Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 2 of 4): Reckoning of Time

Ancient Time Reckoning 

The manner in which time was reckoned by the ancients in general and biblical authors in particular varied considerably, even more so when compared to the customary practices of today. The counting systems of antiquity were much more flexible, starting at various times of the year, calculating part of a year as a whole year, and using different calendars and historical pointers. Some ancient cultures followed a solar calendar, some a lunar calendar, and others a lunisolar calendar, periodically revised for administrative, religious, atmospheric, and/or corrective reasons (intercalary months, leap years, etc.).¹ Time was variously calculated according to a civil year, a regnal year, or a sacred or religious year, comparable to a modern-day fiscal or academic year.

Biblical time references are usually comparative with respect to the lifetimes and activities of prominent figures (e.g., Neh. 12:46, 47), major historical events (e.g., 1 Kings 6:1; Ezek. 40:1), or the reigns of well-known rulers (e.g., Ezra 1:1; 4:6-7; Isa. 1:1). Instead of a simple historical style and unbroken chronological composition, biblical writers often intersperse their own inspired reflections and commentary within the narrative. 

The year a king began his reign was his accession year, overlapping the final year of his predecessor and counted as a full year for each king through the official starting point of the regnal year. Different counting systems involved predating, postdating, or accession dating, i.e., counting a year from one anniversary of accession to the next.² Otherwise, the new regnal year was inaugurated on a particular day of a given month, although the season of the year varied from culture to culture. 

In contrast to the modern Gregorian solar year, the Jewish calendar marked the beginning of the religious year in spring, the first month of Nisan (March-April)³ through the twelfth month of Adar (Feb.-March). This was similar to the Persian spring-to-spring first month of Fravashi through the twelfth month of Spenta Armaiti. At the same time, the Jewish civil calendar began in autumn, the seventh (religious) month of Tishri (Sept.-Oct.) through the sixth (religious) month of Elul (Aug.-Sept.),⁴ ending the agricultural year with the Feast of Ingathering (Ex. 23:16; 34:22).

 

Time Reckoning in Ezra-Nehemiah 

As in the books of 1 Kings (6:1, 38), Esther (3:7), and Zechariah (1:7; 7:1), the Jewish religious or vernal calendar appears to be followed in Ezra-Nehemiah, particularly when alluding to religious holidays.⁵ However, notwithstanding Babylonian-Jewish names of specific months,⁶ the major dating of events coincides with the reigns of Persian kings, most notably Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes,⁷ with passing reference to Ahasuerus.⁸ The question is whether regnal years are counted from spring to spring or from autumn to autumn, or if accession dating is employed. 

When Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem is documented as “the fifth month” of “the seventh year” of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7-8), assuming Artaxerxes I Longimanus is in view, did the counting begin at the king’s accession year (August 465 BC)⁹ or his first regnal year (presumably March 464 BC)? The difference would mark Ezra’s arrival at either 458 or 457 BC. In Nehemiah’s record, “the month of Chislev” (Nov.-Dec) followed by “the month of Nisan” (March-April) both fall within “the twentieth year” of King Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1; 2:1), although whose twentieth year is not actually specified in the opening verse. Depending on whether the regnal year is predated to the accession year, or the regnal year is counted autumnally (as in the Jewish civil calendar), or the Persians were using accession dating, this would place Nehemiah’s journey to Jerusalem in either 445 or 444 BC. 

When all is said and done, there is no direct evidence to confirm which regnal dating system the Persians employed in their homeland.¹⁰ And if Ezra, a religious priest-scribe, and Nehemiah, an official of the Persian court, used different calendrical systems,¹¹ precision dating is even more elusive. Nevertheless, among the many reconstructed chronologies of the Persian period involving specific dates, a difference of only one year is relatively insignificant considering such a vast expanse of time.   

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Solar calendar–Egyptians, Persians, Romans; lunar calendar–Jews, with each year eleven or twelve days shorter than a solar year and months varying year to year; lunisolar calendar–Babylonians, Macedonians, Chinese. The Persians did not disturb the dating systems of the Egyptians and Babylonians but were instead influenced by them (Leo Depuydt, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Achaemenid Egypt,” JEA 81 [1995]: 151-73).  

     ² The Babylonians practiced postdating and the Egyptians predating until replaced by accession dating in the second century BC.

     ³ Established in Egypt as a divine directive in connection with the Passover and exodus, originally called Aviv or Abib (“barley ripening”) in the Hebrew language (Ex. 12:1; 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1).

     ⁴ This marked the end of the dry and barren summer and the beginning of the early rain season bringing forth new life. The mid-year or “return” [teshubah] was in the spring (2 Sam. 11:1; 1 Kings 20:22, 26; 1 Chron. 20:1; 2 Chron. 36:10).

     ⁵ Ezra 6:19; Neh. 8:14, 18; cf. Ezra 7:8-9; 8:31; 10:9, 16-17; Neh. 7:73; 8:2, 13. Note that Ezra 8:31 approximates the timing of the Egyptian exodus; cf. also Neh. 10:34-35.

     ⁶ Ezra 6:15; Neh. 1:1; 2:1; 6:15; compare Esth. 3:7.

     ⁷ Ezra 1:1; 4:24; 5:13; 6:3, 15; 7:7-8; Neh. 1:1–2:1; 5:14; 13:6; cf. Ezra 4:5-23; 7:1; 8:1; Neh. 12:22.

     ⁸ The Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 is probably the same Ahasuerus of Esther 1:1–8:12, contemporary of Mordechai, whose great-grandfather had been exiled by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC (Esth. 2:5-6). This Ahasuerus is accordingly to be identified as Xerxes I (485-465 BC), son and successor of Darius I. The Greek version Ξέρξης (Xerxes) is the Persian name Xšayāršā rendered in Babylonian Aḥšiyaršu and borrowed into Hebrew as Ăḥašwêrôš (spelled phonetically according to the unfamiliar sounds of a foreign name), transliterated in Latin Ahasuerus and English Ahasuerus (see W. S. McCullough, “Ahasuerus,” in Encyclopædia Iranica 1.6 [New York: Online Edition, 1996]: 634-35). The Ahasuerus of Daniel 9:1 (father of Darius the Mede), and the Ahasuerus of the apocryphal Tobit 14-15 (in league with Nebuchadnezzar), appear to be different persons.

     ⁹ Assuming he took the throne immediately, although the latest point of transition would have been January 464 BC (Leo Depuydt, “Evidence for Accession Dating under the Achaemenids,” JAOS 115.2 [April-June 1995]: 193-204).

     ¹⁰ Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989): 291; Depuydt, “Evidence” 193-204 (though making a case for potential accession dating).

     ¹¹ Aaron Demsky, “Who Came First, Ezra or Nehemiah? The Synchronistic Approach,” Hebrew Union College Annual 64 (1994): 1-17; cf. Hannah K. Harrington, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022): 36.  

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Proposed Chronology of Postexilic Period BC, Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 1

Image credit: https://about-history.com/the-invention-of-the-calendar-and-its-use-throughout-history/

Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 1 of 4): Introduction

 

It is beyond the scope of this study to address the complex and multifaceted questions concerning the composition and authorship of the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Nevertheless, some preliminary matters warrant our attention.

According to early and long-held Jewish tradition, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were at one time combined as a single volume under the name of Ezra.¹ However, seeing that Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries (Neh. 8:9; 12:26-40), and the work includes first-person accounts from each (Ezra 7:27–9:15; Neh. 1:1–7:5; 12:27-43; 13:4-31), the final composition is conceivably the collaborative effort of both men. Linguistic, thematic, and literary differences,² along with uniformity of narration and style,³ support this proposal. The presumption of anonymous compiler(s), editor(s), or chronicler(s) is more speculative. For the purpose of this study we will simply reference the traditional attributions as per the main characters.  

Irrespective of human authorship and whether these writings are viewed as a literary unit or two separate entities, the entire work is clearly a compilation of data from various sources, including extensive lists of names and genealogies,⁴ other itemized catalogues of people, leaders, cities, temple articles, animals, and donations,⁵ official correspondence, including original Aramaic transcripts,⁶ first-person testimonies (memoirs?) of Ezra and Nehemiah,⁷ and even biblical texts.⁸

Long before the present-day copyright mentality, the meticulous documenting of sources was not necessary. In ancient oral cultures an author could reasonably assume his readers or listeners were familiar with and could easily recognize quoted materials and allusions. The Jews of antiquity were also meticulous record keepers,⁹ too much information to compile into a single manuscript, most of which has been lost or destroyed through the ages. Incorporating selected facts and figures into biblical documents has ensured their preservation.¹⁰

Presumptive Accuracy

The prolific use of historical time markers in Ezra-Nehemiah reflects an intentional concern for the historicity of the recorded materials. Moreover, the place of Ezra-Nehemiah in the Hebrew canon is undisputed and therefore implicitly included among “all God-breathed scripture” (2 Timothy 3:15-16).¹¹ If all scripture is divinely inspired, then all scripture, including Ezra-Nehemiah, is necessarily inerrant. How, then, do we account for the confusing ambiguities and apparent discrepancies?

These issues will be addressed in the next few articles.

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ A single scroll would have been more practical but not necessarily indicative of single authorship. Origin of Alexandria (ca. AD 185-253) reportedly divided the work into two volumes, both bearing Ezra’s name, with the second renamed Nehemiah in the Latin Vulgate. The apocryphal I Esdras is generally regarded as derivative of the canonical books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.

     ² Nissim Amzallag, “The Authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah in Light of Differences in Their Ideological Background,” JBL 137:2 (2018): 271-97. Substantial usage of sources, however, significantly challenges arguments based on linguistic and stylistic differences.

     ³ Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988): 47-54; Tamara C. Eskenazi, “The Chronicler and the composition of 1 Esdras,” CBQ 48.1 (Jan. 1986): 42-43. Barry L. Bandstra calls Ezra-Nehemiah “two parts of one book” (Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. [Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth, 2004]: 494).

     ⁴ Ezra 2:2-69; 10:18-43; Neh. 3:1-32; 7:5-63; 10:1-27; 11:1-36; 12:1-26.

     ⁵ Ezra 1:9-11; 2:62-70; 8:2-14; Neh. 7:61-72; 11:25-36; 12:28-29.

     ⁶ Ezra 1:2-4; 4:11-22; 5:7-17; 6:2-12; 7:12-26.

     ⁷ Ezra 7:27–9:15; Neh. 1:1–7:5; 12:27-43; 13:4-31. Other sections betray probable first-hand accounts, viz. Ezra 7:1-10; 10:1-44; Neh. 8:10; 12:44-47; 13:1-3. Switching to third person narration could simply be stylistic (Hannah K. Harrington, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022]: 4-5). Ancient Jewish tradition affirms the preservation of sources “in the records and in Nehemiah’s memoirs, as well as how he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and the prophets, the books of David, and the royal letters about votive offerings” (2 Macc. 2:13).

     ⁸ Ezra 1:1; 3:2, 4, 10-11; 5:1; 6:14; 7:6, 10-12, 14, 21, 25-26; 9:10; Neh. 1:7-9; 8:1-18; 9:3-35; 10:29, 34, 36; 12:45; 13:1; cf. 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:32.

     ⁹ Cf. Gen. 5:1; 1 Chon. 9:1; 27:24; Ezra 8:34; Neh. 7:5. Records would have included “annalistic national histories composed by prophets, partly from the archives of the kingdom and other public documents, partly from prophetic monographs containing prophecy and history, either composed and continued by various prophets in succession during the existence of both kingdoms, or brought together in a connected form shortly before the ruin of the kingdom out of the then existing contemporary historical documents and prophetic records” (C. F. Keil, “The Books of the Chronicles,” in Keil and Delitzch’s Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968]: 32-33).

     ¹⁰ Considering the historical continuity and common literary environment that includes 1-2 Chronicles, no fewer than thirty-two sources have been noted, not counting intertextual appropriation from the books of Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations. See David M. Howard, Jr., “Sources in 1 & 2 Chronicles,” in An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody, 1993): 271-75; also Keil, “Chronicles” 32, 38. According to rabbinic tradition, Ezra authored the genealogies in the books of Chronicles (Baba Bartha 15a) and a portion of the Psalms (Song of Songs Rabbah 4.19). Approximately 70% of Ezra-Nehemiah is comprised of source material (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988]: 49; Harrington 3).

     ¹¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. Rather than regarding only some scriptures inspired (ASV, NEB, REB), Paul’s affirmation is applicable to all the sacred writings (CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, N/KJV). 

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Proposed Chronology of the Postexilic Period BC, Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah, Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah

Image credit: https://angelusnews.com/news/vatican/pope-declares-special-sunday-each-year-dedicated-to-word-of-god/

Age of Accountability

Moral Innocence of Young Children

While all humans have been adversely affected by sin (Gen. 3:16-19; Rom. 5:12), the guilt of sin is not hereditary. Otherwise, if the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity were true, Jesus Christ, a biological descendent of Adam (Luke 3:23-38), would have inherited the guilt of Adam’s sin through his maternal ancestors. But Jesus was without sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20).¹

In Mark 10:13-16 Jesus responds to his disciples having rebuked certain ones for bringing young children to be blessed by him: “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them, for of such is the kingdom of God. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child, by no means will enter into it.” How can children be inherently depraved if the Lord regards them as characteristic of the divine kingdom and holds them up as examples of trust, humility, eagerness to learn, receptivity, innocence, and spiritual purity?² His followers are to emulate these qualities, while discerning the difference between childlikeness and childishness. “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Cor. 14:20; cf. 3:1-2; 13:11). 

Maturity and Accountability  

Deuteronomy 1:39 speaks of little ones and children, “who today have no knowledge of good or evil …” In Isaiah 7:15-16 a clear distinction is made between a son who “knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good,” and the period “before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.”³ In Romans 9:11, alluding to a prophecy concerning Jacob and Esau, Paul speaks of a time “before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad …”

Mental-capacity distinctions were understood as the Law was publicly read to “both men and women and all who could understand” (Neh. 8:2-3); accountability applied to “all who have knowledge and understanding” (Neh. 10:28). After Jesus healed a man blind from birth, the Jewish authorities questioned the man’s parents, who responded, “Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself” (John 9:18-23). 

Ezekiel 28:12-19 figuratively portrays the king of Tyre’s environment of wealth, privilege, and security at the beginning of his life, while he was still in his innocence. The king is then reminded that this state of perfection or innocence lasted until “iniquity was found in you” (v. 15).⁴ In similar vein, Solomon declares, “See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” (Eccl. 7:29).

Accountable persons, rationally capable of recognizing and choosing good or evil, become sinners when they succumb to temptation and violate the divine will. Sin is committed by cognizant participants, not inherited by passive victims. “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (Jas. 1:14-15). “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4).

The Age of Accountability?

In Numbers 14:26-31, those held accountable for complaining against the Lord were 20 years of age and older, separate from the “little ones.” Beyond the infancy of Jesus, the biblical record affirms, “the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40). Next, “he was twelve years old …” (v. 42), followed by further maturation, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (v. 52).

The Bible does not provide a blanket rule about a specific age at which every person enters the realm of accountability, presumably because people mature at different rates and some never advance beyond an infantile mental capacity. For any two youths who have reached a certain age, it is possible for one to be accountable and the other not, depending on cognitive development and the ability to perceive, evaluate, learn, and obey. An accountable person is able to understand and make responsible decisions.

Conclusion 

There is no need for innocent children to be spiritually saved if they are not spiritually lost. They are not separated from God because of sin, so forgiveness and reconciliation are unnecessary. The gospel message is designed for sinners, intellectually capable of hearing with understanding, believing, confessing, and freely submitting to baptism for the forgiveness of sins, thereby added to the Lord’s church for continued learning, growing, serving, and faithfulness (Acts 2:37-47; 8:4-39; 14:22; 22:16). Accountability is not determined by a specific age but by an individual’s prospective culpability and amenability.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the ESV. See K. L. Moore, “Are Humans Totally Depraved from Birth?,” Moore Perspective (1 July 2015), <Link>. 

     ² Cf. Matt. 18:1-5; 19:13-14; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 18:15-17.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, “Isaiah 7:14,” Moore Perspective (2 Dec. 2015), <Link>.

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, “You Were Perfect in Your Ways,” Moore Perspective (23 July 2020), <Link>.

Related Posts: Train Up a Child, Spiritual Development in the Family

Related articles: Dave Miller, The Age of Accountability, Psalm 22:9 

 

Image credit: https://woodfromthehood.com/shop/growth-charts/finished/growth-chart-finished-ash/

Speech in Today’s Society

INTRODUCTION

“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11, NKJV). There is a difference between childish speech and mature speech. There is also a difference between worldly speech and Christ-like speech. How do the words I use and the way I speak reflect my character, priorities, and allegiances and thereby influence others?   

A YOUNG CHRISTIAN’S SPEECH

Timothy is first mentioned by name in scripture in Acts 16:1-3 as a disciple in Lystra early AD 50, though presumably included among these brethren a few years earlier (Acts 14:20-22). Over a dozen years later, Paul, in his old age (cf. Philem. 9), writes a letter to Timothy wherein he mentions Timothy’s “youth” (1 Tim. 4:12). If Timothy were in his mid- to late-30s at the time, he would have been in his early- to mid-20s when he first joined Paul’s mission team. 

In 1 Timothy 1:2, 18, Paul refers to his younger colleague as téknon (lit. “child”), indicative of Timothy’s comparative youth but also an affectionate affirmation of their close relationship, like a father and son. But with respect to Timothy’s maturity and proven character, Paul readily considers him a “man of God” (1 Tim. 6:11). 

While the young evangelist worked with the Christian community at Ephesus, the aged apostle exhorted him, “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word [logos - speech], in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). Despite his relatively young age, Timothy was no longer speaking, understanding, and thinking as a child but as a mature man of God. His speech and conduct were worthy of emulation by those within his sphere of influence.

Another coworker of Paul’s was instructed to “exhort young men to be sober-minded, in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say to you” (Tit. 2:6-8).

IMPORTANCE OF OUR SPEECH

Jesus issued a stern warning about our spoken words: “But I say to you that for every idle [careless] word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:36-37).

Indicative of a mature Christian exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, self-control (Gal. 5:23) is reflected in our speech. The Lord’s brother writes, “So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (Jas. 1:19-20). Again, “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless” (Jas. 1:26). In fact, James devotes nearly a whole chapter to the weighty importance of bridling the tongue (Jas. 3:1-12). 

Inevitably what comes out of the mouth is already in the heart (cf. Mark 7:21-23). It is imperative, therefore, to feed our minds and fill our hearts with that which produces wholesome speech. “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things” (Phil. 4:8).

The Lord clearly expects us to control our speech. “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers” (Eph. 4:29). “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting [crude/vulgar joking], which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks” (Eph. 5:3-4). 

SILENT SPEECH

Sometimes the wisest and most impactful thing to say is nothing at all. “In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise” (Prov. 10:19). Prior to Christ’s crucifixion, through much of his unfair trial and undeserved humiliation, torture, and condemnation, he was silent (Matt. 26:63; Acts 8:32). An obvious indicator of Christ-like maturity is exercising restraint and knowing when to hold our tongues. 

Speech is more than vocalized words. Social media has provided a platform that enables almost anyone to express his or her views on just about anything. It is unwise and a sure sign of immaturity to react to something by immediately posting a response. Instead, we ought to think, pray, and wait. Is a verbal response actually needed? Will my reaction, whether in words or in silence, demonstrate a Christ-like spirit? “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Col. 4:6).

By implementing the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5:22-23)—we will be much less likely to say things we might later regret and avoid doing more harm than good. “For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Pet. 2:15).

CONCLUSION

Our words, whether spoken, texted, or posted, reflect what is already in our hearts. If we take our Christian faith seriously and are growing and striving to develop maturity in Christ, we will intentionally avoid instigators of corrupt speech and immerse ourselves in that which produces wholesome speech – for HIS glory.

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the King’s Birthday Weekend Christian Camp in Elsdon-Porirua, New Zealand 03 June 2023. Cf. also Prov. 4:24; 8:8; 11:13; 17:27; 18:2, 8, 13, 20-21; 21:23.

Related Posts:

 

Image credit: https://www.pinclipart.com/pindetail/iTxwoxw_speaking-head-emoji-clipart-speaking-man-silhouette-png/