 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 624 posts |
 adam and eve |
Posted Jan 26, 2005; 4:18 pm |
|
I sometimes wonder if we take the time to read the Genesis 3 story carefully enough, or if we simply work from our faulty memories. I recently took another look and noticed some interesting things about the relationships between God, Adam and Eve.
First, it is helpful to note that God did not 'curse' Adam and Eve. God made their life more difficult as a direct consequence of their disobedience, but he did not curse humanity. The serpent is cursed (3:14) and the ground is cursed (3:17), but Adam and Eve are still treated well by their Creator.
God physically diminishes the stature (and by implication, the threat) of their common enemy, the serpent, and promises that the serpent's "seed" would not be able to overtake humanity.
God also immediately takes care of Adam and Eve's shame. They suddenly know that they are naked and vulnerable, and God decides to handcraft some clothing for them.
Even though Eve has just been told that she will have increased pain while giving birth, Adam gives her the identity of "Eve", the "mother of all living", not the "mother of all cursed". (Perhaps we should be more careful about who we called "cursed" as a result.)
God's care for Adam and Eve is even apparent when He chooses to send them out of the garden. He makes this decision so they will not get into further trouble (3:22)
Before they ate from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil", Adam and Eve had only known the goodness of God - Now they had come into intimate contact with the deceiver, and their whole life changed from one of only pleasure, to one that included pain.
God knew that He had not created humanity to experience unending "knowledge of evil", alongside good, and so He chooses to remove Adam and eve from this possibility. The way to the 'tree of life' would remain closed till Jesus would come as "the way, the truth, and the life", and then both male and femal would be able to choose to enter into God's eternal life and experience the fullness of "goodness" again.
We can enter into a new community of the Spirit because of what Jesus had accomplished for us. Each one of us, is given a new identity in Christ when that happens, male and female. Yes, brothers and sisters, we have been set free in Christ. "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Galatians 5:1 |
|
|
|
| Bro Member Joined May 4, 2004 912 posts Location: Richmond B.C. |
| |
Posted Jan 26, 2005; 6:50 pm |
|
A niece account of Adam and Eve in the garden was written by Gay lynn Voth,but what does this have to do with Women in Ministry?
How is the topic addressed?
Christ set us free in Gal 5:1 but where is the connection to women serving in ministry? |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1036 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: adam and eve |
Posted Jan 26, 2005; 6:54 pm |
|
Hi Gay Lynn! Welcome to the forum. We're a pretty easy going group here. Feel free to browse around, and don't be afraid to speak your mind.
-----
I've got some questions regarding your thoughts on Genesis. Hope you don't mind.
| gay lynn voth wrote: | | I sometimes wonder if we take the time to read the Genesis 3 story carefully enough, or if we simply work from our faulty memories. I recently took another look and noticed some interesting things about the relationships between God, Adam and Eve. |
It's always good to go back to Scripture and question our assumptions.
| Quote: | | First, it is helpful to note that God did not 'curse' Adam and Eve. God made their life more difficult as a direct consequence of their disobedience, but he did not curse humanity. The serpent is cursed (3:14) and the ground is cursed (3:17), but Adam and Eve are still treated well by their Creator. |
I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. For example, Romans 5 says that "death came to all men" because "sin entered the world through one man". (ie. Adam). Also through one man (ie. Jesus), came grace and the crediting of righteousness to all men. It seems to me that it is the apostle Paul's opinion that humanity was cursed through the sin of Adam and Eve. What's your thoughts? Perhaps I misunderstood (which I do frequently).
| Quote: | | God physically diminishes the stature (and by implication, the threat) of their common enemy, the serpent, and promises that the serpent's "seed" would not be able to overtake humanity. |
Right. I think this is evident as the seed of Eve (who is Jesus according to the apostle Paul) would crush the serpant's head, which I think signifies that the serpant (ie. Satan) would no longer have authority over us. It is through faith in Christ Jesus that Satan no longer has authority over us (and hence the freedom in Christ you talked about later).
| Quote: | | God also immediately takes care of Adam and Eve's shame. They suddenly know that they are naked and vulnerable, and God decides to handcraft some clothing for them. |
Right. God has made a provision for them. It is my opinion that this was the first animal sacrifice that was made, that signifies our redemption in Christ (ie. being clothed in Christ).
| Quote: | | Even though Eve has just been told that she will have increased pain while giving birth, Adam gives her the identity of "Eve", the "mother of all living", not the "mother of all cursed". (Perhaps we should be more careful about who we called "cursed" as a result.) |
"Mother of all cursed" would be kind of harsh. Perhaps the word "living" isn't meant to be a spiritual term. Or is it? Either way, I guess it works. Effectively, she would be the mother of all living and all cursed.
| Quote: | | God's care for Adam and Eve is even apparent when He chooses to send them out of the garden. He makes this decision so they will not get into further trouble (3:22) |
Interesting take. I'm not sure I'm convinced that it was done for Adam and Eve's well-being. I think the consequence was a broken relationship with God. God sustained Adam and Even through the tree of life. Maybe it was better that Adam and Eve didn't become like God... the part about the knowledge of good and evil I don't think I properly understand.
| Quote: | | Before they ate from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil", Adam and Eve had only known the goodness of God - Now they had come into intimate contact with the deceiver, and their whole life changed from one of only pleasure, to one that included pain. |
I agree.
| Quote: | | God knew that He had not created humanity to experience unending "knowledge of evil", alongside good, and so He chooses to remove Adam and eve from this possibility. |
I'm not sure I follow... perhaps because I don't understand what is meant by "knowledge of evil." | Quote: | | The way to the 'tree of life' would remain closed till Jesus would come as "the way, the truth, and the life", and then both male and female would be able to choose to enter into God's eternal life and experience the fullness of "goodness" again. |
Some of this goodness we can receive right now. Some is for the Paradise that comes after death. Good point.
| Quote: | | We can enter into a new community of the Spirit because of what Jesus had accomplished for us. Each one of us, is given a new identity in Christ when that happens, male and female. Yes, brothers and sisters, we have been set free in Christ. "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Galatians 5:1 |
I agree completely. Would you apply this freedom to women in leadership? |
|
|
|
| McDLT Moderator Joined May 14, 2004 1426 posts Location: Toronto |
| |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 9:06 am |
|
Just thinking about Genesis 3 Eve's reprimand/discipline/curse has always interested me.
Genesis 3:16 ~ To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (NIV)
What is the meaning of desire? Here's what some other Bible translations say:
Amplified Bible says ~ Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
New Living footnote says ~ And though you may desire to control your husband.
English Standard footnote ~ against
Any thoughts on this? |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1163 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 1:46 pm |
|
I've sometimes heard people claim that Eve's creation as a "companion" or "helper" for Adam is an indication that women are created subservient. While I don't dispute the order given in Genesis 2 (Adam first, then Eve -- but contrast this with Genesis 1:27-28), there's no reason to think the "helper" word describes an inferior. This word ('ezer in Hebrew) is also used to characterize God's relationship to the tribe of Judah in Deuteronomy 33:7.
| Todd wrote: | | Romans 5 says that "death came to all men" because "sin entered the world through one man". (ie. Adam). Also through one man (ie. Jesus), came grace and the crediting of righteousness to all men. It seems to me that it is the apostle Paul's opinion that humanity was cursed through the sin of Adam and Eve. |
My own take on this is that humanity's sin is what causes the problem, not a curse from God on that sin. Sin is inherently destructive. I think that because of human sinfulness, the world became "subjected to frustration" and in "bondage and decay" (Romans 8:18-21). Sin itself brought "death to all men" and not a curse from God.
Original sin is one of those concepts I'm all over the map on. I tend to look at it as something more like "culture" than "inheritance". Just as we are born into a certain culture, we are born into a world with the taint of sin due to the sins of everyone from the first humans to us. Even before we willfully sin ourselves, we are infected by being in this environment. So, it's not something in our genes or otherwise passed down from parents to children, but rather something we all contribute to that in turn affects everyone else (as well as the rest of creation).
| McDLT wrote: | | Genesis 3:16 ~ To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (NIV) |
I guess one question is whether the last sentence of that verse is a curse or a prophecy. Did God make it happen, or forsee that it would happen due to sin entering the world? |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 624 posts |
| adam and eve questions |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 1:53 pm |
|
Hi Todd (and McDLT) - I really appreciated the responses, and would like to respond to some of the questions you asked first, Todd, and then respond to you, McDLT ...
Question 1: Romans 5 can be read along with all the other letters of Paul and this helps to clear up Paul's use of, or understanding of, humanity as 'cursed' ... He does rightly link the first sin to Adam and Eve - because the first act of disobedience definitely took place back then ... no disagreement there. He limits his use of the concept of 'cursed', however, to his debate between the 'law' and 'faith/Spirit'. See Galatians 3:10, for example - and check the OT again - the idea of 'curses' and 'blessings' for humanity, is not linked to Adam and Eve, but to the giving of the 'book of the law' - "For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law". Galatians 3:13 is quite clear about the work of Christ as "redeeming us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree".
Question 2: I think that it is quite evident in Genesis 3 and in Paul's writings that both mean that Eve is the "mother of all living" in a purely physical sense ... After the creation of Adam and Eve, everyone who is alive has come into this world via the womb of a mother (even surrogate babies:) The point about being the mother of all "cursed" is not as obvious since the curses are linked to the keeping of the law. Some Christian traditions do teach that each human baby is under the "curse of original sin" and that would be a good incentive to baptize (cleanse) infants of this sin. We, as MBs, do not believe that infant baptism is such a good idea, so we must not believe that each infant born is automatically 'cursed'. We generally teach that each individual enters an age of accountability, where they, like Adam and Eve, sin and then are held responsible for their own sin ... Obviously, though, no human has lived a life of sinlessness, except Jesus, and he had the help of the genetic code of his heavenly Father ... :)
Question 3: I teach theology at CBC and so I have thought alot about this "knowledge of good and evil" - We are told that God has knowledge of both - this is because we believe that God is Good (all goodness) and therefore has knowledge of Himself (as Good) and everything less than himself (everything that falls short of the glory of God - and therefore is 'evil', or at least not 'fully good'). As humans, apparently we inherited the "knowledge of good and evil" in the garden of Eden. That, I would think, means that we can know God - because he chooses to reveal himself to us in various ways (though we can never know him fully - since he is infinite and we are finite, and logically it is impossible for the infinite to be fully known by the finite - physical limitations there:) - We also, however, had lots of knowledge of 'evil' - all those things that are less than good ... we are part of a world in which evil thoughts and deeds prevail at times (the Psalmist agrees, doesn't he?)
Amen, Todd, about realizing some of God's goodness here and looking forward to (in fact, longing for) the fullness of God's goodness (no evil there) in heaven ...
Question 4 - You asked the question about applying freedom to women in leadership ... I think you can go as far with freedom in the church as your social structures will allow you to go ... In Paul's day - he opened up a fair bit of freedom, particularly for single women (freedom not to marry even though that was the conventional thing to do), and in the relationship between husband and wife (more of a mutual relationship than might have always been stressed back then). He does not threaten to change longstanding social structures though, like the private domain for women and the public domain for men, or the idea of slavery. He challenges the fact that people could be mistreated and/or would mistreat others, and warns Christian believers not to do that.
The point about women in leadership socially is a fairly new debate. In Canada, women were not consider "persons" till 1929 and so they could not hold official positions of leadership in Canada till they were given the title "person". Till then women were seen as coming under the "authority" - the name and personhood of - either their father, husband or another close male relative. After 1929, Canadian law has recognized that women are persons.
To be considered a "person", you have to be rational, aware that you are acting in time and space, and be able to be held morally accountable for your actions. I don't know which of these three disqualified a woman from being considered a person before 1929, and neither did the Supreme Court who made the decision. When it was finally decided that women were persons - the decision was made on the basis that there was no good reason not to declare women as persons. So there was no active defense for "why" women could be persons, but no reasons were given "why they couldn't be" considered persons.
I have some questions about why some MBs think that women should be excluded from senior pastorate role when they don't argue that women should be completely silent in the church - It seems like they are being selective on this matter - Women are allowed to speak, but not in that one area because they are worried that women will then exercise authority over men. Maybe we should be asking the question: "Why should men have authority over women" - Why, I wonder, after 1929? What would it be about women that makes them 'less' than men? Are we still working with an older idea of who women are ... which was in the Bible because the scriptures were written long before 1929. It seems we would have to argue that women in the church are "less of persons" than the women who are under Canadian law ... Interesting idea ... a real 'seperation of church and state'? I think there is more to this matter, even though I think scripture is authorative in matters of faith and life.
McDLT - I don't know if you are married, or have dated, but from my experience as a married woman - It seems quite clear to me what the meaning of 'desire' is in Genesis 3 - I desire (long for) my husband's company, his love and friendship, sexual intimacy with my husband, in the early years of our marriage I longed for children with him (and so we have three) ... Sometimes my desire for him meant that I didn't want him to work as many hours as he did (and so I complained:) or I wanted more time with him on 'dates' (and so I 'planned') and sometimes I wanted a child when he wasn't ready (and so I 'dreamed' or 'schemed') ... :) Ah, the joys of being a woman ... to this day, I find that I am a "people pleaser" (not necessarily limited to females, I am told), however, my desire to please can be a problem - I have had to learn to say "no" politely but firmly to people (men and women) who have come into my life, and sometimes not so politely -and very firmly - to my own desires ...:) I won't speak for my husband - but I would hazard a guess that sometimes, in our life together, he has wanted to "rule" me - tell me what to do, work on my basic desire to 'please' him to get me to do something he thought needed getting done, etc.
Maybe that is a basic faultline in the relationship between men and women that we have to watch out for ... Maybe these verses were part of God's look ahead to what we would be and do, and also a warning to be careful with each other, because of this ... Maybe my temptation is to "desire" and my hubby's is to "rule" ... I don't know - We have a good marriage, so we must be balancing these most of the time:)
At any rate ... I would rather encourage men and women to be kind to each other than to act according to the 'weakest' part of who they are ... To God be the glory - he can give us the power to be strong in our weakness ... Isn't He Good?
Let me know what you think about all this 'personal' rambling, if you want to... |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1036 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 3:05 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Todd wrote: | | Romans 5 says that "death came to all men" because "sin entered the world through one man". (ie. Adam). Also through one man (ie. Jesus), came grace and the crediting of righteousness to all men. It seems to me that it is the apostle Paul's opinion that humanity was cursed through the sin of Adam and Eve. |
My own take on this is that humanity's sin is what causes the problem, not a curse from God on that sin. Sin is inherently destructive. I think that because of human sinfulness, the world became "subjected to frustration" and in "bondage and decay" (Romans 8:18-21). Sin itself brought "death to all men" and not a curse from God. |
I agree that humanity's sin is the problem, that doesn't contradict my take on it, however. My opinion is that God's response to the Sin, was a curse (perhaps we need to define what this word means). Sin doesn't have it's own will, we have a will and God has a will. God's will is that nothing unholy enters his presence. Adam's Sin created an unholiness in the human race, and thus separation from God was a result.
| Quote: | | Original sin is one of those concepts I'm all over the map on. I tend to look at it as something more like "culture" than "inheritance". Just as we are born into a certain culture, we are born into a world with the taint of sin due to the sins of everyone from the first humans to us. Even before we willfully sin ourselves, we are infected by being in this environment. So, it's not something in our genes or otherwise passed down from parents to children, but rather something we all contribute to that in turn affects everyone else (as well as the rest of creation). |
I think I understand your take. I believe that Original Sin is inherited in addition to what you have described here. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1036 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: adam and eve questions |
Posted Jan 27, 2005; 4:02 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: |
Question 1: Romans 5 can be read along with all the other letters of Paul and this helps to clear up Paul's use of, or understanding of, humanity as 'cursed' ... He does rightly link the first sin to Adam and Eve - because the first act of disobedience definitely took place back then ... no disagreement there. He limits his use of the concept of 'cursed', however, to his debate between the 'law' and 'faith/Spirit'. See Galatians 3:10, for example - and check the OT again - the idea of 'curses' and 'blessings' for humanity, is not linked to Adam and Eve, but to the giving of the 'book of the law' - "For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law". Galatians 3:13 is quite clear about the work of Christ as "redeeming us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree". |
Now, you may be defining the word, "curse" in a more narrow application than I have previously used. I do think the word curse can apply to Adam and Eve too even though they didn't have the entire law. They did have a law (which consisted of like 2 easy to follow commandments). I don't think God's attitude towards the breaking of the original law, is any different than the breaking of the Mosaic law. In both instances, a curse follows the sin (in my opinion). Unless the Scriptures speak specifically about limiting the definition of a curse to a result of breaking the Mosaic Law, I see no reason to limit it. Paul was speaking to people from the post-Mosaic era, not the pre-Mosaic era, or particularly the pre-Fall era.
I agree regarding Christ Jesus removing the curse that was associated with the Mosaic Law.
| Quote: | | Question 2: I think that it is quite evident in Genesis 3 and in Paul's writings that both mean that Eve is the "mother of all living" in a purely physical sense ... After the creation of Adam and Eve, everyone who is alive has come into this world via the womb of a mother (even surrogate babies:) The point about being the mother of all "cursed" is not as obvious since the curses are linked to the keeping of the law. Some Christian traditions do teach that each human baby is under the "curse of original sin" and that would be a good incentive to baptize (cleanse) infants of this sin. We, as MBs, do not believe that infant baptism is such a good idea, so we must not believe that each infant born is automatically 'cursed'. We generally teach that each individual enters an age of accountability, where they, like Adam and Eve, sin and then are held responsible for their own sin ... Obviously, though, no human has lived a life of sinlessness, except Jesus, and he had the help of the genetic code of his heavenly Father ... :) |
I agree with some concept of accountability (though the Scripture isn't very clear on this issue), and I'm in favor of baptizing believers only. I grew up in a Lutheran church which taught Original Sin and the need to cleanse it through baptism. As an authentic Anabaptist (ie. one who was rebaptized), I believe that there is Original Sin, that it is inherited etc., but I think that cleansing comes from "the pledge of a good conscience to God" and not the "removal of dirt" (1 Peter 3:21).
| Quote: | | Question 3: I teach theology at CBC and so I have thought alot about this "knowledge of good and evil" - We are told that God has knowledge of both - this is because we believe that God is Good (all goodness) and therefore has knowledge of Himself (as Good) and everything less than himself (everything that falls short of the glory of God - and therefore is 'evil', or at least not 'fully good'). As humans, apparently we inherited the "knowledge of good and evil" in the garden of Eden. That, I would think, means that we can know God - because he chooses to reveal himself to us in various ways (though we can never know him fully - since he is infinite and we are finite, and logically it is impossible for the infinite to be fully known by the finite - physical limitations there:) - We also, however, had lots of knowledge of 'evil' - all those things that are less than good ... we are part of a world in which evil thoughts and deeds prevail at times (the Psalmist agrees, doesn't he?) |
I was thinking a bit more about this last night. In the sense that Adam and Eve were innocent before the 1st sin, they may have had no knowledge of evil. Nothing evil would have come onto them if they hadn't sinned. However, I don't see what is wrong with knowing good. Knowledge is good, good is good. Perhaps its possible that they previously had the knowledge of good, but not evil (and thus they didn't have the knowledge of both good and evil). My Mormon friends, who have a very different take on Genesis 3, think that ultimately God desired that we have this knowledge of good and evil. This view seems contradictory in my opinion.
| Quote: | | Question 4 - You asked the question about applying freedom to women in leadership ... I think you can go as far with freedom in the church as your social structures will allow you to go ... In Paul's day - he opened up a fair bit of freedom, particularly for single women (freedom not to marry even though that was the conventional thing to do), and in the relationship between husband and wife (more of a mutual relationship than might have always been stressed back then). He does not threaten to change longstanding social structures though, like the private domain for women and the public domain for men, or the idea of slavery. He challenges the fact that people could be mistreated and/or would mistreat others, and warns Christian believers not to do that. |
Though the curse of the law was removed by Christ, I tend to think that the moral principles behind the laws still apply. Some laws didn't have a direct moral application, but rather were intended to help us understand God and his plan better. The laws that have a moral application, we should obey in terms of the spirit of the laws, but we have the freedom to go beyond the letter of the laws.
| Quote: | The point about women in leadership socially is a fairly new debate. In Canada, women were not consider "persons" till 1929 and so they could not hold official positions of leadership in Canada till they were given the title "person". Till then women were seen as coming under the "authority" - the name and personhood of - either their father, husband or another close male relative. After 1929, Canadian law has recognized that women are persons.
To be considered a "person", you have to be rational, aware that you are acting in time and space, and be able to be held morally accountable for your actions. I don't know which of these three disqualified a woman from being considered a person before 1929, and neither did the Supreme Court who made the decision. When it was finally decided that women were persons - the decision was made on the basis that there was no good reason not to declare women as persons. So there was no active defense for "why" women could be persons, but no reasons were given "why they couldn't be" considered persons. |
Good historical background. I also think Canadian law was mistaken not to admit women as persons prior to 1929.
| Quote: | | I have some questions about why some MBs think that women should be excluded from senior pastorate role when they don't argue that women should be completely silent in the church - It seems like they are being selective on this matter - Women are allowed to speak, but not in that one area because they are worried that women will then exercise authority over men. Maybe we should be asking the question: "Why should men have authority over women" - Why, I wonder, after 1929? What would it be about women that makes them 'less' than men? Are we still working with an older idea of who women are ... which was in the Bible because the scriptures were written long before 1929. It seems we would have to argue that women in the church are "less of persons" than the women who are under Canadian law ... Interesting idea ... a real 'seperation of church and state'? I think there is more to this matter, even though I think scripture is authorative in matters of faith and life. |
I understand where you are coming from.
In my previous post, I didn't lay out all my cards, as I didn't want to scare you away from the forum.  I tend to be a complimentarian who hasn't figured out exactly what that means. I don't really live my life like a complimentarian. I'm trying to figure out what the Scripture teaches, and how to apply it (which to me is even more difficult than figuring what the Scriptures say to begin with).
Regarding women being silent. I don't know the specific context of the matter, so I wouldn't know whether it is a universal principle. Judging by the rest of the Scriptures, I think Paul was addressing a specific matter in the church that they would have been aware of. To me, it was a circumstantial commandment, though I really don't know for sure. By the way, it is possible to agree with the egalitarians on the interpreation of one verse, and agree with the complimentarians on another verse without being contradictory in the approach.
About a month ago, I did some studying on the 1 Tim 2 passage. It is my opinion that there is a better case made by the complimentarians than the egalitarians on this passage. There are many reasons for this. One being that the egalitarian interpretation of the passage is unfounded in history prior to a couple of decades ago. Second, Paul appeals to the order of creation when establishing his point about authority. Third, Paul appeals to the sin of Eve, an exmaple of where she took authority over Adam. Fourth, Paul makes reference to childbearing, which is also mentioned when God spoke to Eve in Genesis 3. I don't think it is coincidental. (I do think that Paul's instructions regarding childbearing is to be applied in the more general sense of God's intended role for women). There's another thread on this Women in Leadership forum dealing with the 1 Tim 2 passage. I'm always open for a good rebuking, however. 
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts Gay Lynn. You've given me some stuff to ponder over.
Peace,
Todd |
|
|
|
|
|
