⬇ EPUB

THE LIVING GOD (1)

JT What I have before me is the “living God” and the features of the truth that stand connected with that appellation of God as seen in the New Testament. As we look into it we shall see that the subject is extensive, running throughout the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation, and found in the Old Testament too. Moses uses the title, also Joshua, David, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Hosea, which is quoted in Romans 9, besides the Psalms in which it appears several times. What should be remarked is that it obviously alludes, not to God’s eternal relations with men, for the use of the word “living” can have no force when all are living, but it is applied to God largely in contrast to the religious conditions here on earth, and particularly to the deadness as seen in the Jewish system. Hence it is significantly referred to in Matthew, Hebrews, and in the Revelation. It has, therefore, a very direct bearing on the present time, when there is so much called religion which has no spiritual life. To say nothing of paganism and Mohammedanism, and the Eastern church which is characteristically dead. The great leading religious body in western christendom is marked by death judicially; as the Lord says, “her children will I kill with death” (Revelation 2: 23). In the Anglican system, the liturgy of which is hundreds of years old with little or no variation, there is no attempt at life. Without attacking any, the fact is that death, in a spiritual sense, characterises religion generally. It characterises what is called the christian religion. So that “the living God” is an appellation that has a very direct bearing now. To answer to it requires life in our services Godward,

^[p. 115] and in our relations with one another, in our walk, as Romans says — “newness of life”, “newness of spirit”, “the renewing of your mind”, and our bodies presented “a living sacrifice”.

Another thing which would perhaps help is that the Lord, before this title is introduced in Matthew, inquires as to what men were saying about Him. That is, what was the current judgment or thought as to who He, the Son of man, was. The disciples were conversant with what was current at that time. They themselves had owned that He was the Son of God as the result of certain evidences. Whatever was in their minds, they spoke of Him as the Son of God in chapter 14; they had the right thought. They evidently did not have what we have here in chapter 16, for this was a revelation, but generally speaking the Lord was not known at all, although there were those who had certain thoughts about Him. In no case did men have a right thought about the Lord. He inquires about this before this great matter of the revelation appears, as if to remind the disciples that inasmuch as men had had abundant evidence of who He was, but did not discern it, it would be of no advantage, but rather the contrary, to tell them, merely as a matter of information. So that He enjoins them in verse 20 to say to no one that He was the Christ; that is, when there is abundant evidence of what is on God’s behalf, and it is not discerned, there is a state disclosed that is reprobate. There was abundant evidence who He was, but it was not discerned, as shown by the answers the disciples gave the Lord. That is how it is now. Today there is abundant evidence as to christianity, but men are not discerning it, and they are not to be merely informed. The ministry is to have in mind the work of God, and that nothing else will absorb what is of God.

Ques Is it the thought of what is inherent — the living ^[p. 116] God?

JT Quite so. The necessity for it was not to indicate any change in God; the circumstances bring out the truth, and I believe the force of it is a contrast to the state of things in judaism, as demonstrated in the earlier part of the gospel.

Ques Would it stand in contrast to idolatry also?

JT Yes. The Thessalonians “turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God” (1 Thessalonians 1: 9), but the point in regard to judaism would be the deadness of things in the profession of a knowledge of God. I think that is the point now for us, the deadness that is current. Of course, paganism, and Mohammedanism, and the Eastern church, which is nearly apostate, are admittedly dead. The Western church and all its outgoings from Europe are marked by spiritual death. The Lord is about to introduce in Matthew, in view of His rejection and in view of the state of things in judaism, a new order of things. He has come to this position at Caesarea-Philippi, and He has in mind that a new order of things should be introduced. He has that in mind from chapter 11 — all the instruction of that and those following to chapter 16 bears on this. Now in this inquiry as to what men were saying, the Lord assumes that the disciples had a right estimate of things. The Lord had been ministering a long time and there was abundant evidence of who He was. They knew who He was. His disciples, “those in the ship”, evidently referring to others as well, had owned that He was the Son of God according to chapter 14, but men generally did not. They were exposed by their answers, as to what they were saying about Jesus. He was naturally the subject of much conversation, as He is still in christendom, but what are men saying about Him? If we could get a consensus of what men are saying about Jesus we would readily conclude that there is an apostate condition abroad, necessitating a new movement on ^[p. 117] the part of God.

GAvS When you refer to the deadness of judaism, would that deadness be like the conditions prevailing before Elijah brought down fire and the people said, “The Lord, he is the God”?

JT Yes, they were in similar conditions. Baal was their God you might say, but as to the people here, note the answers they were giving! The consensus of opinion was not exactly hostile to Christ, but men were not discerning who was there. The disciples had discerned Him. Those on the ship called Him the Son of God, but the generality of people did not discern it although they recognised the miracles.

Rem They thought of Him as one who was subject to death like a prophet.

JT Therefore, their thoughts did not rise to His deity at all; the truth of the Person of Christ was not discerned. That is the test today. John’s gospel is to meet a condition like that and to bring out the truth of the Person of Christ. Then it is not only the Person of Christ, but the living God! The Christ, the Son of the living God!

JDU Does that verse in Romans 8:3 apply here? What the law could not do, God reached through sending His Son? The law only demonstrated the deadness of the state of things.

JT In truth, what it did in that section is that it slew. Paul says, “but the commandment having come, sin revived, but I died. And the commandment, which was for life, was found, as to me, itself to be unto death: for sin ... slew me” (Romans 7: 9 - 11). The use of the law was very good — “the law is holy ... and just, and good”, and the knowledge of sin was effected by it. But through it sin brought death into the soul of the writer. It is not death in a literal way, but in a moral sense. He had no power to respond to God. The law is seen in Romans 7 as, in a negative sense, helping faith and the work of God. The point the Spirit of God, through Matthew, is making, is that ^[p. 118] the most perfect testimony is presented, a living testimony in Christ. It is not simply what the law effected, or was able to effect, but that the most perfect testimony was presented to men in the Lord Jesus, and this is all the result that there is (chapter 16: 14). The answers do not bring out that there is hostility to Christ, but that there was inability even where there were the best intentions, to see what was there. The point is not that they are opposed; that they hated Him and His Father, but according to the disciples’ answers, with the very best intentions, they missed the mark. Men would be favourable to Christ as far as they could, and the English-speaking world is generally favourable to Christ, but the underlying state is against Him. They are unable to maintain their ideals, because they are not morally affected in their own souls as to the Person of Christ. Such a state of things with, in a certain sense, the best intentions, exists today. The people of God who are quickened, are to perceive this, and know how to serve in these circumstances. The point is life! Nothing else will do at all. Mere doctrine, mere creeds will not do. These things inform the natural minds of men. There is no creed that does not appeal to the natural mind of men. Anyone can understand it in the sense of a literary production, but over against all that there is a living state of things. Only that will affect anyone toward God.

CD As to the Lord’s two questions here, on the one hand He exposes the apostate condition of things, and on the other He would bring to light the work of God as evidenced in Peter.

JT Yes. He knew the disciples, He knew God was working in them, and undoubtedly assumed that the answer would be forthcoming, and it was, so that the disciples, represented here in Peter, represent a new order of things that the Lord had in His mind. The disciples stand in contrast with what marked men, who were not actively hostile, but as is brought ^[p. 119] out by what they say about Jesus, were unable to take in the truth. It is the policy of man’s empire to hold to christianity as far as it can. In spite of that, it is losing it; true christianity is slipping away. Man in the flesh with the very best intentions cannot hold the testimony of God. Man cannot commend it, nor make it effective in this world. With all the paraphernalia that there is, it comes back to this, that if there is to be a testimony, it must be according to what God is. God is not an abstract conception, not a God to be served as if He were quiescent or static in heaven. He is the living God, and all those representative of Him are to be living.

GH-n Does Caesarea-Philippi indicate the necessity of a move out of the organised state of things as seen in Jerusalem?

JT That is the idea; it would suggest the gentile world and that the Lord is going to move in that area.

Ques Is this question of life very largely a matter of affections?

JT Well it is, but you will find the term “living God” in connection with the creation as in Acts 14: 15. The apostle appeals to them at Lystra to “turn from these vanities to the living God, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things in them”. In the creation life is greatly stressed. We have vegetable life on the third day, animal life on the fifth day, human life on the sixth day, and the very term, “living souls”, shows what God had in His mind. What was before Him was that life should work out in the way of the affections, the lower affections especially in animals, but in man, also what is higher — man became a living soul. Animals are living souls, but Adam became a living soul by the breath of God, so that there was to be a reflection in Adam of the living God. It was by the breath of God that he became a living soul. The idea ^[p. 120] of life there is set out in man — life that God had in His mind. The Lord is inquiring as to the Son of man here — who is He? The true answer coming by way of revelation is, He is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Adam was “of God”, but here it is more than Adam ever could be because the Person before us is divine Himself, but still He is the Son of the living God. That does not bear on eternity as we speak; it bears on this world, and particularly where death is, religiously.

Rem What is living must emanate from God. Even scientists admit that life alone can produce life, and in spiritual life God must be the source of it.

JT We have the Son here, and this same Person is the Christ. That is, God is going to do things. That is really what the Christ signifies, One anointed to do things for God, but what is to be done has to be done in a living way. The history of christendom for seventeen or eighteen centuries is on the opposite line. The point is not living things, but philosophy, ceremonials, external things, which God never intended to be used in His service at all. In view of the assembly He introduces the idea of the Son of the living God, and this Person is the Christ, through whom God is going to do things — and do them in a living way.

Ques Is the thought seen in the living creatures that cease not day or night in activity? Is that the reflection of the living God?

JT Yes. There are four of them, meaning that it is the universal thought of creation, but as living, as in life, not only mere physical life; they are praising God, day and night saying, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come” (Revelation 4: 8).

JD Would the confession of Peter suggest that in Christ there was only one Person on earth ^[p. 121] at that time who corresponded with God? He was living — the Son.

JT Yes. At the banks of the Jordan heaven had announced its delight in Him: “Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight”. That had been announced, but not yet the idea of the living God, because that had not yet been set out in testimony. What intervened between that time and this chapter enters into the confession. Not that Peter understood, not that he would have used the term of himself, because it is a revelation; God conveyed the idea to Peter, and it corresponded with what had been demonstrated. It is not exactly what He was in the thirty years of His life here. That is more what He was under God’s eye. There was more than the great thought of life there. What was needed in testimony to dead Israel was life; a living condition, and that is what is disclosed in the Lord’s ministry, so that the time had arrived for this, but Israel had failed to see it. The disciples no doubt perceived it in measure, but it required revelation to bring out the full thought. The full thought alluded to what was demonstrated. The living thought was there before their eyes. “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1: 4).

GH-n Does sonship as connected with Christ indicate that what is official is intended to be living and connected with God?

JT That is the thought, I am sure. The idea is that God has found One, according to Psalm 89: 19, able to effectuate all His thoughts: “I have laid help upon a mighty one”, but the revelation implies that the ministry or service of that Person was living, and particularly testified against the deadness of the Jewish system. The Old Testament abounded in the thought of life, but they had lapsed into a dead state, as christendom has today. Here we have to trace this new living order of things, but through Christ to God.

“^[p. 122] Of him, and through him, and for him are all things” (Romans 11: 36). The Father Himself is the beginning of this living order of things. Christ is the Son of the living God.

GAvS Then does the revelation necessarily involve new and living activities on the part of God?

JT Yes; that must be. God Himself must operate. Romans enters into this, “the Spirit life on account of righteousness” (Romans 8: 10). You must have life for the new order of things.

GH Is the new order of things referred to in Matthew 11: 25 — “revealed them to babes”?

JT In a way it is, that is, the revelation was of things, as it is said, “thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes”, the Lord says. Things that He had been ministering, but not yet the Person. The Father had not yet revealed to anyone who Christ was. He had announced His sonship, but announcing is not revealing. Revelation is more inward; God is beginning inwardly. Public testimony is external, but the revelation was in Peter’s soul, as you might say, and hence the clear verbal expression of it.

ABJ When the Lord says here to Peter, “flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee”, would He suggest that we must have circumcised hearts to get revelation?

JT Yes, it is on the principle of what we are inwardly, because Peter is able to put into words what came into his soul. That is, there is ability there to take in revelation. Those whose judgment about Christ had been stated by the disciples had no capacity for that. They were unable to take in the objective testimony. The disciples were able, as Peter said elsewhere: “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God” (John 6: 69). In Matthew 16: 16 we have something more than the objective testimony. We have something revealed by ^[p. 123] the Father to Peter, and he is able himself to put it into words, and the Lord expressly says that it was not by flesh and blood.

EM Does the Lord, in saying, “Thou art Peter”, imply that the assembly is living?

JT Well, He implied that Peter was material for the assembly. Later on Peter applies the thought of life both to Christ and the saints in relation to the building: “To whom coming, a living stone ... yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2: 4, 5).

Ques Do we need to have an impression such as Peter had as to Christ before we can understand the assembly?

JT Yes. What Peter had has come in, and remains here as a treasure in the treasury. Not that everyone gets the revelation as he did. The knowledge, by revelation, of Christ as the Son of the living God, is here already, and the Spirit makes it effective. It is not by merely holding a creed, by taking it in as a doctrine which an unconverted man may assent to. It is a heart and soul matter. That is what we ought to see clearly. David built inward. It is the inward side. It implies what a true Jew is; he “is so inwardly;” circumcised, “in spirit, not in letter” (Romans 2: 29).

FWW Would that be involved in what Paul says in Galatians 1, that God called him “to reveal his Son in me”?

JT It is the same thought, only the preposition is a little different there. It is more definitely inward. I think the inwardness of the thing here is in the confession; it is the outcome of the light received within. It is not a mere intellectual matter. Peter is evidently affected by it. The Lord says, “Thou art Peter”. Peter is changed; he has become something he was not before.

HG ^[p. 124] Does this stand in contrast to the sign from heaven that the Pharisees desired?

JT Quite so. The sign was there before their eyes. The disciples and others in the boat profited by it, and called Him the Son of God, but men generally did not profit. So the Lord when they asked for a sign, left them and went away, as much as to say, It is hopeless to have to do with you. We have come to that in regard to christendom; there are conditions that are hopeless in regard to any effect from the testimony of God.

GAvS Does the revelation of the Lord as Son of God come in in order to displace the condition of things that was not able to receive Christ?

JT Yes. The word “Peter” here implies that there was in principle a real change in the man. “Thou art Peter” — it is not a name, but what he was; new material, and that is what God is seeking today. It is a question of suitable material for the assembly; hence the Lord says, as it were, Now we can proceed. God had effected this in Peter. Peter’s confession shows that it was a matter that went through his being, and he had been ready for it, he was impressionable; the Lord names the material that was there. So, as I said, the Lord says in effect, We can now proceed with the new order of things. “On this rock I will build” meaning there was a foundation, and material with which to build on it. That is the inner view, and the kingdom is the outer; the great bulwark of the new system. He says to Peter, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens”. The kingdom is protection, for there is power in it against evil and in favour of good. There is thus not only what is inward as to the assembly, but also external protection ^[p. 125] in a spiritual sense. So that the new order of things is formulated and protected fully; that is what these verses mean. The Lord “enjoined on his disciples that they should say to no man that he was the Christ” (verse 20). Merely passing on such information is harmful, seeing that it is proved that men as such are not capable of absorbing spiritual impressions, and it is spiritual impressions that are needed in this new order of things. Christendom today — particularly Rome — is the result of men, as in the flesh, being informed as to Christ and the assembly.

GAvS Do these spiritual impressions consist in the acceptance of the revelation?

JT Yes — taking in this inward truth. We have in Ephesians 1: 17, “the spirit of wisdom and revelation”, and in Luke 24: 45, the Lord “opened their understanding to understand the scriptures”. Again, Ephesians 3: 16 speaks of the Father giving strength in the inner man by His Spirit, so that Christ may dwell through faith in our hearts, that we may apprehend with all saints the fulness of divine things. These thoughts enter into the chapter we are considering.

JM Where did the rest of the disciples stand in relation to Peter? The revelation was made to Peter only.

JT Well, christianity began as a community. Acts 1 shows that all this was present in the upper room. They are not yet called stones, but the truth as to the kind of material was there. All this is a tentative state of things, awaiting redemption, awaiting also the Lord going into heaven, and the Holy Spirit coming down. Without the Holy Spirit here you cannot have living stones. This is only a pattern. Everything awaited the presence of the Holy Spirit, so that at Pentecost they had the truth of the assembly as seen here in the treasury, as it were, and those in the upper room are regarded as a community. Christianity began as a ^[p. 126] community, and it is always a community, that is, there is joint ownership by all of what anyone has spiritually. Peter leads; he is the first one to stand up in the midst of the brethren to speak. He would be speaking in the power of this in so far as he could at that time; at any rate, he had the idea in his soul. The thought of a treasury has to be understood if we are to understand christianity. Peter had the truth of Christ’s sonship in his soul, and never said a word about it formally, as far as the records go, until he was about to put off his tabernacle, and then he referred to the holy mount (2 Peter 1: 17). He would be impressed with it undoubtedly, although without introducing it in his ministry, he kept it. It was in the treasury, and so Paul had the experience of his elevation to the third heaven for fourteen years and said nothing about it. Mary had many things that she did not say anything about hidden in her heart, and they were with her as treasure in the upper room. Now in Acts 2, after the Spirit comes, we are told formally that those that believed were a community. What one had, they all had, and if this were so in material things, how much more in spiritual things!

GH-n Does the building of the assembly depend on the Lord’s own words as well as what the Father had said to Peter — “I also”?

JT Yes. He designated the material, and He is the builder. What is to be done, is to be done by Christ, but the origin of the thing is God, “of whom are all things”. God is the origin of the new order of things. He is the end in it, too. In the meantime it is set out, and it is going through in a living way.

Ques Is the enemy not seeking to detach us from what is living and take us back to what is formal and ceremonial?

JT Exactly. See what you have today in christendom. There is positive hostility to Christ in the great Romish system, but generally speaking the English- ^[p. 127] speaking communities are outwardly favourable to christianity. The open Bible, the gospel, and the liberty of christians are allowed. In spite of this favourableness, there is the inability to take in spiritual impressions, room not being made for the Spirit of God. What prevails in the so-called service of God is clericalism, ceremonialism, music, choirs, and other such things. Many of our brethren are linked with these conditions, but necessarily hampered and deadened by them.

Ques Do you think that the things mentioned might even be found in measure in our meetings?

JT Well, that is the point. Are things living amongst us?

JSB Why does the Lord say, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona”, would He not encourage Simon, and each, on the line of what is spiritual?

JT I think so. Simon Bar-jona is, as you might say, Peter’s responsible name. We have often talked about Isaiah 44: 5 in connection with young people coming into the truth. One says, “I am Jehovah’s; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob”. That means he is accepting responsibility spiritually. Another shall “surname himself by the name of Israel”, which would mean that he is going in for spirituality, because Israel signifies that, which is the idea in young people going in for the truth. They are capable of absorbing what is in the community even if they do not get a direct revelation. What is in the community belongs to them; and they appropriate it as it comes out.

Ques Is the living God a greater thought than Almighty God? It is more than power, is it not?

JT In a moral sense it is a greater thought. Almightiness is more properly an attribute, although of course it is essential to God, absolutely essential, or we could not have creation and the overthrow of Satan and death. It is also a relative thought in view of opposition, and things having to be done. By it creation is sustained — as it is said, “upholding all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1: 3). These terms in the divine vocabulary have come out through exigencies. I believe the whole of the divine language is to be regarded in that way. It is for men, making things intelligible for us. I believe every title of God we have has come out through man by the power of the Spirit. It is a question of God operating, conveying an impression and giving power to put it into words.

CSS The apostle says, “in him we live and move and exist” (Acts 17: 28). Is the highest thought put first?

JT Yes. There is no doubt the allusion there is to ordinary physical life, but I am not saying that that does not apply spiritually, too. John would lift us on to a higher plane. “He that abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1 John 4: 16).

Ques When the Lord said, “Hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”, is that because the assembly is a living system emanating from the living God?

JT I think so. I think life is the greatest preservative there is. Without it things become corrupt immediately, and Satan really works through corruption. If any man defile the temple of God really means corrupt it. Satan’s main plan is corruption. We are to love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption. In natural things, in what is animate, if life ceases there is corruption. It is so also in spiritual things. If spiritual life wanes or ceases there is corruption. So in the discernment of sin — leprosy — the white hair denotes decay, that the power of life is gone. Things are preserved only in life, and life comes from the living God.

Ques Would the thought of conscience purged from dead works to serve the living God, have a bearing on this?

JT We shall come to that. It illustrates what we are saying — dead works over against serving the living God. “We are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God” (Philippians 3: 3), that is, we worship in life, as Hezekiah said, “The living, the living, he shall praise thee”.

GH What is the binding on earth? Does it preserve the assembly from corruption?

JT There is ability to value what would guard against satanic influence such as may be found even among christians. The ability to bind and to loose is a great matter. It is a preservative thought. We have it, in chapter 18, in the assembly. The assembly had power to do the same thing after it was formed. Peter only had this commission in an individual sense, and it was not hereditary to anyone. It ceased with him as regards the person, but the assembly has it as seen in chapter 18, and in view of the last days the Lord gives it to the disciples as disciples, but not until He had breathed into them (see John 20). There He puts remission before retention of sins, because, as it seems, He had it in mind to help us in these last days to loose people, to help people to extricate themselves. It is a great point, if it is followed, in carrying on this living state of things.

CD In contrast with the gates of hades, there is the power of the kingdom of heaven, is that the thought?

JT There is that, but more than that. The constitution of the assembly is against Satan. The preserving power of life is over against this corrupting power, so that the more we are living, the more active love is amongst us, the less possibility there is for Satan to get in. The gates of hades would allude to satanic authoritative counsels, but the assembly cannot be overcome by these.

JM Would you say a word as to the speaking of Christ? He said, “And I also, I say unto thee”.

JT “I also” implies another Speaker. The Father is one Speaker, the Son is another. That is what is meant, but He waited to say this until the Father had acted.

Ques Is it only as knowing the living God that we are able to walk in newness of ^[p. 130] life?

JT Well, that is what is conveyed by Romans 6: 4 following the statement: “Christ has been raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father”. Glory here is the radiation of affection in the taking of Him out of death, and I believe that enters into the newness of life. That is, life of a different kind from anything that had been.

Ques What is before you in Romans 9 — “Sons of the living God”?

JT It comes before us as distinct from the sons of God in Galatians and elsewhere. “Sons of the living God”, coming in suddenly where they had been “not my people”, shows how quickly God can change a state of death into a living state of things. It is not children, it is sons. Hosea says, where they were disowned and under God’s judgment, not His people, they are called “Sons of the living God”. It is a question not of our bearing eternally towards God, but living here as a witness to the living God. It is “in the place where it was said to them, Ye are not my people, there shall they be called Sons of the living God”. I think we ought to say more about that later.

TRY Why were the disciples told not to tell these things?

JT As we were saying, it is useless to pass on spiritual information to people who have proved themselves to be incapable of receiving spiritual impressions, who are proving themselves reprobate. I am not speaking of any particular individuals, but as bearing on the general state of things we have been speaking of. Christianity is professedly accepted by men as they are, by the nations, and in Great Britain there is the national church. That is not the church of God; that is not a living state of things. Bearing that in mind, what is the use of passing on information to that system? What is the gain of it? It does not help at all. That does not, of course, apply to anyone who might be truly exercised, but I refer to passing on information ^[p. 131] to people who are characteristically impervious to the truth as it is presented to them. “Then” (verse 20), — a change had come about because of the facts presented in the chapter. The state of judaism indicated in the Pharisees and Sadducees (verse 1), obliged the Lord to leave it; and what men were saying about Him indicated inability to take in spiritual testimony; and finally the Father had begun to prepare for a new order of things, marked by the knowledge, by revelation, of who Christ was; suitable material for the assembly being simultaneously evident. All this is in mind in the Lord’s injunction to the disciples “that they should say to no man that he was the Christ”.

← Previous Article 13 of 39 Next →