Mark 2:12-22. Another few snapshots of Jesus: Sinners and fasting.

He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins–and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.” 

2 more snapshots from Jesus’ early ministry: 

It’s been a long time since last we met to read Mark’s Gospel, so I thought it would be a good idea to recap briefly. Mark, a younger disciple of Jesus, who probably met Jesus, but who has learned more from Paul, and most of all from Peter, is writing a theological book about Jesus. He is writing it with Gentile Christians in mind. These men have signed up to the cause of Jesus Christ in some sense. If nothing else, they are willing to listen to Mark’s book being read aloud. And that in itself is a risky activity in Rome and other cities of the empire, where Christianity is seen as an antisocial cult. Many of them believe that Jesus is God, that he has forgiven their sins, and that they are to live in his service, doing good and preaching the Gospel about him. They will suffer persecution from the state, and mocking and distrust from their neighbours. They will need certainty about what they believe, they will need patience and endurance and faith to persevere through their sufferings. And Mark is trying to give them a deeper theological underpinning, to prepare them and help them for this. Mark is teaching them in more depth about who Jesus was, what Jesus did, and how Jesus himself saw his own ministry- and how then Jesus’ followers can expect the world to treat them, and how Jesus’ followers should see their own mission.

To that end, Mark has given us an account of the start of Jesus ministry. Jesus was baptised, identifying with the repentant faithful people gathered by the Jordan, the entry point into the land of Israel. The Holy Spirit came to rest on Jesus, like a dove (echoes of Noah there, and also of creation), and then he was led for 40 days of trial and testing, to emerge marked out as the head of a new humanity, a changed humanity.

Mark then gives a series of snapshots in chapters 1-3 from Jesus early Galilean ministry, before moving on to some of Jesus’ teaching in more detail in Ch 4. These snapshots are meant to show us something of the sort of King Jesus was, and the sort of kingdom that his kingdom is. Jesus has been preaching, saying that the kingdom of God is at hand, because the time is now fulfilled. These events show us the character of the kingdom of God.

The first 5 episodes have been the calling of some disciples by the lake, the teaching and conflict with a demon in the synagogue, the healing of Simon’s mother in law and many others, the withdrawal alone to pray and moving on to other towns and villages, and the cleansing of the leper. Jesus has been showing some stark differences between God’s Messiah- himself- and the Messiah expected by the Jews. He has not come to fight against Rome, but to fight against Satan. He drives out demons, not foreign soldiers. He has not come to bring material prosperity and a golden age of peace, still in a fallen world. He has come to do greater things than that. He will reverse the curse. The whole creation has been crying out for salvation since the days of Adam, and Jesus now has come to deliver it. Sickness is no more. The unclean becomes clean at his touch.

The next 5 pictures in Marks series of snapshots: The forgiveness of the paralysed man, the calling of Levi, the questions about fasting, and two disputes over the Sabbath, have a new element introduced. There is conflict found in these latter pictures, which is absent from the earlier ones.

Mark has used the earlier incidents to show us the true role of the Messiah.  Jesus has come not to be the political and military leader of a Middle Eastern superpower- he has come to be the leader of a redeemed humanity, and not just to lead, but actually to redeem them. So Jesus identifies with sinners in his baptism, experiences the curse in the wilderness, comes into conflict-not with the Roman occupiers, but with Satan whose demons have occupied the heart of this man in the synagogue. Jesus destroys signs of the curse. He heals illness, a token of death, which is the wages of sin. He forgives sin. He cleanses the unclean. He brings fallen, broken men back into communion with the God who made them and against whom they have rebelled. He is a grander, more important, figure than the Messianic hopes of the Jews allowed him to be.

And in the latter pictures, Jesus clashes with some of the Jews, notably the Pharisees. The kingdom of God is now revealed, not only as a place of wholeness, holiness, and cleansing; but as a place of conflict. The kingdom of God, in the person of Jesus, has invaded a fallen world- and as the kingdom is established in a fallen world, there is continual battle. Those who are not in the kingdom, fight against it. Those who are not with Jesus, are against him.

The coming of the kingdom demands a response from those to whom it comes. The disciples leave their nets and follow the king. He might not look like a king- he looks more like a Galilean carpenter- but they recognise his authority and obey him. Others don’t. Some of the Pharisees and scribes refuse to recognise Jesus as God’s king, and oppose him.

Levi’s calling:

1) Why were tax collectors so despised?

2) Who were the “sinners”?

3) Jesus’ reply shows something of his view of the kingdom of God. How does this differ from the view of God’s kingdom held by the Pharisees?

-Does Jesus think that the Pharisees are right to class themselves as “righteous”?

-Does Jesus think that the Pharisees’ categories of “righteous” and “sinners” are valid?

-What do the Pharisees see as Messiah’s main task?

-What does Jesus see as Messiah’s main task?

4) How should this affect our attitudes?

 Discussion:

1) Tax collectors were scum. They were the lowest of the low The Romans farmed out tax collecting as a series of independent franchises. Since their conquered provinces were so vast, accurate census taking was a real headache for them. Instead of employing a centralised taxation system, they instead assessed taxes as a blanket tithe on whole communities- not on an individual basis. Tax farmers (Publicani) were used to collect these taxes from the provinces. Rome, eliminating its own burden for this process, would put the collection of taxes up for auction every few years. Hopeful tax-collectors would bid for the right to collect in particular regions. Bidding was intense, because the collectors could keep anything they gathered in excess of the amount Rome demanded- making this a lucrative business. Augustus reformed the taxation system, imposing a poll tax and an income tax on each individual, hence the need for an empire-wide census (thought to be the census to which Matthew and Luke refer, when they are speaking about Joseph’s journey with his pregnant wife from Nazareth in the North to Bethlehem in the South). By Jesus’ time, the days of outrageous profits for the tax farmers were just about over (although doubtless still alive in memory). But the profession was still rife with corruption, and the publicani had diversified into money lending, and would lend cash to hard-pressed provincials at exorbitant rates of interest. So they were hated for their notorious dishonesty and profiteering. They were like loan sharks, or ambulance chasing litigation lawyers.

But it was more than just that. In a nation under occupation, they were collaborators with the enemy powers. The Pharisees saw God’s honour as bound up with that of his people, Israel. They would be fiercely anti-Roman, and anti-Gentile-of-any-sort. So people who went into alliance with the Gentiles who were their overlords, made the Pharisees sick. They disliked the Romans, and they really hated the Jews who were traitors to their own nation, the tax collectors who acted as the Romans’ lap-dogs, gathering money to swell the coffers of Rome.

Romans themselves were bad enough, but they were born and raised as uncircumcised Gentiles, so although they were filthy, you couldn’t blame them too much for their filthiness. But Jews who were willingly subservient to the Romans, and who made personal profit out of the shame of God’s people- they were much worse because they ought to have been better. Tax collectors were excommunicated from the synagogues. They were considered apostates.

2) Special contempt may have been reserved for the tax collectors, but the Pharisees seem to have had plenty of contempt to go round- enough for many other groups of people besides. The Pharisees were very concerned for holiness, for separation from uncleanness. They wouldn’t go into the house of a Gentile, they wouldn’t eat with people who didn’t meet their exacting standards for fear that they might be eating untithed food. They classed an awful lot of people as “sinners”. On the one hand, according to the Pharisee, you have the holy people, the separated ones (the Pharisees, basically). On the other hand, you have the sinners, who don’t make the grade. This class seems to be made up of anyone of whom the Pharisees disapproved. It is difficult for us to guess the exact criteria which would be applied- and maybe there weren’t any which were applied consistently. But a tax-collector would definitely be a sinner. So would a divorcee (in Israel, there were four categories of woman: Widows, married women, virgins, and bad women).

Jesus was a teacher. He would be going into synagogues and opening up the scrolls, and reading, and teaching. He was a figure to be respected, and the Pharisees thought he ought to know better than to associate with the tax collectors and sinners. He ought to have higher standards. He ought to be eating with them- the holy people, not with the human scum, the dregs of society. We are meant to read their question and see the shocked tones in which they would have asked it.

3) Jesus’ reply to their objection shows the difference between their views of God’s kingdom. Jesus tells the Pharisees that he has come specifically for sinners. This would have conflicted with the Pharisees’ expectations.

The Pharisees expected that when Messiah came, he would divide humanity into two. There would be one group, made up of themselves and the other great and Godly men, who would be praised as good and faithful servants. Theirs would be the reward of eternal life. And there would be another group of all the sinners, who would finally get their come-uppance. Messiah would come to judge everybody, and everybody except themselves would be found wanting.

So if you asked them the question “When Messiah comes, who will he be coming for?”, they would have answered “The righteous”. In their view, Messiah would come for the good of the righteous, and not for sinners. He would come to deliver the righteous from the wicked men who surrounded them, and to condemn the sinners. Jesus, in contrast, says that he has come to rescue sinners. He will deal with them as a doctor deals with the sick. He hasn’t come to destroy the sinners, but to save them.

Jesus isn’t denying the validity of their distinction between holy and sinful. But he is saying that they have got the cut-off point wrong. The Pharisees externalise the law, and think that the law doesn’t condemn them. They think that they are blameless under the law- because nobody can point the finger at them and convict them of illegality. They can keep all the law as far as anyone can see, looking at the outside, and so they think that God will be happy with them. They forget that God sees the heart. They would say of a woman caught in adultery “She is an adultress and therefore a law-breaker”. They wouldn’t think of themselves as adulterers when they looked at another man’s wife, and desired to have her. This wouldn’t be law-breaking as such. They hadn’t actually done the deed, so they were still law-keepers, blameless under the law in their own eyes.

They’re wrong. The categories of “righteous” and “sinner” are good, but in reality, everybody is a sinner. Jesus has come to save the lost, so he can go to everybody and anybody. He will eat with Simon the Pharisee, and he will eat with Levi the tax collector.

And more centrally, Jesus is saying that they have misunderstood his purpose. He hasn’t come to condemn, but to save. We mustn’t misunderstand Jesus’ words here. Jesus isn’t saying, “It’s OK to be a sinner. Don’t worry, tax collectors and prostitutes, I’m cool with what you’ve been doing. Stealing lots of money isn’t such a big deal- those uptight Pharisees need to stop sweating the small stuff”. His analogy of the doctor shows that. A doctor comes to the sick- but he doesn’t come to say, “Don’t worry about your cancer. It’s really OK- it doesn’t matter. Just keep on dying like you are”. The doctor comes to cut the cancer out and save the victim. That is the Pharisees’ problem- they’ve written the sinners off. Jesus is saying that though these people are evil sinners, they are redeemable sinners- and he can redeem them. Jesus isn’t condoning sin, is certainly not saying that the Pharisees are being too tight with the law- but he is saying that there is redemption from sin. He is the doctor, and he can make the sinner righteous. Jesus chose his analogy carefully- he deals with sinners exactly as a doctor deals with the sick. He has compassion on them, and pities them. He doesn’t just write them off. But he does not let them stay the way they are. The doctor makes the sick to be sick no longer, and Jesus makes the sinner to be a sinner no longer. It is like the case with the leper in the first chapter of Mark’s Gospel. Jesus is willing to touch the leper when everybody else avoided him; but Jesus’ touch transforms the man, he is a leper no longer.

4) Jesus is dealing with ideas about the kingdom of God. The Pharisees see the Messiah as one who will come for the sake of the well, the righteous. He will be on their side, and save them from their enemies. Jesus is saying that he has instead come for the sick sinners, to deliver them from their sin. Jesus says this as the king who has at last come, and his attitude is relevant for us today. We are his subjects, and we need this balance. We are in the world, but we are not of the world. We can’t cut ourselves off into a little monastic community, nice as that may be. We are to live in the real world, speak to our neighbours, be part of the larger society, not retreat to the Christian ghetto and become Pharisees. But at the same time, we are to remain different from the world. We are not to become tax-collectors either. I can remember at my college CU, there were an awful lot of people who would speak out very strongly against the Christian ghetto- who would say that we need to be out there, in the world, building relationships with non-Christians. But in practise, this seemed to mean going out drinking and clubbing with their course-mates, exchanging idle gossip and dirty jokes. They’d defend their conduct because they were “being a witness”, but I can’t really see in what way this was true. In order to be a witness, you need to be speaking about Jesus to the people who need to hear it. You can’t do that if you avoid the people who need to hear it, and you can’t do it if you pretend to be just like the people who need to hear it either. If you do the latter, you will rob anything you might say of any power. Could Levi have preached to other tax-collectors about God’s kingdom while remaining a cheat and a robber himself?

Questions about fasting:

1) The Pharisees fasted twice each week (as in Lk 18:12, and rabbinic tradition). John’s disciples fasted. Jesus’ disciples didn’t- at least not at this time. What is the point of fasting?

2) Why would John have taught his disciples to fast?

3) Why didn’t Jesus’ disciples fast?

4) What does this have to do with the teaching that immediately follows, about wineskins and wine?

5) Why should we fast today?

 Discussion:

1) People come and ask Jesus about this matter of fasting. Mark does not specify who these people were- presumably they were normal Galileans, who had heard Jesus teaching, seen him so miraculous signs, and had some level of interest in him as a religious leader. And the absence of fasting from the lives of Jesus’ disciples concerned them. Fasting is good. Everyone knew that. So if John’s disciples fast, and the Pharisees fast, but Jesus’ disciples don’t fast… It looks like Jesus’ disciples are 3rd in the spiritual league table. They’re a bunch of spiritual push-overs. They can’t be bothered to put the effort in to be holy. And if Jesus’ own acknowledged disciples don’t seem too enthusiastic about what they’re doing, then why should anyone else follow him? If he hasn’t inspired his disciples to do great and good things for God, then why should anybody else give him the time of day?

Some commentators assume that the questioners are mistaken. They take the line that it isn’t that Jesus disciples don’t fast- after all, there are several references to fasting in the churches of the New Testament- it is just that Jesus’ disciples don’t fast so obviously. The questioners haven’t done their research well enough to uncover the fasting that is in fact going on.

This interpretation would seem to be supported by other passages- notably the point in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus addresses fasting (Matthew 6:16-18). He specifically warns against fasting with a great public show, and yet he assumes that his disciples will fast. But this interpretation cannot really be supported by the passage at hand. If it was the case that Jesus’ disciples were fasting in private, then the obvious reply would be “Oh, but hang on a minute- we do fast. Just because you guys don’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. We’re up there in the spiritual premier division with the Pharisees. We just do it in secret”. But not only does Jesus not use this reply, he actually seems to agree that fasting isn’t something for his disciples to do. Jesus reply seems to be more along the lines of “Yes, my disciples don’t fast… and here’s why”

In order to understand why Jesus’ disciples don’t fast, we need to understand what fasting is all about. So why should Christians fast?

Fasting is an exaggeration of a natural response. A mother has a young child, and the child gets hit by a car, and is seriously injured. An ambulance arrives, and rushes the child to hospital, where the child is put on life support, in a coma, and surgeons are operating. The situation is critical. The mother has dropped everything, and rushed to the hospital, and is pacing around outside the theatre, asking everyone who goes in or out whether her child is still alive. Do you think that she will leave the hospital to go and get a sandwich? Of course not. She will be fasting. She won’t have made the conscious decision to abstain from food, but it just won’t have occurred to her to eat. She has more important things on her mind than eating. In the end, it will probably be her husband or a doctor who will have to say to her “Look, there’s nothing you can do. You need to get some food inside you before you get ill too”.

In the Bible, people fast for several reasons. Maybe they have sinned, and are repentant and wish to demonstrate their sorrow (e.g. the inhabitants of Nineveh). Perhaps they are praying earnestly for God to grant some blessing (e.g. David praying for his son, who is dying). In both of these situations, fasting comes as a response to a given situation, and springs from the natural emotions attending that situation. It is a mark of seriousness. The fasters are saying to God, “We are very serious about this. We think this is so important, that it is more important for us than eating”. We can see the basic point if we look at Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. This was the only commanded regular fast. It occurred annually, one day every year, and the instructions can be found in Lev. 16. Fundamentally, it was a national day of mourning. Israel would remember their sins, and make solemn sacrifices- or rather, have solemn sacrifices made for them by the high priest. To show their seriousness, they would fast. They were commanded to forget food, forget work (the day was a special Sabbath), forget everything else, and only remember their holy God, their sins, and the sacrifices made for them.

2) So given that this is the point of fasting, it seems fitting that the Pharisees and John’s disciples would fast. Remember that they live at a time of strife and trouble for Israel. The people have returned from exile in Babylon, and the temple is rebuilt, but their hearts have remained wicked. The prophecies speaking of joy and prosperity coming with return from exile seem to have evaporated. There are no more prophets now- there has been silence from heaven for 400 years. And the Greeks and then the Romans have invaded the holy land. Things have clearly gone badly wrong. This sort of thing should never be allowed to happen. God seems to have abandoned Israel. It is very much a time for fasting, if you care about God’s people at all. The faithful in the land will be in mourning, crying out for God to act, to send his Messiah, to raise up a deliverer who will rescue Israel and bring the nation back to God in repentance.

John has presumably taught his disciples to fast, as they call out for help and repent of their sins. And the Pharisees also fasted, being very conscious of the disgraceful state of the nation. In different ways, the Pharisees and John both recognised that there was a desperate need for God to act and deliver Israel. We’ve seen in John’s preaching and baptism, the call to repentance and the inauguration of a new, hopefully obedient, Israel, who are looking to the imminent coming of Messiah. So they fast, calling out to God to send the Messiah and answer their prayers and needs.

And it is also entirely possible that John is in prison by this stage, locked up by Herod to stop him criticising Herod’s marriage to his brother’s wife. If this is the case, then with their leader gone from them, John’s disciples will have yet another reason to cry out to God.

3) And it is also then fitting that Jesus’ disciples didn’t fast while he was with them. Because God has come, has appeared to deliver them. Even if they don’t understand that Jesus is God (and they don’t, yet), they do understand that he is a man from God- and they have some sort of Messianic hope in him. God has at last answered their prayers. They do not need to mourn any longer. Instead, it is like a wedding. Jesus uses this picture of a wedding. An Israelite wedding would involve a big party, where all the guests would be assembled and waiting for the bridegroom to arrive. And the arrival of the bridegroom would be the signal for the feast to begin. Jesus is the bridegroom. He is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Ever since the fall, the world has groaned for a redeemer big enough to redeem it- and now he is here! This is not a time for mourning, but a time for joy and celebration.

4) It is therefore in the context of Messianic arrival that we understand the teaching which follows. I think it is important to mention this because usually, when you hear these verses quoted, they are used wrongly. The verses about new wine have been horribly misinterpreted by Charismatic teachers, who have taken them as a rather flimsy justification for introducing whatever innovation they feel like, while saying (and I paraphrase), “You can’t oppose this. It’s new, and new is always good, just like Jesus said”.

That’s a caricature, but seriously, there is an awful lot of stuff out there, almost exclusively from Charismatic sources, which quotes this passage and proceeds to rant about the established church and organised religion (which makes one wonder whether the preference of the authors is for disorganised religion). They talk about catching revivals, and waves of the Spirit, and these verses are quoted to give an apparent Scriptural basis for saying that the new is what is important and the old should be forgotten and written off when it criticises the new. The new is where it’s at, and if you’re not with the new thing, then you’re nowhere.

You can find examples of this interpretation all over the internet- from a frustrated Anglican bemoaning the “stuffiness” of his church. From an excited charismatic, enthusing about the “new thing” that God is doing in his area- whatever the source, the interpretations have this in common: They all identify the old wine as being the immediate past. For them, the old wine is the mindset of the people who haven’t accepted the innovation they are supporting. Now some of the new things they advocate, I like, and some I think are harmful, but whether good or bad, this is a very short-sighted interpretation of the passage.

In one sense, they have understood how Jesus’ metaphor works. When the new wine was trodden out, the pressed grape juice would be stored in new leather wineskins. That way, as the new wine fermented and gave off gas, the wineskins could expand to hold it because they were new and supple. If the new wine was put into old wineskins, which had already been stretched out and were now toughened- the pressure of the still-fermenting wine would burst the skins. And it is the same idea with the cloth. New wine expands, but new cloth shrinks- but in both cases, the new thing is powerful, dynamic, different. And when it is put into the straitjacket of the old framework- it doesn’t fit, and the whole thing is wrecked.

But in another sense they have completely missed Jesus’ point. This passage cannot be lifted from the context and slapped across the modern church. Jesus’ words are “once for all” words. They are not to be repeated ad nauseam thoughout history. Jesus speaks specifically to his, vitally important, situation, i.e. to the coming of Messiah. He could only have said these things at this time. He is not talking about revivals or blessings or anything else that has happened in 2000 years of church history- he is talking about the great seismic shift from BC to AD. He is talking about the new covenant as opposed to the old covenant. The new wine is the kingdom of God, which has now come.

Earlier, Jesus has gone about preaching the good news, and his gospel was this, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe”. Jesus’ words here are a warning to the Pharisees, and indeed to all Israel. If they don’t fit in with the powerful dynamic new kingdom of God, they will be cut off from God’s people. They will be rendered useless. The new wine will destroy the old wineskins. Israel had better change to fit in with Jesus’ programme, because he is the king.

The passage is just not about getting up-to-date with the latest fad to sweep through what passes for evangelicalism these days. It is about the awesome majesty and centrality of Jesus, the Messiah. All churches, if they are truly his churches at all, are, de-facto, the new wine.

5) So what about us? I would argue that we should be fasting. Jesus does seem to expect his disciples to fast once he has left them. His time on earth was like the wedding party. There were many features of it which were peculiar to those few years. A wedding party is the start of a (hopefully) long marriage, but the marriage itself is not one long party, as those of you who are married can doubtless testify. Some of the things Jesus and his apostles did were “for a limited time only”. And certainly the atmosphere of celebration at the long awaited coming of Messiah was not meant to be a permanent feature of Messiah’s people in the coming centuries.

We should fast. By which I mean not only abstention from food, but also the attitude which should give rise to fasting. Messiah has come, and his coming was an occasion for great joy. But he has left, to stay at the Father’s right hand for a time, until all his enemies should be put under his feet. He will return one day, and we should be looking for that day, crying out to God to bring it quickly. Fasting as we pray would be good and right and fitting.

We should be seeking to live as kingdom people, living in line with the principles of God’s kingdom, which were laid out by Jesus and his apostles. In a sense, the New Testament serves as a constitution for God’s kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount, I would read as a coronation address from a king to his subjects. We should live out those principles, until the king returns. And often, this will mean sadness for us.

Jesus warned that following him would mean being out of step with the rest of the world. And it is easy to say “Yeah! We’re going against the flow!” and make it into something to be proud of, a sort of rallying cry. But in real life, it isn’t usually like that. Jesus himself uses the example of family break-up (see, for example, Mark 3:31-35 or more combatively, Mark 13:12-13). Jesus’ own disciples will have seen this, and so do we. We see people converted from unbelieving families, and the parents becoming hostile and suspicious. This doesn’t make the convert proud and triumphant. It makes them stressed and unhappy. Those who had been very secure in their families, now have a rift between them, seemingly unfixable by anything they can do. Fasting and praying for God to save the parents would be an appropriate response.

There will come a day when there is no more fasting, because there will be no more reason for fasting. Everything will be perfect. We will not need to call out to God for any reason but to praise and thank him. Heaven will be one great feast. But for as long as the kingdom of God is found in a fallen world, there will be cause to fast.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

One Comment on “Mark 2:12-22. Another few snapshots of Jesus: Sinners and fasting.”


  1. great – thanks, James!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s