eventually died.

But that fact does not change the command or the ultimate promise of resurrection. We anoint with oil as a sign that we acknowledge that it is the Spirit who gives life to these mortal bodies (cf Romans 8:11), and although the full force of his resurrection power has not yet been displayed in them, he is nonetheless powerfully present even now, bearing witness to our ultimate hope.

Theses Regarding “All Israel Will Be Saved”

April 18, 2024

Theses regarding the widespread restoration of Israel:

1) The people provided the promise have not been redefined. The Old Testament prophecies frequently distinguish between Gentiles and Israel with reference to future blessing. Moreover, when Paul says “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26), he is not speaking merely of “all the elect remnant of Jew and Gentile,” which would be at best nothing more than a tautology.

A responsible reading of Rom 11:26 must fully reckon with 11:28. In terms of the “Israel” Paul has in view, “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” This verse makes absolutely no sense if Paul is not referring to the presently unbelieving mass of “ethnic” Israel, and it makes no sense if he does not have a massively significant reversal in view.

2) The nature of the blessing has not been redefined. On the one hand, Yahweh has always been fully committed to his creation (the earth and its environs), which is why the doctrine of the resurrection is so central to Christian faith. Given that, there is nothing “carnal” in itself regarding the long-held desire of Israel to hold God to his promise of land. On the other hand, the promises to Israel have always been spiritual promises. The promises to Israel stand in the context of a promise of a new heavens and a new earth, and they are messianically defined. That is, they are all about Jesus, and always have been.

3) The distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the promises, therefore, does not mean that one is an “earthly seed” and the other is a “heavenly seed.” The biblical program is one of full integration and shared blessing between Israel and the nations.

4) It is useless to object that “God has divorced Israel” and is therefore done with them. Ironically, the only actual biblical texts which explicitly mention Yahweh divorcing Israel also explicitly affirm that he will restore them (post-divorce)! (That is a key aspect of the message of Hosea.)

5) The promises of God, not the dilution of Israelite blood through the vagaries of history, must always establish the starting point and immovable foundation of what we believe.

6) The biblical promises are in fact much more miraculous than simply envisioning that some day the people we know as “Jews” will embrace the Messiah en masse. Throughout the later Old Testament prophets, including well after the obliteration and displacement of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians, Yahweh still promises a future for Ephraim as representative of the northern tribes. The radical character of God’s promises for Israel are so daring that Ezekiel portrays it most starkly as life from the dead.

7) These promises remain future, and they do not introduce an alternate route of redemption.

A] It will not do to suggest that the promises were fulfilled by the return from exile, because i) The return from exile was a return of a small remnant from only the Babylonian exile; and ii) still in Romans 11, Paul anticipates the fulfillment of these promises in the future.

B] Neither will it do to suggest that the promises were fulfilled in the 1st century, but later than when Paul wrote Romans. Not only is there zero evidence of a widespread turning to the Messiah by 1st century Jews; even if there were, that would not satisfy the promises, as we have noted in (5) above.

C] Neither yet will it do to suggest that these promises will be fulfilled at Christ’s return. His return will be for judgment, and after that a reversal will be too late. To the contrary, Jesus himself sets the timetable in Matthew 23:39: Israel will not see him again until they say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” that is until they submit to him as Messiah and Lord.

—–

It may be objected that if the northern tribes must be restored, the promises are impossible.

We must take this bull by the horns. Read through the prophetic books. The promises are what they are. They involve a very significant form of “all Israel,” including the so-called “lost tribes” (see e.g. Jer 31:1, which refers to all the clans of Israel; see also Jer 30:3; Ezek 36; 37:16–17; Zech 8:13; 10:6ff etc). Indeed, the signature new covenant prophecy itself clearly distinguishes between “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31; cf Ezek 36:25–26 in context).

Does God break his Word? Does he renege on his promise? Does he redefine his promises to the degree that they are utterly meaningless?

He does not.

How then can he restore the northern tribes when they have been sown into the Gentile world to the degree of apparent untraceability?

There is one way that I know of.

He can save the world.

And just coincidentally, that seems to be exactly what Paul says God is up to. “If their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!” [Rom 11:12] “For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” [11:15]

“For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy by their disobedience, so also these now disobeyed regarding the mercy shown you, in order that they themselves may obtain mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, in order to have mercy upon all.” [Rom 11:30–32]

There is None Righteous…

April 15, 2024

It is interesting that of the various passages Paul quotes and cites in his catena of Romans 3:10–18, only the (possible) first is about universal sinfulness in its original context, i.e. Ecclesiastes 7:20 (which appears to me the most probable allusion at 3:10a for the phrase “there is none righteous”).

In the remaining passages (Ps 53/14; Ps 5:9; Ps 10:7; Isa 59:7–8; Ps 36:1), the “all” is in fact not universal, but refers specifically to those who oppose David or the poor oppressed of Yahweh etc.

Moreover, the overwhelming sin-type found in this catena regards not sexual perversion, covetousness, theft etc, but violence against Yahweh’s chosen, whether his anointed king or his people.

This fits with a Christocentric reading of Rom 3:1–8. While Paul is indeed advocating a generalized, universal human sinfulness (illustrated by the apparent Ecc 7:20 citation), it appears he is following up the preceding passage. This, for him, is the climactic “fall” of Israel, as becomes very clear at the end of Romans 9, where he speaks of them stumbling over Christ, the Rock whom God has appointed (cf also Rom 11:11).

Sin abounds through Torah in Israel (Rom 5:20), and it comes to a head specifically in her encounter with her own Messiah.

Worship as Death and Resurrection

February 18, 2023

When Moses asks to see Yahweh’s glory, God tells even this beloved, familiar servant: you cannot see my face, for no man shall see me and live (Ex 33:20).

And yet Yahweh called upon Israel to “seek his face” (1 Ch 16:11; 2 Ch 7:14). He said, “Seek my face,” and the psalmist responds, “Your face, Yahweh, will I seek” (Ps 27:8).

Are two different things meant by this?

Yes, and no.

Yahweh was telling Israel to seek his pleasurable countenance (“may his face shine upon you”), which could only happen through faith and faithfulness — living in a spirit of repentance and true worship. He wasn’t saying he would literally show his face to them.

To be sure, God is not a man and doesn’t have a “face” in the sense that creatures do. In that sense, it is impossible to “see God’s face.”

And yet … there is a face he could have shown Moses if he wanted to destroy him. There is a mysterious truth there about the incomprehensible God who is not embodied like we are.

But Israel could not see that face and live. That’s why in the tabernacle and temple, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and only once a year, and only in a cloud of smoke.

We approach the mystery in Revelation 1. John is “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” i.e. the Day of the Lord, divinely admitted into the church’s worship even while alone in exile. The glorified Jesus, the son of man who is the son of God, with eyes like a flame of fire and a voice like the roar of many waters — the visual form of this God who cannot be seen without the one seeing him dying as a result — Jesus speaks to John, and when the apostle turns and sees him, he “fell at his feet as though dead” (Rev 1:17). But Jesus lays his right hand on him, and describes himself as the living one who has indeed died, but is now alive forevermore (1:17–18).

There is a sense in which when we approach God in Spirit we do die, in order to be raised up. The Day of Yahweh is the meeting place, the day of death and resurrection.

Worship in Spirit and truth means worship in the heavenly Spirit who unites us to God and one another in the heavenly worship which John witnesses in Revelation. And it is in “truth,” i.e. the Truth, Jesus (I am the way, the Truth, and the life, Jn 14:6). We die and are raised with Jesus again and again in worship.

When God calls us to worship, he calls us to come and die — and to come and live.

Exchanging the Glory Theopolis Podcast Interview

January 7, 2023

Last week, Peter Leithart of the Theopolis Institute interviewed me in connection with my book, Exchanging the Glory: Idolatry and Homosexuality in Romans 1 (2022 Athanasius Press, Theopolis Explorations series). This interview is available on these podcast platforms:

Spotify — https://open.spotify.com/episode/2kXl2sk5UG6nuLOFVzYaYy

Apple — https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theopolis-podcast/id1148175126?i=1000592768187

SoundCloud — https://soundcloud.com/user-812874628/episode-607-idolatry-and-homosexuality-with-tim-gallant

False Humility Regarding the Lord’ Supper

December 28, 2022