Perseverance Of The Saints Part 4: Again Entagled In Corruption

We will now examine 2 Pet. 2:20-22:

[20] “For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. [21] For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy command delivered to them. [22] It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.'” (NASB)

Peter may be further describing the apostasy of the false teachers who are the subjects of verses 1-17. The language of these verses strongly suggests that these false teachers had been true believers before their full submission to their sinful nature and defection from the faith. The Lord had “bought them” (2:1, cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:22, 23). They denied His Lordship by submitting to their sinful nature (vss. 1-22). They have “left the straight way” and “gone astray” (vs. 15). Jude describes these same false teachers who “turn the grace of God into licentiousness” as “twice dead” (vs. 12) suggesting that they had once experienced spiritual life.

Peter may also be describing the awful state of those who have been led astray by these false teachers. In verses 18 and 19 we find that these false teachers were deceiving those who had just barely escaped “the ones who live in error”. In either case, the important point is that Peter is describing apostates, and that Peter understands these apostates to have been truly saved before becoming “again entangled” in the corruption from which they had previously escaped. Peter makes it clear that this “escape” came by way of “the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”. There is every reason to believe that when Peter refers to these apostates as ones who had come to this “knowledge” of “Christ” that he means that this knowledge resulted in salvation. To say otherwise would suggest that there are means other than the shed blood of Jesus Christ by which a sinner may escape the corruption in the world. Such a concept is alien to the entire NT and is certainly alien to the inspired Apostle.

It is further significant that the Greek word for “knowledge” used in this passage is epignosis. This Greek word is predominately used by NT writers with reference to a full and complete knowledge, in contrast to an investigative or superficial knowledge (gnosis). Strong says of epignosis, “full discernment” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, #1922). Kittel says, “The compound epignosis can take on almost a technical sense for conversion to Christianity” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 121). Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says of gnosis, “primarily a seeking to know, an enquiry, investigation”, and of epignosis- “denotes exact or full knowledge, discernment, recognition, and is a strengthened form of No. 1 [gnosis], expressing a fuller or a full knowledge, a greater participation by the knower of the object known, thus more powerfully influencing him” (pg. 631). The NASB renders epignosis as “real knowledge” in Phil. 1:9, and “true knowledge” in 2 Pet. 1:3, 8. In Col. 1:9 epignosis has reference to “all spiritual wisdom and understanding” and “a spirit of wisdom and revelation” in Eph. 1:17 (also see Philemon 4-6). Especially consider the salvation language of 1 Tim. 2:3, 4, “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge [epignosis] of the truth”.

We would especially expect Peter to use the weaker form of the word in 2:20 given the fact that Peter uses the stronger sense in 1:3, of which there is no doubt that true believers are being described. That Peter used the same word with the same object (“knowledge of Him”, “knowledge of… Jesus Christ”) to describe these apostates suggests that he was not describing false converts in 2:20 (see below regarding parallel language). Epignosis and gnosis are sometimes used interchangeably in Scripture but the stronger sense of epignosis should not be ignored, especially since Peter seems to use epignosis with specific reference to saving knowledge throughout this epistle. Peter’s choice of epignosis in 2:20, therefore, gives us further reason to identify these apostates as having been truly saved prior to their defection.

Peter’s deliberate use of parallel language in 2:20-22 with that used in 1:1-4 is even more striking. In 1:1-4 Peter describes his readers as those having a “faith…the same kind as ours” who have received the gift of “life” and “godliness” through the “knowledge of Him who has called us by His own glory and excellence”. He tells them that it is by these gifts of life, godliness, and knowledge that they have “become partakers of the divine nature” and have “escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust”. The parallels with those described in 2:20-22 are remarkable:

“Through our knowledge of him…participate in the divine nature” and “escaped the corruption in the world…” (1:3, 4)

“…escaped the corruption in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…” (2:20)

There is every reason to think that Peter is describing believers in both 1:1-4 and in 2:20. It is extremely strained exegesis to insist that those who “participate in the divine nature” and “escaped the corruption in the world” are of a different sort then those who “escaped the corruption in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”.

Some will say that those described in 2:20-22 only “appeared” to have escaped from the corruption in the world. There is no contextual warrant for this assumption. If these apostates had only “appeared” to escape the corruption in the world, then what sense does it make to say that they have become “again entangled” in these corruptions?

John Goodwin wrote of those who would be so bold as to claim that these “apostates” were:

…all this while most damnable hypocrites and dissemblers. Now that the Holy Ghost should say, that unbelievers, persons inwardly full of wickedness and filthiness, most vile hypocrites and dissemblers, have ‘escaped the pollutions of the world,’ especially ‘through the knowledge’ (or rather acknowledgment), en epignosei ‘of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,’ is to me, and I think to all other impartially considering men, the first-born of incredibilities. Can a man be said to escape his enemies when he still remains under their power, and is in greater danger of suffering mischiefs from them than ever before? Or is not he, who being enlightened, retains the truth in unrighteousness, remains inwardly full of malice and wickedness, only garbing himself with a hypocritical outside, or mere profession of holiness, as much or more under the power and command of sin, as likely to perish everlastingly for sin, as ever he was, or could be before his illumination? (Redemption Redeemed, ed., John Wagner, pg. 115)

Some look to avoid the implications of this passage by laying great stress on the nature of the animals described in the proverb given in verse 22, “It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.'” They say that the ones described in verses 20-21 must be only hypocrites and false converts because Peter would never describe them as “dogs” and “pigs” had they at one time been Christ’s “sheep”. Since Peter describes them as dogs and pigs, we should rest assured that their natures had never been changed by true conversion and regeneration.

Robert Shank rightly notes that:

Many have contended that the men of whom Peter wrote never were truly saved. They appeal to the metaphors in verse 22. God’s children, say they, cannot be referred to as dogs or sows. But they who assume that Peter’s reference to apostates as ‘dogs’ or ‘sows’ proves that they never were actually under grace do not likewise assume that Jeremiah’s reference to the children of Israel in Judah as “a wild ass” proves that they never were ‘the sheep of his pasture.’ The shameful epithet was applied by Jeremiah (2:4) only after the people had forsaken the Lord (2:13; 17:13) and turned aside in iniquity and idolatry. Likewise, it is only after they ‘have forsaken the right way and are gone astray’ that Peter likens apostates to dogs and sows. He could well have referred to them as “wild asses.’ But there were familiar proverbs about dogs and sows which so aptly illustrated their case. Let us accept the record at face value. To ignore the obvious meaning of Peter’s statements by resorting to arbitrary assumptions concerning his use of metaphors is, to say the least, unwise. (Life In The Son, pp. 175, 176)

The early Methodist theologian John Fletcher made the following observations concerning the contention that the Lord’s “sheep” can never cease to be anything other than “sheep”:

Multitudes, who live in open sin, build their hopes of heaven upon a similar mistake; I mean, upon the unscriptural idea which they fix to the Scriptural word sheep. “Once I heard the Shepherd’s voice,” says one of these Laodicean souls; “I followed him, and therefore I was one of his sheep; and now, though I follow the voice of a stranger, who leads me into all manner of sins, into adultery and murder, I am undoubtedly a sheep still: for it was never heard that a sheep became a goat.” Such persons do not observe, that our Lord calls “sheep” those who hear his voice, and “goats” those who follow that of the tempter. Nor do they consider that if Saul, a grievous wolf, “breathing slaughter” against Christ’s sheep, and “making havoc” of his little flock, could in a short time be changed both into a sheep and a shepherd; David, a harmless sheep, could, in as short a time, commence a goat with Bathsheba, and prove a wolf in sheep’s clothing to her husband.

He then offers the following “ridiculous soliloquy” to “…show the absurdity and danger of resting weighty doctrines upon so sandy a foundation as the particular sense which some good men give to a few Scriptural expressions”:

Those very Jews whom the Baptist and our Lord called ‘a brood of vipers and serpents,’ were soon after compared to ‘chickens,’ which Christ wanted ‘to gather as a hen does her brood.’ What a wonderful change was here! The vipers became chickens! Now, as it was never heard that chickens became vipers, I conclude that those Jews, even when they came about our Lord like ‘fat bulls of Bashan,’ like ‘ramping and roaring lions,’ were true chickens still. And indeed, why should not they have been as true chickens as David was a true sheep when he murdered Uriah? I abhor the doctrine which maintains that a man may be a chick or a sheep today, and a viper or a goat to-morrow.

But I am a little embarrassed. If none go to hell but goats, and none to heaven but sheep, where shall the chickens go? Where ‘the wolves in Sheep’s clothing?’ And in what limbus of heaven or hell shall we put that ‘fox Herod,’ the dogs who ‘return to their vomit,’ and the swine, before whom we must ‘not cast our pearls?’ Are they all species of goats, or some particular kind of sheep? “My difficulties increase! The Church is called a dove, and Ephraim a silly dove. Shall the silly dove be admitted among the sheep? Her case seems rather doubtful. The hair of the spouse in the Canticles is likewise said to be like ‘a flock of goats,’ and Christ’s shepherd are represented as ‘feeding kids, or young goats, beside their tents.’ I wonder if those young goats became young sheep, or if they were all doomed to continue reprobates! But what puzzles me most is, that the Babylonians are in the same verse compared to ‘lambs, rams, and goats.’ Were they mongrel elect, or mongrel reprobates, or some of Elisha Coles’ spiritual monsters? (Works of Fletcher Vol. 1, pp. 197-199, Wesleyan Heritage Collection CD)

Robert Picirilli concludes his treatment of 2 Pet. 2:22 with the following observation:

Those who attempt to mitigate Peter’s teaching by suggesting that the real nature of the sow or the dog had not been changed, and that this implies that these apostate false teachers were never regenerated, are pressing the illustrations beyond what they are intended to convey. Indeed, the proverb must be interpreted by the clearer words that precede them and not the other way around. The previous paragraphs express precisely what the proverbs were intended to convey (Grace, Faith, Free Will, pg. 232)

Picirilli is quite right that we need to look to the clear language of the passages that precede this descriptive proverb in order to properly understand Peter’s intended meaning. It is desperate exegesis to make assumptions based on the nature of the animals described in the proverb and then try to read them back into the plain teaching of verses 20 and 21. The claim that these “dogs” and “pigs” could only refer to those who had never truly been sheep ignores the context of the entire chapter. It foolishly trivializes the fact that Peter describes these apostates as having truly “escaped” the corruption in the world through “the knowledge [epignosis] of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” before becoming “again entangled” in this corruption. It further ignores the exegetical relevance of the parallel description in 2 Pet. 1:1-4 which uses nearly identical language to describe those of “like faith” who are “partakers of the divine nature”. The use of the proverb was to further illustrate the apostates’ return to corruption. That is quite the opposite of demonstrating that they had never escaped corruption. Just as a dog returns to that from which it had been purged, and a washed pig returns to the mire, so have these apostates, after having escaped from corruption, returned again to those defilements.

Still others might acknowledge that these apostates were once truly regenerated while insisting that they shall only lose heavenly rewards and not salvation. How then could Peter say of them that “it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy command delivered to them”? How could it possibly be better to have never known the way of righteousness, and perish forever, than to have known the way of righteousness only to lose some heavenly rewards? Do the advocates of this position truly believe that those who enter the joys of Heaven with considerably less rewards are worse off than those who will eternally suffer in Hell?

Despite the efforts of some to rescue their theology from the plain teaching of 2 Pet. 2:20-22, these passages serve as a stark reminder that those who have come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ may yet return to a lifestyle of sin ,abandon their faith, and perish in that hopeless state.

[Updated 5/9/08]

Go to Part 5

Go to Part 1

About these ads

17 Responses

  1. i will stick with the meaning of the whole chapter. peter is talking of false teachers and we have no reason to believe that they were ever reborn. by saying that they had full knowledge of Christ i fail to see the significance. i hope we agree that all the knowledge in the world will not get you into heaven. the idea that he is talking of one time true believers would be silly given the entirety of the chapter.

  2. peter is talking of false teachers and we have no reason to believe that they were ever reborn.

    We have several reasons to believe they were reborn as described in the post.

    by saying that they had full knowledge of Christ i fail to see the significance.

    Because this word is often used in Scripture as shorthand for saving knowledge. Did you read the post at all?

    i hope we agree that all the knowledge in the world will not get you into heaven.

    Yes, unless it is a saving knowledge which epignosis would seem to suggest, along with the fact that this “knowledge” constituted an “escape from corruption” and “participation in the divine nature”.

    the idea that he is talking of one time true believers would be silly given the entirety of the chapter.

    What is “silly” is your apparent belief that those who are said to be “again entangled” in corruption had never ceased to be entangled in the first place, etc.

    Please leave a name if you are going to continue to post here.

    Thanks,
    Ben

  3. I wonder if you take requests here on this blog. Reading some of your site it is obvious to see that you are an able defender of the Arminian view so I wonder if you would take a request to write one or a series of posts on faith?

    Specifically the request would be that you show how faith is not a gift given by God, but rather that man in all of his depravity can still will that which is spiritually good.

    Until an Arminian or a Roman Catholic can prove that vie Scripture it would be impossible to hold to your theology.

    If you do not want to take this request then I will take it that you hold that faith is a gift and that you concede to the Reformed position on this matter.

    Mike

  4. Specifically the request would be that you show how faith is not a gift given by God, but rather that man in all of his depravity can still will that which is spiritually good.

    Maybe you had better demonstrate how faith is an irresitible gift given only to the elect. When you do that I will consider your request.

    A few things about your comment. Arminians do not deny that faith is a gift of God in that no one could believe if God did not first enable that belief. That is how I understand faith as being a gift. Others would define it in the same way as you seem to but would also say that this gift [of faith] is resistible. I have written two posts already that touch on this subject:

    http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/nature-of-saving-faith.html

    http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/is-arminian-theology-synergistic.html

    I also believe the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that regeneration precedes faith, especially in light of the fact that such a doctrine leads to numerous theological absurdities and is nowhere to be found in Scripture. The following post demonstrates this.

    http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/does-regeneration-precede-faith.html

    I will wait to see how you deal with the arguments put forth in the above linked post. If you do not bother to answer them, then I will assume you concede the Arminian position that faith precedes regeneration.

    The burden of proof also rests on you to demonstrate that Peter is not speaking of those who had once believed and later abandoned that faith. Until you do this, I will assume that you concede the Arminian position on apostasy as well.

    God Bless,
    Ben

  5. So you do not answer the charge instead you try to deflect the argument into other areas. Typical for your side, but I would of loved to see you try to argue it none the less.

    I believe that regeneration preceding faith has been more than proved by the great theologians of the past. It is not surprising though that you still need the milk instead of the meat of Scripture. Since you do not like that one must be reborn first and you do not feel like it has been addressed ad nauseam, perhaps you should take it up with God in your prayer time.

    Mike

  6. Also, notice that my question was limited to faith not regeneration. BTW, I also did not address the peter and apostasy post you must of confused me with someone else.

    Mike

  7. So you do not answer the charge instead you try to deflect the argument into other areas. Typical for your side, but I would of loved to see you try to argue it none the less.

    Did you read any of the posts I directed you to? They deal with the subjects you asked about. If you want to call that deflection, then so be it.

    I believe that regeneration preceding faith has been more than proved by the great theologians of the past.

    Then why are you asking me to do a series on faih in relation to total depravity? If the great theologians have already proved it, then why bother me? BTW, don’t you find it strange that there weren’t any “great theologians” prior to Augustine?

    Since you do not like that one must be reborn first and you do not feel like it has been addressed ad nauseam, perhaps you should take it up with God in your prayer time.

    Mike, you seem to be very confused. The ordo salutis is directly related to the question you posed, “Specifically the request would be that you show how faith is not a gift given by God, but rather that man in all of his depravity can still will that which is spiritually good.” If you don’t want me to address it then why did you bring it up?

    Also, notice that my question was limited to faith not regeneration.

    As noted above I provide links to posts regarding the nature of faith, etc; and whether or not regeneration is necessary prior to saving faith is directly related to your question quoted above.

    What is interesting to me is that you accuse me of defelection, but when I ask you to address a post I wrote on the priority of faith, you say,”I believe that regeneration preceding faith has been more than proved by the great theologians of the past. It is not surprising though that you still need the milk instead of the meat of Scripture. Since you do not like that one must be reborn first and you do not feel like it has been addressed ad nauseam, perhaps you should take it up with God in your prayer time.” Now doesn’t that seem like deflection?

    you must of confused me with someone else.

    Yes, I guess I thought you were the first “anonymous”. At any rate, this is a thread regarding apostasy in 2 Pet. 20-22, so if you don’t want to discuss that, then why are on this thread? If you want to discuss depravity, inability, irresistible grace, etc., then I have several posts which address those subjects [which I already directed you to]. Why don’t you leave any future comments there.

    God Bless,
    Ben

  8. I asked you to write on faith because I thought that you were an able defender of Arminianism, I guess I was wrong. Let me see if I get the gist of your system. All men have grace, not all men have faith, since faith is not a gift that comes from God I assume that man can produce it naturally by themselves or does it come from another source? You said that faith is a gift in the way that God enables it to respond, so some men do and some don’t because maybe they weren’t enabled to the same degree or did some just use it better? I guess when the Bible says that God quickened us while we were yet sinners and spiritually dead it means they were quickened because of their faith which did not come from God, but He enabled it and it then is up to man to decide whether to use this faith or throw it away? I guess this is because of free will that you have to jump through all of these hoops.

    Let me see God knows who will come to him before they are born due to His exhaustive foreknowledge, but man was not foreordained or determined to come to Him in any way. God knows that Ben will be a Christian because of Ben’s free will decision before Ben is born. Ben’s free will decision is inevitable in that it can not change, but why can it not change? It can not be because of Ben’s free will because Ben was not born, it also can not be because God predestined Ben since this goes against your doctrine, which would then mean that the inevitableness of your choice had some other source other than Ben or God. Maybe it is the same source that Ben got his faith from since that did not come from God either.

    Mike

  9. Those verses are good but not a solid as Hebrews chapters 6 and 10 which are the lynchpins for the teachings of apostacy. A true Christian can return to a life of sin (Corinthians) and not lose his salvation because he did not become a Christian by abandoning sin so sin cannot take it from him.

    But what sin can do is harden his heart to the point where he counts the blood as an unclean thing. That is clear and most attempts to exegete it differently are tortured interpretations that desire to remove the clear meaning so they will fit inside the predetermined theology.

    A Christian can commit apostacy, I have known a few, and when we teach otherwise we give a conscience salve to backsliders.

  10. Mike,

    I asked you to write on faith because I thought that you were an able defender of Arminianism, I guess I was wrong.

    I have already written on faith and all the other topics you have brought up. I am sorry but I do not have the time to re-write everything I have already written just so you can have the satisfaction of an argument. I gave you links and directed you to leave further comments at the appropriate posts where I have aleady addressed these topics. You have so far ignored that request.

    I will ask you kindly not to post any more comments in this thread that are not directly related to 2 Pet. 2:20-22. I will also ask you to make sure you actually read my other posts before making comments, and make sure that your comments are related to the arguments presented in those posts. There is a list of “labels” on the right side of the blog that will help direct you to the relevant posts.

    Thank you for respecting my wishes and my blog. BTW, please don’t think that you can get what you want by calling me a lousy defender of Arminianism, etc. I am not concerned with your opinion of me or my abilities.

    God Bless,
    Ben

  11. Mike,

    If you’re eager for a more in-depth argument, I’d like to invite you to publicly respond to this Challenge to Reformed Theology by Scriptural Fact.

  12. Dear Ben,

    On quick point about pigs, dogs and regeneration…

    Regeneration gives us a new nature, but it doesn’t completely get rid of the old nature. At least, not in this life. Galatians describes a battle between the Spirit and the flesh. We still have sinful desires, and they don’t come from our new nature. The old man is still hanging around, but he is to decrease day by day.

    So as it relates to this text… Just because they gave into their old nature doesn’t mean they were never regenerate.

    Happy thanksgiving!
    Dan

  13. It looks like at the end of chapter 1 Peter is transitioning to tell them that just like there were false prophets in the OT that there will be false teachers now. He then goes on to talk about some of the characterisitics of these false teachers. Surely you do not mean to imply that these false teachers were ever truly reborn? Would you then say the same thing of the OT false prophets?

    As for the ending of chapter 2 I believe you overlook a key word… if.

  14. Hello Bill,

    Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to read my post. I assume you hold to unconditional eternal security.

    You wrote:

    It looks like at the end of chapter 1 Peter is transitioning to tell them that just like there were false prophets in the OT that there will be false teachers now. He then goes on to talk about some of the characterisitics of these false teachers.

    That is correct.

    Surely you do not mean to imply that these false teachers were ever truly reborn?

    Yes. That is exactly the point I argued in my post. You did take the time to read it, right?

    Would you then say the same thing of the OT false prophets?

    Not necessarily, though I would not rule out the possibility.

    It seems you are trying to rule out all of the important language Peter used, which would strongly suggest that these apostates had been truly saved, on the basis of a comparison between these false teachers and the false prophets of the OT.

    Peter is not giving a lesson on whether these false teachers were previously saved prior to their present state with his comparison of the OT false prophets. He is just letting his readers know that there is nothing new or strange about false teachers being among them [the visible body Christ].

    He is also reminding them that these teachers can even be in a place of authority in the church, just as the prophets in the OT were in a position of authority. They need to be mindful of their presence and guard against their false teaching.

    In order to discover whether these present day false teachers were apostates, we need to look at how Peter further describes them. It is in this description that we can draw conclusions as to their prior spritual state. That was the focus of this post, and I think there can be no other conclusion, based on Peter’s description, than that these teachers had at one time been saved.

    As for the ending of chapter 2 I believe you overlook a key word… if.

    What verse in particular are you referring to? Are you suggesting that Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was merely warning against impossiblities?

    God Bless,
    Ben

  15. if i perfectly follow the law, then i will be saved.

    Here we see that the condition is true even though the antecedent is false. I do not see a problem with Peter telling someone the truth here and I do not see it as him merely warning against impossibilities. it would be better for a person if they had never been rebirthed, problem is will anyone do that? I say no and you say yes.

    If one stays Christ centered then one will persevere until the end, the minute we think that salvation is in our hands then we start corrupting the work of Christ and the nature of grace.

  16. Bill,

    You wrote,

    it would be better for a person if they had never been rebirthed, problem is will anyone do that? I say no and you say yes.

    What exactly do think Peter is trying to communicate to his readers here? What would be the point of talking about those who have been “again entangled” in corruption, if no believer would ever do such a thing? So Peter is just saying, “if such and such were possible, such and such would be the result, but such and such is not possible, so nevermind.”

    So again, could you explain, from your perspective, what you think Peter is trying to communicate with his readers in this chapter, and what his purpose for that communication would be? I am having a hard time understanding your position.

    Thanks,
    Ben

  17. Howdy,

    I brought this passage up when discussing the issue of apostasy with an ‘OSASer’, and they denied that the passage was talking about apostasy! They tried to explain it away by claiming that monks and hermits have escaped the pollutions of the world, and yet aren’t saved. So much for exegesis!

    In any other context, the person who is described as having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would undoubtedly be recognized as being a believer.

    Thanks for the post,

    Matthew :)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers

%d bloggers like this: