Doctrinal Direction
In the beginning, God created . . . Genesis 1:1 NASB
In the beginning – It is little wonder that some rabbis spent their entire lives contemplating the opening three words of Scripture. We have spent quite a bit of time on the same subject. At last count, there are half a dozen or more Today’s Words about Genesis 1:1 and quite a few longer articles. One reason for this continual re-examination of the passage is its absolute uniqueness in ancient Near-eastern thought. The opening words, and the entire Genesis story, represent a radical departure from every other cultural explanation of that era.
Of course, that wouldn’t explain our continued fascination with the implications of this opening. That it eventually became the foundation of a doctrine like creation ex nihilo shows its enormous explanatory power, even if that doctrine is not explicitly stated in the verse itself.
But there are some implications from the way Genesis 1:1 is interpreted in Christian theology that lead in other directions. Jacques Ellul notices one of these when he says, “Now at the same time and in a corresponding manner, reflection upon God, being led by Greek and Roman thought, radically transformed what the Bible said about God. On the one side it analyzed the attributes of God – a God, of course, very different from the gods of polytheism, but still a God constructed by philosophy. Thus the idea of creation underwent a radical change the moment omnipotence came to the fore. The relation between God and the world now had nothing whatever to do with what the first Christian generations believed. God was tied to his creation, and ultimately the world contained God. On this basis one could find the sacred everywhere. This path led to the reappearance of persons typically connected with the sacred, such as mediators or priests.”[1]
Ellul’s remark recognizes concepts buried in some Christian interpretations of Genesis 1:1 that are not part of the Hebraic world. The differences are important. The Hebraic paradigm does not see God contained within the idea of the world, nor does it view God in terms of “attributes,” as most Christian theology does. Furthermore, since the Hebraic world does not have the Greek philosophical constructs of omnipresence, YHWH is not found everywhere. He is not the universally distributed God. He is the God of Israel and He is found among His people. Yes, I know that you could object. “God is everywhere. That’s what omnipresence means.” But you are missing the point. God is the God of Israel and the nations are invited to join Israel, not to merge Israel into the rest of the world. That God could manifest Himself anywhere in His creation does not mean that God is everywhere; i.e., that He is distributed equally in every place as the pantheists claim.
Ellul’s points continue. Those who serve Him are called to very specific tasks associated with the cultus. There are no universal priests mediating the relationship between all human beings and the universal God. There are priests who facilitate the worship of God as He requires it within the culture of His people. The people as a whole are called to be intercessors between God and the nations, but in the end the role of all these priests and priestesses is to call the nations to join Israel in worshipping Israel’s God.
I know, I know. If you thought I was stretching the idea of omnipresence, then you will certainly come unglued with this one. “But Jesus is the high priest of the world. He died for the sins of everyone!” The statement is so familiar that we don’t even think about what it implies. If Yeshua is the priest for everyone, then why does He say He came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? And why does He use a metaphor about the new covenant that only has application to the houses of Israel and Judah? And why does Paul say that we as Gentile believers are “grafted” into Israel?
The answers might shock us. First, we absolutely know that He is not of the order of the Levitical priests, so in this sense, He is not called (nor is He fit) to serve God. He is of the order of Melchizedek, something quite unique in itself, and in that order He acts differently than all Levitical priests. Secondly, since we affirm that He is divine (as God manifest in the flesh), He doesn’t serve God at all. He is God – God Himself sacrificed in order to offer required compensation for the removal of guilt. But these are only two small considerations. Much more investigation is required. The difficulty is setting aside all our Western, Christian pre-suppositions about the meanings of the text in order to listen to what the text actually says to its first audience. That doesn’t mean we will come up with any different conclusions. I believe that Yeshua is the divine Messiah whose death is intimately connected to the forgiveness of sins. Just how that happens isn’t as clear to me now as I thought it was. Now I am trying to understand what these passages would mean to a Jew in the first century. If I don’t know this, then it is doubtful that I really understand what the authors are saying. And since the overwhelming majority of the followers of Yeshua HaMashiach in the first century were Jews, whatever this text implies, it would have made sense to them. So, I guess I better get to work.
Maybe Ellul is on to something. Maybe. But look what it will require us to do. We will have to start over in our conceptions about the real relationship between YHWH, Yeshua, Israel and the Gentiles.
Or we could just dismiss all this and stay in our present theological comfort zone. We could let our traditions remain more powerful than the text.
Topical Index: Genesis 1:1, Israel, priest, Melchizedek, sacrifice
Skip – This is one of the simplest notes you have posted, and one of the most profound.
Thank you!
“This is one of the simplest notes you have posted”
Hi A.W.,
Hmmm I beg to differ
I read some of Ellul’s work some time ago and found it very moving and interesting
But I’m a bit confused by some of his points today; for example:
“On the one side it analyzed the attributes of God – a God, of course, very different from the gods of polytheism, but still a God constructed by philosophy.”
IMO the statement above taken out of context could be very misleading
The God constructed by “philosophers” is in the “first account of creation” as I understand it
The problem, of course, is that there are two accounts of creation in Genesis and that the second account, which is much older (ie the original account) was not created by “philosophers”
Rather the original account was created by relatively “primitive people” who conceived of God in anthropomorphic terms (as a more powerful “man” or being)
If we start at the “beginning” of Genesis, “omnipotence came to the fore” on Day 1:
Genesis 1.1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth.”
If God created the universe almost “out of whole cloth” how could God be
“tied to his creation”
Or his creation “ultimately …. contain God” ?
I guess my ultimate point is that if there are two somewhat contradictory accounts of creation
1. One in which God seems to be contained in the creation (Gen 2)
2. One in which God is transcends creation (Gen 1)
We can argue two very different contradictory views of God
But can we ever know which one is correct?
But your reply depends on accepting the 19th Century German higher criticism that there really are TWO accounts, edited by some third party into one story. And all of this has been show to be highly suspect. No one can actually agree which elements belong to which account. No one has successfully posited a credible theory about the final editor. No one has shown that the 16th century BC date of the entire composition can’t be true. The history of religions idea that this is based on is just another theory. Discard the paradigm that in incorporated in the idea of a progressive religious understanding of the world, and the whole theory collapses.
SKIP: But your reply depends on accepting the 19th Century German higher criticism that there really are TWO accounts
MIKE: Actually, I don’t know much about the 19th Century German higher criticism, but there really are TWO accounts in every Bible I can find 🙂
For example:
Genesis 1 The Jewish Bible
1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.”
1:27 So God created humankind in his own image;
in the image of God he created him:
male and female he created them.
MIKE: The Androgynous (male-female) image in Genesis 1:27 is a symbol of wholeness that can be found in the Talmud as I recall (from the priests/mystics who like concepts such as omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence)
Genesis 2 The Jewish Bible
2:7 Then Adonai, God, formed a person from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, so that he became a living being.
2:8 Adonai, God, planted a garden toward the east, in ‘Eden, and there he put the person whom he had formed.
2:9 Out of the ground Adonai, God, caused to grow every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
MIKE: This version would seem to be a much older literary
genre, reconstituted in the 1950’s Popeye and Olive Oil cartoons
But your paradigm is telling you that Genesis 1 is a different account than Genesis 2. What if 1 is the 30,000 foot view, the executive summary, and 2 is the detail focused on the emphasis (Man) in the rest of the story? And the androgynous being is an anachronism. Read it as if you were 16th Century BC ancient Near-Eastern. You might find that the whole idea is simply a way to capture what the Genesis account considers the species “Man.”
“With the exception of a few fragments in the prophets, virtually no biblical text is contemporaneous with the events it describes, and every part was subject to revision by later authors.” WIKI
Hi Skip,
As you know, creating Eve from Adam’s rib is a very primitive concept, probably implying a part-whole relationship, and then we have the problem of Eve, the evil one of the two. And Adam a somewhat moronic type. (Gen 2)
In the executive overview, written by executive types, Adam is created in the image of God, and Eve does not prod him into sin. (Gen 1)
The executives want a level playing field in the beginning of their world 🙂
Talmud
The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism’s Oral Law, and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Hebrew Bible.
Torah
The first five books of the bible in Judaism are called the Torah, meaning “law” or “instruction”, and are regarded as the most important section of the Scriptures, traditionally thought to have been written around 1440 BCE by Moses himself.
Most recent scholarly proposals place its origins in 5th century Judah under the Persian empire.
Did you really think that WIKI is the definitive resource on biblical textual criticism?
And who told you that et hats-tsela meant “rib.” In this case, it is the King James that is primitive. The root is ts-l which means “side” like the side of a hill. Metaphorically, not literally, this places the formation of the woman as an equal. And it this any less “primitive” than the man being formed from dust?
Once again we are expected to read the text within the context of the 16th Century BC where these ideas are already circulating in the culture. The only exception, and it is a BIG one, is that the Hebrew text is the only ancient cosmology that even includes the formation of woman.
Don’t be so enamored with the contemporary liberal theological evaluation of the texts. The presuppositions are flawed. Read John Walton Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.
1924a צֵלָע (sēlāʿ) side, rib (ASV, RSV are almost identical.)
ṣēlāʿ is used once for a man’s side (Gen 2:21f.) and once for the side of a hill, perhaps a ridge or terrace (II Sam 16:13; BDB); elsewhere it is an architectural term. It refers to the sides of an object, e.g. the sides of the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:12, 14). It is also employed to describe a location within a building (cf. Ex 26:35). Further it means a side chamber. There were three levels of these chambers around the temple proper (I Kgs 6:5; Ezk 41:6). It also indicates a board of wood used for a wall or a floor (I Kgs 6:15). And it stands for the leaves of a folding door (I Kgs 6:34). For I Kgs 7:3 KB gives “girder” or “moulding”; but others (as J. Gray) understand that it continues to mean “side chambers” in this passage.
The most crucial passage in which ṣēlāʿ appears is, of course, the one explaining the origin of woman (Gen 2:21f.). God created woman by taking “a rib” from Adam while he was in a very deep sleep (cf. tardērmâ). Conceivably this means that God took a good portion of Adam’s side, since the man considers the woman to be “bone of his bones” and flesh of his flesh (Gen 2:21f.). This picture describes the intimacy between man and woman as they stand equal before God. Since God made the woman, she is responsible to him in worship. She is not a mere extension of man; she possesses a unique individuality in her own right. There is no indication that woman is inferior. On the other hand, since her body is made from man’s, there is a continuity between the two with the result that they can find a fulfilling relationship only in one another, but never with the same intensity in any other part of creation. Therefore woman’s origin makes it possible for a man and a woman to establish a dynamic relationship in which they become “one flesh” (cf. Gen 2:24).
Hartley, J. E. (1999). 1924 צלע. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (768). Chicago: Moody Press.
Hi Skip,
Please see comments inline
SKIP: Did you really think that WIKI is the definitive resource on biblical textual criticism?
MIKE: I think that WIKI is a great source for factual information, not textual criticism
SKIP: And who told you that et hats-tsela meant “rib.” In this case, it is the King James that is primitive. The root is ts-l which means “side” like the side of a hill. Metaphorically, not literally, this places the formation of the woman as an equal. And it this any less “primitive” than the man being formed from dust?
MIKE: All of it is primitive IMO and somewhat silly, but at the same time held sacred by the Jews as I understand it
MIKE: A “side of man” is still ribs as well and still a part-whole relationship and the man still came first, and the woman istill initiates the evil with the snake
MIKE: I think your “woman as an equal” interpretation is an imteresting one, but somewhat motivated by feminist and utopian views (all good to me). In any case, this is all ideology, not science IMO
SKIP: Once again we are expected to read the text within the context of the 16th Century BC where these ideas are already circulating in the culture. The only exception, and it is a BIG one, is that the Hebrew text is the only ancient cosmology that even includes the formation of woman.
MIKE: I understand and share your “feminist” view
MIKE: I guess my question would be why does every Bible I’ve ever seen translate it as rib? And this is probably the most famous story in the Bible
OK, let’s put aside the feminist agenda, which I don’t happen to share for other reason. I am interested in the equality demonstrated in the text. I have argued the point extensively in my book, so I won’t repeat it all here.
But I will make this point. While the text might seem “primitive” to you, it wasn’t written for you, and therefore, your criticism cannot discount the meaning of the text to the audience that first heard it. Genesis is NOT science, at least not science as post Baconians think of science. This criticism is like suggesting the because Homer doesn’t speak about the effects of tidal shifts on the voyages of Odysseus and provide us with proper analysis of current and meteorological data his stories are “primitive” and of no value. I am sure you see my point. Newtonian physicists believed in the three laws in spite of the fact that they were actually false. The described the world according to these laws and if we are going to understand how the world was precieverd prior to Einstein, we must take into account that even though Newtonian mechanics was ultimately wrong, it was still the descriptive analysis used for the audience of that day. Applying our view and then saying that the physicists of Newton’s era had nothing to communicate is anachronistic criticism.
Now, you can believe that the account in Genesis is ultimately flawed because you now understand the world from a different (and better) paradigm, but you can’t say that the account was “primitive” to the audience that first heard it or that it did not communicate vital information to them. SO the trick is to put yourself in their world and ask, “Now what does this tell me.” And I suggest that it does NOT tell you anything about a feminist agenda, or anything about androgynous beings, or anything about evil in women. All of that comes from OUR reading, not their understanding.
“If you don’t know that the author meant, then you don’t know what the text means.”
“If you don’t know that the author meant, then you don’t know what the text means.”
Hi Skip,
In Genesis 2 we certainly don’t know what the author meant
We don’t even know who the author was
In my view, a text can have a different objective meaning than the author intended
Unless of course the author is God, which complicates the Biblical text
For me, when one argues that women should not be priests, that is an anti-feminist agenda
In my view, a feminist wants equal rights and justice in relation to men
When I say the Bible is not science, it is not a criticism, it is just a fact
It is fiction, fact, history etc; was there a real snake talking to Eve, I don’t think so
“And I suggest that it does NOT tell you anything about a feminist agenda, or anything about androgynous beings, or anything about evil in women.”
Hi Skip,
Forty years ago, the concept of Androgyny in The Scarlet Letter (A) was much more interesting to me than it is today
At the time, I could not understand why nobody had ever noticed it or written about, because it seemed so obvious to me
Google’s Androids are more interesting to me today, but regarding Androgyny in Genesis, I found the following in Judaism Online:
“The fact that the first human was created as an androgynous being gives us much insight into male-female relationships.
To get a clear picture of the Jewish view of womanhood, we must go back to the beginning—the Torah.
In the first chapter of Genesis, the Torah chooses to refer to Adam in the plural:
God created the man in His image; in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. And God blessed them. (Genesis 1:27-28)
Why “them”? This was before the creation of Eve!
The Jewish Oral Tradition provides us with a fascinating insight into this grammatical oddity. The first human, it tells us, was really an androgynous being, both male and female in one body, sophisticated and self-sufficient.
But if God had created such a complete human being, why the later separation into two parts, into Adam and Eve?
The answer given is that God did not want this first human creation to be alone, for it would then possess an illusion of self-sufficiency. Note that there is no word for “independence” in classical Hebrew. (What we use now, atzma’ut, is of modern vintage.)
The concept of independence doesn’t exist in Jewish tradition. Aside from God, nothing and no one is really independent. Since we are supposed to ingrain into ourselves that God is the source of everything, self-sufficiency would have been a spiritual defeat.
God wanted to fashion the human being into two separate people in order to create a healthy situation of dependence, yearning, and mutual giving. Human beings are not meant to be alone because then they would have no one to give to, no one to grow with, and nothing to strive for. To actualize oneself spiritually, a human being cannot be alone.”
I am aware of this Jewish idea. Frankly, I think it is wrong. Interesting but without support except by reading it back into the text.
SKIP: “Interesting but without support except by reading it back into the text.”
JESUS: “and when you make the male and the female into a single one, …. you enter the Kingdom”
Hi Skip,
Yes but apparently Jesus did the same thing 🙂
Jesus said to them:
When you make the two one,
and when you make the inside as the outside,
and the outside as the inside,
and the upper as the lower,
and when you make the male and the female into a single one,
so that the male is not male and the female not female,
and when you make eyes in place of an eye,
and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter [the kingdom].
Gospel of Thomas Saying 22
The Gospel of Thomas? Filled with greek dualisms and other suspicious ideas, I am not inclined to consider it very accurate.
SKIP: The Gospel of Thomas? Filled with greek dualisms and other suspicious ideas, I am not inclined to consider it very accurate.
Hi Skip,
The Torah and Talmud are the primary sources for all codes of rabbinic law
But you seem to be rejecting a lot of the Talmud at this point, and the mystical tradition, known as Kabbalah?
SKIP: The Gospel of Thomas? Filled with greek dualisms and other suspicious ideas, I am not inclined to consider it very accurate
Hi Skip,
But “when you make the male and the female into a single one” of Thomas
Is a direct reference to the Hebrew dualism of male and female as one image of God
In Gen 1:27
But only if the Genesis 1:27 is in fact a dualism. What if you read it according to the thought of the Egyptians in the 16th century BC?
The Ancient Egyptians defined the qualifications of a king in the following terms:
– He is a God
– Father and Mother of all people (two things)
– Alone by himself without equal (one thing)
Queen Hatshepsut
Maat-Ka-Re Hatshepsut (circa 1479-1457 BC) was the the third woman in Egyptian history to take up the Pharaoh’s throne
The Androgynous King
– He is God
– Father and Mother of all people (two things)
– Alone by himself without equal (one thing)
Regarding prayer, I would like to make the following point
It seems to me that the point of prayer is to make the “two things one”
That is to say, I am to make God’s desire my desire
If God is in control of things, then I always have what He desires
So the trick is to learn to adapt to His will (which has never been very easy for me)
As Vincent, the Hitman in the movie Collateral, comically teaches us
“Now we gotta make the best of it, improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, stuff happens, I Ching, whatever man, we gotta roll with it”
And do the right thing (Spike Lee)
Michael –
God is neither contained within His creation, nor is he ‘outside’ of it, He transcends both. That is, God is, and in that manner He operates outside of time (sees everything from its beginning to its end) as well as operating within the time of His creation (in the affairs of men and nations).
Also, from a Hebraic point of view, the initial creation narrative was not meant to be a list of chronological events, rather a list of things accomplished by God in His creation activities. For example the sun was not created until the fourth day. Rather, the message is God is and He did. Trying to figure it out is purely a Greek paradigm, not Hebraic.
The entire Old Covenant writings are designed to reveal God to mankind in His creation and in His messiah, as “who He is”, not to demonstrate “what He is”. We Westerners want to figure Him out (the how and why), while He wants us to love Him for who He is (worship and obey).
Hi A.W.
Yes I tend to agree with you from a slightly different angle
A.W. “God is neither contained within His creation, nor is he ‘outside’ of it, He transcends both.”
M.O: The Rabbis and Catholics refer to this characteristic as “Omnipresence”
A.W. “Trying to figure it out is purely a Greek paradigm, not Hebraic.”
M.O: I understand, but the Jews knew that looking at familiar things from a different angle, such as the Greek paradigm, can often shed new light on an old subject
A.W. “The entire Old Covenant writings are designed to reveal God to mankind in His creation and in His messiah, as “who He is”, not to demonstrate “what He is”.
M.O: I think the entire Old Covenant writings are designed to reveal three things:
– What Yahweh wants us to do
– Who his models are
– The consequences of our actions
Sometimes his “models” are prostitutes and sometimes they are donkeys
While I agree that the Genesis narrative is not about chronological events, nor about the static attributes of God, I am convinced after years of study that the idea of God “outside” of time is not only logically flawed but also not Hebraic. My book God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience traces this idea to Parmenides and the Greek concept of perfection, not to biblical texts. I explore all the arguments concerning this doctrine and show each of them logically fallacious, most committing a temporal/spatial fallacy of category confusion. Once we unpack the assumptions behind the Greek idea, we see that reading the Genesis text from a Greek paradigm plunges us into all kinds of theological difficulties, most based on a linear view of time. The arguments are a bit complicated but the result is a clarity about the Hebraic cyclodial view that helps clear up many apparent paradoxes in Scripture. I encourage you to take a look at this study.
Now that, Skip, is something I can fully agree with. Both the spiral and the wheel traveling down a road allegories of (biblical) Hebrew time approaches work for me – neither of which fit well into a linear Greek world view of time. Of course, this makes some books of the Bible very difficult to dig through, most notability the book of Revelation.
I will have to read your book! Your collecting all my shekels! LOLOL As a note: I was basing my precept on “modern” Hebraic thought as expressed by one of the contributing Rabis on Chabad.org several months ago, along with some earlier Messianic teachers. If your study sheds additional insight into the subject, I will gladly embrace it. Yet, the one thing I have had to learn is to set aside is the idea of applying Aristotelian logic to Hebrew scriptures. Yet, we shall see what my studies produce.
Thanks again for your great messages.
I consider that high praise. Thank you.
Most welcome!
“I believe that Yeshua is the divine Messiah whose death is intimately connected to the forgiveness of sins. Just how that happens isn’t as clear to me now as I thought it was. Now I am trying to understand what these passages would mean to a Jew in the first century. ”
How amazing it this that our Father is drawing so many of us in this direction? I have had the EXACT same question on my heart for the last two months.. – ‘Just HOW that happens isn’t clear to me as I thought it was.”
But if you have the witness in your heart that without Him you are dead in your sins, it is a revelationary truth that no-one can take from you. But we have to be patient – put it in a bottle on the spiritual shelf and attach the label – “In Abba’s Time..”
Thanks for sharing, Skip!
God Himself sacrificed in order to offer required compensation for the removal of guilt.
Yes, how do we explain this “act of Love from the One” who also “said, thou shalt not kill” and make the argument that believing in this “self sacrificial offering was for our justification”? If one does not know how the Law set up “measure for measure” and the penalty for willful sin according to The Creator’s standards, then of course, this would not make any sense at all. I find it difficult to go too deeply in this and yet, I am drawn back to think/meditate on it constantly. Especially when I consider being a disciple… DOER and not just a hearer only.
Does it sound too crazy to ask if we should consider this in the same manner of a crime scene investigation, and work backwards into it? It seems so, since christianity has committed the crime of distorting the gospel and judaism, the same crime almost in reverse, was committed by seemingly hiding The Light under a bushel to keep it to themselves. On one hand, rather than spreading the true gospel, one selfishly buried it and the other scattered some bad seed to a world looking for a reason to believe in something other than themselves.
The spreading of the LIGHT to the nations was apparently a charge given to the early people of YHWH. Some success was evident as Moses led the congregation into the wildnerness and in that bunch were Egyptians/”foreigners” who were obedient to The Way. Along the way, many perished due to disobedience and yet Abba is powerful enough to keep the flame flickering, at times just a smoldering of embers of hot coals. Nevertheless, He is now fanning the flames! Eventually the cleansing fire will burn off the chaff! Now, that, to me is great news!
This is exactly what drew me to the Hebraic roots. I want to know Him and worship Him in spirit and in TRUTH. If the truth sets us free then isn’t it the most important thing we can pursue in our lives?
I commend you Skip. You have the hurdles of your extensive education and indoctrination to overcome that most of us don’t have to the same degree as you. The one thing we do have in common is that we all want to know (in the biblical sense) Him more and more for who He really is and not for what we presume Him to be.
As one of my favorite authors anonymous says, “Time canonizes tradition” It’s a tough call. We/you are touching tearing down the high places and it’s not appreciated. It wasn’t appreciated when three of the kings of Israel did it. Why should we expect anything different?
It’s good to be on this journey with you all.
Love your comment!
I appreciate yours as well A.W. Always thought provoking.
Shabbat Shalom
Good Word again, Skip!
I’ve had Reggie White on my mind for the past couple of days, the anniversery of his death is December, 26th, 2004. I’ve often wondered what it would have been like if he had connected with you and TW. I’m sure he would have been one of your most loyal readers. I’m not sure how many of you know about Reggie’s life..watch the video….and think about what Skip is doing….then do it!
Reggie White… from Preacher of traditional Christianity to Torah Truth Seeker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UINyN4HInSI
Reggie White… from Preacher of traditional Christianity to Torah Truth Seeker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UINyN4HInSI
Hi Robin,
That is an amazing story, thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the post, Skip, and thanks, Robin, for the link about Reggie White.