Larry Hunt's Bible Commentary


    SWEET RIVER FOOL - Alcoholic, homeless, and alone, Snody despaired of life until a seemingly chance encounter with Saint Francis of Assisi led him to the joys of Christ and the redemption of his soul…

  • THE GLORY OF KINGS - A proposal for why God will always be the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

  • ENOCH WALKED WITH GOD - Enoch had a beautiful soul and walked with God in many ways. This book invites children to imagine what some of those ways might have been while presenting them with a wonderful model for their own lives.

  • Advertisements
  • Stats

    • 12,606 visits since Nov 2009
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 453 other followers

Romans 7

Chapter 7

Before I begin, I want to clarify what I mean by certain terms I will be using in the rest of this section:

non-physical being: that part of our being that is distinct from our bodies.[1]

will: that part of our non-physical being that makes decisions.[2]

body: That part of our being that is physical.

-brain:  that part of the body whose nature is to think.

v. 14: I believe Paul’s use of the present tense here is a rhetorical device rather than a sign that he was experiencing the dilemma of vs. 14-25 at the time he was writing.[3] I believe this because in v. 24 he asks “Who will [future tense] rescue me from this body of death?”  Paul is already a Christian when he writes this, and he says in 8:3 that Christ “has set [past tense] you [and him] free from the law of sin and death,” so Christ has already rescued him from “this body of death,” i.e. from the dilemma he describes in vs. 14-25.  Therefore, I think he spoke in the present tense simply to build dramatic tension that climaxes with the question “Who will rescue me from this body of death?”

Paul speaks of several laws:

1) A law that requires evil to be close at hand when Paul wants to do good (v. 21). This law seems similar to a law of nature, like the Law of Gravity, in that it is a mechanical law that God has bound us all to live with.  He has put the universe together in such a way that whenever someone wants to do good, he or she also has the real option of doing (and temptation to do) evil.  This has been the case since the beginning, both before the Fall and afterward.[4]

2) The law of God (v. 25): This law commands us to do good.  Paul usually refers to it as simply “the law.”  It probably has immediate reference to the law of Moses but refers ultimately to any moral rules which God wants us to obey, whether those rules given to Israel through Moses or those given to the Gentiles through their consciences (2:13-16).  Paul’s “law of my mind” (7:23) seems to be synonymous with the law of God.  By the law of his mind, Paul means the law that his mind loves, i.e., the law of God.  This law, although good and beautiful, is not capable of freeing us from the law of sin because it depends on the strength of our wills: if we could obey its commands, it would save us, but we cannot because we are weakened by the flesh, our body’s selfish desires (8:3).

3) The law of sin (v. 25):  Also called the law of sin and of death (8:2), this law commands us to do evil.  In describing the law of sin, Paul personifies sin itself, treating it like a separate entity with a will of its own.  As such, it is the antithesis of God.  After the Fall in Eden, and before Christ, the law of sin (and death) had dominion over our entire being, both physical and non-physical.  Its dominion over our bodies (physical being) manifested itself by corrupting and ultimately killing our bodies.  Its dominion over our non-physical being manifested itself by corrupting and ultimately killing our non-physical being.[5]

When Paul says that sin dwells within him and is responsible for the evil choices that he makes (7:17) he is speaking metaphorically.  Only if we are demon possessed can a separate, evil will be said to live in us literally, and even then, Sin itself would not be in us literally, just a sinful creature.  One verse later, Paul identifies this sin that dwells within him as the “flesh” (7:18).  His use of the term “flesh,” however, is literal and refers to the physical elements of our being: the organs of the body (including the brain), with all their inherent natures.  These inherent natures are from God and are good when considered in themselves, but they become sin dwelling within us when they lead us to choose evil.  For instance, my stomach, by its nature, grows hungry and desires food.  This nature is good,  but it becomes “sin that dwells within me” when the nature of the stomach leads me to eat something in a way or at a time that is inappropriate.  Consider the example of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness.  After he had fasted for forty days, he was hungry.  His stomach made him feel the desire to eat, but under those circumstance this was an evil desire; therefore, his will asserted its authority over the stomach and did not allow it any food.  Thus, he did not sin, but sin could be said to live even within Christ (according to Paul’s use of the phrase in this chapter) because Christ had a body that felt desires according to its nature, regardless of whether those desires were appropriate at the moment or not.  The only difference between Christ and us is that Christ’s will was strong enough on every occasion to master those desires.

So why are our wills not strong enough as well?  I do not know, but I suspect one thing in particular is at the bottom of our failure:  We lack wisdom, concrete wisdom.[6] We do not fully realize the consequences of sin when we sin.  In many cases, we do have enough abstract wisdom to know that we are sinning when we sin; we even understand on some level that sin is ugly, and that “the wages of sin are death,” but, when we are tempted, we do not truly understand the nature of the sin before us.  If we did, I suspect that we would never willfully sin.  Consider Judas, for instance.  He had enough abstract wisdom to know that betraying Christ was evil, but this wisdom was not enough to deter him from actually doing it.  After he actually betrayed Christ, however, he acquired a new level of wisdom: concrete wisdom.  Metaphorically, he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and saw with new eyes.  I honestly believe that he would not have betrayed Christ in the first place if he had understood with this new level of wisdom  beforehand.  The only difference between the Judas who betrays Christ and the Judas who kills himself in despair afterwards is the acquisition of this new wisdom.  In the end, he understood the shameful, repulsive nature of the sin of betraying Christ.[7] It must have been thus with Adam and Eve after they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, and it is the same with us whenever we feel regret after willfully sinning.  We are not wise enough on our own, and will never be in this life, to be sinless.  Even when we learn such lessons as Judas must have learned after betraying Christ, we quite frequently forget them with time and become susceptible to the same sin again, assuming that we survive the effects of the lesson long enough to forget it.[8] Lack of wisdom is the barrier we cannot get past on our own.  Only Christ can “rescue us from this body of death,” by cleansing us of sin and helping us to choose good over evil.

4) The law of the Spirit of life in Christ (8:2-3):  This law says that if we have faith in Christ, he will save both our non-physical being and our body.  The law of the Spirit of life in Christ has accomplished what the law of God could not.  The law of God depended on our being able, by the strength of our own wills, to choose good over evil perfectly, but our wills are as incapable of doing this as they are of making our bodies live forever.  By contrast, The law of the Spirit of life in Christ succeeds because it does not depend on the strength of our wills.  It depends upon the strength of Christ’s will, and his will was strong enough to live a sinless life, which now enables him to give eternal life to our body and our non-physical being.  He does this in two ways.

Future Life: He gives life to our body through the future resurrection.  Similarly, he gives future life to our non-physical being in that he will not annihilate our non-physical being (which survives the first death of the body) on Judgment Day.[9]

Present Life:  Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, we are doomed to experience death, both the non-physical dying that Paul describes in 7:14-25 as well as the physical death of the body.  Nevertheless, Christ gives us life in the present by helping us not to sin, thus reducing the suffering we must experience through death.[10]

I believe Christ helps us to love God and do good as humans have never been helped before.  One may set one’s mind on what the Spirit desires before and after becoming a Christian, but, according to Paul, when one does this after becoming a Christian, one experiences a significant difference.  Perhaps one way Christ helps us is by removing specific[11] temptations.  In the brief example of prayer he gives in The Lord’s Prayer, Christ says, “Lead us not into temptation,” thus implying that, on the short list of requests we make to God, this request should be included and will be granted. I am reminded of the story of Saint Francis’s struggle with a particular sin for a couple of years.  He petitioned God for help all that time, and, finally, God gave him relief from it.  A similar story is told of St. Guthlac; in his case, God gave him an angel to defend him from sin. Whether God gives us an angel or not, whatever help we receive as a result of The law of the Spirit of life in Christ will be supernatural because our own natures alone are not sufficient.  Another supernatural way he may help us is by lessening the appeal of sin when we are tempted.  Perhaps he does this by giving us supernatural wisdom (which, by definition is not ours by nature), thus strengthening our will.  Since all things are possible with God, it may be possible to have something like the concrete knowledge that Judas had, and yet not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as he did.[12]

There are two things at war with each other in every person who wants to choose good over evil:[13]

1) The will of the person

wars with

2) The body of the person (a.k.a. the flesh, the sinful nature)

As I said earlier, the body is not evil by nature.  Considered in and of itself, its nature is good, as are the natures of each of its organs, but part of their nature is to be selfish.  The body is only concerned with its own desires, not those of God or any creature: Christ’s stomach wanted food when he was fasting, regardless of whether or not eating at that moment was good or evil.  Thus, Paul calls the body “the sinful nature,” but this term only applies in a scenario wherein the will wants to choose good while the body “wants” to choose evil.  When Christ’s will fought with his body, his will won.  His disciples, however, often lost (and lose) the fight.  Consider his disciples on the night of his betrayal.

When the disciples were in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ told them to stay awake and pray so that they would not be tempted to sin.   Then he said, “The spirit [will] indeed is willing, but the flesh [body] is weak” (Matthew 26:41).  In spite of Christ’s command, however, the disciples fell asleep, “for their eyes were heavy” (Matthew 26:43).  Here is an example of two “wills” contending for mastery over a person.  There is the will of the person versus the body of the person.  On this occasion, the body wins the contest.  Surely there comes a point when the body must of necessity win such a competition: nobody can stay awake indefinitely through sheer will power just as nobody can leap over an indefinite distance.  However, the fact that Jesus commands the disciples to stay awake implies that staying awake was possible for them, so their falling asleep must ultimately have been a matter of choice rather than necessity.[14] In the end, the “arguments” of the body won out over those of the will because the disciples lacked the wisdom to realize just how cruel and evil falling asleep would be at that moment.

I have said that the body has a “will,” but I am only speaking metaphorically.  The idea of a will implies the ability to choose, and I am not suggesting that our eyes are literally choosing to be heavy when we feel sleepy.  Even the brain, whose nature is to think, does not literally have a separate will.  In this regard, the brain is analogous to a computer, and the will is analogous to whoever uses a computer.

As an organ of the body, the brain acts according to its nature, just as all the other organs do; the eye sees, the stomach digests, and the brain thinks.  And just as other organs sometimes act contrary to the will, so sometimes the brain thinks contrary to the will.  I am convinced this is the case because my thoughts often wander from where I want them to be.  Anyone who has set out to pray and found his thoughts wandering to other things (like who will be next to leave Survivor) can identify with this and must agree that the will and the brain are separate, and that the brain can act contrary to the will.  When I pray, I do not want [will] my thoughts to wander from the subjects of my prayer.  Nevertheless, I find my thoughts wandering sometimes.  Therefore, something other than my will leads these wandering thoughts astray.  I believe this thing is the brain.  But when the brain leads these thoughts astray, it does not literally want to do so.  The brain, like a computer, has no will and, therefore, makes no decisions and has no literal desires as such.  It simply acts according to nature.  The brain thinks.  One may say a brain “wants” to wander, but this is the same as saying a rock that has been dropped “wants” to fall; it is simply a metaphorical way of describing the determined nature of the thing.

When a brain thinks (outside the immediate direction of the will) its activity is as predictable as that of a falling rock.  This is because the brain is a physical object and subject to the same physical laws that rocks and every other physical object are subject to.  By contrast, the will, as a part of our non-physical being, is not subject to these physical laws.  In fact, the ability to choose is one of the things that suggests that some element of our being must be non-physical.

When I choose, my choice is not governed by physical laws.  I know this because no action of my will is truly predictable in the same way that actions of my physical being are.[15] For instance, if I jump from the high-dive into a swimming pool, the actions of my body are predictable.  It is subject to the physical laws of the universe; therefore, it will fall at a certain rate of speed until it hits the water.  A good scientist could say with certainty: “In 2.113 seconds you will strike the water.”  But no scientist, however gifted, could ever say with certainty, “In 2.113 seconds, you will jump from the high-dive.”  In the latter scenario, I could simply choose not to jump in 2.113 seconds.[16]

To illustrate specifically how my brain, as part of my body, is subject to the physical laws of the universe, I will return to the analogy of a computer.  The actions of a computer, outside the immediate direction of a human being, are just as predictable as those of a falling body.  Electricity goes to its various parts, activating its synthetic organs and allowing it to comply with its given programming.  Any good computer programmer could accurately predict its behavior.[17] For instance, if I am playing the game, Age of Empires, a good programmer can predict exactly what those characters controlled by the computer will do in any given scenario.  He can even predict what those characters that I control will do after I tell those characters to act.  But what he cannot predict is what I will tell those characters to do.

Just as the computer controls certain characters in the game, so my brain carries on certain involuntary functions which my will does not affect: regulation of body temperate, heart rate, etc.  Nevertheless, by analogy, all the activity of the computer during the game is “thinking,” just as all activity of the brain is thinking.  The thinking that the brain does under the direction of my will is analogous to the activity of the computer when it complies with my directions for a certain character in the game: My will sets my brain to  solve a puzzle or recall a memory just as, in the game, I set the computer to gather virtual firewood by telling it to send a villager out to chop down trees.  And just as I need the computer to play the game, I need my brain to think.[18] If the computer breaks or malfunctions in any way, my ability to play the game will be affected.  Similarly, if my brain is damaged or diseased in any way, my ability to think will be affected.

I think this brain/computer analogy has many true applications, but any analogy can be taken too far, and one area in which this analogy might break down is in the brain’s natural ability to go against the will.  The brain can obviously go against the will, not because it has a will of its own, but because its nature allows it to think without the consent of the will just as the nature of the open eye allows it to see without the consent of the will.  I believe the brain goes against the will in two ways, which I will express in the following metaphors:

“Putting the Will to Sleep”

I do not believe we are responsible for thoughts we think under these circumstances.  This “sleeping” occurs  when we are not aware that our brain has misled our will.  For instance, when my thoughts wander to Survivor during a prayer, there is some period of time wherein my will to pray sleeps, and I am genuinely unaware that the brain is going against my will.  My will “wakes up” when I realize that my thoughts have wandered.  We can think evil or good thoughts in this way while the will is asleep.  If the thoughts are evil, we have not sinned simply by thinking them; when my will is asleep, choice is not an issue, so I cannot sin.  The evil thoughts come unbidden to me.  Only after my will wakes up, and I can say to myself, “You are thinking an evil thought,” does choice become an issue and sin a possibility.[19]

“Convincing the Will through Argument”

Once I realize that I am thinking an evil thought, my will has the authority to force my brain to think good thoughts, but often my will does not do this.  The resulting choice to continue thinking the evil thought is sin.  Whenever I make such a choice it is because my will, weakened by some deficiency in my knowledge of good and evil, has been convinced by the brain that the thought is not really evil.  This is similar to Satan’s deception of Eve in the Garden of Eden.[20]

The brain’s natural ability to put the will to sleep is synonymous with its ability to make me dream.  It can put my will to sleep while my body is awake; this experience we call a day dream and is what happens when my thoughts wander to Survivor during a prayer. My will awakens from this type of dream when I suddenly realize that I am doing something I did not intend to do.  However, the power of the brain to put my will to sleep while my body is asleep is far greater than its ability to put my will to sleep while my body is awake.  During these night dreams, my will can experience not just one, but two types of awakening:

1) The will can become aware that the brain has misled me into doing something I would not have chosen to do had my will been awake.

2) The will can become aware that the brain has misled me into believing that the night dream is real.

The common element in both of these awakenings is the fact that the will wakes up when it remembers itself, when it remembers that it is distinct from and has authority over the brain.

Perhaps an example would be useful.

Imagine that I am having a night dream.  In the dream, I am visiting a museum and see a beautiful diamond on display.  The diamond is so beautiful that I decide to put it in my pocket, sprout two large wings from my back, and fly out of the museum.  However, when I finally return to my home in the North Pole, I suddenly think to myself, “Hang on, you’ve just stolen this diamond.  Stealing is wrong.”

At this point I experience one type of awakening.  It is synonymous with waking up from a day dream.  In the night dream I have been describing, my brain put my will to sleep concerning the fact that I have resolved not to be a thief, just as it does (when my body is awake) when it leads me to day dream about Survivor by putting my will to sleep concerning the fact that I have resolved not to wander from my prayer.

But I may also experience another type of awakening.  I may also suddenly think to myself, “Hang on, you’ve just sprouted wings and flown to the North Pole.  You can’t do that.  You must be dreaming.”  At this point, I realize that my brain has put my will to sleep concerning the fact that the night dream itself is an illusion, a product of the brain.  Thus, putting the will to sleep, in this instance, does not necessarily mean going against the will but simply usurping power over the will.  In other words, I may not be against dreaming in the way that I was against thinking of Survivor while praying; nevertheless, I did not decide to dream.

In a night dream, the brain’s ability “to convince the will through argument” manifests itself in two ways.  These two ways are reactions to the two types of awakening.

The first type of argument reacts to the first type of awakening.  The brain tries to convince the will that its resolve to make a certain choice is foolish.

The second type of argument reacts to the second type of awakening. The brain tries to convince the will that the dream is in fact real.

Consider the example dream again.

Once my will “wakes up” and I realize that I have stolen, I resolve to return the diamond to the museum, but I am tempted to keep it in spite of my resolve.  This temptation arises from my brain as it makes the first type of argument.  The brain, as an advocate for the body, says that the diamond could be very useful.  If sold, it could bring me a lot of money (maybe I could finally move out of the North Pole).  If kept, its beauty could enhance my happiness.

The brain makes the second type of argument, however, when it tries to convince me that the dream itself is real.  For instance, after my will “wakes up” and I conclude that the dream is an illusion of my brain, the brain may send Santa Claus out to me.

“Greetings Santa Claus,” I may say to him.  “Did you know that this is all a dream?”

“Are you kidding?” Santa Claus may say.  “Don’t you feel how cold it is here?  It’s way too cold to be a dream.  This is real.  Besides, I’m Santa Claus, and everybody knows that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole.”

My main purpose in all this talk of dreams is to demonstrate the brain’s ability to think apart from and even contrary to the will.  Dreams demonstrate the difference between the will and the brain very distinctly.  The will is present in dreams because I can make conscious decisions in my dreams, just as in waking life, but the will does not create the dream; it only reacts to it.  If a monster chases me in a dream I run from it.  I know the will does not create the monster because it wishes the monster were gone.  Even in a lucid dream, where the will contributes substantially to the dream’s subject matter, the will does not control every element of the dream.  The dream’s basic framework is still provided by the brain, which never ceases to attempt to convince the will that the dream is real.

Just as the brain acts contrary to the will in dreams, so it acts contrary to the will in waking life; sometimes it even convinces us to sin.[21] This is the scenario Paul is referring to in Romans 7:14-25.  It is an experience common to all of humanity, Christians and non-Christians, but Christians have certain God-given advantages that other humans do not: They have special access to supernatural help in their struggle against sin, and they have forgiveness when they lose that struggle.

[1] See notes on Hebrews 4:12.  I recognize that our non-physical being can be divided into at least two parts: the soul and the spirit, but my term “non-physical being” designates both at once, as a whole.

[2] I am speaking of the will as a non-physical part of our being.  However, I am not attempting to decide whether “will” is synonymous with “spirit,” or with “soul” as Hebrews 4:12 uses these terms.  It may in fact be synonymous with one or the other, or it may designate a subdivision within the soul or within the spirit; it may even designate a subdivision of “non-physical being” beyond those indicated by soul and spirit.  Nevertheless, in spite of my uncertainty on these points, I do believe that the will is a non-physical part of our being because it involves the ability to choose.  See notes below.

[3] Part of “experiencing the dilemma of vs. 14-25” is suffering the helplessness and hopelessness Paul describes in v. 24: “Who will rescue me…?”  All humans experience the type of schizophrenic struggle with sin described in vs.15-20, even after becoming Christians; the difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians are not helpless in the struggle and have the hope of being redeemed in the end by the mercy of Christ.  While it is true that Paul did still experience the struggle with sin when he wrote this passage of scripture in the present tense, he no longer experienced the helplessness and hopelessness of v. 24; thus, his use of present tense is not literal because he was not experiencing the entirety of the dilemma of vs. 14-25.

[4] Consider this law in the light of God’s warning to Cain (Genesis 4:7).

[5] Paul’s grief in v. 24 is a result of the latter manifestation of the law of sin and death; although he asks, “Who will rescue me from this body of death?” he is not upset over the fact that his body will physically die, but rather over the fact that his non-physical being (composed of things like his spirit, soul, mind, heart etc.) is tormented and dying because it is hindered in its desire to do good by the body’s selfish desires.

[6] For my distinction between abstract and concrete knowledge of good and evil see notes on Genesis 3:6.

[7] Of course, I am not saying that he was wise to kill himself in despair over his sin.  I am only pointing out that he understood just how ugly the sin of betraying Christ is.  If his new-found concrete wisdom had also encompassed the nature of suicide and despair, he would have sought God’s forgiveness and not killed himself.

[8] I know the story is fiction, but I cannot help thinking of Sir Lancelot, who, during the Grail Quest, comes to the painful realization of how sinful he has been but who, nevertheless, falls back into his adulterous relationship with Guinevere after the Quest.

[9] Matthew 10:28

[10] This particular gift of Present Life may seem to apply more easily to our non-physical being, but it does apply to our bodies as well.  One has only to look at the body of a drug addict to realize that sin is very destructive to the body.  I believe that many diseases of the brain and the other organs of the body are the direct result of sinful choices we make.  During Christ’s earthly ministry, he healed many such diseases, and even now he heals and prevents them by helping us not to sin.

[11] I say “specific” temptations because God will not ever (in this life) remove temptation in general from us: the law of 7:21 (1 in my list of 4 laws that Paul writes about) requires us to be tempted in general.  Nevertheless, laws can be set aside on specific occasions; otherwise, Jesus could not have walked on water.

[12] Still another way he may help us is in the physical training and conditioning of our brains.  See notes on Philippians 4:8.

[13] These two would not be at war in a person whose mind (will) is set on what the sinful nature (the body) desires (8:5).

[14] Unless one is at the genuine limit of his strength, the body does not have the power to make a person’s decisions without the assent of the will.  It is true that the body acts without express permission or command from the will in certain ways such as the regulation of one’s body temperature and so on, but this is not sin.  Neither would it have been sin for the disciples to fall asleep if they had genuinely reached the end of their strength to stay awake.  But they had not reached that point.

[15] Even if a true prophet were able to see my future actions and predict them, he no more affects my free will than a historian who sees my past actions.  Each merely sees what actions I will choose (or have already chosen) just as anyone watching me in the present merely sees what actions I choose in the present.  He does not affect my free will simply by seeing me act.

[16] A good psychologist may be able to guess what I will choose to do, but this is not the same scenario.  If he knows I am afraid of heights, he may say, “You will climb down,” but this is simply a guess based on previous experience.  I am not compelled to climb down the ladder as I am compelled to fall once I jump off of the high-dive.  Similarly, he may be able to trick me into complying with his guess, but this also not the same scenario.  For instance, he may guess that I will jump if he insults my courage and says, “You will not jump because you are a coward,”  but again, I am not compelled to jump.  When a physicist tells me that I will fall at a certain rate of speed, he does not need to guess, nor does he need to trick me into complying with his prediction.  I comply with his prediction because my body must.  But the will, part of my non-physical being, is not governed by physical laws; therefore, its actions are truly free and not governed by the laws that govern the physical universe.

[17] When a computer acts contrary to a good programmer’s prediction, this is due to some mechanical failure that the programmer is ignorant of, but even in such a scenario the computer is complying with the laws of physics; it is not literally deciding to act against its programming.

[18] If angels are completely non-physical beings, then they obviously do not need a brain to think, but humans are not angels.  We are a composite of the physical and the non-physical (at least for the moment) and as such we need a brain in order to think.

[19] See notes on James 1:14-15.

[20] It is important to note that the brain is not always urging the will to choose evil when the two come into conflict.  The brain is simply the advocate for the body.  For instance, the brain of an athlete in training may try to convince the athlete to slow down.  If the athlete is always convinced by such arguments, he is unlikely to achieve greatness in his sport, but mediocrity in athletics (or any other worldly endeavor) is by no means a sin.  In some instances, the brain’s arguments actually benefit us.  For example, if an athlete overtrains, he injures himself in spite of the many arguments against overtraining that his brain has made.

[21] I suspect that the more aware I am of the distinction between my will and my brain, the better able I will be to accomplish my will’s desire when it conflicts with the brain’s natural tendency to selfishness.


2 Responses to “Romans 7”

  1. […] [5] See Paul’s first law in the notes on Romans 7:14. […]

  2. […] [5] See Paul’s first law in the notes on Romans 7:14. […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: