Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Acts of the Apostles Online Commentary (20)




This is the twentieth entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. This entry continues Stephen’s speech before the council.
For previous entries, please now go to the Complete Acts of the Apostle Commentary, where you can find links to each of the entries updated after each new blog post.




3. Contents:
D)  Persecutions of the “Hellenist” Jewish Christians and the First Mission outside of Jerusalem (6:1-8:40): Stephen’s Speech Continues: Joseph and Moses (7:9-40):
9 "The patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him, 10 and rescued him from all his afflictions, and enabled him to win favor and to show wisdom when he stood before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who appointed him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. 11 Now there came a famine throughout Egypt and Canaan, and great suffering, and our ancestors could find no food. 12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our ancestors there on their first visit. 13 On the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph's family became known to Pharaoh. 14 Then Joseph sent and invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come to him, seventy-five in all; 15 so Jacob went down to Egypt. He himself died there as well as our ancestors, 16 and their bodies were brought back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem. 17 "But as the time drew near for the fulfillment of the promise that God had made to Abraham, our people in Egypt increased and multiplied 18 until another king who had not known Joseph ruled over Egypt. 19 He dealt craftily with our race and forced our ancestors to abandon their infants so that they would die. 20 At this time Moses was born, and he was beautiful before God. For three months he was brought up in his father's house; 21 and when he was abandoned, Pharaoh's daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. 22 So Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in his words and deeds. 23 "When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his relatives, the Israelites. 24 When he saw one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian. 25 He supposed that his kinsfolk would understand that God through him was rescuing them, but they did not understand. 26 The next day he came to some of them as they were quarreling and tried to reconcile them, saying, "Men, you are brothers; why do you wrong each other?' 27 But the man who was wronging his neighbor pushed Moses aside, saying, "Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? 28 Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?' 29 When he heard this, Moses fled and became a resident alien in the land of Midian. There he became the father of two sons. 30 "Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight; and as he approached to look, there came the voice of the Lord: 32 "I am the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' Moses began to tremble and did not dare to look. 33 Then the Lord said to him, "Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. 34 I have surely seen the mistreatment of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to rescue them. Come now, I will send you to Egypt.' 35 "It was this Moses whom they rejected when they said, "Who made you a ruler and a judge?' and whom God now sent as both ruler and liberator through the angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 He led them out, having performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. 37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, "God will raise up a prophet for you from your own people as he raised me up.' 38 He is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living oracles to give to us. 39 Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, 40 saying to Aaron, "Make gods for us who will lead the way for us; as for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.'  (NRSV)

Last entry, I discussed the nature of the speech itself and covered the first eight verses, those which concerned Abraham. This entry has a much larger section of text to examine, from verses 9-40, which cover the stories of Joseph and Moses. Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. breaks down this section of the speech, by dividing it into Part II, verses 9-16, dealing with Joseph, with verses 17-19 a transition connecting the stories of Abraham and Joseph, then Part III, verses 20-38, dealing with Moses, with verses 39-40 focusing as a transition from the rejection of Moses to the idolatry of the Israelites (Fitzmyer, Acts, 365).[1]

The story of Joseph told by Luke in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:9-16; drawn mostly from Genesis 37:10-16, and 39-50) aligns with the life of Jesus particularly as Joseph is “the type of Jesus, the rejected one” (Fitzmyer, 366) or the “righteous sufferer” (Pervo, 181). Fitzmyer contrasts the treatment Joseph received from human beings with that by God –“God’s deliverance is thus contrasted with human mistreatment (Fitzmyer, 366) – but Pervo puts a sharper theological point on this, writing, “Joseph’s own people rejected him, but God reversed this misfortune and exalted Joseph as ruler, in which role he was a benefactor to those who had rejected him” (Pervo, 181). This focus on “Joseph’s own people” rejecting Joseph by Pervo rather than just “human beings” rejecting him by Fitzmyer makes the comparison to Jesus stronger, and also indicates something Luke Timothy Johnson stresses in Acts, namely, that Luke is presenting a “family dispute.” 

Yet, another of Luke’s themes in Acts is also being developed in this speech: the movement of the Gospel from Judea to the ends of the earth. By using the general term “the patriarchs” to describe Joseph’s brothers who “jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt” (Acts 7:9), the condemnation of Joseph’s brothers is easier to apply to all Israel as a future entity. It is all of Israel, Luke will intimate, who has rejected Jesus, even though the first chapters of Acts have not borne this out.

This reflection fits with Pervo’s further assessment that “nearly every phrase of this passage {7:9-16} has been taken from Genesis 37-50, yet the summary has an edge” (Pervo, 181). The “edge” is that this sort of intra-family fight “is characteristic of Israelite history” in Luke’s telling and so the rejection of the righteous one Jesus was based on common historical behavior in Luke’s presentation, starting with the rejection of Joseph, and which continues on even now in the trial of Stephen (Pervo, 182). 

The majority of the verses in Acts 7:9-16 are concerned with God’s exaltation of the one brought low in abject humiliation. Joseph was rescued “from all his afflictions” and “appointed…ruler over Egypt and over all his {the Pharaoh’s} household” (Acts 7:10). By means of God’s providence, Joseph was able to care for and save all his family (Acts 7:11-16). Luke Timothy Johnson says that “what all such recitals have in common is the way in which they select and shape a tradition in order to justify or support a specific understanding of it” (Johnson, Acts, 120). That is, there are different ways to tell Israel’s history which many other Jewish groups or writers of the time did, such as Philo, Josephus, the Qumran community, etc. Luke is aligning Joseph, as he will with Moses, to the account of Jesus he has told in the Gospel of Luke. Stephen himself, who tells the story, will continue the same narrative in his own life even as he recounts the story for the council.

The transition to the story of Moses is also linked, though, to Abraham and the whole of salvation history. For “as the time drew near for the fulfillment of the promise that God had made to Abraham, our people in Egypt increased and multiplied until another king who had not known Joseph ruled over Egypt. He dealt craftily with our race and forced our ancestors to abandon their infants so that they would die” (Acts 7:17-19). This transition takes us from the end of Genesis to the beginning of Exodus (drawn mostly from Exodus 2-3) and places the promises made to Abraham at the heart of the transition: it was necessary for these things to take place according to God’s promised plan. And now Moses will continue God’s salvific plan, for it cannot be stopped by human intentions to crush the righteous bearers’ of that plan. 

Moses’ story is told in an orderly pattern – not that Joseph’s was so unorderly! – but there is more than one pattern at play in the narrative. Pervo notes the opening structure of Moses being “born, reared, and educated” in 7:20 (“at this time Moses was born”), 21 (“brought him up as her own son”), and 22 (“so Moses was instructed”) (Pervo, 183; Johnson, 125). This trope fits a pattern which we see with great heroes in antiquity (see Acts 22:3 on Paul and Pervo, 562; Johnson, 125).  But Fitzmyer rightly points to a broader pattern. There are three verses which divide Moses’ life into three groups of 40 years (Acts 7:23 –“when he was forty years old;” 7:30 – “now when forty years had passed;” and 7:36 – “in the wilderness for forty years”) (Fitzmyer, 366). While Luke follows the common biblical pattern of 40 years, these patterns also represent Luke’s care in following Hellenistic models in the portrait of Moses. For instance, Moses’ beauty – “he was beautiful before God” (Acts 7:20) – was a prominent aspect of Jewish Hellenistic portrayals of Moses in particular (Philo, Moses 1.9; Josephus, Antiquities 2.224, 231-232) but also that of Hellenistic heroes in general.

Fitzmyer does show, however, how Moses “fits” in the forty year divisions. In the second forty year period of his life Moses tries to deliver his people, but is not accepted:

24 When he saw one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian. 25 He supposed that his kinsfolk would understand that God through him was rescuing them, but they did not understand.
In fact, he is rejected: “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?” (Acts 7:27b-28). This is repeated later in the account when Luke makes it clear in Stephen’s speech that “It was this Moses whom they rejected when they said, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’” (Acts 7:35). But note that the personal rebuke of one Israelite in Exodus 2:14 and in Acts 7:28 (“do you want to kill me”) is made here in Acts 7:35 to represent the whole people of Israel (“whom they rejected”).

In the third forty year period of his life, after Moses “led them out, having performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years” (Acts 7:36), Moses promised the Israelites that “God will raise up a prophet for you from your own people as he raised me up” (Acts 7:37). Yet even though Moses gave the people “living oracles” (Acts 7:38), Stephen says that “our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt” (Acts 7:39). It is at this point that we make the transition to Moses’ total rejection and more profoundly the rejection of God complete, when Moses goes up the mountain to be with God and the people say to Aaron, “make gods for us who will lead the way for us; as for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him” (Acts 7:40).  Stephen’s speech ignores the acceptance of the Torah by the Israelites (Exodus 24:7-8) and jumps directly to the idolatry of the golden calf episode (Exodus 32). 

Richard J. Dillon says that it is in the complete portrait of Moses, especially in terms of the development of the Moses-Christ typology Acts 7:22, 25, 35, and 37  that Luke’s editorializing can be seen (Richard J. Dillon, NJBC, 741). And in this portrait, as with Joseph, it is the rejection of God’s chosen prophet Moses that defines the Israelites and develops the analogy of Moses’ rejection as similar to Jesus’ rejection (Richard J. Dillon, NJBC, 741). Luke has stressed this in order to complete the typology of the rejected righteous one, into which Stephen himself will fit, even if such rejection must be presented without any of the times when the Israelites were indeed obedient. It works the other way also. For instance, the positive presentation of Moses in Acts 7:22, “So Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in his words and deeds,” is simply at odds with what Exodus 4:10 has Moses say, “O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” But this presentation is in agreement with what is said of Stephen in Acts 6:8, 10 (Richard J. Dillon, NJBC, 741).

Johnson argues that Luke focuses on “the history of the infidelity of Israel in the past” because this “helps to legitimate the claims of the present community to be the authentic realization of Israel in the present” (Johnson, Acts, 135). Johnson, that is, sees Luke as presenting a family dispute, much like that of Joseph and his brothers, about who best represents the family. Moses and Joseph are spiritual predecessors of Jesus not of the members of the council who are now persecuting Stephen. The difficulty with this presentation today of course, if not in the 1st century, is not in the way in which Luke understands Jesus and Stephen, or even Moses and Joseph, so much as what this presentation does to the Israelite/Jewish people: it presents them as always and everywhere unwilling to listen to God, God’s message or God’s messengers. This is simply not the case and Stephen’s speech cannot be read in an uncritical way today. For Christians today, this presentation must be challenged, even if we do understand Jesus as the one who fulfilled the promises of God and Stephen as faithful to God’s call.  

Next entry, Stephen’s speech before the Council ends.

John W. Martens
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine The Good Word




[1] Part I, of course, for Fitzmyer is Acts 7:1-8. Richard Pervo, Acts, 171-174 makes no divisions in the text, until verse 54, treating 7:2-53 as one unit. It is, of course, but the stories do lend themselves to division on the basis of the main characters.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Good News for "The Good Word"

If you look at the bottom of (most of) my blog posts, you will see the tagline:
This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine The Good Word . This is the group blog that I contribute to at America magazine, featuring as well the superb writing of Fr. Terrance Klein. Please check it out! You can go to the whole blog by clicking here

We were informed on the weekend that the blog won second place at the Catholic Press Association awards! (Congrats to CatholicMom.com which won first place. You can find all of the award winners here.)
This is a terrific honor and I am pleased to share it with Terrance and America Magazine.

For those of you who do not know, I also write the Scripture column "The Word" at America magazine. It appears first in the print edition and then online and you can find it here.

John W. Martens
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook. 
This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine The Good Word

Friday, June 19, 2015

Acts of the Apostles Online Commentary (19)




This is the nineteenth entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. This entry begins Stephen’s speech before the council. 

For previous entries, please now go to the Complete Acts of the Apostle Commentary, where you can find links to each of the entries updated after each new blog post.




3. Contents:
D)  Persecutions of the “Hellenist” Jewish Christians and the First Mission outside of Jerusalem (6:1-8:40): Stephen’s Speech Begins (7:1-8):

1 Then the high priest asked him, "Are these things so?" 2 And Stephen replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me. The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, "Leave your country and your relatives and go to the land that I will show you.' 4 Then he left the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After his father died, God had him move from there to this country in which you are now living. 5 He did not give him any of it as a heritage, not even a foot's length, but promised to give it to him as his possession and to his descendants after him, even though he had no child. 6 And God spoke in these terms, that his descendants would be resident aliens in a country belonging to others, who would enslave them and mistreat them during four hundred years. 7 "But I will judge the nation that they serve,' said God, "and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.' 8 Then he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.   (NRSV)

As Stephen’s speech is the “longest single discourse in Acts,” it must be broken into sections to examine, but also a few words must be said about the speech as a whole as we begin (Johnson, Acts, 119). Luke Timothy Johnson promises that no damage is done to the speech as a whole by breaking into parts, since the focus on historical periods and characters in the speech lends itself to discrete units. Before looking at the first of these units, dealing with Abraham, we must give an overview of the speech. While there is agreement on the topics considered in the speech, there is less agreement on the purpose of the speech and its historicity.

In terms of historicity, Johnson, whom I will quote at length, says that  

from the beginning, of course, we must listen to the speech as the creation of Luke and as serving his literary goals. It is futile and even fatuous to seek to find in these words the special theological outlook of the historical “Hellenists” represented by Stephen. Not only in style and diction, but above all in its religious perceptions, this discourse represents the special vision of Luke himself. Indeed, it is in Stephen’s speech that we find most clearly articulated not only our author’s interpretation of the biblical story, but also his understanding of how that story is continued in Jesus and the apostles. Stephen’s speech is, as a whole, the key Luke provides his readers for the interpretation of his entire two-volume narrative.” (Johnson, Acts, 119)
Johnson believes that Stephen’s speech is wholly the creation of Luke. While it would be rare to find a scholar who believes we have in this speech simply the words of Stephen, many scholars would seek a middle ground to the origins of the speech, opting neither to claim that this is a composition completely written by Luke nor entirely a speech given by Stephen. Richard J. Dillon, for one, thinks the truth falls in between, namely, that the speech combining historical summary, the addition of penitential reproaches (vv. 39-42a, 51-53),  Moses-prophet typology and formal OT citations (vv. 42b-43, 48b-50) is certainly edited and shaped by Luke but that it also contains a core of an historical event (Richard J. Dillon, NJBC, 740-41). That is my sense too.

As to the purpose of the speech, it is quite fascinating that Stephen does not actually respond to the formal charges against him, which we saw in entry 18, concerned changing the Law and Jesus destroying the Temple (Acts 6:13-14). In Acts 7:1 the high priest asks him, "Are these things so?" But Stephen never answers these questions directly. T.E. Page comes the closest to saying he does, arguing that 

The speech of Stephen must be considered in reference to the twofold charge (vi. 13, 14) to which it is an answer. The argument is throughout from Scripture, and it is twofold, but the two threads are not kept distinct, but interwoven.
(1)    He meets the charge of ‘speaking against this Holy Place’ – a charge no doubt founded on the fact of his having taught that worship in the Temple was not essential to the worship of God – by shewing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish Temple…
(2)    As regards the charge of changing ‘the customs which Moses delivered’, he points out that God had had many dealings with their fathers before the giving of the law (e.g., in the covenant of circumcision ver. 8), and that, far from contradicting Moses, Jesus is the very successor whose coming Moses had foretold (ver. 37).” (Page, Acts, 119)
Page skirts the question of the “formal” charges by arguing that Stephen in fact answers these questions theologically, and that is indeed Johnson’s approach also. 

Johnson writes, “Does Stephen answer the question concerning the Law and the Temple? In one obvious sense, no, for he does not even take up the charges in the form they were made. But in a more important sense, he responds to the real issue underlying those attacks: are the Messianists renegade Jews, or do they have a legitimate reason to claim that they are the authentic realization of the people of God?” (Johnson, Acts, 119). He continues on to claim that  “readers who object that the greater part of Stephen’s speech is beside the point simply show that they have not grasped what the point is…what all such recitals have in common is the way in which they select and shape a tradition in order to justify or support  a specific understanding of it.” (Johnson, Acts, 120).

Luke’s goal in this speech is not to answer specific charges, but he “seeks to legitimate the messianic appropriation of Torah by showing how Torah itself demanded such an appropriation” (Johnson, Acts, 120). In Luke’s speech, therefore, “Abraham is not ‘your father,’ but ‘our father.’ The debate, therefore, is within the family as to what constitutes authentic family membership” (Johnson, Acts, 121).

Gary Gilbert, however, writing in the Jewish Annotated New Testament sees something else at play than legitimation of the “Messianists,” to use Johnson’s description, but a focus on Jewish disobedience and a de-legitimation of the Temple, a place where the followers of Jesus have continued to worship throughout the first chapters of Acts. 

“…they bring him {Stephen} before the council where they present false witnesses who charge him with saying things against the Temple and law (6:8-15; see Mark 15:46 for a parallel in Jesus’ trial). Stephen launches into a speech, the longest in Acts, that rehearses Israel’s history, beginning with Abraham. The speech develops two themes that become a major part of the larger Lukan narrative, particularly in its representation of Jews. First, it highlights Jewish disobedience. The speech, rather than offering any response to the high priest’s question, rehearses major events in Israel’s sacred narrative. After mentioning Abraham, Joseph, and other early ancestors, the focus shifts to Moses and the continual disobedience of Israel. The speech presents Moses’ story in terms of Israel’s primal disobedience to God and God’s messengers, and it identifies the present generation as persisting in the same spirit. By contrast, Nehemiah 9 also combines historical review with rebuke of the people’s rebellious nature, yet God is merciful and faithful to the covenant (see also Ps 78).  Second, the critical references to the building of the Temple elevate the value of God’s universal presence over a possible implicit belief that God is particularly present in the Temple. Stephen’s consequent martyrdom continues the parallel with Jesus in his quotation from Ps 31.6 and his plea for forgiveness of his persecutors (Lk 23.34, 46).” (JANT, 211)
While Johnson is correct that Stephen presents his speech in the context of “our father,” the subsequent split of the disciples of Jesus from Judaism leaves already in Acts a presentation of the Jews as disobedient and the Temple as in some ways irrelevant. These are themes we must pay close attention to throughout the narrative of Acts.

As to the content of this section of Stephen’s speech, it is centered on Abraham’s story (references to Abraham in Luke’s story occur in Luke 1:55, 73; 3:8, 34; 13:16, 28; 16:22-30; 19:9; 20:37; Acts 3:13, 25; 13:26), though Johnson makes the insightful comment that it is God who is truly the main actor in 7:2-8 not Abraham (Johnson, Acts, 114). God had in mind what was to take place with Jesus, the Messiah, so “for Luke the story of Abraham reaches its true fulfillment only now in the messianic realization of the promise” (Johnson, Acts, 121).  It is fair to say, however, that in Luke’s Acts and Stephen’s speech, everything reaches its fulfillment in Israel’s history only now with Jesus.

Stephen says that “the God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran” (Acts 7:2). The “God of Glory” (Ὁ θεὸς τῆς δόξης) might be compared to the Shechinah, “the presence of God” who “was believed to rest especially on the mercy-seat between the cherubim” (Page, Acts, 120), but “doxa” (glory) in the LXX is often used for the Hebrew “kavod,” “the divine attribute of honor or worthiness” (JANT, 210). “Kavod” is more likely since Stephen is going to argue in this section that God’s presence in the Temple is not essential and is reported to have left the Temple in Ezekiel 10:1-19. This image is more probable to explain a rarely used term, found only in LXX Ps 28:3. More often one finds the phrase, the “glory of the Lord” (Exodus 24:16; Leviticus 9:6) or the “glory of God” (Ezekiel 10:19) (Johnson, Acts, 114).

While it is true that Acts 7:2, “Luke’s sequence of events does not agree with the LXX of Gen. 11:3-12:5” (Johnson, Acts, 115), the more significant issue is that Mesopotamia and Haran refer to “locations outside Israel; Stephen points to God’s freedom of action in self-revelation apart from those in the land of promise” (JANT, 210-11). 

Acts 7:3, in which Abraham is told to “leave your country and your relatives and go to the land that I will show you,” is a close quotation from LXX Genesis 12:1 (Page, Acts, 119; Johnson, Acts, 114) and has similar phrasing to Hebrews 11:8 (“Whichever I will show you”). Abraham leaves his country of the Chaldeans and “after his father died” (based on Genesis 11:26-12:4), “God moved him” to the Promised Land, which builds on LXX Genesis 12:5 (Johnson, Acts, 115).

Luke writes that God “did not give him any of it as a heritage, not even a foot's length, but promised to give it to him as his possession and to his descendants after him, even though he had no child” (Acts 7:5). Other than in this passage, the language of “inheritance” and “promise” is only found together in 2 Maccabees 2:17-18 (Johnson, Acts, 115). But these promises in general are located in Genesis 13:15, 15:7, 17:8, and 48:4.

Acts 7:6, “And God spoke in these terms, that his descendants would be resident aliens in a country belonging to others, who would enslave them and mistreat them during four hundred years,” is a free rendering of Genesis 15:13. And though in Acts 7:7 Stephen says that “I will judge the nation that they serve,” there is no mention in the speech of “the punishment of the Egyptians and the plunder of the Israelites” (JANT, 211). It is further mentioned that “after that they shall come out and worship me in this place,” but the 430 years as given in Exodus 12:40 and Galatians 3:17 is not noted. 

Finally, the Abraham section ends with Acts 7:8, “then he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.” This covenant sealed with circumcision is mentioned in Genesis 15:18, 17:1-4, 10-13, 21:4. Stephen’s speech recounting Israel’s history has started and there is nothing odd or strange in it to this point. Clearly, it is all about the end point of this shared history for Stephen.

Next entry, Stephen continues his speech.

John W. Martens
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine The Good Word