Galatians 3: 28

September 7, 2006 at 12:05 am 20 comments

The process of reading, of interpreting, is incredibly complex: interpretation is reliant on the interpreter’s background and expectations.  Biblical interpretation is no different.  This essay shall consider two dominant interpretations of Gal 3: 28, which has become to be in increasing scrutiny in the contemporary Christian gender debate.  I have selected two interpretations on the basis that they arrive at different conclusions: the first, Ben Witherington considers Gal 3: 28 to be advocating equality for women Coram Deo, whilst Elisabeth Schullser Fiorenza considers the passage to be communicating the social and religious equality for women.  Interestingly, both interpretations arrive at these opposing outcomes, despite their similarities in approach.  Both interpretations highlight the incredibly problematic nature of Biblical interpretation.  Yet, that I evaluate both readings as problematic, also highlights my own interpretative lens as a feminist adherent of ‘chaos magick.’ 

 

 

Among those who argue that Gal 3: 28 is not a recommendation for social equality, Witherington holds a significant place.  Witherington’s article self-confesses to utilising a number of approaches: socio-historical, literary/textual and theological.  Witherington’s prime thesis is that Gal 3: 28 refers to equality from the Coram Deo perspective.  Witherington’s first step in demonstrating this is to place Paul’s surprising statement within its historico-literal context: to point out, that such a saying is not, uniquely, “Pauline.”[1]  Witherington here draws on the work of Madeleine Boucher.[2]  Boucher has detailed a number of Jewish writings, which “parallel” Gal 3: 28.  Two prominent examples include Ser Eliahur Rabba 7: “I call heaven and earth to witness that whether Gentile or Israelite, man or woman, slave or handmaid read this verse…the Holy One, blessed be He, remembers the binding of
Israel.”
[3]  Or perhaps more tellingly: “if a poor man says anything, one plays little regard; but if a rich man speaks, immediately he is heard and listened to.  Before G-d, however, all are equal: women, slaves, poor and rich.”[4]   For Witherington, the presence of parallel thoughts in a Jewish perspective implicates that Gal 3: 28 is referring to equality, Coram Deo, but similarly to Jewish customs at the time, not socially. 

 

Alternately, Witherington also draws upon apparent benedictions that existed in the ancient Jewish and Greek worlds that can be seen to be echoed in Gal 3: 28.  The Jewish benediction involved the man thanking G-d that he has not made him, “a heathen, a woman, or a Gentile, slave, or a woman.”[5]  Similarly, Diogenes Laertius provides a thanksgiving that is attributed variously to, Plato, Socrates and Thales in which thanks is given, “that I was born a human being and not animal…a man and not a woman…a Greek and not a barbarian.”[6]  Here, Witherington agrees with the dominant body that in Gal 3: 28, Paul is actively negating such a tradition. 

 

Having established that Paul’s baptismal formula is not unique, Witherington places Gal 3: 28 within its literary context.  In Galatians as a whole, it is clear that the ‘law’ and how it relates to the Christian community and to Paul’s self-confessed motivation for preaching as an Apostle to Gentiles is central.[7]  In Galatians, Paul is admonishing his audience for returning to the practice of ‘the law’, and in particular to ‘circumcision’, of which it would seem to have been being utilised as an entrance requirement to the community.[8]  Paul, in Galatians exhorts the abandonment of the law, largely because its use regulates an exclusive structure within the Christian community.  Rather, Paul states, the only signifier if religious status within the Christian community is to be faith in Jesus Christ.  Thus, Paul utilises the three antithetical pairs of Gal 3: 28 to remind his audience of the divisions that the law creates. Accordingly, circumcision differentiates between each pair that Paul provides, in which the first is placed over the second.[9]  Witherington notes that in addition to circumcision, other aspects of ‘the law’, placed women in a far lower religious status; for example, the observance of, “special days, months, seasons and years,”[10]  excluded women from such an observance during menstruation.   Rather, if religious status is based on faith, there is no differentiation in religious status. 

 

Another aspect of Gal 3: 28 that becomes apparent and must be addressed, is the change is structure of the ‘antithetical pairs’, from neither a nor b, to neither a and b, when Paul mentions the equality of male and female.  This is taken by Witherington to be a reference to Gen 1:27.[11] For Witherington, the denial of male and female in Gal 3: 28 is not a denial or rejection of gender distinctions.  Rather it is a denial of the requirement for marriage and procreation that is implied in Gen 1:28, and therefore connected to the creation of male and female in Gen 1:27.  This rejection of such a requirement, again places the woman in an equal standing, Coram Deo.[12]  

 

Witherington’s interpretation of Gal 3: 28 as offering women equality Coram Deo, is thus primarily reliant on the following: a preceding tradition of similar sayings, in both Jewish and Greco-Roman settings and the placement of the passage within the textual context of a discussion on the law.  Clearly, Witherington’s interpretation is based in strong analysis.[13]  Indeed, such an outcome prevents placing Gal 3: 28 with other Pauline narrations on women, such as 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14: 33-36.  However, every interpretation has its weaknesses.  Witherington’s interpretation avoids creating a tension in this instance, such a stance can be seen to be at odds with Paul’s rhetoric on freedom that is present throughout his writings.[14]  Witherington’s insistence that Jewish statements of equality before G-d, derides Gal 3:28 of uniqueness, and provides a background to and reinforcement of the passage as a statement, Coram Deo, is problematic.  Boucher, who Witherington has utilised, states that the above sayings cannot be clearly dated to New Testament times.[15]  Thus, Witherington’s use of such sayings as a background and evidence for the interpretation of Gal 3: 28 as referring to equality, Coram Deo, is weakened. 

 

Additionally, it would be inappropriate to state that in the early Christian community, the change in religious status did not affect the converted on a wider social level.  The separation-holiness within Judaism clearly resulted in incredible social disenfranchisement for those who were not given high religious status.  Indeed, in the case of the Jewish would neither marry nor eat with Gentiles. Gentiles were considered, “unclean”: if a Jew purchased cooking utensils from a Gentile, they must purify or scald the item.[16]  As with Gentiles, Witherington glosses over the clear, dramatic change in status for women, and how this would have affected individual women’s lives.  Furthermore, Witherington’s assertion that his interpretation is valid on the basis of its support from 1 Cor 11 and 7, fails to assess the given passages with the same rigour that he has applied to Gal 3: 28. 

 

Alternately, Fiorenza in her penultimate feminist analysis, In Memory of Her, considers Gal 3: 28 to be a clear statement of equality, however, she concedes that Paul’s thinking is certainly double-edged when concerning women.  Fiorenza utilises a number of methods when approaching Gal 3: 28, although her analysis is primarily socio-historical and literary.  Fiorenza follows Witherington in stating that Galatians is concerned with the removal of the practice of the law in the Christian community, and that this resulted in an equal religious status, Coram Deo.  Contra to Witherington, Fiorenza asserts that this religious equality would undoubtedly influence the social status of the adherents, which she supports through an analysis of the affects on the pairs that precede “male and female,” in Gal 3: 28: Gentiles and slaves.  That, states Fiorenza, such a stance has resulted in a dramatic change in social status of Gentiles in the Christian community is attested in the
Antioch incident.
[17]  Pointing to dissolution of differences between slaves and freemen by Paul, Fiorenza argues that such Pauline comments were, “surely not heard by converted slaves, as a rhetorical reference to Jewish law…to argue this…is to minimise the impact of this language in a world where slavery was a commonly accepted institution.”[18]  Additionally, Fiorenza points to the Jewish practice of freeing slaves performed with the consent of the synagogue.  Fiorenza asserts that slaves would connect baptism with the Jewish ritualised process of freeing slaves.[19] 

 

As with Witherington, Fiorenza considers Paul’s reference in Gal 3: 28 to, “male and female”, to be an illusion to the procreative command of Gen 1:27-28.  Again concurring with Witherington, Fiorenza concludes that Paul is stating that marriage and sexual relationships are not required of the Christian community.  Indeed, this is stated throughout Pauline writings.[20]  Fiorenza attests to the dramatic departure such a statement would have upon women who are forced in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman world to marry.  Indeed, in the Jewish world, women were connected to the religious community, through their connection to a circumcised husband or son.[21]  Similarly, women were forced to marry according to Roman law, during the New Testament period.[22] 

 

The prime passages that is considered in tension with an egalitarian interpretation of Gal 3: 28, are, as outlined above: 1 Cor 11:12 and 14: 33-36.[23]  Fiorenza points out that in contrast to traditional interpretation, it would appear that Paul is not insisting on women covering their heads.[24]  According to Fiorenza, Paul’s concern about head covering and hair is derived from a desire to distinguish Christians from oriental cults, in which women commonly worshipped with, “unbound hair.”[25]  Furthermore, Fiorenza considers the statement of 1 Cor 11:11-13:  to neutralise 1 Cor: 8-10. 

 

Fiorenza considers the statement by Paul in 1 Cor 14: 33-36, “woman should be kept quiet in church meetings,” to be motivated by the surrounding cultural climate.  Rather than an overriding concern for women’s submission, for Fiorenza, Paul’s concern is for Corinthian community.[26]  Fiorenza connects Paul’s exhortation to the Roman law on women speaking in public.  Additionally, Fiorenza also considers 14: 33-36 to be connected with his concern to differentiate Christianity from, “orgiastic, oriental cults,”: and a warning against the open practice of glossolalia.  This is supported, states Fiorenza, by Paul’s reference to women in significant positions in Rom 16: rendering a statement on women’s general speaking, “ridiculous.”[27] 

 

Fiorenza’s interpretation of Gal 3: 28, as with Witherington’s, is clearly situated within New Testament scholarship.  As I have outlined, such an interpretation, has strengths: one can place such egalitarianism clearly within Pauline thought.  Furthermore, it is clear that whether or not Paul intended female social emancipation that a major level of change was brought with his teachings.[28]  Fiorenza’s assertion that Gal 3: 28 is exhorting social emancipation is in part reliant on all the dissolution of all three pairs.  However, it would seem that Fiorenza has gone slightly amiss in her discussion of the freedom promised to slavery in relation to Gal 3:28.  As Witherington has pointed out, the text implies the first half of the pairs presented in Gal 3: 28 is the privileged position, prior to their conversion to Christianity.  ‘Slave’, precedes ‘freeman’ within the text: and precedes the ‘freeman’ in Judaic households, as male slaves were circumcised.[29] 

 

However, Fiorenza concedes that Paul was not exhorting a total emancipation, as can be seen through 1 Cor: 2-16; 14: 33-36.  Fiorenza’s assertion that Paul was concerned with differentiating Christians from oriental cults does not fully explain such a statement as 1 Cor 11:8, “man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man.”  Furthermore, Fiorenza’s negation of 1 Cor 11:8 by 1 Cor 11:11 is highly problematic: one could negate 1 Cor 11:11 by 1 Cor 11:8.  Thus, Fiorenza’s interpretation is in conclusion, flawed.  It is difficult to argue that in one place, Paul meant the dissolution of gender differences, and that there is “no male and female,” and that this refers to social equality, when in instances, the same writer asserts otherwise.[30] 

 

However, the flaw’s of Fiorenza’s interpretation are reliant on her emphasis on a textual and socio-historical approach: Fiorenza is concerned with what Paul “meant” in his own cultural context and to the community he writes to; as Paul was writing in a patriarchal culture, searching for a feminist theology on this basis would be to many largely futile.  Indeed, an approach to Paul that recognises his egalitarian strengths in contrast to his contemporaneous environment, and in turn applies such a theology to today’s society, Fiorenza’s goal would be achieved.[31] 

 

Evidently, Bible interpretation is complex process, whose outcome is reliant on the approach, background, and indeed expectations from the text.  The interpretations shown above demonstrate the problematic nature of such a process: the use of the same approach can produce two different interpretative outcomes.  An interesting aspect about the two interpretations used, is that it would seem that their strengths and weaknesses ‘play off’ one another.  Witherington’s analysis strengths lie in its ability to resolve any such tension between Gal 3: 28 and Paul’s commentary on women in 1 Cor, whilst its weaknesses lie in the tension it creates between Paul egalitarianism; Fiorenza’s approach has its strengths and weakness oppositional to Witherington’s.  However, any interpretation will be necessarily problematic; any reading of a text, and especially a religious text will be affected by the approach, motivation, background and prior beliefs of a reader.  Indeed, this ‘reading’ and ‘interpretative’ exercise has its own motivations and expectations.  Reading Gal 3: 28, for the author was a liberating experience, and thus motivated my research into others, searching for a recognition of my own interpretation of this passage.  That I was unable to discover this in the two interpretations given, is perhaps reflected in the critical treatment of them. 


[1] Withertington, B. 1981. “Rite and Rights for Women – Galatians 3 : 28” New Testament Studies.  vol. 27 Oct. pp. 593-604. p. 593

[2] Boucher, M. 1969. “Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11, 11-12 and Galatians 3: 28: The New Testament on the Role of Women” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. vol. 31 no. 1. pp. 50-58.

[3] Boucher. “Some unexplored” p. 53; Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 595

[4] Boucher. “Some unexplored” p. 52; Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 593

[5] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 594

[6] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 594; Snodgrass, K. 1986. “Galatians 3: 28 – Conundrum or Solution?” in ed. Alvera Mickelson. Women, Authority and the Bible. p. 161-181. Intervarsity Press,
Downers Grove. p. 186.   

[7] See for examples, Rom. 15: 14; Eph. 2: 22. 

[8] Witherington. “Rites and rights” p. 594; Martin, T.  2003. “The Covenant of Circumcision (Gen 17:9-14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3: 28” Journal of Biblical Literature. vol. 22 no 1. pp. 111-126. 

[9] Interestingly, the slave in a Jewish household was circumcised, whilst the freeman in a Jewish community was not, thus the place of slave/freeman, rather than freeman/slave.  See Witherington. “Rites and rights” p. 595; Martin. “The Covenant” p. 117-118. 

[10] Gal 4: 10-11. 

[11] Witherington. “Rites and rights” p. 598; Fiorenza. In Memory. p. 211; Snodgrass. “Galatians” p. 176; Butting, K. 2000. “Pauline Variations on Genesis 2:24: Speaking of the Body of Christ in the Context of Discussion of Lifestyles” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. vol. 70 Sep. pp. 79-90. p. 87-88; Gundry-Volf, J. 1994. “Male and Female in Creation and New Creation: Interpretations of Galatians 3: 28 in 1 Corinthians 7” in ed. Thomas E. Schmidt and Moises Silva. To Tell The Mystery. pp. 95-121. Sheffield Academic
Press, England. p. 105.  In contrast, Martin. “The covenant” denies the reference to Gen 1:27. 

[12] Witherington. p. 595. 

[13] Boyarin, D. 2004. “Paul and the Genealogy of Gender” in ed. Amy-Jill Levine. A Feminist Companion to Paul. p. 14-38. T & T Clarke,
New York; Boucher “Unexplored parallels”

[14] See 1 Cor 7:21-22; Rom 8:23-24; Rom 7: 4. 

[15] Boucher. “Unexplored parallels” p. 52

[16] Gerd, T. 1978. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Fortress Press,
Philadelphia. p. 92. 

[17] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 210

[18] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 209

[19] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 214-215

[20] Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor: 7: 27-29

[21] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 594; Fiorenza. In memory. p. 210; Gundry-Volf. “Male and female.” p. 114; 120

[22] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 594; Fiorenza. In memory. p. 210; Gundry-Volf. “Male and female.” p. 114; 120

[23] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 597; Fiorenza. In memory. p. 227; Snodgrass. “Conundrum” p. 131.  I have omitted 1 Tim on the basis that it is pseudo-Pauline. 

[24] See 1 Cor 11: 15. Fiorenza. In memory. p. 227

[25] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 227-228.

[26] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 231-232; Butting. “Pauline variations” p. 88; Gasque, W. Ward.1986. “Galatians 3: 28 – Conundrum or Solution? – A Response” in ed. Alvera Mickelson. Women, Authority and the Bible. p. 188-192. Intervarsity Press,
Downers Grove. p. 191. 

[27] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 233.

[28] Gundry-Volf. “Male and female” p. 114;      

[29] Martin. “The covenant” p. 125; Snodgrass. “Conundrum” p. 176;

[30] Eisenbaum, P. 2001. “Is Paul the Father of Misogynism and Anti-Semitism” Cross Currents. vol. 50 no. 1. http://www.crosscurrents.org/eisenbaum.htm  accessed on 4/9/06 at 10:51 am; Also see Boyarin, D. 2004. “Paul and the Genealogy of Gender”  

[31] See Snodgrass “Conundrum” for an application of this.  Boucher “Unexplored parallels” also concludes that while Paul was not interested in disturbing society, contemporaneously, it is necessary to maintain the equality found in Christ into the rest of society.  The implication is that conforming to the ideals that Paul recommends in 1 Cor would in fact be rebelling against current, socially acceptable roles. 

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Ben, Bible interpretation, Elisabeth Schussler, Feminism, Feminist Bible interpretation, Fiorenza, Galatians, Paul, Uncategorized, Witherington, Women and the Bible.

Eve: A Reinterpretation of Gen. 2-3 The Holocaust – Gypsies, Disabled and Homosexuals?

20 Comments Add your own

  • 1. inaeth  |  September 8, 2006 at 2:41 am

    Most excellent essay!

    Will comment further after I’m done with my next two articles. One will continue the debate between myself and June, the other is on the myths of atheism that is held by the majority of the Fundamentalist Christians…

    … How do I get myself into these things? It couldn’t be because of my big mouth, could it? ;P

    Reply
  • 2. Natalie Rae  |  September 8, 2006 at 5:24 am

    lol. i hope the lecturer who is grading thinks so. in retrospect, i think that I could have performed the self-reflective analysis of my own analysis more (it wasn’t ‘part’ of the task – just something i added in) but i think that it’s important. the thing that became blatantly apparent is that interpretation, as especially biblical interpretation is such a fluid process – and incredibly problematic; in the end you can justify any interpretation. which is why I should have probably justified my critical approach to the two authors more….

    Reply
  • 3. spiritualoasis  |  September 8, 2006 at 6:33 am

    Natalie,

    It is late here on the east coast in the USA. I’ve stayed up way passed my bedtime. But, I did want to let you know that, Lord willing, I’ll take a look at this in the next couple of days.

    May I be so bold as to ask you a somewhat silly question?

    Yes! That’s good!

    Imagine that we are standing next to a river in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. It’s a beautiful scene. Water is rushing down the river bed, splashing over the smaller rocks and racing around the huge boulders scattered throughout the river bed. Then I turn to you and ask, “What kind of fish float down stream?”

    You turn your head and look at me like you think I might just have lost my senses and say, “What?”

    I smile and nod at the rapids in front of us. Then I inquire again, “What kind of fish float down stream?”

    Reply
  • 4. Natalie Rae  |  September 8, 2006 at 7:00 am

    Is the inference that I am trying to swim against the current?

    Reply
  • 5. inaeth  |  September 9, 2006 at 12:15 am

    I’m confused by the metaphor as well. I find it to be vague and non-specific, and I usually am wary of people who utilize such devices in writing…

    Reply
  • 6. belledame222  |  September 9, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Hey, found you via Renegade Evolution–not what I was expecting to find! but really interesting.

    speaking of both Christianity and feminism, then: are you familiar with a book called “Deadly Innocence,” by Angela West?

    I’m hardly a scholar about any of this, but it interests me. so, linking.

    cheers,

    Reply
  • 7. inaeth  |  September 11, 2006 at 11:23 pm

    Finally read the whole analysis, and not surprisingly, I disagree with bother views to a considerable extent. The reason for this is that emphasis is place on one particular scripture, while the epistle as a whole was not taken into consideration, especially by the latter author. Also, in consideration to exegetical harmonizations between this letter and other works that are known to originate with Paul, I cannot see how this particular passage should be interpretated as anything other than that Faith in Christ is not dependent upon religous, cultural, or sexual distinctions.

    But, then again, I may be entirely off base here. Could you elucidate?

    Reply
  • 8. Natalie Rae  |  September 11, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    Before answering, a quick question. Are you stating that you believe that Gal 3:28 refers to no requirement based on race/sex etc for faith in jc? –> which is essentially what both argue. (Coram Deo= Before G-d)

    Reply
  • 9. inaeth  |  September 12, 2006 at 12:07 am

    That’s pretty much the sum of it. Their extrapolations from this verse is would I’m adverse to support, as it seems that they are forgetting some of the other Pauline dictates accorded to women, men, and others. But that’s why I asked for elucidation, as it seems you are more informed on this topic than I am and if I’m wrong, would be better suited to point out the error I’m making.

    Reply
  • 10. Natalie Rae  |  September 12, 2006 at 12:36 am

    To me – the prime problem is that to reach either end (according to the mode of interpretation that they have decided to use) put’s Gal 3: 28 at odds with other aspects of Pauline writing. To state Coram Deo – puts it at odds with Paul’s egalitarian thoughts and to state woman was completely equal in Paul’s eyes would textually be in contrast to 1 Cor 11:2-6 (not including 1 Tim) etc…. My main issue is that both seem to be writing as historian’s not theologians. Galatians goes on and on about how we are no longer under the law, ‘don’t make yourselves slaves to the law’ etc – and yet these two are most certainly enslaved…. brr. Essentially, one can interpret Gal 3:28 as speaking of equality if one considers things in what I think of as the “Pauline spirit.” Thus, Gal 3:28 = social and complete equality as Paul clearly argues for equality before Christ – and also argues that the church is to resemble the eschatological changes. This is in spirit with Paul’s break on social customs (esp. for women – marriage, divorce) breaking of ‘the law’ etc. Passages, such as 1 Cor – show a concern for the Christian community *it was illegal for women to speak in public at this time* – but to live peacefully now, there is no need to revert back to Greco-Roman attitudes……

    Reply
  • 11. inaeth  |  September 12, 2006 at 9:16 am

    Looks like I will have to read the original sources to see where they are coming from. My teeth are clenching, because of the flagrant discrepencies in their interpretations that fly in the face of current exegetical thought on this passage. (Here, I’m refering to actual scholarship, not the doctrines as espoused by the fundies.)

    To me, a more accurate interpretation should be to reference that within the ecclesiastical spirit of communion, all are equal. However, Pauline doctrine still elaborates the point of the differences, culturally and sexually, between members in the Church. Hence, the reference that women cannot be pastors, men with “wayward” children could not be pastors, slaves still having to obey their masters, etc.

    Reply
  • 12. Natalie Rae  |  September 12, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    Yes, – should be kept in mind that both interpretations are rather dated though. But – they are widely cited in the academic literature and considered rather important in the field of their scope. I think that the central thing is, – is that any notion of the ‘spirit of Paul’ isn’t brought in on the basis that both follow a historico-textual approach –> they are academics. (and Fiorenza is German….)

    Reply
  • 13. inaeth  |  September 14, 2006 at 9:40 am

    This comment has nothing to do with the article. I’m posting it here because I’m a little bit tipsy at the moment, and I thought it would make for a good article, especially with you format of writing and having everything annotated at the end.

    What of the LBRP? From whence do the symbolisms, philosophy, and semiotics come from within this Ritual? What are its psychological applications? Spiritual? Materialistic?

    Reply
  • 14. Natalie Rae  |  September 14, 2006 at 11:13 am

    Lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram

    Reply
  • 15. Jay  |  September 24, 2006 at 12:19 am

    Interesting essays – are these for class/classes, or just personal interest? Either way, good work & solid writing skills!

    Reply
  • 16. Natalie Rae  |  September 24, 2006 at 3:26 am

    lol – thank you! They are for classes – I don’t think that I would go to the depth of research (and bother with prope bibliographic presentation) if it was just for myself!

    Reply
  • 17. Jay  |  September 24, 2006 at 4:10 am

    well, I’ve known people to give themselves random essay topics during summer breaks and treat them like a freaking thesis. 🙂

    Reply
  • 18. ariel  |  November 26, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    bitches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  • 19. ariel  |  November 26, 2007 at 11:39 pm

    bitches

    Reply
  • 20. ariel  |  November 26, 2007 at 11:39 pm

    ass holes

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Recent Posts

September 2006
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

%d bloggers like this: