Messianic Prophecy
14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” (Matthew 2:14-15)I was looking over this passage. Matthew says that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt so that the prophecy from Hosea would be fulfilled. So I decided to look up the actual scripture reference in Hosea that Matthew was using: (I am doing this more and more lately)
1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,Do you think that the Jews knew that Hosea 11:1 was a Messianic prophecy?
And out of Egypt I called My son.
2 As they called them,
So they went from them;
They sacrificed to the Baals,
And burned incense to carved images. (Hosea 11:1-2)
posted by Rose~ at 10:45 AM
39 Comments:
I very much doubt they did.
The prophecy seems to be hidden and revealed only by inspiration.
Yu could not use this text as an apologetic argument to convince an unbelieving gentile.
God Bless
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 10/29/2007 10:54 AM
Matthew,
If Matthew (the gospel writer) were a blogger, I'll betcha the unbelieveing Pharisee bloggers would get all over him for using that reference. :~)
"The prophecy seems to be hidden and revealed only by inspiration."
Thank you for those thoughts, and the one about it being a type. Can you - or anyone else, give me a similar prophecy?
By
Rose~, at 10/29/2007 2:36 PM
Rose, given the state of the Israelites at the time of the First Advent I would have to say they, as a whole, understood very little concerning these prophecies. I do wonder if perhaps the Prophets or even the faithful Jews might have had more insight. I am admittedly (and shamefully) very weak in the OT but when I read Isaiah or the Psalms I can’t help but think that these writers were very clear on many points. I would agree with Matthew that this was by revelation and not reason.
I look forward to learning more on this from your other readers.
By
Kc, at 10/30/2007 3:54 AM
Hi Rose,
We had a class on prophesy in our Sunday School a couple years ago. Our pastor gave us handouts of rules for interpretation. This was one of the rules.
Sensus plenior - This Latin phrase meaning "the fuller sense" is used to describe the Bible's application of certain texts to a greater or fuller meaning than was originally understood by the first writer. For example, in Hosea 11:1 we read, "Out of Egypt I called my son." In the original context, this statement is clearly referring to God's bringing the nation of Israel out of Egypt through the prophet Moses. Yet the New Testament reveals that this Scripture also has a fuller or greater meaning, which was probably not apparent to Hosea or his original audience but has been made known through the fuller revelation of Jesus Christ. For instance, in Matthew 2:15, Hosea 11:1 is applied to an event in the life of Jesus Christ. This Scriptural evidence shows that Hosea's words had a greater meaning than was originally understood, a meaning that only became clear with the coming of Christ. Another example of this would be Isaiah 7:14 where the prophet tells King Ahaz of Judah that "a virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." In Isaiah's day this most likely had reference to the child whose birth we read of in Isaiah 8. But with the coming of Christ a greater meaning was understood (see Matthew 1:22-23).
By
VA ~Susan, at 10/30/2007 12:00 PM
Va-Susan, not all commentators take the view that Isaiah was referring to a child born in those days.
Some commentators, particularly some of the older ones take the view that the prophecy was entirely future in Isaiah's day.
God Bless
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 10/30/2007 12:04 PM
Are you feeling prophetic today, Rose?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 10/30/2007 12:05 PM
Matthew,
Yes, I am feeling prophetic. hehe
Susan,
I think you are talking about the principle of "double fulfillment."
Do you remember - is that what your teacher called it?
By
Rose~, at 10/30/2007 12:09 PM
KC,
It is so nice to have you once again visiting my blog. Thank you for learning with me!
By
Rose~, at 10/30/2007 12:10 PM
Matthew and Rose,
I remember another lesson dealing with the Isaiah passage. I will look for it. I think my pastor did mention the term double fulfilment.
By
VA ~Susan, at 10/30/2007 1:33 PM
Once again? I never miss an article! ;-)
By
Kc, at 10/30/2007 6:08 PM
Sorry, I am getting off topic here, Rose.
[Some commentators, particularly some of the older ones take the view that the prophecy was entirely future in Isaiah's day.]
Matthew,
I can't find this in my notes, but as I recall, our pastor explained that the Hebrew text can be translated various ways:
---1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married
----------
but in the Greek rendering of the OT, the word translated "virgin" is much more specific and has to mean a literal virgin. So in that way the verse could apply to a young woman conceiving in the OT and also to the supernatural virgin conception/birth of the Messiah in the New. I hope that makes sense.
There has been much debate on this passage and I don't claim to have the answers!
By
VA ~Susan, at 10/30/2007 6:57 PM
Hi Susan,
I think I do not appreciate the idea of double fulfillment. I think I am not comfortable saying that God meant two things by one single prophecy. Either He meant that a woman who had never had sex would have a child or He meant that a young woman who had would. I am leary of that idea.
That being said, I do relaize that there are 'double references.' For example, in the prophecy which Christ reads when He walked into the temple and read half of the verse and then stopped and says 'today this say is this fulfilled in your hearing.' (leaving off the part about the "day of vengence of our God"). I think that is a double reference - one prophecy containing two separate references to two separate events.
I appreciate your humility about this subject. I certainly don't have all the answers either, but I do think I can say for sure that the double fulfillment idea casts a bit of a pall on the Word of God. I am not likin' it.
By
Rose~, at 11/01/2007 1:28 PM
Rose,
Hosea 11:1 is NOT a prophecy, not at all, not in the least.
Matt 2:15 is NOT an example of fulfilled prophecy.
Fulfillment language does not neccessarily express prophetic fulfillment.
To consider it a prophecy in Hosea and fulfilled prophecy in Matt, would go against the proper rules of hermeneutics.
Matt uses Hosea illustratively, analogically, and comparatively.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 11/01/2007 3:50 PM
Antonio,
Matthew says, "so that it might be fulfilled....which was spoken through the prophet..."
So even if we say it is a prophecy in the loosest sense, we still must recognize that it has a prophetic aspect to it, as a type.
Thanks for the visit.
By
Rose~, at 11/02/2007 4:02 PM
Hi Rose,
I finally stumbled across that verse I was looking for after reading your post.
Ac 28:23
When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.
I suppose most Jews didn't get the Hosea reference(pretty vague, probably none) to their Messiah before his visit but I see that Matthew got it in his gospel record and Paul probably made use of his own knowledge of that in his persuading.
Lord with ya,
Todd
By
Todd Saunders, at 11/02/2007 5:43 PM
Does something that is spoken through a prophet necessarily have to be "prophetic" in a loose sense? That doesn't make sense, Rose.
It was a statement by Hosea and does not have a prophetic sense at all. If we state that it does, then we have left normal, literal hermeneutics. Hosea's statement did not look forward in anyway. Matthew uses Hosea as a comparison only.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 11/03/2007 3:27 PM
Hi Rose,
After reading the above comments I would like to say two things:
1) I have also heard of what Susan referred to as "double fulfillment" prophecies. I think Roy B. Zuck talks about this in his book "Bible Interpretation".
2) I have to agree with you Rose about Hosea's statement being prophetic. You said:
"Matthew says, 'so that it might be fulfilled....which was spoken through the prophet...'"
If the Bible says that a prophet's Old Testament statement is being "FULFILLED" in the N.T., then how can Antonio say: "It was a statement by Hosea and does not have a prophetic sense at all."? I would like to know what O.T. scholars have taken Antonio's view of Hosea's statement?
By
Jonathan Perreault, at 11/03/2007 10:05 PM
Hey Rose,
I just went to crosswalk.com commentaries and copied the C.I. Scofield reference notes from the 1917 edition of his study Bible. I think it may be helpful. Here's what it says for Matthew 2:15:
"2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Out of Egypt
The words quoted are in Hosea 11:1 and the passage illustrates the truth that prophetic utterances often have a latent and deeper meaning than at first appears. Israel, nationally, was a "Song of Solomon 1:1" Exodus 4:22 but Christ was the greater "Song of Solomon 1:1" ; Romans 9:4,5; Isaiah 41:8; 42:1-4; 52:13,14 where the servant-nation and the Servant-Son are both in view."
I had to read it a couple times because of the layout but no big deal.
Blessings
By
Jonathan Perreault, at 11/03/2007 10:17 PM
Todd,
Thank you for that passage. I think of it that way, too. Paul was using whatever he could in the OT to show forth Christ.
Jonathan,
Welcome to my blog! It is nice to have you stop by. Thank you for the contribution from Scofield.
Antonio,
Walk me through this. I can see how a plain and literal look at the Hosea passage would not offer up any prophetic content, but I am not follwong how you don't see the plain and literal words "fulfilled as spoken by the prophet" as being some reference to a "prophecy." Thanks for helping with this!
By
Rose~, at 11/04/2007 2:50 PM
The New is in the old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed.
By
VA ~Susan, at 11/04/2007 4:25 PM
Susan,
Thank you for your thoughts. I don ot totally go along with that approach because I do think that the OT has a literal plain meaning and actually meant something to those reading it and was intended for them to understand to a great extent. However, when the NT touches on a specific OT passage, then we have to see what the NT is saying about it. :~)
By
Rose~, at 11/04/2007 5:14 PM
I got this at the Expository Thoughts blog:
http://www.swbts.edu/resources//SWBTS/Resources/FacultyDocuments/Hamilton/TheVirginWillConceive.7_19_05.pdf
I like this blog. The host is "nice": as in "irenic".
By
anton, at 11/05/2007 11:48 AM
Rose,
The term "fulfilled" (gk:pleroo) does not always refer to fulfilled prophecy. Charles H. Dyer, in "Issues in Dispesationalism" edited by Willis, Master, and Ryrie, has a great article discussing this verse. Look under his section, "the use of pleroo in a 'fulfillment formula' does not always refer to fulfilled prophecy", pg 53ff.
You leave hermeneutics behind and open the door do prog. disp and amil. when you view the OT in a way other than the author intended and the audience understood it.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum also has an article I read stating the same things, and referencing Matt and Hosea. I can't remember the reference.
Matthew is merely drawing parallels between Jesus and the nation Israel. In Matt 2:15, Matthew shows that while Israel was a diobedient child, Christ was not. Matthew draws for us a point of comparison and that of contrast.
Hosea 11:1 is not prophetic in any sense and Matt 2:15 does not in any sense fulfill a prophecy made in the OT.
Pleroo (fulfilled) has many other senses. I am sure any good Gk lexicon (or word study) will prove this.
Not much more time to go over this. There are two books that should be on every dispensationalists bookshelf:
the aforementioned one
and
Progressive dispensationalism [which is a critique of it] edited by Ron J. Bigalke, Jr.
Each of these discusses the fulfillemnt of prophecy and the 12 variations of fulfillment formula language.
JP,
exegete Hosea 11:1, using normal principles of grammatical, historical, and literal hermeneutics, and show us that it is indeed a prophecy.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 11/05/2007 1:39 PM
anton,
Thank you. I think you are saying that you like this blog, Rose's Reasonings and that I am irenic. (If you meant the other blog, Expository Thoughts, then I don't know what to say.) ;~)
Anyways, thanks for the link. I will check it out.
Antonio,
Hey! Thank you so much for your well-reasoned comment. I am so glad you persevered to make your point. I have to be careful about this. Actually, the reason I was even thinking about his verse is because someone I know who is into replacement theology brought the Matthew verse to me as a proof that Christ has replaced Israel. Interesting.
I do want to get that book! Matthew has mentioned it to me before. Wow, I looked on AMazon and it is only available in hardcover and cheapest I could find it for was like 45 dollars. "Issues in Dispensationalism."
I am also going to look for the other book.
John knows a used bookstore here in T-Town that he is going to check for the "issues in ...." title.
Again, thanks so much! I got nervous when Susan left her comment about the New is in the Old Concealed etc...
Don't want to go there. It is a bit confusing though, what with the language there in Matthew. The confusion was what caused me to do this post in the first place. Now I see that one could go either way with this to find clarification. I thank you for providing titles which will help in that. God bless!
By
Rose~, at 11/05/2007 6:54 PM
Geesh!
The other book - Progressive Dispensationalism (Paperback)
by Ron J. Bigalke Jr. is also pricey!
Well, you get what you pay for, I suppose. :~)
By
Rose~, at 11/05/2007 8:24 PM
Antonio,
You correctly say:
"fulfilled" (gk:pleroo) does not always refer to fulfilled prophecy."
However, we must remember that the Gospel of Matthew was written with a focus on a JEWISH audience. In this regard, Matthew often quotes from their Old Testament (OT) to prove his points and substantiate his claims.
A number of passages in Matthew use the Greek word pleroo to speak of an OT prophecy being fulfilled in the NT. Why should we view Matthew 2:15 as breaking this pattern (the pattern of a NT action fulfilling an OT prophecy)? Please consider the verses below with important Strong's Concordance numbers:
Mat 1:22
Now all this was done, that 2443 it might be fulfilled 4137 which 3588 was spoken 4483 of 5259 the Lord 2962 by 1223 the prophet 4396, saying
Mat 2:15
And was there until the death of Herod: that 2443 it might be fulfilled 4137 which 3588 was spoken 4483 of 5259 the Lord 2962 by 1223 the prophet 4396, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Mat 2:17
Then 5119 was fulfilled 4137 that which 3588 was spoken 4483 by 5259 Jeremy 2408 the prophet 4396, saying,
Mat 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that 3704 it might be fulfilled 4137 which 3588 was spoken 4483 by 1223 the prophets 4396, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Mat 3:15
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer[it to be so] now: for 1063 thus 3779 it becometh 4241 2076 us 2254 to fulfil 4137 all 3956 righteousness 1343. Then he suffered him.
Mat 4:14
That 2443 it might be fulfilled 4137 which 3588 was spoken 4483 by 1223 Esaias 2268 the prophet 4396, saying,
Mat 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law 3551, or the prophets 4396: I am 2064 0 not 3756 come 2064 to destroy 2647 , but 235 to fulfil 4137 .
Mat 8:17
That it might 3704 be fulfilled 4137 which was spoken 4483 by 1223 Esaias 2268 the prophet 4396, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare [our] sicknesses.
Mat 12:17
That 3704 it might be fulfilled 4137 which 3588 was spoken 4483 by 1223 Esaias 2268 the prophet 4396, saying,
Mat 13:35
That 3704 it might be fulfilled 4137 which 3588 was spoken 4483 by 1223 the prophet 4396, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Mat 21:4
All 1161 3650 this 5124 was done 1096 , that 2443 it might be fulfilled 4137 which 3588 was spoken 4483 by 1223 the prophet 4396, saying,
Mat 26:54
But how 4459 then 3767 shall the scriptures 1124 be fulfilled 4137 , that thus it must be?
Mat 26:56
But 1161 all 3650 this 5124 was done 1096 , that 2443 the scriptures 1124 of the prophets 4396 might be fulfilled 4137 . Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Mat 27:9
Then was fulfilled 4137 that which 3588 was spoken 4483 by 1223 Jeremy 2408 the prophet 4396, saying 3004 , And 2532 they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
Mat 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that 2443 it might be fulfilled 4137 which 3588 was spoken 4483 by 5259 the prophet 4396, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
By
Jonathan Perreault, at 11/05/2007 8:35 PM
JP,
there are several reasons, but first let us see your exegesis of Hosea 11:1 that proves for us that it is indeed a prophecy.
While you are at it, go ahead and exegete Jer 31:15 (quoted in Matt 2:18) showing it to be a prophecy, and while you are at it, go ahead and give us the OT reference and prophecy of Matt 2:23.
Why did you ref Matt 3:15?
I would have to say that "fulfill" in Matt 5:17, has to take a sense that contrasts to fulfilled prophecy. I believe I can make a case, if I were so inclined, to show that the way the law is "fulfilled" is different than how a bona-fide prophecy in the OT is.
Please show us how Ps 78:2 which is referred by Matt in 13:35 is a prophecy when considered by the plain, normal, historical, grammatical, literal hermeneutic.
Zech 11:17 is where Matt takes 27:9-10 (attributing it to Jeremiah). Please show us in the Zech passage using the principles of sound literal hermeneutics that it is indeed a prophecy.
Matthew uses the term "fulfill" in a fluid way that can refer to the 'fulfillment' of bona-fide prophesy that refers to a OT prediction being realized. But it does not always mean that. Matthew uses it in a sense of points of comparison being realized, beautifying his narrative by the inclusion of OT analogous expression.
The "deeper meaning" stuff of things such as sensus plenior is the wide open door of allegory and subjectivity resulting in the damaging of the Bible and the introduction of foriegn theologies such as prog disp. and amillennialism.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 11/05/2007 11:27 PM
Antonio,
I too disagree with progressive dispensationalism and amillennialism, and so I value your motive in this discussion.
I believe the verses I provided above from the book of Matthew demonstrate that their OT counterparts are in some way prophetic. I believe these verses in Matthew provide the Divine commentary on their OT counterparts. And so I don't have to prove from the OT that these passages are prophetic because the NT clearly says they are!
Now, about Matthew 2:15, I am open to reading any study you want to send me. As I understand it, however, Matthew 2:15 speaks of a typological fulfillment of Hosea 11:1, as the Nelson Study Bible (edited by Earl Radmacher) notes.
By
Jonathan Perreault, at 11/06/2007 3:24 PM
Rose, yo' right! I meant your blog! It passed anton's ego test: you appreciate good comments, even if its a Calvinist making it. We have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water!
The other blog often fails the test: its a bit like Pyro Strong. Or is Pyro like ET Lite?! :^)
By
anton, at 11/07/2007 12:49 PM
Anton,
Your link wouldn't work. give it to me again? Maybe break it up?
By
Rose~, at 11/07/2007 1:10 PM
Quote:
Typological Fulfillment in Matthew
The following brief explanations are offered in an attempt to embrace the perspective
that might have driven Matthew’s “fulfillment” formulas. Hosea 11:1 is famously cited in Matthew 2:15. In its OT context, this verse is manifestly not a prediction that one day the
Messiah will be summoned from Egypt. Rather, the reference in Hosea 11:1 to God’s son is a reference to the nation, as the statements preceding and following the words Matthew cites show.
Before the words “and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 11:1b) are the words, “When Israel was a youth I loved him” (11:1a). Then 11:2a reads, “They called to them, thus they went from before them” (so BHS), or as most English translations have it (taking into account the Greek and Syriac translations), “Just as I called them, so they departed from my presence.” This seems
to be a reference to the nation of Israel being brought out of Egypt and sustained in the wilderness only to rebel against Yahweh, who had redeemed them. Matthew neither introduces this quotation because he is unable to find a better “proof-text” nor because he has failed to understand what Hosea was saying. Rather, Matthew cites these words because just as the nation, the collective son of God, was led out of Egypt by the pillar of fire and cloud to failure in the
desert, so Jesus, the singular son of God was summoned out of Egypt and then led out to the desert by the Spirit to succeed against temptation (Matt 4:1–11).58 The historical circumstances correspond to one another, but the stakes are higher and Jesus is found faithful where the nation
grumbled and rebelled.59 The fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 is typological, as the elements of historical correspondence and escalation show.
Rose, maybe you need to load Acrobat Reader?
By
anton, at 11/08/2007 3:32 AM
Anton,
That's an interesting quote. It seems to be giving more detail to what I was referring to. Where is that quote from if I may ask?
By
Jonathan Perreault, at 11/08/2007 5:34 PM
Hi Jonathan,
Here you go:
http://www.swbts.edu/resources//SWBTS/Resources/FacultyDocuments/Hamilton/TheVirginWillConceive.7_19_05.pdf
By
anton, at 11/09/2007 3:20 AM
anton's link
(the whole link came through on the email notification of his comment, but I can see that it again was not showing up on the comment page of this post - too long of a link)
By
Rose~, at 11/09/2007 7:41 AM
OK, I just read that paper in the link. I must say I am intrigued. I had never thought about that too much. I suppose I have never thought enough about this whole subject.
An interesting observation - the article seems to be written by a progressive dispensationallist, but his approach to the opening of Matthew is the same that Antonio uses to keep the door closed to progressive disp and amillenialism. Then again, maybe Antonio is not suggesting the same approach as what is in the article.
ANTONIO,
I know you are busy, but if you happen to see this, I would simply appreciate it if you would read that article and comment on it. Fat chance? Time is at such a premium, I know.
What do you think, Jonathan?
By
Rose~, at 11/09/2007 10:13 AM
I just re-read Antonio's and Jonathan's comments. I wish either one would say what the difference is between their understanding of these prophecies being fulfilled and the author of that article linked. The author says his approach is typographical historical correspondence and escalation. What happens with Christ was patterned in what had previously happened with Israel, but it is escalated and intensified, simply put. How is that differeent from your perspective, JONATHAN and ANTONIO, please? Thanks! :~)
(I capped your names so you would see it in the comment - not to yell at you, hehe)
By
Rose~, at 11/09/2007 10:21 AM
I could be wrong about the guy, but statements like this make me wonder if he is a bit of a NCT or PD.
After the genealogy, the opening chapters of Matthew show the recapitulation of the history of Israel in the life of Jesus
Then again, maybe I am all wrong. Graphic designer.
By
Rose~, at 11/09/2007 12:41 PM
I couldn't get this link to work:
http://www.swbts.edu/resources//SWBTS
I could got to www.swbts.edu but not the longer address
By
Jonathan Perreault, at 11/09/2007 3:19 PM
Hi guys,
I hope you've wrapped your minds around the article by now. You would have found that he is saying exactly the same thing Antonio's saying, 'cept that the author probably took a few months to put it together, whilst Antonio is "winging" it, (done very well, I must add!). Which proves that this type of conversation is best done while sitting facing each another over coffee or at a seminar with well prepared, related, multi-disciplined documentation at hand.
To demonstrate, consider how the boys at Pyro do it (wrongly!):
They slap together a piece, stack it with biased opinion and blow away all comers by asking for, basically, theses that show the opposing view. (Not that they could understand these even if it WAS presented to them. Note the many times Antonio cited exegetical material for his views and was dismissed offhand... they couldn't even come back WITH their own exegesis!). Ditto their treatment of TheBlueRaja.
Whilst its good to exhibit some scepticism or fear about being presented with views that unsettle you, I'd suggest we adopt humble attitudes. We could appreciate the posters' efforts and promise to examine them and come back with OUR reaction/opinion. Dismissing the view as unorthodox or adopting a simplistic view of: "The Bible says "fulfilled" so it means "fulfilled" is non-productive to say the least.
What if the the poster comes across too technical? Well Jesus says:
11 “When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” Luke 12:11-12 NASB.
Matt 2:15 requires an understanding of authorial intent. Some people say that this understanding is helped with a bit of knowledge about epistemology, specifically speech act theory. See Blue's great explanation here:
http://greensoylent.blogspot.com/search/label/Postmodernism
Scroll down to Vanhoozer, semiotics.
Does this mean we have to join seminary? Well, I'm not a seminarian, and the Lord has led me quite well, as He has you. I've read your first posts! ;) Great progress made since! I've started to use material from your Romans study in my group!
Graphic Designer, eh? you should read:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Visible-Signs-Introduction-Semiotics-Advanced/dp/2884790357
Expensive, but unlike theological books, these should be available at your public library.
Blessings.
Sorry for the long post!
By
anton, at 11/10/2007 2:11 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home