LUTHER AND THE JEWS
FROM THE LECTURES BY PROFESSOR PHILLIP CARY
We're dealing now with Luther and conflict. We've been taking about political conflict, and then theological conflict. Now we're going to get to a conflict that is both theological and political, and the nastiest conflict, we're going to have to deal with Luther's attitude towards the Jews.
No assessment of of Luther's legacy for the modern world can neglect his hateful, violent, wicked polemic against the Jews. There is just nothing right about this stuff. It is awful and morally wrong. And it's important to say that - Luther's attitude towards the Jews, up front. It's not just painful and regrettable, it is wicked, it is wrong, and we need to think about what went wrong. How do you access Luther's legacy, which has some wonderful things in it, when there's this awful stuff in it. And we'll talk about how awful it is as we go.
I do want to contrast Luther's attack against the Jews, with other kinds of Christian hatred against the Jews. There's been too much of it; there's been quite the diverse variety of it. For one thing, Luther is not a modern racist, anti-semite. Luther is no Nazi. Though he does bear some responsibility here, he had such an influence on German culture, he injected a virus of anti-Judaism into German culture, which did in fact aid Hitler in his work. That's a terrible responsibility.
But it's important to distinguish Luther's kind of anti-Judaism from the modern 20th century kind. It is different.
I want to talk about Luther's attack on the Jews and its distinctiveness. He's not a Nazi. He's is responsible for some of the things the Nazi did I think, indirectly - very indirectly, but nonetheless responsible, but he's not a Nazi!
He's also unlike the general anti-semitism of many 19th century Protestant liberals, especially in Germany. They said, "Well the Old Testament (OT on out) is a Jewish book; it is obsolete, tribal, primitive - can't possibly be relative to Christian things, it's part of the past." This "put-down" of the Jews, this tribal, obsolete, not up to date people - that's not part of any of Luther's view. The Jews are very up-to-date. And the Jewish Bible is for Luther a Christian book. Very relevant for Christianity. And that's the point of conflict we'll get to.
Another thing to distinguish Luther from the medieval superstitious and libels that are pasted on the Jews, this kind of slander against the Jews, for instance: Many medieval Christians thought Jews would poison wells, or kidnap Christian children for their blood. Luther will actually, in two or three paragraphs in a 200 page report, will mention these awful slanders and say: "Well maybe, maybe." But he knows in fact there is no good evidence for them; that's not what is generating his attack on the Jews. It's inexcusable he even mentions them. That's not the heart of his attack on the Jews and we need to get to the heart of it.
Another teaching of Luther's attack on the Jews that is distinctive, is that his recommendations for how Christians ought to deal with the Jews are more VIOLENT than any other Christian theologian.
NO GREAT CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIAN HAS BEEN SO VIOLENT IN HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE JEWS.
He wants to burn their synagogues, confiscate their property, destroy their homes, expel them from the country.
He doesn't actually recommend murdering them, but you cannot burn people's synagogues, and kick them out of the country, without at least threatening violence.
These ARE VIOLENT proposals!
They are MUCH WORST, say in any in Augustin or Calvin, or any other great Christian theologian.
Luther is worst than any other Christian theologian, in his attitude towards the Jews!
All this is distinctive. And we need to zero in on what is distinctive about Luther's attack on the Jews.
..................
TO BE CONTINUED
WOW!! THIS SHOULD BE SENDING SHIVERS DOWN YOUR SPINE, MAKING YOUR HAIR STAND ON ITS END.
WE SHOULD BE SEEING BY NOW, LUTHER COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A MAN CHOSEN BY GOD TO BRING TRUTH AND LIGHT TO A DARKENED SPIRITUAL WORLD.
LUTHER WAS NEVER A PART OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD. A CHURCH THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE BEFORE LUTHER AND AFTER LUTHER.
THAT TRUE CHURCH OF GOD EXISTED FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST IN 30 AD. AND JESUS SAID THE GATES OF HELL OR THE GRAVE WOULD NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. JESUS CALLED IT THE "LITTLE FLOCK" [VERY LITTLE IS THE GREEK MEANING] AND THE "SALT OF THE EARTH" - IT WAS SCATTERED IN THE WILDERNESS FOR 1260 YEARS, IN THE HILLS AND VALLEYS AND FORESTS, AWAY FROM THE MIGHTY ROMAN CHURCH. IT WAS KEEPING THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS. THERE WAS ONE LAND WHERE IT WAS THE NATIONAL RELIGION - BRITAIN. WHEN THE ROMAN CHURCH CAME ABOUT 600 AD THEY REPORTED BACK TO THE POPE, THAT THE BRITISH WERE HERETICS, HOLDING TO A JEWISH TYPE CHRISTIANITY. IT TOOK THE ROMAN CHURCH TILL ABOUT 1100 AD TO CONQUER THE BRITISH ISLES WITH ROME'S THEOLOGY. ALL THIS IS IN OTHER STUDIES UNDER THIS HISTORY SECTION OF MY WEBSITE.
Keith Hunt
LUTHER'S ATTACK ON THE JEWS
continued
From the lectured by Professor Phillip Cary
His most elaborate attack comes in 1543, in a treatise, 200 pages, called "On the Jews and their Lies" - and that tells you the focus of attack.
Luther is attacking their words - once again everything about Luther is "words" - words are the things of power for Luther. Words are what it is all about. He attacks what the Jews say, not what the Jews do. It is not that they killed christ for instance. He blames the Jews for killing christ, but everyone is to blame for killing christ, it's not distinctive of the Jews. He does have the distinctive Christian habit of saying the Jews killed Christ, not the Romans. But that's a minor detail for everyone is responsible for killing christ, by their sins. And that's not what is driving Luther's attack on the Jews.
His attack on the Jews is their lies! All the things they say which he thinks is false. For instance, he begins this treatise by attacking their "boasts" - he says: "They're proud of their fleshly descent from Abraham, of circumcision, their Mosaic law [that is the law of Moses], their land of Israel - they put their trust in these things they're proud of, things of the flesh; in affect they're putting their trust in justification by works, not justification by faith alone. That's the big LIE!
Okay, that's a standard theological attack Luther makes against lots of people. Again what's generating the attack from Luther is Luther's distinctive theology. The Jews want to put trust in things other than faith. We've heard that attack before and not just against the Jews.
He'll also say the Jews speak for the Devil!
But again, we've heard that attack from Luther against other opponents.
They speak for the Devil, because they speak against their own conscience - they contradict the Christian meaning of the Old Testament.
Now we're getting close to the heart of the issue. Once again for Luther, the enemy that he's attacking is lying because they're misinterpreting, uncertain about, twisting, the meaning of the Bible. Their interpreting of the Bible is the real underlying issue. And notice how this is different from the Genteel anti-Semitism. The Jewish Bible - the Old Testament as Christians call it, is NOT obsolete for Luther, far from it! The Jewish Bible is a Christian book; that's the whole issue for Luther. That's the center of his attack on the Jews.
The Jews don't realize the Old Testament is a Christian book. It bears witness to Jesus Christ. They are trying to twist the Bible to say it's not about Jesus. That's the fundamental issue he attacks them on. And that's where the real anger comes from.
And so you see, Luther's attack on the Jews fits the same pattern of his attack on lots of other enemies.
They [the Jews] are misreading the Scriptures. They're misinterpreting, they ought to know better, they know it does not say what they say it means; they are lying against their own conscience! They are speaking for the Devil! And Luther would say, "I don't want anything to do with them, I don't want to encourage anyone to believe them; I will certainly not be associated with their theology!" And so with Luther, we have to fling some filth at them, to make sure everyone stays away from them.
Now one of the striking things about Luther's attack on the Jews, is that it's a CHANGE OF MIND; it comes in 1543, all in the last decade of his life.
Two decades earlier in 1523, he writes a lovely little book, called "That Jesus Christ was born a Jew" - recognizing our Savior was a Jewish guy.
In that treatise, he's actually attacking the Pope. He says that the persecution of the Jews by Christians, is one more bad idea of the Papist church. He says: "Our fools, the popes, the bishops, and so on, have up to this time, treated the Jews in such a way, as anyone wishing to be a good Christian, would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts, and blockheads, teaching the Christian faith, I would have sooner been a hog than a Christian."
He sympathizes with the Jews, in 1523!
On the other side of it he expresses the hope that once the Gospel has been recovered and the Jews get treated kindly by Protestants, then all you have to do is present them with good Scriptural arguments, and they'll convert to Christianity. So he would say, stop persecuting them, argue Scripture with them. and what he does at the end of his treatise, he presents a series of texts from the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, and says, Well look, if you show these to the Jews, and what they imply is the Messiah has to be Jesus, then they'll convert!
You see, every Jew will admit in the Jewish Bible there are predictions of a Messiah. Lots and lots of Messianic passages about the Messiah in the Old Testament. But most of them don't unambiguously point to the one Jesus, they point to some kind of Messiah figure, and lots of other "messiahs" might have fulfilled this prediction; and the Jews don't believe Jesus is the fulfilment of the prophecy, they are waiting for a Messiah yet to come.
So Luther's thinking; you take these particular passages; he points out 2 or 3 of them. and you show them to the Jews, and you show them the clear meaning of the passages, the clear text of Scripture, shows only that Jesus could be the Messiah. And so once they realize that, they will convert to Christianity, and then everything will be fine.
Weeellll..... that's a very hopeful thing.
Let me also mention, the nicest part of the treatise, what I like the best; he gets gets the point that I think is so important about the Biblical point about the Jews and Gentiles.
Jews and Gentiles are supposed to be blessings to each other. This is what he says towards the beginning of this treatise, that Jesus Christ is a Jew:
"If the apostles, who were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles, as we Gentiles deal with the Jews [that is by persecuting them], there would have never been a Christian among the Gentiles. But since they, the Jewish apostles, dealt with us Gentiles in such a brotherly fashion, we in turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly fashion, in order that we might convert some of them."
So the project is to convert the Jews, and the project is to even bless the Jews. We've received a blessing from the Jews, we're supposed to give a blessing back.
That seem to me to BE THE BIBLICAL ATTITUDE!
Luther says, "And if some of them prove to be stubborn and stiff-necked, so what, we ourselves are not such great Christians after all."
Maybe the Jews will not convert.... but so what do you expect? They might be stubborn, but so are some of us, is Luther's thoughts.
Now that seems to me to be a reasonable attitude for a Christian to take.
BUT 20 YEARS LATER THE ATTITUDE IS VERY DIFFERENT!
I want to think about WHY Luther's attitude CHANGED!
....................
TO BE CONTINUED
LUTHER AGAINST THE JEWS continued
From the lectures by Professor Phillip Cary
Well, his crucial change is parallel to his crucial change with the Pope, and with Swingly and lots of other folk, when he decides the Jews speak for the Devil. They're not just wrong about some things, they're not just believing the wrong things - they are speaking for the Devil.
This raises the issue: Well if speaking for the Devil is such a bad thing to say about anyone, maybe Luther shouldn't say that about the Pope, much less the Jews.
What happens is he begins to see the Jews not as enemies to be loved, but as ethological enemies, who threaten who threaten to under-mine faith in the Gospel. There's that love/faith contrast; as far as a person is your neighbor, you love them, but as far as they are trying to undermine the Gospel, and take away Christian faith, they are enemies that simply must be repudiated, attacked, you fling filth at them, so everyone knows to stay away from them.
Here's a story he tells in 1537 that kind of illustrated the change of mind.
It turns out that one of the great Rabbis of the time, a man by the name of Rabbi Josel of Rosheim, come to the town asking for a safe conduct. Now only the Prince can give a safe conduct, but Luther can kinda talk to the Prince of Saxony and say - Look, could you give this safe conduct to Rabbi Josel so he can travel on the high-way safely. And Luther TURNS HIM DOWN! And his reasons are OMINOUS!
AND THIS HIS HIS REFLECTION IN TABLE TALK A FEW YEARS LATER: "My opinion was and still is," say Luther, "One should treat the Jews in kindly fashion." So far he's talking like in 1523 - "One should treat the Jews in kindly fashion, so God may perhaps look graciously upon them and bring them to their own Messiah, that is Jesus. But NOT SO THAT THROUGH MY OWN GOOD WILL THEY BE INFLUENCED AND STRENGTHENED IN THEIR ERROR, AND BECOME STILL MORE TROUBLESOME."
So that the opening wedge for the future.
On the one hand treat them kindly, maybe you can lead them to Christ. On the other hand don't encourage them, they might end up becoming worst, undermining Christian faith.
In fact later on, he hears Jews converting Christians; THAT really SETS HIM OFF RIGHT THERE, taking away the Christian faith from Christians.
The rumors are not likely true, unless perhaps it's possible some Jews tried to convert Jews back to Judaism, occasionally when Jews are converted to Christianity, some Jews will try to visit them to bring them back to Judaism. But Jews very seldom proselyte among Christians, especially in the 16th century and middle ages, where they can get persecuted for that.
Jews don't believe, typically, that you have to be a Jew to be saved. That's not Jewish teaching. You don't have to be a Jew to be saved. So you don't have to convert people to be Jews, in order to save them. Don't have to have that missionary impulse in Judaism, the way you do in Christianity. So most Jews didn't try to convert people to Judaism, and it was not safe to try and do so.
So Luther started hearing those rumors, the Jews are undermining faith in the Gospel, which of course they're speaking for the Devil, in Luther's mind.
I think the decisive thing is he gives up hope for their conversion. Just like he gives up hope like Swingly will be converted, or the Pope will see the light. And when you give up hope for someone's conversion, in this Christian context, that means you no longer try to persuade them; you no longer just try to argue Scriptures with them.
There's no more any point in preaching to the Jews. Arguing with them about Scripture. You just have to contain them, preventing them from causing any more harm, so something ultimately to cleans society from this contamination.
We're still focussed on WORDS - the Jews are saying things, that undermines faith in the Word. Therefore they are contaminating Christendom, they're turning Christians away from God; and we're going to get in trouble for this. To tolerate this is like to tolerate a disease body-politic. There is all this types of of uncleanness and disease which he uses.
He argues that to tolerate the lies of the Jews, is to partake in those lies, and so share in the guilt of blasphemy. It's not just freedom of conscience; he's willing in principle to affirm freedom of conscience, even for Jews. BUT the problem is they don't just have a conscience, because THEY SPEAK, THEY TEACH, AND THEIR TEACHING IS BLASPHEMY - WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS!
Noe freedom of conscience doesn't mean much without freedom of speech. But Luther's inner-outer distinction leaves all the freedom for conscience, and leaves the realm of speech rather ambiguous.
If speech is public, external, then it falls under "law" - not under freedom of conscience. And blasphemy in particular, can not be tolerated Not just because it needs to be punished; we have to get into an ancient mind-set here. It's not that you are punishing the blasphemer - blasphemy is an offence to God; you have to cleans the society of this. Especially regarding blasphemy, but also sedition.
But blasphemy above all; blasphemy means using WORDS that offend God. And you have to get rid of that! So they can have their freedom of conscience, but they are NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH! NOT ALLOWED TO STUDY THEIR BIBLE AND TALMUD. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH OTHER JEWS HOW TO BE JEWS! Which means really they are not allowed to be Jewish.
This inner, this religious toleration for people's conscience doesn't go far enough. You've got to have OUTWARD toleration too, or it's not a toleration that's doing any good.
But no, for Luther, their speech, their lies, is blasphemy, therefore cannot be tolerated, otherwise the wrath of God will come upon the land because of their lies.
We dare not tolerate their conduct says Luther; we dare not tolerate their conduct now that we're aware of their lying, their reviling, their blasphemy. If we do, if we tolerate it, we become sharers in their lies, he says:
"To witness this and keep silent is tantamount to doing it ourselves."
Allowing the blasphemy to take place taints you, you become tainted with the sin of blasphemy also. If it's taking place in your community. your responsible to put a stop to it.
So HIS HARSH PROPOSALS for dealing with the Jews, are not intended as punishment, they're intended for something much worst. THEY PURGE THE LAND, OF THE BLASPHEMY LIES THAT PROVOKE THE WRATH OF GOD!
We dare not AVENGE ourselves said Luther. The Jews are doing these terrible things to us, but we can't take vengeance, that wouldn't be right, BUT WE MUST CLEANSE THE BODY-POLITIC; like cutting of a gangrenous limb he says at one point. If you have a limb getting gangrenous, you cut it off you get rid of it, or it will destroy everything. You don't want to compromise with this awful awful disease that's causing such a disaster.
That way - the RECOMMENDATION TO BURN SYNAGOGUES. His recommendation to TEARING DOWN JEWISH HOMES, but BURNING JEWISH SYNAGOGUES. WHY THE DIFFERENCE? Because the synagogue is the place of Jewish SPEECH, JEWISH TEACHING, JEWISH LIES, JEWISH BLASPHEMY..... IT NEEDS TO BE CLEANSED!
IT'S THE SAME MOTIVE ULTIMATELY OF BURNING HERETICS!
IT'S NOT A FORM OF PUNISHMENT BUT OF SOCIAL CLEANSING, SO THE WRATH OF GOD WILL NOT FALL ON THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE TERRIBLE OFFENCE.
IT'S A VERY PRIMITIVE NOTION!
AND IT'S A VERY TERRIBLE NOTION!
....................
TO BE CONTINUED
LUTHER'S ATTACK ON THE JEWS continued
From the lectures by Professor Phillip Cary
Luther doesn't go so far as recommending burning Jews, but it is violent, it is very violet, so violent that it didn't take, fortunately. Very few Princes took Luther's advise or adopted his proposals; in Strasbourg for instance, the Jewish community petitioned the magistrates to suppress Luther's book, and they did. Hurray for censorship, every now and then, right? Because the Jewish community said, "Look, this is going to invoke riots against the Jews, and the Christian Prince has an obligation to suppress violence, tumult, and keep the peace; if Luther's books are going to cause riots, then you suppress Luther's books." Good thing too. Yes there are limits to freedom of speech; in-sighting a riot is not something that falls under freedom of speech.
Sooo.... it's a good thing that Luther's proposals were not taken up at the time. But as I've said, it does kinda put a virus in German culture that bears very bad fruit in the later. Luther is not innocent in what happened in German anti-semitism in later history.
So how do we diagnose this problem? What shall we make of the phenomenon of Luther in light of his attack on the Jews, for really I think this the worst thing in all of Luther's writing. What shall we say about it?
Let me go back to that need of "certainty" - that I think is the need that goes wrong with much of Luther's writing.
Luther is insisting not that the Gospel is true, or that God is certain to keep his promises, but Luther's Christian interpretation of the Scripture is certain! In fact the largest part of this treatise on the law, is taken up with just FOUR text of Scripture. Some are in the text 20 years before, where he argues: Look you can't just see, it's obvious, it's clear, it can't be doubted, it's certain, that these texts show that it's only possible of the Messianic promises of the Old Testament to be Jesus of Nazareth. These Jews, they know that, they can see from their own Bible, that only Jesus could possibly be their own Messiah. They are denying it against their own conscience, they know better. They can't possibly deny Jesus is the Messiah.
He's actually in the place where he uses this metaphor "It's like a shrew, a noisy nasty woman back-talking against her husband, even when she knows she's wrong."
Now here's something I want to mention that happens all the time in this treatise; Luther continually accuses the Jews of things that he himself is doing. We all know that this is like, right? Your in the middle of a fight, and someone accuses you of something, they're actually close to home, but you still argue back anyway. Because if your verbally talented, as Luther certainly was, you know how to produce an argument and keep on attacking; you forget about what true, you produce argument.
That's what Luther is doing throughout this treatise.
He's just inventing one slander after another; he's really creative at producing arguments against the Jews. He just makes them up as he goes along. Makes up one after another. And that's what he accuses the Jews of doing of course. They just make up arguments; they know they are clearly wrong about the Bible, they just sort of make up these lies. And Luther is all along making up lies against the Jews.
It's the classical case of the psychological case known as "Projection" - Luther takes his own hatred against the Jews and projects it on the Jews.
He'll say for instance that, the Jews have hate for Christians in their heart. Let me read this to you - but a little context; he's talking about these accusations against the Jews, and he knows perfectly well there is no good evidence in favor of these stories. When any of these cases are brought to trial, the Jews get exonerated, there's just no good evidence on the point. "Yet," Luther says, "I know their heart." He continues, "Indeed if the Jews had the power to do to us, what we're able to do to them, not one of us would live for an hour." A little later he says, "If I had power over the Jews, as our Princes and cities have, I would deal severely with their lying mouth."
He's saying: If the Jews had power to do what I can do to the Jews, look what they would do to me. I wish I had that power to do it to them.
What he says about the Jews can frequently be said about himself. And is far more true of Luther than the Jews.
"But since they lack the power to do this publically to us, they remain our daily blood-thirsty murderer foes, in their heart."
Who is a murderer and blood-thirsty foe in the heart - in this treatise? It's Martin Luther!
THIS IS FOUL, DISHONEST STUFF, AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT HE'S ACCUSING THE JEWS OF.
THE JEWS ARE NOT FOUL AND DISHONEST - MARTIN LUTHER IS!
"Therefore," he continues, "I firmly believe that they, the Jews, say and practice far worst things secretly than the history or records about them record."
So he's got all these stories about the Jews, that he knows there is no good evidence about them. He endorses them anyways, because that's what the Jews really want to do in their hearts.
I THINK THIS SAYS MORE ABOUT LUTHER'S HEART THAT THE HEART OF THE JEWS. HE IS LYING AGAINST HIS OWN CONSCIENCE, THAT'S HOW WE COULD DIAGNOSE IT.
He knows perfectly well, or he ought to know, he's making this stuff up. That he has no good evidence for it. That it's NOT certain, THIS STUFF HE SAYS ABOUT THE JEWS, FAR FROM CERTAIN!!
HE'S WRITING OUT OF ANGER! HE WRITING LIKE A SHREW, WHOSE VERBALLY TALENTED, YOU HUSBANDS, I DON'T CARE IF I ACTUALLY DID IT. YOU HUSBANDS IT'S YOUR FAULT, TRA...DAT...RA....AND SO ON.
HE'S TALKING BACK, INVENTING SLANDERS, RIGHT AND LEFT, WITH THIS VERBAL ALENT LUTHER HAS.
AND ALAS WRITING A BOOK THAT IS FAIRLY MEMORABLE.
THERE IS NOTHING GOOD TO BE SAID ABOUT LUTHER'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE JEWS!
....................
THIS SECTION OF THE 24 LECTURES ON MARTIN LUTHER BY PROFESSOR PHILLIP CARY IS MIND-BLOWING; MARTIN LUTHER WAS FAR FROM BEING A TRUE SERVANT OF GOD. THE ETERNAL IN HEAVEN DID NOT CALL MARTIN LUTHER TO BE HIS SERVANT TO PROCLAIM THE WILL AND WAYS OF GOD, TO BRING TRUE LIGHT FROM THE SCRIPTURES AND GUIDE PEOPLE TO THAT TRUE LIGHT OF THE LORD'S WORD.
IT WAS MARTIN LUTHER WHO SAID ABOUT THE BOOK OF JAMES: "AN EPISTLE OF STRAW."
WHAT DID THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION BRING ABOUT? IT BROUGHT MANY DAUGHTERS OF THE MOTHER. ALL PROTESTANT DENOMINATION CONTAIN SOME OF THE MOTHER'S TEACHINGS AND PRACTICES; SOME MORE AND SOME LESS, BUT CERTAINLY SOME.
THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD THAT JESUS FOUNDED WAS ALWAYS IN EXISTENCE; IT WAS THERE BEFORE THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION, IT WAS THERE DURING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION, AND IT WAS THERE AND IS TODAY, AFTER THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION.
SOME TIMES THE TRUE CHURCH WAS HARDLY NOTICEABLE, SOMETIMES QUITE NOTICEABLE. LEADING UP TO THE VERY LAST YEARS OF THIS AGE, IT WILL BE QUITE NOTICEABLE, THROUGH THE INTERNET ESPECIALLY; PEOPLE WILL HAVE PRETTY WELL FREE ACCESSIBILITY TO WEBSITES LIKE THIS ONE, WHERE THE CLEAR TRUTHS OF GOD'S WORD ARE PROCLAIMED.
Keith Hunt
No comments:
Post a Comment