Isaiah 53 prophecy. Is it about Jesus?

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2018

LoAmmi said:
Just a quick clarification on a point here. The traditional Jewish reading is that it is the Kings of the World mentioned in 52 that are doing the speaking in 53 (at least until a point where HaShem is speaking, I think. Haven't reread it for this post and I'm a bit rusty).

So it would be more like:

"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken."

Surely Israel has born our (the world) griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we (the world) esteemed Israel stricken.

You are free to disagree, but that is the traditional Jewish understanding.

Ok. Thanks for the additional comments for us to ponder. And just to be fair, I found the following article on the web from Outreach Judaism, so we can read it and mull over the extent to which we think it does a just job of explaining Isaiah 53 from a Jewish, non-Christian point of view.

https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/

In response, and just off of the top of my head at the moment, I thinking that of course the Rabbi's would give one of a handful of various interpretations that would defend the 'place' of Israel in Isaiah. But, being that the nation of Israel is characterized by the prophet(s) as spiritually in transgression, if we care to read the entire book of Isaiah (which I've done many times), it seems unlikely to me that the more typical Jewish reading is accurate, and we'd have to ignore all of the verses (sometimes entire chapters) which describe God's anger at Israel for their sins.

I could be wrong, but it seems unlikely that He would use a sinful nation in and of itself, without any kind of moral transformation and redemptive process, to be the light and sinbearer for the rest of the world. However, I can see God using a sinful nation, particular Israel since they were elect, through which to send a Redemptive Messiah who would then spark an actual spiritual reformation among the people of Israel.

LoAmmi · Apr 11, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. Thanks for the additional comments for us to ponder. And just to be fair, I found the following article on the web from Outreach Judaism, so we can read it and mull over the extent to which we think it does a just job of explaining Isaiah 53 from a Jewish, non-Christian point of view.

https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/

In response, and just off of the top of my head at the moment, I thinking that of course the Rabbi's would give one of a handful of various interpretations that would defend the 'place' of Israel in Isaiah. But, being that the nation of Israel is characterized by the prophet(s) as spiritually in transgression, if we care to read the entire book of Isaiah (which I've done many times), it seems unlikely to me that the more typical Jewish reading is accurate, and we'd have to ignore all of the verses (sometimes entire chapters) which describe God's anger at Israel for their sins.

I could be wrong, but it seems unlikely that He would use a sinful nation in and of itself, without any kind of moral transformation and redemptive process, to be the light and sinbearer for the rest of the world. However, I can see God using a sinful nation, particular Israel since they were elect, through which to send a Redemptive Messiah who would then spark an actual spiritual reformation among the people of Israel.

I acknowledge why a Christian would view it that way. I disagree, but that's just going to be the way it is.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2018

LoAmmi said:
I acknowledge why a Christian would view it that way. I disagree, but that's just going to be the way it is.

Well, according to the the entirety of the Bible, it wouldn't be the first time that a Jewish person, even a Rabbi or two (or three) was wrong about some important work that God was actually doing in the world.

... not that being a Christian makes one automatically right about whatever interpretation happens to pop into into his head. Then again, it wouldn't mean he is automatically wrong, either.

LoAmmi · Apr 11, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Well, according to the the entirety of the Bible, it wouldn't be the first time that a Jewish person, even a Rabbi or two (or three) was wrong about some important work that God was actually doing in the world. ... not that being a Christian makes one automatically right about whatever interpretation happens to pop in their head. Then again, it wouldn't mean they are automatically wrong, either.

Sure...

and if we're right, Christianity wouldn't be the first time someone (or a lot of people) jumped the gun and created their own thing because they weren't waiting for HaShem's time.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2018

LoAmmi said:
Sure...

and if we're right, Christianity wouldn't be the first time someone (or a lot of people) jumped the gun and created their own thing because they weren't waiting for HaShem's time.

Yes, but Jesus' case.......is just a bit different than all those "other" pretenders to the throne of Israel, don't ya think? Maybe, just a little bit different?

Athée · Apr 11, 2018

Radagast said:
Well, no, we don't. The overwhelming majority of Jewish rabbis read the passage as Messianic for most of history.

Do you mean the kingdom that ended in 930 BC?

I'm not sure if the equivocation is intentional and I will assume it was not. Most rabbis do think the passage is messianic, in that the portion that describes the future,describes conditions at the time of the Messiah (and you'll note that Jesus didn't meet these conditions), but the passage is not considered a prophecy about the Messiah.
As for the notion of Israel disappearing in 950 I am unaware of any time in history since the OT was written that there have not been Jews either in a sovereign nation or in diaspora carting with them their national identity in light of God's promise to them about the holy land.

Athée · Apr 11, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Good to hear from you, too, Athée!

At the moment I'm only referring to one element, or more properly, one level of interpretive insight. As you know, there are various contexts in which a piece of literature of any sort sits within, this goes for ideas in the Bible, not the least of which are those found in Jewish prophetic writing. So, I'm not going to attempt to bring out a whole litany of various contexts that may apply to how we read Isaiah 53, at least not all at once since that can require some time to gather and elaborate upon. We can expand to other contexts and discuss other very relevant issues as we go, if needed.

The single interpretive element that I become aware of as I read through Isaiah 52:13--53:12--even if just read all by itself and disconnected from the several overarching contexts to which it is connected--is that the language used, even though poetic, isn't by all necessity fitting for a message that is meant to only and purely refer to the entity of the nation of Israel.

The first place that I notice this lack of pure self-referential inflection in the language is in verse 4-6. In the very first sentence we see the construction of the subject and the object as being differentiated. Isaiah say, "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken." We see this differentiated contrast between the subject and object. It would be 'weird,' to say the least to instead replace both the subject and the object with the same reference. So, let's see how it would sound if we change both the subject and the object to the same entity,

"Surely Israel (as a nation) has borne Israel's (national) griefs and carried Israel's (national) sorrows; yet Israel (nation) esteemed Israel (nation) stricken."

If this is the actual implication, then I find this lack of differentiation to be weird not only because it doesn't really make sense, especially when we see this construct more times in this same passage, but also because it doesn't seem like the entire passage is actually trying to convey the idea that the nation of Israel can somehow "pay" for its own sins. To say that Israel will "pay" for its own sins is implicitly contradictory, and this seems to me to be the case even IF we are trying to consider that the prophetic Jewish speech utilized here is obviously heavily couched in poetic language throughout the passage.

Additionally, it doesn't make sense if we bring in one more level of context. If we consider the fact that the entire book of Isaiah is not so much a promise to Israel for its "Election," although that is implied, but that this book more so presents a severe prophetic warning, for both Israel and other nations, one laced with mysterious innuendoes of additional meaning, then it's also hard for me to see that this passage means that God isn't using a "third party individual" to erase Israel's guilt for all the sins that the book harps upon.

So, that's the little bit of exegetical nuance that I had in mind, Athée. That's the first level of context to consider, with a toe or two into a second one.

What do you think?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I agree entirely with what you said but I don't think Isaiah is having Israel speak. Rather it seems to me that these are the astonished kings from Isaiah 52 speaking about revelation that the nation of Israel has been suffering on their account. In this reading it is:

"Surely Israel (as a nation) has borne our (gentile nations') griefs and carried our (gentile national) sorrows; yet we (gentile nations) esteemed Israel (nation) stricken."

LoAmmi · Apr 11, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, but Jesus' case.......is just a bit different than all those "other" pretenders to the throne of Israel, don't ya think? Maybe, just a little bit different?

To be quite frank, no, I don't see how Jesus is any different than any of the others. I'm not trying to be insulting, but from my point of view, if Jesus existed, he was simply another person who claimed to be Messiah but was shown not to be when death came. I see no reason to believe he raised from the dead or anything else like that.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2018

Athée said:
I agree entirely with what you said but I don't think Isaiah is having Israel speak. Rather it seems to me that these are the astonished kings from Isaiah 52 speaking about revelation that the nation of Israel has been suffering on their account. In this reading it is:

"Surely Israel (as a nation) has borne our (gentile nations') griefs and carried our (gentile national) sorrows; yet we (gentile nations) esteemed Israel (nation) stricken."

Ok. That interpretation of Isaiah 52:15 to 53:1 may be a possibility, although I'm not going to just jump and concede to it simply because someone says that that is what they think the implication is (which isn't clear by the way). Interestingly enough, I see that the Apostle Paul directly refers to Isaiah 53:1 and he seems, perhaps, to insinuate the Jewish notion (no surprise there) that the reference here may involve the Gentile Kings in some way (in Romans 10:16).

On other hand, Paul seems to imply that "heralds" have to be "sent" to deliver the report, and at least some of this report seems directed towards Israel. And Craig S. Keener (1993) comments here that, "[Paul realizes that]...people are not saved without the opportunity to hear. Isaiah 52:7 announced that there was good news, but heralds still had to bring it to the people. Several verses after Isaiah 52:7, Isaiah reports the response to the good news the heralds bring (53:1), and Paul's readers probably know how this text continues: Israel rejected the good news (53:2-3)" (p. 435). So, Paul seems to believe the verse inflects some kind of 'negative' response on the part of Israel in Isaiah.

Something else I notice, too, is that at the end of 53:8, we read "For the transgressions of My people He was stricken." Again, if we pay attention to the redundancy of extension here for the entities involve, it sounds like Israel, which was not guiltless in Isaiah, is "paying the price" for another parties sins, but if we go with the Jewish interpretation, we see that it is its own sins. That doesn't make sense to me.

Moreover, if we look at verse 53:9, the statement is made that "...He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth." But the problem here is that the entire book of Isaiah implies that the nation of Israel at that time was being punished BECAUSE its people had done violence and lavished deceit before the face of God. So,.....................even if it were to turn out that I (and Paul) are wrong, surely you can see how confusing that must be for me. Although, I can't say how "confusing" it was for Paul. He was no uneducated dummy.

Reference
Keener, Craig S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2018

LoAmmi said:
To be quite frank, no, I don't see how Jesus is any different than any of the others. I'm not trying to be insulting, but from my point of view, if Jesus existed, he was simply another person who claimed to be Messiah but was shown not to be when death came. I see no reason to believe he raised from the dead or anything else like that.

Yes, and being that I have a dozen or so books by Jewish Rabbis, among other sources, I can understand your viewpoint somewhat, even if I'll admit that I'm still learning about it all from this angle.

Athée · Apr 11, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. That interpretation of Isaiah 52:15 to 53:1 may be a possibility, although I'm not going to just jump and concede to it simply because someone says that that is what they think the implication is (which isn't clear by the way). Interestingly enough, I see that the Apostle Paul directly refers to Isaiah 53:1 and he seems, perhaps, to insinuate the Jewish notion (no surprise there) that the reference here may involve the Gentile Kings in some way (in Romans 10:16).

On other hand, Paul seems to imply that "heralds" have to be "sent" to deliver the report, and at least some of this report seems directed towards Israel. And Craig S. Keener (1993) comments here that, "[Paul realizes that]...people are not saved without the opportunity to hear. Isaiah 52:7 announced that there was good news, but heralds still had to bring it to the people. Several verses after Isaiah 52:7, Isaiah reports the response to the good news the heralds bring (53:1), and Paul's readers probably know how this text continues: Israel rejected the good news (53:2-3)" (p. 435). So, Paul seems to believe the verse inflects some kind of 'negative' response on the part of Israel in Isaiah.

Something else I notice, too, is that at the end of 53:8, we read "For the transgressions of My people He was stricken." Again, if we pay attention to the redundancy of extension here for the entities involve, it sounds like Israel, which was not guiltless in Isaiah, is "paying the price" for another parties sins, but if we go with the Jewish interpretation, we see that it is its own sins. That doesn't make sense to me.

Moreover, if we look at verse 53:9, the statement is made that "...He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth." But the problem here is that the entire book of Isaiah implies that the nation of Israel at that time was being punished BECAUSE its people had done violence and lavished deceit before the face of God. So,.....................even if it were to turn out that I (and Paul) are wrong, surely you can see how confusing that must be for me. Although, I can't say how "confusing" it was for Paul. He was no uneducated dummy.

Reference
Keener, Craig S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

I an see why it would be confusing for sure, i myself am generally in a state of confusion about much clearer passages than this

. Also I could be way off base but I think the gentile kings speech goes well beyond 53-1. I would have thought it ends after 53-10. In which case your concerns about Israel rejecting the message would be addressed and so too would the problem of salvation being brought by Israel to Israel. Although here I will pause for a moment to point out that your Christian intuition thst Israel can't be the sacrifice to deal with the sins of Israel may be the result of Christian doctrine rather than an actual problem for Judaism on your reading. In Judaism you have to deal with your own sin by repentance and sacrifice (if there is a temple) it can't be taken from you by another person. So in Jewish thought, Israel redeeming Israel is exactly what they would expect.

You have also raised a really good objection, that there are characteristics thst Isaiah ascribes to the servant that seem to conflict with the idea that the servant is Israel. This brings to mind Ecclesiasties 7 that not one is righteous and has not sined but then in Numbers 23 it says God looked on Israel and saw no perversenss and no iniquity. So it seems to somehow be the case that sinful individuals and even a sinful nation can somehow be considered righteous.
But now comes the other edge of that sword. If we are to insist that this passage is about the Messiah and that the Messiah is Jesus, then what is written about the Messiah in Isaiah must equally be true of Jesus.
1. V3. He was despised and rejected by mankind...but Jesus was followed by massive crowds that came from all over. Yes he was rejected by some of the Jews but this is hardly equivalent to being rejected by mankind.
2. V3. A man of suffering, not a man who suffered at one point but a man who's existence was suffering... Jesus suffered greatly I'm not denying that but we don't seem to have evidence that he was a man of suffering.
3. V7. Impressed and afflicted he was silent as he was led to slaughter... but Jesus speaks to Pilot and cries out several things on the cross.
4. V10 he will see his offspring and prolong his days...jesus didn't have children that we know of and died around the age of 30.
5. By his knowledge my servant will justify many...how does what Jesus knows effect justification for someone else?

So it seems like even if this passage was about the Messiah (and it would be odly in contradiction to all the agreed clear Messianic prophecy passages) and even if God chose to put the most important information about salvation (That the Messiah would be sacrificed for the sins of the world) in a single unclear and contested verse, we still wpuld have good reason to think it is not about Jesus.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2018

Athée said:
I an see why it would be confusing for sure, i myself am generally in a state of confusion about much clearer passages than this . Also I could be way off base but I think the gentile kings speech goes well beyond 53-1. I would have thought it ends after 53-10. In which case your concerns about Israel rejecting the message would be addressed and so too would the problem of salvation being brought by Israel to Israel. Although here I will pause for a moment to point out that your Christian intuition thst Israel can't be the sacrifice to deal with the sins of Israel may be the result of Christian doctrine rather than an actual problem for Judaism on your reading. In Judaism you have to deal with your own sin by repentance and sacrifice (if there is a temple) it can't be taken from you by another person. So in Jewish thought, Israel redeeming Israel is exactly what they would expect.

You have also raised a really good objection, that there are characteristics thst Isaiah ascribes to the servant that seem to conflict with the idea that the servant is Israel. This brings to mind Ecclesiasties 7 that not one is righteous and has not sined but then in Numbers 23 it says God looked on Israel and saw no perversenss and no iniquity. So it seems to somehow be the case that sinful individuals and even a sinful nation can somehow be considered righteous.
But now comes the other edge of that sword. If we are to insist that this passage is about the Messiah and that the Messiah is Jesus, then what is written about the Messiah in Isaiah must equally be true of Jesus.
1. V3. He was despised and rejected by mankind...but Jesus was followed by massive crowds that came from all over. Yes he was rejected by some of the Jews but this is hardly equivalent to being rejected by mankind.
2. V3. A man of suffering, not a man who suffered at one point but a man who's existence was suffering... Jesus suffered greatly I'm not denying that but we don't seem to have evidence that he was a man of suffering.
3. V7. Impressed and afflicted he was silent as he was led to slaughter... but Jesus speaks to Pilot and cries out several things on the cross.
4. V10 he will see his offspring and prolong his days...jesus didn't have children that we know of and died around the age of 30.
5. By his knowledge my servant will justify many...how does what Jesus knows effect justification for someone else?

So it seems like even if this passage was about the Messiah (and it would be odly in contradiction to all the agreed clear Messianic prophecy passages) and even if God chose to put the most important information about salvation (That the Messiah would be sacrificed for the sins of the world) in a single unclear and contested verse, we still wpuld have good reason to think it is not about Jesus.

Before going too far, I think I need to ascertain one thing first, Athee. Have you had the opportunity to sit down and actually read Isaiah in its entirety? I ask because the way in which we interpret this books overlying contexts will be partially informed by how we first view the structure of the entire book, even if we take Isaiah as representing "two Isaiahs." So, before we proceed, you might answer this.

You might also fill me in on what the overall context is of that passage in Numbers 23, because I'm apparently seeing something different there than you are. Are you reading a Jewish commentary or something, or is this your own interpretation?

Athée · Apr 11, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Before going too far, I think I need to ascertain one thing first, Athee. Have you had the opportunity to sit down and actually read Isaiah in its entirety? I ask because the way in which we interpret this books overlying contexts will be partially informed by how we first view the structure of the entire book, even if we take Isaiah as representing "two Isaiahs." So, before we proceed, you might answer this.

You might also fill me in on what the overall context is of that passage in Numbers 23, because I'm apparently seeing something different there than you are. Are you reading a Jewish commentary or something, or is this your own interpretation?

Good questions. I tend towards a 2 authors interpretation of Isaiah.
Numbers: I withdraw the citation. The translation I was using seems to have done a poor job in this section. I think I can make the case that despite all humans being born in sin and with hearts that tend to evil, there exist nevertheless people described as righteous in the scriptures. Does that same relationship hold when it is a nation in question...i need to go do some more reading. Apologies for not source checking the first time :-(

Radagast · Apr 11, 2018

Athée said:
but the passage is not considered a prophecy about the Messiah.

The most common Jewish interpretation today is different from that of the past.

Athée said:
As for the notion of Israel disappearing in 950 I am unaware of any time in history since the OT was written that there have not been Jews either in a sovereign nation or in diaspora carting with them their national identity in light of God's promise to them about the holy land.

The name "Jew" refers specifically to the tribe of Judah. There was a sovereign nation or province of Judah for large parts of the time between 930 BC and its complete integration into the Roman Empire. Part of the nation that ended in 930 BC formed the nation of Samaria.

ViaCrucis · Apr 11, 2018

Athée said:
Hi all,

Your friendly local atheist back with another question. So chatting after hockey about life's big questions one of the guys said thst he was a Christian and when I asked what convinces him that Christianity is true his first thought was all the fulfilled prophecy. When I asked him for the very best one he cited Isaiah 53 (meaning the end of 52 through 53).

So I went back and read it myself and did a cursory internet search and it seems to me like the traditional Jewish interpretation makes the most sense, that the suffering servant is the nation of israel...but maybe I am missing something (I usually am!)

If you are a believer that this passage is a clear prophecy about Jesus as Messiah please help me understand why.

Peace

Early Christian biblical interpretation often comprehended a Christocentric meaning to the texts; that is, when Christians went back and looked at these Scriptures they saw Jesus written all over them. Whether they were wrong or right to do so depends on whether or not Jesus is, in fact, the risen Lord and Christ.

As such I have no problem recognizing that Isaiah 9 is almost certainly about Hezekiah, and yet its application to Jesus has been part of Christian tradition since the beginning.

I would argue that, in a sense, early Christians were engaging in a kind of midrashic reading of these texts. Looking behind the more surface layer, and at least for them, they saw Jesus there. Again, whether or not this is correct, I think, depends entirely on whether or not the Jesus story is true--because if it is true, then Jesus' statement, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which bear witness of Me" ought to be taken seriously, and that is precisely the kind of thing we see the early Christians doing.

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, if Jesus is just another failed messiah, then of course none of this matters anyway as the entire Christian belief system is rendered totally false.

-CryptoLutheran

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2018

Athée said:
Good questions. I tend towards a 2 authors interpretation of Isaiah.
Numbers: I withdraw the citation. The translation I was using seems to have done a poor job in this section. I think I can make the case that despite all humans being born in sin and with hearts that tend to evil, there exist nevertheless people described as righteous in the scriptures. Does that same relationship hold when it is a nation in question...i need to go do some more reading. Apologies for not source checking the first time :-(

Yes, I agree. There are people who are generally righteous in the Scriptures. However, the Israelites tended to have periodic oscillations between Sin on a national level and being drawn by God back toward spiritual reformation through various leaders He would send to them.

However, the historical period(s) in question that contextualize the book of Isaiah, and of Isaiah chapter 53, was definitely not one of the better, more faithful times for Israel. Things were getting really bad between the invasions by Assyria and then later by Babylon, which led to the decimation of Israel and their Exile into Babylon.

Anyway, feel free to study and let me know what you find. It's all interesting, and as always, it's good to hear from you and see what you've been up to.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

LoAmmi · Apr 12, 2018

Radagast said:
The most common Jewish interpretation today is different from that of .

We have evidence from Church Father Justin Martyre that Jews were claiming this interpretation in the second century.

danny ski · Apr 12, 2018

A quick comment. "Isaiah 53" is treated by Christians as a stand alone text, just like the prophecy to King Ahaz, and out of context. In reality there's no "Isaiah 53", but 4 Servant Songs of Isaiah. And the Servant is clearly identified.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 12, 2018

danny ski said:
A quick comment. "Isaiah 53" is treated by Christians as a stand alone text, just like the prophecy to King Ahaz, and out of context. In reality there's no "Isaiah 53", but 4 Servant Songs of Isaiah. And the Servant is clearly identified.

If we take the entirety of Isaiah (or both Isaiahs, depending on which structural theory one goes with), the intertextuality of the contexts imply a possible interplay between the Messiah and the Servant, wherein the figure of Messiah in Isaiah bleeds (perhaps easily bleeds) into the concept of "the Servant" in Isaiah.

I for one will not say that the Servant motif can't apply to both Israel AND, figuratively, also to the Messiah to come. And this is where I think mistakes (or a lack of insight) come into the interpretive process on the part of both Jews and Christians. It's probably not just one OR the other. It's both. So, Israel, despite its grievous sins in Isaiah, should still have some level of its "election" [through the post-Exile 'Remnant'] recognized, along with the implications that these 66 chapters have for the Messiah.

danny ski · Apr 12, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
If we take the entirety of Isaiah (or both Isaiahs, depending on which structural theory one goes with), the intertextuality of the contexts imply a possible interplay between the Messiah and the Servant, wherein the figure of Messiah in Isaiah bleeds (perhaps easily bleeds) into the concept of "the Servant" in Isaiah.

I for one will not say that the Servant motif can't apply to both Israel AND, figuratively, also to the Messiah to come. And this is where I think mistakes (or a lack of insight) come into the interpretive process on the part of both Jews and Christians. It's probably not just one OR the other. It's both. So, Israel, despite its grievous sins in Isaiah, should still have some level of its "election" [through post-Exile 'Remnant'] recognized, along with the implications that these 66 chapters have for the Messiah.

Perhaps. Or, perhaps, it depends on the pov. My belief system does not require a or the messiah. However, not being a biblical scholar, I must have to ask the question: how many hoops do I have to jump to arrive at a desirable conclusion? That,in a nutshell,is the problem with "53".

Isaiah 53 prophecy. Is it about Jesus?

Downhill Prevention!

Dispassionate

Downhill Prevention!

Dispassionate

Downhill Prevention!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dispassionate

Downhill Prevention!

Downhill Prevention!

Well-Known Member

Downhill Prevention!

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Confessional Lutheran

Downhill Prevention!

Dispassionate

Newbie

Downhill Prevention!

Newbie

Similar threads