At this point there comes, rather surprisingly to the modern reader, a genealogy of Jesus. Ancient writers did not have the device of footnotes, which a modern writer might have utilised at this point. One might have expected a genealogy to have been included in the birth story, but if the first draft of the Gospel began at 3:1, as is suggested by advocates of the Proto-Luke hypothesis, then the inclusion of the genealogy at this point finds a suitable explanation: it occurs after the first mention of the name of Jesus (Streeter, 209). Whether this be the case or not, Luke allowed it to stand here in the final edition of the Gospel, and hence it may have a theological purpose at this point.
1. Various scholars have held that the presence of a genealogy of Jesus in the records is inconsistent with the tradition of the virgin birth; it is then argued that the genealogy represents an earlier stage in Christian thought before the development of the idea of the virgin birth (J. Weiss, 435; M. P. Johnson*, 238, holds that in Lk. 3-24 the tradition of the virgin birth is not taken into account, and the title of Son of God is understood in messianic terms). As we have seen, however, there is no inconsistency in Luke’s mind between the account of the virgin birth and the naming of Joseph as one of the parents of Jesus. From the legal point of view, Joseph was the earthly father of Jesus, and there was no other way of reckoning his descent. There is no evidence that the compilers of the genealogies thought otherwise.
2. J. Jeremias (Jerusalem, 213-221, 275-302) has claimed that genealogical records were kept in the time of Jesus by both priestly and lay families (especially the former), and that such genealogies were not artificial constructions even if errors can be detected in them. The evidence has been re-examined by Johnson who admits that there was a serious concern for purity of descent but contests whether lay families in particular always had genealogical records at their disposal; some records were transmitted orally, and some developed on the basis of midrashic exegesis of biblical texts. These suggestions indicate that we may expect to find symbolical material in the biblical genealogies, but that the attempt to dismiss them out of hand as unhistorical is in no way justified. There is thus a case for raising the question of the historical value of the genealogy of Jesus.
3. At the very outset, however, the possibility of a historical record seems unlikely. The genealogy in Lk. differs very extensively from that in Mt. 1:1-17. It is recorded in the opposite direction, beginning from Jesus and working backwards. It is considerably longer. Not only does it carry back the list beyond Abraham to Adam and then to God (giving a total of 78 names), but for the corresponding periods from Abraham to Jesus Luke has 57 names in comparison with only 41 in Mt. Finally, for the period from David to Jesus, the two lists are in almost total disagreement, coming together with certainty only in the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and even differing in the names given to Joseph’s father. It is not surprising that the scribe of D replaced the list of names in Lk. with that given by Matthew. There is in fact no wholly satisfactory method of bringing the two lists into harmony with each other.
a. The theory of Annius of Viterbo (AD 1490) was that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary (cf. Hauck, 51-58). On this view, Eli (3:23) was really the father of Mary, and v. 23 must be interpreted to mean either that Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli, or that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph but in reality the grandson of Eli (Geldenhuys, 151f.). Neither of these interpretations of the verse is at all plausible, and the theory does not fit in with 1:27 where the Davidic descent of Joseph is stressed.
b. The older solution of Africanus (Eusebius, HE 1:7) utilised the ideas of adoptive and physical descent, and employed the device of levirate marriage to harmonise the two genealogies. According to information which he claimed to have received from the descendants of James, the brother of Jesus, Africanus stated that Matthan (Mt. 1:15) married a certain Estha, by whom he had a son, Jacob; when Matthan died, his widow married Malchi (Lk. 3:24) and had a son Eli (Lk. 3:23; note that Africanus did not apparently know of Levi and Matthat who come between Malchi and Eli in Luke’s list). The second of these two half-brothers, Eli, married, but died without issue; his half-brother Jacob took his wife in levirate marriage, so that his physical son, Joseph, was regarded as the legal son of Eli. Africanus admits that this theory is uncorroborated, but worthy of belief. It is not impossible (despite the criticisms made of it by G. Kuhn*, 225-228; E. L. Abel*, 203 n. 9), but it is improbable, especially if we accept the usual text of Lk.
c. The theory which has gained most support in modern times is that advanced by Lord A. Hervey* (cf. Machen, 202-209, 229-232; F. F. Bruce, NBD 458f.): Matthew gives the legal line of descent from David, stating who was the heir to the throne in each case, but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the branch of the family to which Joseph belonged. The details of this theory vary in different authors. One method of harmonisation between the two lines of descent is to suppose that Jacob in Matthew’s list was childless, and that Joseph, the physical son of Eli in Luke’s list, was reckoned as his heir. Problems arise at the next stage backwards with regard to Matthat (Lk.) and Matthan (Mt.): were these one and the same person? (See Machen, 207-209, for a discussion of the different possibilities.) There are undoubted difficulties with this theory, but they may not be altogether incapable of solution. But solution depends upon conjecture, and there is no way of knowing whether the conjectures correspond to reality.
It is only right, therefore, to admit that the problem caused by the existence of the two genealogies is insoluble with the evidence presently at our disposal. To regard the lists, however, as merely literary constructions (M. P. Johnson*, 230; Schürmann, I, 200) is to go beyond the evidence.
4. Further problems arise within the Lucan genealogy itself.
a. G. Kuhn* noted that in 3:23-26 and 29-31 there are two roughly parallel lists of names:
| 1. | Ἰησοῦς | Ἰησοῦς |
| 2. | Ἰωσήφ | |
| 3. | Ἠλί | Ἐλιεζέρ |
| 4. | | Ἰωρίμ |
| 5. | Ματθάτ | Ματθάτ |
| 6. | Λευί | Λευί |
| 7. | Μελχί | Συμεών |
| 8. | Ἰανναί | Ἰούδας |
| 9. | Ἰωσήφ | Ἰωσήφ |
| 10. | Ματταθίας | |
| 11. | Ἀμώς | |
| 12. | Ναούμ | Ἰωνάμ |
| 13. | Ἑσλί | Ἐλιακίμ |
| 14. | Ναγγαί | Μελεά |
| 15. | Μάαθ | Μεννά |
| 16. | Ματταθίας | Ματταθά |
The close correspondence between the names in pairs 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 16, led Kuhn to conclude that the two lists were originally identical, and he suggested various emendations to make them correspond even more closely. He argued that the second list, which omits Ἰωσήφ in the second place, is the more original and gives a genealogy of Mary, the daughter of Ἠλί (or Ἐλιεζέρ). In the first list Joseph was inserted as the son-in-law of Mary’s father. The corresponding list of names in Mt. was preserved in Joseph’s family.
The effect of this analysis is to confirm that some historical material lies at the basis of Luke’s list, but it has been muddled in transmission. However, there are various objections to it. Several of the proposed equations are unconvincing. Moreover, the fact that on the usual view we have repetitions of the same names at different points in the list is not really a difficulty, since there are plenty of examples of repetition of the same or similar names in Jewish families. Further, there is nothing elsewhere to suggest that Mary was a descendant of David. Finally, if the text of Lk. known to Africanus is sound, Ματθάτ and Λευί should be omitted from v. 24, and this seriously disturbs the alleged parallelism (Jeremias, Jerusalem, 297 n. 98).
b. A more serious difficulty is raised by Jeremias (ibid. 296) who observes that the names of the patriarchs Joseph, Judah, Simon and Levi appear among the descendants of David; we have, however, no evidence that the names of the patriarchs were used in Israel as personal names until after the exile. Hence this part of Luke’s list is anachronistic. If, however, we can attach historical value to 1 Ch. 25:2 we have there the name ‘Joseph’ in the time of David, but most scholars would regard the names listed there as belonging to the Chronicler’s own time.
Consequently, we cannot be sure that the genealogy in Lk. is accurate in detail. Since, however, the Jews of the time made use of midrashic techniques in the formulation of genealogies, it may be that Luke has followed the practice of his time, and should be judged by that practice rather than by modern standards.
5. What, then, is the theological purpose of the genealogy? The way in which the corresponding list in Matthew is framed shows that it was designed to show that Jesus was the offspring of David and a fortiori of Abraham. He thus appears as the Davidic Messiah, and also as the heir of the promises made to Abraham. It may be assumed that similar reasoning underlies the genealogy in Lk., although he has not drawn attention to the significance of Abraham and David in so obvious a way.
That this is so is clear from the structure of the genealogy. If the present text of Lk. is to be trusted, there are 77 names in the list from Jesus to Adam. These fall into 11 groups of 7, namely (in reverse order):
| | Adam | — | Enoch |
| | Methuselah | — | Shelah |
| | Eber | — | Abraham |
| | Isaac | — | Admin |
| | Aminadab | — | David |
| | Nathan | — | Joseph |
| | Judah | — | Joshua |
| | Er | — | Salathiel |
| | Zerubbabel | — | Mattathias |
| | Maat | — | Joseph |
| | Jannai | — | Jesus |
When the names are grouped in this way, it will be observed that the significant names fall at the beginning or end of the groups. The arrangement can hardly be accidental. Luke, however, gives no hints of the presence of this arrangement.
Further, the fact that there are 11 groups suggests that the genealogy may reflect a division of world history into 11 ‘weeks’, to be followed by the 12th ‘week’ of the messianic era (cf. 4 Ez. 14:11; SB IV:2, 986f.; Rengstorf, 61). But it is clear that this scheme was not in Luke’s mind, since he presents the names in reverse order, and actually has 78 names (when that of God is included). It follows that Luke did not invent the genealogy, but took it over from a source (cf. Schürmann, I, 203; the possibility of a pre-Lucan significance is overlooked by Johnson, 231-233, when he rejects the idea).
We have, therefore, still to find the significance of the genealogy for Luke. Some have thought that the carrying back of the genealogy to God is a way of indicating that Jesus is the Son of God, so that the genealogy is anchored to 3:22 and 4:3, 9 (M. D. Johnson*, 235-239). But it is most unlikely that Luke thought of the divine sonship of Jesus in such a way. To regard all the names from Joseph to Adam as one gigantic parenthesis (B. Weiss, 301) misses the point of the genealogy, and to regard divine sonship as mediated to Jesus through his ancestors conflicts with the birth story. Hence the point of the genealogy is rather to show that Jesus has his place in the human race created by God. The fact that the genealogy is carried back to Adam, as the son of God, may perhaps point a contrast between this disobedient son of God and the obedient Son of God, Jesus. Hence the thought of Jesus as the Second Adam may be present (J. Weiss, 435; J. Jeremias, TDNT I, 141; Ellis, 93; the only real objection (out of those raised by M. D. Johnson*, 233-235) is that this thought does not play any part in Lucan theology elsewhere). At the same time, we may be sure that the carrying back of the genealogy to Adam is meant to stress the universal significance of Jesus for the whole of the human race, and not merely for the seed of Abraham.
An entirely different note is struck by Johnson, 240-252, when he comments on the way in which the lineage of Jesus passes through David’s son, Nathan, instead of through the royal line. He draws attention to the equating of this Nathan with the prophet Nathan in a number of sources, most of them late, and claims that the intention is to present Jesus as a prophetic figure, in line with Luke’s general emphasis on the prophetic function of Jesus (so, earlier, E. Nestle* and H. Sahlin*, 89). But while there is evidence that the offices of prophet and Messiah were being linked in the first century (E. L. Abel*), there is no evidence that Luke knew of this equation of Nathan, the son of David, with the prophet of the same name, and nothing in the context directs the reader’s eye to the significance of this particular name. Another possibility is that the genealogy deliberately bypasses the kingly line passing through Solomon to Jehoiakim, of whom it was prophesied that no descendant of his would sit on the throne of David (Je. 36:30; cf. 22:30; H. Sahlin*, 90f.). H. Sahlin*, 89, also suggests that the number of priestly names in the genealogy may indicate a desire to show that Jesus was a priestly Messiah.*
(23) When he began his ministry Jesus was the ‘right’ age for his work, just as he could lay claim to the ‘right’ descent. The opening καὶ αὐτός … Ἰησοῦς is probably meant as a solemn description: ‘And he, namely Jesus’; the αὐτός is unemphatic, indeed unnecessary (1:17 and note), but Luke uses it to draw attention to Jesus (Schürmann, Paschamahlbericht, 100). ἀρχόμενος refers to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, a theme stressed by Luke (Acts 1:22; 10:37). The implication is that the ministry lasted for some time, certainly more than one year. The age of thirty (gen. of age) corresponds with that of David when he began to reign (2 Sa. 5:4; cf. Joseph, Gn. 41:46; the sons of Kohath, Nu. 4:3; Ezekiel, Ezk. 1:1), and hence may suggest that David is here seen as a type of Jesus. The use of ὡσεί (1:56 note; 9:14, 28; 22:41, 59; 23:44) suggests that in this case Luke is conscious of giving a round number. Zahn, 205f., took it as an exact number, and was thereby forced to give an impossible dating for the 15th year of Tiberius. Rabbinic tradition gave Jesus an age of 33-34 years (Sanh. 106b, in SB II, 155).
The phrase ὢν ὑιός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο (or ὤν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, ὑιός A Θ pm lat; TR; Diglot) may mean that Luke was uncertain of the accuracy of the genealogy as a whole (Eusebius, QE 3:2; M. D. Johnson*, 230f.), or, more probably, that in reality Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus. ὡς ἐνομίζετο may have been added by Luke to his source in order to avoid possible misunderstanding in relation to chs. 1-2. νομίζω is Lucan (2:44*; Acts, 7x; rest of NT, 6x). H. Sahlin’s* suggestion (76f.) that the phrase is a later interpolation is unwarranted.
The omission of the article before Ἰωσήφ led Godet, I, 198-201, (cf. Geldenhuys, 153f.) to the view that the whole phrase ὡς … Ἰωσήφ was a parenthesis, so that Jesus was presented as the son of Eli (understood as his maternal grandfather). In fact, however, the τοῦ is, in each occurrence in the genealogy, not the article with the following noun; it stands in apposition with the preceding noun, so that the structure is: ‘Jesus was the son … of Joseph (who was) the (son) of Eli (who was) the (son) of …’
Ἠλί is Hebrew ‘ēlı̂ (cf. 1 Sa. 1:3; 1 Ki. 2:27; et al.). The identification of the Miriam, daughter of Eli, in j. Hag. 2:77d, 50 (SB II, 155) with Mary, the mother of Jesus, so that Eli would be her father and the father-in-law of Joseph (cf. G. Kuhn*, 209 n.) is very conjectural, and is rejected by P. Billerbeck.
(24) Ματθάτ (3:29**) represents Hebrew mattāṯ. The name is similar to Ματταθά (3:31; 2 Esd. 10:33) and to Ματταθίας (3:25, 26). It also resembles Ματθάν (mattān; cf. 2 Ch. 23:17; Je. 45:1), which occupies the corresponding place in Matthew’s list as the name of Joseph’s grandfather (Mt. 1:15**); see the discussion above. It is not clear whether Λευί (3:29; 5:27, 29*; Hebrew lēwı̂) is an indeclinable form (BD 531) or a genitive form from Λευίς (BD 551c). This and the preceding name were omitted from the text of Luke known to Africanus (see above) and possibly also from Irenaeus, whose list contained only 72 names (AH 3:32:3); but the omission may have been due to the apparent dittography with v. 29 (Schürmann, I, 203 n. 119). Μελχί (malḵı̂, possibly an abbreviation for malḵiyyâ, G. Kuhn*, 211) also occurs at 3:28**. Ἰανναί** is found here only, and Ἰωσήφ recurs at 3:30.
(25) Ματταθίας (3:26**), i.e. mattiṯyâ, was a common name (2 Esd. 10:43; 18:4; 1 Ch. 9:31; 16:5; 1 Mac. 2:1, 14; et al.; Ep. Arist. 47; Jos., passim). Ἀμώς may represent ’āmôn, the name of the king (2 Ki. 21:18). ’āmôṣ, the father of Isaiah (2 Ki. 19:2) or ‘āmôs, the prophet. In Mt. 1:10 ** it is the name of the king. G. Kuhn’s* suggestion (211) that in Lk. the name is a corruption of Simeon (s̆im‘ôn) is unconvincing. For Ναούμ** (naḥûm) cf. Na. 1:1. Ἑσλί** is otherwise unattested; the nearest equivalent is ’aṣalyāhû (2 Ki. 22:3; Ἐσσελίας, LXX). For Ναγγαί** cf. Νάγαι (nōgah), 1 Ch. 3:7.
(26) Μαάθ is the equivalent of maḥaṯ (1 Ch. 6:35 (1Ch 6:20); 2 Ch. 29:12; 31:13); in view of this OT usage G. Kuhn’s conjecture that the word is a transliteration of mē’ēṯ, ‘from’, used to indicate a genealogical relationship, is unnecessary and unconvincing. For Ματταθίας, see 3:25. Σεμεΐν** is s̆im‘ı̂ (Ex. 6:17; et al.) or s̆ema‘yâ (1 Ch. 5:4). Ἰωσήχ** is otherwise unattested. Ἰωδά** may equal yehûḏâ (1 Esd. 5:56 (58)) or yôyāḏā‘ (2 Esd. 22:10f.); the name is similar to Ἀβιούδ in Mt. 1:13 (hôḏaywāhû, 1 Ch. 3:24 LXXA, Ὠδουιά).
(27) Ἰωανάν** is at first sight equivalent to yôḥānān (BD 532; 2 Esd. 10:6; 2 Ch. 23:1; et al.). But the Hebrew name has the same meaning as ḥananyâ (Ἀνανιά, 1 Ch. 3:19), the divine name being used as prefix and suffix respectively (cf. 2 Ch. 21:7/22:1). The name could then be that of one of Zerubbabel’s sons. In between this name and Zerubbabel, however, stands Ῥησά**. This could be a proper name (riṣyā’, i.e. Ῥασειά, 1 Ch. 7:39; cf. SB II, 156), but, since no son of Zerubbabel with this name is otherwise known, many scholars argue that the word is a transcription of Aramaic rē’s̆â, ‘prince’, which originally stood in apposition to the name of Zerubbabel. If this conjecture is correct, then Luke was using at this point an originally Aramaic list which was not dependent on the LXX; it would also follow that the list was originally in reverse order, so that the title would follow the name of its bearer.
Ζοροβαβέλ (zerubbāḇel) also occurs in Mt. 1:12f.** as the name of the leader of the Jewish exiles on their return to Jerusalem. His father’s name is given here as Σαλαθιήλ (Mt. 1:12**; i.e. s̆e’altı̂’ēl), in agreement with 1 Ch. 3:19 LXX; Ezr. 3:2; Ne. 12:1; Hg. 1:1. In 1 Ch. 3:19 MT, however, his father is called Pedaiah. Since Shealtiel and Pedaiah were brothers (1 Ch. 3:17f.), levirate marriage may well explain the anomaly (Machen, 206; cf. W. Rudolph, Chronikbucher, Tübingen, 1955, 29).
A further problem arises with Shealtiel’s father, named here as Νηρί** (i.e. nēr), but in the OT as Jeconiah, the king of Israel (1 Ch. 3:17; cf. Mt. 1:12). Taking Je. 22:30 to imply that Jeconiah was childless, Plummer, 104, argued that he adopted as his heir the son of Neri who was descended through Nathan from David. Other scholars follow Eusebius QE 3:2 (cited by M. D. Johnson*, 243f.) in claiming that because of the curse on Jeconiah the line of the Messiah was deliberately traced so as to by-pass him. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 295f., suggests that the author of Chronicles caused the discrepancy by attempting to depict the restorer of the temple after the exile as the grandson of the last reigning king. Any of these conjectures may be correct.
(28) The list now proceeds through a set of names unknown in the OT back to David via his son Nathan. G. Kuhn*, 214f., argues that the first few names are a corruption of the names in 1 Ch. 3:17f. (cf. Schürmann, I, 201 n. 95), but this is improbable, especially since it is unlikely that the genealogy was based on 1 Ch. (Zahn, 218; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 295).
For Μελχί see v. 24. Ἀδδί** (with several variant spellings) is found in the LXX for ‘iḏḏô (1 Ch. 6:21). Κωσάμ** is not attested in the LXX. For Ἐλμαδάμ** cf. Ἐλμωδάμ (Gn. 10:26 LXX for ’almōḏaḏ). Ἤρ** (‘ēr) is not uncommon (Gn. 38:3; 1 Ch. 2:3; 4:21).
(29) On the list of names commencing with Ἰησοῦς see the introductory comments on the theory that this is a parallel list to vs. 23ff.
Ἐλιεζέρ** corresponds to ’elı̂‘ezer (Gn. 15:2; Ex. 18:4). Ἰωρίμ** may be the same as Ἰωρείμ (2 Esd. 10:18). For Ματθάτ and Λευί see v. 24. See the introductory comments on the use of patriarchal names at this point.
(30) For Συμεών see 2:25, and for Ἰούδα see 1:39. For Ἰωνάμ** cf. Ἰωνάν (yehôḥānān, 1 Ch. 26:3), and for Ἐλιακίμ (Mt. 1:13**) see 2 Ki. 18:18; et al. (’elyāqı̂m).
(31) Μελεά** is otherwise unattested. The same is true of Μεννά** (but see SB II, 156, for a possible equivalent). It is omitted by A, and may be a dittography of the previous name (Schlatter, 218; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 296 n. 97), but omission would disturb the numerical scheme. For Ματταθά** (mattaṯâ) see 3:24 note. Ναθάμ** v. 1. Ναθάν, as in LXX) is nāṯān, a son of David (2 Sa. 5:14; 1 Ch. 3:5; 14:4; cf. Zc. 12:12. So the line reaches Δαυίδ (ḏāwiḏ), the king.
(32) From David to Abraham the genealogy is parallel to Mt. 1:2-6 with but slight differences. Matthew follows 1 Ch. 2:1-15, but Luke uses other sources, and possibly uses the MT rather than the LXX (G. Kuhn*, 217f.). See Ru. 4:18-22.
Ἰεσσαί is the same form as in LXX for yis̆ay (Mt. 1:5f.; Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:12**; Ru. 4:22; 1 Ch. 2:12f.). Ἰωβήδ (Mt. 1:5**, i.e. ‘ôḇēḏ) is a v. 1. in 1 Ch. 2:12, where the better text has Ὠβήδ. In Lk. the variants Ἰωβήλ, Ὠβήδ and Ὠβήλ are attested; confusion of final δ and λ would be easy. It is surprising that Mt. agrees with Lk. here against the LXX. Βόος** is bō‘az (Ru. 4:21; 1 Ch. 2:11f.); Mt. 1:5 has Βόες. Σαλά (3:35**) is for sìalmā’ / sìalmôn. This form of the name is used for the patriarch s̆elaḥ in Gn. 10:24; 11:13-15; 1 Ch. 1:18, 24; but for the present name the LXX has Σαλμάν (Ru. 4:20f.) or Σαλμών (1 Ch. 2:11; Mt. 1:4f.). Both of these forms appear as textual variants in Lk., but Σαλά has the best attestation. Metzger, 136, observes that it may be based on a Syriac tradition, since the corresponding form is found in Ru. 4:20f. syp. Ναασσών is naḥs̆ôn (Mt. 1:4**; Ex. 6:23; Nu. 1:7; Ru. 4:20; 1 Ch. 2:10f.).
(33) The text of the next three names is very uncertain, and UBS prints what Metzger, 136, can describe only as ‘the least unsatisfactory form of text’. Ἀμιναδάβ (‘ammı̂nāḏāḇ) is found in Mt. 1:4**; Ex. 6:23; Nu. 1:7; 1 Ch. 2:10; Ru. 4:19f. It is omitted by B sys; G. Kuhn*, 217 n. 2 and Jeremias, Jerusalem, 293, explain it as a scribal addition by someone who did not realise that the following name was an abbreviation for this one, but Kuhn’s suggestion that ‘ḏmyn and mynḏb were confused seems unlikely. The form, Ἀδμίν** is unattested in the LXX. Ἀρνί**, also unattested in the LXX, must correspond to Ἀράμ, i.e. rām (Mt. 1:3f.; 1 Ch. 2:9f.; Ἀρράν, Ru. 4:19). The variation in Lk. is due to textual corruption at some point. For Ἑσρώμ cf. Mt. 1:3**. The forms Ἑσρώμ and Ἑσρών for ḥeṣrôn are found in Ru. 4:18f.; 1 Ch. 2:5, 9. Φάρες, i.e. pereṣ, is found in Mt. 1:3**; Gn. 38:29; Ru. 4:18; 1 Ch. 2:4f. For Ἰούδα cf. v. 30; Mt. 1:2f.
Source : Quinton Howitt quinton@vineyardbi.org
No comments:
Post a Comment