Notes on Eschatology
In the historical introduction to these lectures preterism was presented as a method of interpreting the Book of Revelation originating within Roman Catholicism. It was offered by them as an alternative to the historicist method and its identification of the Roman Papacy as the Beast. It contrasted with the system of interpretation known as futurism which was also presented by the Jesuits as an alternative to historicism. While futurism referred the events of the Revelation primarily to a future period of tribulation at the end of this age, preterism declared that with very few or no exceptions its prophecies were fulfilled by or before the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.
This previous description provides a good introduction to what we come to study in this lecture. Preterism, however, as we now take it up (and as it has come to be promoted in recent history) describes more than a mere system of interpretation for the prophecies of the Revelation. It is now defended as adequate to explain all the predictions about the future contained in the New Testament. Much of the old postmillennialism of a previous and the resurgent postmillennialism of our day contains a strong preteristic tendency.(1) That is to say, it tends to find in the events of A. D. 70 or before the fulfillment of most New Testament prophecies.
Thorough-going preterism is defended in a volume authored by J. Stuart Russell entitled
The Parousia.(2) It is this thorough-going preterism which will form the subject of this lecture.
A. Its Assertions
The Parousia attempts to examine every prophetic utterance not only in the Book of Revelation, but also in the entire New Testament. Russell may be allowed to state his amazing conclusions for himself.
Our Lord affirms the same speedy coming of judgment upon the land and people of Israel; and He further connects this judgment with His own coming in glory,--the Parousia. This event stands forth most prominently in the New Testament; to this every eye is directed, to this every inspired messenger points. It is represented as the nucleus and centre of a cluster of great events; the end of the age, or close of the Jewish economy; the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem; the judgment of the guilty nation; the resurrection of the dead; the reward of the faithful; the consummation of the kingdom of God. All these transactions are declared to be coincident with the Parousia.(3)
These assertions are so amazing that one might fail to take them literally. Suffice to say, that in the following pages of his conclusion and throughout the book, Russell makes clear that the parousia, resurrection, and judgment took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, though in "the region of the spiritual and invisible".(4) He can even assert that "Scripture prophecy guides us no further" than the events which took place at the destruction of Jerusalem.(5)
B. Its Arguments
A perusal of Russell's closing summary reveals that there are two main arguments upon which he bases his bold system.(6) In the first place he bases his system on all the language of imminence used in the New Testament with regard to the second coming. His contention is simply that taking such language seriously requires us to believe that Jesus' parousia actually took place during the lifetimes of at least some who originally were told to watch and wait for Christ's return because it was near. It is not necessary to repeat here all the references which contain the language of imminence in the New Testament, since they were cited in the discussion of the any-moment imminence of Pre-tribulationism.
In the second place Russell builds his case on three passages which appear to assert that Christ would return within the lifetimes of at least some of his original disciples. Those passages are the following:
Matthew 10:23 "But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish
going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 16:28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Matthew 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
We will take up these arguments in reverse order.
1. The Argument from the Three Passages
a. An Examination of the Three Passages
Impressive as these references may seem at first glance, Russell's application of them to Christ's second coming cannot be sustained with regard to any of them.
Matthew 24:34, as we have seen, does refer to the then-living generation of Jews, but an examination of the context shows, again as we have seen (and as Murray argues), that there is a contrast present with verse 36. The "all these things" is contrasted with the "that day and hour" of v. 36. "That day and hour" is a reference to Christ's second coming. "All these things" must, therefore, be (as the use of similar phrases throughout the discourse suggests) a reference to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem.
Matthew 16:28 might again be superficially viewed as an unambiguous statement that the second coming of Christ would take place during the lifetimes of Peter, James, and John. There are, however, a number of difficulties in the way of this apparently plausible interpretation.
(1) Matthew 16:28 along with its parallel passages Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 each occur immediately prior to the account of the Transfiguration in their respective gospels. It seems impossible to me that this juxtaposition should be coincidental. The language of Christ
coming in His kingdom would appear, then, to be a reference to His transfiguration on the Mount which was a kind of precursor of His second coming in glory. Also suggestive of this identification is the reference to "some of those standing here" a clear reference to Peter, James, and John who accompanied Jesus up the Mount of Transfiguration.
(2) It might be argued that this identification contradicts the contextual reference in Matt. 16:27 to the fact that "the Son of Man is going to come in the glory His Father". Since the same word for coming is used in verse 27, it could be argued that the reference must be to the same coming. It is possible that far from identifying the two comings the two verses are intended to contrast them by calling the one a coming in "the glory of His Father" and the other a "coming in His kingdom". In this vein it is significant that in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke the language of coming is not used. This strengthens the view that there is an implied contrast with reference to Christ's glorious coming which is mentioned in each immediately preceding context. There is a contrast in Mark 8:38 and 9:1 between "the Son of Man ... when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" and "seeing the kingdom of God after it has come with power". There is also a contrast in Luke 9:26 and 27 between "the Son of Man ... when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" and "seeing the kingdom of God".
(3) Since Russell's book is named The Parousia,
it is worth noting that in none of these passages is the word, parousia, used. It might be argued against this that in 2 Pet. 1:16 the word, parousia, is used of the transfiguration. What Peter actually says, however, is this: "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." It is unlikely that this is intended to identify the transfiguration as Christ's parousia. Christ's parousia is identified as a future event in 2 Pet. 3:4. It is more likely, then, that Peter intends to say that his eyewitness of the majesty of Christ confirms that what he has taught them about the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is not a cleverly devised tale.
Matthew 10:23's reference to "until the Son of Man comes" might again appear to be plausibly understood of Christ's second coming, while the reference, "you will not finish going through the cities of Israel," seems to fit the preterist scheme which makes this coming take place at the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. Disagreement has reigned over every aspect of the interpretation of Matthew 10:23. This itself should caution us against grounding our whole scheme of eschatology on such a text. The coming of the Son of man referred to here has been made to be: (1) an afterwards unmentioned coming of Jesus to the cities of Israel during His earthly ministry (2) His resurrection and/or outpouring of His Spirit (3) His coming in blessing by His Spirit on His apostles' ministries (4) His supposed coming at the destruction of Jerusalem (5) His final coming in glory at the end of the age. Likewise the reference to the cities of Israel has been understood to refer to: (1) the literal cities of Israel of that day (2) any cities where Christ's ministers might flee for refuge to the end of the age, especially cities inhabited by professing members of God's people (3) the cities of a restored Israel during the great tribulation at the end of the age.
Though such diversity of opinion among exegetes does not mean that a compelling interpretation of this text is impossible, yet the fact is that I have no dogmatically held understanding of this text to offer. I can only give my opinion under several considerations:
First, it is not necessary in order to avoid the extremes of preterism to maintain that all references to "the coming of the Son of Man" must be a reference to His final coming at the end of the age in glory. We have already seen such a reference in Matthew 16:28 where His coming is a reference to His transfiguration on the Mount. Another such "coming" may be found in John 14:18 where the reference is probably to Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to His disciples or to the coming of His Spirit at Pentecost.
Second, the whole context of the statement in Matthew 10:23 appears to me limited and local. The commission given here to the twelve which limits their ministry to Israel and tells them not go to Samaritans or Gentiles contrasts strikingly with the commission given them in Acts. Cf. Matt. 10:5, 6 with Acts 1:8. It has been claimed that there is a broadening of the reference at v. 16, but there is no plainly marked transition at that point in the narrative. There is, of course, a mention of "a testimony to ... the Gentiles" in v. 18 which might be thought to indicate that such a transition has taken place. This reference does not refer, however, to where the twelve deliberately "go", but where they are "brought" by others against their will. God will over-rule their persecution for a testimony to the Gentiles who would afterward be the object of another and greater commission.
Third, there are striking parallels to Matt. 10:23 in Matt. 23:34 where again Jesus' disciples are warned that the living generation of Jews will "persecute [them] from city to city". This seems to confirm a limited reference for Matt. 10:23. This coming is, thus, to be contrasted with the coming of Christ in glory after the destruction of Jerusalem, the consequent captivity of the Jews, and the times of the Gentiles (Matt. 24:4-28 with Luke 21:24-28).
My conclusion is that the "coming" of Matt. 10:23 must be distinguished from the coming of Jesus after the "times of the Gentiles" and placed before the end of the Jewish economy. It might refer to a coming of Jesus to the cities of Israel during the earthly ministry of Jesus (Luke 10:1). It might refer to the Transfiguration. It might refer to His "coming" in judgment against the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem (though in Matthew 24 the coming of the Son of Man clearly refers to something different). It might refer to the coming of the Son of Man in that complex of events which brought an end to the limited commission of Matthew 10 and initiated the "Great Commission" of Matthew 28. The resurrection of Christ, the post-resurrection appearances of Christ, and the out-pouring of His Spirit probably compose the coming of Matt. 10:23. Any of these alternatives are acceptable and eliminate the usefulness of this text to preterism.
This study of the three foundational texts of Russell's preteristic interpretation of Christ's parousia show how weak is the foundation upon which it is built. Against this house of preterism a flood of biblical data regarding the parousia may be unleashed.
b. A Presentation of the Contrary Evidence
First, the word, parousia, itself means presence or arrival. A parousia of Jesus where He does not remain present in a renewed earth is biblically speaking really no parousia at all.
Second, the parousia brings with it the resurrection of the dead. A resurrection of the dead which is not visible, which takes place in Russell's words only "in the region of the spiritual and invisible" is just no biblical resurrection at all. The biblical resurrection carries with it the physical transformation of the world itself as the new home of the resurrected people of God (Rom. 8:19-23). It also brings an end to the world of the ungodly and a new world in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:11-13).
Third, the use of the word, parousia, in the New Testament is conclusive against a preteristic interpretation of Christ's second coming. It occurs 24 times. There are six non-eschatological references to the arrival of men in Paul's writings. It is used once of the eschatological arrival of the anti-Christ (2 Thess. 2:9). Its 17 other occurrences refer to the parousia of Christ. The best way to see how impossible it is to have them fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem is simply to survey them. Here they are:
Matthew 24:3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what
will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
Matthew 24:27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
Matthew 24:37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
Matthew 24:39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
1 Corinthians 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
1 Thessalonians 2:19 For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?
1 Thessalonians 3:13 so that He may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him,
2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
James 5:7 Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.
James 5:8 You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
2 Peter 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For
ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
2 Peter 3:12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.
Fourth, preterism consistently carried out empties the New Testament of hope for the modern believer. If the rapture of the living saints, the resurrection of the dead saints, the coming of Christ are already past realities, if all prophecy is really fulfilled, then upon what do we base our hope for the future?
Fifth, preterism involves the supposition that hundreds of thousands of living saints were raptured into heaven at the coming of Christ in the destruction of Jerusalem. How could such a thing occur and there be no record of it? Furthermore, from whence did the continuing church spring if all believers were raptured from the world in A. D. 70? Must we assume that the church left on earth after that point were all hypocrites and unregenerate professors? Is the church today sprung from a congregation of hypocrites and false believers?
2. The Argument from Imminence
Russell has, however, as we mentioned, a second and important argument for his preterism. He argues the necessity of his position from the language of imminence regarding Christ's return found in the New Testament. That argument brings us back to the overarching theme of this section of the letters, the imminence of Christ's return. Simply stated, Russell's question (and ours) is this: How could the New Testament assert the imminent return of Christ and command believers to be alert for that return if that return was at least 20 centuries in the future? Russell regards this problem as an impregnable fortress surrounding his preteristic castle. To that problem we turn in the conclusion of this section of our studies.
Conclusion: The Meaning of Imminence
A. The Different Views of Imminence Introduced
It is necessary to introduce this treatment by saying something about the different views entertained today of the term, imminence. R. H. Gundry comments, "By common consent imminence means that so far as we know, no predicted event will necessarily precede the coming of Christ. The concept incorporates three essential elements suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility, of occurrence at any moment."(7) He regards this definition as the standard one in the current debate. Because he adopts such a definition of imminence, Gundry denies that the Bible teaches the imminence of Christ's return. He says, "The full force of the exhortations to watch for Jesus' return, then, does not require imminence of the Parousia."(8)
On the other hand, John Murray, no friend of Pre-Tribulationism and one who believed that certain events had yet to occur before the parousia, could say, "there is in the New Testament a doctrine of imminence...."(9) It is clear that Gundry and Murray are working with two different definitions of imminence. It is "any-moment-ness" for Gundry, "nearness", for Murray.
Several comments on this situation are appropriate. First, since the word, imminence, is an English word, it is relevant to ask what its proper definition should be. Webster defines "imminent" to mean "likely to happen without delay; impending; threatening." Clearly, this definition does not require that we regard imminence and `any-moment-ness' as equivalents.
Second, this confusion of terminology (two different connotations being given to the term, imminence) explains the misconception involved when Pre-Tribulationists claim that the Early Fathers or Reformers support their position.(10) Such men may have used the word, imminence, but the distinct possibility must be borne in mind that they used it with a different connotation than the Pre-tribulationists do.
Third, we must be careful in the use of the term, imminence, to bear in mind the fact that to the popular, evangelical mind of our day it often has the meaning, any-moment-ness. Thus, if we do choose to use the term, we must be careful to provide it with a more biblical definition than that assumed by Gundry and many other evangelicals.
Fourth, there seem to be good grounds upon which to maintain the use of the term, imminence. In other words, it is more properly defined by Murray. Thus, we will use the term as Murray does, rather than rejecting it like Gundry. Imminence does not necessarily connote any-moment-ness. It enshrines an important New Testament emphasis on the nearness and in that sense the imminence or the `impending-ness' of the parousia.(11)
B. The True View of Imminence Vindicated
There is a doctrine of the imminence, i.e. the nearness of Christ's return, in the New Testament.
1. The Fact of Imminence
The adjective, , and its various relatives occurs frequently in the New Testament with reference to Christ's return. It is this usage of the Greek word for
near that is the primary foundation and regulative basis for affirming that the New Testament teaches the imminence of Christ's return. The relevant data may be classified under four headings.
a. The use of Matt. 24:33; Mark 13:29; and Luke 21:31 prophesy a time before the parousia when God's people will be able to know that it is near. Phil. 4:5 probably refers to the parousia, though there is a possibility that the reference is spatial rather than temporal.
Both Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 contain the phrase, . Both references surely include the parousia although it is possible that certain preliminary signs may also be included. Note the occurrence of in Rev. 1:1 and in 22:12. This word, , probably means soon or quickly rather than immediately in these cases.
b. The use of in the perfect tense.
Cf. Rom. 13:12; James 5:8; and 1 Pet. 4:7. The meaning of the perfect tense in these passages is clear. In the past some event has drawn near and now in the present it remains in a condition of nearness. In this case the event is variously designated as "the day," "the coming of the Lord," and "the end of all things."
c. The use of in the present tense.
Cf. Luke 21:28; Heb. 10:25. The "day," "our redemption" is drawing near or approaching.
d. The use of , the comparative.
The idea is that salvation was near when they believed, but that now it is even more near (Rom. 13:11).
It should be noted that the nearness of the consummation does not prevent there being preceding signs. A comparison of Rom. 13:12 with 2 Thess. 2:2 might prove this. Even more to the point is the use of in Rom. 13:11 and the present tenses of Luke 21:28 and Heb. 10:25. The point of these passages is surely not the trite truth that since time has passed salvation must be nearer. Rather the comparative and the present tenses point to the observable occurrences and developments of certain signs of the parousia. Heb. 10:25's use of the phrase, "as you
see the day approaching," surely implies this.
The teaching of the New Testament regarding the nearness of the parousia may be summarized as follows: (1) It is drawing near. (2) It has come near. (3) It is now near. (4) It is coming nearer.
2. The Explanation of Imminence
How consistently with the claims of truth could the New Testament and its writers believe that the parousia was near at least 1900 years before the event? The answer to this question is provided by five inter-related considerations.
a. The Inaugurated Eschatology of the New Testament
With the first advent of Christ the age of fulfillment, the consummating era of world history, has dawned. The age to come has broken in, the present age is passing away (Heb. 6:8; 1 John 2:8; 1 Cor. 2:6; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26). The phrase, "last days," is without exception used of the era between the inauguration and the consummation of the kingdom. The New Testament views our era as the relatively brief final era of history before the Day of the Lord. This requires that terminology like that of "near", "nearer", be seen in the context of the long, historical perspective.
b. The Delay Character of the Present Era
As we have seen, there is considerable evidence in the Olivet Discourse particularly, and in the rest of the New Testament generally for a delay of a long, but undetermined length in Christ's return. Rev. 10:1-7 also identifies the present gospel age as a period of divine delay for the purpose of preaching the gospel. This period of patient delay is the mystery of God (Col. 1:26f.; 1 Cor. 2:6-8; Eph. 3:6; Rom. 16:25-27). This problem of delay is addressed explicitly in 2 Peter 3. Note esp. v. 4. There we are advised that the slowness or quickness of the promised coming must be calculated from the divine perspective (v. 8) and with reference to its momentous purpose (vv. 9, 15), the salvation of men. The Lord's view of time (One day with Him is as a thousand years.) and the importance of His purpose to save his people warrant even a long delay in His return.
c. The Uncertain Timing of the Parousia
The uncertain timing of the parousia is spoken of frequently in the New Testament (Matt. 24:36, 42; 25:13; cf. Mark 13:32). In the very discourse in which the nearness of the parousia is most explicitly asserted Jesus most emphatically asserts the unknown time of the parousia. It is to be noted that this uncertainty is correlative to the relative certainty with respect to the timing of the destruction of Jerusalem. There a time-sign is given: "this generation." As to the parousia, no sign is given.(12)
d. The "Sign-Character" of the Present Age
While distinct signs or precursors occur immediately prior to the second advent, the whole inter-adventual period is full of processes and developments which lead directly to the parousia. Living in the midst of such processes, how can we view the advent as anything but near? Around us the final developments, the closing processes of history are heightening to their climax in Christ's return. Two such processes are the world-wide preaching of the gospel (Matt. 24:14) and the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess. 2:7. It is in this light that Heb. 10:25 is probably to be understood.
e. The Climactic Character of the Parousia
The events surrounding Christ's return are by far the most important events of history (2 Pet. 3:1-16). In general the more important an event is, the farther it casts its shadow of nearness. Christmas in comparison to other holidays casts a longer shadow of expectation. The Bicentennial Fourth of July cast a much longer shadow of expectation than other Fourth of July's before or after 1976.(13)
Even so, the inconceivably more glorious event of the parousia must so attract our attention and preparations that all between pales into insignificance. John Murray remarks on Rom. 13:12, "It is the nearness of prophetic perspective and not that of our chronological calculations. In the unfolding of God's redemptive purpose the next great epochal event correlative to the death of Christ, His resurrection and ascension, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is Jesus' advent in glory. This is the event that looms on the horizon of faith. There is nothing of similar character between the present and this epochal redemptive event."(14)
Cf. for example, David Chilton's Days of Vengeance (Dominion Press, Fort Worth, 1987).
J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia, (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1985).
Russell, loc. cit., p. 538, 539.
Russell, loc. cit., p. 547.
Russell, loc. cit., p. 549.
Russell, loc. cit., pp. 538ff.
R. H. Gundry, loc. cit., p. 29.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 43.
John Murray, Collected Writings II, p. 400. As pointed out in the historical introduction to these studies, in other places Murray rejected the terminology of imminence--probably because he assumed the truth of Gundry's definition.
J. Dwight Pentecost quotes Thiessen to this effect on p. 203 of
Things to Come.
John Murray, Collected Writings II, p. 399f.
In previous editions of these lecture notes I included a sixth consideration with regard to a true view of imminence and argued for what I called, the current possibility of the coming of Christ in which Christ could possibly come in every generation. JFB says, "The Spirit designed that believers of each successive age should live in continued expectation of the Lord's coming, not knowing but that they should be found alive. It is a fall from this blessed hope that death is generally looked for rather than the coming of our Lord." Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, 1 Thessalonians, p. 466; cf. also John Eadie, Thessalonians pp. 157-159." I am no longer certain that the biblical evidence constrains this idea or that it is consistent with the events predicted to precede Christ's coming (Matt. 24:14; 28:19; Luke 21:24; Revelation 20:1-10). Several arguments are often brought forward in conjunction with the idea that we must view Christ as possibly to come in our lifetimes. It is often thought that the admonitions to watchfulness in view of the uncertain time of Christ's coming (Matt. 24:42-44) require this view. But, as I pointed out above, those admonitions rather imply that Jesus is not coming back for a long time than that He is coming back at any time or in our time. The possibility that Christ might come in our lifetime is thought to be intimated by the two passages in which Paul classes himself with those who are alive at Christ's second coming (1 Thess. 4:15; 1 Cor. 15:51). This is presented as a reason why we must think that he could come in our lifetime. At other places he implies that he expected to be resurrected (1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:13f.). These passages need only imply that part of the church would survive till Christ's return. Paul is thinking corporately of the church and not individually when he uses phraseology like "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" and "we who are alive and remain". Personally, of course, it seems possible from all I know of biblical teaching that Christ could possible come back in my generation here at the end of the twentieth century, but it is one thing to say that I believe that at the end of the twentieth century, and another things to say that all believers were bound by the Word of God to believe from the writing of the New Testament onward..
Other helpful illustrations have been suggested. There is the fact that the signs stating the distance to major cities are placed farther out than those for smaller cities. There are the looming Rocky Mountains which because of their great size begin to look near as you are drive towards them on the plains long before a smaller hill would even be visible.
John Murray, Romans, vol. 2, p. 168.
Original HTML by Tom Sullivan. Edited by TFE Web-servant, Bill Newcomer, May A.D. 2000. This page and its contents are copyright © 2000 by
Truth for Eternity Ministries.
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security