The Divine Lamp

The unfolding of thy words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple…Make thy face shine upon thy servant, and teach me thy statutes

Juan de Maldonado’s Commentary on Matt 3:1-12 for the 2nd Sunday of Advent

Posted by Dim Bulb on November 29, 2010

.

Notes in red represent my additions.

Mat 3:1  And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea.

In those days. This was clearly thirty years later, or thereabouts, as is,gathered from S. Luke (3:1), who says that the coming of S. John Baptist took place in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. It is certain that Christ was born in the forty-first or forty-second year of the reign of Augustus (vide chap. 1:13). Augustus reigned fifty-six years. We may therefore ask why S. Matthew says “in those day “? A day is clearly put in Hebrew for a year (Gen 24:55; Exod 13:10; Levit 25:19; Judges 19:2; 1 Kings 1:3; Amos 4:4); also for any time, however long (Judges 18:1; Ezek 38:17). These words, therefore, mean the same as after some years, or after some time, as S. Chrysostom (Hom. X.) and Strabus show. Or, more probably, the time referred to is that which Christ spent in Nazareth. The words of the Evangelist thus cohere best. For he had said (2:23): “He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth,” and then he added: “In those days”; that is, while He
was living there.

Came. Why did He not come before? Because He was not yet thirty years old, before which age no one could perform the work of a priest, doctor of the Church, or prophet, as the Jews say, and as is clear from Scripture (1 Chron 23:3). This was the reason why Christ Himself did not begin to teach before His thirtieth year. The Evangelist does not say that S. John then first came into the desert, but then first showed himself in it, and began to preach repentance.

In the desert of Juda.We read of many deserts in Scripture. The desert of Ziph (1 kings 23:15), between the west and south, a long way from Jerusalem; the desert of Maon near it (1 Kings 23:24), Engeddi (24:2), Pharan (25:1), Edom to the south (2 Sam 3:8). But when a desert is mentioned absolutely, that of Juda is meant (S. Matt 4:1 ; 11:7 ; 15:23 ; S. Mark 1:3, 4, 12, 13 ; 5. Luke 1:80, 3:2), unless another is evidently intended, as in S. John 3:14. St. Matthew adds the word Juda that it might be distinguished from others. It lay between the east and north on this side of Jordan; at the top, on the north and east point, were Enon and Salim, where John baptised.

Mat 3:2  And saying: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Some think that the kingdom of heaven here means grace, faith, and renewal of spirit, which is said to be within us, as in vS. Luke 17:1. It may be so, but in this passage it would rather appear that heaven itself is intended, as in S. Matt 25:34 ; St Luke 13:28, 29; 23:41. It seems to be a tacit allusion and antithesis to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and their return from Babylon into the land of Canaan, which had been promised them, and which no doubt was a figure of heaven.

The meaning, then, is: Prepare yourselves by penitence; that is, do not serve Pharoah and the king of Babylon, who are as Satan. In other words, do not prefer slavery to freedom, captivity to a kingdom, as some idle and degenerate Israelites formerly did. For the time is at hand when they who wish may enter heaven. Joshua speaks in the same manner to the people when they entered the land of Canaan, after their long wanderings (3:5). The kingdom of heaven is said to be at hand because, although shut before, it was to be opened after the death of Christ (Heb 9:8; 11:29, 40). Christ Himself also teaches this; for what is the meaning of S. Matt 26:29, and S. Luke 22:18, but that He, by His death, would open the kingdom of heaven? The thief on the cross understood this (S. Luke 23:42). The Cross of Christ was the ark of the covenant, by which the waters of Jordan were divided, and entrance was made to the promised land (Joshua 3:16).

Mat 3:3  For this is he that was spoken of by Isaias the prophet, saying: A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.

For this is he. Euthymius thinks these the words of S. John. But it is clear from S. Mark 1:1, and S. Luke 3:4, that they are those of the Evangelist, who applied, as he often does, the words of the Prophet (Isaiah 40:3) to S. John.  “The voice of one crying.” Not only do S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke apply this testimony to S. John, but he himself also declares that he was the voice (S.John 1:23). The words of Isaiah, “preparing the way in the wilderness,” were spoken of the souls of the Jews, which, as undisciplined and stony, they were exhorted to soften, and so prepare by humility, faith, and patience, that Christ might pass through them—per eos transeat—and receive them with Himself in heaven.

Mat 3:4  And the same John had his garment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

The same John had his raiment of camel’s hair. S. Luke describes the appearance of S. John with great exactness, partly, perhaps, in praise of his sanctity, and partly to show tacitly why he raised so high an opinion of himself that the people flocked from all parts to see him.

His meat was locusts. The locusts of S. John were the insect locusts which were allowed to be eaten by the Law (Levit 11:22). Almost all the ancient writers state that S. John’s diet consisted of them. (Origen, Hom, in Luc.; S. Hilary, Can. ii.; S. Ambrose, in Luc. ii. 3 ; S. Chrysostom, Hom. ii. in Marc; The Author, Hom. iii.; S. Augustine, Confess., iii. 31.)

Wild honey. The land was described as flowing with milk and honey, (Exod 3:8, 17;  13:5; Levit 20:24; Numb 13:28; 14:8; Deut 6:2, et al.).

Mat 3:5  Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan:

Maldonado offers no comment on this verse.

Mat 3:6  And were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

Although the Catholic Doctors of the Church do not prove the doctrine of Confession from this passage, they affirm that they who came to John’s baptism did not merely confess themselves generally to be sinners—for who does not confess himself to be a sinner?—but that each declared his own specific sin that he might receive pardon; for this is to confess sins. The Evangelists relate this not as a customary thing which was done by all who confessed themselves to be sinners, but as something new, singular, and admirable; for it was both new and admirable that arrogant men should not only confess themselves to be sinners, but guilty of such and such sins.

Mat 3:7  And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?

Note: I’ve had to edit and rewrite parts of the following paragraph for Maldonado employs Hebrew words which I cannot reproduce with my font.

And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees. These were two classes of men of very great favour and authority among the Jews. Christ, we find, had contentions with them, as also with the scribes (chap 5:20; 16:11, et al.). We find no mention of them in the Old Testament, for they were not men of office and authority like the priests and scribes, but of a heresy not much before the time of Christ, as we learn from Josephus, who describes these among the other Jewish sects (Antiq., xiii. 9, 23; xvii. I; xviii. 2; De Bell.Jud., i. 17; and S. Epiphanius, Panar., lib. i.). Some think that they were called Pharisees, as being always before the eyes of the people, because they enlarged their phylacteries (S. Matt 23:5) and loved salutations in the market places (5:7; S. Luke 20:46); for the Hebrew word upon which the term Pharisee comes  means to expose, unroll, unfold. Others take the term to mean “explaining the Law”; this they conclude from Josephus, who says that they were great expositors of the Law. A better authority is found in Ben Gorion, iv. 6. The derivation shows that they are in error; for they are not termed in Hebrew expositores, but expositi, or separated. I therefore rather follow the Hebrews, who, as Baal Haruch says, teach that the Pharisees were so called as being separated from other men through their remarkable learning and holiness. By the Latins also they who are in any respect remarkable and noble are called egregii, eximii, ” singulares”. S. Epiphanius (Her., xiv.) and S. Jerome (Commnent. 07i S. Matthew, xxiii.) think that the Sadducees were so called from sedeq justice—as being just men. The Pharisees had the office and authority of public teachers, which was confirmed by the testimony of Christ Himself (5. Matthew 23:2). The scribes are always put before the Pharisees, perhaps because they were more ancient and of divine institution. For the Pharisees were of human origin alone.

The Jews themselves considered the Sadducees as heretics. They believed neither the Resurrection, nor the immortality of the soul, nor spirit, nor anything but what they could apprehend by their senses or mere reason (S. Mark xii. 18; Acts v. 17; xxiii. 8). They admitted no unwritten traditions, and of the sacred writings they received what they would and rejected what they would. They only, therefore, received the Pentateuch as inspired by God; the other books they said were of men, and liable to error. This is thought to have been the reason why Christ, when disputing with them on the Resurrection, urged them only with citations from the Pentateuch, when there are others more plain (Matt 22:31, 32). Such as the Pharisees and Sadducees were, however, it is strange that they should have received such harsh treatment from S. John as to be called a generation of vipers (Origen). S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others say that S. John knew that they came not with a true, but with a false and pretended repentance. He adds, therefore, “Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance”. As if he had said, Show by
your actions that you do not come here with dissimulation, but in sincerity.

Why did they come if they came hypocritically? Origen (tom, vi., On S. John) replies: because they would not be thought wicked and heretics by the people whose opinion of John was so exalted. This is confirmed by 21:26, where they did not venture to say that the baptism of John was of men, because they feared the people; ” for all held John as a prophet”.

Generation (brood) of vipers. S. Ambrose (On S. Luke, ii. 3) thinks this not so much blame as praise; as if he praised them because when they were the sons of vipers they did not follow their parents, but came to repentance. But both from the words and manner of speaking, and from the same expression having been used by Christ (23:33), not in praise, but blame, we may see that S. John speaks here in the same sense, and most severely; for “sons of vipers,” that is, vipers, is a Hebraism; for as children most frequently resemble their parents,he calls them sons of vipers, to call them vipers themselves. And Christ said, “Fill ye up the measure of your fathers” (S. Matt 23:32). Vipers are known as the most venomous of beasts, so that when S. Paul was bitten by one, and did not immediately swell out and die, the people thought him a god (see Acts 28:3-6). John compares the excessive malice of the Pharisees and Sadducees to the most noxious of animals, especially the calumniating and backbiting of the saints, which is as proper and peculiar to the Pharisees and Sadducees as venom to the viper, as is explained by S. Jerome (On Isaiah xxx.) and S. Gregory (Hom. XX. on the Gospels).

Who hath shewed you to flee the wrath to come? Who taught you to come hither to flee from the wrath to come? you who are vipers rather than men. As if S. John had said, as SS. Chrysostom and Ambrose explain it: This is not of yourselves, but of divine grace and providence: or. Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come but your own consciences, which inwardly condemn you and compel you to seek a remedy? For who can teach you who teach all men, and are yourselves taught by none? as God said to Adam, ” Who hath told thee that thou wast naked? “Some Latin copies read, “Who will show you?” This reading, if it were supported by the Greek, would please me greatly, as the meaning is better. “The soldiers and the publicans and the multitude have sought of me the way of salvation, and I have shown it to them; but who can show it to hypocrites like you, who seek it with feigning? No one. For who that conceals his disease can be healed by the physician?” Like Christ, S. John uses the words, “Flee from the wrath to come”. We should allow no rash corrections of the text, yet τις υπεδειξεν, “who hath shown,” may be easily read or written for “shall show”. (Maldonado is suggesting the possibility of a scribal error in the transmission of the text. “who hath shown,” and “who shall show” are closely related in Greek, there being a slight difference in spelling. The fact that he doesn’t elaborate suggests that it is a possibility he doesn’t accept).

From the wrath to come. It cannot be doubted that S. John calls future damnation the wrath to come, both because he opposes it to salvation and the kingdom of heaven, which he said was at hand, and because what S. Matthew here calls the wrath to come, Christ (23:33) calls the judgment of Gehenna.

Mat 3:8  Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.

The Greek is καρπους αξιους της μετανοιας, (fruits comparable, desrving or suitable of repentance) that is, “show that you come hither not hypocritically”. By fruits of penance S. John meant all outward signs by which true penitence of the heart may be discovered, such as tears, detestation of past sins, good works opposed to former ones.

Mat 3:9  And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

And think not to say within yourselves. It is more easy to explain the meaning than the words of this sentence. The meaning clearly is: Be not content and secure because you are the sons of Abraham, as if that were sufficient for your salvation. You have need of acts, and if you are the sons of Abraham do the works of Abraham (S. John 8:39). But the words of the Greek are obscure–μη δοξητε λεγειν εν εαυτοις, meaning either “think not” or “you seem not to say”. It is an unusual expression, and appears sumptum de medio, like S. Luke 3:8, “Do not begin to say”. This is as if S. John had said, “Cease to say”. We must believe that S. Matthew meant to say the same here, in other words: “Do not appear to say,” that is, “Do not show yourselves to be saying. We are the sons of Abraham. Do not show yourselves contented because you can call yourselves such. Do not rest in a name, but show forth works worthy of it. If you are the sons of Abraham, do the works of Abraham,” These three last words seem to have this force, and to be used by the Evangelist with great choice of selection—”to seem,” “to say”—each word is opposed to truth—and “in yourselves”. That is, “You teach that you are the sons of Abraham, not in deeds and acts, but in opinion and words”. S. Paul appears to use the word δοκέω, existimetur, “should be thought,” in the same sense (Hebrews 4:1).

God is able of these stones. S. John means actual stones, from which God was not less able to raise up sons to Abraham than He was to create Adam out of the earth, and Eve out of the side of Adam, Isaac the son of Abraham out of the womb of Sarah, which had been long dead. The Evangelist appears to allude to this. At the same time he looks to the calling of the Gentiles, from whom, as from shapeless and unpolished stones, God would create sons to Abraham: that is, faithful men, as S. Jerome and the Ancients explain it. Nothing differs more from life and reason than a stone; nothing is more difficult than to make men, or anything like men, out of stones. S. John took, therefore, as an example, a thing of all most difficult, to teach that with God nothing is difficult (as chap. 4:3 S. Luke 17:40; Deut 32:13). What Remigius says, that John with these words pointed to the stones which the Israelites, when crossing the Jordan, erected as an everlasting monument
(Josh 4:7), is not necessary to be believed, and too much confines the sense. The expression to raise up sons is a Hebraism, and means more than to beget: that is, to beget where it did not seem possible. Thus a living brother was said to raise up seed to his dead brother, which the latter was said, in a manner, to beget (Genesis 28:8; Deut 25:5, 6; Ruth 4:10).

Mat 3:10  For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.

Now is the axe laid to the root of the tree. There are five words translated here, and therefore the meaning is difficult—axe, root, tree, cut down, cast into the fire. It is clear that the “tree” means a man, as in 12:33 S. Luke 23:6. What the other words signify is not so clear. Some explain the “axe ” as the word of God and the power of the Gospel, and the “root” the faith of each (S. Irenseus, v. 15; S. Jerome, In Comment). Others think death to be the axe, and life the root (S. Athanasius, Quaest. xliii., and others, mentioned by Euthymius). Others again say that Christ is the axe, as S. Gregory (Hom. xx. in Evang.). The meaning seems easy. S. John calls the divine judgment the axe, because it cuts everything to the quick, as appears, ex circunistantiis, chap. 3:10. This, then, and the great final sentence, “Go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,” is called the axe. The trees are the Jews, for it is spoken of them. Abraham is the root from which, like divers trees, all the Jews were propagated. John, then, shows that they ought not to be content because they were the sons of Abraham, nor to trust in that root which was shortly to be plucked up. Let them trust in Christ, and in those good works which could not be destroyed. These points agree well with the text, and in this sense, for the most part, SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, and Theophylact understand them. But it seems difficult to see how we are to understand that Abraham was to be cut off. John does not say that the root itself was to be cut off, but the tree which, does not bring forth good fruit. Why, then, is the axe laid at the foot of the tree? Not that the root itself, but that the trees from the root were to be cut down. In this sense the root also would be cut down. For the Jews are said to be cut off from Abraham as their root, when they are declared by divine sentence not to be the true sons of Abraham, because they do not follow his faith and works (Romans 9:7, 8 ; Gal 4:28). Why, also, is the axe said to be put to the root of the tree now, as if it had not been so before? For even before this time, they who did not imitate the faith and works of Abraham were cut off, not less than now. Dathan and Abiram show this (Numbers 16:31), as also the many thousands in the wilderness (Numbers 26:65 ; 1 Cor 10:10). They are said to be cut off now and not before, because the Jews took pleasure before in being the sons of Abraham according to the flesh; because, too, the law was given to them which was not given to the other nations, and they could be saved more easily by the law than without the law (Romans 3:1, 2). But after the coming of Christ, it availed them not at all, because the Gospel was not preached more to them than to the other nations. “For all the Prophets and the law prophesied until John,” but after John, “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away”; so that if they do not follow Abraham they will be cut off from the root and cast into the fire; that is, that no more than the other nations will they be judged to be the sons of Abraham. The Gentiles are not said to be cut off, because they never were in the root: that is, they never were the sons of Abraham.

Mat 3:11  I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.

I indeed baptise you in water. I indeed, who am only a man, baptise you only with water, and merely wash your bodies.

Unto penance. That you may bring forth penance, and be ready to receive Him who is to come after me. My baptism warns you that as water cleanses the body, so you should be careful to wash your souls from the stains of sin.

But He that shall come after me. He that shall come after me means one who is already born, and whose coming is at hand—that is, Christ.

Is mightier than I. Is more powerful, and of greater virtue, so that I am not worthy to loose His shoe—that is, to do Him even the very lowest service. The other Evangelists express the same thing in other words (S. Mark 1:7; S. Luke 3:16; S.John 1:26, 27). It is a Hebrew phrase from the custom of persons who enter holy places taking off their shoes Ex 3:5; Josh 5:15). Such as were of higher rank had slaves to carry their shoes when they had taken them off.  To this S. Matthew alludes. In hot countries shoes consist only of the lower soles, which are fastened above, and must be unbound before they can be taken off. They are called in Greek υποδηματα, and in Latin crepidæ. He is greater and stronger than I, because He is not man only, but God also, and He would baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire—that is. He would cleanse not your bodies alone, as I do, but your souls also—pouring out upon them the Holy Ghost, and kindling them with fire from heaven. Some modern heretics, among other perversions of Scripture, have said that John instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, and that his differed in no respect from Christ’s, except that it was given by a different hand. Each was of water; each of God; each to repentance; each for remission of sins; each in the name of Christ; each required the same confession of faith; each was delivered by the same doctrine; nor would Christ receive any other baptism from John than His own. They who think that the baptism of John and of Christ were the same seem to have understood neither the words of John, nor why he spoke them; for why should he have mentioned the baptism of Christ, except that from the different condition of that to his own he might prove the different condition of Christ to himself.  The Jews thought that when Christ came He would baptise (S. John 1:25). They saw that John baptised, and they began to doubt whether he were not the Christ. They therefore sent priests and Levites to ask him, “Who art thou?” and when they disputed with him on baptism (S. John 1:19, 25; .S. Luke 3:15, 16), he proved from the effects of his baptism that he was not Christ, because he only baptised with water, but Christ would baptise with the Holy Ghost. He only cleansed their bodies, Christ would cleanse their souls. But these heretics say, “John did not speak of the baptism of Christ by water, but of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost”. Yet they cannot deny that he also spoke of the baptism of Christ by water, of which Christ Himself said: “Except a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost” {S.John 3:5). Their denial that baptism is treated of at all in this passage is so senseless as to need no refutation. The baptism of Christ consists of water and the Holy Spirit, as man consists of body and soul. The baptism of John was of water alone, and, as he himself said, did not confer the Holy Ghost. It is not, therefore, the same. Moreover, when John said, “He shall baptise you in the Holy Ghost and fire,” it is clear from S. John 3:5 that His baptism did not consist of water alone, but of the Holy Ghost and fire; and, therefore, when John says, on the other hand, “I baptise you with water,” the word “only” must be understood. If so, he makes his own baptism far inferior to that of Christ. The words, “He is mightier than I,” have this force; for why does he call Christ mightier rather than better, more holy, greater, except that he desired to show that he could not do by his own baptism what Christ would do by His? Besides, John said that he baptised to repentance (S. Mark 1:4; S. Luke 3:3; Acts 19:4), and it is called the baptism of repentance, which Christ’s never is. Again, the baptism of John was not conferred on repentance now brought forth, but that it might be brought forth. The baptism of Christ was not that it might be, but as it was now actually brought forth. John is not said to preach repentance and baptism, but baptism and repentance, or, which is the same thing, the baptism of repentance; because baptism preceded, repentance followed. For S. Peter does not say of the baptism of Christ, “Be baptised and repent,” but ” Repent and be baptised ” (Acts 2:38); because baptism followed, repentance preceded. It was not, therefore, the same baptism. What can be clearer? For they who had received the baptism of John were commanded to be baptised again by S. Paul (Acts 19:15).

Mat 3:12  Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

Maldonado offers no comment on this verse but I will offer a few remarks.

Whose fan is in his hand. After wheat was harvested it was place on a threshing floor, usually an exposed piece of bedrock; the soil in much of Palestine being close to the surface it could be easily exposed by human industry, or it was often naturally exposed by erosion. Oxen were then employed to trample upon it or, often to drag heavy wooden sleds across it; this would separate the wheat grain from the husks, often called chaff in the bible. Once the wheat had been released from the chaff it was winnowed. This was done either with a winnowing fork (probably similar to what we today call a pitch fork) or with a fan.

A person using a fork would toss the “stuff” on the threshing floor into the air on a breezy day and the wind would blow away the chaff, the heavier wheat would fall back to the threshing floor to be gathered up. If there was no breeze one could be created with a winnowing fan. The fan was probably constructed out of hide of cloth stretched upon and attached to a light wooden frame. The fan could be used in conjunction with the fork-one person tossing, the other fanning. If a second person was not available, one man could separate the wheat by creating blasts of air directed towards the floor. This would kick up and scatter the chaff away.

The separation of wheat from chaff is a common image of judgment in the Bible (Ex 15:7; Ps 1:4; 35:5; Job 13:25; 21:18; Isa 5:24; 17:13; 29:5; 33:11; 40:24; 41:2; Hos 13:3; Zeph 2:2).

Rabanus writes: By the fan is signified the separation of a just trial; that it is in the Lord’s hand, means, ‘in His power,’ as it is written, “The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22).

Cornelius a Lapide: The Fanner is Christ the Judge; the fan is His judgment, by which he fans and examines the thoughts, words, and deeds of every one. The chaff are the wicked. The wheat are the just and the saints, whom He will gather into His barn, the kingdom of heaven, where with them, as with wheat, He will feed and delight the Holy Trinity, the Angels, and all the Church triumphant.

John rises from Christ’s first advent of grace to His second advent of judgment. And he signifies that this judgment is pressing on, and is nigh at hand, by saying, “His fan is in His hand.” So S. Ambrose on Luke 3:17. For although many hundred years may yet elapse before the judgment day, yet all those years, if compared with eternity, are but as a very little while, or as nothing. Moreover Christ, the Lord and Judge, holds in His hand the spirit, soul, and life of all men, to take them away if He will, to judge, bless, or condemn them.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: “The floor,” is the Church, “the barn,” is the kingdom of heaven, “the field,” is the world. The Lord sends forth His Apostles and other teachers, as reapers to reap all nations of the earth, and gather them into the floor of the Church. Here were must be threshed and winnowed, for all men are delighted in carnal things as grain delights in the husk. But whoever is faithful and has the marrow of a good heart, as soon as he has a light tribulation, neglecting carnal things runs to the Lord; but if his faith be feeble, hardly with heavy sorrow; and he who is altogether void of faith, however he may be troubled, passes not over to God.

One Response to “Juan de Maldonado’s Commentary on Matt 3:1-12 for the 2nd Sunday of Advent”

  1. […] Maldonado’s Commentary on Matt 3:1-12 for Sunday Mass, Dec 5. Available 12:10 AM EST. […]

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

 
%d bloggers like this: