About Us
Search Library
Library Index
Whats New
Statement of Faith
About Us
Admin Login
Believersweb Header

Romans Chapter 7

Written by: Raney, Greg    Posted on: 09/03/2007

Category: Bible Studies

{LEGAL EXPERIENCE / Lectures To Professing Christians / Charles G. Finney}

There are certain rules of evidence, which all men are bound to apply, in ascertaining the meaning of instruments and the testimony of witnesses, and of all writings.

1. We are always to put that construction on language which is required by the nature of the subject.

We are bound always to understand a person's language as it is applicable to the subject of discourse. Much of the language of common life may be tortured into any thing, if you lose sight of the subject, and take the liberty to interpret it without reference to what they are speaking of. How much injury has been done, by interpreting separate passages and single expressions in the scriptures, in violation of this principle. It is chiefly by overlooking this simple rule, that the scriptures have been tortured into the support of errors and contradictions innumerable and absurd beyond all calculation. This rule is applicable to all statements. Courts of justice never would allow such perversions as have been committed upon the Bible.

2. If a person's language will admit, we are bound always to construe it so as to make him consistent with himself.

Unless you observe this rule, you can scarcely converse five minutes with any individual on any subject and not make him contradict himself. If you do not hold to this rule, how can one man ever communicate his ideas so that another man will understand him? How can a witness ever make known the facts to the jury, if his language is to be tortured at pleasure, without the restraints of this rule?

3. In interpreting a person's language, we are always to keep in view the point to which he is speaking.

We are to understand the scope of his argument, the object he has in view, and the point to which he is speaking. Otherwise we shall of course not understand his language. Suppose I were to take up a book, any book, and not keep my eye on the object the writer had in view in making it, and the point to which he is aiming, I never can understand that book. It is easy to see how endless errors have grown out of a practice of interpreting the scriptures in disregard of the first principles of interpretation.

4. When you understand the point to which a person is speaking, you are to understand him as speaking to that point; and not to put a construction on his language unconnected with his object, or inconsistent with it.

By losing sight of this rule, you may make nonsense of everything. You are bound always to interpret language in the light of the subject to which it is applied, or about which it is spoken.


To take a scripture out of the context, is often like taking the stone that binds an arch out of its place: you know not what to make of it. Nay, you may put it to a use quite contrary to that for which it was intended. This our opponents do, when they so take Rom. vii, out of its connection with Rom. vi, and Rom. viii, as to make it mean the very reverse of what the apostle designed. St. Paul, in Romans fifth and sixth, and in the beginning of the seventh chapter, describes "the glorious liberty of the children of God" under the Christian dispensation. And as a skilful painter puts shades in his pictures to heighten the effect of the lights; so the judicious apostle introduces, in the latter part of Rom. vii, a lively description of the domineering power of sin, and of the intolerable burden of guilt: a burden this, which he had so severely felt, when the convincing Spirit charged sin home upon his conscience after he had broken his good resolutions; but especially during the three days of his blindness and fasting at Damascus. Then he groaned, "O wretched man that I am," &c, hanging night and day between despair and hope, between unbelief and faith, between bondage and freedom, till God brought him into Christian liberty by the ministry of Ananias; of this liberty the apostle gives us a farther and fuller account in Rom. viii. Therefore the description of the man who groans under the galling yoke of sin, is brought in merely by contrast, to set off the amazing difference there is between the bondage of sin and the liberty of Gospel holiness: just as the generals, who entered Rome in triumph, used to make a show of the prince whom they had conquered. On such occasions the conqueror rode in a triumphal chariot crowned with laurel, while the captive king followed him on foot, loaded with chains, and making, next to the conqueror, the most striking part of the show. Now, if in a Roman triumph, some of the spectators had taken the chained king on foot for the victorious general in the chariot, because the one immediately followed the other, they would have been guilty of a mistake not unlike that of our opponents, who take the carnal Jew, "sold under sin," and groaning as he goes along, for the Christian believer, who "walks in the Spirit," exults in the liberty of God's children, and always triumphs in Christ.


Let me introduce the seventh chapter of Romans by noting an unfortunate observation. Few professing Christians can relate to the personal victory over sin found in the sixth and eighth chapters of Romans. However, they do relate to the conflict found in the man in the latter part of the seventh chapter. Therefore, they assume that Romans 7:14-25 must describe the life of the true Christian, for that is the only "Christianity" with which they are familiar. I must admit, that at face value, the latter half of Romans 7 appears to be a confession from Paul the Apostle that he is a chronically backsliding hypocrite who finds it impossible to abstain from sin and do right. But in order to hold to this interpretation of Romans 7:14-25, the passage must be taken out of its immediate context. Romans 6, the first half of chapter 7, and chapter 8, must be twisted and perverted in order to be reconciled to this popular interpretation of Romans 7:14-25, or else these passages are just ignored altogether.

Upon reaching this chapter in Romans, Paul has taught us about the salvation available to the sinner without the works of the law (chapters 3-4). He has also silenced all his critics who claimed that this teaching concerning grace was a license to sin. He made it clear that God's grace brings deliverance from sin and makes one a servant to righteousness (Romans 6 and also Titus 2:11-14). He has shown them how to be free from sin and warned them of the wages of returning to sin. Now Paul proceeds to show the purpose of the law and the fruitless desperation and discouragement of a convicted sinner who is under the law. He makes it clear that the law is powerless to do what Jesus Christ and the Gospel can do.

Let us get some things straight about rules of interpretation. One should always interpret language in light of the speaker's or author's subject of discourse. If a listener or reader loses sight of the topic, then speech or writing can be twisted in any way he wishes. Furthermore, we should always try to interpret a person's speech or writing to make him consistent with himself. It is by ignoring these simple rules of interpretation that the Scriptures have been tortured into the support of errors innumerable and contradictions unfathomable.

Summarizing verses 5-6, we can safely say that Paul's present spiritual state can be described as the following:

1. He is no longer in the flesh,

2. The motions of sins no longer work in his members to bring forth death,

3. He is delivered from the law and his spiritually dead state under the law, and

4. He serves God in the newness of spirit.

Remember this about Paul as we study chapter 7.

    Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?


Know ye not, brethren - The apostle, having shown that justified and regenerated persons are free from the dominion of sin, shows here that they are also free from the yoke of the Mosaic law, it being dead to them, verse 6; and they to it, verse 4: for I speak to them that know the law - To the Jews or proselytes chiefly here; that the law - The Mosaic dispensation in general, to which you were espoused by Moses; hath dominion over man - Over a Jew married to it, and engaged to observe it; as long as he - Rather, as long as it liveth; But the rendering here is natural, and suits the connection with the following verses, in which the law is represented as their first husband, whose decease left them free to be married to Christ. The law is here spoken of, by a common figure, as a person to which, as to a husband, life and death are ascribed. It is as if he had said, The dominion of the law over particular persons can, at the utmost, last no longer than till it is itself abrogated; for that is, as it were, its death; since the divine authority going along with it was the very life and soul of it.


For I speak to them that know the law--This is a proof that the apostle directs this part of his discourse to the Jews.


Notice that Paul is specifically addressing those who know the law. What he is writing pertains to the life of the man under the law, and how that God, through the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ, has given to man a greater power to live without sin. Like much of the rest of the Bible, Romans 7 is written to show man how to "go, and sin no more", not to tell him he can't.


The argument of the Jews was that the law of Moses was of perpetual obligation, but they knew that death released a man from its power. It reigned only over the living.


{To men that know the law} (gin"skousin nomon). Dative plural of present active participle of ginwskw. The Romans, whether Jews or Gentiles, knew the principle of law. {A man} (tou anqrwpou). "The person," generic term anqrwpos, not aner.

{WALKING IN THE SPIRIT / George E. (Jed) Smock}

The long arm of the law is an ever-present threat to those who are living sinfully, but, when a man is dead, the books are closed on any claim that the law might have against him. So it is with those that are dead to sin; the wrath of the law can no longer touch him.

{WESLEY'S NOTES ON THE N. T. / John Wesley}

The apostle continues the comparison between the former and the present state of a believer, and at the same time endeavours to wean the Jewish believers from their fondness for the Mosaic law. I speak to them that know the law - To the Jews chiefly here. As long - So long, and no longer. As it liveth - The law is here spoken of, by a common figure, as a person, to which, as to an husband, life and death are ascribed. But he speaks indifferently of the law being dead to us, or we to it, the sense being the same.

    Romans 7:2-4 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. (3) So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

{ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL Paul's Epistle to the Romans / Harvey P. Amos}

Paul had no intention of using this illustration to prove that the marriage relationship could be dissolved ONLY by death; rather, he is emphasizing the fact that physical death, WITHOUT ARGUMENT, does dissolve the marriage relationship. Paul was a New Testament Christian &endash; an ambassador of Christ, but his Bible was the Old Testament and, not being ignorant of the precepts of the law, he was familiar with, and acknowledged the authority of such scripture as (Deut. 24:1-4), which definitely made allowance for legally dissolving the marriage relationship other than by death. In this second verse he specifically refers to the law that binds a woman and her legal husband in the marriage relationship while he is alive. But if her legal husband should die, definitely their marriage relationship is dissolved. She is as free, legally and actually, as if she had never been married.


Through the body of Christ: nailed to the cross. Through Christ's death, we were set free from the divine law which condemned us, for our sins, to be slaves of sin. That ye might become another's: God's purpose in saving us from bondage to sin, viz. that we might be united to Christ. Inasmuch as we are saved by the death of Him to whom God designs us to be united, it is needful to add that He was raised from the dead: cp. Romans 6:4, 5, 9. Had He not died, we had not been released: had He not risen, he would not have become our husband.

Bear-fruit for God: practically the same as "fruit for sanctification" in Romans 6:22. We were united to Christ that we may live a life producing good results, such as will advance the purposes of God.


The law here referred to is not merely that particular branch of the law of Moses which respected marriage, but also and especially the law of marriage promulgated in paridise, Gen. 2:24; whereby our Lord declared marriages were appointed to continue for life, except in the case of adultery, Matt. 19:6. This argument was peculiarly adapted to the Jews, whose connection with God, as their king, was represented by God himself under the idea of a marriage, solemnized with them at Sinai. But if the husband - To whom she was bound, be dead, she is loosed - From that law, which gave him a peculiar property in her.

So then, if while her husband liveth, - The apostle, says Theodoret, "does not consider here the permission given by the law of Moses to the women divorced to be married to another, as being taught by Christ not to approve of such divorces; but he seems only to intimate that she had no power to dissolve this bond by putting away her husband, or that this divorce rendered her husband dead in law to her, she being not to return to him again. Deut. 24:4." Perhaps we ought rather to say, he speaks in the general, not entering exactly into every excepted case that might be imagined. To infer, therefore, hence, as some have done, that adultery is not a sufficent foundation for divorce, is very unreasonable. But if her husband be dead, she is free from that law - Which bound her to be in subjection, and yield conjugal affection to her husband only; so that she is no more an adulteress - Subject to the shame and punishment of one; though she be married, becoming the property of another man; for death, having interposed between them, hath dissolved the former relation. He is dead to her, and she to him.

That ye should be married to another - (2 Cor. 11:2;) so that you must now give up yourselves to Christ, as your second husband, that you may be justified by faith in him. The apostle speaks of Christ as the husband of the believing Jews, because he was now become their Lord and head; and he calls him another husband, because they had been formerly, as it were, married to the Mosaic law, and relied on that alone for salvation. And the crucifixion of their old man, through the death of Christ, was a fit preparation of them for being espoused to Christ. Who is raised from the dead - Who is alive himself, and will bestow spiritual life on those that believe on him, and give up themselves to him; that we should bring forth fruit - Namely, of holiness and good works, Gal. 5:22; unto God - To his glory, Matt. 5:16; John 15:8; Phil. 1:11. In this passage the union of Christ with his people is represented as a marriage, as it is also Eph. 5:31, 32; Rev. 21:9; 22:17. The apostles probably took that idea from the ancient phraseology concerning the Jews. See on verse 2. But from whatever source it was derived, it is a strong representation of the friendship and endearment which subsists, between Christ and believers, and of the happiness which they will derive from his love to them, and from their entire subjection to him.


For the woman which hath a husband-- The apostle illustrates his meaning by a familiar instance. A married woman is bound to her husband while he lives; but when her husband is dead she is discharged from the law by which she was bound to him alone.

So then, if, while her husband liveth-- The object of the apostle's similitude is to show that each party is equally bound to the other; but that the death of either dissolves the engagement.

So-she is no adulteress, though she be married to another-- And do not imagine that this change would argue any disloyalty in you to your Maker; for, as he has determined that this law of ordinances shall cease, you are no more bound to it than a woman is to a deceased husband, and are as free to receive the Gospel of Christ as a woman in such circumstances would be to remarry.

Wherefore, my brethren-- This is a parallel case. You were once under the law of Moses, and were bound by its injunctions; but now ye are become dead to that law-a modest, inoffensive mode of speech, for, The law, which was once your husband, is dead; God has determined that it shall be no longer in force; so that now, as a woman whose husband isdead is freed from the law of that husband, or from her conjugal vow, and may legally be married to another, so God, who gave the law under which ye have hitherto lived, designed that it should be in force only till the advent of the Messiah; that advent has taken place, the law has consequently ceased, and now ye are called to take on you the yoke of the Gospel, and lay down the yoke of the law; and it is the design of God that you should do so.

That ye should be married to another-who is raised from the dead-- As Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, the object of God in giving the law was to unite you to Christ; and, as he has died, he has not only abolished that law which condemns every transgressor to death, without any hope of a revival, but he has also made that atonement for sin, by his own death, which is represented in the sacrifices prescribed by the law. And as Jesus Christ is risen again from the dead, he has thereby given the fullest proof that by his death he has procured the resurrection of mankind, and made that atonement required by the law. That we should bring forth fruit unto God-we, Jews, who believe in Christ, have, in consequence of our union with him, received the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit; so that we bring forth that fruit of holiness unto God which, without this union, it would be impossible for us to produce.


It is apparent that Dt. 24:1, 2 would imply that there were some case where divorce and remarriage were permitted under the Mosaic Law. In such cases the women would not be labeled an adulteress. Paul is not denying the possibility, under the Mosaic Law, for divorce and remarriage without the women being guilty of adultery. He is simply stating the rule without stating the exception. It should be obvious in the light of Dt. 24:1, 2 that Paul would not deny that an exception existed.


The first thing we should keep in mind is, Paul's burden for bringing this thought up had nothing to do with marriage and divorce. He was simply trying to show the Jews how they were free from the Old Testament law.

Secondly, even if this was the issue at hand, Paul is not talking about women who are DIVORCED. He is clearly talking about MARRIED women. (For the woman which hath an husband)

There is not one single word said here about DIVORCED wives, as under the Law, being called adulteresses if they marry again. When a wife, under the law, was given a "bill of divorcement" according to the Law of Moses, she was no longer bound to her husband-- SHE WAS FREE.

There are five things we should keep in mind when we read Romans 7:1-3

1. Paul does not so much as hint here that a wife, under the Law, who had received a divorce from her husband, according to the law of Moses, was called an adulteress if she married another man during her first husband's lifetime.

2. Under the Mosaic dispensation, wives who were DIVORCED from their husbands were free to marry another man during the lifetime of the first husband (see Deuteronomy 24:1.2) and they were NOT called adulteresses.

3. In this passage, there is no mention of, or reference to, DIVORCED wives under the Mosaic dispensation.

4. In this passage reference is to wives under the Mosaic dispensation who had NOT been divorced from their husbands, but were still "bound" to them.

5. Paul does not so much as hint here that a wife under the Gospel dispensation who secures a divorce from her husband for UNFAITHFULNESS TO THE MARRIAGE VOW, will be called an adulteress if she marries again.

There is absolutely no reference, whatsoever, in this ENTIRE CHAPTER (Romans 7:1-25) to divorce and remarriage because unfaithfulness to the marriage vow under the Old Testament dispensation or under the Gospel dispensation.


For the woman who hath an husband. This principle of law is shown from the marriage relation. Death severs it, and after it the marriage covenant is not binding. A woman can marry again without committing adultery.

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are dead to the law. This principle, under the figure of marriage, is applied to those church members who were once under the law of Moses. They were then related to it as a wife to a husband. But in the chapter VI. it has been shown that all disciples of Christ had died, been buried, and risen with him (verses 2-5); hence, having died, they had been released from the law. As new creatures, they could, as those freed from the marriage to law, be espoused to another, even Christ. Christians are so united to Christ, living by vital union with him, being found in him, that whatever was done to him is said to have been done to them in his person, or through his body. The church is spiritually the Body of Christ.


Paul uses the analogy of marriage to show the futility of the law now that Christ has called us into covenant with him. Believers are to die to the old system of the Mosaic law and approach God through the new and living way Jesus has made for us by His death on the cross. Believers in Christ do not live by the law, but neither do they transgress it. Believers live by the faith of the Son of God, which "works by love", and love is the fulfillment of all of the law of God (Galatians 5:6,14; Romans 13:8-10). This faith purifies the heart and renders us compliant to the moral law of God (Acts 15:9; Romans 3:31). Now we obey Christ, not simply because He has commanded that we do so, but because we love Him.

For instance, as I mentioned in the section on I Timothy 1:15, I do not need to make commandments for my wife such as: "Do not put cyanide in my food", "Do not maim my children", etc. What would that say about our relationship if I were forced to make such commandments for her so that she would not do these things? That would not be a very loving relationship, to say the least. Nevertheless, my wife does not harm us because of the love she has for us. Just like my wife does not "live by the law of her husband" as if my commandments were the sole moral influence which keep her treating me right, but rather she lives by love for her husband, so Christians do not "live by the law of God" but rather we live by the love of God. And as long as we do so we do not transgress God's law, for love is the sum of the law. The motive of the righteous to obey is not the law, but the cross. The written law was given because of wicked men. If men had loved God from the beginning, the written law would not have been necessary (I Timothy 1:8-11). The law cannot condemn those who have the first fruit of the Spirit, which is love (Galatians 5:22-23). Those who love God supremely and their neighbor as themselves do not sin against God or their neighbor, but are perfectly compliant with God's law (John 14:15,21-24; 15:10; Ps. 37:31; I John 2:9-11; 3:4-18; 4:7-8,20-21; 5:2-4).

We become married to Christ "that we should bring forth fruit unto God", and as Jesus said,

{Matthew 7:16-20} Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? (17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. (18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I have heard it proposed that since good trees do bear some rotten fruit, then good Christians may also bear some bad fruit as well. So they come to the opposite conclusion: "Good trees can bear bad fruit! Righteous Christians do commit unrighteous acts." But as the example given in verse 16 says, grape vines do not produce even one thorn, neither do fig trees produce even a single thistle. "Good fruit" is not referring to ripe fruit and "bad fruit" is not referring to rotten fruit, as these assume. Good fruit refers to an edible species of fruit, while bad fruit refers to an inedible or toxic species of fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit"!

{Matthew 6:24} No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, or love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon [worldly gain].

If one is serving sin, he cannot be serving God. If one loves sin, then he cannot love God, but actually he hates God! There is no acceptable lukewarm domain where one can be the friend of the world and the friend of God simultaneously, where one can bring forth both good fruit and bad (I John 2:15-17; James 4:4; Revelation 3:15-16). If one is not bringing forth good fruit, or if he is bringing forth bad fruit, then he is not married to Christ.


According to biblical law, both death and divorce severed previous relationships; Paul emphasizes the one that fits his analogy in the context. (Because one never spoke of a woman's former husband as her "husband" after the divorce, no one would have understood Paul's words here as ruling out certain kinds of divorce; cf. 1 Cor. 7:15.)


{Ye also were made dead to the law} (kai humeis eqanatwqete). First aorist indicative passive of qanatow, old verb, to put to death (#Mt 10:21) or to make to die (extinct) as here and #Ro 8:13. The analogy calls for the death of the law, but Paul refuses to say that. He changes the structure and makes them dead to the law as the husband (#6:3-6). The relation of marriage is killed "through the body of Christ" as the "propitiation" (#3:25) for us. Cf. #Col 1:22. {That we should be joined to another} (eis to genesqai heter"i). Purpose clause with eis to and the infinitive. First mention of the saints as wedded to Christ as their Husband occurs in #1Co 6:13; Ga 4:26. See further #Eph 5:22-33. {That we might bring forth fruit unto God} (hina karpophorˆs"men twi qewi). He changes the metaphor to that of the tree used in #6:22.

{WALKING IN THE SPIRIT / George E. (Jed) Smock}

Salvation could not be, nor was it ever, by the law. God has always had one way of saving man, and that is by the grace of God, through faith in the atonement of Christ. The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament typified Christ. There were various degrees of understanding by those offering the sacrifices; but when the people offered sacrifices in faith with a broken heart, they were affirming the insufficiency of their own works and need for a blood atonement.

Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Genesis 6:8) before the written law was given.

Paul used the example of Abraham to illustrate that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith. Romans 4:3: For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Abraham believed that in his seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth would be blessed. When was righteousness counted to him? Before he was circumcised - before the deeds of the law.

As the body of Christ was broken on the cross and raised from the dead, believers are to become dead to the old legal system with the Priesthood and animal sacrifices as provision for the forgiveness of sin. Now we are to approach God through a new and living way. Not only are Christians dead to the rites and rituals of the law, but to its curses and penalties. We are no longer married to Moses, but to Christ. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17).

However, there are some similarities in the two covenants. Both the law of Moses and the law of Christ require obedience motivated by love to God and neighbor. Should the Christian return to sin, he again falls under the curses and penalties of the law. Christ has not set aside the moral percepts of the law, nor will he ever. The law of marriage remains the same with our new partner. Therefore, we must be faithful and obedient wives. But now we do have a much better husband, and we rejoice in being faithful wives. Under the old husband, we were adulteresses; and our marriage produced sin, misery, bondage and death. But now we have a new marriage, and the fruit of the new relationship is righteousness, peace, joy, freedom, and eternal life.

Paul appeals to the prophet Habakkuk to further his point that it has always been faith that reveals the righteousness of God, The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17).

Righteousness is always present in saving faith. Faith is the will embracing the truth that has been revealed to the soul. Faith is acting on the Truth.

{WESLEY'S NOTES ON THE N. T. / John Wesley}

She is freed from the law of her husband - From that law which gave him a peculiar property in her.

Thus ye also - Are now as free from the Mosaic law as an husband is, when his wife is dead. By the body of Christ - Offered up; that is, by the merits of his death, that law expiring with him.

    Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.


In the flesh: the material of our body as the environment in which the spirit lives, moves, and acts, an environment controlling at that time our entire action and thought. It is not so now. The flesh is (see Galatians 2:20; 2 Corinthians 10:3) the physical, but no longer the moral, elemen

Doc viewed 15681 times.

Related Content

This articles keywords/phrases are:


The articles in the list below have 1 or more of the same keywords or phrases as the article you are viewing. If you wish to hone in on a single keyword, click on that keyword and you will see a list of articles that match just that keyword.

Hard Hearts in the House of God    in Christian Living

I Almost Slipped!    in Christian Living

Not By the Sword of Man!    in Christian Living

The Stumbling Block of Iniquity    in Christian Living

ALL of GRACE    in Classic Christian Library


Where Are Your Sins?    in Sermons

Directions for Hating Sin    in Bible Studies

Site and Hosting Sponsored by:
Invite Them Home SEO Solutions