Commemorating Christ’s Coronation: How I Justify a First-Day Sabbath

Reformed Christians pride themselves on their commitment to the Bible as their ultimate authority for faith and practice. But not all our beliefs and practices seem self-evidently biblical to non-Reformed believers. One striking example is our view that the first day of the week, i.e., the “Lord’s Day,” is in fact a “Christian Sabbath.” All agree that God explicitly commanded Israel to observe a seventh-day Sabbath (Exod 20:8-11). But where in the NT are Christians explicitly commanded, “Remember the first day as a Sabbath to the Lord”? Nowhere. That raises the question, How may a Reformed believer defend the notion of a first day Christian Sabbath?

How Not to Make a Case

To begin with we can’t use the fourth commandment of the Decalogue as a “stand-alone” proof text. That passage commands a seventh day Sabbath. Moreover, while an appeal to the creation Sabbath (Gen 2:1-3) certainly grounds the fourth commandment (see Exod 20:11), it does not by itself establish a first day New Covenant Sabbath. Furthermore, that the early church started meeting on the first day of the week for worship (John 20:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2) suggests, I believe, a precedent Christians today should follow. Yet that precedent by itself doesn’t prove those early Christians treated that day as a Sabbath. Finally, Hebrews 4:9 affirms, “There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God” (ESV). Although I agree with those commentators who interpret the “Sabbath rest” (σαββατισμὸς) in this verse as referring to an ongoing weekly sabbath observance, I cannot see how the verse by itself proves a first day Christian Sabbath.

How to Make a Case

How do I defend the doctrine of a first day Christian Sabbath? As noted above, I don’t believe I can do so by way of explicit command. Yet, I don’t believe that admission necessarily undermines my case. After all, there are other doctrines I affirm on the basis of good and necessary inference.1 Take, for instance, the doctrine of the NT canon. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly identify the boundaries of the NT canon. Nowhere do the NT writers explicitly signify the date at which or the book with which the NT canon would close. Even so, I believe one can provide a cogent argument for a closed canon on the basis of several lines of biblical data which, when considered together, imply a closed canon. The case is similar, I believe, when we come to the question of a first day Christian Sabbath.

Below is my argument laid out in parts or steps. I don’t assume that all my readers will find it equally persuasive. But I hope it will serve as an “apology” (in the sense of “defense”) for my views and practice.

Step One

The term “sabbath” is not just a noun; it is also a verb. Thus, “sabbathing” is a commanded activity relative to the worship of the one true God and not simply the occasion for such worship. Thus, sabbath-observance is an “element” of true worship in the sense of being not merely circumstantial.

Step Two

God “commanded” Adam to observe a seventh-day Sabbath by way of example. Adam was expected to “sanctify” the seventh day because his Maker sanctified the seventh day (Gen 2:1-3; Mark 2:27). Accordingly, the practice of Sabbath-observance under the primeval covenant was established not by an explicit command, but by good and necessary inference.

Step Three

Yahweh commanded the Old Covenant people of God to sanctify the seventh day of the week as a Sabbath in light of his resting at creation (Exod 20:8-11) and in light of their redemption from Egypt (Deut 5:12-15). In the case of the old covenant people of God, their responsibility to treat the seventh day of the week as a Sabbath was grounded on an explicit command.

Step Four

After Christ’s death and resurrection the NT church began gathering for worship on the first day of the week (John 20:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2). Christians since the early church have rightly inferred from this early church precedent an abiding and normative ordinance for corporate worship. Hence, Justin Martyr describes the second-century A.D. NT church practice in these words,

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read…. Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.2

Step Five

Nevertheless, the mere “precedent” of the early church meeting for worship on the first day of the week is not alone sufficient to establish this day as a Christian Sabbath. After all, under some circumstances the early church met throughout the week for worship (Acts 2:41-47). And as most Reformed interpreters acknowledge, not every NT description of apostolic and early church practice is necessarily prescriptive for following generations. Moreover, even if we grant that the first day of the week took on special significance from other days, which it did (see Rev. 1:10), that in itself does not establish its sabbatic character. Nor is Paul’s directive that they should lay up in store “a collection for the saints” (1 Cor 16:1-2) equivalent to “keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath.” Finally, as noted above, Hebrews 4:9 is not a sufficient stand-alone proof text for a first day Sabbath.

Step Six

We are constrained to concede from the NT data that there is no explicit command to keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath. But our hermeneutic doesn’t demand an explicit command in order to ground a mandatory element of NT church worship or ministry. We believe Christians should “sabbath” on the first day of the week on the basis of “good and necessary inference.”

Step Seven

Such good and necessary inference is as follows:

1. The Nature of Sabbath Rest

Biblically speaking, “rest” has royal connotations. It functions as a metaphor for the establishment of one’s rule and assumption of one’s throne (1 Chron 28:2; Ps 132:7-8, 13-14; Isa 66:1). Accordingly, we may view Elohim’s six days of creative activity as divine empire building. On the seventh, the Creator-King assumed his throne.3

2. The Creation Covenant Sabbath

Moreover, God created Adam to be his visible replica and representative (“image”) and to carry on God’s kingdom-building enterprise until the whole earth was filled with God’s glory (Gen 1:26-30). In that sense, Adam’s (mankind’s) role was to be “imitative.” This was true not merely with respect to six days of “work” (i.e., building God’s kingdom), but also with respect to “rest.” By sanctifying the seventh day in imitation of his Creator, Adam would anticipate the completion of the dominion process (Gen 2:1-3; Mark 2:27). In this way, mankind’s imitation of his Maker’s weekly Sabbath (2:1-3) was to serve as a reminder of the eschatological Sabbath to come (Heb 4:1-11).

3. The Old Covenant Sabbath

In the Decalogue, God commands His people to rest from their weekly labors one day a week. Moreover, the Lord grounds this command in his own example:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Ex 20:11, ESV).

So Israel should set the “Sabbath day” apart because God himself set it apart. They are responsible in this case to follow their Maker’s example. Christ also roots the Sabbath obligation in creation and underscores its beneficent aim: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). God didn’t rest on the seventh day merely for his own benefit. He did it for mankind (ὁ ἄνθρωπος). This implies that the Sabbath was first instituted at creation, not Sinai. What’s more, the Sabbath wasn’t instituted solely for the Israelites’ benefit. It was made for humanity.4

4. The Significance of Christ’s Resurrection

Christ’s resurrection from the dead marked his assumption of his throne at the right hand of God (compare Acts 13:13-34 with Ps 2:7; cf. Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Eph 1:20-23; Phil 2:9-11; Heb 10:12-13; 1 Pet 3:22) and the breaking into history of the “new creation” (Mark 3:22-27; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15-16; Eph 2:4-6; Heb 6:5; Rev 5:5-14; 12:1-5, 11; 20:1-3).

Excursus: The Resurrection and Christ’s Coronation

Before we move to our next line of argument, we need to elaborate on the point above. How is Christ’s resurrection on the first-day of the week related to the sabbath from a redemptive-historical point of view?

The key texts are Psalm 2 and its application by the apostle Paul in Acts 13. Psalm 2 is commonly known as a “coronation” psalm in which Yahweh adopts Zion’s king, i.e., David’s descendent, as his son and officially establishes his rule.

The psalm and its divine adoption/coronation motifs should be understood against the backdrop of ancient Near East (ANE) divine-human kingship ideology. When someone became a king in the ANE, he was officially “adopted” as the deity’s son and at that point became the deity’s “vice-regent” or “vassal king.” That is, the human king served as a royal representative of the divine king–his “prince,” as it were. By suggesting we read Psalm 2 against this backdrop, I’m not proposing that the biblical notion of divinely delegated royal adoption and kingship originated in pagan ideology. On the contrary, pagan ideology actually reflects the primal revelation we find in Genesis 1 and 2, where God’s “son” Adam is appointed as ruler over the world and is commissioned to subdue “all things under his feet,” as it were.5

In addition to understanding Psalm 2 against the backdrop of ANE divine-human kingship ideology, we should understand it against the backdrop of God’s promise to David, namely, that God would establish the throne of David’s offspring. Note especially, in 2 Samuel 7, the “adoption formula” employed, “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Sam 7:12-14 ESV). The language of this promise mirrors the language of Psalm 2. Yahweh himself declared, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill (2:6). To which the Davidic king responds, “I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (2:7-8 ESV).

So when Yahweh sets his Anointed upon the throne, he officially “adopts” him, as it were, as his son. After all, in the ancient Near East, the king’s own son was the heir-apparent. Hence, the deity’s adoption of the human king as his own “son” provides the legal ground, as it were, for the human king’s rightful authority. To resist or rebel against the human king, therefore, was to resist and rebel against Yahweh himself. That’s the point of the remainder of the Psalm (see vv. 10-12).

Having expounded the significance of the Coronation Psalm, we turn now to the way in which the apostles interpreted this Psalm as applying to Jesus. The primary NT text is Acts 13:13-34 where Paul is preaching Jesus as the Lord’s Messiah to his fellow Jews.

We don’t have space (or time) to expound Paul’s entire sermon. We’ll focus, then, on the climax where Paul “interprets” Christ’s resurrection as the fulfillment of Psalm 2:7, as well as Isaiah 55:3 (also a Messianic text). Note especially verses 30-34:

But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people. And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.”

Note specifically that Paul interprets the resurrection as the fulfillment of, i.e., the bringing to realization, the official royal adoption in Psalm 2:7. That is, Paul connects the “Today I have begotten you” to the redemptive-historical event of the resurrection. Moreover, Jesus’ enthronement via the resurrection brings in the “new age” in which the “holy and sure blessings” God had promised to David come to realization (see Isaiah 55:3). In conclusion, I believe the apostle Paul sees the resurrection event as fulling the “today” event of Psalm 2:7. And that event is the royal adoption and official installment of David’s Seed on the throne of Zion.

Here’s how the apostle Paul states it more succinctly in the opening remarks of his letter to the Romans:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (1:1–4).

Of course, there’s a sense in which Jesus was God’s son before the resurrection. Nevertheless, the official adoption took place and was declared, says Paul, when Jesus was raised from the dead.

Interestingly, the apostle Peter seemed to understand the resurrection in the same way, viz., as signifying Jesus’ official exaltation to that status of Yahweh’s vice-regent king. So on the day of Pentecost, Peter proclaims,

This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear. For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says, “The Lord said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” Therefore, let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:32-36 NET).

In this case, Peter cites Psalm 110, which is Yahweh’s decree to David’s seed, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (Ps 110:1). Notice how the language of this psalm parallels the language of Psalm 2. Both speak of the installment and coronation of Zion’s king. Both include Yahweh’s promise that he will extend the rule of Zion’s king over all the nations. And important for our purposes, the apostles connect the fulfillment of these OT promises with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I think Peter makes the same connection in Acts 5. There the apostles are told they must stop preaching that Jesus is the Messiah. To which they reply, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (5:29). Then Peter does what he has just told the Jewish leaders he must do–he preaches Jesus as the promised Christ: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins (emphasis added; Acts 5:30-31 NKJ). It seems to me that Peter is hear linking God’s raising Jesus with God’s exalting Jesus at his right hand to be a “Prince” or “Ruler.”

In summary, the apostles Paul and Peter seem to interpret the resurrection event as Jesus’ official adoption and coronation to assume the Davidic throne where he will extend God’s kingdom over all the earth until all things are put under his feet–at which time Christ, the faithful vassal Ruler, will give the kingdom over to the Father, the supreme Suzerain Lord (see 1 Cor 15:23-28). It is in the light of these considerations that we should consider the other NT texts that speak of Christ having been exalted to the right hand of God (Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Eph 1:20-23; Phil 2:9-11; Heb 10:12-13; 1 Pet 3:22). True, not all of them explicitly link the resurrection with Christ’s assumption of the throne. But read in the larger canonical context I’ve provided above, I think the connection is implicit.

5. The New Covenant Sabbath

These biblical-theological considerations regarding the first creation Sabbath taken together with the data concerning Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week serve as a basis or ground for a New Covenant Sabbath. For just as those in union with the First Adam were to commemorate the First Creation with a seventh day Sabbath, now those in union with the Second Adam are to commemorate the New Creation with a first day Sabbath. Such an inference, I believe, is supported by the author of Hebrews when he asserts,

So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one [i.e., Christ] who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His (Heb 4:9-10 NAS).

In the words of an earlier article I wrote, NT believers should follow their “Re-Maker’s” example, just as Adam was to follow his “Maker’s” example.6


I believe the argument above provides a biblical basis for treating the first day of the week not merely as a time for corporate worship, but also as a Sabbath. This reflects the teaching of our the Westminster and Second London Baptist confessions. We must note, however, that the biblical basis or warrant for a first day New Covenant Sabbath is established neither by the data of the NT alone nor by any explicit command alone. As Richard Barcellos notes, “This issue … cannot be decided upon one proof text for or against. Each text comes in a wider context in the book it appears in and, in its widest sense, a canonical context.”7 So good and necessary inference is an essential part of the argument.

For those, like myself, who agree that warranted inference is a legitimate form of argument, a first day Christian Sabbath can make sense. I can appreciate the Christian who wishes for an explicit command. However, the absence of an explicit command need not preclude such a believer from understanding the Lord’s Day as sabbatic in character. Perhaps some Christians are hesitant to view the Lord’s Day as a “Sabbath” because they think Sabbath-observance entails a long, dreary, and legalistic list of “don’ts.” I can sympathize with their concern. But I suspect their view of Sabbath-observance may be based on a misunderstanding of what the Bible actually teaches. A proper consideration of the biblical data enables one to view Sabbath-observance as a delightful “holi-day” (Isa 58:13).


  1. In light of a comment below, I thought I’d insert an explanation for my use of and intent behind the phrase “good and necessary inference.” An inference is defined as “the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.” This definition corresponds to the longer statement in the Westminster Confession, which reads, “by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture” (1.6). Moreover, although the 1689 London Baptist Confession uses a slightly different phrase, I agree with Sam Waldron, author of A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession, when he writes, “The phrase ‘or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture’ is equivalent to the phrase in the Westminster Confession it is intended to clarify” (42-43). So I think the phrases in WCF’s and 2LCF’s are basically synonymous with the idea of warranted inference.
  2. Apology, 1.67.
  3. I develop the “kingdom” motif of the creation week/Sabbath in my article, “The Covenantal Context of the Fall: Did God Make a Primeval Covenant with Adam?” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 4:2 (2007): 17-30. See also Meredith Kline develops this line of thought in more detail. See his Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 34-38.
  4. I’m aware of scholars who deny that Jesus’ use of ανθροπος expands the scope of Sabbath observance beyond Israel to humanity and who deny, therefore, Jesus is alluding to the Sabbath’s institution at creation. In support of the idea that the Sabbath was originally instituted at Sinai not creation, these scholars often cite passages like Ezekiel 20:10-12 and Nehemiah 9:13-14. The first reads, “So I led them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them my statutes and made known to them my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live. Moreover, I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.” The language of the second is similar: “You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant.” By way of response, three observations are in order: (1) The verbs “make known” and “gave” are used synonymously in both texts. (2) Not only the Sabbath but God’s “statutes,” “rules” “commandments,” and “law” were made known and given at Sinai. So whatever one concludes about the origination of the Sabbath based on the language of “make known” or “give,” he’s obliged to say of the other ethical norms God revealed on Sinai. (3) To “make known” or “give” a norm or stipulation doesn’t necessarily imply that said norm or stipulation wasn’t already previously instituted or binding. Moses portrays primeval and patriarchal history in a way that assumes humans generally and the patriarchs especially were aware of the kind of divinely revealed moral norms we find in the Decalogue (see, for instance, Gen 4:14; 9:23-25; 18:19; 20:9; 26:5, 10; 39:9; 42:22; 50:17). While humans would have had a general awareness of God’s moral law by means of conscience, it’s also likely that God had revealed to certain individuals laws and stipulations that reflected his moral character and by which He expected them to live (Gen 4:9-13; 9:5-6; 18:19; 26:5). (4) When God tells Moses in Exodus 6:3, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them” (ESV), he isn’t saying the Patriarchs or primeval saints were unaware of his name Yahweh. Rather, He’s signifying that He will now cause the Israelite’s to understand more fully the significance of that name. Similarly, one might interpret the references to God’s “making known” his laws and, in particular, the Sabbath, at Sinai. It wasn’t the first revelation of the Sabbath obligation. But it was a point in redemptive history when God would reveal more fully the significance of that ordinance. (5) It’s possible that the Israelites had either neglected Sabbath observance or were forbidden it during their time of bondage in Egypt. In that case, the exodus occasioned the reestablishment of its practice before Sinai (Exod 16) and its covenantal codification at Sinai (Exod 20:8-11).
  5. For more about this, see my article, “Man: God’s Visible Replica & Vice-Regent,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 5:2 (Fall 2008): 63-87.
  6. See my “Following My Re-Maker’s Example: Why I ‘Sabbath’ on Sunday,” The Founder’s Journal 91 (2013): 21-24.
  7. “The New Testament Theology of the Sabbath,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 5:1 (2008): 63.

3 thoughts on “Commemorating Christ’s Coronation: How I Justify a First-Day Sabbath

  1. Great material here! In general I agree. I would offer a light observation, a theological reflection, and a reasonable mitigation.

    The light observation is that for many years (decades? centuries?) Sunday was practiced staunchly as the Christian sabbath with little reflection. Then came some who reflected more on it who observed that the Sabbath was really supposed to be on Saturday although the Lord’s Day was adequate to the task. Now, with further reflection, we find that the Lords Day can be appropriately understood as the Sabbath of the New Covenant. What this means, I’m not sure, but it’s interesting how many had the behavior right without reflection. I would think that the practice with better reflection is the way to go.

    The theological reflection is that Christ himself rested in the grave on the Sabbath of the Old Covenant and was resurrected the next day as a sign of the New Covenant. So while Saturday is given to the atonement, Sunday is given to the resurrection. We shouldn’t be satisfied with just the death of Christ on the cross, but rejoice at the resurrection. This makes it a symbolic act of theological conviction.

    Additionally, if Jewish eschatology is validated in any way by Revelation 20 (and it may not be) then the seventh millennium isn’t the end. It may be the millennium of the Messiah, but after that will be the eternal rest. Whether you read that literally or figuratively, the meaning is the same for the practice of moving the Sabbath of the Old Covenant to the next day in the New Covenant.

    Lastly, there are a few mitigating factors to making this a hard and fast rule for all Christians.

    First, the week as we know it possibly isn’t the same as in antiquity. The calendar has changed and the week has been moved. So Moses’ day of rest, counted 7 days throughout history, might actually be Wednesday today. But when the week was re-established, that’s what we accept. So the week is necessarily symbolic.

    Second, this practice is possible in the West for many of us. In particular, there are some necessary occupations that require people to work on Sunday. For example, medical and emergency workers, law enforcement, and retail and restaurants in today’s secular age. Of interest are the clergy who necessarily do their paid jobs on Sunday. It’s not exactly a day of rest for them, who might catch a nap in the afternoon, but lead worship in the mornings and often in the evenings.

    Thirdly, there are Christians in places that especially don’t honor God, but may worship God on another day entirely and require Christians to work on Sunday. Muslim nations, for example, are like this. Many Christian churches in Muslim nations are dhimmi and must meet on Friday when the Muslims go to mosque. Or, Christians may be outlawed and the secret churches must meet when they can. Fortunately, in some Muslim nations, the right of the dhimmi to meet on Sunday is respected. This is true of churches in Syria and Lebanon, for example. In some places, very little space is given for Christians to meet and Christians share the space, scheduling various churches to worship in the same building every day of the week at different times.

    • Jim,

      Helpful reflections and some good mitigating factors to consider. I think there’s good warrant for affirming a sabbath principle for the Lord’s Day. But we’ve got to be sensitive to a number of factors in seeking to apply it to each cultural situation.

  2. Hi Dr. Bob,

    Thanks so much for the your study on this matter. It was actually listening to your two sermons on this topic from sermonaudio that convinced me of the validity of this doctrine, and I have since recommended them to others who are on the fence concerning the continuation of the Sabbath. I do have a question though, and seeing your recent study and knowledge on the matter, I would like to get your opinion.

    The hardest part about embracing this doctrine for me was not understanding how a moral law could change. A presupposition I hold firm to is that God’s moral law does not and cannot change. What we see in Creation is God resting on the seventh day, and commanding all his people to do the same, but when Jesus was risen, the Sabbath day somehow changed to the first day. My thoughts on this are (and please correct me if there is a dangerous error here), that it wasn’t so much the day that shifted, but the calender that shifted. That is, it wasn’t so much the Sabbath-Day that shifted from the 7th day to the first day of the week, so much as it was 7th day of the week that shifted from Saturday to Sunday.

    I say this because to me, it still seems awkward while sitting in church and resting throughout the day on the Lord’s Day to call it the beginning of the week. It feels like the end of the week. And indeed, our entire culture notes Monday as being the beginning of the work week and Sunday being the last day of the week (though may the calendars on our wall may disagree). I feel as though this feeling is right, for God did not rest on the 3rd day, nor the 1st day, but he rested on the 7th, therefore, the day that we rest in likeness also feels as though it marks the end of our week.

    Again, these are just my initial thoughts and I haven’t shared or researched whether others share this emphasis (that it was more so the calender that changed than it was the day). But I would like to know your thoughts. Thank you!

Comments are closed.