Ancient Monotheistic Worship: Sacrifice and Prostration

Ben Witherington reminded us of a recent post on Larry Hurtado’s blog about ancient monotheistic worship. It usefully points out that the defining factor of Jewish piety was not always expressed by means of a creedal statement, but often simply took the form of a refusal to worship any other than God.

Note how often it is the case that specifically sacrificial worship was the make-or-break issue. In the case of other forms of “worship,” such as the prostration before another that is the most basic meaning of the Greek word προσκύνησις, it seems to have depended who the object was and/or what the connotation of the prostration was, or perhaps better, it mattered what the figure in question’s relation was to the one God. While in Daniel 3 the Jewish men refused to bow before the statue, and it seems not to have mattered to the author enough to even tell us exactly who or what the image was of, in Daniel 2:46, Daniel is the object of Nebuchadnezzar’s worship/prostration, and Daniel is not depicted as rejecting it or commenting negatively on the action.

My interpretation of this is that many Jews, perhaps most, would have considered it inappropriate to offer any of the range of kinds of “worship” – whether prayer, prostration, or sacrifice – to a god, king, or other figure felt to have set himself or herself up as a rival to the one God. But before a figure who was recognized as an agent of the one God, some acts of reverence/worship would have been considered appropriate by at least many Jews – although sacrificial worship still would not have been.

Another text that illustrates this is 1 Chronicles 29:20, where the people are said to bow before Yahweh and the king (one verb, two objects), but in the next verse it says that the following day they offered sacrifices to Yahweh alone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pstenberg Pär Stenberg

    I find it to be an interesting thought but I still find the sharp distinction between the two types of worship to be unpersuasive. You wrote in response to Jeremiah’s comment on “High on Christology Smack(down)?”: “If Christians had wanted to make unambiguously clear that Jesus was included within the God of Israel through their worship, then sacrificial worship addressed towards Jesus would have been the way to accomplish that.”

    But given the lack of emphasis upon participation in temple (and how the early believers understood the function and meaning of the temple services) in Acts, how much should we make of this point? In fact, since Christ function is to be a priest to the Father, this would necessarily exclude him from the divine identity of Israel’s God? If so, even a full-blown Trinitarian view of Jesus would not meet the criteria above.

    If you would allow me to be so bold as to copy and paste an earlier comment of mine that I would like to hear your thoughts upon viz. the possibility of the personal pronouns in Colossians 1:20-22 finding their antecedent in the Son (v. 13)?

    1:19  For in him [εν αυτω] all the fullness [παν το πληρωμα] was pleased to dwell,
    1:20 and through him [δι αυτου] to reconcile to him [εις αυτον] all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross [δι του αιματος του σταυρου αυτου].
    1:21  And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,
    1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh [αποκατηλλαξεν εν τω σωματι της σαρκος αυτου] by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him [αυτου].

    Granted, this would be the only time where Paul states that Christ was the one to whom the sacrifice was made to, but given Paul’s fluent distinction in roles between God and Christ in regards to other topics (1 Cor 8:6/Romans 11:36; 2 Cor 5:10/Romans 14:12; perhaps also Phil 2:10-11/Rom 14:11; etc.), it should nevertheless be a possibility.

    Given the language used in Romans 16:5, and how the Lord’s Supper parallels the pagans’ sacrificial worship, would it not be fair to say that there is some thought of Christ being link to sacrificial devotion/thought?

    I think I need some more time to think these issues through :p

  • http://www.facebook.com/pstenberg Pär Stenberg

    I find it to be an interesting thought but I still find the sharp distinction between the two types of worship to be unpersuasive. You wrote in response to Jeremiah’s comment on “High on Christology Smack(down)?”: “If Christians had wanted to make unambiguously clear that Jesus was included within the God of Israel through their worship, then sacrificial worship addressed towards Jesus would have been the way to accomplish that.”

    But given the lack of emphasis upon participation in temple (and how the early believers understood the function and meaning of the temple services) in Acts, how much should we make of this point? In fact, since Christ function is to be a priest to the Father, this would necessarily exclude him from the divine identity of Israel’s God? If so, even a full-blown Trinitarian view of Jesus would not meet the criteria above.

    If you would allow me to be so bold as to copy and paste an earlier comment of mine that I would like to hear your thoughts upon viz. the possibility of the personal pronouns in Colossians 1:20-22 finding their antecedent in the Son (v. 13)?

    1:19  For in him [εν αυτω] all the fullness [παν το πληρωμα] was pleased to dwell,
    1:20 and through him [δι αυτου] to reconcile to him [εις αυτον] all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross [δι του αιματος του σταυρου αυτου].
    1:21  And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,
    1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh [αποκατηλλαξεν εν τω σωματι της σαρκος αυτου] by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him [αυτου].

    Granted, this would be the only time where Paul states that Christ was the one to whom the sacrifice was made to, but given Paul’s fluent distinction in roles between God and Christ in regards to other topics (1 Cor 8:6/Romans 11:36; 2 Cor 5:10/Romans 14:12; perhaps also Phil 2:10-11/Rom 14:11; etc.), it should nevertheless be a possibility.

    Given the language used in Romans 16:5, and how the Lord’s Supper parallels the pagans’ sacrificial worship, would it not be fair to say that there is some thought of Christ being link to sacrificial devotion/thought?

    I think I need some more time to think these issues through :p

  • Gary

    “Note how often it is the case that specifically sacrificial worship was the make-or-break issue”… I don’t understand the obsession with sacrifical worship as a sign of anything in regard to Jesus “believers” that were previously Jewish. Many “sects” existed, Shiloh priests, Essenes, that either did not feel it necessary to sacrifice animals, or were not allowed to participate after the centralization of Deuteronomy. Also, the original sacrifical process of killing an animal was simply thanking God for the food provided by the taking of life. This was done either in the family’s home, or in a local “high place”, not in a temple overseen by the priests. Not much different than us today giving a blessing on our evening meal, before we eat it. So the whole animal sacrifical system was the  “mainstream” ritual by the establishment (Aaron priests) in Jesus’ time. But other “sects” like the Essenes and Christians were also around. Just like today, there are a whole assortment of Christian religions today that view both the sacrament and baptism differently, in the actual ritual. Some don’t use the sacrament or baptism, but that does not make them “non-believers” in God/Jesus.

  • Gary

    “Note how often it is the case that specifically sacrificial worship was the make-or-break issue”… I don’t understand the obsession with sacrifical worship as a sign of anything in regard to Jesus “believers” that were previously Jewish. Many “sects” existed, Shiloh priests, Essenes, that either did not feel it necessary to sacrifice animals, or were not allowed to participate after the centralization of Deuteronomy. Also, the original sacrifical process of killing an animal was simply thanking God for the food provided by the taking of life. This was done either in the family’s home, or in a local “high place”, not in a temple overseen by the priests. Not much different than us today giving a blessing on our evening meal, before we eat it. So the whole animal sacrifical system was the  “mainstream” ritual by the establishment (Aaron priests) in Jesus’ time. But other “sects” like the Essenes and Christians were also around. Just like today, there are a whole assortment of Christian religions today that view both the sacrament and baptism differently, in the actual ritual. Some don’t use the sacrament or baptism, but that does not make them “non-believers” in God/Jesus.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @Pä and Gary,

    My point is really aimed at those, like Richard Bauckham, who claim that the praise and prostration directed at Jesus in the New Testament indicates that the early Christians included Jesus within the “divine identity” (whatever that means). I am really trying to address that point, and not to say that Christians who did not engage in sacrificial worship of a literal sort could not use words to define Jesus as God!

    @Pä, isn’t God the recipient of the (metaphorical) sacrifices in both the Colossians and Romans passages?

    • http://www.facebook.com/pstenberg Pär Stenberg

      “[I]sn’t God the recipient of the (metaphorical) sacrifices in both the Colossians and Romans passages?  ”

      Well, is he? Correct me if I am wrong but is it not possible to read the text in Colossians as indicating that the Son was the one through whom and to whom the sacrifice was made? If we understand “all the fullness” to be the subject of Colossians 1:19-22, then the “him” in v. 20 and 22 seem to refer to Jesus being the recipient of the sacrifice. Ever since v. 13 the focus has remained upon the Son, and all the third person pronouns refer back to him. The fact that Paul writes “all the fullness” rather than “all the fullness of God” keeps the focus upon the Son. Also notice the parallel use of prepositional phrases between v. 16 and v. 20 and the use of “in heaven and on earth”.

      I think there is a fair possibility that this passage could indicate that Jesus was the recipient of the sacrifice.
      What basis do we have for making the “to him” reflexive besides what Paul says in other places (e.g. 2 Cor 5:19f)?

      And concerning Romans 16:5, the “first-fruits of Asia” are unto Christ [εις χριστον], which could indicate that the metaphorical sacrifice is given to him. And seeing that Jesus is the host of the meal that parallells pagan sacrificial worship, that should at least count for something? Right?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @Pär and Gary,

    My point is really aimed at those, like Richard Bauckham, who claim that the praise and prostration directed at Jesus in the New Testament indicates that the early Christians included Jesus within the “divine identity” (whatever that means). I am really trying to address that point, and not to say that Christians who did not engage in sacrificial worship of a literal sort could not use words to define Jesus as God!

    @Pär, isn’t God the recipient of the (metaphorical) sacrifices in both the Colossians and Romans passages?

    • http://www.facebook.com/pstenberg Pär Stenberg

      “[I]sn’t God the recipient of the (metaphorical) sacrifices in both the Colossians and Romans passages?  ”

      Well, is he? Correct me if I am wrong but is it not possible to read the text in Colossians as indicating that the Son was the one through whom and to whom the sacrifice was made? If we understand “all the fullness” to be the subject of Colossians 1:19-22, then the “him” in v. 20 and 22 seem to refer to Jesus being the recipient of the sacrifice. Ever since v. 13 the focus has remained upon the Son, and all the third person pronouns refer back to him. The fact that Paul writes “all the fullness” rather than “all the fullness of God” keeps the focus upon the Son. Also notice the parallel use of prepositional phrases between v. 16 and v. 20 and the use of “everything in heaven and on earth”.

      v. 16 οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα, τα εν τοις ουρανοις και τα επι της γης … τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται

      v. 20 και δι αυτου αποκαταλλαξαι τα παντα εις αυτον ειρηνοποιησας δια του αιματος του σταυρου αυτου [δι αυτου] ειτε τα επι της γης ειτε τα εν τοις ουρανοις.

      I think there is a fair possibility that this passage could indicate that Jesus was the recipient of the sacrifice.
      What basis do we have for making “to him” reflexive besides trying to be consistent with what Paul says in other places (e.g. 2 Cor 5:19f)?

      And concerning Romans 16:5, the “first-fruits of Asia” are unto Christ [εις χριστον], which could indicate that the metaphorical sacrifice is given to him. And seeing that Jesus is the host of the meal that parallels pagan sacrificial worship, that should at least count for something? Right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Wilson/1355591760 Michael Wilson

    Worship, while our use of this word is now specialized to mean revrence given to a god, essentially derives from the genral idea of respect shown to anything. there is just a matter of degree that marks what is apropriate and what isn’t. we may rise when an older woman enters a room, but we don’t h

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Wilson/1355591760 Michael Wilson

    Worship, while our use of this word is now specialized to mean reverence given to a god, essentially derives from the genral idea of respect shown to anything. there is just a matter of degree that marks what is appropriate and what isn’t. we may rise when an older woman enters a room and take off our hats (old custom), but we don’t hold our hands over our hearts. Obama ran into the issue with the King of Arabia. He bowed as what he thought was a common social greeting, but others took it as him paying homage to his kingship (as president Obama is the representative of the American kingly crown, which is held spiritually by the American public)
    In practice the (proto)Jewish king was teated the same as the (proto)Jewish god. The king had a throne, YHWH had a throne, the King was paid taxes, YHWH got sacrifices, both were honored with songs, both required their subjects to bow before them. Of course it was understood that the king was not YHWH, and their form of monotheism did not allow for other beings to be classed as god’s, so there was no harm in worshiping the king. This is like the rationalization that allows most Christians to pledge allegiance to the flag, while some sects (rightly) see it as giving worship to a god (the spirit of America that the flag, as an idol, represents)
    Presumably by the time Ester was written Jews performed no act that would broadly be worship for any one but God, likely brought on by the situation of having no earthly king.

    Your observation in Daniel is important, we have a text just a century or so before Paul where a prophet is worshiped as a representative of YHWH, like the Ark or a human idol. With these sorts of text in the minds(especially in Paul’s case, presumably Sadducee’s did not read Daniel, and may have thought it a low brow book for uneducated Jews.) worshiping Jesus would have seemed natural because he was at least as authoritative as Daniel. One could presume that other like figures were treated this way, like the Egyptian Prophet. Worshiping holy men may have been common popular practice.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Pär, I think that in the context it is more likely to be God. Below I’m just copying in the NIV text for convenience, with clarifications about who I think it being referred to in square brackets:

     Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he [God] has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his [God's] sight, without blemish and free from accusation.

    Given that being presented blameless in “his” sight seems to be referring to the same thing as the reconciliation mentioned earlier, and since it is God who is the actor working through Christ, it seems to me that it is God to whom they are presented. But it is certainly not unambiguous!

    • http://www.facebook.com/pstenberg Pär Stenberg

      I would agree that the passage is not unambiguous, but I think will have to disagree upon the favored reading of the text. :)

      The NIV rendering does make sense but it is not without its fair share of difficulties. Changing some “him” to God and some to “Christ” is problematic, especially when the text is read in the larger context of the hymn, wherein the Son is always antecedent of the prepositional phrases, I think that the context supports the notion of Christ being the recipient (further supported given the parallel usage of language in v. 16). I personally believe that Paul deliberately avoided using God/the Father
      in v. 19, for the reason of not taking the focus from the Son, and
      to avoid saying that the Father dwelt in Jesus (cf. 2:9; although possibly 2
      Cor 5:19), hence the circumlocution.

      The only argument for understanding God as the “him” seems to be what Paul usually says concerning the sacrifice. But since Paul is somewhat fluid in the lines between the functions of the Father and of the Son, I do not see this as THAT great of a difficulty (although it is a good objection). I do not know where you stand on the authorship of Ephesians, but looking at the parallels it would support the God being the recipient, but given that even parallel between Eph and Col can allow for switches God and Jesus (e.g. Col 3:16/Eph 5:18) I do not know how much we should make of this.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Pär, I think that in the context it is more likely to be God. Below I’m just copying in the NIV text for convenience, with clarifications about who I think it being referred to in square brackets:

     Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he [God] has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his [God's] sight, without blemish and free from accusation.

    Given that being presented blameless in “his” sight seems to be referring to the same thing as the reconciliation mentioned earlier, and since it is God who is the actor working through Christ, it seems to me that it is God to whom they are presented. But it is certainly not unambiguous!

    • http://www.facebook.com/pstenberg Pär Stenberg

      I would agree that the passage is not unambiguous, but I think will have to disagree upon the favored reading of the text. :)

      The NIV rendering does make sense but it is not without its fair share of difficulties. Changing some “him” to God and some to “Christ” is problematic, especially when the text is read in the larger context of the hymn, wherein the Son is always antecedent of the prepositional phrases and seeing the “to him” in v. 20 and 22 as the Father needs to be justified. So, I think the context supports the notion of Christ being both the agent and the receiver (further supported by the parallel language in v. 16). I personally believe that Paul deliberately avoided using the subject “God/the Father” in v. 19 for the reason of not taking the focus from the Son, and to avoid saying that the Father dwelt in Jesus (cf. 2:9; although possibly 2 Cor 5:19), hence the circumlocution.

      The only argument for understanding God as the “him” seems to be what Paul says concerning the atonement in other passages. But since Paul is somewhat fluid in the lines between the functions of the Father and the Son, I do not see this as THAT great of a difficulty (although it is a good objection). I do not know where you stand on the authorship of Ephesians, but looking at the parallels it would support the God being the recipient, but given that even parallel between Eph and Col can allow for switches between God and Jesus (e.g. Col 3:16/Eph 5:18) I do not know how much we should make of this.

      But given your distinction between devotion and sacrificial devotion, I think this passage needs to be dealt with more in depth (along with Rom 16:5 and 1 Cor 10).

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    James, you said, “it mattered what the figure in question’s relation was to the one God.” When you say “the one God” does this mean on YHWH?  Did you use the expression “the one God” to imply YHWH or was their of host of names that would have been equivalent to this god.  Or was it “the god(s) of Israel”.  Sorry, not up on this controversy, but I am curious.

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    James, you said, “it mattered what the figure in question’s relation was to the one God.” When you say “the one God” does this mean on YHWH?  Did you use the expression “the one God” to imply YHWH or was their of host of names that would have been equivalent to this god.  Or was it “the god(s) of Israel”.  Sorry, not up on this controversy, but I am curious.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @Sabio:disqus , I was using “the one God” as another way of referring to YHWH, the God of Israel, God Most High, and so on. I meant it to be shorthand for “the one that Jews regarded as the only true God” or something to that effect, which I felt would be too cumbersome to write out. But perhaps it would have been clearer – sorry! :-)

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @Sabio:disqus , I was using “the one God” as another way of referring to YHWH, the God of Israel, God Most High, and so on. I meant it to be shorthand for “the one that Jews regarded as the only true God” or something to that effect, which I felt would be too cumbersome to write out. But perhaps it would have been clearer – sorry! :-)

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    @ James
    No, thanks, that is what I was asking.  I am not up on my OT.  I wasn’t sure how all the other names for the god(s) of the Israelis fit it.  Don’t the canonized texts put in the Hebrew Bible show us that they had several gods but slowly transitioned to one?  Wasn’t there a council of gods.  Was it OK to praise gods on the council in the same way as the servant of these gods may be praised too?
    Conside: El, Elohim, Yah, Adonai …  [sorry, I really don’t know this stuff, but I wonder if it was a pantheons of gods that was OK instead of just one and that later, the pantheon became one.  Thus the notion of worshipping a servant of god was no different than worshipping within the pantheon.
    OK, I have already gone way beyond my knowledge.

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    @ James
    No, thanks, that is what I was asking.  I am not up on my OT.  I wasn’t sure how all the other names for the god(s) of the Israelis fit it.  Don’t the canonized texts put in the Hebrew Bible show us that they had several gods but slowly transitioned to one?  Wasn’t there a council of gods.  Was it OK to praise gods on the council in the same way as the servant of these gods may be praised too?
    Conside: El, Elohim, Yah, Adonai …  [sorry, I really don’t know this stuff, but I wonder if it was a pantheons of gods that was OK instead of just one and that later, the pantheon became one.  Thus the notion of worshipping a servant of god was no different than worshipping within the pantheon.
    OK, I have already gone way beyond my knowledge.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @Sabio, there is certainly strong evidence that Israel’s religion was not always monotheistic. But by the first century, I think it is fair to say that, whether one calls it “monotheism” or not, the Jews had some sort of allegiance to one God alone that both they and non-Jews viewed as distinctive. It is the character of Judaism in that later period, when any other gods had either been absorbed, demoted to angels, or simply forgotten, that I was talking about, since it is against that background that Christianity emerged.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @Sabio, there is certainly strong evidence that Israel’s religion was not always monotheistic. But by the first century, I think it is fair to say that, whether one calls it “monotheism” or not, the Jews had some sort of allegiance to one God alone that both they and non-Jews viewed as distinctive. It is the character of Judaism in that later period, when any other gods had either been absorbed, demoted to angels, or simply forgotten, that I was talking about, since it is against that background that Christianity emerged.

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    I think I understand some now.
      But when you said, “the defining factor of Jewish piety was not always expressed by means of a creedal statement,…”  you meant “First-Century Jewish piety”?And when you said, “many Jews, perhaps most, would have considered it inappropriate to offer any of the range of kinds of “worship” – whether prayer, prostration, or sacrifice – to a god, king, or other figure felt to have set himself or herself up as a rival to the one God. “You meant, “many first-Century Jews…”And same with the Daniel story?Weren’t we mixing periods here?

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    I think I understand some now.
      But when you said, “the defining factor of Jewish piety was not always expressed by means of a creedal statement,…”  you meant “First-Century Jewish piety”?And when you said, “many Jews, perhaps most, would have considered it inappropriate to offer any of the range of kinds of “worship” – whether prayer, prostration, or sacrifice – to a god, king, or other figure felt to have set himself or herself up as a rival to the one God. “You meant, “many first-Century Jews…”And same with the Daniel story?Weren’t we mixing periods here?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Yes – and as for whether I’ve mixed periods. I guess I have, somewhat. But I don’t think that each time a century passes on our calendar, ideas change radically. The Book of Daniel is usually dated to the Maccabean period, and so not so far away as to be inappropriate to refer to – especially when the perspective of the text in question is paralleled in others from other times.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Yes – and as for whether I’ve mixed periods. I guess I have, somewhat. But I don’t think that each time a century passes on our calendar, ideas change radically. The Book of Daniel is usually dated to the Maccabean period, and so not so far away as to be inappropriate to refer to – especially when the perspective of the text in question is paralleled in others from other times.

  • Alethinon61

    @James

    I think that you are trying to be diplomatic/gracious in granting ambiguity, as it seems pretty clear that your reading is correct.  I don’t see any ambiguity
    in this account at all. The Father is the implied subject from
    verses 12 and 13, with passive verbs showing that it is He who
    creates and reconciles in/through the Son.  I see no reason to infer from the language used that Paul is introducing a dissonant idea, here.

    ~Kaz

    • http://www.facebook.com/pstenberg Pär Stenberg

       Even if “the Father” is the subject (although I believe it is “all the fullness” from v. 19 and onwards but nevermind), you would have to make the εις αυτον reflexive: “and through the Son he reconciled all things to himself”. The question is not as much who is the subject, but who is the indirect object in the presuppositional phrases. I do think there is some (purposeful?) ambiguity in regards to this issue (a’la 2 Cor 5:19),but if you don’t agree, that’s great. Now you have one less thing to think ponder in this life. :)

  • Alethinon61

    @James

    I think that you are trying to be diplomatic/gracious in granting ambiguity, as it seems pretty clear that your reading is correct.  I don’t see any ambiguity
    in this account at all. The Father is the implied subject from
    verses 12 and 13, with passive verbs showing that it is He who
    creates and reconciles in/through the Son.  I see no reason to infer from the language used that Paul is introducing a dissonant idea, here.

    ~Kaz

    • http://www.facebook.com/pstenberg Pär Stenberg

      Yes, “the Father” is probably the implied subject from the beginning of the hymn and onwards, (although I believe “all the fullness” is the proper subject from v. 19, a purposeful circumlocution on Paul’s part, but nevermind), but I do not see how this solves the issue. You would still have to make the εις αυτον reflexive: “and through the Son he reconciled all things to himself”. The question is not as much who is the subject, but who is the indirect object in the presuppositional phrases. I do think there is some (purposeful?) ambiguity in regards to this issue (a’la 2 Cor 5:19?),but if you don’t agree, that’s great. Now you have one less thing to think ponder in this life. :)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X