"I did not come to destroy the law or the prophets"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ did not come to overthrow or abolish the moral law of God -- it endures forever -- or the end for which the Scriptures were given, which is, that God might be glorified among men.
 
I think the difference is in how we understand the word "fulfill". In the context of the gospel itself, and of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ clearly meant that His messianic mission, to suffer and die for the sake of sinners, so that they could be roconciled to God the Father, was to fulfill all the requirements of the law to the fullest, so that the law no longer had a claim on sinners.
 
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Does this "fulfill" mean that the law is completed and over with?

Not at all. We don't overthrow the law by this; rather, we uphold it.

That is to say, by having and holding the claim of being reconciled to God we are not being illigitimate, and do not oppose the law which says we have sinned; nor do we thereby blaspheme against God by saying He forgives sins out of His good pleasure, as if sin did not matter for Him in some cases. We can claim reconciliation with God through Christ and uphold the law entirely. If Jesus had not accomplished the law on our behalf, then even Theonomy would not be an option.


Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
 
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Does this "fulfill" mean that the law is completed and over with?

No.

Read Calvin, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Owen, Edwards, Watson, Vos, or just about any other Reformed divine before Rushdooney.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Does this "fulfill" mean that the law is completed and over with?

No.

Read Calvin, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Owen, Edwards, Watson, Vos, or just about any other Reformed divine before Rushdooney.

I would agree that theology comes first. It is, after all, more important even to such ideas. It must be within a solid theology that we must form our ideas concerning secondary matters. And a clear ethic is already traced out in such theological works as Calvin, Henry, Owen, Edwards et al. A solid theological training would certainly have avoided such fiascos as I encountered, one would think. Directly countering Jesus' teaching is quite an audacious thing to do. It is even more audacious for a church not to notice.
 
The law of God was never created with the goal of abolishing it once it was fulfilled. We do not see this anywhere in scripture.

In fact,

Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Has all been acomplished?
 
Originally posted by JohnV
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Does this "fulfill" mean that the law is completed and over with?

No.

Read Calvin, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Owen, Edwards, Watson, Vos, or just about any other Reformed divine before Rushdooney.

I would agree that theology comes first. It is, after all, more important even to such ideas. It must be within a solid theology that we must form our ideas concerning secondary matters. And a clear ethic is already traced out in such theological works as Calvin, Henry, Owen, Edwards et al. A solid theological training would certainly have avoided such fiascos as I encountered, one would think. Directly countering Jesus' teaching is quite an audacious thing to do. It is even more audacious for a church not to notice.

OOps.

While I agree John, what I meant was that you can read any Reformed divine temporally before Rushdooney's time and they will provide a proper interpretation.

But I also would read Rushdooney last after the others. ("Confession is guilty of nonsense," my foot!) :scholar:

[Edited on 12/14/2004 by fredtgreco]
 
I am saving my lunch money for The Institutes of the Christian Religion and The City of God.

I already have a paperback, abriged Institutes though.

I wish there was a list of all the essential theological books that every Reformed person must have.
 
Mark,

There are tons of lists like that all over the internet. None of them are divinely inspired however...
 
Yeah, but I admire the people at this site, and only care about what you guys have to say. I like the "basic library" list that Matt. McMahon made on A Puritan's Mind.

:)
 
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Christ here refers not to the moral law per se, but to the totality of the law and prophets as a literary document.

How do theonomists interpret John 8? Christ gives the adulterous woman a religious forgiveness, but it never says that he pursued her case any further, i.e. finding her husband to accuse her so that she could be stoned according the law of Moses.

How many Christians living today, much less atheists and pagans, would be/should be killed in a theonomy?

How would we find out about a man copulating with his wife while menstruating?

Edit: I'm still new to theonomy and I'm just looking to have questions answered. I haven't really decided yet, but I still have inclinations against it.

[Edited on 17-12-2004 by Authorised]
 
Originally posted by Authorised
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Christ here refers not to the moral law per se, but to the totality of the law and prophets as a literary document.

How do theonomists interpret John 8? Christ gives the adulterous woman a religious forgiveness, but it never says that he pursued her case any further, i.e. finding her husband to accuse her so that she could be stoned according the law of Moses.

How many Christians living today, much less atheists and pagans, would be/should be killed in a theonomy?

How would we find out about a man copulating with his wife while menstruating?

Edit: I'm still new to theonomy and I'm just looking to have questions answered. I haven't really decided yet, but I still have inclinations against it.

[Edited on 17-12-2004 by Authorised]

Quote from Matthew Poole's Commentary:


It is manifest, by his following discourse, that he principally spake of the moral law, though he also fulfilled the ceremonial law...Saith he, I am not come to destroy and put and end to the moral law.
 
What do you all mean though? I mean, how rigorously should what parts of the law be upheld? It was my impression (from Calvin!) that much of it was, well, to be thrown out the window, because it was meant to be a preparation for Christ, who has now come. So what parts of the law (other than the Commandments, obviously) are you referring to?
 
Originally posted by Cottonball
What do you all mean though? I mean, how rigorously should what parts of the law be upheld? It was my impression (from Calvin!) that much of it was, well, to be thrown out the window, because it was meant to be a preparation for Christ, who has now come. So what parts of the law (other than the Commandments, obviously) are you referring to?

That's why Calvin, the Westminster Confession and most sound historic Reformed theologians and creeds make a three-fold distinction in the law: moral, ceremonial and judicial.

Moral -- The Ten Commandments (ie., Decalogue) endures forever because it reflects the perfect holiness of God in a universally applicable way.

Ceremonial -- The sacrificial and carnal ordinances of worship in the OT were fulfilled in Christ and therefore abolished. We have been liberated from them. They pointed to Christ and were binding upon OT believers, but one cannot argue that these are included in Christ's statement in Matt. 5.17 without becoming a Judaizer.

Judicial -- As the Confession says, the legislative ordinances given by God through Moses to Israel as a body politick have expired along with that body politick. They were designed for a specific time and place which no longer exists. Insofar as the universally applicable moral law of God which undergirded those laws, the "general equity" is still binding. But to say that the judicial laws of Israel are still binding per se is to yoke us to the body politick of an expired state.

Bottom line: only the moral law of God is still binding today.
 
Aaron:

For what it's worth, here is my understanding of what you bring up in your post, and in relation to some of the things mentioned subsequently.

The text that says that not one jot or tittle sould pass from the law is wholly consistent with the NT theology that Christ came to satisfy all the law for us, so that we are no longer under law but under grace. That does not mean, and I don't think at all that Calvin says either, that any part of the law is just cast out. In fact, when Calvin speaks about the law being abolished, he is speaking about that the law being against us is abolished, as in Eph. 2, I believe. He upholds the teaching in Rom. that says that we were saved while we were yet sinners.

What you are referring to, Aaron, is a kind of dispensational view of the OT/NT relationship. But the OT is still just as much part of revelation in all its detail. On the other hand, it is not the opposite, that there is no distinction betweent the OT and the NT. The entire OT is recast in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Neither the law that is intrinsic in man, being created in the image of God into an ordered world, nor the legislated law added thousands of years later are meant to pass away without there first being a new constitution, so to speak. Christ is that new constitution, and in that new constitution do we find the true meaning of the laws that originally pointed to Him from the beginning.

So I believe you are right, Aaron, in pointing to John 8. We can either read it as a specific abrogation of law, in that promiscuity is no longer a sin for which stoning is the proper punishment, but is to be merely let go with a warning; or we can read it to show us how under the new constitution of Christ there is a fulfilling of the law on behalf of the sinner, so that all the ordinances against her have been abolished in Christ. Notice carefully that in no way does this latter interpretation cast aside even one small law or part of a law, but is wholly consistent with the keeping of all the law.

Now that is the law in relation to us personally. In relation to the state, it is not as though there is another moral standard to go by other than the perfect holiness of the Biblical standard. But we cannot apply, and should not apply, the OT laws without the context of the new constitution to the entire society. We can order the moral grounds and equity of any legislated law upon the the intrinsic laws of the created order as well as the legislated laws of the nation of God's people.

Legislated law is the application of the moral intrinsic law upon the situations in society, and is subject to change and even nullification based upon the equity of the application. (By intrinsic law, again, I mean the law that is founded upon God's character set within man at the ordering of creation. )This is not situational ethics, but is rather its opposite; in the sense that situational ethics allows for a change in ethic based upon the situtation, while the legislation of the society upon an unchanging moral ethic allows latitude in the particular application which suits the situation according to that unchanging moral code. We find that even God changes His own legislation from time to time to the particular situation, so that His glory and His righteousness remains perfectly intact, and that the law will not be misapplied. I think of the David and his men eating the showbread, and that they did not go through any kind of cleansing ceremony, of the daughters of Zelophehad, of Naaman and the widow of Zeraphath, which Jesus mentions, and such like. This, then, coincides completely with John 8, and Jesus sending the woman away with forgiveness. Also the man on the cot let down through the roof tiles. The idea would be the unbreakable moral code upon which legislated law rests.

So we can have a society which punishes a certain offence with very serious consequences to the offender, or we can have a society which punishes that same offence to a lesser degree. This would happen for two basic reasons: first would be that the second society has a lowered its moral standard; the second would be that the society has sustained its moral standard, but has taken into account the particular application to its societal order to maintain that standard. A lesser punishment does not necessarily mean a lowering of the standard.

The concept of theonomy, as I understand it, is a call back to the Biblical standard for law in this nation and others. There is no other standard; there is no other moral; there is no other just principle. Our societies are falling prey to a "new morality", in that they justify the most heinous of crimes, namely abortion, as well as the perversion due to godlessness known as homosexuality, among others. Surely the Biblical standard has gone from the law of the land. In our time, one would think, the basis of law should be harder, not softer, on certain offences, so as to be a deterrant, according to the second use of the law, to restrain evil. This, however, though it should never be done in absence of the third and first uses of the law, namely to call the unregenerate unto the goodness of God's grace, and the reflection of God's holiness, yet neither should the third and first applications of the law be without the second. For either one of these misapplications would constitute another standard than the Word of God. And that is the basic notion of theonomy, as I understand it.
 
This verse in Matthew about the law is what eventually wore me out from other schools of Christian thought as, after ten years, I never found anyone to give an adequate interpretation of it.

The implications of this one verse alone would demolish many dispensational and other frameworks if taken at face value.

I found it very interesting that Bahnsen's whole theonomic view hinges on this verse that for so long caused me to dissent from the charismatic churches that I attended (and was percieved of as being "legalistic").

The woman caught in adultery:

It seems to me that the greatest import of this section in John is what Paul touched on:

"The law teachers were trying to trap Jesus, then."
 
Christopher:
I'm not really sure what you mean by inadequate interpretations of the Matt. 5 verses. But I am supposing that there must be a heavy Dispensational influence in the things you struggled against. I think you are right in your assessment of the basis for Theonomy, but that's not universally agree upon.


As to John 8, the first thirteen verses or so have been questioned as to being authoritative. But I think we are limited in our choices in either direction. If the text is Scriptural, then it needs to intepreted by the ordinary rules, namely that the text must be taken in its plain reading, and within the context and consistency of the whole of Scripture. We cannot go supposing what we want to suppose. So the implications that we must take from it are to be natural implications. But if this section is not Scriptural, then it is akin to being apocryphal, and we must follow the rules concerning such writings.

Numerous passages have been attacked in the last few decades, calling things into question that the church have taken for granted; passages like Gen. 1-3, like 1 Cor. 11, 1 Tim. 2, etc. In effect, other "possible" interpretations have been raised which are technically within the bounds of the Confessions, or perhaps not, so as to provide an alternative rendition which conforms more to the present trains of thought; i.e., different views on creation, the dress and place of women in church, and allowing women into the offices of the church, respectively.

We could do the same thing with John 8. And we might think ourselves more free to do so, since it may or may not be Scripture. But I would suggest that we need to think through some things first. If this passage has been added it is more serious than just putting this text in brackets or italics, or in the footnotes. Someone has added to Scripture, and that is a serious offence. And that is part and parcel of the consideration first and foremost, regardless of what interpretation we put onto it. If we think that adding the text to the footnotes instead of in the text of Scripture settles anything we are gravely mistaken. We are talking about a serious thing here. And we need to handle it with respect. Perhaps we may call the use of this Scripture in regard to doctrine into question, but we may not then liberally use it to our own advantage. We certainly may not make of it what we will.

Now we may also call certain things about this passage into question without calling its inscriptruation into question. But again, this is not a licence to fill in the blanks we create with things that suit us. We have to abide by the plain meaning of the text. Calling that into question is only calling that into question, and can be no more. We can't add our own "what if's". Jesus said "Neither do I condemn you; go, and sin no more." That leaves us with very few options as to the reading of the entire text. The text, like so many others, is short on some detail, but long on doctrinal significance. Whether or not we call this passage or its details into question cannot effect that doctrinal significance within the context and consistency of the whole of Scripture.

What I am trying to say is that calling the text itself or its meaning into question limits us even further; it does not open the doors to other interpretations, but closes them even tighter. If we take this dilemma seriously, then that is the only route we can go.

So this text has two parts, namely how Jesus deals with the accusers and His attackers, and how Jesus deals with a woman for whom there is no plea but and admission of guilt. She could as easily have been found pregnant as with another man, or with the "proofs" of broken virginity. At any rate, she is on trial as much as Jesus, in the eyes of the accusers. And this seems to be the context.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
How do theonomists interpret John 8? Christ gives the adulterous woman a religious forgiveness, but it never says that he pursued her case any further, i.e. finding her husband to accuse her so that she could be stoned according the law of Moses.

First off, this passage in John 8 is disputed to have not even been included in the original mauscripts. Even if it is, it is evidence for theonomy.

(1) There is no proof that she committed adultary. Also, where was the man? If she was 'caught in the act' then the man would also have been there. The law teachers were trying to trap Jesus, then.

(2) Jesus knows everything. He knew she didn't commit adultary. So, he told then to cast the first stone. The law says that the accusers were to cast the first stone. But, it also gives the same penalty to a false accuser that the accused would have sufferd. He who is without sin should cast it (i.e., he who is telling the truth in this case should cast it).

(3) If Jesus did violate the law then he would have violated his own holy nature as well as keeping *all* the law for us. So, he couldn't have just said: "let's not obey the law in this instance."

(4) Some may say, "well Jesus knew everything so if she did commit adulatry (which is disputed) he should've stoned her." But, Jesus was not a witness and did not have the testimony of 2 or more witnesses according to the law. So, Jesus upheld it, even if she did.

First off, denial of John 8 is not even an option. I really don't care what a bunch of "scholars" think about ripping a section of the Bible out. They can have the fruit of that (Rev. 22).

Second, this section, neither proves nor disproves theonomy. How could it? Jesus lived under the "body politic, {to whom God} gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require." So even if we can show that Jesus' actions were in line with Theonomic principles, that proves nothing.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata
How do theonomists interpret John 8? Christ gives the adulterous woman a religious forgiveness, but it never says that he pursued her case any further, i.e. finding her husband to accuse her so that she could be stoned according the law of Moses.

First off, this passage in John 8 is disputed to have not even been included in the original mauscripts. Even if it is, it is evidence for theonomy.

(1) There is no proof that she committed adultary. Also, where was the man? If she was 'caught in the act' then the man would also have been there. The law teachers were trying to trap Jesus, then.

(2) Jesus knows everything. He knew she didn't commit adultary. So, he told then to cast the first stone. The law says that the accusers were to cast the first stone. But, it also gives the same penalty to a false accuser that the accused would have sufferd. He who is without sin should cast it (i.e., he who is telling the truth in this case should cast it).

(3) If Jesus did violate the law then he would have violated his own holy nature as well as keeping *all* the law for us. So, he couldn't have just said: "let's not obey the law in this instance."

(4) Some may say, "well Jesus knew everything so if she did commit adulatry (which is disputed) he should've stoned her." But, Jesus was not a witness and did not have the testimony of 2 or more witnesses according to the law. So, Jesus upheld it, even if she did.

First off, denial of John 8 is not even an option. I really don't care what a bunch of "scholars" think about ripping a section of the Bible out. They can have the fruit of that (Rev. 22).

Second, this section, neither proves nor disproves theonomy. How could it? Jesus lived under the "body politic, {to whom God} gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require." So even if we can show that Jesus' actions were in line with Theonomic principles, that proves nothing.

:amen:
 
I don't agree, Fred. What I agree with is that to take from Scripture is as bad as to add to it. The bottom line is that the question of John 8's authenticity is much more serious than the versions which bracket it, or italicize it, or footnote it, make of it. They make it look like the Bible has options. That was my point in bringing up the other issues that I noted. The people who advocate new interpretations of texts to coincide with modern notions only undermine Scirpture for themselves and others. It matters not a whit to them whether or not we all believe their version of the creation, or their views of the new roles of women in the church, as long as they have undermined the plain reading of Scirpture sufficiently to undermine the faith of the weak. Why else would they dare to clouden the plain reading of Scripture, to undermine an ages old rule of interpretation?

What I don't agree with is that it does have an impact on Theonomy, or at least some versions of it, in a very negative way. It does indeed prove the passing of one administration of law into a second and fulfilled administration of that same law. Not that it wasn't there all along, but that in Christ it was revealed as a New Covenant, or new constitution, as I put it above. Just punishment for the offender is not the only aim of the law; and in the NT dispensation Christ has indeed paid the penalty for real offences, so as to legitimize Him saying, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

It doesn't matter about the man; it is the personal guilt of the woman that the elders have taken up with Jesus. The fact that it was not both is of no consequence at all, for those details are sparse in the teaching narrative. The minimal point of the wording, "caught in adultery" is that she was absolutely proven guilty, whether or not it means that she was caught red-handed. The detail on that is as minimal as can be, but is strong on the address of personal guilt being forgiven and upon the false meting of justice the elders had in mind. They felt they had Moses on their side, but Jesus proved that to be wrong. Not only does He forgive sins, but He then heals; so He has the authority to forgive sins. And it was Him Moses was pointing to. So even at that time an appeal to the judicial code to stone someone caught in adultery, without considering the means of grace, was an abrogation of the OT judicial system.

So we are left with the fact that we cannot dismiss this section from Scripture; and that it speaks clearly of Jesus' messianic fulfilling of the law on behalf of sinners. There is very little room left for Theonomy, except as I outlined above, taking into account all three uses of the law. To suggest otherwise is to make another standard, for not even the OT was under the kind of theonomy the elders wished to impose. That, I believe, was Jesus' point in the Sermon on the Mount as well.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco


First off, denial of John 8 is not even an option. I really don't care what a bunch of "scholars" think about ripping a section of the Bible out. They can have the fruit of that (Rev. 22).

First off, Rev 22 only applies if it was indeed in the original text, so you beg the question. No ones talking about ripping it out, indeed, it supports theonomy so why would I want that! What they're saying, is, that according to our standards of textual criticism this portion is hotly disputed. When you support the Bible from textual criticism and then turn around on the same scholarship, it reeks of special pleading.

Actually, it is not special pleading or begging the question. I believe Rev 22 is a part of the text not because some 20th century textual critic says it is, but because it is a part of the text base for 1300+ years (just like John 8) and has the testimony of the Church (just like John 8). Since the Church tells me for about a millennia and a half that John 8 is a part of God's Providentially preserved Word, I really could care less what any textual critic says. Last time I looked, the acadamy was not God's chosen instrument for the reception and preservation of God's Word (cf. WCF 1.1 and 1.5, even in the context of 1.4). The Church has already sold out far too much to a field rife with pagans and idolaters, as if God would entrust His Word to them.

Having said all that, this is a result of my complete and utter disdain with modern Biblical textual criticism - if textual critics used the EXACT same standards on Cicero, they would get laughed out of the acadamy! It does not reflect a variance with Paul, since we are on the same page here, hovering at about 98%! ;)
 
Paul,

pox, not pax :lol: (Latin is so good!)

The problem is that the majority of manuscripts don't exclude that section of John 8. It is only the "best" of the old manuscripts that have it. Guess who chooses the "best" ? Yep, the textual critics. On what grounds? Age only. Again, if we had 10,000 copies of the Iliad over 1000 years of time, and they found one copy in central Turkey that had no Book XV, do we honestly think they would toss the whole book? Not on your life. Because oldest does not necessarily mean best.

This brings up the whole critical text v. majority text. I am a solid majority (Byzantine) text advocate. And the reason I can have so little respect for textual criticism as a seminary student is because I am a churchman first, and a seminary student second. As a churchman, I can't fathom why God would have His people believe in a wrong Bible for 1500+ years.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
pox pax pix... who cares about a dead language anyway:bigsmile:


Fred, early fathers and early manuscripts and early OT representatives do not have it. So, how's the Church been mislead for 1500 years? Also, you know very well that there are varient readings and some minor errors due to copying and translation. You know this. So, has God mislead us for over 1500 years?


Your situation does not tell the whole story. It's not as if I can point to one obscure fragment which omits John 8. There are ALOT. Yeah, maybe you have more but I don't just have 1 or 2 on my side. So, I have numbers AND manuscripts which are closer to the originals in time.

Paul,

"OT representatives" ?? for an NT passage?

How many manuscripts are we talking about? I think the numbers are something like 10 to 10,000. And we are not talking about a verse or a phrase, or a variant word reading. We have that all the time and we can deal with that. We are talking about the removal of an entire pericope, a large chunk of Scripture. And we are talking about the Church treating it as Scripture for 1500+ years. So we are only left with the option that if it is not Scripture, the Holy Spirit saw fit to have His people misled and conscience bound to a text that was not Scripture from at least the Vulgate until the late 19th century. And then the Spirit saw fit to correct that error through the work of heathens and unbelievers. No thanks.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
it comes down to accepting the many or the age.

And let's not forget the witness of the Church for more than a millennia. A witness that is vastly fuller than the Church Father age.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
let's not forget that many good Christian scholars are textual critics. It's not like all the christians in the world don't do textual criticism.

Also, what doctrines or principles are found in John 8 that the Spirit has mislead people on? What damage to the Christian faith would happen if it wasn't in there?

Also, only the autographs are inspired.

Let's not forget that textual criticism was invented by non-Christians.

If John 8 is not Scripture, than people had fallible and errant Bibles for all this time.

I guess we don't have real Bibles anymore. (By the way, Bahnsen's piece on the limitations of inspiration to solely the autographs was the weakest thing I have ever read by him.
 
Originally posted by turmeric
Pax, you guys! I'm starting to smell smoke!

Nah, it's just boring for us to go over the 98.5%. It's like the Squirrels in the cartoons:

"After you old boy."
"No, no, I simply must go after you"
 
Not genetic fallacy but intention: textual criticism was brought to the Scriptures in an effort to discredit them.

Uhh, the Confession? I don't think so:

WCF 1:8 The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical

So your Bible isn't a real Bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top