Audio

Transcript

Do Christians need to keep the Old Covenant?

There are multiple groups of people who believe that Christians should keep the Old Testament law, and that we are under, still, the Old Covenant. The first of these groups of people are those who claim to be Christians, and yet say we need to keep the law to be holy before God. The second group of people, broadly speaking, are non-Christians who don’t understand how covenants in the Bible work. You may have had a conversation with someone where you say that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, and they say, “Yeah, well where’s that?” You might say, “Well, Leviticus 18:22.” They’re like, “Oh, that’s part of the old law, so if you’re going to follow that commandment and say that homosexuality is wrong, well then you can’t wear clothes that have multiple fabrics in them. You can’t plant crops of two different types in the same field,” etc., etc. Don’t eat shellfish, etc.

There is a confusion that is pervasive, about the Old Testament law. and the Old Covenant more specifically. An easy way to address this question of if Christians should keep the Old Covenant is to say, “Well, do you keep the laws of Europe?” Now if you’re a citizen of Europe, hopefully you say yes, and you should. But if you’re a citizen of any other continent or country, or nation group, the answer should be no. You don’t keep the laws of that nation because you’re under the laws of another nation.

It’s the same way with covenants, broadly speaking. Growing up, I didn’t know what the word “covenant” meant. A covenant is an agreement; it’s an agreement between two parties. It’s interesting that our Bibles are divided into an Old “Testament” and a New Testament. “Testament” is another word for covenant. Broadly speaking, the Old Testament is about one covenant. Now there are actually several in there, but mainly speaking, it’s about the Old Covenant, also called the Mosaic Covenant. That is an agreement-a covenant-that God made with Moses for the Nation of Israel. That’s the Old Testament-the Old Covenant.

Then there’s the New Testament and the New Covenant, which is an agreement that God makes, or will make, with all peoples. Let’s go back to that Old Covenant. Let’s learn some more about it to determine if we even should keep it. Here is what Deuteronomy 30:15-18 says.

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. 16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess.

This is an agreement. This says, “If you do this, I will do this. However, if you don’t do this, I’m going to do this other thing.” God is making an agreement with the people of Israel, with Moses and his descendants. This is the Old Covenant broadly. From this, the Old Testament law becomes a part of that. Surely the Ten Commandments, but also the 613 laws in the Old Testament legal code in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Among those are: Don’t have sex with animals. Don’t lie with a man as one lies with a woman. Don’t walk more than 1,900-something paces on the Sabbath. Among those would also be tithing. Along with that would also be regulations on how to sacrifice animals, when to do that, when not to do that. What to do if someone came in contact with blood. All of that comes along with and is part of, and is under, the Old Covenant.

Let’s retrace our steps here. What’s a covenant? It’s an agreement with a group of people. Who was the Old Testament Covenant, the Old Covenant, an agreement with? Not us. It was an agreement with Moses and Israel, specifically. We are not those people, so we are not under the Old Covenant. It wasn’t an agreement with us. It would be kind of like you showing up at your neighbor’s house and saying, “Hey, how’s my wife doing?” and he’s like, “Uh, excuse me.” You’re like, “Yeah, you know that woman in the living room whom you were sitting with on the couch, who you think is your wife. How’s she doing?” Your neighbor’s not going to take very kindly to this. He’s going to be like, “No, that’s my wife. We made an agreement with each other. You didn’t make an agreement with her to marry her.”

This is kind of an extreme and absurd example, but think about it. Isn’t it kind of weird to insert yourself in an agreement between two other people that was never made with you? It is. A less absurd example would be when I asked, “Do you follow the laws of Europe?” Well, no. Now you might do some of the same things that Europeans are required to do because you are part of a covenant. There is an agreement with you and your government that you will do some of those same things, but you don’t do them because Europe does them. You do them because your government requires them, not because Europe’s government has any power over you. You have no agreement with them, implicit or explicit.

The Old Covenant’s the same way. It’s not an agreement with us so we are not bound by it. However, we are under a New Covenant. We’ll get to that New Covenant in a minute, but first the question becomes then: What was the purpose of the Old Covenant? Why did there need to be a new one? Did the old one fail? No. The Old Covenant did exactly what it was intended to do. What was that, you might ask?

Well, it was to shut every mouth. To show that every single person that has ever lived or will ever live is incapable of being righteous on their own. It also astutely points out, as Romans 3 says, that there is no one righteous. There’s no one-not one-no one seeks God. It points out the universal depravity and inability of man to be righteous on his own.

Paul, writing in Galatians 3, says, “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we’re no longer under a guardian.” Now when he says, “Now that faith has come,” that’s a shorthand for him saying, well, a lot of things, but mainly that Jesus has come and died and risen, but he’s also using that as a shorthand to say, “We’re under a New Covenant. The law? That was part of the Old Covenant. We are under a New Covenant.”

This is what’s described and prophesied in Jeremiah 31, which says,

”’Indeed, a time is coming,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a New Covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. It will not be like the Old Covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt, for they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,’ says the Lord. ‘But I will make a New Covenant with the whole Nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law within them and I will write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.'”

We see this prophecy in Jeremiah that there will be a New Covenant. It’s a covenant of grace, not of works. It’s a covenant that is predicated upon the fact that man cannot earn his own salvation. Man cannot earn his own righteousness. Any righteousness he creates on his own is filthy rags compared to what God requires. Righteousness must come from outside of him. It must be credited to him. It must be the righteousness of another. Really, what the law showed, what the Old Covenant showed, is man cannot justify himself. God must be the one who justifies man, who sets him right with himself. That’s what the New Covenant is all about. It’s about God creating a people by Christ’s atoning work on the cross.

Now I am thankful for the Old Covenant, in part because we see the history of what God has done in redemption working up to this. But I’m also thankful for the Old Covenant because it made Jesus’s work possible because, in fact, Jesus was the last blood offering, the last sacrifice in the Old Covenant. He fulfilled it by his sacrifice. He was the only one who lived under it, who was perfectly righteous, and could actually atone for sin. Not his own, he had none, but for the sin of other people. His righteousness can be credited to us. That’s justification. That’s how we’re set right with God: through the last sacrifice of the Old Covenant, which ushers in the New Covenant, whereby we get credited with that righteousness by placing our faith in Christ, and that faith is also a gift from God.

Isn’t that just a beautiful thing? That the inability of man to earn or create his own righteousness is shown to us in the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant is where God provides our righteousness. He provides and credits us with his righteousness. That’s how we’re justified.

Along with this, not being under the Old Covenant, there are some practical differences. We don’t sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sin. That was an Old Covenant type of thing. We don’t care about wearing garments of different fabrics and fibers. I can wear something that’s got some polyester, some cotton, some spandex, and some rayon in it if I wanted. That would probably be an odd garment to behold, but nonetheless, I could. (Doesn’t mean I should, though.)

Another thing that was under the Old Covenant is tithing. I know this is controversial, but tithing was instituted under the Old Covenant. The people under that covenant were told that they would bring a tenth of their crops, their income, their “whatever” to the temple. They will give it to the Levites because they were the one of the 12 tribes who did not get an inheritance. What they got was from the people. They were the priestly tribe. How did the priests get supported? By a tenth of what everyone else had and got. That was distinctly Old Covenant. That is not a part of the New Covenant.

So, should we give? Yes, we certainly should. In fact, we’re now supposed to give out of generosity. We’re supposed to give cheerfully, whereas before you were mandated by law to give. Now it is something we’re supposed to do out of gratitude for God and to further the work of his kingdom because of the grace he’s shown us. Tithing itself is giving a tenth that’s required. If you don’t do that, you’re sinning. But that’s not part of the New Covenant.

Neither is the Sabbath. You’ll notice that very early on Christians, after the Resurrection, started worshiping on Sunday, not on Saturday, not on the Sabbath. They would eat on the Sabbath. They would pick grain on the Sabbath. They would walk further than 1,999 paces on the Sabbath because they understood that the Sabbath was not binding on them because they were no longer under the Old Covenant. Christian worship, worship of Jesus, worship of the Triune God, moved to Sunday, the first day of the week.

Is there a good principle in keeping the Sabbath or having a Sabbath—a day of rest, of reflection? Yes, there is. I think it’s interesting, as an aside, that the Israelites and all of the people in that culture worked six days and rested one, and yet we have two days off, and yet are more tired than people have been in generations, or at least worn down or weary, or however you want to look at it. There is a great need to have down time. That looks differently for different people, but God knew what he was doing when he said, “Work six days and rest one.” The difference is that’s not a legal requirement for us anymore because that’s not an agreement or an aspect of an agreement with us based on the covenant we’re under.

There is more freedom, you could say, in the New Covenant. There is also more wisdom required in the New Covenant as a result of that. If you don’t have to take a Sabbath, you might not take one. You might end up in a place where you’re burnt out, and you’re stressed, and you don’t spend time with your family, and you don’t reflect on God’s word. Those things would be bad. Just because the law’s gone doesn’t mean there isn’t wisdom in following some of the ideas and the principles certainly behind the laws.

Now this doesn’t address things like the moral law. If the prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 is part of the old law, well why do we say that exists today? If the Ten Commandments were part of the Mosaic Covenant and that law, why do we say they exists today? Because moral laws, moral commands, are not arbitrary. They’re not relative and they’re not subjective. All of that to say, they don’t change. They’re an expression of God’s holy character. What is good is basically grounded in who God is. It doesn’t change, because God doesn’t change.

But, that’s different than God saying there are certain regulations for you as a society of people. That’s what the ceremonial law was like: how you were supposed to wash yourself, how you were supposed to sacrifice animals, temple regulations and holidays and those type of things. That’s different than those. It has long been understood that there was a moral law that was universal, that it was binding on everyone. We even see God judged other people according to it, who he didn’t make that covenant with, but he didn’t hold other nations accountable for the civil and ceremonial laws that were a part of the Old Covenant that he made with Israel.

Moral laws, in addition to most all of them being repeated in the New Testament, are binding, but they’re not binding on us because of the Old Covenant, because we’re not under that. They’re actually a part of the New Covenant too because they don’t change, because they’re an expression of God’s holy character that’s exhibited in requirements to us.

So, it’s kind of like the Europe example: Do you keep the laws of Europe? Well, you don’t keep the laws of Europe but you may end up doing the same things Europeans are required to do, like don’t murder each other. Because that happens to be something that’s required in the United States too. If you were in Europe, you wouldn’t murder someone. In the United States you wouldn’t murder someone. It’s the same thing you’re required to do, but you’re required to do it for different reasons, because different people have required that of you, different governments. There’s a different agreement. A different covenant.

It’s the same way with morality. We don’t murder because that’s a part of the New Covenant, not because it’s a part of the Old Covenant. The moral requirements that are upon us are a part of the New Covenant also because they’re grounded in God’s holy character and they don’t change. Christians are not under the Old Covenant. Thank God for that. Thank God that we are not under that teacher or guardian of the law, as Paul called it, but that grace has come, faith has come, and that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. He was its final sacrifice and he was the perfect sacrifice. He’s not a potential savior. He didn’t just come to make men saveable. He actually came to save men, to secure their salvation on the cross. Everyone Christ died for will be saved.

It’s just like John says in John 6, that “everyone the Father gives to Jesus will come to him, and he’ll raise them all up on the last day.” Why? Not because of their own righteousness, not because they kept the law better than someone else, but because they had Christ’s righteousness, the holy and perfect righteousness of a perfect savior.

I will talk with you next week on Unapologetic.

3 thoughts on “Episode 94 – Do Christians Need to Keep the Old Covenant?

  1. Hi, it’s me again, your friendly pest. Once again I almost completely agree with your post but I have an issue with your final conclusion about New Covenant. Maybe you will get into more detail in a future post, but in your zeal to deal with people who justify sin (a noble thing) you fall into the same trap as many people, including many theologians. I am no one special for sure but the circumstances of my life have positioned me to see some things that seem so clear to me but not always to others. I am always willing to be wrong, but hear me out.

    I agree that holiness is derived in the being of God and we are called to "be holy as God is holy". The problem is morality is only a small part of holiness (and can be argued is not really even a part since it only existed once rebellion against God occurred.) God was holy long before sin or immorality existed. This has been a hard lesson for me to learn but the New Covenant has turned morality on its head. There is so much more to the holiness of God. In our human state, we cannot grasp holiness so thus we (and God in the Bible) put it in terms of moral vs. immoral and sin vs. righteousness. In order to understand the New Covenant, you must understand that morality is only the tip of the iceberg. It is the tip that looms large for us but God has so much more in store for us in Christ. This is vital to understand. This does not diminish the call for holiness quite the opposite. This is why Hebrews calls the law a shadow and weak—I doubt God would re-institute something He calls weak and insufficient.

    I have also learned a hard lesson that the New Covenant not only did away with the ceremonial laws for us but also the moral laws. You must deal with 2 Corinthians 3:7. Paul was part of a small group indicated in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that were "ministers of a new covenant" so when he describes the new covenant we must take him seriously. 1 Corinthians 3:7 specifically says the "ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone". I’m no PH-D but it seems fairly obvious that this is specifically referencing the 10 commandments (the most obvious moral laws). Even the Gentiles among the Corinthians would have recognized this reference. This is the same "ministry" or covenant that Paul and Hebrews are saying is done away with-completely obliterated.

    So how do we reconcile the call to holiness with 2 Corinthians 3:7? We don’t. Even at our most moral we will never be holy and I think in a way you acknowledged that. We are holy because Christ is holy and we put our faith in Him. Period. Like you said, even some of the ceremonial laws are good things to do. They will make our lives easier. But being moral or immoral doesn’t make us holy, only Christ does that. Of course, when regeneration occurs it often leads to being more moral (and should). But when we trust in our success or failure morally instead of Jesus Christ’s holiness for any part of our blessings in Christ (justification, sanctification, etc.) we err. That is the leaven of the Pharisees. That is man-centered.

    Look, I get it; this is a difficult and subtle concept to grasp. The leaven of the Pharisees that Christ warned about has been so institutionalized in our beliefs. The bottom line is that our part in the New Covenant cannot include moral laws because that would destroy the Gospel. This is why Paul and Hebrews were so adamant that the entire old covenant was abolished including the moral law. When we apply man’s thinking we try to get around that and the language of the Bible makes it easy to pick and choose verses that seem to support that thinking. Just because historically every man except Christ has been influenced by man’s thinking isn’t an excuse but realistically we are also thus handicapped. This makes it all the more imperative that we never dismiss the interpretations of others and carefully consider them. They may have a background that reveals truth in certain areas that we may not see.

    The very definition of covenant in the Bible indicates an agreement between God and humanity on how to re-connect to God’s life source that we lost when Adam and Eve broke their covenant. In simplest terms—a covenant is the terms of having a relationship with God. If the New Covenant contains any actions, moral or not, on our part other than faith in the Lord Jesus Christ then the Gospel is not true as defined by Christ, Paul and others. You seem to indicate this in your last two paragraphs. On its face your description invalidates the assertion that the moral laws are part of our obligation within the New Covenant. They simply cannot be and the Gospel still be true.

    I must write very carefully here–I am not saying this invalidates the moral laws. They are just not part of OUR part of the New Covenant. This is where most Christians get so far afield. God writes the laws on our heart through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8, 10). The lists of morality mentioned in the epistles are thus the grace filled life giving product of this supernatural work that we get to partake in if we walk in the Spirit. Thus the lists of immorality that are indicated as walking according to the flesh are the death dealing items we can now avoid because we have access to the source of life–Jesus Christ–through faith. This is not sin vs. righteousness—this is life vs. death.

    Read carefully–this may be the most important thing I am writing–notice I said "our part" in the New Covenant. The New Covenant does contain the moral laws wrapped up in holiness–but it is not on our side of the agreement. We now have the ability through faith for Jesus Christ to quite literally live through us. Vine and branch–our life source. If anything we do, no matter how moral it may be, does not have it source in Jesus Christ, then it is still death. According to Romans 14:23 it is sin (…whatever is not of faith is sin.) This obliterates any standards of morality we may set for ourselves even when we base them on the Bible—New Testament or Old. Even if we kept every moral law listed in the Bible we could still be sinning (and many times do). This is why the entire law was weak and needed to be replaced.

    The glory of the New Covenant is that every aspect of our relationship with God is established and maintained by Jesus Christ not our actions or our own personal holiness. We can deal death to ourselves by sin our entire life but if we have faith that Jesus Christ has covered it then we will make it into the kingdom (albeit barely 1 Corinthians 3:15).
    Look…the wages of sin is death in this life for everyone including believers…reaping what you sow. Wage by definition implies a previous agreed upon outcome. You agree to do work; your employer agrees to pay a wage. You do the work; you get the wage. You don’t and you won’t. You sow an addiction to cigarettes for 40 years you could reap lung cancer. You got your wages. Sadly unbelievers can only ultimately reap the wage of death no matter how moral they are. But there is still a benefit in this life in following Kingdom principles whether you are saved or not. False religions call this karma.

    The glory of the New Covenant is that once a believer puts their faith in Jesus Christ to save them they gain entrance to the Kingdom of God and eternal life immediately. The eternal life source (Jesus Christ) is now available to them through faith (and nothing else). While in this fallen world and in their fallen body they can still choose to ignore the life source and choose the death of immorality, trusting in the law, trusting in their own works, etc. (sin). Choosing the life source (Jesus Christ) is called "walking according to the Spirit" and has the fruit of holiness (including holy living or morality) and life. Ignoring the life source is called "walking according to the flesh" and has the fruit of immorality, wasted time, guilt, shame, and other forms of death. Where I went wrong for 25+ years, and where I can see others following the same path, is that we try to use the law to measure these things. It is clear Biblically that you can be 99% morally perfect and be 99% walking in according to the flesh.

    Believers can position themselves through doubt, fear, unbelief etc. to not receive all the benefits of the New Covenant. Paul calls this being severed from Christ and fallen from grace in Galatians 5 and then goes on to discuss later in chapters 5 and 6 how believer can access this eternal life and bring the Kingdom of God into their lives now. At some level there are some future aspects of both eternal life and the Kingdom, but if we only see them as future then we can easily be severed from Christ and fallen from grace. Paul is very clear that the Galatians did this by trusting in their own works for their justification AFTER their regeneration. It is clear he was writing to believers and yet look at the justification language in Galatians 5:4.

    The sin of the Galatians is the travesty of modern evangelicalism and it stems now, just as it did then, from a misunderstanding of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is all about Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with us. It is an amazing gift. All the work is on God’s side of the covenant. Wow. We just have to trust and then Christ works in and through us. His yoke is truly easy and His burden is light. I’m glad because He can handle the burden and I can’t. Trust me, I tried for 30+ years and reaped the death of that.

    Our morality can thus be a beacon of Christ’s work especially when we know we would not normally act certain ways. But it is not on our side of the covenant to do it. Until you grasp the reality of that you will stagnate. Depending on how morally strong of a person you are you may do some amazing things and then get to the final Kingdom and find out they were worthless. Or you may have a weak moral flesh for whatever reason and be constantly sinning but get to the final Kingdom and find out what little you accomplished took more faith than the modern day moral Pharisee in the pew ahead of you. Christ has a portion of grace for us all in His sovereignty but it is very clear from the Bible that there is an obligation upon us to position ourselves to receive it. Sadly, if the modern day moral Pharisee was walking in the Spirit more he might have been more willing to stand by his brother and use his gifts to help him avoid the death of sin in this life. Then they both would have prospered in grace.

    So read the Scriptures carefully…I have learned some hard lessons that it is OK if everyone doesn’t agree with me…but I ask you to not knee-jerk. I only have begun to grasp these truths recently so I am the last to criticize. But the spiritual fruit of transferring my reliance on my actions for holiness to reliance on Christ for His holiness has been phenomenal. Grace is not the grease for our hamster wheel of works to turn better. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God so the basis for our faith is our beliefs based on interpretation of the scriptures. The Holy Spirit of course strengthens that.

    My point is that it was not until I began to understand and believe the scriptural truth of the new covenant and the gospel was I able to put my faith where it belonged for life–Jesus Christ. Praise Him that this has resulted in my keeping the moral laws much better than before (and that is an understatement) but that is no longer my focus and that has made all the difference. Maybe what I have written is abundantly clear to you and I have miss-read your take on the moral laws. Maybe you totally disagree with me. I certainly can be wrong in my interpretation and I recognize in my lack of time I did not include many Scripture I could have (plus this is way too long for a blog comment). But the fruit that has come from my faith towards God because of my new understanding of the New Covenant cannot be ignored and the grace of God shown through that in my life compels me to speak.

    Thank you once again for your patience in letting me abuse your blog comment section in this way. If it is too annoying, feel free to delete or restrict! God bless.

    1. Hi There!

      I’m not sure what you mean by saying the new covenant has nothing to do with us. Can you explain? We are save to complete good works that God has ordained, Eph 2:10.

      Paul is constantly calling people our for their actions. He says that, as a Christian, you shouldn’t do ____. So, there are moral requirements on the Christian. This is also what James is speaking of: Faith without works is dead.

      Now, maybe you’re disagreement centered on how one uses the word "required." Your mention of Galatians make me think that make it is.

      The Galatians mistake was saying things were required in order to be a Christian. They added works to faith in order to gain justification.

      That is not the way I’m using "required." I totally agree that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. That is how we are justified. However, God expects us to live righteously and pursue holiness as a part of our sanctification. We know what that looks like, in part, through the law, though we are not under or bound by it.

      Are there any moral restrictions on a Christian, and if so, what are they and how do you know? <- That’s probably the easiest way to clarify this 🙂

  2. Sorry, once again my verbosity got the better of me. I was not saying we have no requirements under the New Covenant. I was saying we only have one requirement…absolute trust and faith in what Christ has done. This is what leads to true morality and sanctification as Christ works through us. The sin of the Galatians goes beyond justification and pertains to sanctification. Read Galatians 5-6 carefully–Paul is writing to folks who have already been justified but they are not acting like it. Meaning they were trying to sanctify themselves by keeping the law in their own strength rather than being fully dependent on Christ. Just like justification our sanctification comes from Christ–it is completely wrapped in His holiness–not ours. Quite frankly it has nothing to do with what we do…now as James so eloquently puts it, our actions may indicate we have not been truly justified, but that is a different topic.

    What we believe becomes us. If we believe that we must have some measurable increase in moral actions and decrease in immoral actions to become "sanctified" then we will begin to try and make that happen. We put our faith in our action of being obedient not in Christ and the Holy Spirit bearing the fruit through us. Even Mormons have "fruit" but it cannot be real because they cannot have the real Holy Spirit since they do not believe in the real Christ.

    Paul admits to the Galatians that they got the justification part right in Gal 3:3. He says "having begun by the Spirit". That means they trusted God (Christ, Holy Spirit) for their justification (salvation) but then boom…they thought the rest was up to them. They thought they must strive to keep the law in order to please God. Paul got pretty heated about this, in verse 1 he called them "foolish". Then he asks them are you now "being perfected by the flesh?" Perfected=sanctification. They were not trusting Christ and the Holy Spirit for their fruit…they thought it was how well they kept the law that was sanctifying them. Paul is adamant that their sanctification had nothing to do with how well they kept the law. I am also saying that in chapters 5-6 he says that this very sin of trusting in their own ability to keep the law for sanctification is the very thing that blocks Christ’s power in them to achieve the very holiness they desired.

    We must think of our ability to obey God (sanctification) as a benefit of our faith in Christ not a requirement for. Otherwise we can force it for all the wrong reasons and it is self-defeating. It is so easy to trust in how "holy" we are acting; only Christ can make us "holy" from the inside out. I don’t know if I have cleared anything up or not but thank you for letting me continue to try. May you continue to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *