Selected Sunday Scriptures- #105

Over on Dalrock’s most recent post Novaseeker left an excellent comment which I thought was worth repeating in full. Before doing so, I think a little context might be in order:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.” 14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
    cursed are you above all cattle,
    and above all wild animals;
upon your belly you shall go,
    and dust you shall eat
    all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
    and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,
    and you shall bruise his heel.”

16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
    and he shall rule over you.”

17 And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
    and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
    ‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
    in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return.”

(Gen 3:1-19)

This is the story of the Fall, and the perfect place to introduce Novaseeker’s comment:

The fundamental problem that underlies all of this nonsense teaching is the premise that women, by default, are moral and good unless somehow corrupted by a failure of proper male leadership.

This stems from an improper, and that’s being charitable, reading of Genesis 3. The problematic reading in question is that Eve sins in Genesis 3 only because Adam was failing to exercise proper headship over her, and that if he had been, she would not have sinned, so in a sense her sin is less real, or at the very least, derivative from, Adam’s failure to supervise/lead her properly. This reading really refuses to take the text at its own word (and God at His own word as He speaks in the text). Adam does sin by listening to his wife and eating of the apple, breaking the commandment – God is clear enough about that. But nothing is said of Adam’s culpability for Eve’s sin by God here — not one word. In Genesis 3: 14-19, God is remarkably clear about what was Adam’s sin in 3:17, and it consisted in (1) listening to his wife’s suggestion that he eat the apple and (2) actually doing so in violation of the commandment. So, yes, by listening to his wife, Adam failed to exercise moral agency over his own actions, and that is a part of his sin, together with the actual breaking of the commandment concerning eating of the fruit of the tree.

But this sin — his “listening to his wife” — has nothing to do with Eve’s own sin, as we see in 3:6. The sequence is clear — Eve partakes of the apple, finds it good tasting, and then gives some to Adam to eat and he takes it and eats — his “listening to his wife” and eating of the fruit both take place *after* Eve has already eaten of the tree, and therefore after her sin has already occurred. Eve’s sin here is portrayed in 3:6, and also by God in 3: 14-19, as being independent of Adam’s two sins, and is separately called out and punished by God in itself, and for its own sake. This makes sense given how the events are timed, sequentially, in 3:6.

The rest of the argument is extra-textual it seems to me (or at least extraneous to the specific narrative of these events in Gen 3 — other texts that are extrinsic to the narrative tend to be bought in to buttress the argument). It runs something along the lines of “well, Adam was tasked with being Eve’s steward, and failed at that, so he’s responsible for her sin, too” — which is an interesting argument, because God Himself fails to mention this sin when he rebukes Adam in Gen 3:17, while otherwise being quite specific in calling out the sins Adam committed (listening to his wife rather than following God’s commandment). If Adam’s sin had really been failing to exercise proper stewardship over Eve, and therefore bearing responsibility for her sin as was as his own, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that God would have overlooked this in His rebuke of Adam in 3:17, yet this is the precise argument that is often made in support of the idea that Eve wasn’t really responsible for her own sin, but Adam was.

This isn’t merely academic. The issue goes to the root of how some (many?) churches today are teaching about men and women and male/female relationships. A proper reading of Genesis 3 precludes any notion of women being innately good and virtuous unless corrupted by men. So Genesis 3 must be read in a very specific, and odd in the sense of being extrinsic to the actual narrative itself, way in order to support the idea that all corruption comes from men and women are innately virtuous, or at least will continue to be so unless corrupted by men’s evil.

When the actual narrative itself is read, the sequencing and delineation of the sins *is* instructive to male/female relations, but it isn’t the message that much of the contemporary church wants to hear.
It is this: women are somewhat more easily subject to demonic temptation than men are, and will tend to give in to that temptation, whereas men are subject to being morally weak in the presence of women and female suggestion, such that they will prefer honoring that to keeping God’s laws — and that therefore the way the demons will seek to corrupt men is by corrupting the women first, and then using men’s natural predisposition to please women against them by making them choose between that and obeying God, knowing full well that many (most?) men will fail and become corrupted themselves in that process. That is the story of Genesis 3, full stop. It’s also exactly what is happening in the contemporary culture, and the contemporary church. Almost to the tee, actually. And yet this is precisely the message that the church by and large refuses to take from the clear narrative of Genesis 3.

Novaseeker explains the situation far better than I could, and so I will leave his words to stand as they are. What I would like to explore, however, is a concept that he touches on. Specifically, I am curious about this shifting of blame to a higher authority (I think the legal field calls this vicarious liability?). What I am curious about is whether there is any Scriptural support for the notion that the sins committed by a person under authority are transferred to the person in authority.

I know that my grasp of Scripture is still pretty shallow, but so far I haven’t found anything to support that argument. Do any of my readers know of any Scripture which would support, or while we are on the subject, refute, that kind of “moral vicarious liability?” If so, please leave the verses/passages in the comments below.

Advertisements

17 Comments

Filed under Selected Sunday Scriptures

17 responses to “Selected Sunday Scriptures- #105

  1. It’s not very plausible to me that men are not responsible to an extent for the sins of those under their authority. There’s a Scriptural reference on the tip of my tongue but unfortunately I can’t place it. But my understanding of Genesis 3 does blame the man for failing to restrain his wife (who is a weaker moral agent) as well as for following her in her sin. They are both responsible for her sin. I’m not following Novaseeker’s train of thought where he links this view with thinking women are good and virtuous unless corrupted by men. Nor do I think justified the dichotomy: if the man is at all responsible the woman is not.

  2. Matthew 18:6 comes to mind, though that seems to be more about knowingly putting a temptation in front of someone who is weak and likely to give into it due to ignorance (like a brand new Christian who is still learning the ropes, or a child who won’t know better yet) than something that could apply to Adam and Eve.

  3. Michael Kozaki

    Nova should read the old Jewish interpretations. They are closer to the “headship” argument, although not exactly. And of course, Genesis was clearly first oral tradition first, it’s easy to see that if you know it well (with at least four very different writers/traditions). The old interpretations I see always have:

    1) Adam was a coward. Ever wonder where the hell Adam was in the story? He ran away when the “Dragon” came. When he took the apple from Eve and ate, tradition has him more afraid of the Dragon than desiring the apple. And this checks with human nature, male and female.

    2) Eve of course was a slut. She was “seduced” by the dragon after her spouse ran in fear. She was seduced by the three deadly sins the Jews were always going on about (and the devil tempts Jesus with, it’s all over the bible, OT & NT).

    These interpretations check out with Semitic culture. It’s a mistake (and a Protestant approach) to look at Scripture within our own culture.

    God commanded Adam to “cultivate” and “care” for the garden of Eden (Gen 2:15) just before He gave Adam the command not to eat of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:17).

    The translation “care” is a rendering of the Hebrew word shamar, which means to “guard” or “defend.” This indicates an external threat. Second, it implies something in Eden is valuable. In the context of God’s command and the aftermath, it is clear that Adam and his bride’s souls were the precious objects that needed defending.

  4. Plus, the most you could say is that Adam was passive in this instance by not speaking up and telling Eve something like “No Eve, we’re not eating from this tree. Let’s get out of here.”, not that he brought the temptation to sin onto Eve. The serpent did that. And that would only apply if Adam was in the immediate vicinity when all this was going down, which we can only guess at (as far as I know) because Genesis isn’t clear about that. He might not have been right there when it happened; the serpent might’ve waited until Eve was wandering off by herself exploring Eden before he approached her, and she might’ve brought some of the forbidden fruit to Adam after having eaten some of it herself.

  5. In answer to your question, I suggest you study the parable of the talents. The concept of agency existed under the Mosaic Law and the master was responsible for the actions of his servants.

    This parable is usually misunderstood (in part) because of the failure to understand agency. The servant described his master as a hard man, one who picked up where he did not put down and reaped where he didn’t sow. In other words, he called his master a thief, a lawbreaker. The master responded and said ‘Well, since I’m such a lawbreaker, why didn’t you put my money out at usury (another violation of the Law) and you could have given me the interest on my return?’ The point being that the violation of putting the money out at usury would be held to the master, not the servant.

    For political reasons this passage has been construed as the master giving the idea of putting the money out at usury as a good thing, when the opposite is true, and the exchange highlights the agency relationship between the master and his servant.

    Still, the point Novaseeker has seemingly missed in his analysis of the passage, along with everyone else, is women were cursed, personally. I’m tempted to say Adam received a part of that curse but the fact is, Adam was not cursed, the ground was cursed because of him. A careful reading of the passage indicates that the serpent and Eve were both cursed personally, but Adam, as the federal head of all Creation, was punished at a higher level and all of Creation was cursed because of what he did.

    Women’s pain in childbirth was increased and snakes crawl on their bellies. Obviously Christ did not lift the curse because snakes still crawl on their bellies and women still bring forth their children in pain. Trust me, I know all about this. But, it’s the second and third element of Eve’s curse that causes the major problems today.

    “Your desire shall be for your husband”

    The word desire is translated in Genesis 4:7 as a desire to conquer, to overcome. In the Song of Songs it is translated at 7:10 as a sexual desire. These are the only two other uses of that word and theologians have argued for ages over *which* interpretation should be used in Genesis 3:16. The problem is it isn’t an either-or situation, it’s both.

    “and he shall rule over you.”

    Red Pill wisdom and an understanding of hypergamy tells us that it’s both, and this is the Biblical origin of hypergamy (contrary to the Evo-Psych explanations). Women want to be “ruled over” by a dominant, masculine man who demonstrates his fitness to rule them. They test his fitness seeking whether they can overcome him (shit tests) and the man who displays his fitness by passing the tests is rewarded with sexual desire. The man who cannot pass the tests is deemed unworthy of sexual attraction and is sexually repulsive to women.

    It isn’t that men corrupt women, it’s that God cursed all women and AWALT because God said so. All women are hypergamous and that began at the curse. Men are to rule over women (it seems to me that this is the part about Adam getting “splashed” with Eve’s curse) and all of Scripture supports this. The Law of vows (Numbers 30) reflects this, with the woman living in her father’s house and the wife both being subject to having any and every agreement they make overruled by their father/husband. All the NT passages concerning submission of wives point back to Genesis 3:16 (he shall rule over you).

    My most recent studies have been in the area of the initiation of marriage and it’s implications for the church, but tangential to that was a study of Deuteronomy 22, which is the only place in Scripture that discusses what we would call rape. It’s extremely disturbing to most, but from the text the crime of rape only applied to a married woman (including betrothed virgins). In verses 28-29, we find that a virgin that’s not betrothed who is seized and forced to have sex with her attacker is *married* to him and if discovered, in contradistinction to Exodus 22:16-17, her father cannot annul the marriage. The “penalty” for the man who did the deed is he must pay 50 shekels of silver to the father (a very high price) and he can never divorce her all of his days.

    Most disturbing, I think, is the fact that the only two classes of women listed are virgins not married and women who are married. The text makes clear that any claims of rape are to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism and the rules surrounding this reflect that skepticism. However, there is no mention of widows and divorced women. Unfortunately, this is one of those areas in which the desire of the church to apply “biblical principles” does not apply because Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are quite clear: Where there is no Law, there is no transgression and thus no sin imputed. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 make it clear that it is a crime to add to the Law or to subtract from it. Thus, it is impossible to expand the definition of rape (Biblically speaking) to include widows and divorced women (and prostitutes too, I suppose) because to do so would be to add to the Law.

    Commenter Michael Kozaki states it well, I think, when he said:
    “It’s a mistake (and a Protestant approach) to look at Scripture within our own culture.”

    Perhaps, in keeping with Genesis 3:16, the point of not including widows and divorced women is not that God does not care about such women, but that their place in His scheme of things is for them to be under the authority of a man and women should be married.

    Given the sequence for the initiation of marriage (Genesis 2:24, Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:28-29) in conjunction with Numbers 30, it becomes clear a virgin has no agency with respect to being married. She can be married over her objections and against her will (Deut. 22:28-29); and she can have her consensual marriage annulled by her father if he desires to do so (Exodus 22:16-17). Numbers 30 makes it clear that up until marriage the young woman can make no decision that is not subject to the approval of her father and after marriage the wife can make no decision not subject to the approval of her husband. In the NT, the wife is commanded to submit to her husband, in everything, regardless of whether he himself is obedient to the Word. In that instruction (1st Peter 3:1) she is referred to the instruction to masters and servants in 1st Peter 2:18-25 and commanded that her obedience to her husband is to be “in the same way.”

    Therefore, the husband-wife relationship is a special form of the master-servant relationship and the husband is to “rule over” his wife. What we see today is the forms and structures that once restrained women from the danger they present to themselves have been torn down. Women are now allowed to make decisions and take actions they never should be allowed to contemplate, much less act on. You see the results all around you, because women are cursed and yes, AWALT.

  6. Those who are disagreeing with Nova’s excellent discussion are claiming Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin, at least in part responsible. The claim is that the husband is to rule over and be the head of the wife. I think Nova’s detractors have missed a couple of things.

    1. I don’t see anywhere before the Fall where Adam was to have headship over Eve. They were equals (bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh). Man’s headship over woman is part of Eve’s curse (“your desire shall be for (to rule over) your husband, and he shall rule over you.”).

    2. God punishes Eve’s sin directly and without reference to Adam’s sin.

    It’s only AFTER Eve and then Adam sinned, that God calls out their sin directly, and announces the consequences. Adam will be made to work. Eve will bear children in pain. She will seek to dominate her husband, but her husband is to rule over her. Both get kicked out of the Garden.

    Pre-Fall, there was no suggestion or directive that Adam was “the head” of Eve.

  7. Adam was created first, and Eve was created as his helpmate. “Woman came from man, not man from woman.” And Adam named her. I think these indicate that Adam did have authority, but it was perfectly harmonious with Eve. The harmony got destroyed after the Fall. One interesting thing in the sermon Dalrock cited is that God put Adam in the garden to “work it and watch over it.” Which is work. I think that, like Adam and Eve’s relationship, work was also degraded by sin and became a burden.

  8. That authority didn’t require him to be responsible for Eve’s sins or for her accountability to God independent of Adam’s acts/conduct/condition/state.

  9. Actually he didn’t name till after the Fall, so that point isn’t relevant.

  10. I just think that hierarchy did exist prior to the Fall. One of John Paul II’s main ideas was that men and women were perfectly equal before the Fall, and that the husband/wife hierarchy is merely a result of original sin, and we should therefore work to eliminate and cultivate the perfect equality of the Garden of Eden.

  11. @Deti

    I was not disagreeing with Nova so much as pointing to his focus. I do see Adam as being in authority over Eve, but the text tells us next to nothing about their relationship. Adam was created first, Eve was created second, from the substance of Adam, to be his helpmeet. We see in the punishment that the serpent and Eve were both cursed personally on the same level (as part of Creation) while Adam was punished at a higher level and as a result all of Creation was cursed because of his sin. These things all speak to Adam’s authority over Eve, but like you, I do not see a master-servant agency relationship in which Adam would be responsible for Eve’s sin.

    If there is any argument about who is responsible for Eve’s sin, rather than Adam, the serpent was partly responsible because through his own sin he deceived Eve and caused her to sin.

    An interesting rabbit trail is the question of what the purpose of Eve’s creation was. God observed that it was not good for the man to be alone, so He created a helpmeet for him. It was to the two of them that it was commanded “be fruitful and multiply” and it was to the man that God granted the authority to initiate marriage (Genesis 2:24), so I think it’s reasonable to say that women were created to be companions to men as wives and mothers to his children. I’m still waiting for anyone to make a Biblical case that Eve was created to be Adam’s sex-toy.

    @Patrick
    “Adam did have authority, but it was perfectly harmonious with Eve. The harmony got destroyed after the Fall”

    The text does not tell us about the harmoniousness of their relationship, we only assume such because of the absence of sin. The effect of the curse was to magnify Adam’s authority over her while Eve and all her daughters were cursed with hypergamy and painful childbirth.

    “One of John Paul II’s main ideas was that men and women were perfectly equal before the Fall, and that the husband/wife hierarchy is merely a result of original sin, and we should therefore work to eliminate and cultivate the perfect equality of the Garden of Eden.”

    An excellent example of where John Paul II got it wrong. First, the curse is still with us and it cannot be overcome until the curse is lifted… and only God can lift that curse. A visit to any maternity ward will settle that question of whether Christ lifted the curse rather quickly. Second, because the curse is still with us we cannot return to a pre-fall Eden-like existence as husband and wife. It’s impossible because God cursed women and said of her husband, “he shall rule over you.”

    To claim we have the capacity to eliminate the curse and return to the “perfect equality” of the garden in which the husband is not to “rule over” his wife is to deny God has the authority to punish His creation in any way He saw fit and likewise to claim that we have power greater than God to overcome His will for us.

  12. So I did some studying, and apparently I got vicarious liability all wrong. The doctrine (is that the right word?) doesn’t involve a transfer of liability or accountability (or responsibility). Instead, it makes the superior liable for the wrongdoing in addition to the inferior. Both are held liable.

    This is quite different from the phenomenon that Novaseeker is addressing. There is a difference between stating that both Eve and Adam are responsible for Eve’s sin, and stating that since Adam was “in charge”, he alone is responsible. The latter seems novel, while the former seems to be in line with Mat 18:6, as Cassie suggested.

  13. Novaseeker

    This is quite different from the phenomenon that Novaseeker is addressing. There is a difference between stating that both Eve and Adam are responsible for Eve’s sin, and stating that since Adam was “in charge”, he alone is responsible. The latter seems novel, while the former seems to be in line with Mat 18:6, as Cassie suggested.
    Donal —

    That’s correct, although it isn’t clear that Mt. 18:6 actually applies to Adam’s situation. It’s an inference on an inference that it does, which is troubling given that God doesn’t mention this as one of Adam’s sins when he rebukes him in Genesis 3. In any case, I do agree that the most problematic interpretation is that Adam alone is responsible for Eve’s sin, and that’s where the prevailing perspective in much of American Protestant Christianity. seems to go.

    @Ioannes —

    I’m not following Novaseeker’s train of thought where he links this view with thinking women are good and virtuous unless corrupted by men.

    The way that the argument goes is as follows: “Eve would not have sinned but for Adam’s neglect/failure/cowardice, and this is also the case today with women: women today, like Eve, are essentially virtuous if men are working properly and virtuously, and anything women may be doing which could be seen as less than virtuous can be directly attributable to some failure by some man or men somewhere, just as Eve’s eating of the fruit of the tree was traceable to Adam’s neglect.”. Essentially this is the background for the often expressed view that women are basically virtuous by nature, and anything that is going wrong with women is essentially the result of men not being virtuous and that lack of male virtue (by fathers/brothers/husbands/others) corrupts what would otherwise be virtuous women by nature. Again, the idea is that Eve would not have sinned but for Adam’s neglect, so that any lack of virtue observed in women today is similarly attributable to male failings (as they attribute Eve’s actions to Adam).

  14. Novaseeker

    So I did some studying, and apparently I got vicarious liability all wrong. The doctrine (is that the right word?) doesn’t involve a transfer of liability or accountability (or responsibility). Instead, it makes the superior liable for the wrongdoing in addition to the inferior. Both are held liable.

    Doctrine is the correct word for legal rules like that, yes.

    Vicarious liability in the law applies only to certain relationships — principal/agent, parent/child, employer/employee, all with certain limitations that have accreted over time.

    The basic underlying doctrine in the employment area (which is the most common and well developed application of the doctrine) is called “respondeat superior”, and it makes employers liable for acts committed by their employees, subject to certain limits. One of the main limits is that the employee must be acting squarely within the scope of their employment, and not engaged in a “frolic” (e.g., if a truck driver hits someone while he is driving as a part of his job, then the rule applies, whereas if he decides to go off on a personal drive on company time to meet his GF for a tryst in the park and runs over someone on the way there, the doctrine is less likely to apply, because this is seen as a frolic outside the scope of furthering the employers interests). You’re correct that the employee is also liable, however, even if the doctrine does apply.

    However, I don’t actually think that the ideas of respondeat superior solve the Adam and Eve issue, however, because it isn’t at all clear to me that, even if one were to apply a kind of vicarious liability here, that Eve couldn’t be seen as engaging in a “frolic”, seeing as she was violating God’s prime directive at the time. One could hold Adam to a kind of “strict liability” standard (liable for whatever Eve does, basically), but that wouldn’t really be consistent with the limits that have been generally applied when finding vicarious liability, even for parents.

  15. innocentbystanderboston

    I don’t think this is all that complicated.

    Genesis-3 is a NON STARTER in ALL of churchianity because the concept behind it (God’s law) is that a wife is to obey her husband in all things. That simply can NOT be… EVER! Never-EVER! Feminism must reign supreme in churchianity so Genesis-3:16 must be disregarded… utterly. The best churchianity can do is to simply ignore it. The worst they can do is to try and re-interpret God’s law.

  16. There is a difference between stating that both Eve and Adam are responsible for Eve’s sin, and stating that since Adam was “in charge”, he alone is responsible. The latter seems novel, while the former seems to be in line with Mat 18:6, as Cassie suggested.

    I actually didn’t mean to suggest that Adam was partially responsible for Eve’s sin, though reading back over what I wrote I can see how I made it look like I was saying that. I mentioned the verse I did because it was the only one I could think of that might suggest that someone could be responsible in part for another person’s sin, but also tried to explain why that verse doesn’t seem to apply to Adam and Eve.

    The idea that a husband is responsible for his wife’s sins seems rather ludicrous when the concept is followed through to conclusion: if a wife won’t be held responsible for her own sins (including those committed in obedience to her husband, like some in these parts claim she wouldn’t be), then women would all be going to Heaven without question, while their husbands (and fathers of the unmarried women) would be the ones taking the punishment resulting from unrepentant rebellious sinful wives/daughters, **even if the husband/father is righteous!**

    That doesn’t make any sense to claim in the slightest, but that is the only possible conclusion to the claim that a husband/father is the one responsible for her sins.

    At most, he could only be partially responsible, depending on his own actions in the scenario. She is responsible for her own sins, and the fact that Eve was given a separate punishment/curse of her own is ample proof of that, I think.

  17. I actually didn’t mean to suggest that Adam was partially responsible for Eve’s sin, though reading back over what I wrote I can see how I made it look like I was saying that. I mentioned the verse I did because it was the only one I could think of that might suggest that someone could be responsible in part for another person’s sin, but also tried to explain why that verse doesn’t seem to apply to Adam and Eve.

    Gotcha.

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