Luke 4:21-30 (NRSV)
16 When he came to Nazareth,[1] where his parents had brought up, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. We should think of the return of Jesus to Galilee primarily as a return from those events. However, Jesus himself refers to a previous ministry in Capernaum (verse 23), indicating that his return to Galilee was not as direct as his account suggests on the surface. He clearly had done ministry in Capernaum before this event in Nazareth. He stood up to read, 17 and the attendant gave the scroll of the prophet Isaiah to him. The text is not clear as to whether this passage was the assigned reading for the day or whether chose it for its content. He unrolled the scroll and found the place in Isaiah 61:1-2 where it says: 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, referring back to verse 14, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. One can reasonably conclude that the relationship of the Spirit to the baptism of Jesus is part of the original core of the Jesus tradition and as such is the fulfillment of prophecy.[2] The fulfilled prophesy relates to God laying the divine Spirit on the servant of the Lord, and in this case, Jesus has fulfilled the prophecy.[3] He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free (imported from Isaiah 58:6), 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor (the Jubilee year of Leviticus 25)." In quoting from Isaiah, Jesus is saying that what the prophet pronounced among the exiles finds fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus. Thus, this text foretells the very activities that Jesus' Galilean ministry is about to undertake--release, and recovery. The reading from Isaiah relates God’s promise to rescue and care for the downtrodden Israelites who are returning from exile in Babylon. The message of this passage coincides with the content of the news brought by Jesus. This day, the acceptable year of the Lord, has dawned. This day the message of peace sounds in their ears. This day takes place the liberation that Isaiah proclaims. The reason is that Jesus is present as the One anointed and sent by God, who has the authority to declare liberty with his word and accomplish it with the act of the Word, to bring in the new age in the person of Jesus. He accomplishes it as he speaks. What Jesus proclaims becomes actuality the moment Jesus does so. The proclamation of Jesus is the blast of the trumpet that inaugurates the new year of the Lord. The time that Isaiah proclaimed is the time of Jesus.[4] 20 He rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue fixed on him. For Luke, the anchor of the ministry of Jesus is in his Jewish roots in the synagogues. Early religious historians holdup Luke's rendition of this event as the earliest record we have a typical first century synagogue service. The tremendous popularity Jesus immediately begins to garner suggests that there was more than just "teaching" going on. For Luke, this incident is not an excuse for Jesus to move outside of Galilee or outside of Israel to preach his message. Rather, that encapsulating event reveals Jesus' identity, provides a scriptural basis for the scope and focus on his ministry and provides an anticipation of all the various types of responses Jesus' message will evoke. 21 Then he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." A theme of Luke will be the fulfillment of Scripture. Jesus is so bold as to suggest that the prophetic words of liberation spoken by Isaiah find fulfillment in his own person. For Jesus to assert that the jubilee year has inaugurated with his arrival is to focus on the forgiveness for all debts, all sins, that the Messiah brings. Jesus' pronouncement is clear -- those present have just heard Isaiah's prophecy spoken by the very one his words sought to describe. He, Jesus, is the Messiah and the one who will bring about all Isaiah had promised. This “today” heralds the coming of Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy.[5] The prophet proclaims salvation through the breaking in of the lordship of God. Since the figure of the messenger of eschatological peace still had a role in Jewish life in the days of Jesus, we cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus understood his message in these terms. He proclaimed the reign of God to be imminent, breaking in already in his own work and with acceptance of his message, and accompanied by the deeds of salvation to which the prophet referred.[6] This today, with its fulfillment, with its intimate connection with the name and history of Jesus, is the content of the apostolic message and the meaning of the life of the apostolic community. The today of the church is the acceptable year, the great Sabbath, the fulfilled time of Jesus.[7]
In saying such extravagant things about Jesus, Christians can only mean that he fulfills this passage of scripture in a provisional, proleptic, and anticipatory way. He fulfills this passage in during his ministry. As readers of the story of Jesus, we need to pay attention to the ways in which the words and deeds of Jesus demonstrate his embodiment of the prophesy. The church needs to see itself as a continuation of this ministry. The truth of the nature of this fulfillment rests in a redemptive future for humanity and the rest of creation, anticipated in the resurrection of Jesus. Sadly, certain political agendas have embraced this passage as a way of saying that Jesus embraces their liberal or progressive agendas. On a personal and social level, however, people will differ as to which political ideas best serve these emphases. Thus, one could say that the society of liberty, oriented toward a more libertarian political philosophy, will best serve the interests of those who hurting in society. One could argue that the spread of capitalism has done more to push back poverty than any other single economic system.
I invite you to reflect upon the power of perspective. We shape perspective by words. Think of how much words shape our lives. “I now pronounce you husband and wife” introduces a new reality for a couple. “Your cancer test has come back and it is negative” is a powerful word that will shape perspective for a long time. Even a heart-felt “I love you” at the right moment can change your perspective on the day. Words have the power to shape our perspective of the world in which we live. Those who study language will suggest that at least to some degree, language shapes what we will notice in the world.
If Jesus has truly fulfilled the scripture from Isaiah, then that fulfillment continues to take place. We still live in the “today” Jesus pronounced. Jesus did not appeal to what the attendees in the little synagogue in Nazareth already knew. They needed to hear gospel or good news from outside their experience. They needed to hear the good news before they could know it and respond to it. The same is true today. We need to hear the word of scripture as gospel before we can know it and respond to it. The sermon Jesus gave that day did not conform to their experience. It challenged their presumption that they already knew what the scripture meant. Jesus could have accommodated his sermon that day to the views of the rabbis and his listeners. Instead, he offered the challenge that he himself, in his own person and ministry, is the fulfillment of messianic hopes. What would happen if we lived with that perspective?
There is a book entitled Mindfulness, by Ellen Langer. She writes of how our own perspective can trap us. We go through life on "automatic." We act out of a single perspective. Mindfulness is constantly creating new categories, welcoming added information, being able to see from more than one perspective. It is the ability to adapt to new realities, rather than being stuck in old ones. Now, there was a time when all of us did that, she says. When we were children, we did it all the time. We constantly had to receive the latest information, to re-think our attitudes and behavior. As we get older, we fix or set our ideas and perspectives in an increasingly rigid way.
Therefore, I offer a few stories that involve the power of words shaping the perspective of some individuals.
An architect said he could take the newest building, built by the finest builders anywhere in the world. Yet if you give him a camera and the ability to focus various lenses, he can make that building look as if it is about to fall because he will find five or six minor imperfections. He will focus on them and convince you that the entire structure is about to topple. We live in a time when it is easy to focus the lens of a camera. However, it has always been easy for some people to focus upon the negative, the warts and blemishes and shortcomings of us all. If we allow that perspective to shape our view of ourselves, we will always be disappointed and miserable.[8]
A man bumped fenders with the woman driving the other car. Both stopped, and the woman surveyed the damage. She was distraught. It was her fault, she admitted. This was a new car, less than two days from the showroom. She dreaded facing her husband. The man was sympathetic, but he had to pursue the exchange of license and registration data. She reached into her glove compartment to retrieve the documents that were in an envelope. A piece of paper tumbled out, written in her husband's distinctive hand: In case of accident, remember, honey, it is you I love, not the car.[9]
William Wilberforce was a member of the English Parliament at the young age of 21 in 1780. When he was younger still, he had what he then called a childish flirtation with Methodism, but now he was cynical about religion. However, he talked with a man by the name of Isaac Milner about religion, and this got him studying the New Testament in Greek. Slowly, he realized that he needed spiritual counsel, and he sought out John Newton, the writer of the hymn Amazing Grace. Wilberforce wondered if he should leave Parliament, but Newton said he believed God was rising this young man up for the good of the nation. As he talked with other Christians and as he read the word of God, it became clear to him that God was calling to him to one great objective, and that was the end of the slave trade. He worked long, hard hours against this evil, but the forces arrayed against him were powerful. There were two houses of parliament. In 1792, his bill passed the lower house, and it looked as if success was within his reach. Hopes were high as the House of Lords took its vote, only to have the bill defeated once again. Wilberforce, beginning to have physical problems, wondered if he should give up now. He says he went home that night, and sat down at his desk with that question on his mind. He leafed through his Bible. A thin letter fell out of the Bible. It was a letter from John Wesley, undoubtedly one of the last letters he would ever write. It stated:
... I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise, in opposing that execrable villainy, which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils, but if God be for you who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? Oh, be not weary of well-doing.
With that scripture on his mind and heart, he went to bed for some rest. He had a long fight ahead of him. It was not until 1807 that his measure passed.
There is a little parable attributed to Martin Luther King Jr. about a man who was relaxing beside a stream one day. He looked up and noticed a severely injured man floating down the water toward him. Of course, he waded into the water and pulled the man out, bandaging his wounds. Then another wounded man floated down to him, and then another. It became apparent that some evil people upstream were beating and robbing these innocents and casting them into the stream. What is the most faithful response to such evil? Martin asked his listeners. To keep on pulling the victims out of the water one by one and treating their wounds, or to hike upstream and fight the injustice?
I also offer a brief reflection on the mission Jesus identifies as good news to the poor, release for captives, recovery of sight to the blind, setting the oppressed free, and proclaiming the acceptable year of the Lord.
Christian disciples have spearheaded many of the great social-reform movements of past years. The abolition of slavery is a notable example. Public-school history textbooks — all too often scrubbed of all religious content — will not always say it, but the abolitionist movement would never have succeeded were it not for people of faith. England’s William Wilberforce, who labored for decades to convince Parliament to ban slavery in the British Empire, was a devout evangelical Christian. So were the Quakers and others who operated Underground Railroad stations. So, too, was Presbyterian minister Elijah Parish Lovejoy whom someone murdered as he defended his printing press from a mob that did not like his anti-slavery publications.
People often dismiss the early 20th-century Prohibition movement as ineffective because its constitutional ban on alcoholic beverages did not last, but in fact, this deeply religious movement was concerned not with impeding anyone’s enjoyable time, but rather with the welfare of children and families whose lives alcoholism shattered. Although the outright ban on alcohol proved unsustainable — because it unintentionally boosted organized crime — it led to permanent awareness of alcoholism as a pressing public-health problem.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s own civil rights movement is the most notable example in recent memory of people of faith rallying to fight social ills.
Novelist and activist Elie Wiesel captures this prophetic imperative in these words from his December 10, 1986, acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize:
“As long as one dissident is in prison, our freedom will not be true. As long as one child is hungry, our life will be filled with anguish and shame. What all these victims need above all is to know that they are not alone; that we are not forgetting them; that when their voices are stifled we shall lend them ours; that while their freedom depends on ours, the quality of our freedom depends on theirs.”
The Spirit of the Lord is upon us. The Spirit of the Lord has anointed us to servant ministry.
Luke 4:22-30 continues the theme begun in verse 16 with the visit of Jesus to his home town of Nazareth. 22 All spoke well (ἐμαρτύρουν to bear witness) of him and were amazed at the gracious words (λόγοις τῆς χάριτος, or the outward beauty of his words) that came from his mouth. Thus, those listening provided testimony to support the veracity of what he said, and what Jesus said had an outward beauty that attracted one to it. They said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”[10] So impressive is Jesus, apparently, that some present are led to wonder aloud whether such eloquence could possibly belong to the carpenter’s son whom they watched grow up. 23 He said to them, in a way that suggests their question rubs Jesus the wrong way and responding sharply responding to the buzz about him. “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb (παραβολὴν), ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’[11] Further, you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’ ” Capernaum was a fishing village 20 miles northeast of Nazareth. In 4:14-15, Luke has said Jesus preached in the synagogues around Galilee. Luke will not record a visit to Capernaum until the next section, 4:31-41. Oddly, the statement implies that Jesus favors Capernaum or that he is being unfair to Nazareth. Yet, Capernaum comes under judgment from Jesus (10:15). 24 He said a proverb, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown.”[12] These words ought to remind us to be open to receiving the mystery contained in people who are familiar to us. No matter how well we think we know someone, we do not know completely the other. We may know their psychological profile. We may know their Myers-Briggs personality inventory or their Enneagram. We still do not know them completely. In fact, our familiarity with them may blind us to the mystery concealed in them. Out of that mystery, however, a word of from the Lord may arise that we may miss precisely because we think we are so familiar with the person. We need to exercise care. The other may be a spouse, a child, or a close friend. An unexpected word from the Lord may come from them. In any case, the response of the people of Nazareth, even their endorsement, underscores his intent to distance himself from counterfeit prophets and align himself with renown prophetic heroes like Micaiah and Jeremiah (I Kings 22:13-28; Jeremiah 5:30-31; 23:16-17). Jesus foreshadows his teaching in 6:22-23, 26, warning his disciples to beware when others speak well of them, for the Jewish people in their history could speak well of false prophets. He also sets the stage for his subsequent pronouncements. The response underscores a central theme of Luke, in that his own people will reject Jesus and pagans will accept him. Jesus, then, is assuming that the desire to see miracles on the part of the citizens of the town (note again that this desire is put on their lips by Jesus!) implies a lack of confidence in the authenticity of his prophetic status and identity. However, Luke turns this perceived rejection by means of two examples drawn from the Old Testament in which the Lord sends two of the most prominent prophets of Israel away from their own people to foreigners. The point seems to be that the rebuff of Jesus by the residents of Nazareth is ironically proof of Jesus’ prophetic identity.
Luke offers two examples of what Jesus has said, making the point that Jesus believed that every person was unique, every person was valuable, and every person was worth preserving, for the good of all.
In this first example (4:25-26)[13] Jesus alludes to the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath found in I Kings 17:1-24. 25 But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; 26 yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. The example anticipates and summarizes the theme of the Gospel of Luke. A major theme of Luke is the Christian mission to carry the gospel to the lost. After God has brought a severe drought upon the whole land of Israel because of its unfaithfulness, the Lord sends Elijah outside Israel to the small town of Zarephath, which is on the coast of the Mediterranean just south of Sidon, an area that is also suffering under the drought. There Elijah comes to the aid of a poor widow who shares her last bit of food with him. First he promises that her flour jar and oil jug will miraculously stay filled until the drought ends (I Kings 17:14), and later he resurrects her only son after he dies of an illness (I Kings 17:17-24).
The second example of the value of the lost one[14] comes from the successor to Elijah, Elisha. 27 there were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naima the Syrian.” When Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, develops leprosy, he decides to seek out the prophet Elisha, about whom he has learned from a young Israelite slave girl (2 Kings 5:1-5). Naaman eventually finds Elisha, and after overcoming his stubbornness, follows Elisha’s advice and receives healing for his affliction (II Kings 5:8-19). In both cases, then, a prophet of Israel provides miraculous assistance to non-Israelites. How do these accounts function in Luke’s narrative? In short, they serve to foreshadow the important Lukan themes of the rejection of the gospel by the Jewish people and the subsequent turn to mission to the Gentiles. Throughout the gospel of Luke, we find signs that point to the rejection of Jesus by the people of Israel. Examples include Jesus’ laments over Jerusalem (13:31-35; 19:41-44) and parables like that of the great dinner (14:15-24). Of course, the most significant example of rejection is the condemnation to crucifixion on the part of the leaders of the Jewish people (22:66-71). At the same time, there are clear indications that Luke envisions a mission to the Gentiles, as one can see in the song of Simeon (2:29-32) and the parable of the wicked tenants (20:9-18, esp. 20:16). In the book of Acts, we further learn that these two themes have a close relationship. The mission to the Gentiles becomes possible precisely because of the rejection of the gospel by many of the Jews (see Acts 13:44-52 for a good example of the relationship between these themes). In verses 28-30, we see graphically the response of the hometown to Jesus. 28 When they heard this, rage filled all in the synagogue. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. 30 However, he passed through the midst of them and went on his way. Jesus will continue his mission to find the lost. Jesus’ chilly reception at Nazareth and his allusion to prophets whom God had sent to those outside Israel thus encapsulate Luke’s grand narrative plan whereby the failure of the Jews to accept the gospel en masse ultimately becomes part of God’s plan to bring the message of salvation to the Gentiles. In Luke’s hands, then, pattern by which he will understand the ministry of Jesus derives from the great prophets of old, whom the people continually harassed but whom also remain faithful to the call and message the Lord gave them. The end of this passage in Luke simply reinforces this portrait. Just as so many prophets had narrowly escaped violence at the hands of the people to whom they prophesied, so, too, Jesus walks right through the angry mob that seeks to throw him down a cliff because of the offense of his words. This shocking attempt of the Nazarenes to kill Jesus, one of their own, poignantly foreshadows the ultimately successful plot to kill him hatched by those in Jerusalem whom his prophetic message also stung.
Allow me, for a moment, to direct your attention to the movie characterization of heroes and villains. The great villains are clearly so. Hannibal Lector, Norman Bates, Darth Vader, and the Wicked Witch of the West have a larger than life and mythic quality to them. We would like it very much if we could separate out evil people from the rest of us, isolate them, kill them, and then the rest of us would be fine. In America, we reveal this desire in the way we handle political differences. The other is not so much an opponent you want to defeat as an evil you want to eliminate. Therefore, if you are progressive, the opponent is a racist, bigot, collaborator with Russia, evil and like Hitler. When evidence does not back it up, you dig in deeper, so deep is your hatred and commitment to the evil of the opponent. Such an approach to political difference blinds one to the condescension and arrogance contained in one’s own stance. More dangerously, it blinds one to the potential of violence to which such beliefs could lead. Antifa and other groups has become the military arm of the progressive movement, using violence and physical intimidation to advance their goals. In any case, I hope that in wording it this way, the reader recognizes the folly of such a position. The reality, of course, is that evil runs through the heart of every human being. We are all capable of it. Who wants to kill a part of our own hearts? [15] My point is that the crowd in Nazareth acts heroically in siding with Jesus and then quickly turn to evil and seek to kill one whom they had seen grown up before their eyes. Progressives could go from supporting Obama to supporting a “silent coup” against his successor. They could go from Obama to supporting infanticide. Yes, human beings have such evil running through their hearts. The crowd at Nazareth is interesting for another reason. They are pious people who turn violent. Many citizens after 9/11/2001 think religion is the cause of most of the violence in human history. Yet, students of these matters suggest such thinking does not have evidence to back it up. The two world wars of the 20th century had no direct religious factor. The four dictators most responsible for killing millions, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler, were committed atheists (the first three) or unconventional (Hitler) in their beliefs.[16] Further, according to one study of the 1700 wars fought in human history, 123 or 7% had a religious cause.[17]
Yet, the sacred texts of the major religions all have isolated passages that, in the wrong hands, could seek divine justification for violence. One can only hope that believers will have a way of interpreting such passages that will lead to peace.
Who are the lost who need to be found? We can begin with ourselves. We may be the wrong place now, but we are not beyond reach. We need to look around us. Who is the widow, the lonely and isolated person ready to give up as they face of the challenges of the day? They need someone to be the hands of Jesus toward them. Who is the Naaman who may live beyond your comfort zone but in need of healing?
We also know a hero when we see one. They prevail in extreme circumstances. They dramatize a sense of morality, courage, and purpose that seems lacking in everyday life. They do what is good and right, even when they are flawed individuals. They show the potential of humanity for good. They show humanity at its most humane.
An interesting choice for top hero was by the American Film Institute. He is not your typical superhero type and, ironically — some would say — he is a lawyer! Atticus Finch is the southern attorney played by Academy Award winner Gregory Peck in 1962’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a movie based on Harper Lee’s novel about racial tensions in the South during the Great Depression. In the movie, Finch defends Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman, first from a lynch mob and then from a biased jury, risking his reputation and even the lives of his children in the process. Finch is a different kind of hero than we have come to expect in our world. For much of the film he is an outsider, a “bad guy” to many of the people in his community. However, he is willing to assume that role in spite of the danger. Atticus Finch is a hero. He has a defining moment that lifts him above the ordinary and points the way to the best of humanity.
Jesus, in a sense, points to other heroic figures in the Jewish past, prophets whom the people did not receive well, but whom history has placed within the canonical prophets of the Jewish people. Human beings do not always recognize the hero, but in Jewish tradition, God had a way of offering a verdict on the truly heroic figures of Jewish history. Jesus is placing himself in that line of heroic figures. He will have his defining moment throughout his ministry, as he points the way to what God is like and what human beings can be within the rule of God. Of course, the chief defining moment will be the final hours of his life. The verdict of his heavenly Father will come in the resurrection.
Among the many things that amaze me about Jesus is his willingness to risk offending other people. His hometown of Nazareth rejected him. Many of the towns and villages of Galilee rejected him. He offends his family to the point where they consider him insane. He entered vigorous debates with religious leaders, whom he also offended. His disciples at least did not understand him. Jerusalem rejected him. He told parables in which the host of a banquet invites people, and they refuse to come. Of course, the ultimate offense was the willingness to crucify him.
Most of us want other people to like us, accept us, or at least tolerate us. We come to understand ourselves early in our lives through the eyes of others. The subtle implication of childhood is that we need the affirmation of others to survive. If we are fortunate, we receive that basic affirmation and enter life with a basic sense of trust. However, we do not have to live too long before we realize that affirmation is not all it is cracked up to be. Our anxiety over whether others approve of us often leads to confusion over the unique gift we have to offer others in our lives. Fortunately, Americans rarely physically crucify those with whom they disagree. Many of us mature to a point where we can respect others amid disagreement. I suppose gossip and verbally degrading others is far as we go toward crucifying others. Rejection can be hard to take. Few of us like it. When we have confidence of who we are in Christ and the mission God has given us, we gain the confidence to share our lives, even amid the risk of rejection.
[1] Matthew 4.13 and Luke 4.16 agree in using the relatively rare name Ναζαρα (Nazara) for Nazareth. Mark 1.14-15 lacks this name. A major agreement. However, the parallel gospels will direct us to Mark 6:1-2 and Matthew 13:53-4, where they refer to Jesus coming to his own country and Luke uniquely refers to Nazareth. Understood in this way, it becomes a case of Matthew and Mark agreeing against Luke, which is one of the reasons for the Q hypothesis.
[2] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 3, 280.
[3] (Jeremias 1971), 54-5.
[4] Barth CD, IV.2 [64.3] 197, 205, I.2 [14.1] 51.
[5] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 306, Volume 3, 10.
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 456.
[7] Barth, CD, III.2 [47.1] 468-9.
[8] (Coca-Cola CEO Donald R. Keough, 1993).
[9] (Paul Harvey's for What It's Worth, 1992).
[10] Mark 6:2b-3 is the source, but Luke seems to offer a summary while Matthew 13:54b-57 and Mark follow each other closely.
[11] It has numerous forms in non-biblical literature, as well as Thomas 31:2. The saying is unique to Luke.
[12] The source is Mark 6:4, which Matthew 13:57 follows more closely than does Luke.
[13] The verses are unique to Luke.
[14] Unique to Luke
[15] – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Fred E. Katz’s Ordinary People and Extraordinary Evil: A Report on the Beguilings of Evil, New York: State University Press, 1993, p. vii. If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
[16] Gill, Robin. “Killing in the name of God: Addressing religiously inspired violence.” Theos, July 16, 2018, theosthinktank.co.uk, retrieved July 23, 2018.
[17] Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars (published 2008).
nice, of course I agreed with the politics. I liked the idea of seeing prophets in those we know well. An excellent point.-Lynn Eastman
ReplyDelete