Every church member has a critical role in their church.
Bible Study Ideas and Commentary for Acts 6
Luke continues to raise the stakes in his narrative. A new (and explosive) conflict leads the church to adopt a new solution, which is so effective that even more people come to faith in Christ. But that growth brings even more opposition. In this chapter, we learn that the church has spread beyond Jewish bounds, in particular in Stephen, the first Christian martyr.
It would not be right for us to give up preaching the word of God to wait on tables. (6:2)
Y'all, there are so many topics to address in this passage. I'm going to edit my ideas down as much as possible for this post, but I'm going to have to whittle it down even further for my actual Bible study group time.
When We Studied This Passage Last
Back in 2016
I focused on
gift-giving
deacons
opportunity costs
spiritual maturity
Getting Started: Things to Think About
People Who Have a Servant's Heart
Think about the people you identify as "having a servant's heart". You don't have to name them out loud! The servant-hearted people I know don't want to be recognized. Instead, think about it this way: what are their qualities that make you say they have a servant's heart?
And then we get to the real point -- what do you have to do to develop those qualities in yourself?
In this week's passage, we learn about the servant-hearted people who kept the early church rolling and kept it from imploding. Then as now, we need those kinds of people in our churches to help us stay focused on what really matters. Take some time with your group to celebrate those church members who inspire you to put others first.
How Do You Handle Conflict?
This week's passage describes a really tricky conflict (more on that below). You could go specific, or you could just toss out a general question: how do you handle conflict? Some people are more comfortable and effective at this than others, and the tips you share may help other people in your group.
The internet is full of ideas, as you might expect. Lots of buzzwords like "active listening" and "emotional awareness". Here are some commonalities:
realize that conflict is natural
be empathetic
control your own emotions
be respectful
look for a solution.
Etc. I personally believe very strongly in the "meet conflict head-on" approach, but not everyone is comfortable with that. What works for you?
By the way -- if you don't think you're very good at handling conflict, ask your group for help and advice!
What Causes Organizational Conflict?
As I said above, this week's passage describes a very tricky conflict. Organizations are made up of people, and people have conflicts. In your experience, what tends to cause conflict in an organization? (Work, sports team, class, club, etc.)
Of course, the question that goes along with it is how your organization handles that conflict. If you didn't address that above, you should do so here. (If you want to get into the weeds, you can also ask how organizational conflict differs from personal conflict.)
Here are three kinds of conflicts I hear about regularly:
Who has responsibility / who gets credit?
Who's included?
Where does the money go?
I point those out because all three take centerstage in this week's passage. No wonder there is conflict! (Plus, there might be prejudice involved. Oy, conflict!)
Where We Are in the Book of Acts
A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that Luke put a turning point in his narrative with the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). As the church grew and more people were saved, opposition to the church grew as well -- both from the outside (persecution) and from the inside (Satan trying to manipulate members). Well, this week's passage describes a third kind of "opposition" -- what we generally call "growing pains".
Last week, the apostles were flogged by the Sanhedrin for preaching about Jesus, and they immediately went out, emboldened to preach even louder. And what happened? More people came to faith in Christ! But more people lead to new kinds of problems, and that's what we discover this week.
This Week's Big Idea 1: Growing Pains for Churches
There are a lot of resources out there on "church growth" (the church growth movement says that if you follow certain principles, you can make a church grow, and a growing church is a better church). They talk a lot about "thresholds" like 100 in attendance, 300 in attendance, 500, 800, and so on. When a church grows, it faces new kinds of challenges that can't be solved using the methods it used when it was smaller. (The same thing is true of businesses, of course.)
What are the church growing pains you have experienced in your church background?
[Big note: I'm not talking about things that hinder church growth. Let's keep things positive and optimistic this week!]
Here are a few to get your wheels turning:
Members don't feel like they know everybody like they used to.
Members feel disconnected from the pastors/church leaders.
Needs get missed / visitors slip through the cracks.
Facilities become cramped.
Things like that. What other such things have you experienced?
We're going to talk about such a growing pain in the first church. The apostles apparently used to visit all of the widows themselves, taking them food. But all of a sudden, there were many widows in need, and the apostles also had a lot of other responsibilities. Something had to change!
Here's an overarching application -- as you learn how the first church addressed this growing pain, identify the principles that could help your church today. And most importantly, realize the difference between "They need to do something about this" and "What can I do to help my church?"
This Week's Big Idea 2: Acts 6 and Deacons
You'll read some Christian authors who are pretty insistent that Acts 6 does not describe the first deacons. Sure, I get it -- they're not called "deacons". But, the task they are given ("wait on tables") is the Greek word diakonos. So here's my compromise: the apostles didn't come into Acts 6 with the idea of creating a permanent office in the church called "deacon", but the service these men provided sowed the seed for what would soon be an invaluable part of every Christian church.
Remember, this is basically the first church. They're learning as they go. As churches grew, and as new churches were planted across the empire, it would become quickly evident that pastors needed help. The positive example of these Acts 6 "deacons" would encourage all of these churches to identify men who could help the pastors. And I'm sure it wouldn't be long before they were formally called "deacon".
Let's start here: the apostles identified
clear guidelines for their responsibilities, and
clear guidelines for their character.
What was the "job" of the Acts 6 deacons?
To oversee the distribution of food to the widows, to ensure that everyone was being cared for appropriately.
What were the qualifications of the Acts 6 deacons?
Good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, willing to serve.
How does this compare with 1 Timothy 3, the primary NT passage on deacons?
Deacons, likewise, should be worthy of respect, not hypocritical, not drinking a lot of wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. They must also be tested first; if they prove blameless, then they can serve as deacons. (1 Tim 3:8)
[Go into more detail at
Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? But when we go looking for a "job description", we don't find one. I think there's a good reason. If we are right in tracing deacons back to Acts 6, then their purpose is to help the pastors meet the greatest needs in the church. And every church has unique needs. That's why the New Testament focuses on a deacon's character, not a job description. Their character will apply to every deacon in every church around the world.
"Deacon" is a humble term ("wait on tables"), just as "Christian" is a humble term ("little Christ"). And that was the point! Humble service!
I know what some of you are thinking -- "that doesn't seem to describe the way deacons have acted in churches I've been a part of". After writing this post, I decided that I really didn't want to go into that. (It's a uniquely American phenomenon.) I truly believe that if churches focused on the characteristics of deacons -- humble, spiritual, wise service -- the problems some churches have faced with their deacons would take care of itself. But I do find it ironic that the office created to help pastors effectively lead their churches can become the greatest obstacle to pastors effectively leading their church.
[Oh, and my post on 1 Tim 3 goes into some detail about the different titles used for church leaders and what they were intended to mean.]
Now, let me take a moment to brag about the deacons of FBC Thomson -- servant-minded men who are respected in our church for their humility, service, and care. They do not demand a hearing; instead, we listen to them because we value them so highly.
Brief Soapbox: Pastors Who Don't Get It
I know pastors who don't make hospital visits, do weddings or funerals, counsel church members, etc., because they want to focus on "preparing their sermon" (which is how they have interpreted Acts 6). They let deacons or other staff members do the actual pastor duties.
Seriously.
I'll put it this way: the apostles didn't ask for deacons so they could have time to close their door and spend the day thinking about the perfect illustration for Romans 13. The apostles spent all day every day with Christians -- preaching and teaching, answering questions, solving problems, leading group prayer. The apostles needed deacons because they physically didn't have the time to operate a food distribution system and do everything else (more on this below).
Those guys aren't pastors at all; they are "scholars-in-residence".
Part 1: A Scary Need, a Spiritual Solution (Acts 6:1-4)
In those days, as the disciples were increasing in number, there arose a complaint by the Hellenistic Jews against the Hebraic Jews that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution. 2 The Twelve summoned the whole company of the disciples and said, “It would not be right for us to give up preaching the word of God to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we can appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
This need has all the hallmarks of a conflict that could easily tear a church apart: neglected church members, accusations of prejudice, and sweet little old ladies. To keep the commentary flowing, here are the topics I will address at the end of this section:
Who are "Hellenistic Jews"?
How do cultural differences affect ministry?
What should a pastor be focused on?
Are "clergy" more important than "laity"?
The super-simple explanation is that the Gentile Christians felt that the Israelite Christians were getting better treatment. And the apostles realized that the solution to that very serious problem was more than they could handle personally.
[Aside: remember that to this point, all of the Christians were converts from Judaism.]
In those days, if widows didn't have children or other younger relatives, they became dependent on welfare. In Jewish culture, the synagogues took up a regular offering to provide them with food. When the widows converted to Christianity, the Christian church had to take over that responsibility.
We've had multiple lessons about how the members of the early church freely gave money to meet the needs of the rest of the new Christians. But it's not actually that simple. Let's use Meals on Wheels as an example. People give money to them; they buy food; they prepare meals; somebody delivers those meals to seniors. And at the same time, somebody else has developed an application process, received and evaluated applications, developed a personalized meal plan, and tracked deliveries.
[Aside: by all means, visit that link! Maybe you'll want to help ...]
The point is that this is not a simple situation to address and track. There are probably hundreds of widows in the church by this time. Each one of them is going to have unique needs and different levels of need. (Not to mention that Gentile Jews probably had a different approach to "kosher" dieting.) How easy it would be to miss somebody or misunderstand their needs!
This is a potentially explosive situation.
[Consider Manna Ministries in Thomson. Churches in our community realized that we needed a standalone food bank with a dedicated staff to effectively address local hunger needs. Churches support them with money and extra volunteers. And even with all of this, they still field complaints about unmet needs! Can you imagine what the apostles must have endured?]
And more to the point, it was taking the energy of the apostles away from the task Jesus had given them: be My witnesses.
Now, any Christian who serves in a ministry like a food bank will rightly tell you that they are always being Christ's witnesses as they serve the hungry. But the apostles were given a unique kind of witness: as the men who walked with Jesus and learned directly from Him, they had a body of knowledge and spiritual insight that no one else had (at the time). They were supposed to be teaching what Jesus taught. We probably all know from experience that it is hard to help your kids with their homework when you are also trying to catch up on office work. Or to really get any sort of work done when you are being interrupted with things unrelated to that work. That's where the apostles were. They needed help.
Unfortunately, some people have interpreted the apostles' words to suggest that "serving food to widows" was less important than "preaching the word". That is NOT what they are saying or remotely suggesting (more on this below). In fact, they found the work of serving widows so important that they called a special business meeting to find a solution, so important that the church put the most spiritually-respected men in the congregation on the task. It was so important that the apostles realized they needed to give it to someone else.
Why? Because they had a different task: prayer and the ministry of the word.
What do you consider a pastor's primary "job" to be? What does your church do to help your pastor have time and energy to devote to that task? I'll address this more below, but that sets the table.
Note that the pastors gave this task to the entire church. They had the idea, but the entire church would be responsible to make it happen. They selected the men who would be these first "deacons", and in doing so, the apostles implicitly gave the church the task of supporting those deacons in the work the church appointed them to do.
You have two big discussion questions:
Why were those characteristics chosen for the first deacons?
Why did the apostles identify those two tasks for themselves?
That first question should lend itself to some deep discussion. To get into it, you need to make sure you understand what those characteristics mean -- good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, willing to perform the task (that's how I interpret that last phrase). What do those characteristics have to do with delivering food?
I'll talk about the second question below.
Aside: why 7 deacons? I don't know. Probably a nice symbolic number.
Aside #1: Who Were "Hellenistic Jews"?
Simple answer: "Hellas" was the Greek word for "Greece".
Before the Roman Empire, there was the Greek Empire. Alexander the Great conquered the known world and used much of his influence to spread the Greek language and culture, which he found superior to all other cultures. (Remember -- his tutor was Aristotle, for Pete's sake.)
Romans, on the other hand, did not have much in the way of "culture". They were farmers and soldiers, not poets and philosophers. So, as they conquered Greek areas, they actually absorbed Greek culture (the opposite of how that usually went). Early forms of Latin were spoken in Italy, but pretty much everyone east of Italy spoke Greek. This is why Jews created the controversial Septuagint -- a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek.
The Greek and Latin languages are quite different in their subtleties (which would become a huge problem when the early church started answering tough questions like "What is the Trinity?"), and Greek and Roman thought/philosophies are quite different in what they prioritize and how they work.
And both of them are very different than Hebrew language and culture and philosophy.
In other words, Hellenistic Jews were Gentile Jews. They spoke Greek, wore Greek styles of clothing, ate a Greek-influenced diet, had a Greek-influenced background, and were engaged in Greek cultural behaviors. Perhaps they had been born in Israel and moved away. Perhaps they had Jewish parents or grandparents who had moved away long before in the diaspora. Perhaps, like Nicolas, they had converted to Judaism. In any case, they were in Jerusalem, and they were considered outsiders.
So, of course this carried over into the early Christian church. We're going to spend a lot of time in the rest of our study of Acts learning how the early church reconciled the differences between Jews and Gentiles. And it's going to be messy.
That leads directly into ...
Aside #2: How Do Cultural Differences Affect Ministry?
I see two different things going on behind this passage. The majority of early church leadership were Hebraic in background; the people complaining were Gentile in background. Though they were Jews, they were raised in a Greek setting. Similar, but different.
In my experience, people have a greater affinity to people who are similar to them (language, related experiences, similar interests). It's not necessarily because they care more about those people, but it's just easier for them to minister to someone who speaks the same language.
So again I point out that the majority of church leadership were Hebraic-Jewish Christian, and the people raising the complaint were Gentile-Jewish Christian. Does that make a little more sense now?
Have you ever been in a situation when a cultural (or ethnic) difference led to challenges or difficulties in a ministry?
Now it's time to bring up prejudice. You remember from our studies of the Gospels that Jews were extremely prejudiced against Samaritans and Gentiles. It was baked into their cultural interactions. We know from our culturally-polarized country today that if prejudice is expected, it will be found, even if it isn't there. And those Gentile-Jewish Christians had been conditioned the believe that Hebraic Jews would be prejudiced against them.
[And let me be honest: there was probably some actual prejudice in the church. We know from experience that when we become Christians, God doesn't immediately "fix us"; we carry with us the residue of our past sin, including things like prejudice and racism. Some of those early Jewish Christians probably did carry prejudice within them.]
So that's one thing, but there's something else. For an easy reference, ask if anyone in your group has eaten "authentic" Mexican, Italian, or Thai food. How does it compare to the Americanized version? Again, similar (kinda), but different.
That's also happening in our passage. Everything from the way food is served to how it tastes will be different between the Jewish and Gentile cultures. If everything is done in a way that appeals to the Jewish culture (because that's what the leaders would have known), can you see how easy it would be to see it as showing favoritism toward the Jewish widows? And once favoritism is in the mix, it is a short step to full-blown accusations of prejudice.
The apostles needed to address this, and fast.
Aside #3: What Should Pastors Be Focused On?
The apostles made a clear and simple statement: God wants us to focus on prayer and the ministry of the word.
Setting that important data point aside, what do you think a pastor's job description should highlight? Be honest.
Here's a great little article from Lifeway:
The author starts, "If you asked most Christians what they expect from their pastor it’s likely they would want a good preacher who cared about the congregation and led the church well. And that is the right answer." And then he describes the expectations that many church members have of pastors.
It's a great make-you-think article.
With that in mind, go back through your personal list of expectations for a pastor. How do they line up with the basics of prayer, preaching/teaching, spiritual care and leadership?
If your church has given him tasks that take him away from those basic expectations, what can you do to help make that better? [Important note: remember that I'm not talking about making a pastor's job "easier" -- I'm talking about ways to help the pastor focus on what's most important to his job.]
And this leads to the final topic ...
Aside #4: Are Clergy More Important Than Laity?
A lot of people accidentally cut that underlined phrase. Instead of saying "what's most important to his job", they say "what's most important ... period", and they conclude that "prayer and ministry of the word" is most important, period.
This has led to a terrible development in several church traditions that more or less says that clergy -- those people who have been ordained to specific church offices -- are actually more important than laity -- everybody else. Or at least that the task of the clergy is more important than the task of the laity. In those churches, pastors (priests, bishops, etc.) are "up there" and everybody else is "down here".
That completely misses the point of Acts 6.
Let's start here: there are not different classes of Christians. Churches that baptize infants keep them in their own category until they go through confirmation. Pentecostal churches divide between those who speak in tongues and those that haven't. Catholic/Orthodox churches believe that ordination "does something" to the person who goes through it. No! There is ONE salvation:
Eph 4:1 Therefore I, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope[a] at your calling— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
Paul writes that to the entire church. They each have a calling in the church. (And he uses his "body" illustration to prove that each calling is critical to the church.)
When the apostles say that they need somebody else to focus on the widows so they can focus on preaching, it's not because preaching is more important than widows. It's because preaching is more central to their "job description" than feeding widows. Somebody else can help care for widows; they had unique qualifications for teaching what Jesus had taught them.
Every Christian is "equally saved" and has equal access to the Spirit through Jesus. Every Christian is equally important to God and equally important to the church. We each have different roles and gifts, and some are more public than others, but see how well a church does when there's nobody to care for infants, clean the toilets, or pay the light bill.
Pastors are not "more important" than lay members. Pastor's tasks are not "more important" than other tasks. But the apostles have rightly realized that it is more important for them to focus on the tasks Jesus told them to prioritize.
Part 2: The Spiritual Solution Bears Spiritual Fruit (Acts 6:5-7)
5 This proposal pleased the whole company. So they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a convert from Antioch. 6 They had them stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. 7 So the word of God spread, the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly in number, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith.
I hate that we don't have time to go into depth about the man Stephen or his incredible sermon (the longest sermon in the book of Acts!), but we have to draw the line somewhere. I'll give you a little the chew on at the very end of this post.
The thing to notice is that all seven men have Greek names. They were almost certainly in the "Hellenistic Jews" group. Do you see the wisdom in that choice?
Cynically, you would liken this to Biden choosing Kamala Harris or Trump choosing J. D. Vance. But don't be cynical. Remember what I said about cultural differences making ministry more difficult? Choosing Hellenistic Jews to oversee the food distribution would remove that cultural barrier.
Wouldn't that lead to what our culture calls "reverse racism"? Of course not! Look again at the qualifications of these men. Not only would they have been more than knowledgeable to care properly for the Hebraic widows, but they would have been the kind of men who could overcome deep-seated prejudice against Gentile-background Christians.
Of the seven men, we really only know anything about Stephen (see below) and Philip (the focus of next week's lesson). And let's be honest -- that's probably the way they wanted it.
"Laying on of Hands"
I devoted a good chunk of a chapter in a book to this topic; the history around it is fascinating. But you don't have time for that.
This is a Jesus thing --
Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray. (Matt 19:13)
He was not able to do a miracle there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. (Mark 6:5)
When Jesus performed healings and blessings, He often placed His hand of the recipient. It's a personal and human touch. The apostles were very influenced by the symbolism. So, when they "set apart" this group of men for a very important ministry, they laid hands on them. It was a powerful symbol of the apostles "blessing" and "empowering" these men to their task.
And Luke will highlight the action through Acts:
Then after they had fasted, prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them off. (13:3)
And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. (19:6)
And Paul would continue to use it in his own ministry.
Therefore, I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is in you through the laying on of my hands. (2 Tim 1:6)
As you can imagine, especially from 2 Tim 1:6, a superstition quickly sprung up around the practice, and even today people associate a kind of magic power with laying on of hands. I just want to repeat this: the laying on of hands is a very powerful symbol. I wish that churches used it more often. But it is not magical.
Here's where to go -- the result should only make sense. With the apostles freed up to focus on preaching the gospel and teaching the faithful (something they did every day, multiple times a day), the word of God spread even more, and more people came to faith.
[Luke's specific mention of priests is part of his apologetic to a Jewish audience. "Those priests came to faith in Christ -- so can you."]
Thought exercise:
Imagine a church that has the reputation and history of working together to overcome difficult challenges, of taking care of their members, of sharing the gospel with the community, and of earnestly learning the word of God together.
What kind of effect do you think that would have on a surrounding community?
Part 3: The Inevitable Opposition (Acts 6:8-15)
8 Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Opposition arose, however, from some members of the Freedmen’s Synagogue, composed of both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, and they began to argue with Stephen. 10 But they were unable to stand up against his wisdom and the Spirit by whom he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 They stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; so they came, seized him, and took him to the Sanhedrin. 13 They also presented false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking against this holy place and the law. 14 For we heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.” 15 And all who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at him and saw that his face was like the face of an angel.
This is a pretty big tonal shift from the beginning of the chapter. I think Stephen was basically a folk hero by the time Luke wrote Acts. His sermon to the Sanhedrin (the longest sermon Luke printed) was obviously legendary enough that it was recorded and distributed. Not only was he a first-gen deacon, but he worked miracles and refuted persecutors!
Yes, I want to make a joke about the deacons in our church not working signs and wonders, but I don't see any other deacons in Acts doing that, so we're just going to call Stephen a beautifully special case. You can thank me later, deacons.
Stephen is "doing" things on the level of Peter, and he is the first of the non-apostles to be highlighted in this way. Luke is slowly introducing his readers to a post-apostle church.
Stephen received his opposition from a group called the "Freedmen's Synagogue". Despite what some websites say, we don't know anything about them for certain. Based on the description, they were either Jews who had been enslaved in Greek areas like Alexandria (Egypt) and Cyrene (Libya), or they were former Gentile slaves who had converted to Judaism. Either way, the point is that they were Hellenistic in the way Stephen was Hellenistic.
Perhaps they were tired of the prejudice the Hebraic Jews demonstrated toward them, and they thought a victory over a Christian would raise their status. (Related: some have speculated that Saul of Tarsus was connected with this group. Interesting theory. Unverifiable.) Whatever the case, Stephen was too great a match for them. So, they pulled a page from the anti-Jesus playbook: if you can't beat Him in court, make something up!
This is a weird place to end the lesson. I'll talk more about Stephen's sermon below. But Luke's point is simple: the work of the church has now extended beyond the apostles. In fact, it's extended beyond the Hebraic Jewish Christians! Now we have Gentile-Jewish converts (like Stephen) serving the church and clearly being blessed by God in the work.
Do you think your background precludes you from being able to be an important part of your church? Stehen would say it doesn't.
Closing Thoughts: Stephen's Speech to the Sanhedrin
I just looked at the character count for this post, and it's way too long already. So I will give you the bare-bones summary.
There are four narrative drivers in Acts 7 and 8:
Stephen is the first non-apostle recorded to defend the gospel truth.
Stephen, the "defendant", is actually the prosecutor of the Sanhedrin.
Stephen becomes the first martyr (killed) in the Christian church.
Stephen's trial leads to a very significant persecution of Christians.
With that last piece, Luke introduces us to a Jew named Saul of Tarsus.
Stephen's message to the Sanhedrin is very much like Peter's, and I find it even more compelling. Stephen lays out the history of the Jewish people -- the promises, covenants, and blessings -- to condemn them for repeatedly rejecting their gracious God. Importantly, he stops with Solomon's temple. In Stephen's mind, the attitude the Jews have toward the temple is the ultimate proof of their rebellion against God -- they have prioritized the building over the God is has always pointed to. They have rejected the messengers who warned them of this, and they have killed the very Messiah ("Righteous One") they had been waiting for.
Devastating. Profound. And they killed him for it.
Comentários