The Early Christian Agapetae or Virgins; "The Cosmic "Mystery" of the Church"

Hannah Rebekah · August 9, 2010

I would like to know, in light of the history and information provided below how others understand the verses in the New Testament about the early Christian Agapetae or Christian Virgins and the history surrounding this practice.To me it seems plausible that Joseph Smith and the matter of polygamy or Celestial marriage fits in nicely with the inerrant Bible and what it teaches. At least "the Bible tells me so" :

1 Corinthians 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? :2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. 3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 4 Have we not power to eat and to drink? :5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

For more information on the Agapetaes See:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01202a.htm

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~moorea@ozemail.com.au/agapetae.html

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~moorea@ozemail.com.au/hermas.html

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~moorea@ozemail.com.au/naked.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agapetae

In his book, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity by Barry Robert Bickmore, in Chapter 6, The Temple, he talks about "Polygamy and the Mystery of Marriage."

Brickmore discusses how Christian marriage was referred to by Paul as "a great mystery" in itself, which also symbolized the union of Christ and the Church. He quotes early Church Father, Justin Martyr and how he not only defended the polygamy of Old Testament figures, but referred to it as a "mystery" as well:

"And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all

"mysteries"

might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 141, in ANF 1:270.)

Brickmore explains how the evidence is not conclusive, yet a form of plural marriage may have been practiced by some of the Apostles and prophets in the early Church. In an early Christian text called, "The Didache," also known by two other titles, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" and "The Lord's Teachings to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles," it speaks about prophets who "work unto the "mystery of the church," which "mystery" he maintains was "seen as marriage--and possibly even plural marriage."

"And every prophet, proved true, working unto the

"mystery of the Church"

in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you, for with God he hath his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets." (Didache 11, in ANF 7:380-381.)

In 'Early Christian writings: the Apostolic Fathers' we are told: "This passage is very obscure; it may mean that prophets may perform "symbolic actions" as the prophets of the Old Testament did (an extreme example would be Hosea

mfbukowski · August 9, 2010

Great post, great topic. I wanted to bump it before I have read all your references, but I have been interested in this for years.

You will also notice in the epistles that the use of the word "mystery" is also highly correlated with the word "flesh" and the sense of becoming "one flesh" with one's spouse in the same way that Christ and his church are one- this notion of "flesh" also relates to the resurrection, as shown in the famous chapter in which we are taught about the different kinds of flesh- celestial and terrestrial-

1Cor 15:

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

This mystery of the flesh and our unification with Christ relates directly to the "mirrored bedchamber" ordinances. It must be noted that the imagery of the "mirror" also refers to the "veil"- as in the phrase "through a glass darkly, but then face to face"

I think it is clear that Paul and other writers of the epistles were making references to the notion of ordinances which related to both resurrection and the re-creation/ transformation of the flesh- that our ultimate destiny was unification with Christ both through unification with our spouses and the church, and a major part of this ordinance "through the glass darkly" (veil) and then "face to face" was the receiving of a body of celestialized flesh.

To me, all this is clear from a close reading of these texts, and once you see this as a paradigm, it becomes unmistakable.

In fact to me, this is one of the greatest intellectual "testimonies" I have of the genuineness of the restored endowment.

I have no doubt that something very like our endowment was very familiar to the writers of the epistles.

Hannah Rebekah · August 9, 2010

Great post, great topic. I wanted to bump it before I have read all your references, but I have been interested in this for years.
You will also notice in the epistles that the use of the word "mystery" is also highly correlated with the word "flesh" and the sense of becoming "one flesh" with one's spouse in the same way that Christ and his church are one- this notion of "flesh" also relates to the resurrection, as shown in the famous chapter in which we are taught about the different kinds of flesh- celestial and terrestrial-
1Cor 15:
This mystery of the flesh and our unification with Christ relates directly to the "mirrored bedchamber" ordinances. It must be noted that the imagery of the "mirror" also refers to the "veil"- as in the phrase "through a glass darkly, but then face to face"
I think it is clear that Paul and other writers of the epistles were making references to the notion of ordinances which related to both resurrection and the re-creation/ transformation of the flesh- that our ultimate destiny was unification with Christ both through unification with our spouses and the church, and a major part of this ordinance "through the glass darkly" (veil) and then "face to face" was the receiving of a body of celestialized flesh.
To me, all this is clear from a close reading of these texts, and once you see this as a paradigm, it becomes unmistakable.
In fact to me, this is one of the greatest intellectual "testimonies" I have of the genuineness of the restored endowment.
I have no doubt that something very like our endowment was very familiar to the writers of the epistles.

Thanks mfbukowski,

Interesting comments about the flesh and it seems to expand on one of the links I gave on "Nakedness--Theology of the Body" as viewed by the Early Christian Church. Not sure who this site is sponsored by but there are some interesting quotes by the Early Church Fathers on these subjects which leads one through the early history and changes.

Theology of the body

The art and literature of primitive Christianity do not shy away from the naked body. They provide us with a starting point for a more useful Christian theology of the body

Catacomb Frescoes
Adam and Eve Jonah
The concept of body was celebrated by primitive Christians, and although Christianity was focused on the spirit as distinct from 'the flesh', the experience was of an embodied and not disembodied spirit.

Fishermen
Daniel
Baptism
A theology of the body is important once you understand that in the primitive Chrisitian world view spirit and body are not mutually exclusive.
And this was certainly the case before philosophical dualism became the dominant philosophical paradigm in the West. The dualism of early Christainity was the spirit versus the flesh, not the spirit versus the body.
It was not until later that the body became synonymous with the flesh and we see the reintroduction of the shame of the fall, and a focus on covering for fear of the vices. This seemed to coincide with a loss of expectation of present experience of a spiritual body and indeed of a present experience of the Kingdom of heaven.
Christianity was initially seen as a preparation for death - a preparation for eternity. The idea was to have a spiritual body. This meant that the fleshly aspects of vices such as lust greed etc were to be replaced by love and the other virtues. These were associated with the spiritual body that had been birthed when the new Christian was born again or birthed of the spirit. The garment of the soul was not flesh but spirit, and Christians understood themselves clothed with light - clothed with God, and this light comprising the colours of the rainbow - the Virtues or fruit of the Holy Spirit

The rest of the comments on that page are very interesting as far as the attitude of the Early Christians and the flesh.

The renowned Christian historian, Eduard Meyer claimed the Mormon Church had the closest resemblance to the primitive Christian Church. And when I learned about the Agapetaes I was very intrigued. Most don't completely understand what Joseph Smith was doing concerning the polygamy (at least some of the aspects) and yet when one studies this topic about the early Church there seems to be a correlation in that area....at least in my mind. No one has found through DNA any children fathered by Joseph Smith yet all want to assume that he had intimate relations with the wives he was sealed to. And yet the inerrant NT tells about the practice of Agapetaes, so its scriptural and not just from other historical sources. So if Holy Men in the Ancient Christian Church could be "connected" (sealed?) to Sisters in a virtuous way, and it seems to be inferred in places that they were connected to each other in a religious context on a higher level (temple ordinances?) then why is it so hard to believe that this practice that is not well understood then be restored in this dispensation and still not well understood? I prefer to give Joseph Smith the benefit of a doubt that as a prophet of God he was on a higher level and was accountable only to God. And to assume the worse is no different than the history of the Agapetaes and those who doubted their sincerity and commitment to God. Of course abuses can creep in....and because of that and the possibly a lack of faith....and lets not leave out misunderstanding the workings of God, this practice was put to an end or developed in the following centuries into celibacy within the priesthood and the order of nuns who are virgins espoused to Christ.

I find this practice interesting and how it was to overcome the flesh....much like a test and yet Joseph explained plural marriage the same way as one would understand a test....an Abrahamic test. At this site, "Spiritual Brides of Early Christianity" it says:

According to modern observer Andrew Moore,

There was something [unusually] profound about male female 'companionship' in the primitive Church - it is the missing piece of the puzzle - ignored by both the establishment and gnostics alike. Mary Magdalene was perhaps the first agapetae.
As he says, the agapetae

were not a short-term or small-scale aberration in the first several centuries of the Christian Church. The whole dynamic of both nakedness and the [agapetae] centered around the understanding of body beyond lust and the desires of the flesh, and without a dualistic divide. When it was all finally suppressed and expunged from the official history, the space was filled by asceticism and monasticism.
And this:

To live as brothers and sisters in the family of Christ, was a daring experiment;

mfbukowski · August 11, 2010

Thanks for the link- been very busy lately

I have always seen polygamy as a test as well and have believed for years that most of Joseph's plural wives, and certainly in cases of polyandry, the sealings were for spiritual purposes, regardless of the alleged evidence.

I wanted to give this a bump now, but have more to say soon as I get a chance.

Hannah Rebekah · August 12, 2010

Thanks for the link- been very busy lately
I have always seen polygamy as a test as well and have believed for years that most of Joseph's plural wives, and certainly in cases of polyandry, the sealings were for spiritual purposes, regardless of the alleged evidence.
I wanted to give this a bump now, but have more to say soon as I get a chance.

Thanks for the bump. It's odd that the critics, especially those so outspoken against Joseph Smith and polygamy have been so quiet on this topic. Not one single taker on how they explain away this history and mention of it in the Bible. It's interesting that all of the information on this topic comes from non-LDS sources and the early Church Fathers. When I get a chance I will try to put together a time-line.

HR

changed · August 12, 2010

I'm going to have to come back later and read through this one. Mary, the mother of Jesus was the first virgin - and I think there are a lot of things surroudning Mary.

from:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50607-they-published-it/page__p__1208889489__hl__%2Bpublished+%2Bpolygamy__fromsearch__1#entry1208889489

basically, I think that polygamy is symbolic of Mary, not Heavenly Mother, bearing Jesus.

Luke1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

Jesus had to be 1/2 mortal - so he had to have a mortal mother. Seeing that Jesus is the "only" begotten, the only one, and a handmaid was needed (just like Sarah) it looks like HM does not beget children in the same way that we do - I think They have children through baptism, not through begetting, Eve in her perfect form did not have children either. They do not beget children, so handmaids are needed... Eve had to fall to have children, for the same reason I think we wait until children are 8 to be baptised... perfect parents only want children who choose them, have reached the age of accountability.. only a fallen being can get a spirit into something they have no experience in - cannot make an informed choice about. jmo

that Mary was a virgin leads me to believe that the handmaid relashonships of heaven might be plutonic, suragate mothers, platonic relationship - it is more than "just friends" though, I mean having/raising a kid together, that is pretty intimate with or without the sex part of it.

Hannah Rebekah · August 30, 2010

I'm going to have to come back later and read through this one. Mary, the mother of Jesus was the first virgin - and I think there are a lot of things surroudning Mary.
from:
http://www.mormonapo...entry1208889489
basically, I think that polygamy is symbolic of Mary, not Heavenly Mother, bearing Jesus.
Luke1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.
Jesus had to be 1/2 mortal - so he had to have a mortal mother. Seeing that Jesus is the "only" begotten, the only one, and a handmaid was needed (just like Sarah) it looks like HM does not beget children in the same way that we do - I think They have children through baptism, not through begetting, Eve in her perfect form did not have children either. They do not beget children, so handmaids are needed... Eve had to fall to have children, for the same reason I think we wait until children are 8 to be baptised... perfect parents only want children who choose them, have reached the age of accountability.. only a fallen being can get a spirit into something they have no experience in - cannot make an informed choice about. jmo
that Mary was a virgin leads me to believe that the handmaid relashonships of heaven might be plutonic, suragate mothers, platonic relationship - it is more than "just friends" though, I mean having/raising a kid together, that is pretty intimate with or without the sex part of it.

Sorry for not replying sooner....I was busy with my youngest son's farewell and getting him to the MTC last week to begin his call to serve in the Philippines Bacolod Mission.

Interesting thoughts....but I believe the subject of the 'Agapetae' has more to do with what others would consider a different form of marriage, "spiritual marriage" and to me implies that Joseph Smith understood the Early Christian Church more than he is given credit for. In the same way that the practice of the 'Agapetae' was ended because of perceived or real abuses. This is a subject that is still not really understood. And modern society condemned Joseph with no real proof of him living an unchaste life. The sealings of Joseph to other women could have been "spiritual marriages" the same as those with the 'Agapetae' were in the first few centuries of the Christian Church before abuses or misunderstandings crept in.

More information:

AGAPETAE (agapetai, beloved)

(The Catholic Encyclopedia-New Advent):

In the first century of the Christian era, the Agapetae were virgins who consecrated themselves to God with a vow of chastity and associated with laymen. In the beginning this community of spiritual life and mutual support, which was based on St. Paul

Hannah Rebekah · August 30, 2010

Here is a beginning of a time-line about the Agapetaes.

I would really like to know what the Evangelicals have to say about these 'spiritual marriages' that were part of the Early Christian Church.

Time-Line:

53 to 57 AD; St. Paul (c. 5 - c. 67)

St. Paul alludes to the agapetae in his first letter to the Corinthians:

(1 Corinthians 7: 36-38)

mfbukowski · August 30, 2010

Very interesting quotes.

So it seems that this is an obvious question:

Did Paul sanction this practice then, and how does that "square" with the restored version of Christianity?

There are those here who feel that Paul was an apostate or close to it- and of course it is disputed that Paul wrote Hebrews - yet for me the writer of Hebrews clearly understood rites which were imo very close to our endowment.

So what are we to make of this doctrinal jumble? Anybody got a theory that puts it all together?

juliann · August 30, 2010

There has been ongoing debate as to the marital status of Paul. That is nothing new. Paul lived as if the Second Coming was around the corner and nothing else but spreading the gospel mattered. You do that and then you die badly. That was Christianity. And polygamy was not a secretly practiced mystery. Letters have been found that substantiate Jewish polygamy in the Second Temple period. So the possibility of Jewish polygamists in the early church must be assumed. That seems evident by the admonition that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. Proof texting so called gnostic sources is usually meaningless. Gaye Strathearn, now a BYU prof, did her dissertation on bridal chamber motif. It is much more involved than a few quotes and a very interesting study that goes back into the OT. Celibacy and asceticism came very quickly into the early church. So quickly that it is addressed in the NT. That is also an involved study.

But most of all, you are relying on Catholic sources which are going to lead to Catholic teachings just as an official LDS source would have its own agenda.

I don't see the linkage between all of these random quotes coming from all directions. It would take an awful lot of work to connect the dots in such a scattered sampling.

juliann · August 30, 2010

1^st century

saemo · August 30, 2010

Among all this twisting of Catholic writing to fit into the square hole of Mormonism, I'd just like to point out in regards to this:

Robert M. Grant notes that, "In Ephesians 5:22-33 the prophecy of Genesis 2:24 {'the two shall become one flesh.'} is described as "a great mystery" and is referred not only to Christ and the church but also to Christian marriage in general." (Robert M. Grant, After the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 184.)

Yes, Catholics from the very beginning have viewed marriage in the same mystery of which the Church is the bride of Christ. Marriage is a Sacrament, and the Sacraments are also call "Divine Mysteries". One other thing to note in this comparison, is that Christ has but one bride.

Ahab · August 30, 2010

Very interesting quotes.
So it seems that this is an obvious question:
Did Paul sanction this practice then, and how does that "square" with the restored version of Christianity?

Would you mind defining or describing the practice you are talking about? I'd like to make sure we are on the same page.

As I understand it, a "spiritual wife" was/is a woman married to a man as his wife but who (typically) didn't have "sex" with her husband, being more than either a servant or an employee, because she is a member of that man's family equally with him. In a sense, she was/is more like a sister to the man than a wife because of the fact that there was/is no "sex" between them, but instead of being considered a sister she was/is considered to be a wife because she was/is actually married to the man as an equal member of that man's family with him, as any wife should be considered equal to her husband.

In other words, they were/are one, spiritually, as equals, even though they didn't (typically) have sex with their husbands, which would instead be the role of the "first" wife.

If that's the right idea of what a spiritual wife was, and is, as I suspect it is, it "squares" with the restored version of Christianity simply by not contradicting the other type of relationship, with both types of relationships being equally considered a marriage or joining together of 2 people into one body, or collective union.

p.s. And btw, I said (typically) above because there might be a situation wherein a "spiritual wife" would have "sex" with her husband, such as when Sarah gave Haggar to Abraham to have a child by her, with Haggar being a spiritual wife to Abraham.

Hannah Rebekah · August 30, 2010

Thecla was not a virgin. She was a married woman. This is a fun but very wild tale. It is notable because it is written from a woman's perspective.

Are you sure that Thecla was not a virgin? What are your sources for all of your "wild" claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thecla

According to the Acts of Paul and Thecla, Thecla (St. Taqla) was a young noble virgin who listened to Paul's "discourse on virginity" and became Paul's follower. Thecla's mother, and her fianc

Hannah Rebekah · August 30, 2010

Among all this twisting of Catholic writing to fit into the square hole of Mormonism, I'd just like to point out in regards to this:
Robert M. Grant notes that, "In Ephesians 5:22-33 the prophecy of Genesis 2:24 {'the two shall become one flesh.'} is described as "a great mystery" and is referred not only to Christ and the church but also to Christian marriage in general." (Robert M. Grant, After the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 184.)
Yes, Catholics from the very beginning have viewed marriage in the same mystery of which the Church is the bride of Christ. Marriage is a Sacrament, and the Sacraments are also call "Divine Mysteries". One other thing to note in this comparison, is that Christ has but one bride.

I wonder how the TEN virgins who went in to meet the Bridegroom fits with your views....and yes....Mormonism fits in very nicely with the Catholic views about marriage of the Church and between a man and a woman as "a great mystery." I take it that you don't want to admit that polygamy in any form had a part in the early Church but history shows otherwise....not only about the "spiritual brides" but also other writings of the time that talks about polygamy at that time and even later in Christian history....even being brought into the Reformation by Luther.

Hannah Rebekah · August 30, 2010

Would you mind defining or describing the practice you are talking about? I'd like to make sure we are on the same page.
As I understand it, a "spiritual wife" was/is a woman married to a man as his wife but who (typically) didn't have "sex" with her husband, being more than either a servant or an employee, because she is a member of that man's family equally with him. In a sense, she was/is more like a sister to the man than a wife because of the fact that there was/is no "sex" between them, but instead of being considered a sister she was/is considered to be a wife because she was/is actually married to the man as an equal member of that man's family with him, as any wife should be considered equal to her husband.
In other words, they were/are one, spiritually, as equals, even though they didn't (typically) have sex with their husbands, which would instead be the role of the "first" wife.
If that's the right idea of what a spiritual wife was, and is, as I suspect it is, it "squares" with the restored version of Christianity simply by not contradicting the other type of relationship, with both types of relationships being equally considered a marriage or joining together of 2 people into one body, or collective union.
p.s. And btw, I said (typically) above because there might be a situation wherein a "spiritual wife" would have "sex" with her husband, such as when Sarah gave Haggar to Abraham to have a child by her, with Haggar being a spiritual wife to Abraham.

It's obvious that these "spiritual" marriages were of a different nature as regular marriages yet were sanctioned by the Church and could change into a regular marriage which to me implies a mix of different types of marriages for different purposes as shown by Paul in the New Testament:.

(1 Corinthians 7: 36-38)

juliann · August 30, 2010

I wonder how the TEN virgins who went in to meet the Bridegroom fits with your views....and yes....Mormonism fits in very nicely with the Catholic views about marriage of the Church and between a man and a woman as "a great mystery." I take it that you don't want to admit that polygamy in any form had a part in the early Church but history shows otherwise....not only about the "spiritual brides" but also other writings of the time that talks about polygamy at that time and even later in Christian history....even being brought into the Reformation by Luther.

You don't know my views, I am only pointing out that you can't mix and match quotes without doing the background work. You have to show influence if you are going to try to put together texts from different area, culture and time. It is possible to interpret the ten virgins as wives just as it is possible to interpret Jesus turning water into wine at his own wedding. But it is a stretch and requires more than just a declaration.

As for polygamy in the early church, did you miss where I said there were likely Jewish polygamist converts? And Luther didn't "bring in" polygamy, his king patron did. Luther just didn't stop him. There are other instances of more widespread Christian polygamy if that is important to you however.

And you are right about Thecla, my apologies. I'm getting my stories mixed up. The romance genre was popular and there are other stories of heroic females....but it has been a long time since I've studied them.

Just curious but why do you feel like you need to find precedent for polygamy? Are you thinking this relates to the Mormon practice of polygamy?

Ahab · August 30, 2010

...

'

Hello Hannah,

According to my understanding of what you have said, I believe you and I are on the same page on this issue.

The fact that a woman is sealed to a man as his wife doesn't necessarily mean the man and woman have "sex" with each other, or with anyone else, although they could with there being nothing wrong with it since, after all, they are both married to each other.

Hannah Rebekah · August 30, 2010

There has been ongoing debate as to the marital status of Paul. That is nothing new. Paul lived as if the Second Coming was around the corner and nothing else but spreading the gospel mattered. You do that and then you die badly. That was Christianity. And polygamy was not a secretly practiced mystery. Letters have been found that substantiate Jewish polygamy in the Second Temple period. So the possibility of Jewish polygamists in the early church must be assumed. That seems evident by the admonition that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. Proof texting so called gnostic sources is usually meaningless. Gaye Strathearn, now a BYU prof, did her dissertation on bridal chamber motif. It is much more involved than a few quotes and a very interesting study that goes back into the OT. Celibacy and asceticism came very quickly into the early church. So quickly that it is addressed in the NT. That is also an involved study.
But most of all, you are relying on Catholic sources which are going to lead to Catholic teachings just as an official LDS source would have its own agenda.
I don't see the linkage between all of these random quotes coming from all directions. It would take an awful lot of work to connect the dots in such a scattered sampling.

I don't see it that way or that they are random....what it shows is that one practice, the "virgins" spiritually married and connected to holy men was part of the early Church and after the death of the apostles and the start of the apostasy this practice morphed into an ascetic life or monasticism (such as celibacy among monks and nuns) in later centuries after this "spiritual marriage" it was done away with. We also know more about the "mysteries" (ordinances...such as the marriage ordinances) were part of the secret tradition that was not written down but was more an oral tradition. See:

Secret Tradition in Basil of Caesarea and its Antecedents (Evangelical)

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2007/10/secret-tradition-in-basil-of-caesarea.html

Sign In

The Early Christian Agapetae or Virgins; "The Cosmic "Mystery" of the Church"

Recommended Posts

Hannah Rebekah

mfbukowski

Hannah Rebekah

mfbukowski

Hannah Rebekah

changed

Hannah Rebekah

Hannah Rebekah

mfbukowski

juliann

juliann

saemo

Ahab

Hannah Rebekah

Hannah Rebekah

Hannah Rebekah

juliann

Ahab

Hannah Rebekah

saemo

Hannah Rebekah

juliann

Hannah Rebekah

Hannah Rebekah

Hannah Rebekah

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse