Does Scripture reject Eisegesis?

Bible-dust-read-me

blogs.thegospelcoalition.org

Eisegesis – “the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.” As I’ve come to be more of an astute “studier” of the Word, I’ve done my best to avoid this style of subjectively determining what the text means, but letting the text tell me what it means. A good friend once told me that the best way to interpret Scripture is with Scripture. In other words, if God is the Word as John 1 states, and you don’t understand something He said, then let Him explain things further to you by searching through all of what He has to say, rather than jumping to your own conclusion and assuming what He’s saying. If I see a verse I don’t understand, I look for another verse on the same subject, or I look at the verse prior or after that verse to get the understanding of what the meaning of the text is.

Verses that appear to condemn subjective interpretation

There appear to be numerous verses that suggest that we should be careful in not reading what we want to see or what we want to believe in the text, and believing and following strictly what the text is stating to us, and just leaving it at that. Scripture never seems to instruct followers of Christ to create too much of their own subjective meaning beyond the words of what’s being stated. It seems instead it indicates we should understand whatever events are occurring and whatever things are being stated in the context of what all of Scripture tells us. It warns us of false teachers who are going to twist the Word in exactly that manner of creating their own ideas that please other’s desires. But let me not just tell you all of this, let me let you read the Word and determine  for yourself. Now I acknowledge that not all of these verses are specifically directed to the Body of Christ, but what I’m offering you in showing you all these verses is a continuing pattern of God wanting His people to be careful to stick to what He says, and watch out for people who twist what He says to their own desires.

Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.”

Pro 30:6 “Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.”

Mark 7:6-9 “And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”

1 Cor 4:6 “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.”

Gal 1:9 “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

Col 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”

2 Thes 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

2 Thes 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.”

2 Thes 3:14 “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.”

1 Timothy 1:3 “As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,”

1 Timothy 4:1 “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,”

2 Timothy 1:13 “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.”

2 Peter 2:1 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.”

2 Peter 3:16 “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

1 John 2:24 “As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.”

2 John 1:9 “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.”

Rev 22:18 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;”

Are these verses strong evidence?

In this writer’s conclusion at least, these verses appear to be strong evidence against Eisegesis, or at the very least telling us to be highly cautious of using subjectivity to interpret scripture. Apostle Paul gives Timothy a warning in 2 Timothy 2:2-4, “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.…” If all of God’s word is right as 2 Timothy 3:16 seems to indicate, then I don’t think we have to come up with our own ideas to understand it. We can just go by what it states being that all of it is right, and all of it will rightfully explain itself.

May we all be careful to keep our understanding of Scripture solely based on all of what God tells us in His Word, and not based on any particular bias or desire of what we want to see or hear in His Word.

Peace to all those who are in Christ.

 

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Does Scripture reject Eisegesis?

  1. WHY DO MEN REJECT THE TRUTH?- BY STEVE FINNELL

    Do men reject God’s truth because they cannot understand it or is it because they make a considered choice?

    2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, be cause they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

    Men perish because they do not love God’s truth.

    2 Thessalonians 2:10-12……11 For this reason God will send a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

    Those who reject the truth concerning the saving grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, will be judged. Trading the pleasure of wickedness for the love of God’s truth is a bad deal.

    John 8:43-44 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word? 44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father…..

    Jesus said some of the Jews rejected the truth because they simply choose to serve the devil. We all have a choice to make, serve God or reject Him.

    Romans 1:28-32 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper….32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practices such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

    Men reject God’s truth because of considered rebellion. It is not, that they do not know the truth. They know God’s ordinance (authoritative law), they just ignore it.

    John 12:42 Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;

    The rulers believed the truth, and then rejected it, because they did not want to be put out of the synagogue. Are there Christians today who know the truth, that is found in the Bible, but will not confess it because they do not want to be put out of their denominations or be ostracized by family or friends.

    REJECTING THE TRUTH IS A CONSIDERED CHOICE!

    (All Scripture is quoted from: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com

  2. The Bible is God document. It is from God to man (2 Ti.3:16). Righteousness of God in the old testament is imputed but with Christ we become on the right side of God. The Parable of the Wedding Guest who was refused entry. Make your calling and election sure. Being God document it is faith and not merely reason that is crucial. My inner man(soul) and my mind both should say Amen. Ro.10:17 Reason is where we disentagle scriptural knots by a comb of sound doctrinal principles. Sayings of Jesus, ‘Gouge your eye etc., Does one stop adultry by it? Sin enters through mind. Only by grace and not by violence done to your body you can conquer your line of thinking and over sin. Besides Jesus came to save and not make man by own works achieve salvation.

    • Hi Benny! Thanks for your comment. Agreed, we get the knowledge we need from God in scripture. And I’m thankful for the grace we’re all given as we do our best to strive for holiness in all of our thoughts and actions.

      Peace to you in Christ. 🙂

  3. Hi, factbasedtruth. I hope it will be okay to leave my comments on each verse here. I think it would be best to go through each one carefully, so I will just take them one at a time. I read some of your interpretive methodology book, so I will try to incorporate those principles into my interpretations.

    Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

    In your book, you said that it was important to consider the context of every verse, so I will start with that. Forgive me if I make any errors, as I only began studying the Bible again a couple of years ago and still haven’t been back through the whole thing yet.

    In this part of Deuteronomy, it would seem Moses is addressing the Israelites before they cross over into the Promised Land without him. This is after forty years wandering in the desert. Moses is telling the Israelites to remember the word that God commanded them, which the text says includes what was written in the Ten Commandments and also the Mosaic Law, and also the word God spoke to them directly from the fiery mountain (which may have been exactly the same as what was written by Moses, verbatim, but nonetheless he refers to this). It directs them to teach these things to their children and their children’s children. (Interestingly enough, later in Deut 11:2, which seems to be part of the same speech, he says, “Keep in mind today that I am not speaking to your children, who neither were aware of nor did they witness the discipline of the LORD your God, that is, his great and far-reaching power;” so perhaps these words have bearing on the context as well?) Given the audience and the speaker, as well as the fact that much of the Old Testament was not yet written, much less the New Testament, perhaps what God is directing through Moses is that the Israelites are to not add or take away from the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law? So perhaps this particular verse is not directly stating that Scripture is to be the only authority, in light of the fact that there were many prophets and authorities still to come, and who themselves did not exercise their claim to authority through scripture, but by virtue of the authority given them by God?

    • Hello catholiccooties,

      Yes, we can discuss these verses here, and I’m glad you read my book. Indeed, I do instruct it’s important to consider context, and just to reiterate what I stated in this writing, which I should probably modify a little since my writing wasn’t written as clearly as I probably could have when I first wrote this, I was aware that all of these verses were out of context, but as I mentioned in one of our comments, I use these verses to suggest there’s a pattern throughout scripture encouraging sticking to what’s been specifically instructed and not veering from that. Looking back at this writing as I reflect on it, this was really more an argument against subjective understanding versus objective understanding, and probably less so about sticking to scripture. However there are some verses included here in this list that seem to specifically indicate at least some importance of sticking to what written/in the letters that is available.

      To your point about not everything having been written down in this time period in Deuteronomy or other time periods, perhaps that doesn’t necessarily negate an importance of sticking to whatever form of written text that was available during any of the time periods in scripture, and perhaps thus an influence of us to do the same. But they did have more of a reliance on prophets and other spiritual authorities that helped them, and it’s my view those prophets and spiritual authorities proved themselves to be of God all throughout scripture by performing miracles. I question spiritual authorities who proclaim today to have that level of divine calling to dictate people’s understanding of scripture because of the inability to demonstrate the evidence of their calling through performance of miracles just as the spiritual authorities in scripture did. At least no ability that I’ve ever witnessed. But at the same time, I do think that everyone should consider the words of authorities in the church, as they have devoted much of their time to understanding these things.

      • ” it’s my view those prophets and spiritual authorities proved themselves to be of God all throughout scripture by performing miracles. I question spiritual authorities who proclaim today to have that level of divine calling to dictate people’s understanding of scripture because of the inability to demonstrate the evidence of their calling through performance of miracles just as the spiritual authorities in scripture did.”

        A fair point and worth considering. And yet, sometimes the prophets, and even Jesus in certain places, did not do many miracles. Tradition purports many miracles in Catholic Church history, continuing even to the present day, but perhaps miracles aren’t always the best reason for belief. After all, Jesus said that those who would believe even without seeing and touching, as Saint Thomas did, were blessed.

        In any case, I think the idea that the Catholic Church would dictate people’s understanding of scripture is better understood as an authority to discern whether or not certain interpretations of Scripture are harmonious with the faith handed on to them by Christ through the apostles, a faith which you would say, I think, is entirely contained within the pages of Scripture, whereas I would claim the authority of Scripture relies upon the authority and promises given to the Church, which wrote, compiled, and maintained it.

      • “And yet, sometimes the prophets, and even Jesus in certain places, did not do many miracles.”

        I would say while it may not have happened in a every single event recorded, I don’t view that as diminishing the point that it was a significant if not a central part of affirming the spiritual authority.

        “the Church, which wrote, compiled, and maintained it.”

        I think this brings us back to our other disagreement about whether it was the Holy Spirit that authored scripture, which I’ve currently concluded and thus, if I’m following scripture, I believe I’m following God’s authority. And just as scripture speaks of human authorities to be established by the instructions of which how they are established, I respect those authorities that are established in that way.

      • ” it was a significant if not a central part of affirming the spiritual authority.”

        I’m interested in your assertion. Could you expand on the idea that scriptural authority is centrally established by miracles? Are their specific verses referring to this?

        “I think this brings us back to our other disagreement about whether it was the Holy Spirit that authored scripture”

        I believe that men writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote Scripture, making what they wrote inerrant, which I assumed is what you also believe. At the same time, the Church has had to decide what constitutes inspired writing and what does not. I suppose one could try to compile a Bible for themselves, based upon scriptural comparisons and whatnot, but such would be the work of a lifetime and surely completely unhelpful in establishing any kind of community understanding. It would be like saying, “Hold on, let me study Scripture for a few dozen years and determine what is truly Scripture and what isn’t, and then we can compare notes.” It would make the Christian religion impossible, in practice. So instead, we trust in the collective discernment/charism of the larger body of Christianity and accept that these books (except those books which some Protestants have rejected for the last five hundred years or so) are Scripture.

        “And just as scripture speaks of human authorities to be established by the instructions of which how they are established, I respect those authorities that are established in that way.”

        Which authorities are those specifically? Where are they found in the world today?

      • “Could you expand on the idea that scriptural authority is centrally established by miracles? ”

        Well actually I was saying spiritual authority. Was that what you were meaning to ask, or were you asking what you may have thought I said in the word “scriptural”, which would be an understandably easy mistake to make since spiritual and scriptural are very close in spelling.

        “I believe that men writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote Scripture, making what they wrote inerrant, which I assumed is what you also believe.”

        Oh okay, maybe I misunderstood your conclusion on 2 Peter 1:21.

        “At the same time, the Church has had to decide what constitutes inspired writing and what does not. I suppose one could try to compile a Bible for themselves, based upon scriptural comparisons and whatnot, but such would be the work of a lifetime and surely completely unhelpful in establishing any kind of community understanding.”

        Who is it that you define as “the Church” that decided what was inspired writing and what wasn’t? And is it your understanding the means by which they made these decisions are based in the Holy Spirit having fully maintained these oral traditions which they were given and used to determine which books were inspired and which books weren’t?

        “Which authorities are those specifically? Where are they found in the world today?”

        Well the same set of verses that if I’ve been understanding you correctly that you point to as Catholic authorities (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1), I point to as well as the local leaders (pastors, deacons) in the local congregations chosen for teaching the local congregation, managing the local congregation, and being a good example to the community. And they’re chosen based on fitting the qualifications listed in my understanding.

      • “Well actually I was saying spiritual authority. Was that what you were meaning to ask,”

        I was assuming that the spiritual authority you spoke of extended to the writing of Holy Scripture, so that people accepted certain books as inspired because of miracles associated with their writers or people who authoritatively declared their inspiration to the faithful.

        “Who is it that you define as “the Church” that decided what was inspired writing and what wasn’t?”

        The collective church communities established by the apostles and governed over by their successors, acting through the various councils and decrees which established the infallible canon of scripture. Which I suppose brings up a question for me. I assume you believe Scripture is infallible. Do you believe the current canon of Scripture, which books belong in the Bible and which ones don’t, is also infallible?

        “Well the same set of verses that if I’ve been understanding you correctly that you point to as Catholic authorities (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1), I point to as well as the local leaders (pastors, deacons) in the local congregations chosen for teaching the local congregation, managing the local congregation, and being a good example to the community. And they’re chosen based on fitting the qualifications listed in my understanding.”

        Who chooses them for these positions of authority?

      • “I was assuming that the spiritual authority you spoke of extended to the writing of Holy Scripture, so that people accepted certain books as inspired because of miracles associated with their writers or people who authoritatively declared their inspiration to the faithful. ”

        Ah, okay. I understand now. Well honesty, I’ve kind of reflected a lot on the idea of why certain writings were accepted and why certain ones are not. I know some conclude the miraculous leading of the Holy Spirit in early church fathers led to the gathering of the right texts that should be accepted as God breathed, and the separation of the ones that shouldn’t. I would guess maybe you would agree pointing to the oral tradition of your Catholic church that you believe preserved the proper writings and of course in the means in which to understand them as we’ve been debating the last few weeks, haha.

        Myself, I open myself to reading writings that weren’t necessarily deemed accepted, but then also just accept that we do have what we have, and trust my own personal sense of spiritual truthfulness and connection with what we have, and of course archaeological evidence confirms some things in these writings accurate as well, so while I think the theme of miraculous workings affirming spiritual authorities in scripture is present throughout the beginnings of the Old Testament to the ends of the New Testament, as far as it’s extension to scripture, I’m humble enough to say I don’t have a definitive conclusion on that.

        ” various councils and decrees which established the infallible canon of scripture.” When you say various councils and decrees, are you meaning an authoritative group of people here?

        “I assume you believe Scripture is infallible. Do you believe the current canon of Scripture, which books belong in the Bible and which ones don’t, is also infallible?”

        Oh, looks like I got ahead of your question there. Yes, I believe that what I’ve been reading as a part of the Protestant canon of scripture is infallible. And as far as the books that have been deemed not infallible and not to be included as a part of the canon, I’ve read some of those books for my own curiosity and even some Protestant denominations that deemed some books as not to be considered God breathed are still worth having in an apocrypha for people to read. So I certainly conclude we have what we have for a reason, and as far as what was not included, I just take a look at things for myself.

        “Who chooses them for these positions of authority? ”

        I see them as being able to serve in that position based on fitting the qualifications listed. Does the Catholic Church view that someone is instructed to choose who these people are?

      • I would only reiterate most of these verses were used to prove a point of objective understanding over subjective understanding. But I suppose the ones as it relates to writing would seem suitable to examine.

  4. As far as the general pattern of verses, I would strongly argue (unless I see evidence to the contrary) that only three of your verses explicitly refer to scripture, with a possible fourth, and that the rest seem to conflate, or assume an equivalency between, the word ‘word’ and written scripture. Do you think that is a fair assessment?

    Of the three remaining verses that refer specifically to written scriptures, 2 Thes 3:14 and Revelations 22:18 seem to be self-referential, but do not seem to either include or exclude other writings or traditions as authoritative. 2 Peter 3:16 asserts that some people twist scripture, but does not seem to say anything about whether or not Scripture is the only or highest authority.

    Of all the verses, it is really only 1 Cor 4:6 that seems at first to be potentially problematic to me: “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.”

    So let’s look at that verse.

    The key part of this verse that would seem to support your position are the words “you may learn not to exceed what is written.” I would point out that this is proceeded by a key phrase ‘in us,’ which seems to be used to qualify the statement. In other words, ‘do not exceed what is written about us.’ This seems to be further supported by the conclusion of the verse, “so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” In other words, the specific context ‘not to exceed what is written’ concerns the apostles or other teachers, and the reason is so that ‘no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” What that means is another matter, but my point is that the verse seems to be about a specific issue and not an explicit statement of general principle for regulating all faith-related matters.

    • “that the rest seem to conflate, or assume an equivalency between, the word ‘word’ and written scripture. Do you think that is a fair assessment?”

      I think this goes back to our understanding of whether the Holy Spirit authored scripture or not, which I conclude that the Holy Spirit did. If John 1 tells us the Word is God, The Word became Flesh as Jesus, the Holy Spirit is an entity of God, and the Word is also the Holy Spirit, Scripture comes from Holy Spirit, then thus Scripture = the Word. In my estimation.

      “but my point is that the verse seems to be about a specific issue and not an explicit statement of general principle for regulating all faith-related matters.”

      Putting aside your interpretation for a moment, which I’ll examine again for thought in perhaps the next response, does it seem inconsistent to use the same argument I used against the verse you hold as a proof of your authority conclusions? It seems I made a similar point to yours in relation to 2 Peter 3:15-16 that you assert means an authority in general must conclude proper interpretation of scripture, when there were specific things referenced earlier in that chapter, that were tying with the statements later in the chapter. In what way do you determine when it’s appropriate to say something something is specific and when it’s appropriate to say something is to be generalized? Absence of knowing your standard, it could appear as if you’re choosing something to be specific and something to be general whenever it supports your particular bias. Which I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing here, because I think you’ve generally been consistent in using similar arguments in all situations.

      • “the Word is also the Holy Spirit”

        I have to admit that is an unfamiliar concept to me. Still, I agree that Holy Scripture is Spirit-breathed, and that the Spirit also works through it.

        “does it seem inconsistent to use the same argument I used against the verse you hold as a proof of your authority conclusions?”

        I appreciate your pointing out a potential inconsistency to me. I can see the potential of an inconsistency there, so it’s a fair question.

        First off, I would reiterate, I am not a scholar, so I don’t know if I even have a standard, so to speak, of judging whether something should be taken as specific or general. I think both verses are worthy of a lot of careful study and consideration, and I don’t consider my analysis the end-all-be-all final word on it. Particularly, though, in 1 Cor 4:6, Paul says “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos,” which seems very specific, especially considering he follows up with two very specific ‘thats’, “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” Now, again, we have the words “in us” applied to “what is written,” so this would seem to me to mean he is referring to specific writing, writing about Paul and Apollos, the writing he has just written about, Whereas in 2 Peter, when he says ” as also in all his letters” it seems to mean what he is saying in this specific instance can be generalized about Paul’s other letters, i.e., that there are some things hard to understand, and then the insertion of “as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” seems to be the addition of a generalization within a specific statement. Now, that does not necessarily mean you are wrong about “ignorant/untaught and unsteady” applying only to the previously mentioned “mockers” that question the coming of the Lord, and not a general statement about “ignorant and unsteady” Bible readers. As it stands, it appears to me as if this could be a generalization, but I am willing to concede that I haven’t proven that it is.

      • Glad I could throw out a different thought to you, and I’m glad you were humble enough to acknowledge the potential inconsistency there. To get back to the verse, I agree. I see that verse is talking about not exceeding writing with regards to Apostle Paul and Apollos being both servants of Christ, and not sides that they should puff up as one against the other. I would only still suggest that we do have a pattern of verses that suggests the importance of written instruction being authoritative. And turning to where I closed in this post, Timothy is instructed to preach the Word which with what I mentioned earlier on my understanding of what the Word is, I see it as basically stating preach scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 reminds us also that all of scripture is inspired by God, or an alternative translation states God-breathed, which would seem to mean to me we’re all following God’s direction when we follow what scripture specifically states because it is God-breathed.

        ““as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” seems to be the addition of a generalization within a specific statement.” “” as also in all his letters” it seems to mean what he is saying in this specific instance can be generalized about Paul’s other letters, i.e., that there are some things hard to understand, and then the insertion of “as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” seems to be the addition of a generalization within a specific statement. ”

        “speaking in them of these things”. When we look back at the passage that line is stated right before “as in all his letters”. It seems it’s stating that those “these things” are being spoken in all of Paul’s letters, and that some of those “these things” are hard to understand and are distorted. For me it just appears too closely tied together to be looked at any other way. I’ve conceded a few points here and there in some of your responses, so I hope by now you know I wouldn’t normally not be open to a different understanding, and with that I really hope you may perhaps at least reconsider your understanding of this verse, even if you still express from other verses your authority theology is an accurate belief to hold. It’s been very interesting looking at that particular passage.

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 )

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