Bailout Pt 3

First I would like to commend McCain for responding to the call to return to Washington to help with the debates. Despite what the Obama camp says about this being a trick by McCain, at least McCain has the courage to respond to the needs of the nation before the needs of his campaign. He did the same thing with the surge, swearing that he'd rather lose an election than lose the war. Also despite what Democrats try to paint this as, McCain is in Washington to deal a compromise with fiscal conservatives. This is crucial, as the conservatives have really good points and should be heard. Here is what Huckabee has to say about it:

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.

3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries---just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.

I agree fully with (1) and (2). Each would bolster the private sector to get involved with the crisis. I am unsure how (3) would work out, and so I would like to see a better proposed plan put into place before agreeing to it. But this point should be made very clear to fiscal conservatives right now: the private sector will take too long to save the markets. The government should be doing something, and we should be supporting this plan as an addendium to the bailout package. At the most try to broker a deal to lessen the bailout plan by some amount (around $100,000). This would make the bailout plan still effective in its own right, but add on private sector responsibility. And to repeat what Bush has said, a sense of urgency is needed. Don't linger on having your plan be the only one passed. Being willing to work together and compromise. That's what McCain is there for, and I know he is meeting with you today for that very reason.

One way to do this would be to change Section 105(D) of the bailout plan. It reads:

TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.

DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)

65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

Basically what it would allow is that any leftover money not used on the bailout be given to the House of Representatives. With a Democratic controlled Congress they would use this money on other projects and not just the bailout. Fiscal conservatives should demand that this 20 percent of profits go back to the American public in the form of rebate checks. That would be an acceptable compromise and one that would benefit Wall Street now but also the American people now and later.

As well I am looking forward to the debate tonight. Again, no political games are being played, but McCain will be preoccupied because a larger responsibility has been placed upon him. If you watched the news last night, CNN especially showed how McCain did not stop for reporters or supporters but was all over Washington talking to people. I do not think McCain will be on his toes like he should be for a debate, but it is nice to see him being much more of a senior leader than Obama right now (although out of fairness, the reason Obama is not a senior leader is because he does not have a senior record to fall back upon). It is good for McCain that this debate is about foreign affairs and national security. He could probably do this in his sleep. It is unfortunate for McCain supporters though since we will not see him be able to nail Obama nearly as hard on this issues, with the preoccupation of the bailout.

On what to expect from the debate tonight, here, here, here and here are good posts about what each candidate needs to do. I like what I see from C-SPAN as far as their debate hub goes.

Finally go to this link to see a video on what has caused the finicial crisis we are in. It is made by conservatives but is only noticeable at the end. It flies by the facts, but if you are willing to sit down and pause it every few seconds to read the information you will come out knowing a lot more about what caused the meltdown. Extremely useful, even if the music is horrible.

Bailout 2

More links concerning the bailouts. Here is President Bush's speech on the bailouts. I'm impressed that his speech writers could craft a good speech that explains the economic trouble we're going through in simple terms. Part of the problem is that most people do not understand how the economy, and especially Wall Street, actually work. A failing of the public school system no doubt, but that's another topic.

Another article on another plan for helping the economy move forward. The one thing I like about this plan is that it would move us toward a true laissez fare attitude towards business. Unfortunately it would never get passed. Many of the taxes/clauses that it wants to suspend are legislation that the Democrats wanted and the Republicans compromised having. In all fairness McCain supported Sarbanes-Oxley, and has been calling for better regulation since then.

You won't run this through Congress, and Obama would personally denounce this plan. Of course if one would look back towards Obama's record as a community organizer in Chicago and his work in both the Illinois State Senate and the Senate, he has pushed for extreme regulations on businesses. This type of government control of the private sector is unique to one form of government, Marxism. Sorry if you Democrats do not like this reality, but looking at his record is the final proof. And it is precisely this economic crash that leads the way towards a Marxist revolution. Anyone who has read Smith or Ricardo knows how dangerous Obama can be for our society right now, as he would close the markets instead of allowing for free trade.

Part of the problem is that the 21st century economy cannot be run with 20th century regulation. And the amount of regulation needed should have the Goldilock's Effect. Not too much, not too little. Most of the problem is that there has been too much regulation enforced by way of compromise in the aftermath of the Reagon de-regulating era. This was an entirely stupid way to go, as it assumed it was following a Goldilock's attitude, but it left loopholes that 1) encouraged growth for business but 2) also left the markets open for failure if the books were not handled correctly. So both a good and bad thing. Despite what Obama says, one can only see a dangerous loophole and close it after the damage has been done. This is what Congress will be doing within the next two years. If he wants to make real change, he needs to get on those committees and introduce the legislation. Unfortuanately for him, he's not in that position and he doesn't know much about how the markets work either, so he wouldn't be the one to introduce good legislation. At least McCain has the sense to realize that he doesn't know enough about the situation, but he is seeking advisors who do know about it.

As far as McCain suspending his campaign to go to work, I congratulate him. Paulson wanted him there to get Republicans on board, and it can clearly be seen that McCain is the leader of the Republican party right now. All the talk of him not wanting to debate Obama because of his own weakness on the issues (re: statements made by Biden) are just about the silliest thing ever said. The debate this Friday was supposed to be over foreign policy and national security. Two issues:

1) McCain drools over the time when he can nail Obama on these very issues. Literally, he drools over it. Might be the old age, but he's drooling. McCain is undoubtably the expert on national security, as 78% of Americans realize. If he's "hiding" from this issue, then Oprah is a Republican.

2) American doesn't want to hear about foreign policy right now. They want solutions to this problem. They do want a leader I think who would rather "win the battle than win the election." This is exactly the type of leader that McCain showed himself to be when he supported the surge. "I don't care what is good for me or my campaign. I'm doing what is right for America." Obama should take a lesson from this, because McCain is just earning more trust points from Independents. Look for the polls to reflect this next week. Over the next month, watch the polls to also show McCain closing the gap on economic trust. I have never understood why people have thought Obama would be better for the economy, and have yet to hear one reason to back up the claim. One thing I do know is that when it comes time for decisions in a crisis, McCain would rather lose this election than see America fail. Say what you will about the policies, McCain is a leader and you know where he stands.

Bailout

Found an interesting article here on the bailouts that the federal government is doing. The two main issues is at what value Paulson is trying to buy these firms at. Here's a quote:

Does Mr. Paulson intend to systematically purchase MBS at higher prices than current market values would suggest?

This would save Wall Street’s bacon. A great many firms would be relieved of the burden of their past errors and mismanagement, and would get a fighting chance to stay in business and attract new capital.

Is that fair and right? No, it’s not. It would also put the taxpayers in a position to absorb Wall Street’s losses, through higher taxes, higher inflation, or both. (Politically, of course, this is dynamite.)

But what if Mr. Paulson’s intent runs the other way? What if he means to value his MBS purchases fairly, or to undervalue them? That will force the pain to be borne by the firms that made the bad decisions and took too much risk.

Is that fair and right? Yes, it is. But it will also force many of these firms out of business. And that would have severe follow-on effects in world markets, as a cascade of liquidations cause asset values to collapse across the world. More than one analyst has suggested that we could see a 25% drop in the US stock market, or worse.

Pick your letter of the alphabet. If we socialize the MBS losses by overvaluing the purchases, we face an “L-shaped” recovery: a long period of very slow growth, and a lot of pain for consumers. (Think about how Japan dealt with their real-estate/bad-loan crisis in the Nineties.)

If we force the financial firms to take the medicine, the recovery is “V-shaped”: a vertiginous plunge to far lower levels from here, with wreckage and busted financial firms all over the world, but (very likely) with an equally sharp and fast recovery, as capital floods back in from the sidelines.

...

We need to perform the purchases of MBS either at a fair valuation or at an undervaluation. Because, as with the Resolution Trust Corporation, that will give the authorities time to control the process and work everything out carefully, perhaps over the next two years.

Under ideal conditions, this would give us a “U-shaped” recovery. It would avoid panic selling and market destruction in the near term , which is what we'll get if Congress fails to act.

But it also avoids shafting the taxpayers, the consumer economy, and the financial firms that managed risk prudently and deserve to stay in business.

What I must commend him for is his conclusion that the bailouts are a middle ground, as long as they are done properly. Paying too much for a broken product will only hinder growth. Letting the broken product waste away is not the answer either, as this is detrimental to society as a whole (job loss, bankruptcy, etc). Either way we will be left in a precarious position. China, who holds our largest debt, could come calling and totally bankrupt us. We would respond with either war or inflation of the dollar, similar to the events during and ending the Great Depression.

The solution, if there is one, is not easy. We must bailout some companies, but do it responsibly. We must appease China. We must encourage the buying power of Americans here at home and create jobs. This will allow us to recover more quickly. To get the money for this, the government needs to borrow from unlikely sources, and no more from China.

Sunday Scripture: Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23

Matt 1,19 Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. 20 But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.”
Matt 1,22 Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
Matt 1,23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child,
And shall bring forth a son.
They shall call his name Immanuel;”
Which is, being interpreted, “God with us.”
Matt 1,24 Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife to himself; 25 and didn’t know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus.

The context of the passage would seem to indicate that Matthew uses Isaiah 7:14 as a proof-text for the virgin birth. No doubt the virginity of Mary has been unique to Christianity from the very conception (no pun intended). But is there another reason why Matthew might have used Isa. 7:14, where it is not just a proof-text for the virginal status of Mary?

S. V. McCasland, in his essay "Matthew Twists the Scriptures," falls in line with the common interpretation that Isa 7:14 is used to argue for Mary's virginity. But he notes the problem with this usage. "It is now well known that this saying of Isaiah refers to an event of his own time, and that the Hebrew word 'almah, for the mother of the child, does not mean a virgin but only a young woman." So the Isaiah passage does not actually for a virgin birth at all. Instead Matthew must follow the Greek translation which uses parthenos, which only in certain contexts means a virgin. There is actually no support for thinking that Isaiah has in mind a virginal birth in either the Hebrew or Greek, and McCasland concludes that Matthew has ignored Isaiah's context to make a major issue using a proof-text.

Rikk E. Watts gives us a balanced explanation for why Matthew has used this text though in his essay, "Immanuel: Virgin Birth Proof Text or Programmatic Warning of Things to Come (Isa. 7:14 in Matt 1:23)?" He declares, "The larger setting is Isaiah's call to effect judicial sanction upon idolatrous Judah." The name Immanuel acts as a threat towards King Ahaz and Judah: repent and follow Yahweh, or God will be among you. He will judge you to be idolatrous, and bring condemnation upon you. No doubt this threat would be seen as a glorious event in the eyes of God's people who continue to follow God's calling. But it is a pronouncement of destruction upon those who do not head the call to turn away from idols and towards God.

Other Jewish documents from this time period uphold this interpretation. The Damascus Document from Qumran sees Isa 7:14 as a text of judgment and destruction upon God's enemies while being a prophecy of blessing upon God's chosen people (which they interpreted as being themselves). The emphasis is placed upon division between two groups: the idolatrous and the faithful.

Matthew follows this tradition by respecting the context of Isaiah and Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 to say two things. Firstly, although the virgin birth is not inherent from this passage, it indeed happened. Nobody expected it, but nonetheless it happened. Secondly, and I would argue more importantly, Matthew warns that Christ will bring division within Israel. It is without coincidence that this passage lays right before King Herod is introduced. Herod is contrasted with the wise-men from the East, so that in rejecting "God amoung us," he rejects God. He has become idolatrous, and condemnation will be brought upon him.

As well, Watts points out that Matthew's larger structure supports this theory. Leaving out the details, he sees chps. 5-7 as a discourse primarily about the blessings of the new Torah (Christ). This is contrasted with chps. 23-25 which detail another discourse concerned with curses and warnings of the future. The blessings that come by following "God among us" are contrasted to the woes and curses that come by rejecting "God among us" and embracing idolatry. Reading with the proper lens allows us to understand Isaiah and Matthew's messages. It is a pronouncement which still rings true today: Blessed is he or she that follows Christ who is Immanuel, and woe to them that reject Christ who is Immanuel, for God will indeed be among us.

Political Watch

Okay, so a few links this time.

Biden says something stupid. Note to Democrats: Don't piss off football fans. They will find you in the parking lot.

Some Democrats should not be allowed to be in public office. It's as simple as that. Take Rep. Charlie Randall for instance, who believes that Sarah Palin is "disabled." Totally inappropriate, and yet I do not see Obama-Biden calling him out for it and forcing him to make a public apology. Hopefully they will soon.

Here's a good post about the type of campaigns that both parties are running. Very informative, and really critiques the very stupid "McSame" argument ("4 more years") and Obama's use of the generic "Change" platform without specifics. It is very balanced on both sides, but it seems that Obama has really campaigned himself into a corner. It will be interesting come debate time (i.e. Friday).

Finally I present another blog that analyizes two specific ads made by each respective campaign. It also critiques the "McSame" argument, finding it "absurdly laughable and insulting to the listener's intelligence." The other ad it breaks down deals with Obama's apparent support of a Illinois law that would teach sex ed to kindergardener's. Although Obama might try to claim ignorance on this bill ex post facto, it would seem that a good argument can also be given to show that he should be held responsible for understanding what this bill was trying to do (teach kindergardener's sex education).

Political Watch

Here is the first of no doubt several of many posts on the political scene as it approaches the election. No doubt everyone who knows me knows that I am a life-long Republican because... well, because they actually make sense. I'm looking for politicians who have a comprehensive plan which includes domestic policy (social policy), foreign policy and national security, as well as the huge range of issues that fall in both categories (economy, immigration, energy, etc).

Currently no third party have differentiated themselves from either of the two major parties enough to gain any sort of attention. This is because both parties have just undergone an identity crisis of sorts. The Democrats are still trying to decide if they are going to be liberal (Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Obama) or to go with the older Democrats (Clinton, Biden). The Republicans, on the other hand, have just expanded their older base and solidified into a much more cohesive party which scares the Democrats.

Under McCain the Republicans have solidified a much more expansive energy policy that includes an "all of the above" approach. Obama has been supported by Midwesterners who control the ethonal production. He has put his biggest support behind biofuels for this reason. As well, "independent" plans such as the Pickens Plan are primary concerned with natural gas (he supports the other forms of energy, but really pushes the natural gas). What is not been seen by most people is that Pickens controls valuable land with natural gas reserves already on it. In other words, Pickens and his supporters seek to profit from a move towards natural gas. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a huge supporter and investor of the Pickens Plan, and with the lastest recent vote by the House on an energy freeze, she has directly gained finaicially from her position. In earlier times this would be called out as the graft that it is.

What I personally would like to see is a energy plan similar to McCain's "all of the above" approach, but much more comprehensive. Have incentives for electric cars (which he has already promised) instead of taxing oil companies and large buisness (which takes away the incentive to lower prices of cars and at the pump.... this is Obama's plan). The power grid needs to be totally redone and updated anyways. I would like to see encouragement on the regional level while rebuilding the power grid. The Northwest has a lot of hydro. That's where electric vehicles would be useful. The Midwest could really benefit from wind energy. The South would be in energy heaven if solar energy could be produced more cheaply than it is currently. Nuclear could help certain Northeast populations as well. By realizing which area is specialized in, then cars can be made appropriately. If the Midwest wants biofuel, then the Midwest should specialize in biofuel... but nowhere else! It serves no purpose for biofuel cars to be sold in the South where there are no biofuel gas stations. However, solar powered cars would be very useful in the South, once the technology has been approved upon.

Along with this I am amazed at the criticism towards Gov. Palin and her foreign policy experience. Whether she can recognize immediate threats against American society (Islamic terroism), she can recognize threats against our energy sources. She realizes Russia's involvement in Georgia and the Ukraine is bad for the single reason of the oil pipeline which travels through there. Russia controls the pipeline which gives Europe oil. Price of oil goes up in Europe. This throws off the balance of world economy, having an effect on the stability of American markets. She understands this. She understands that Alaska sits on oil, and that an immediate consequence of drilling there will bring oil prices down since oil is a traded commody. Encouraging greater supply to meet high demand means that oil speculators will buy into the commody, stabilizing the price of the commody, and lowering the overall cost of the commody. It really is basic economics, but it is being ignored because most people do not understand how the ecnomy actually works. Economy directly influences foreign policy.

Where Palin does suffer on foreign policy is knowing our role with our allies. Obama and Biden both work on the Foreign Relations Committee (Biden is the Chair), and both have sponsered laws which have helped America internationally. We condemn the genocides and non-free elections in the Sudan (Obama). We condemn Russia's actions in the Balkans (Biden, last year even). Palin has shown herself able to work with foreign governments before (Canada on the natural gas pipeline), but has not been immersed in basic principles of how we support or reject the actions and attitudes of other nations in the world. This is because she has never needed to before. Now she needs to, and she has a great mentor–apart of the Arm Services Committee–who can "hook her up" with the appropriate advisors on how she should respond to foreign policy. Most presidents and vice-presidents actually don't have a lot of foreign policy experience when they enter the White House. But they are surrounded by the advisors that help them. Looking back: G. W. Bush (no experience), Cheney (experience), Clinton (no experience), Gore (no experience), G. H. W. Bush (experience from Reagon), Quayle (no experience), Reagon (no experience), Carter (no experience), Ford (no experience), Nixon (experience), Johnson (no experience), Kennedy (no experience). Kennedy got us into Vietnam, with Johnson proceding afterward. Nixon failed altogether, while Ford had no buisness being in the White House anyways. Carter got us into a mess with Iran. Reagon and Bush won the Cold War, and set us up to win Desert Storm. Clinton and Gore did absolutely nothing except weaken our military, setting us up for 9-11. Bush has done one heck of a job dealing with post-9-11 military operations in Afganistan and Iraq by going after Islamic terrorists. And although he sent us to Iraq under bad information (from Russia mind you), seven independent world councils have concluded that the information received was urgent enough to have a immediate decision made. Obama and Biden might both have foreign policy experience on a committee, but Obama's big issue of not going to Iraq if he was in power would have been potentially dangerous for us, as most of the governments of the world agree! Biden, like Clinton, had the smarts to vote for going to war, but this entire backtrack saying that they would not supported the war is a bunch of crap. Hindsight is always 20/20, but everyone (except Obama) agrees that given the sight at the time, the decision was a good one. Saying something different now because it is popular is about as political as you can get. Saying something stupid both then and now... something unforgivable.

So what is the actual lesson from that long paragraph? It does not matter how much experience one actually has going into the White House. There have been good policies by administrations with no prior experience, and there have been bad policies by people with and without experience as well. Where victory is seen is in strong leaders who will not accept defeat: Reagon and G. H. W. Bush, and G. W. Bush and Cheney. Indeed is the personality of strength that shows good foreign policy, something that is unique to McCain and Palin as individuals. Obama has the committee on his resume, but no record past the last couple years. Biden has more experience, but no personality traits that can be trusted. Clinton would not have been much better, since any indication from her husband's administration can be given to her, well, Clinton lowered our defenses to allow 9-11 and lowered intelligence to receive bad information on Iraq afterwards. Go figure.

I'll probably get to other policies later. For now I will leave you with some links. These three are Red State (a conservative blog), Daily Kos (a liberal blog, for fairness), and Real Clear Politics (where you can track current poling information). The last link goes to Fox News report which details just bad of an argument it is to say that McCain is four more years of Bush. It concludes that "McCain voted liberally 24 percent of the time — twice as much as the average Republican" and that Obama votes "with Democrats 97 percent of the time." What I would really like to see are statistics on how often Obama votes with Bush (when he actually votes, voting "Present some 80% of the time anyways). That way a better comparison could be made between McCain and Obama, a comparison that would really shock Democrats and really destroy their base for attacks against the McCain-Palin ticket. McCain has proven himself to be a reformer, but this time the R after his name does actually stand for Republican. But Republicans can disagree with each other. McCain is just as much "4 more years of Bush" than some Democrats would be. Not a good comparison at all.

Gen 3:20-21

I'm currently taking a class on Biblical Theology. Coming to Gen 3, my professor makes a small note on these verses which just blew my mind. Hopefully I can present his view (as far as I understand it) and what I consequently take and add onto it. In case anyone is wondering my prof is Bruce Waltke at Regent College.

The text: (20) The man called his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (21) Yahweh God made coats of skins for Adam and for his wife, and clothed them.

The context: Right after the judgement in the garden.

The biggest problem is that it breaks the flow of the narrative I believe. The story either flows better by omitting v. 20 (and so the judgement continues into expulsion) or by moving v. 20 later so that it immediately precedes 4:1 (and after the expulsion). By moving it later, it would act as a summary statement for what it to follow (Cain and Abel cycle followed by Seth and then the generations of Adam). Assuming intentionality on the part of the author/redactor (which we always do!), the explanation for why this verse is here arises.

Dr. Waltke explains these two verses as such: they are evidence of Adam and Eve's salvation after the Fall. The promise for the defeat of the Serpent is given in 3:15. Adam acknowledges this promise and "shows his restoration to God by believing the promise that the woman would bear offspring that would defeat the Serpent."

I would add one thing at this point that I believe Dr. Waltke has missed. The ability to name is given by God to mankind so to control it. One will remember that God showed dominion over creation by naming it. Adam employed his dominion over animals and fauna by naming it. After the Fall mankind's dominion over creation is taken away, evidenced in that he must struggle for survival. One of the curses that the woman is given is that her desire would be for her husband, but also that her husband would rule over her. This dominion is evidenced by Adam naming his wife. Eve here submits to God's punishment, but in an ironic twist also displays her own faith in God's restorative plan by accepting her name and the meaning of it. Both Adam and now Eve are restored back to God by submitting to His justice and having faith in His redemptive plan of salvation for humanity.

Waltke continues by pointing out that v. 21 shows God's provision for His restored people. Waltke's purpose is to show that Adam's faith moves to God's provision, as evidence of a restored people to God. Although he does not use the terminology here, Waltke gives us a picture of the first covenant. As with other covenants, a prime feature of the covenant involves sacrifice. "Through the Lord's sacrifice, the alienated couple is restored to fellowship with Him and one another."

I would bring up a few issues. This covenant, if the term is correctly being applied of course, is not offered from God initially. God's provision is a reaction to something that the individual(s) have done. This would be different from both the Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New covenants where God gives the promise to do something only if the covenant is kept. Abram will have many offspring if he will trust God to lead him out to the wilderness. Israel will be God's people if they will keep His Law. The Church will be considered the true Israel and God's people if they follow Christ. Rhetorically v. 20-21 does follow this pattern if and only if v. 15 is seen as a blessing for Adam and Eve. In other words, what is left unstated is that although the promise of the destruction of the Serpent and his offspring is given as a curse, it is a potential blessing for Adam and Eve since it would restore the human race by means of their offspring. In even simpler terms, trusting God is the basis for redemption; by putting forth a plan of redemption provided the means for Adam and Eve to put their trust in God. God is then the initiator of the covenant, although this point is extremely subtle. Should we expect anything less within this particular style of story-telling though?

What this intrusion of grace means is that the story must be broken up. It ends the section of curses, but not the larger narrative of the Fall. 3:22-24 then conclude the story by describing what happens as the aftermath: mankind is expelled from the Garden. But they are embodied with hope, once read properly. Although cursed by God, they have God's provision nonetheless. The story must be broken here so that the readers can follow the rest of the story with the hope that God's provision follows us out into the wilderness. The original audience of the Hebrews needed this hope. The implied audience of the Church today would also do well to keep this message of hope in the forefront of their hearts as well.