The first epistle of st. Peter 1: 1-2: 17


Download 0.9 Mb.
Date conversion03.05.2018
Size0.9 Mb.
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17

livqon zw'nta, a living stone] Here we begin to touch a remarkable combination of ideas drawn from different passages of the O.T., all more or less completely quoted in 1 Pet. 2:7, 8. First we have Isa. 28:16, setting forth the cornerstone laid in Sion: from this passage St Paul in Rom. 9:33 (cf. 10:11) had taken the first and last words, but substituted for the cornerstone the stone of stumbling spoken of in another chapter; and in Eph. 2:20 he had adopted from it the one word ajkrogwniaivou. Next we have the great passage from Ps. 118:22 f., cited by our Lord Himself, as we read in all the first Three Gospels (Matt. 21:42 || Mark 12:10 f. || Luke 20:17), and again by St Peter when on his trial for the healing of the man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts 4:11). And thirdly we have Isa. 8:14, with the idea of a stone of stumbling, quoted in Rom. 9:32 f., but, as we have seen, inserted into the quotation of Isa. 28:16. A fourth passage which goes yet further, Dan. 2:34 f., 45 (the stone cut without hands, falling and crushing the image to powder), has apparently suggested the additional comment on the quotation from Ps. 118 which we find in Luke (Luke 20:18) and probably in Matt (Matt. 21:44); but there is no other trace of it in the N.T.

The phrase livqon zw'nta, like the correlative livqoi zw'nte", has nothing answering to it in either language or idea in the O.T., which in like manner knows nothing of a house or temple whereof the stones are men. The apparent contradiction in terms living stone is of course intentional. The inward relation of Christ to the Church or congregation of His people cannot be represented by any relation of a single human being to other human beings. Father, Elder Brother, King, Priest, Advocate and the like do not touch the kind of relation which holds the central place in the apostolic doctrine of Christ. Images drawn from external nature are alone available, and that of course but imperfectly; the chief being the relation of the head to the body; while among others is this, the relation of the cornerstone to the building. But though the distinctive relation of Christ to His members can thus be imaged by the cornerstone, that figure entirely fails to set forth anything belonging to the personality of men or the personality of their Lord. For the purpose of indicating how the image needed to be completed in this direction, it was enough to add the one word “living” in each place, not only justifying the preparatory phrase about “drawing nigh unto Him,” but preparing the way for other language respecting the spiritual temple.

It is to be observed that in this verse, in which St Peter is explicitly setting forth his own teaching, before he cites the O.T. passages in illustration, he uses no such word as “cornerstone” or “head of the corner.” Perhaps he felt that the definite word would have had at least the appearance of incongruity with prosercovmenoi, which after all expressed better the literal truth; and that it was enough for the moment to indicate the thought of the cornerstone by immediately inserting a catchword or two from each of the two great passages relating to the cornerstone (ajpodedokimasmevnon, e[klekton e[ntimon).

uJpo; ajnqrwvpwn me;n ajpodedokimasmevnon, though rejected by men] This next parenthetical clause (uJpo;...e[ntimon) is with its mevn, G3525, and dev, G1254, like other previous clauses in which the principal point is contained in the second member, and the first member leads up to it by contrast. So 1 Pet. 1:7, 8, 20. In such cases mevn, G3525, and dev, G1254, may be paraphrased by “though” and “yet.”

uJpo; ajnqrwvpwn me;n ajpodedokimasmevnon. This last word comes from Ps. 117:22 (118:22), which we shall have to consider in 1 Pet. 2:7. It is one of the less common LXX. renderings of ˆa'm;, H4412, being confined to this text and Jeremiah, and is used for no other Hebrew word. The other chief renderings of the Hebrew are ejxoudenovw, G2023, and ajpwqevomai, and so St Luke in reporting St Peter’s words in Acts 4:11 translates it by oJ ejxouqenhqeiv". It means simply to reject or refuse in opposition to choosing, often with contempt entering into the refusal. It is used equally of God refusing men, and men refusing God or His word or His statutes or judgements. jApodokimavzein, a common classical word, is a tolerable rendering, but is mostly used for rejection after trial, an idea which the Hebrew word does not contain. In the N.T., not reckoning quotations, it is used twice in the Synoptic Gospels of our Lord’s rejection (Mark 8:31 || Luke 9:22, uJpo; (ajpo;) tw'n presbutevrwn kai; (tw'n) ajrcierevwn k.t.l.: Luke 17:25, ajpo; th'" genea'" tauvth"), and in Heb. 12:17 of Esau.

St Peter here passes over “the builders” spoken of in the Psalm, and substitutes ajnqrwvpwn, both a wider and here a fitter word, however we understand the builders. So expanded, the phrase is an echo of various O.T. passages, though without any close imitation. Perhaps we may cite the Hebrew words of II Isa. 53:3 “despised and abandoned by men” (such is the meaning, not “rejected of men”), though the LXX. goes altogether astray; perhaps also II Isa. 49:7, but the meaning is not certain so far as “man” is concerned (LXX. again astray); and again Ps. 21:7 (22:7) (o[neido" ajnqrwvpou kai; ejxouqevnhma laou'). By “men” St Peter doubtless means mankind in its two great classes, Jews and Gentiles. The rejection by the Jews was told in the Gospels: rejection by the Gentiles was a matter of current experience in the life of every day. Nothing was so repellent and absurd in the eyes of the ordinary heathen as the idea of faith in a crucified Jew and the acknowledgement of Him as a present Lord. Every recipient of this Epistle, by the very fact that he was a Christian, had turned his back on public opinion as an unsafe guide to the judgement of God.

para; de; qew'/ ejklekto;n e[ntimon, yet with God chosen, precious] These two epithets come from Isa. 28:16, quoted formally, though, as we shall see, with modifications, in 1 Pet. 2:6.

jEklektovn stands in the place of ˆj'B;, H1043, “trial,” “proving,” rz<[&eh; ˆb,a&,, H75, “a stone of proving,” i.e. a stone tried and proved, the natural translation of which would have been l. dovkimon (dokimavzw, G1507, 14 times represents this Hebrew verb), and would thus have stood in formal opposition to ajpodedokimasmevnon. But doubtless ejklektov", G1723, was really meant as the translation of another word differing by the substitution of rfor final n, viz. rWjB;from rj'B;, H1047, “to choose,” many times rendered by ejklevgomai, ejklektov". The same substitution has occurred in the LXX. reading of Prov. 17:3, and the converse substitution in Prov. 8:10 (crusivon dedokimasmevnon, rj;b]nI). Indeed (for other Heb. words) we find livqou" ejklektouv" in II Isa. 54:12; and aujto;" (the house of God) oijkodomei'tai livqoi" ejklektoi'" in 2 Esdras 5:8. Cf. Henoch viii.1, p. 82f. Dillm., e[deixe de; aujtoi'" kai; to; stivlbein kai; to; kallwpivzein kai; tou;" ejklektou;" livqou" kai; ta; bafikav (so Cedren. Hist. Comp. 10 D). In sense however the difference is less than it appears. If dovkimon would have expressed positive worth, ejklektovn expresses the same, and something more, a preeminence of positive worth. The LXX. translators, starting from the sense “choice,” may very well have thought of the stone as not only “choice” but “chosen”: the one idea is only a modification of the other, and probably St Peter had both in view. He was the more likely to contemplate the literal participial sense “chosen,” (1) because Jehovah’s designation of His Servant as His Elect was an idea conspicuous in Messianic prophecy (II Isa. 42:1, where see Cheyne’s note); (2) because according to St Luke’s record (9:35) the voice from heaven at the Transfiguration had pronounced our Lord to be oJ uiJov" mou oJ ejklelegmevno" (true reading: cf. the Western reading in John 1:34, o{ti ou|tov" ejstin oJ ejklekto;" tou' qeou'); and (3) on account of the corresponding phrase gevno" ejklektovn which he was about to quote in 1 Pet. 2:9: the cornerstone and the other stones were alike chosen of God in His counsel before the worlds (proegnwsmevnou in 1:20 answering to kata; provgnwsin in 1:2).

[Entimon stands in Isa. 28:16 for rq;y:, H3701, the common word for “precious,” “costly,” chiefly in the literal material sense, and especially applied to stones, whether gems or choice buildingstones (Kings and Chron.: see esp. 1 Kings 7:9-11). Tivmio" (occurring some twenty-seven times) is a much commoner rendering than e[ntimo", G1952; but these words are not used indifferently. Tivmio" is used where a simple discriminative epithet is needed: once only (Ps. 116:15 = 115:6 LXX.) where preciousness in the estimation of God or men is spoken of (tivmio" ejnantivon Kurivou oJ qavnato" t. oJsivwn aujtou'). On the other hand this, so to speak, personal preciousness belongs obviously to three of the passages where e[ntimo", G1952, occurs (1 Sam. 26:21, e[ntimo" yuchv mou ejn ojfqalmoi'" sou: Ps. 71:14 (72:14), e[ntimon to; o[noma aujtw'n ejnwvpion aujtou': II Isa. 43:4, ajfj ou| e[ntimo" ejgevnou ejnantivon ejmou'). The fourth passage (Isa. 13:12) has virtually the same idea, highly prized and so rare [tivmio", G5508, it is true, also means “rare” in 1 Sam. 3:1]; and in the fifth (Job 28:10, pa'n de; e[ntimon i[den mou oJ ojfqalmov") the range is vague. [It is used in the narrower sense=tivmio", G5508, in Tobit 13:16, oijkodomhqhvsetai ... sapfeivrw/ kai; smaravgdw/ kai; livqw/ ejntivmw/ ta; teivch sou: as also in Dion Cass. liv.23, ejkpwvmata...h] kai; e{terav tina e[ntima kevkthsai: and virtually in Demosth. c. Dionysod. ix. p. 1285; Plat. Leg. v.742 A. But this sense is very rare.] Thus apparently the LXX. habitually uses e[ntimo", G1952, not as exactly “precious” (tivmio", G5508), but rather as “held precious” (ejn timh'/). This distinction may have been helped by the fact that in classical Greek e[ntimo", G1952, almost always means “held in honour,” i.e. “honoured” “honourable,” from the commoner sense of timhv, G5507, this sense being also found several times in the LXX. (including Isaiah3) and Apocrypha; and that which is “held precious” is also “held in honour.” The Hebrew substantive rq;y“, H3702, indeed came to mean “honour” in Esther and Daniel (as also various cognate words in rabbinical writers, see Levy-Fleischer W. B. i.70f.; ii.261f.), though there is no trace of this Aramaic modification till long after Isaiah’s time. The connexion between the two ideas is readily seen in our words “estimable,” “estimation,” which combine them. Accordingly in our passage it is probable enough that the LXX. translators would not have cared to distinguish between preciousness and honour, more especially as ejklektovn has a similar double grade of meaning, “choice” and “chosen.” This comprehensiveness of sense is still more likely to have been present to St Peter. In the three other places of the N.T. where e[ntimo", G1952, occurs (Luke 7:2; 14:8; Phil. 2:29) the sense is clearly “honoured” or “honourable.” Further, in interpreting the word here we have to bear in mind hJ timhv in 1 Pet. 2:7, which certainly refers back to it, and is not likely to be used with a wholly different conception of timhv, G5507. Now, as we shall see presently, though there is no reason to exclude the idea of price in vs. 7, this idea requires some extension to make it appropriate to the context. The words para; qew'/ inserted by St Peter set forth in the first instance the choiceness and preciousness of the cornerstone as referred to the unerring Divine judgement in opposition to its refusal by men. But, as we shall see in vs. 7, the whole phrase expresses a relation to God Himself over and above the appeal to the truth of His estimation.

5. kai; aujtoi; wJ" livqoi zw'nte" oijkodomei'sqe, ye also, as living stones, are being builded] Some good authorities (Alexandrian) read ejpoikodomei'sqe, probably from a desire to bring out clearly the supposed connexion, building upon the one stone,—a wrong sense, as there is no suggestion of the stone as a foundation here: Eph. 2:20 was very likely to suggest the compound. (In Acts 20:32 oijkodomh'sai is similarly corrupted to ejpoikodomh'sai, but only in the Syrian text.) A more appropriate compound here than ejpoikodomh'sai would be sunoikodomh'sai, used in the very similar passage Eph. 2:22. Beyond the tacit reminiscence of the cornerstone in Isaiah and the Psalm, the latter quoted in 1 Pet. 2:7, there is nothing throughout these two verses to specify the relation of the many living stones to the one living stone, except the initial pro;" o}n prosercovmenoi: but doubtless these words are meant to rule the whole. Personal approach of the company of the living stones is the instrumentality by which they are built up into a spiritual house. This image of building, as the formation of a unity out of many parts, is in various forms common in St Paul, specially in Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Eph.; elsewhere it is found only in Acts 9:31; 20:32, Jude 20, and here. Sometimes (e.g. 1 Thess. 5:11) the building up is of individuals singly, sometimes (e.g. Eph. 2:21; 4:12) it is of the body or society as a whole, sometimes as here it is of the individual members of a society as making up the society.

Some good commentators take oijkodomei'sqe as the imperative, but certainly wrongly. The strain from here to 1 Pet. 2:10 inclusive is continuous, assertive here as further on, being thus analogous to the indicatives of 1 Pet. 1:6, 8 bis, and to the sense of 1:21. It is remarkable that St Peter habitually uses the aorist for his imperatives, even when we might expect the present: the only exceptions (two or three) are preceded by words removing all ambiguity; (2:11, if ajpevcesqe is the right reading, with parakalw' preceding;) 2:17 ajgapa'te, fobei'sqe, tima'te, with timhvsate preceding; and 4:12 f. xenivzesqe and caivrete, with mhv, G3590, preceding.

The voice is doubtless the passive, not the reflexive middle: so 1 Cor. 3:9, qeou' gavr ejsmen sunergoiv: qeou' gewvrgion, qeou' oijkodomhv ejste (cf. Col. 2:7); though there is a sense in which the building up could be described as an act of the Christian society itself, cf. Eph. 4:16, to; sw'ma... th;n au[xhsin tou' swvmato" poiei'tai eij" oijkodomh;n eJautou' ejn ajgavph/.

The present doubtless is not that of mere fact but of continuous process, answering to the au[xei eij" nao;n a{gion ejn kurivw/ of Eph. 2:21, and again to the words just quoted from Eph. 4:16, th;n au[xhsin tou' swvmato" poiei'tai eij" oijkodomh;n eJautou', and their parallel in Col. 2:19, ejx ou| pa'n to; sw'ma[xei th;n au[xhsin tou' qeou'. The present tense here stands in contrast to the aorist of Eph. 2:20 (ejpoikodomhqevnte" ejpi; tw'/ qemelivw/ tw'n ajpostovlwn kai; profhtw'n), which refers to the original foundation: so also in Col. 2:7 the original but also permanent “rooting” (ejrrizwmevnoi, on which see Lightfoot) is contrasted with ejpoikodomouvmenoi ejn aujtw'/ kai; bebaiouvmenoi th'/ pivstei: see also the process described in Acts 9:31. As the cornerstone and all the stones are living, so also the house is living, and its building is strictly not a fabrication but a growth.

oi\ko" pneumatiko;" eij" iJeravteuma a{gion, a spiritual house for a holy act of priesthood] This is the true reading, eij", G1650, being omitted in the Syrian text so as to make the two phrases exactly symmetrical, and also in accordance with 1 Pet. 2:9, basivleion iJeravteuma. Conversely, some Fathers insert eij", G1650, (in) before “house” and read oi\kon or oi[kou". Some recent editors, accepting eij", G1650, place a comma after pneumatikov", G4461, and thus retain the two phrases as separate clauses, in apposition in sense though not in form, “a spiritual house, as a holy priesthood.” There is no intrinsic difficulty in so understanding eij", G1650, but the change of form without an apparent change of meaning cannot readily be explained, and a much better sense is given by taking the whole as one continuous clause (so mg. of R.V.)

JIeravteuma belongs to a peculiar late group of words, all connected with the idea of priesthood, not simply the sacredness or even the performance of sacred rites, but the function of an official priesthood. The first traces of any of them are Plat. Polit. 290 D. iJeratikhv (Egyptian); Arist. Pol. iii.14 (1285 B 10) iJeratikai; qusivai and vii.8 (1328 B 13) iJerateiva, G2632, (th;n peri; to; qei'on ejpimevleian h}n kalou'sin iJerateivan, explained further on [1329 A 27ff.] as the function of to; tw'n iJerevwn gevno"). The substantive iJerateuv" is known only from inscriptions; but the verb iJerateuvw, G2634, (-omai) is not very uncommon in late writers. The definite force of these words (derived from iJeravomai, to serve as a priest) is seen in iJeratikai; qusivai, which in Greek religion are sacrifices such as only priests might offer, as distinguished from those offered by fathers of families, state officials, or other lay persons (see K. F. Hermann, Gottesd. Alt. d. Gr. § 7, 2; § 33, 8). The derivative iJeravteuma, G2633, is confined to the Greek Bible and Christian writers; the fundamental passage being Exod. 19:6, whence it is repeated in a LXX. interpretation, Exod. 23:22, and borrowed in a passage to which we shall have to return, 2 Macc. 2:17.

Without entering now into the details of Exod. 19:6, it is enough to observe here (1) that iJeravteuma, G2633, stands for the plural µynIh}Kofrom ˆheKo, H3913, “priests,” expressed in Greek by iJerei'" in Apoc. 1:6; 5:10 (where the same passage is reproduced): and (2) that the translators must have meant iJeravteuma, G2633, as a collective substantive in the singular in place of iJerei'", preferring this form in order to make it harmonise with basivleion, which there is strong reason to think they meant as a substantive, a kingdom or race of kings (not as the adjective “royal”), just as the author of 2 Macc. 2:17 evidently understood them, and as the Apoc. in both places (Apoc. 1:6; 5:10) uses basileivan. (So Philo distinctly in De sobr. xiii. p. 402, though in the sense “palace”: his reference De Abr. xii. p. 9 is ambiguous.) Having elsewhere used iJerateiva, G2632, in the abstract sense of “priesthood,” the translators may well have adopted or even coined iJeravteuma, G2633, to express the concrete sense, after the analogy of stravteuma, G5128. In 1 Pet. 2 this sense of a collective concrete priesthood is manifestly retained in vs. 9. But in vs. 5 much force is gained by taking it in what is etymologically an equally legitimate sense, “act or office of priesthood.” (Lavtreuma, a rare word confined to the tragedians, has the two corresponding senses.) Then it fits well in with both the preceding and the following phrases. The house built of living stones is defined as a spiritual house destined for a holy act of priesthood (i.e. in which this holy act is to be performed), and this act of priesthood is next defined, viz. it is to offer up spiritual sacrifices & c. The added adjective pneumatikov", G4461, answers to pneumatikav" with qusiva", but has also its own force: cf. Eph. 2:22, eij" katoikhthvrion tou' qeou' ejn pneuvmati. The new dispensation of the Spirit introduces or gives effect to a new conception of the manner of God’s dwelling among men, not as in a material building among the other buildings of men, but in the inner self of each, and so in the whole society as united in heart and mind in His service. Cf. 1 Pet. 4:17; Heb. 3:6. God dwells no longer in a house made with hands, as He once did, or rather once seemed to do, but in a society of men, whose acts as true members of the society are priestly acts on behalf of each other towards God.

{Agion might in one sense be applied to any iJeravteuma, G2633, a priestly function having no meaning except in relation to some conception or other of holiness. But in this context, associated with the twice repeated pneumatikov", G4461, it must have a sense analogous to the ethical sense of a{gio", G41, in 1 Pet. 1:15, 16, and mean a priestly function worthy of the one Holy God, as distinguished from priestly functions which might with equal propriety be rendered towards unholy deities. How fitly this conception harmonises with pneumatikov", G4461, may be seen by comparing John 4:23, 24 (pneu'ma oJ qeov", kai; tou;" proskunou'nta" aujto;n ejn pneuvmati kai; ajlhqeiva/ dei' proskunei'n). The word was perhaps suggested, and is certainly illustrated, by St Paul’s parasth'sai ta; swvmata uJmw'n qusivan zw'san aJgivan (Rom. 12:1), the presentation of this sacrifice being further described as th;n logikh;n latreivan uJmw'n, latreivan there corresponding to iJeravteuma, G2633, here.

ajnenevgkai pneumatika;" qusiva", to offer up spiritual sacrifices] This use of ajnafevrw, G429, in regard to sacrifices comes exclusively from the LXX. where it stands for the most part either for hl;[‘h,from hl;[;, H6590, to cause to ascend, to lift up, or for ryfiq]hifrom rf'q;, H7787, to cause to smoke (prevalently rendered by qumiavw, G2594), ajnav, G324, being evidently used in both cases to give something of the force of the Hebrew etymology: by a natural extension ajnafevrw, G429, stands, though very rarely and exceptionally, for three or four other Hebrew verbs of offering. Prosfevrw on the other hand is the prevalent rendering of verbs which express offering as a bringing, or a bringing near. This sense of ajnafevrw, G429, occurs in several books of the Apocrypha (Esd.2 Jud.1 Bar.1 1 Macc.1 2 Macc.6 including 2 Macc. 10:7 [Cod. Ven.; aliter Cod. A] u{mnou" ajnevferon tw'/ eujodwvsanti kaqarisqh'nai to;n eJautou' tovpon): in the N.T. it is confined to James 2:21 (Abraham offering Isaac, taken from Gen.); Heb. 7:27, first of the old high priests, and immediately afterwards (if ajnenevgka" not prosenevgka" be the right reading) of Christ offering Himself; Heb. 13:15, of Christians offering qusivan aijnevsew" (from Ps. 49:14 (50:14), where there is an express opposition to the flesh of bulls and blood of goats, but where the LXX. has qu'son), a passage which directly illustrates the present passage, the only remaining instance. The verb is probably chosen with special reference to the following words: acceptability to God on high, rather than any intrinsic quality of the sacrifices, is the characteristic of this offering.

pneumatika;" qusiva". Taken in connexion with oi\ko" pneumatikov", this phrase implies that St Peter cannot be thinking of any ritual acts whatever, such as would be appropriately performed in a visible temple. It would have been natural to think of a new kind of ritual acts, if nothing more than a new kind of sacred house made with hands were in question. The sacrificial character of the acts contemplated must be closely akin to those characteristics of the Christian community which constituted it a Divine house built of living stones.

Now each of the two Epistles of St Paul chiefly followed by St Peter contains a remarkable passage on the Christian sacrifice. First, the passage just referred to, Rom. 12:1. It is the first sentence in the last or hortatory part of the Epistle, and lays down the principle for all that follows. The other occurs incidentally in the corresponding hortatory part of Ephesians (Eph. 5:1, 2), a few verses after the passage 4:17-24, already so much used by St Peter. St Paul is speaking of the various duties which Christians owe to each other as members one of another. He comes at last to crhstoiv, eu[splagcnoi, carizovmenoi eJautoi'" kaqw;" kai; oJ qeo;" ejn Cristw'/ ejcarivsato uJmi'n, “shewing grace to each other, forgiving each other, even as God in Christ shewed grace to you, forgave you: be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, children answering love with love, and walk in love even as Christ loved you and gave Himself up for your sake an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour (prosfora;n kai; qusivan tw'/ qew'/ eij" ojsmh;n eujwdiva").” It cannot be reasonably doubted here that the whole contents of the sentence to the end are meant to be included in the imitation of God in Christ, that is, that the Ephesians are bidden to give up themselves for each other as an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour, and that this offering is appealed to as the ruling principle of social duty (cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 John 3:16 ff.). Strikingly similar language recurs in Phil. 4:18 in reference to an offering thus made to God by the Philippians on St Paul’s own behalf, ta; parj uJmw'n, ojsmh;n eujwdiva", qusivan dekthvn, eujavreston tw'/ qew'/ (cf. 2:17 th'/ qusiva/ kai; leitourgiva/ th'" pivstew" uJmw'n). This passage in its turn reflects light on Rom. 12:1, which contains no explicit reference to the sacrifice of Christ, but which begins with an appeal “by the compassions of God (oijktirmw'n),” evidently referring back to the hjlehvqhte...ejlevei... ejlehqw'sin...ejlehvsh/ of Rom. 11:30 f., words which themselves rest on earlier passages relating to the death of Christ (3:23 ff., 29 f.; 5:1-11; 8:31-39: compare oJ path;r tw'n oijktirmw'n in 2 Cor. 1:3 in connexion with ta; paqhvmata tou' Cristou' two verses lower). Thus the two passages are complementary to each other, while both implicitly represent the Christian sacrifice, responsive to the sacrifice of Christ, as consisting in devotion of the life to social service, offered as to God in thanksgiving.

1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17

The database is protected by copyright © 2017
send message

    Main page