Conditional immortality – the hell which ends
Historically, orthodox Bible teachers have taught with an impressive unanimity that hell is a place of unending, conscious punishment. Since the 20th century there has been a major challenge to this teaching amongst evangelicals. What do the teachers of a temporary hell say, and how should we weigh up their arguments?
Showing posts with label Last Things. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Last Things. Show all posts
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Conditional immortality - the hell which ends
I've added a new written article to my website:
Friday, 12 March 2010
Longing for the resurrection
Food for thought... during break-time at Bible college yesterday, there was some discussion of the future state and the resurrection.
One of the people there said that he was longing for the resurrection body.
One of my fellow-teachers remarked that that was the first time he had ever heard someone reasonably young voice that desire. Why do you think that is?
One of the people there said that he was longing for the resurrection body.
One of my fellow-teachers remarked that that was the first time he had ever heard someone reasonably young voice that desire. Why do you think that is?
Friday, 15 January 2010
Doomsday Fever
In the Daily Mail this week, Christopher Booker has an article with some insightful observations on the modern phenomena of mass panic. It is quite interesting to survey a list such as this:
What's also remarkable about that list above is that they've all come up in quite a small amount of time - within the last decade or two. Have I missed any? That's an awful lot of doom - amazing we've managed to avoid not just one or two of them, but the whole lot!
Meanwhile, all kinds of real disasters that have decimated the West - the massive rise in family breakdown, sexualisation of childhood, pornification of mainstream media, progressive mortgaging of our children's futures to pay for present over-spending, the collapse of community life, the plummeting standards of state education - have all gone on at a pace observed often with just a sad resignation or futile grumbling. None of these though has been an immanent doomsday scenario, but rather the slow but sure undermining of foundations one brick at a time.
I remember when a child watching the news. I didn't really understand the disease of HIV; but it seemed pretty certain from the tombstone graphic and the grave tones that accompanied every story, that pretty much most of the world would be dead of it by the time I was an adult. HIV is a significant problem in my adopted country of Kenya; but it's not apocalyptic doom, and it's an extremely easy disease to avoid. That's why it's a significant problem in Kenya - sadly adultery and fornication aren't things that a good number of people people have sufficient desire to avoid.
My point though is not just this armchair commentary. It's to ask why the Western public and media evidently feel such a deep resonance for scenarios of immanent apocalyptic doom?
I think that a Christian answer to this question would need to mention at least two key factors. We need to go a lot deeper than just the simplistic "people are sheep, not as clever as me" kind of response. I haven't particularly noticed that the communities who pride themselves on being rationalists and skeptics have been particularly immune to these things - in fact, it seems to have been as our governments have gone more secular and left-ward that these things have increased.
At the root of it (this is the first key) is man's alienation from God. Try as we might - iPhones, career paths, the X-Factor, fantastic hobbies and adventures etc. - nothing can stub out the basic sense of unease which is in every human being. The fear of death, the Bible says, holds all of mankind in bondage - though it manifests itself in very different ways. Man cannot escape the basic sense that all is not very well - and in fact that something very massive is quite wrong. But because until he is born again he has no will or desire to confront the basic problem - personal sin - or to seek out the God who is his true need, the real solution to this sense cannot be found. And so it must manifest itself elsewhere in life. Man has a residual knowledge that something is very wrong - but if he won't admit what it really is, this knowledge will have to poison his rationality in all kinds of other areas instead. If you won't fear God, you'll have to fear an awful lot of other things.
The other key factor in my opinion more specifically that there is a residual cultural awareness of sudden apocalyptic doom. This is because in fact sudden and global apocalyptic doom is a real phenomena. It's just that it's not going to come from swine flu - it's going to come when God suddenly intervenes to judge the world on the Last Day. This event was made known to man from the very moment he fell. In history, its prime warning was in Noah's Flood. The Bible itself (2 Peter 3) anticipates men scoffing and trying as much as they can to forget this immense event - but it cannot be done.
Once, God destroyed the whole world in a sudden deluge that came with no announcement other than the ignored and rejected preaching of godly Noah. Peter tells us that the same will be so on the day that Jesus is revealed in fire. Sudden global doom will always be a belief that keeps surfacing in the culture. Rejecting Christianity, the West is doomed to worry itself silly over a succession of non-dooms (serious as each danger might be in its own right).
In other words, man does not have a choice - he must, somewhere in his belief system, believe in apocalyptic world-wide doom. The only choice is which he's going to believe in - the real thing, or an endless succession of impostors. It's wired into our make-up and into our history - it's real. We can't get away from it because we can't get away from ourselves. Let he who has ears to hear, hear!
- HIV
- BSE / CSV ("mad cow disease")
- The Y2K / "Millennium" bug
- The salmonella scare
- SARS / bird flu
- Carcinogens in food
- Asbestos poisoning
- DDT
- This last year - swine flu
What's also remarkable about that list above is that they've all come up in quite a small amount of time - within the last decade or two. Have I missed any? That's an awful lot of doom - amazing we've managed to avoid not just one or two of them, but the whole lot!
Meanwhile, all kinds of real disasters that have decimated the West - the massive rise in family breakdown, sexualisation of childhood, pornification of mainstream media, progressive mortgaging of our children's futures to pay for present over-spending, the collapse of community life, the plummeting standards of state education - have all gone on at a pace observed often with just a sad resignation or futile grumbling. None of these though has been an immanent doomsday scenario, but rather the slow but sure undermining of foundations one brick at a time.
I remember when a child watching the news. I didn't really understand the disease of HIV; but it seemed pretty certain from the tombstone graphic and the grave tones that accompanied every story, that pretty much most of the world would be dead of it by the time I was an adult. HIV is a significant problem in my adopted country of Kenya; but it's not apocalyptic doom, and it's an extremely easy disease to avoid. That's why it's a significant problem in Kenya - sadly adultery and fornication aren't things that a good number of people people have sufficient desire to avoid.
My point though is not just this armchair commentary. It's to ask why the Western public and media evidently feel such a deep resonance for scenarios of immanent apocalyptic doom?
I think that a Christian answer to this question would need to mention at least two key factors. We need to go a lot deeper than just the simplistic "people are sheep, not as clever as me" kind of response. I haven't particularly noticed that the communities who pride themselves on being rationalists and skeptics have been particularly immune to these things - in fact, it seems to have been as our governments have gone more secular and left-ward that these things have increased.
At the root of it (this is the first key) is man's alienation from God. Try as we might - iPhones, career paths, the X-Factor, fantastic hobbies and adventures etc. - nothing can stub out the basic sense of unease which is in every human being. The fear of death, the Bible says, holds all of mankind in bondage - though it manifests itself in very different ways. Man cannot escape the basic sense that all is not very well - and in fact that something very massive is quite wrong. But because until he is born again he has no will or desire to confront the basic problem - personal sin - or to seek out the God who is his true need, the real solution to this sense cannot be found. And so it must manifest itself elsewhere in life. Man has a residual knowledge that something is very wrong - but if he won't admit what it really is, this knowledge will have to poison his rationality in all kinds of other areas instead. If you won't fear God, you'll have to fear an awful lot of other things.
The other key factor in my opinion more specifically that there is a residual cultural awareness of sudden apocalyptic doom. This is because in fact sudden and global apocalyptic doom is a real phenomena. It's just that it's not going to come from swine flu - it's going to come when God suddenly intervenes to judge the world on the Last Day. This event was made known to man from the very moment he fell. In history, its prime warning was in Noah's Flood. The Bible itself (2 Peter 3) anticipates men scoffing and trying as much as they can to forget this immense event - but it cannot be done.
Once, God destroyed the whole world in a sudden deluge that came with no announcement other than the ignored and rejected preaching of godly Noah. Peter tells us that the same will be so on the day that Jesus is revealed in fire. Sudden global doom will always be a belief that keeps surfacing in the culture. Rejecting Christianity, the West is doomed to worry itself silly over a succession of non-dooms (serious as each danger might be in its own right).
In other words, man does not have a choice - he must, somewhere in his belief system, believe in apocalyptic world-wide doom. The only choice is which he's going to believe in - the real thing, or an endless succession of impostors. It's wired into our make-up and into our history - it's real. We can't get away from it because we can't get away from ourselves. Let he who has ears to hear, hear!
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Romans chapter 11 : Is God through with the Jews?
I am presently teaching the book of Romans at a Bible college in the Rift Valley in Kenya. This is the fifth time I've taught the book of Romans. What an incredible book! What great good news.
The first two times, I taught the view, which I think is the majority view amongst evangelical Christians, that Romans 11 teaches a future revival amongst the Jews. This scheme interprets what Paul says in Romans 11 in terms of distinct historical events (and in particular an "end-time" event). It goes like this:
Since then, I've believed and taught the alternative view, which I think is more accurate to the passage and to Scripture as a whole: that Romans 11 describes the salvation of the remnant amongst the Jews, from Paul's time and downwards. In other words, what Paul says in Romans 11 is about an ongoing historical process. This then goes like this:
My reasons for changing their mind have as much to do with harmonising Romans 11 with the rest of Scripture as with the study of Romans 11 itself. I think that both views can have a very plausible prima facie case made from Romans 11, though I think ultimately the second view has the stronger case both within and without. I tried to explain a little here as to why I think the context in Romans 9-11 as a whole leads to this conclusion. The expositions I've read of the "end-time historical event" view contradict what Paul has said about the identity of the authentic, God-favoured Israel in chapter 9. They end up saying that ethnic Israel really is special after all and that's why God will send a great awakening amongst them at last, after Paul's laboured the point again and again (as in the rest of the New Testament) to explain the precise opposite.
But within Romans 11 itself, I think that the "end-time historical event" view contains a fundamental self-contradiction. It rests upon when this event is supposed to happen, as described in verse 25:
Some teachers answer this objection by saying that the greater blessing which comes to the world is the resurrection - the return of Christ is then immediately ushered in. They say that this is in verse 15 - "life from the dead". In other words, "life from the dead" is a code phrase, referring to the resurrection. But verse 15 begins with the word "for"; it explains verse 14. In other words, it's something that Paul himself hoped to achieve through seeing Jews saved in his own day. Moreover, there is nowhere else in Scripture where Paul uses a "code phrase" for the resurrection, or this phrase in particular. This seems to be using something dark and hidden as the key to control the interpretation of the whole passage, which isn't the right way to do Bible interpretation. Paul never mentions the resurrection elsewhere in the passage. And again, in particular, from verse 12, it is riches "for the Gentiles" that Paul anticipates - it is the Gentiles who receive this "life from the dead". But the resurrection is an event for both Jews and Gentiles, not Gentiles specifically.
To my mind these ad hoc modifications which have to be brought in to save the scheme after you've observed the fundamental contradiction in it, are harder to swallow than the alternative interpretation. As I've already said, I think the alternative interpretation dovetails much more closely with what is outside Romans 11. Hence I don't believe that this historical sequence of a last-days Jewish revival is taught in Scripture.
The first two times, I taught the view, which I think is the majority view amongst evangelical Christians, that Romans 11 teaches a future revival amongst the Jews. This scheme interprets what Paul says in Romans 11 in terms of distinct historical events (and in particular an "end-time" event). It goes like this:
- Paul's day: Jews hardened. Salvation comes to Gentiles.
- From Paul's day until the end of the present age: Salvation continues to come to the Gentiles.
- Right at the end of the present age: A huge awakening amongst the Jews, which then brings immense blessing to the whole world.
Since then, I've believed and taught the alternative view, which I think is more accurate to the passage and to Scripture as a whole: that Romans 11 describes the salvation of the remnant amongst the Jews, from Paul's time and downwards. In other words, what Paul says in Romans 11 is about an ongoing historical process. This then goes like this:
- Paul's day: Jews hardened. Salvation comes to Gentiles. A remnant of chosen Jews are stirred up to jealousy, and come to faith, bringing immense blessing to the world (Paul being one such).
- From Paul's day until the end of the present age: A remnant of chosen Jews are stirred up to jealousy, and come to faith, bringing immense blessing to the world.
- Right at the end of the present age: This question is not directly addressed by Romans 11, and different ideas can be harmonised with it.
My reasons for changing their mind have as much to do with harmonising Romans 11 with the rest of Scripture as with the study of Romans 11 itself. I think that both views can have a very plausible prima facie case made from Romans 11, though I think ultimately the second view has the stronger case both within and without. I tried to explain a little here as to why I think the context in Romans 9-11 as a whole leads to this conclusion. The expositions I've read of the "end-time historical event" view contradict what Paul has said about the identity of the authentic, God-favoured Israel in chapter 9. They end up saying that ethnic Israel really is special after all and that's why God will send a great awakening amongst them at last, after Paul's laboured the point again and again (as in the rest of the New Testament) to explain the precise opposite.
But within Romans 11 itself, I think that the "end-time historical event" view contains a fundamental self-contradiction. It rests upon when this event is supposed to happen, as described in verse 25:
" ... hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."So under this scheme, we have this calendar:
- Paul's day: Majority unbelieving, remnant saved.
- Since then until the end: The "times of the Gentiles", gospel advances amongst nations, whilst Jews mostly remain hardened in unbelief.
- When the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, then there's a great Jewish awakening.
- Then this brings brings even greater blessing to the Gentiles and "riches for the world", verse 12. Their fall brought riches - how much more their restoration! The awakening spreads from Jews to the nations.
Some teachers answer this objection by saying that the greater blessing which comes to the world is the resurrection - the return of Christ is then immediately ushered in. They say that this is in verse 15 - "life from the dead". In other words, "life from the dead" is a code phrase, referring to the resurrection. But verse 15 begins with the word "for"; it explains verse 14. In other words, it's something that Paul himself hoped to achieve through seeing Jews saved in his own day. Moreover, there is nowhere else in Scripture where Paul uses a "code phrase" for the resurrection, or this phrase in particular. This seems to be using something dark and hidden as the key to control the interpretation of the whole passage, which isn't the right way to do Bible interpretation. Paul never mentions the resurrection elsewhere in the passage. And again, in particular, from verse 12, it is riches "for the Gentiles" that Paul anticipates - it is the Gentiles who receive this "life from the dead". But the resurrection is an event for both Jews and Gentiles, not Gentiles specifically.
To my mind these ad hoc modifications which have to be brought in to save the scheme after you've observed the fundamental contradiction in it, are harder to swallow than the alternative interpretation. As I've already said, I think the alternative interpretation dovetails much more closely with what is outside Romans 11. Hence I don't believe that this historical sequence of a last-days Jewish revival is taught in Scripture.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Is the end nigh?
In common with all of orthodox Christianity, I affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ will return in glory, visibly and bodily, to judge the world at the end of the present age. Some of my brethren, though, go a lot further than this, and teach that the "signs of the times" show that that coming is practically upon us now - in other words, that the approximately 2000 years of the church age is basically much the running of the church age from its beginning to its end.
That teaching, though (that the coming is probably/certainly in our generation), has been around for quite a long time. Several generations in fact! It's always had its adherents at different times since Christ first went into heaven. But it has especially flourished and become quite mainstream in Western Christendom, and then been exported from there to the world in the missionary movement, since the 1830s. Which is more than one generation away. (It gained a good hold from that time because of firstly the decline of Reformational Christianity, and because of the rise of liberalism eroding "Christendom", which was too closely identified with God's kingdom in the world).
The fact that this teaching has succeeded for so long ought to give its proponents pause for thought. It's too easy simple to assure oneself that one has at last arrived at an age of superior wisdom, and whilst all the people who lived before were deluded and didn't realise that WE were the people and THIS was the hour, we have now got it. That's a classic modernist error (paralleled in the secular world by the belief that "contemporary scientists have said" is synonymous with "the following is definite truth" - we laugh at those foolish scientists of previous generations who spoke in exactly the same way, but rarely pause to wonder what those of future years might think about us). Isn't it time to wake up? Communism was supposed the fulfilment of passages of Revelation presaging Armageddon... until 1989, when it collapsed and we didn't hear much about that theory again. The rise of the EU was supposedly the manifestation of a new Holy Roman Empire... until the secularist wing started defeating to the Catholic wing in direction so consistently it wasn't funny any more. Now all the would-be prophets claim that the rise of militant Islam is right there on the pages of the prophets... but if they sold us a dud the first time, shouldn't we ask some more critical questions the second time? Is the purpose of prophetic revelation really to give us a road map of the issues facing 20th and 21st century Western powers? (Hint: No.)
The problem, in my opinion, though is that the very traits which lead people into readily accepting this idea also manifest themselves to insulate them against questioning it. Most moderns are fantastically ignorant of history, so don't know that this doctrine has been around so long. We think that the decade we draw breath in is uniquely significant above all others. In the same way, we think that the part of the world we live in is uniquely significant above all others. The collapse of Western civilisation becomes the collapse of the world, because the West - well, if it's not the world, then it's as good as. The rest's just a tin-pot junkyard of darkness and insignificance! Ha! Well, no. That's not in the Bible either. The British and/or Americans really aren't the lost 10 tribes of Israel or something equally eccentric. Not even the Royal Family.
The West may have led world Christianity for a long time, but whether it does or not in the future has no theological significance. Today, the light is dawning in many parts of the world in a way that it never has before. Those parts of the world may not be on your televisions or in your newspapers; the kingdom doesn't work that way. The "it's the final rebellion against the rule of Christ!" teaching doesn't provide such a neat fit if you live where the initial, preliminary dawning of the light of Christ is still taking place. Christ is still being preached in places where he hadn't as yet been scarcely named. The West may be jumping off a cliff; large parts of the rest of the world though are still in the darkness the West was in before it ever received the blessings of the gospel. "The end is nigh" teaching is a manifestation of the unfortunate tendency of Christians to remain shackled by their cultural assumptions instead of developing a truly Biblical view of the world.
That teaching, though (that the coming is probably/certainly in our generation), has been around for quite a long time. Several generations in fact! It's always had its adherents at different times since Christ first went into heaven. But it has especially flourished and become quite mainstream in Western Christendom, and then been exported from there to the world in the missionary movement, since the 1830s. Which is more than one generation away. (It gained a good hold from that time because of firstly the decline of Reformational Christianity, and because of the rise of liberalism eroding "Christendom", which was too closely identified with God's kingdom in the world).
The fact that this teaching has succeeded for so long ought to give its proponents pause for thought. It's too easy simple to assure oneself that one has at last arrived at an age of superior wisdom, and whilst all the people who lived before were deluded and didn't realise that WE were the people and THIS was the hour, we have now got it. That's a classic modernist error (paralleled in the secular world by the belief that "contemporary scientists have said" is synonymous with "the following is definite truth" - we laugh at those foolish scientists of previous generations who spoke in exactly the same way, but rarely pause to wonder what those of future years might think about us). Isn't it time to wake up? Communism was supposed the fulfilment of passages of Revelation presaging Armageddon... until 1989, when it collapsed and we didn't hear much about that theory again. The rise of the EU was supposedly the manifestation of a new Holy Roman Empire... until the secularist wing started defeating to the Catholic wing in direction so consistently it wasn't funny any more. Now all the would-be prophets claim that the rise of militant Islam is right there on the pages of the prophets... but if they sold us a dud the first time, shouldn't we ask some more critical questions the second time? Is the purpose of prophetic revelation really to give us a road map of the issues facing 20th and 21st century Western powers? (Hint: No.)
The problem, in my opinion, though is that the very traits which lead people into readily accepting this idea also manifest themselves to insulate them against questioning it. Most moderns are fantastically ignorant of history, so don't know that this doctrine has been around so long. We think that the decade we draw breath in is uniquely significant above all others. In the same way, we think that the part of the world we live in is uniquely significant above all others. The collapse of Western civilisation becomes the collapse of the world, because the West - well, if it's not the world, then it's as good as. The rest's just a tin-pot junkyard of darkness and insignificance! Ha! Well, no. That's not in the Bible either. The British and/or Americans really aren't the lost 10 tribes of Israel or something equally eccentric. Not even the Royal Family.
The West may have led world Christianity for a long time, but whether it does or not in the future has no theological significance. Today, the light is dawning in many parts of the world in a way that it never has before. Those parts of the world may not be on your televisions or in your newspapers; the kingdom doesn't work that way. The "it's the final rebellion against the rule of Christ!" teaching doesn't provide such a neat fit if you live where the initial, preliminary dawning of the light of Christ is still taking place. Christ is still being preached in places where he hadn't as yet been scarcely named. The West may be jumping off a cliff; large parts of the rest of the world though are still in the darkness the West was in before it ever received the blessings of the gospel. "The end is nigh" teaching is a manifestation of the unfortunate tendency of Christians to remain shackled by their cultural assumptions instead of developing a truly Biblical view of the world.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Will there be a future restoration of Israel?
Will there be a future restoration of national Israel, according to the Bible? That is, does the Bible teach that at some point before the second coming, there will be a national revival of the Jews, bringing them into the church?
My answer is no. I don't believe that Romans 11 and/or Zechariah 14 teach this. Rather I believe that Romans 9, coming as part of the argument leading up to Romans 11, lays down teachings which make this understanding of Romans 11 impossible and contradictory to what has gone before.
In Romans 9, Paul explains a crucial part of the accurate hermeneutic for interpreting God's dealings with Israel in the Old Testament. That is, he tells us that there has always been two Israels - even from the days of Abraham. Even from the birth of Isaac, God always distinguished between this Israel and that Israel. There has always been an Israel after the flesh (Esau, Ishmael) who were only ever a temporary part of God's plan - and there has always been an inner Israel - an Israel within Israel. That Israel is the true Israel, to whom the promises were made. This is not a new teaching or method of God's dealings that comes in with the church - it's what God was always doing.
Miss that, and you'll miss a lot. For one thing, miss that, and you'll miss Romans chapter 11. The teaching that goes to Romans 11 and starts saying, "but of course, national Israel remains special to God, and he will in future bring them back into the fulness of his promises" is one that misses the point that Paul's just been spelling out. Paul's just told us that when he speaks of Israel according to the promises, he doesn't mean national Israel - he means the elect "Israel within Israel" - these are the ones to whom the promises are truly made. He means the believing remnant - to them God will be faithful. There is and always will be such a remnant; Paul himself was one of them. The engrafting of "Israel" back into the olive tree is what happens as this elect remnant come to faith - a process going on in Paul's day (which is why he speaks about his day) and continuing down through history. It is not an "end time event", but an ongoing process.
Paul gives us the key to interpreting the Old Testament Scriptures. When we read in Zechariah 14 of the Jews looking on the one whom they have pierced, and mourning in repentance, we should use Romans 9 to tell us what that means. It is not a prophecy of a future event before the second coming. It is a prophecy of those elect Jews, beginning with the thousands converted on the day of Pentecost, who have and continue to embrace their true Messiah. When prophecy speaks of Israel, we must let the apostles tell us who is meant, and not impose another meaning.
My answer is no. I don't believe that Romans 11 and/or Zechariah 14 teach this. Rather I believe that Romans 9, coming as part of the argument leading up to Romans 11, lays down teachings which make this understanding of Romans 11 impossible and contradictory to what has gone before.
In Romans 9, Paul explains a crucial part of the accurate hermeneutic for interpreting God's dealings with Israel in the Old Testament. That is, he tells us that there has always been two Israels - even from the days of Abraham. Even from the birth of Isaac, God always distinguished between this Israel and that Israel. There has always been an Israel after the flesh (Esau, Ishmael) who were only ever a temporary part of God's plan - and there has always been an inner Israel - an Israel within Israel. That Israel is the true Israel, to whom the promises were made. This is not a new teaching or method of God's dealings that comes in with the church - it's what God was always doing.
Miss that, and you'll miss a lot. For one thing, miss that, and you'll miss Romans chapter 11. The teaching that goes to Romans 11 and starts saying, "but of course, national Israel remains special to God, and he will in future bring them back into the fulness of his promises" is one that misses the point that Paul's just been spelling out. Paul's just told us that when he speaks of Israel according to the promises, he doesn't mean national Israel - he means the elect "Israel within Israel" - these are the ones to whom the promises are truly made. He means the believing remnant - to them God will be faithful. There is and always will be such a remnant; Paul himself was one of them. The engrafting of "Israel" back into the olive tree is what happens as this elect remnant come to faith - a process going on in Paul's day (which is why he speaks about his day) and continuing down through history. It is not an "end time event", but an ongoing process.
Paul gives us the key to interpreting the Old Testament Scriptures. When we read in Zechariah 14 of the Jews looking on the one whom they have pierced, and mourning in repentance, we should use Romans 9 to tell us what that means. It is not a prophecy of a future event before the second coming. It is a prophecy of those elect Jews, beginning with the thousands converted on the day of Pentecost, who have and continue to embrace their true Messiah. When prophecy speaks of Israel, we must let the apostles tell us who is meant, and not impose another meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
