“Reverend” Jesse Jackson makes some ignorant and incorrect assertions in his latest column, but I want to focus on one: the crack about Jesus being a liberal.
I cringe not at the idea that my Lord and Savior is a Democrat; I cringe because Jackson, a professing Christian, deliberately panders to those with little or no understanding of who Jesus is and what the Bible reveals about him.
People unfamiliar with the Bible tend to select verses and principles out of context to support a particular position. But Scripture must be compared with Scripture and interpreted in light of the whole Bible. There is no excuse for a so-called reverend, particularly one who attended seminary (didn’t finish), to make such errors. For political gain, however, he seems willing to deceive the unsuspecting about the nature of God. Jackson writes:
Think about it: A conservative Christian is a contradiction in terms. Christ wasn’t a conservative. He fed the hungry simply because they were hungry. He didn’t require that they go to work first. He healed the sick, simply because they were sick. He didn’t push them into an insurance company, or let the drug companies gouge them on prices. Jesus was a liberal; Herod was the conservative.
Implicit is the common notion that conservatives don’t care about the poor. Liberals think they’ve cornered the market on compassion simply because they advocate bigger government programs to do the caring and feeding. To sum up the difference between liberal compassion and true compassion, I’ll borrow an old saying: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
(If “Jesus was a liberal”, as Jackson says, I wonder what he’d have to say about the other attributes of liberalism, such as sexual permissiveness, advocating homosexual “marriage”, killing unborn babies or discriminating against people based on their race.)
While I believe non-political conservative values, such as promoting traditional families, self-restraint, self-reliance (physical, not spiritual), to name a few, are biblical attributes, I don’t dispute that some liberals mean well when they contend that feeding the hungry just because they’re hungry is what Jesus would do. It is true, but not the way they think.
As Jackson knows, liberal, conservative, libertarian, constitutionalist, etc., are labels we fallen humans came up with to describe our political ideology. Labels are just a quick way to describe where we are on an imaginary political line.
In that regard, I’ll dispense with political labels and use spiritual ones: believers, unbelievers, saved and unsaved. According to the Bible, which I believe is inerrant, infallible and God-breathed, we are dead in our sins. That is, we are incapable of recognizing the need for salvation. From the first disobedience in the Garden of Eden, every person born is a sinner. We are rebels through and through.
But a person is “saved” from God’s wrath once he’s acknowledged his sinful condition, confessed his sins, admitted his unworthiness and turns away from his sins. He’s asked God for mercy and forgiveness and acknowledged the need of a Savior: Christ crucified on the cross. In all of these things the repentent person has faith, and in his infinite mercy, God forgives. Read more here.
Jesus did many things in his 3-year ministry. With righteous indignation, he threw out traders and money-changers conducting business in God’s temple, fed the hungry and cared for and about the downtrodden. But that’s not all he did or ultimately why he came.
This is where the unbelieving miss a crucial point. Christ wasn’t a traveling doctor or soup kitchen volunteer walking about the countryside curing ailments and filling bellies with loaves of bread and fish. He was extending an offer to heal spiritual sickness and provide the bread of life — Himself — to satisfy spiritual hunger. The physical feeding and curing were signs pointing to the real feeding and curing. The portrait of a “liberal” Jesus misses these points entirely.
Christ indeed fed the poor. The poor in spirit. Christ said, “I am the bread of life….Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.”
Some people don’t believe that Jesus was anything other than a man. They say Jesus was a good teacher, a wise philosopher and an all-around great guy but ignore the fact that this “good teacher” claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed authority to judge sin, not merely to point it out. Such authority is given to no mere man.
In his boldness, Christ told the unbelieving Jews that if they indeed knew God, they’d also know him because he and God were one. He even claimed to be the “I AM” himself, the name of the God of the Old Testament. Jesus is also the Lamb slain to pay for the sins of those he came to save. He will return to deliver God’s wrath on an unrepentant world. Isn’t it interesting that people who claim Jesus was a liberal skip over this part?
I certainly didn’t expect Jesse Jackson to say all this in a 650-word column, but a little hint would have been nice.
To heal our spiritual sickness and hunger is why Christ came into the world, and I pray that Jesse Jackson knows it. If he really believes that the God of the Bible approves of deception and deliberate misapplication of Scripture, I truly feel sorry for him. A man who once believed abortion was murder has let his political ambition take precedence over truth.
This is compassion: I pray that God has mercy on him.
Update: Slightly edited (and shortened) version.
Update II (12/21): Greetings! For those of you arriving through searches for “liberal Jesus” or “Jesus was a liberal,” you’ve come to the right place. If you’d like to comment on this topic, please do so at this updated post.
{ 14 trackbacks }
{ 51 comments }
Thank you, thank you and thank you!!!!!!
It’s nice to hear others feel the way I do. Nothing makes my head spin than “quoters” rattling off versus to support warped opinions.
Notice that Jesus said “Go and sin no more,” not “Do what you like, honey, nothing’s wrong with adultery”
(John 8:11)
Whenever people talk about the hippy-dippy peace-love-and-happiness Jesus, with no expectation that we have to give up enjoying the sins of the flesh, I bring them back to earth to remind them that Jesus didn’t tolerate everything. He showed people there was forgiveness of sins, but that is not license to sin.
Jesus said “the poor will always be with you,” – not as a call to social justice, but to remind people that just because there will always be material ills, does not mean one should ignore the demands of God and spirit, which are beyond our bodily woes.
It’s a matter of priorities.
Awesome Posts. I’ve read your last two entries and must say I’m very impressed. You’ve explained your position in a clear and logical manner. Will definitely keep coming around to read. Keep it up!
The “Reverend” Jackson is probably a little sensitive about the adultery story. I wonder what his take is on “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
This “Jesus was a liberal” stuff is incredibly shallow. To be a liberal, by the current definition, you have to believe in moral relativism (this is not optional). Somebody explain to me where Jesus ever said anything, anywhere, to indicate that He believed in moral relativism.
La Shawn, that was God-inspired!
I guess in addition to political observtions, we can look for The Epistles of La Shawn to the Blogosphere.
Thanks.
Mr. Jackson ignores the reality that charity does exist outside of the government. Always has. Jesus did not give gifts to government to disperse for the greater good.
Jackson has this habit of opening mouth to insert foot. I think he enjoys it.
Thanks for that La Shawn. That was great.
I am a Christian and I am a conservative. I suppose that makes me a conservative Christian. If God by His word and Holy Spirit convicted me of lacking compassion, of failing to show mercy to those in need of mercy, I hope I would fall on my face before Him in repentance.
Having said that, however, (and I do mean it) there is nothing inconsistent in being a conservative Christian. And there is nothing inherently compassionate in being a Liberal.
Oddly enough I suspect those people who most display compassion on a day-to-day basis with the real people they meet in the real world are those very conservative Christians Jackson criticizes.
Attempting to draw political parallels between a 21st century industrialized party and a first-century Jewish peasant in the Levant (Holy or not) is rather like greeting a Martian as it walks off the space ship and asking what sort of cigarette it smokes. Apples vs. oranges just doesn’t even come close.
What was that Robin Williams line? “Join with me now as I compare and contrast Jesus with Spider Man.” Yeah, that’s about it.
Now, that was a truly inspired post. Impressive. I don’t agree with it all (natch
), but it was well done. Congrats.
Attaching political party affliations to the Biblical context is just plain silly. There’s nothing logical about it. It’s completely for self and political gain.
Jesse needs to quit trippin, like he’s some kinda sheperd for lost black sheep. I think he’s been worshipping those dead presidents in his wallet for two long.
BIBLICAL POP QUIZ – KING JESSE’S BIBLE…Who said this?? State chapter & verse:
“Why learn how to fish if you can get US Gubment surplus fish – and cheeeeeze – for free? Vote Kerry-Edwards!!”
HINT: Initials are J.J.
Good luck, class.
Beau, LOL
I wish ya’ll would quit calling Jesse Jackson “JJ”. That impugnes my son’s good name by association
Very good post, La Shawn. Hungry mouths are fed everyday by conservative Christian organizations. Have they no compassion according to him? And what about feeding the soul? What about giving water so that we thirst no more? Being compassionate doesn’t dwell only on those thing in the physical world. BTW, if Jesus were still here healing the sick with a simple touch, we wouldn’t need any insurance companies. Good grief does that man ramble.
La Shawn, God bless you!
I can’t wait until that day when your name is talked about as a public servant (congresswoman, senator, secretary of ____, cabinet member, or even a resident in the White House?). With your intelligence, wisdom, knowledge on issues, FAITH, articulation, strength and resolve in your stance, composure, and looks, I cheer you on and look forward to seeing you rise to the prominence of Dr. Condi Rice and beyond. I am dead serious.
I’ll be looking for your name on a ballot somewhere in the soon future.
May God use you well, sister.
Feeding the soul doesn’t even occur to those who try to turn Jesus into a proto-socialist. As far as they’re concerned, the soul is a fiction invented to scare people into behaving with the threat of damnation. Mind you, they’re in for a bit of a shock when it’s all said and done…
I appreciate the comments. And thanks for the kind words, Noah, but no thanks on political office!
I was moved to write about Jackson’s column. As someone who purports to be a leader of blacks and a man of God, his statements were too appalling to ignore. I pray that he isn’t “pastoring” a church.
Maybe if the Libs weren’t so busy extricating the Bible from our daily lives, they would have studied and understood the true meaning of the Scripture….but wait, that would get in the way of their moral relativism. Once again, they use the Bible to hide behind and mock. “Let who is without sin cast the first stone,” is their favorite verse. They forgot about “deny yourself daily, take up your cross and follow Me,” or “go and sin no more.” Typical of today’s world to take out the part they need to use. Sounds similar to people I’ve heard of before: Hitler, Mussolini, UBL, the Mullahs.
Jesus certainly would have fed anyone who was hungry but he would not have implemented a program to confiscate food (or money) from some to make others dependent on the program to eat. When He fed the 5,000 He took a freely offered gift and multiplied it to feed the multitude the returned a multiplied return to the giver. (Matthew 14:16-21) When the liberals start returning a multiplied return on the dollars the confiscate from me – I’ll gladly sign on! Should I even get started on healing???
Andy,
I beg your forgiveness…….and let my nephew know that it won’t happen again.
I have shamed myself, equating a shyster like Jethy Jackthon to a squared-away youngster like JJ.
Later, Bro.
This is actually the first post that I agree with you 100% although he did feed physically hungry people twice…
That is why I can never support the liberal position and why Jesse Jackson should never call himself a Minister again until he repents…
Abortion – Murder
Homosexuality – Sin
Period…I think I can demonstrate this biblically as well…
LOL, All is forgiven Beau.
Jeremiah John sends his blessings and can’t stop talking about Florida since we TDY’d your state (Eglin/Disney) last summer. If it were up to him, he’d rather we move there instead of Oklahoma
You know, though, that when liberals like the Clintons and Gores release their tax returns, you can see the huge amounts of money they give to charity.
(cough)
Am so intrigued by Jesse Jackson’s notion of Jesus in his own image – that is to say, a liberal – that I cannot help but comment from a Jewish point of view: If Jesus were alive today, he’d be called a “settler.”
I wish I’d read some of these comments, both here at at Michael King’s blog, before I wrote my fisking of Jackson’s column. Not that I’m trolling for traffic (I have my regulars!), but I’d really like to know what anybody ’round here, ’specially La Shawn, thinks of THIS!
Yes, indeedy! Jesus was a social liberal, but the government ain’t Jesus. Charity begins at home not in government bureaucracies.
Allan
Well said Miss Barber! Clearly this man doesn’t understand the bible he seems to so comfortably, and conveniently quote from.
Oh boy….. the adultering shaman from Chicago is now burping up about the political affiliation of Jesus? If he weren’t so achingly pathetic, he’d be funny.
However, not too surprising this faux man of the cloth would lamely conjure up some scripture to cover his avaricious tracks- do keep in mind that his “doctorate” from the Moody Bible Institute here in Chicago was earned after Mr. Shakedown attended a whole semester and a 45 minute interview. What a money whoring phoney- I’d like to see this fat philandering fake slip through the eye of a needle on his way to heaven.
One thing that seems to get missed in this kind of discussion is that Jesus did those things as proofs that he was from God, that he WAS God! They weren’t done just to feed and heal people, though his compassion for their physical needs is mentioned more than once. If it had been his purpose, he was a miserable failure – when he left earth, multitudes were still hungry and sick. It simply wasn’t his primary purpose. His purpose was to prove his deity and fitness as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. It’s something I find amazing about God – his willingness to be concerned with our little physical lives, while never loosing his focus on our greater, true need.
And as for his focus on the inward, well, my favorite is his rebuke to the Pharisees when he’d told the man who’d been let down through the ceiling that his sins had been forgiven (before he healed him, in Mark 2), and a similar story in Matthew 6.
It also makes me think of the story of his visit at Simon’s house (John 12) where Mary Magdalene poured the perfume on his feet. Who was sneering that this offering to Jesus should have been sold and the money given to the poor?!?
I’m afraid we evangelicals have in the past often focused on the spiritual to the exclusion of the physical; I think we’re starting to become more balanced in that way. The book of James can’t get much more clear when it comes to our responsibility to care for the weak among us…
Maybe Mr Jackson needs to be reminded of the following:
2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
Proverbs 20:4 The lazy will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.
“According to the Bible, which I believe is inerrant, infallible and God-breathed, we are dead in our sins.”
Miss Barber,
I am one of those ‘unbelievers’ who is ‘unsaved’, so take my question with a grain of salt, kosher or otherwise…
What exactly do you mean when you state that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed? Do you believe the Pentateuch was written by a single individual? What is your take on what the Apocraypha represents? An answer to these questions may help your readers to receive a fuller understanding of your position on Christian matters.
Somehow, my Sunday School classes never got around to teaching me the parts of the New Testament where Christ said that if I didn’t give over part of my income to the government to feed the the hungry, then I would not only be damned in the hereafter, but would also go to jail in this life. My teachers seemed to think that it was somehow MY responsibility to practice charity voluntarily.
Silly Christians. Glad Jesse is around to set me straight.
La Shawn, Thank you for pointing out the impotance of why Jesus lived – his real mission. He did not live in the time we live in when consevatives and liberals are in attack mode against each other instead of loving each other as “He” told us to do. No, Jesus did not profess sexual promiscuity, but he would not have agreed with the intolerance many conservatives show to gay people who are born that way. Dissent used to be an American trait, now it is seen as unpatriotic – just ask the people who peacefully protested the Iraq war and were pelted with rocks and bottles by their “understanding” fellow man. We have lost our manners and the things Jesus wanted us to have the most.
Any “Christian” who imagines for a moment that George W. Bush is anything like Jesus needs to have both their head and their soul examined. See
( Sorry, but since the html code didn’t work as indicated, here is the complete post, with text that was dropped from the prior post:)
Any “Christian” who imagines for a moment that George W. Bush is anything like Jesus needs to have both their head and their soul examined. See http://www.JesusNoRepublican.Org .
It’s amazing how large is the umbrella that covers Christians. And how hard we fight to edge each other out from beneath it in the name of doctrine.
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm
Give me a break! No matter how you cut it. Jesus was a liberal. That is the whole beauty of His philosophy and the main appeal to the world. He cares. Small “L” liberalism is about caring about your fellow man. No matter how much cons like to scoff at the idea–caring is not bad.
Jesus cared about the poor. He hated money and money lenders. He himself was poor His whole life. He lived on hand-outs from devoutees. He attacked the money-lenders. When the group had no food, did He go down to the ATM and hit the Piggly Wiggly. No, He had to create a miracle of fish and bread. There was no money transfering hands here.
It is so duplicitous to say liberalism is wrong and Jesus is good. The two are inextricably linked.
Maurice, I’m sorry but you need to provide some specific passages or reread the Bible on that.
There is nothing to support the notion that Jesus “hated” money. Jesus had compassion on the suffering, but he had no tolerance for willful sinners.
BTW, if there was no monies exchaning hands, why was Judas the group’s treasurer?
Well, I’ll chime in late on this one
Maurice… it wasn’t moneylenders in and of themselves that angered Jesus. It was where they were that got his dander up.
You’re not supposed to write, let alone make financial transactions in a Jewish temple.
These folks (non-Jews, too, if I recall) were set up on temple grounds, which was an affront to God. And Jesus’ anger was as much directed at the temple hierarchy as it was at the ‘bankers’, for allowing them to be there.
Jesus was a liberal, duh. He didn’t force people to follow his ways, he gave people the option to do whatever they wanted. That’s why we have this thing called free will. We’re suppossed to CHOOSe his way, not be forced into it by a bunch man made laws. If homosexuality is a sexual sin, it’s a sin that someone has every tight to choose to live in. Just like fornication. who is preventing fornicators from marrying? That’s also a “sexual sin” according to the Bible. Pass laws against fornication. Surely that’s in Gods plan. (yeah…right) God never told anyone to prevent people frome excercising their free will. He never said anything about stamping out homosexuality, so please stop claiming that sentiment as bible based. The Bible says christians are suppossed to be a light, one that leads people to God. Instead they’re turning people away from him with their beligerent actions and hateful speech. Jesus never once threatened anyone who chose not to follow his way with physical harm or imprisonment in this life. What happens between man and God, is between that Man, and God.
Great. Another non-reader of the whole Bible. I can really attract them!
And to think, my namesake, St. Kevin, was a monk! Too many Kevins, and not nearly enough time to rehabilitate the damage done by the ignorant ones.
Kevin,
When God says to be a homosexual is an ABOMINATION, what does this mean to you? You are correct in the position that you have the right to choose the way you live, but a Christian chooses to live the way God wants them to live. We are not to be lovers of this world or ourselves. ALL THE PEOPLE of Soddomah & Gomorrah were totally destroyed by GOD for engaging in homosexuality………Mans Law??? read (or re-read) the Bible.
I think the more salient point here is that no political party can recruit Jesus as their own (as bothh parties love to do). Jesus would not subscribe to either or any political party. He would certainly be apolitical. Of course, politics is so focused on today’s seemingly important issues. Jesus had more long term goals.
Enrico Schaefer, Traverse City Lawyer
Jesus was against the stale aspects of the organized religion. He was seen as a threat to the centralized imperialist government of Rome.
That’s why they killed him – because he was a threat to the established, old, traditional way of doing things. He had new things to say that some people couldn’t hear.
Miriam-Webster definitions:
Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Conservatism:
a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
By these definitions, Jesus was a liberal. Just like the founding fathers of the USA.
Mike, I prefer a proper biblical analysis (or an attempt) over Webster’s any day. If you want to comment on my posts, I’d appreciate if you actually read them and respond to the arguments I make. No offense, but your comment looks like the same stuff I see from most non-Bible reading secularists.
I would guess that Jesus would be most similar, politically, to … the Pope.
anti-war, pro-life, pro-poor people, anti-promiscuity.
There is a huge and terrible linguistic problem about “we the people”, “public”, “society”, and “government”.
“We” should certainly care about the poor. This does NOT mean we should support gov’t funded programs to hire uncaring bureaucrats to contemptuously give materialistic food aid to thos e who are doubly hungry, both physically and spiritually (and likely emotionally).
The Welfare Liberal thinks the public = gov’t.
Teaching a man to fish is NOT the best to help him — offering him a job, IS. True caring about financial poverty should be measured in the numbers of jobs offered.
Conservatives WIN that measurement, hugely. (And that’s also where a lot of the Tax Cut money went — to employers.)
La Shawn’s post is a superb Biblical refutation of Jesse Jackson’s, and many others’, views of Jesus, our Lord, who never was, but is, the same yesterday, today and forever.
Tom Grey, Liberty Dad, has got it wrong. The Pope may well be attempting, or pretending, to be similar to Jesus, but Jesus would never be “most similar to the Pope,” politically or otherwise. To even suggest such likeness could only imply validation of the biblical prophecy that in the Last Days many will be deceived. Is he referring to the so-called Vicar of Christ, who a few years ago proclaimed that he has no assurance of salvation, a declaration later confirmed by Cardinal O’Connor? The writer, who dreams of living in a “World Without Dictators,” couldn’t possibly be speaking of the head of a religion that, to the best of my knowledge, has spawned every single dictator in the Western World during the Twentieth Century, from Manila to Berlin? A Libertarian, believer in Freedom, (see his web site), was certainly not espousing the virtues of Pope Pius IX, who, just 125 years ago, condemned Separation of Church and State, and denounced Liberty of Worship, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?
I would consider it blasphemous to see a similarity between the Son of God and the leader of the religion that never showed mercy to my spiritual ancestors from Savonarola to Wickliffe, Huss, Luther, the Waldensians and Huguenots, not to mention the persecution of Jews for nearly 1500 years.
From my point of view, the words “liberal” and “conservative” as used in the USA don’t mean what they used to, and I think that’s my mistake. Both parties advocate change, and in that way are consistent with the classical usage of the word “liberal”.
As for the pope: the Catholic church is the longest continuously operating bureaucracy in the world with the exception of the government of China, I believe. And its focus – at least a major focus, you would have to admit – is on morality. The church has made many mistakes over the years, yes. I personally feel closer to Savonarola than to John Paul II, but nonetheless, how do you measure – how do you quantify – the good that the church has done? Bad things easily lend themselves to statistics: murders, wars, persecution. Good things do not. How do you measure murders prevented due to the gradual instillation of moral values into 14th century peasants?
Modern capitalism is an outgrowth of the Protestant ethic (cf. Weber), which in turn is a refinement and purification of Western Christianity as preserved by the Catholic church from the time of Jesus through the Reformation. Without the Catholic church we would not have capitalism. What’s the value of that?
The moral essences preserved within stodgy old bureaucracies are good for something, I think.
Mike, one big good the church did: the preservation of knowledge when the Roman Empire imploded. And for every war that can be laid at Romes door step, how many did they prevent?
Klaus, it is important to remember that the Pope is still a man, and therefore tainted in a way Christ never was. There have been good Pontiffs, and bad. The current man, I think is one of the good ones. I won’t argue with you, Klaus, but I will disagree with you. The Pope is a good man. But Jesus is not like the Pope. The Pope is seeking to be like Jesus. Something that all Christian’s should admire.
Get a grip fellows, did you lose your compass? Many, even today, believe Hitler was a ‘good man,’ and you cannot deny he did a lot of good too. One prominent Catholic in his hometown says Hitler was a great man. I am still trying to determine the number of wars Hitler may have prevented, such as between Luxemburg and Liechtenstein. Had Pius XII been given the opportunity to eulogize Hitler, he no doubt would have given him the same courtesy afforded to every dead Mafioso, and sent him off as a good man. Pius XI ordered German Catholics to drop their hostility towards Hitler.
If you ask Sen. Patty Murphy, she will tell you that Osama Bib Laden is a good man, for building roads and schools. This good-bad distinction is no doubt of Catholic origin, just as in Good Catholic and Bad Catholic. Such characterization, I fear, is completely meaningless before a Holy God. Has John Paul II stopped the selling of indulgences for the forgiveness of sin, or the saying of pay-as-you-go Mass for the deceased? Has either one of you ever heard him preach the Gospel of Salvation, or was it another Social Gospel of works and obedience to a corrupt Roman Catholicism?
Some historians would more correctly describe R.C. as the longest operating tyranny, rather than bureaucracy; and a collector of forgeries, rather than preserver of knowledge; and a purveyor of debased corruption, rather than being a standard for morality. Priestly perverts in our age are neither new, nor the problem; they are just the symptom of an age-old perversion of Christianity.
Here are Jesus’ words in a similar situation:
“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, [good men all] you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
I will let God be the Judge.
Comments on this entry are closed.