You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘blessing’ tag.
The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.
Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry.
26 Meanwhile, Abimelek had come to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his personal advisor and Phicol the commander of his forces. 27 Isaac asked them, ‘Why have you come to me, since you were hostile to me and sent me away?’
28 They answered, ‘We saw clearly that the Lord was with you; so we said, “There ought to be a sworn agreement between us”– between us and you. Let us make a treaty with you 29 that you will do us no harm, just as we did not harm you but always treated you well and sent you away peacefully. And now you are blessed by the Lord.’
30 Isaac then made a feast for them, and they ate and drank. 31 Early the next morning the men swore an oath to each other. Then Isaac sent them on their way, and they went away peacefully.
32 That day Isaac’s servants came and told him about the well they had dug. They said, ‘We’ve found water!’ 33 He called it Shibah,[a] and to this day the name of the town has been Beersheba.[b]
Jacob takes Esau’s blessing
34 When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Last week’s post discussed the blessings that God poured out on Isaac, some of which manifested themselves in wealth and water which angered Abimelek (the Philistine ruler’s title, not his name), who ordered Isaac to leave the territory. Even when Isaac moved to the Gerar Valley, Philistines argued with him over the digging of wells. Isaac’s experience has a parallel with Abram’s, when Lot’s men argued with his and Abram suggested that Lot find a new territory for himself (Genesis 13:1-13), which is how Lot ended up voluntarily choosing the land near Sodom and Gomorrah because of its fertile land.
Last week’s verses ended with this:
22 He moved on from there and dug another well, and no one quarrelled over it. He named it Rehoboth,[e] saying, ‘Now the Lord has given us room and we will flourish in the land.’
The next three verses are in the Lectionary:
23 From there he went up to Beersheba. 24 That night the Lord appeared to him and said, ‘I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bless you and will increase the number of your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham.’
25 Isaac built an altar there and called on the name of the Lord. There he pitched his tent, and there his servants dug a well.
Here, too, we have another parallel with Abram (Genesis 13:14-18):
14 The Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, ‘Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring[a] for ever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.’
18 So Abram went to live near the great trees of Mamre at Hebron, where he pitched his tents. There he built an altar to the Lord.
Last week, I ended with a brief mention of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, which was named after Isaac’s well. It was originally a Christian summer camp.
Ocean Grove, New Jersey, is another. It continues as a traditional Methodist camp. The ministers who founded it called one of their wells Beersheba:
In July, 1869, Reverend W. B. Osborn, Reverend Stokes, and other Methodist ministers camped at a shaded, well-drained spot on New Jersey’s seashore and decided to establish a permanent Christian camp meeting community called “Ocean Grove.” This followed a search of the Jersey Shore for a place not infested with mosquitoes.[18] About twenty tents were pitched that summer. In 1870, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was incorporated and land was purchased. The property was laid out into 30-by-60-foot (9.1 by 18.3 m) lots and roadways. The lots were leased for 99 years with the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association retaining ownership. Residents were expected to follow the strict Methodist social norms of the era which included prohibitions of alcohol, tobacco, cards, dancing, the reading of novels, and chewing gum.[19] Nine wells were driven in 1870 to provide fresh water. The first was eventually named the “Beersheba” well, for an ancient well used by the Biblical patriarchs Abraham and Isaac. It is still in existence under a photogenic 1881 gazebo,[15] though belatedly connected to the town water system in 1911.[15]
Now on to today’s verses.
As Isaac’s men worked on digging a well, Abimelek, accompanied by Ahuzzath his personal advisor and Phicol the commander of his forces sought him out (verse 26).
Matthew Henry says that Abimelek realised that God was with Isaac. As such, He would influence Abimelek to be treat Isaac kindly:
Note, When a man’s ways please the Lord he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him, Prov 16 7. Kings’ hearts are in his hands, and when he pleases he can turn them to favour his people.
When they arrived, Isaac asked why they had come to see him since they had turned hostile towards him and sent him away (verse 27).
Henry says that Isaac acted prudently in questioning Abimelek’s change of heart:
Isaac prudently and cautiously questions his sincerity in this visit, v. 27. Note, In settling friendships and correspondences, there is need of the wisdom of the serpent, as well as the innocence of the dove; nor is it any transgression of the law of meekness and love plainly to signify our strong perception of injuries received, and to stand upon our guard in dealing with those that have acted unfairly.
Abimelek and his men — unbelievers — told Isaac that they clearly saw that the Lord was with him, so they thought making a treaty with him would be appropriate (verse 28), stipulating that Isaac would do them no harm just as they did him no harm when they dismissed him. They said that Isaac was blessed by the Lord (verse 29).
Henry elaborates, urging us to let bygones be bygones when sincerity lies behind a rapprochement:
Abimelech professes his sincerity, in this address to Isaac, and earnestly courts his friendship, v. 28, 29. Some suggest that Abimelech pressed for this league with him because he feared lest Isaac, growing rich, should, some time or other, avenge himself upon them for the injuries he had received. However, he professes to do it rather from a principle of love. 1. He makes the best of their behaviour towards him. Isaac complained they had hated him, and sent him away. No, said Abimelech, we sent thee away in peace. They turned him off from the land he held of them; but they suffered him to take away his stock, and all his effects, with him. Note, The lessening of injuries is necessary to the preserving of friendship; for the aggravating of them exasperates and widens breaches. The unkindness done to us might have been worse. 2. He acknowledges the token of God’s favour to him, and makes this the ground of their desire to be in league with him: The Lord is with thee, and thou art the blessed of the Lord. As if he had said, “Be persuaded to overlook and pass by the injuries offered thee; for God had abundantly made up to thee the damage thou receivedst.” Note, Those whom God blesses and favours have reason enough to forgive those who hate them, since the worst enemy they have cannot do them any real hurt. Or, “For this reason we desire thy friendship, because God is with thee.” Note, It is good to be in covenant and communion with those who are in covenant and communion with God, 1 John 1 3; present address to him was the result of mature deliberation: We said, Let there be an oath between us. Whatever some of his peevish envious subjects might mean otherwise, he and his prime-ministers of state, whom he had now brought with him, designed no other than a cordial friendship. Perhaps Abimelech had received, by tradition, the warning God gave to his predecessor not to hurt Abraham (ch. 20 7), and this made him stand in such awe of Isaac, who appeared to be as much the favourite of Heaven as Abraham was.
God had confronted a previous Abimelek regarding Sarai, based on Abram’s lie that she was his sister when, in reality, she was his wife. Abimelek protested his innocence (Genesis 20:6-7):
6 Then God said to him in the dream, ‘Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7 Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all who belong to you will die.’
Isaac accepted the rapprochement and made a feast for them; they ate and drank (verse 30).
Early the next morning the men swore an oath (blood oath, no doubt, as was customary) to each other, then Isaac sent them on their way in a peaceful departure (verse 31).
Henry discusses forgiveness, generosity and neighbourliness:
Here see how generous the good man was, 1. In giving: He made them a feast, and bade them welcome. (2.) In forgiving. He did not insist upon the unkindnesses they had done him, but freely entered into a covenant of friendship with them, and bound himself never to do them any injury. Note, Religion teaches us to be neighbourly, and, as much as in us lies, to live peaceably with all men.
That day, Isaac’s servants told him of another well they had dug, exclaiming (verse 31), ‘We’ve found water!’
Isaac named the well Shibah — ‘well of the oath’ or ‘well of seven’ — and, to this day, the town has been called Beersheba (verse 32).
Henry tells us this was a sign that God was pleased with Isaac’s treatment of Abimelek and his two companions:
Providence smiled upon what Isaac did; for the same day that he made this covenant with Abimelech his servants brought him the tidings of a well of water they had found, v. 32, 33. He did not insist upon the restitution of the wells which the Philistines had unjustly taken from him, lest this should break off the treaty, but sat down silent under the injury; and, to recompense him for this, immediately he is enriched with a new well, which, because it suited so well to the occurrence of the day, he called by an old name, Beer-sheba, The well of the oath.
There ends the story of Isaac and Abimelek.
However, we have another parallel with Abraham and Abimelek, which also features Beersheba (Genesis 21:22-34):
The treaty at Beersheba
22 At that time Abimelek and Phicol the commander of his forces said to Abraham, ‘God is with you in everything you do. 23 Now swear to me here before God that you will not deal falsely with me or my children or my descendants. Show to me and the country where you now reside as a foreigner the same kindness that I have shown to you.’
24 Abraham said, ‘I swear it.’
25 Then Abraham complained to Abimelek about a well of water that Abimelek’s servants had seized. 26 But Abimelek said, ‘I don’t know who has done this. You did not tell me, and I heard about it only today.’
27 So Abraham brought sheep and cattle and gave them to Abimelek, and the two men made a treaty. 28 Abraham set apart seven ewe lambs from the flock, 29 and Abimelek asked Abraham, ‘What is the meaning of these seven ewe lambs you have set apart by themselves?’
30 He replied, ‘Accept these seven lambs from my hand as a witness that I dug this well.’
31 So that place was called Beersheba,[d] because the two men swore an oath there.
32 After the treaty had been made at Beersheba, Abimelek and Phicol the commander of his forces returned to the land of the Philistines. 33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God. 34 And Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time.
Matters then turned to one of Isaac’s sons, Esau.
When Esau turned 40, he took not one wife but two: Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite; even worse, they were Hittites (verse 34).
They were a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah (verse 35).
The Hittites — Canaanites — were known unbelievers.
Henry explains Isaac and Rebekah’s grief at this turn of events:
Here is, 1. Esau’s foolish marriage—foolish, some think, in marrying two wives together, for which perhaps he is called a fornicator (Heb 12 16), or rather in marrying Canaanites, who were strangers to the blessing of Abraham, and subject to the curse of Noah, for which he [Esau] is called profane; for hereby he intimated that he neither desired the blessing nor dreaded the curse of God. 2. The grief and trouble it created to his tender parents. (1.) It grieved them that he married without asking, or at least without taking, their advice and consent: see whose steps those children tread in who either contemn or contradict their parents in disposing of themselves. (2.) It grieved them that he married the daughters of Hittites, who had no religion among them; for Isaac remembered his father’s care concerning him, that he should by no means marry a Canaanite. (3.) It should seem, the wives he married were provoking in their conduct towards Isaac and Rebekah; those children have little reason to expect the blessing of God who do that which is a grief of mind to their good parents.
Going back to Genesis 24, we find Abraham giving his servant instructions on finding a wife for Isaac:
24 Abraham was now very old, and the Lord had blessed him in every way. 2 He said to the senior servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, ‘Put your hand under my thigh. 3 I want you to swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, 4 but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac.’
With regard to Esau, Genesis 25 tells us about his birth and how he sold his birthright for a bowl of stew — or in traditional language, for a mess of pottage:
Jacob and Esau
19 This is the account of the family line of Abraham’s son Isaac.
Abraham became the father of Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram[c] and sister of Laban the Aramean.
21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, ‘Why is this happening to me?’ So she went to enquire of the Lord.
23 The Lord said to her,
‘Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the elder will serve the younger.’
24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.[d] 26 After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob.[e] Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.
27 The boys grew up, and Esau became a skilful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was content to stay at home among the tents. 28 Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob.
29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30 He said to Jacob, ‘Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I’m famished!’ (That is why he was also called Edom.[f])
31 Jacob replied, ‘First sell me your birthright.’
32 ‘Look, I am about to die,’ Esau said. ‘What good is the birthright to me?’
33 But Jacob said, ‘Swear to me first.’ So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.
34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.
So Esau despised his birthright.
Esau was already trouble, long before he took two wives.
Genesis 27 tells the story of Isaac giving Jacob his blessing over Esau. Rebekah had a hand in this and Jacob acquiesced:
15 Then Rebekah took the best clothes of her elder son Esau, which she had in the house, and put them on her younger son Jacob. 16 She also covered his hands and the smooth part of his neck with the goatskins. 17 Then she handed to her son Jacob the tasty food and the bread she had made.
18 He went to his father and said, ‘My father.’
‘Yes, my son,’ he answered. ‘Who is it?’
19 Jacob said to his father, ‘I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game, so that you may give me your blessing.’
Esau was furious that Isaac had no blessing for him, rather a curse:
37 Isaac answered Esau, ‘I have made him lord over you and have made all his relatives his servants, and I have sustained him with grain and new wine. So what can I possibly do for you, my son?’
38 Esau said to his father, ‘Do you have only one blessing, my father? Bless me too, my father!’ Then Esau wept aloud.
39 His father Isaac answered him,
‘Your dwelling will be
away from the earth’s richness,
away from the dew of heaven above.
40 You will live by the sword
and you will serve your brother.
But when you grow restless,
you will throw his yoke
from off your neck.’
41 Esau held a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing his father had given him. He said to himself, ‘The days of mourning for my father are near; then I will kill my brother Jacob.’
Rebekah told Jacob to go into hiding at the home of his uncle, Rebekah’s brother Laban.
She then expressed her displeasure with Esau’s Hittite wives:
46 Then Rebekah said to Isaac, ‘I’m disgusted with living because of these Hittite women. If Jacob takes a wife from among the women of this land, from Hittite women like these, my life will not be worth living.’
The story continues next week.
Next time — Genesis 28:1-5
The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.
Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry.
12 Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the Lord blessed him. 13 The man became rich, and his wealth continued to grow until he became very wealthy. 14 He had so many flocks and herds and servants that the Philistines envied him. 15 So all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the time of his father Abraham, the Philistines stopped up, filling them with earth.
16 Then Abimelek said to Isaac, ‘Move away from us; you have become too powerful for us.’
17 So Isaac moved away from there and camped in the Valley of Gerar, where he settled. 18 Isaac reopened the wells that had been dug in the time of his father Abraham, which the Philistines had stopped up after Abraham died, and he gave them the same names his father had given them.
19 Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and discovered a well of fresh water there. 20 But the herdsmen of Gerar quarrelled with those of Isaac and said, ‘The water is ours!’ So he named the well Esek,[a] because they disputed with him. 21 Then they dug another well, but they quarrelled over that one also; so he named it Sitnah.[b] 22 He moved on from there and dug another well, and no one quarrelled over it. He named it Rehoboth,[c] saying, ‘Now the Lord has given us room and we will flourish in the land.’
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Last week’s post discussed Isaac’s lie to Abimelek (the title of the Philistines’ ruler, not an actual name) about his wife Rebekah and Abimelek’s decree which protected the couple. Anyone who harmed either of them would be put to death.
That post also pointed out that Abram had committed the same sin of lying about Sarai when they were in exile in Egypt during a famine. When Pharoah found out, he expelled both of them from Egypt.
The events of Genesis 26 took place during another famine.
Isaac and Rebekah were still taking refuge in the land of the Philistines.
Isaac planted crops in that land and in the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the Lord had blessed him (verse 12).
Isaac became rich and his wealth grew until he became very wealthy indeed (verse 13).
In fact, he had so many flocks and herds that the Philistines envied him (verse 14).
Matthew Henry’s commentary says this about God’s blessing on Abraham’s son with Sarah (emphases mine):
He blessed him, and prospered him, and made all that he had to thrive under his hands. 1. His corn multiplied strangely, v. 12. He had no land of his own, but took land of the Philistines, and sowed it; and (be it observed for the encouragement of poor tenants, that occupy other people’s lands, and are honest and industrious) God blessed him with a great increase. He reaped a hundred fold; and there seems to be an emphasis laid upon the time: it was that same year when there was a famine in the land; while others scarcely reaped at all, he reaped thus plentifully. See Isa 65 13, My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry, Ps 37 19, In the days of famine they shall be satisfied. 2. His cattle also increased, v. 14. And then, 3. He had great store of servants, whom he employed and maintained. Note, As goods are increased those are increased that eat them, Eccl 5 11.
Henry briefly discusses the all-consuming sin of envy:
It is an instance, 1. Of the vanity of the world that the more men have of it the more they are envied, and exposed to censure and injury. Who can stand before envy? Prov 27 4. See Eccl 4 4. 2. Of the corruption of nature; for that is a bad principle indeed which makes men grieve at the good of others, as if it must needs be ill with me because it is well with my neighbor.
The Philistines had blocked up all the wells that Abraham had his servants dig years earlier (verse 15).
Henry says:
This was spitefully done. Because they had not flocks of their own to water at these wells, they would not leave them for the use of others; so absurd a thing is malice. And it was perfidiously done, contrary to the covenant of friendship they had made with Abraham, ch. 21 31, 32. No bonds will hold ill-nature.
Abimilek eventually had had enough.
He told Isaac, ‘Move away from us; you have become too powerful for us‘ (verse 16).
So, Isaac moved away to camp in the Valley of Gerar, where he settled (verse 17).
Henry points out that Isaac did the right thing in avoiding conflict:
The king of Gerar began to look upon him with a jealous eye. Isaac’s house was like a court, and his riches and retinue eclipsed Abimelech’s; and therefore he must go further off. They were weary of his neighbourhood, because they saw that the Lord blessed him; whereas, for that reason, they should the rather have courted his stay, that they also might be blessed for his sake. Isaac does not insist upon the bargain he had made with them for the lands he held, nor upon his occupying and improving them, nor does he offer to contest with them by force, though he had become very great, but very peaceably departs thence further from the royal city, and perhaps to a part of the country less fruitful. Note, We should deny ourselves both in our rights and in our conveniences, rather than quarrel: a wise and a good man will rather retire into obscurity, like Isaac here into a valley, than sit high to be the butt of envy and ill-will.
Isaac’s servants reopened Abraham’s wells; Isaac gave the wells the same names that his father had give his (verse 18).
Henry says that wealth must not stop the wealthy from continuing to be industrious:
Though he had grown very rich, yet he was as solicitous as ever about the state of his flocks, and still looked well to his herds; when men grow great, they must take heed of thinking themselves too big and too high for their business. Though he was driven from the conveniences he had had, and could not follow his husbandry with the same ease and advantage as before, yet he set himself to make the best of the country he had come into, which it is every man’s prudence to do.
It is also important to remember our forefathers’ wisdom:
Note, In our searches after truth, that fountain of living water, it is good to make use of the discoveries of former ages, which have been clouded by the corruptions of later times. Enquire for the old way, the wells which our fathers digged, which the adversaries of truth have stopped up: Ask thy elders, and they shall teach thee.
Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and discovered a well of fresh water there (verse 19).
Henry advises us to be thankful for the blessing of clean and plentiful water:
What a mercy it is to have plenty of water, to have it without striving for it. The more common this mercy is the more reason we have to be thankful for it.
The herdsmen of Gerar took issue with this and quarrelled with Isaac’s herdsmen, claiming that the water was theirs; therefore, Isaac named the well Esek, which means ‘dispute’ (verse 20).
Then Isaac’s men dug another well, which the herdsmen of Gerar also opposed; Isaac named that one Sitnah, which means ‘opposition’ (verse 21).
Henry’s translations say that the names of the wells mean ‘contention’ and ‘hatred’, respectively:
Those that open the fountains of truth must expect contradiction. The first two wells which they dug were called Esek and Sitnah, contention and hatred. See here, [1.] What is the nature of worldly things; they are make-bates and occasions of strife. [2.] What is often the lot even of the most quiet and peaceable men in this world; those that avoid striving yet cannot avoid being striven with, Ps 120 7. In this sense, Jeremiah was a man of contention (Jer 15 10), and Christ himself, though he is the prince of peace.
A similar thing happened to Abram when he went to the Negev with Lot, his nephew. Lot’s father — Abram’s brother — had died, which put Lot at equal status with Abram.
Their herdsmen began quarrelling with each other, saying that there was not enough room for both men’s herds and possessions, so they had to split up, Lot taking the better land but among a highly sinful people (Genesis 13:1-13):
13 So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him. 2 Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold.
3 From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier 4 and where he had first built an altar. There Abram called on the name of the Lord.
5 Now Lot, who was moving about with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents. 6 But the land could not support them while they stayed together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to stay together. 7 And quarrelling arose between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s. The Canaanites and Perizzites were also living in the land at that time.
8 So Abram said to Lot, ‘Let’s not have any quarrelling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are close relatives. 9 Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.’
10 Lot looked around and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan towards Zoar was well watered, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out towards the east. The two men parted company: 12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. 13 Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.
Returning to Isaac, he moved away from where his men had dug the wells Esek and Sitnah; they dug a third well over which no one quarrelled and named it Rehoboth, meaning ‘room enough’. Isaac said, ‘Now the Lord has given us room and we will flourish in the land‘ (verse 22).
Henry does not mention Abram in his commentary at this point, preferring to contrast Isaac’s conduct with that of Ishmael, Abram’s older son by his female slave Hagar:
Note, Those that follow peace, sooner or later, shall find peace; those that study to be quiet seldom fail of being so. How unlike was Isaac to his brother Ishmael, who, right or wrong, would hold what he had, against all the world! ch. 16 12. And which of these would we be found the followers of? This well they called Rehoboth, enlargements, room enough: in the two former wells we may see what the earth is, straitness and strife; men cannot thrive, for the throng of their neighbours. This well shows us what heaven is; it is enlargement and peace, room enough there, for there are many mansions.
One wonders whether that is what the founders of Rehoboth Beach had in mind when they founded that summer resort centuries ago in Delaware:
Rehoboth (Hebrew: רְחוֹבוֹת) means “broad spaces.” It appears three times in the Old Testament as a place name: a well dug by Isaac (at modern Wadi er-Ruheibeh) (Genesis 26:22), a city on the Euphrates River (Genesis 36:37; I Chronicles 1:48), and one of the cities of Asshur (Genesis 10:11) in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). Hence the name may have had a special appeal for the religious founders of the city, although the adjacent bay had already borne the name Rehoboth for at least a century before the town was founded.[11]
I was there with friends for a weekend in the early 1980s.
It was originally used as a church camp (bold in the original):
By the mid-19th century, the descendants of these landholders were farmers attempting to make a living off the relatively poor sandy infertile land.[12] The town was founded in 1873 as the Rehoboth Beach Camp Meeting Association by the Rev. Robert W. Todd, of St. Paul’s Methodist Episcopal Church of Wilmington, Delaware, as a site for Methodist Episcopal Church camp meetings in the spirit of similar resorts further north on the New Jersey shore, such as Ocean Grove. The Camp Meeting Association disbanded in 1881, and in 1891, the location was incorporated by the General Assembly of Delaware (state legislature) as “Cape Henlopen City”. In 1893, it was renamed to Rehoboth Beach.[13]
I also visited the former church camp beach towns on the southern New Jersey coastline later that decade. In Ocean Grove, we stayed in the original and rather grand hotel for participants. Current members of the original Methodist group still meet there today, although, for most of the year, the hotel operates as a secular establishment. It has a large room with a grand piano so that those attending camp could — and can — gather round to sing after dinner. I would not call it a ballroom, as dancing was — and is — no doubt prohibited.
I digress, but there is more to come on Ocean Grove, New Jersey, next week, as we follow Isaac onwards and upwards in divine blessing.
Next time — Genesis 26:26-35
The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.
Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
‘Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.’
26 He also said,
‘Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s[a] territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.’
28 After the flood Noah lived 350 years. 29 Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Last week’s post discussed Noah’s one-off sin of drunkenness, which took place after he celebrated the fruits of his vineyard in the form of wine. Ham, one of Noah’s sons and the father of Canaan, found Noah asleep without any clothes on and, instead of covering him up, told his brothers Shem and Japheth, who discreetly managed to put a garment over their father without looking at him.
All of this seems a bit opaque on first reading, but, as John MacArthur points out, lesser sins, such as Ham’s, are every bit as odious to God as larger ones (emphases mine):
The sin of Noah wasn’t minor, and the sin of Ham wasn’t minor because no sin is minor. The fact of the matter is, though, that God, in demonstrating to us that sin had survived the Flood, He could have picked a thousand sins. Because Noah was a sinner, and his wife was a sinner, and the sons and their wives were sinners, God could have picked any number of sins to illustrate their fallenness. But He picks what appears to us to be somewhat of a minor sin to demonstrate to us that there doesn’t have to be some kind of severe heinousness connected to a sin to make it a sin. The smallest iniquity – the smallest iniquity – can have disastrous repercussions. The sooner men learn that the better for them.
I think some people think that if you can just avoid the big ones, you’ll make it, when it’s the little ones that in the Scripture God chronicles as those sins that devastated families and devastated nations. And I think He purposely chose this sin; He could have chosen many out of their lives, but He chose this one to make the point that is not just murder and pillage and fornication and adultery that damn humanity; it’s even the lack of self-control and disrespect which are demonstrated here.
When Noah awoke from his stupor and found out what Ham, his youngest, had done to him (verse 24) out of sheer disrespect, he pronounced a curse on Ham’s son Canaan, saying that he would be the lowest of slaves to his brothers (verse 25).
MacArthur sees three themes in this reading:
In this particular section, three things pop up as inevitable realities: propagation, pollution, and polarization. I worked on those for a little while. I want you to remember them. Propagation, pollution, and polarization. And I think if you listen carefully to what we say, you’ll understand how those words sum up life in the new world. And then in the end, the inevitable death that is identified for us in verses 28 and 29 in the case of Noah, who was an illustration of what happens to everybody.
Re propagation:
When God made Adam, He said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” And essentially that is exactly what He told Noah’s family to do back in chapter 9, verse 7, “As for you, be fruitful and multiply, populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it. This is, in a sense, the new Adam, and this is the humanity, and this is the new opportunity to multiply, to populate the world.
So, because of that emphasis, there’s a strong repetition of the role of Shem, Ham, and Japheth and their wives. The Flood story actually begins with Noah’s sons back in chapter 6, verses 9 and 10, and it ends with Noah’s sons here in chapter 9. They are responsible to propagate. They are responsible – those three couples – to repopulate the planet.
… And so, we look at verse 18. “Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” There’s one final note here: they came out of the ark … And the sons are introduced again to us as the propagators of life, and only one child of those sons is named, and that is Canaan. The rest of their propagation, of course, unfolds in chapter 10 where you have the sons of Japheth, the sons of Ham, the sons of Shem all laid out and listed there in that amazing chapter.
We will be getting to Genesis 10 next week.
MacArthur reminds us that the earth’s current population descends from Noah’s sons and their wives, because Adam and Eve’s progeny perished in the Flood:
All life on this planet came originally from – whom? – Adam and Eve. Acts 17:26, “And He made from one every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” All humanity came from Adam and Eve. People get very confused about that. And, of course, they all came from Adam and Eve, were narrowed down to eight, and then the rest of the civilization of this planet, the rest of the human life on this planet came out of the three families of Noah …
… for a few centuries after the Flood, everybody was one big family – one language, one family, one culture. And so, everybody intermarried. No barriers to marriage.
He says that this stopped at some point, as evidenced by the story of the Tower of Babel:
… biologists will tell you that to obtain distinct separation of color and distinct separation of features, it is necessary to break a large breeding group into smaller groups and keep them completely separated so they don’t interbreed.
So, you’d have to pull people off and isolate them, and then they would begin to be dominated by the genetic features that are within that people group. That’s exactly what happened at the Tower of Babel …
Anthropologists will tell you that in order to see isolated features and characteristics you have to have a smaller inbreeding group. And so, the Tower of Babel did that. God separated the languages, scattered the people all over the planet, and they were isolated. And whatever the features were that God designed, in His sovereignty, in those genetic groups then became normalized in those groups. And so, various characteristics began to appear. Each of the language groups had dominate and limited genetic features that, inbred, became normalized …
So, what happened was it was God – Acts 17 – who determined the boundaries of the nations. Right? So, God sorted the people out, and He sorted the gene pool out exactly the way that He wanted to sort it out so that He could produce exactly what He wanted to produce, and all of us have that unique identity and our national identity is a matter of the purposes and the design of God from the beginning …
Let’s leave MacArthur’s two other themes to one side for a moment and look at Noah’s curse on Canaan.
We know that Canaan was the land that God promised the Israelites. We also know — although modern theologians dispute it — that Moses, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament.
Matthew Henry, dating Noah’s curse of Canaan as having occurred in 2347 BC, gives us the purpose of the Spirit-inspired writing of Moses here:
He pronounces a curse on Canaan the son of Ham (v. 25), in whom Ham is himself cursed, either because this son of his was now more guilty than the rest, or because the posterity of this son was afterwards to be rooted out of their land, to make room for Israel. And Moses here records it for the animating of Israel in the wars of Canaan; though the Canaanites were a formidable people, yet they were of old an accursed people, and doomed to ruin. The particular curse is, A servant of servants (that is, the meanest and most despicable servant) shall he be, even to his brethren. Those who by birth were his equals shall by conquest be his lords. This certainly points at the victories obtained by Israel over the Canaanites, by which they were all either put to the sword or put under tribute (Josh 9 23; Judg 1 28, 30, 33, 35), which happened not till about 800 years after this.
MacArthur adds:
… that Promised Land called the land of Canaan, is referred to 35 times in Genesis: the land of Canaan. From chapter 11, verse 31 clear to the thirteenth verses of chapter 50, references are made to the land of Canaan. The act of taking the land of Canaan was a just judgment of God on a cursed and wicked people. First nation to be identified as having been cursed by God.
And so, when Israel heard this read, they knew they had a cursed ancestry, and that they were acting on the basis of divine judgment which had already been determined, giving them historical justification for being the instrument of judgment on Canaan.
MacArthur introduces his second theme, that of pollution. In Moses’s time, we have God’s decree of underwear for Israel’s priests:
Well, second thing is pollution. That, too, is characteristic, and that’s really the title of the lesson tonight, “Sin in the New World.” We picked that up in verse 20. Here is the record of the inevitable …
In Noah’s case, he became drunk and uncovered himself in the tent …
It enough to say that he dishonored himself, disgraced himself, embarrassed himself by losing his control – losing control of his normal inhibitions so that he passed out stark naked in his tent. He didn’t become naked after he passed out. It was when he was still conscious enough to take off his clothes that he took them off for no good purpose other than exposure. Drunkenness disgraced him …
In the twenty-eighth chapter and the forty-second verse of Exodus, “You shall make for the priests linen breeches, linen pants to cover their bare flesh; they have to reach from the loins” – the waist – “down to the thighs.” That area has to be covered because it elicits thoughts that are impure …
Noah lost control of his senses, and he acted in impure fashion, and he exposed himself. And whatever he was doing didn’t honor God, but it got worse. Verse 22, “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness” …
MacArthur then discusses Noah’s curse on his grandson Canaan, who was not with Ham at the time Noah was naked:
Noah was a preacher of righteousness, the New Testament says. He preached for 120 years while he was building the ark, he must have had a lot to say – we’ve been dealing with him since the sixth chapter – but this is the first and only thing he ever says on the pages of Scripture. Verse 25, listen carefully. When a man doesn’t say anything, and he finally speaks, it’s probably pretty important. So he said, this is all we hear from him: “Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants he shall be to his brothers.”
Isn’t that strange? What is Canaan? Why not Ham? What? I’ve heard lots of people talk about the curse of Ham, there isn’t any such thing. Do you ever hear people talk about the curse of Ham? Ham wasn’t cursed. Canaan was cursed. And who was he? The fourth son of Ham. The youngest of the four, over in chapter 10:6; he comes after Cush and Mizraim; why pick on him? Why does God sovereignty attach this curse to this one son? Well, let me tell you why. Believe me, the literature is massive on this discussion and I read ’til I was back full circle and started reading more of the same that I’d already read. But it’s a big circle.
Why does he curse Canaan? And I will tell you what my conviction about this is. I believe that he couldn’t curse Ham. Because, Ham was a righteous man. And to be God’s child, and to be declared righteous, and to be granted grace, is to escape the curse. If he escapes the flood, how could he possibly be cursed? Well, you say, he could have cursed Cush, and he could have cursed Mizraim, and he could have cursed Phut – yeah. But, he didn’t. Which leads me to the conviction that it is very likely that those three boys were also righteous. That they, too, knew God and loved God and served God, and by grace were declared righteous.
The only person that God is gonna curse is somebody who rejects him, and I think the best way to understand this is you have to move through Ham’s family to the first unbeliever there, who then bears the weight of the curse.
So here what you have is Noah’s only statement, and the only thing he ever says turns out to be his last will and testament. Here’s his legacy to his family before his death, he’s gonna die as we see in verse 28 and 29, he speaks and then he dies in the flow of the text. And he attaches the curse to Canaan. The only way that I can understand that Canaan would be cursed would be that Canaan is the unbeliever in the family.
… I think it’s an appeal to God. I think he understands cursed be Canaan. I think he is reaching into Ham’s family to identify a person, and it may be prophetic at this point, because we don’t know whether these other sons were born yet, but by inspiration, he’s giving some oracle or some prophecy reaching into the family of Ham, under God’s direction, and puts the curse on this youngest son. And that was prophetic of Canaan’s unbelief and Canaan’s unbelieving progeny, that eventually became the wicked Canaanites, the nation profamed and blasphemous of all that was divine and holy. And so the curse of sin was passed through to Canaan.
MacArthur tells us more about the peoples and places of Canaan — note Gaza, incidentally — and the sins they committed:
… this is a unique curse that shows up in the line of Canaan, ultimately in the Canaanites. And the Canaanites become the enemies of God’s people all through the Book of Genesis. Starting in chapter 11 we’ll see it, all the way to chapter 50. They are the enemies of God’s people. In fact, the sin of the Canaanites was so massive and so great, that it defiled the land. You can read about that, Leviticus 18:28, Joshua 23; their inequity was so great, they had totally defiled the land …
Did you know … if you study the territory of Ham, the territory of Canaan coming from Ham – it included Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities of the Plane. Go down to verse 15, Canaan became the father of Sidon his firstborn, and now you see them develop the Jebusites, Amorite, the Girgashite, the Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite, the Arvadite, the Zemaritem the Hamathite; afterward the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad, they’re going everywhere extending from Sidon, that’s on the coast of what is now Israel, toward Gerar as far as Gaza on the south, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim – they sweep all the way to Sodom and Gomorrah. That whole area was the area of these people who were the descendents of Canaan. Wicked, wicked people. Corrupt and corrupting. We’ll see that in chapter 13, chapter 15, 18, chapter 19, and particularly in chapter 38 of Genesis.
And they by the way, interestingly enough, were the people whose lifestyle was characterized by nakedness. When we get to Leviticus chapter 18, if you wanna look it up, I think as I remember, 24 times the issue of uncovering nakedness is mentioned there, and it was part of the lifestyle of the Canaanites. Somehow, that abhoration, that experience of nakedness that occurred with Ham shows up generations later in this immoral pension for uncovering peoples nakedness; that is for having activities outside of God’s boundaries. God didn’t make them evil; in fact, God waited for centuries, until their evil had reached an intolerable limit. God’s hatred of these sins particularly caused Him to ready the Children of Israel to take that land.
MacArthur says what Henry says about Moses’s purpose in relating this curse:
And so this is to help the Jews understand that when they go in, they are acting as the judges of God, or I should say the executioners, bringing out God’s judgment. And what is this specifically, this curse, “…a servant of servants he shall be to his brothers”. A servant of servants he shall be to his brothers. That is, he’s gonna be a slave. He’s gonna be a slave, first of all, to the family of Shem. Because it was out of the family of Shem that Abraham came and the Jews came. These people were wicked.
On the curse, MacArthur concludes with this, which relates to the coming polarisation — the third of his themes here — involving Noah’s descendants:
So summing up what I’ve said, Ham couldn’t be cursed in that sense because he was a true believer. He couldn’t be cursed and thereby subjected to this judgment of God. Apparently the other sons weren’t cursed either because they were to be believers or if any of them were born, perhaps were believers, but Canaan bore the curse. And consequently, they were the ones whom God providentially put into that land, and then judged in that land with the coming in of Israel. Israel, then, is justly taking the land. That’s what I want you to see – justly taking the land.
After pronouncing his curse, Noah said, ‘Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem’ (verse 26).
Matthew Henry explains in detail the first part of the verse, which he says extends to the Church:
He blesses Shem, or rather blesses God for him, yet so that it entitles him to the greatest honour and happiness imaginable, v. 26. Observe, [1.] He calls the Lord the god of Shem; and happy, thrice happy, is that people whose God is the Lord, Ps 144 15. All blessings are included in this. This was the blessing conferred on Abraham and his seed; the God of heaven was not ashamed to be called their God, Heb 11 16. Shem is sufficiently recompensed for his respect to his father by this, that the Lord himself puts this honour upon him, to be his God, which is a sufficient recompence for all our services and all our sufferings for his name. [2.] He gives to God the glory of that good work which Shem had done, and, instead of blessing and praising him that was the instrument, he blesses and praises God that was the author. Note, The glory of all that is at any time well done, by ourselves or others, must be humbly and thankfully transmitted to God, who works all our good works in us and for us. When we see men’s good works we should glorify, not them, but our Father, Matt 5 16. Thus David, in effect, blessed Abigail, when he blessed God that sent her (1 Sam 25 32, 33), for it is an honour and a favour to be employed for God and used by him in doing good. [3.] He foresees and foretells that God’s gracious dealings with Shem and his family would be such as would evidence to all the world that he was the God of Shem, on which behalf thanksgivings would by many be rendered to him: Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. [4.] It is intimated that the church should be built up and continued in the posterity of Shem; for of him came the Jews, who were, for a great while, the only professing people God had in the world. [5.] Some think reference is here had to Christ, who was the Lord God that, in his human nature, should descend from the loins of Shem; for of him, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. [6.] Canaan is particularly enslaved to him: He shall be his servant. Note, Those that have the Lord for their God shall have as much of the honour and power of this world as he sees good for them.
MacArthur has more along the same lines as Henry’s analysis:
It’s all in Hebrew poetic form, which is interesting. He is appealing to God – he is saying God curse Canaan. He may be saying it prophetically; it may, as most commentators would say, be an oracle in which he’s inspired by God to pronounce a curse on behalf of God; on the other hand, it may be an appeal to God to do this. I lean toward the idea that it’s an oracle, how else could he put it upon Canaan? So he literally is speaking, but yet it is an oracle coming from God.
Here he’s pronouncing blessing on the Lord who is the God of Shem. And if you bless the Lord who is the God of Shem, if Shem is following the blessed Lord then Shem will be blessed, and Canaan will be his servant. And that’s exactly right – out of Shem came the Israelites, and the Canaanites served them. Shem was a true worshipper of God, as were his brothers and their wives – including Ham. Shem was a true worshipper. Particularly in this incident, he acted righteously; showing that the Lord was his God. And so Noah his father says blessed be the Lord the God of Shem.
And he says blessed be the Lord – he uses the name Yahweh, which is God’s personal covenant name, and he links God’s personal covenant name with Shem as if to say Shem and God are linked in a redeeming covenant. He and his line are therefore set aside for covenant blessing, which will be fulfilled all the way through Abraham, and the great Abrahamic Covenant. And you know ultimately who is the one who fulfills the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, who is it? It’s Jesus. Because the Abrahamic Covenant promised blessing in the land. But Israel will never have blessing in the land until they come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, son of Abraham, son of God, and their Savior. And when they put their trust in him, they will receive all the promises that God made to Abraham.
The line of Shem, from which we get the word Semitic, goes right through Abraham to Jesus Christ. So the language blesses God, not Shem, but it blesses God for blessing Shem, for making Shem the kind of man he is – “Bless you Lord, that you are the God of Shem”, and Shem becomes Israel, who subdues and conquers the Canaanites. That’s why he says let Canaan be his servant. The child of Canaan would be in bondage to the offspring of Shem. Edwardo Cassuto, a Hebrew commentator, has a paragraph that I wanna read for you. It says this: “Here it is stated that Canaan would be a slave to Shem. That means that the children of Canaan would be in bondage to the children of Shem.” Now further on in chapter 10:22 we are told who the children of Shem are, and that the first of them is Elam. In the same chapter, verse 19, the borders of the Canaanites are defined. And they are said to extend in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Zeboiim and as far as Lasha. That is to say that all these cities were included in the territory of the Canaanites. These cities, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim are again listed together in chapter 14, where the relations between the kings of the Canaanite cities and Kedarlaomer, King of Elam [like Canaan, a person and a place], are described.
Now the relationship was that they had served Kedarlaomer, chapter 14:4, that is the children of Canaan served him who ruled over the first of the peoples of the children of Shem. Point being, that from the very earliest, the children of Canaan were under the rulership of the children of Shem.
He goes on to say they have served exactly what we are told here, and let Canaan be his slave. That’s exactly the way history worked. Immediately they were under the authority of Semites. And it stayed that way until finally, the Jewish people took their land.
And I might just say the promise to Abraham of the land for the people of God is still in place today. It’s still their land, it still belongs to them, and God will see that they receive it.
Noah had a similar wish for Japheth, which means ‘extend’. Noah hoped that God would extend Japheth’s territory, that he would live in the tents of Shem and that Canaan would also be his slave (verse 27).
Henry tells us that, as Shem was the father of the Semites, Japheth was the father of the Gentiles. Henry says Japheth means ‘persuade’:
He blesses Japheth, and, in him, the isles of the Gentiles, which were peopled by his seed: God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, v. 27. Now, [1.] Some make this to belong wholly to Japheth, and to denote either, First, His outward prosperity, that his seed should be so numerous and so victorious that they should be masters of the tents of Shem, which was fulfilled when the people of the Jews, the most eminent of Shem’s race, were tributaries to the Grecians first and afterwards to the Romans, both of Japheth’s seed. Note, Outward prosperity is no infallible mark of the true church: the tents of Shem are not always the tents of the conqueror. Or, Secondly, It denotes the conversion of the Gentiles, and the bringing of them into the church; and then we should read it, God shall persuade Japheth (for so the word signifies), and then, being so persuaded, he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, that is, Jews and Gentiles shall be united together in the gospel fold. After many of the Gentiles shall have been proselyted to the Jewish religion, both shall be one in Christ (Eph 2 14, 15), and the Christian church, mostly made up of the Gentiles, shall succeed the Jews in the privileges of church-membership; the latter having first cast themselves out by their unbelief, the Gentiles shall dwell in their tents, Rom 11 11, etc. Note, It is God only that can bring those again into the church who have separated themselves from it. It is the power of God that makes the gospel of Christ effectual to salvation, Rom 1 16. And again, Souls are brought into the church, not by force, but by persuasion, Ps 110 3. They are drawn by the cords of a man, and persuaded by reason to be religious. [2.] Others divide this between Japheth and Shem, Shem having not been directly blessed, v. 26. First, Japheth has the blessing of the earth beneath: God shall enlarge Japheth, enlarge his seed, enlarge his border. Japheth’s prosperity peopled all Europe, a great part of Asia, and perhaps America. Note, God is to be acknowledged in all our enlargements. It is he that enlarges the coast and enlarges the heart. And again, many dwell in large tents that do not dwell in God’s tents, as Japheth did. Secondly, Shem has the blessing of heaven above: He shall (that is, God shall) dwell in the tents of Shem, that is “From his loins Christ shall come, and in his seed the church shall be continued.“ The birth-right was now to be divided between Shem and Japheth, Ham being utterly discarded. In the principality which they equally share Canaan shall be servant to both. The double portion is given to Japheth, whom God shall enlarge; but the priesthood is given to Shem, for God shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and certainly we are more happy if we have God dwelling in our tents than if we had there all the silver and gold in the world. It is better to dwell in tents with God than in palaces without him. In Salem, where is God’s tabernacle, there is more satisfaction than in all the isles of the Gentiles. Thirdly, They both have dominion over Canaan: Canaan shall be servant to them; so some read it. When Japheth joins with Shem, Canaan falls before them both. When strangers become friends, enemies become servants.
MacArthur points out the good relationship between the descendants of Shem and Japheth:
The descendents of Japheth, by the way, were the Indo-European nations, people groups, to the north, to the west, to the east; they were the colonizers of the world, the colonizers who established the great cities, the great nations; they enlarged and they expanded – they will dwell in the tents of Shem. In other words, they will have a peaceful relationship with the Semites. A good relationship. And that’s the way it’s been, pretty much. All the fury and all the animosity against Israel has come from that middle eastern part of the world. And that’s all part of this description.
We end with Noah.
After the Flood, he lived 350 years (verse 28). Noah lived 950 years, and then he died (verse 29).
Henry says:
Here see, 1. How God prolonged the life of Noah; he lived 950 years, twenty more than Adam and but nineteen less than Methuselah: this long life was a further reward of his signal piety, and a great blessing to the world, to which no doubt he continued a preacher of righteousness, with this advantage, that now all he preached to were his own children. 2. How God put a period to his life at last. Though he lived long, yet he died, having probably first seen many that descended from him dead before him. Noah lived to see two worlds, but, being an heir of the righteousness which is by faith, when he died he went to see a better than either.
MacArthur tells us something interesting:
Just so you get a perspective on that, he lived through the tower of Babel. It is possible that he lived until the time of Abraham. Now let me just give you the big picture.
Noah was born 69 years after Enoch walked with God. Enoch was a contemporary of Adam. Right? Enoch knew Adam. Sixty nine years after Enoch’s gone, Noah is born. And by the way, that’s only 57 years after Adam died. It’s amazing how close those lives were, because they lived so long.
So the whole of human history is spanned by Adam, Enoch, stick Methuselah in the middle years between the death of Adam and the birth of Noah, you got Methuselah, so you’ve got Adam, Enoch, Methuselah, and Noah. And this is only 2,000 years after creation, and it’s spanned by four lives.
Genesis 10 gives us the genealogy of Noah’s sons.
Next time — Genesis 10:1-4
My exegesis on the Gospel for the Second Sunday after Trinity, Year A, Matthew 9:35-10:23 continues.
Part 1 has the full reading and exposition for Matthew 9:35-9:38. Part 2 discusses Matthew 10:1-2, especially the Apostles Peter and Andrew, who were brothers as well as James and John, the sons of Zebedee. Part 3 covers the lives of Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James of Alphaeus and Jude Thaddaeus. Part 4 provides the stories of Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot then goes into the focus of our Lord’s commission — command — to the Apostles in their first step of ministry.
Today’s post discusses Matthew 10:7-15:
10:7 As you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’
10:8 Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.
10:9 Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts,
10:10 no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food.
10:11 Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave.
10:12 As you enter the house, greet it.
10:13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you.
10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.
10:15 Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
In 2015, I wrote an exegesis based on Matthew Henry’s commentary for Matthew 10: parts 1 and 2, which may also be of interest.
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur (as specified below).
At the end of yesterday’s post, John MacArthur said that Jesus gave the Apostles a specific focus: preach, teach and heal only among the Jews. He gave them His model for ministry. The Gentiles and the Samaritans would come later.
Jesus gave them a clear message, something that is also essential in ministry; they were to proclaim the good news that the kingdom of heaven is near (verse 7).
Matthew Henry’s commentary tells us (emphases mine):
Not that they must say nothing else, but this must be their text; on this subject they must enlarge: let people know, that the kingdom of the Messiah, who is the Lord from heaven, is now to be set up according to the scriptures; from whence it follows, that men must repent of their sins and forsake them, that they might be admitted to the privileges of that kingdom. It is said (Mark 6 12), they went out, and preached that men should repent; which was the proper use and application of this doctrine, concerning the approach of the kingdom of heaven. They must, therefore, expect to hear more of this long-looked-for Messiah shortly, and must be ready to receive his doctrine, to believe in him, and to submit to his yoke. The preaching of this was like the morning light, to give notice of the approach of the rising sun. How unlike was this to the preaching of Jonah, which proclaimed ruin at hand! Jonah 3 4. This proclaims salvation at hand, nigh them that fear God; mercy and truth meet together (Ps 85 9, 10), that is, the kingdom of heaven at hand: not so much the personal presence of the king; that must not be doated upon; but a spiritual kingdom which is to be set up, when his bodily presence is removed, in the hearts of men.
MacArthur has more on this central message, which was also John the Baptist’s:
Part of the problem is that we don’t stick with the central message. And what does He say in verse 7? “And as you go, preach.” And as you preach, will you say, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” I mean, I can’t it get much simpler. I love that verse. You say, that’s the whole sermon? Where’s the rest of what you’re supposed to say? That’s enough. The kingdom of heaven is a big enough subject to cover everything that God is interested in. So if you want to open your mouth, then make sure you talk about God’s projects, not man’s. Preach the kingdom, the rule and reign of God, that heaven has come to earth …
Now, I mean to tell you that Satan is not stupid. And the best way to render the gospel of no effect is to make sure nobody knows what it is. It is the message that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, that imminently and available to every person is the rule and reign of God in their lives, here and now, as well as earthly, millennially, and eternally. That is our message. I won’t get pulled into politics, although I have some strong feelings about things. I won’t get pulled into other things. I say no to that stuff all the time, because my focus cannot change from the kingdom. I wish, Christians, every time we opened our mouths, something about the kingdom came out. Wouldn’t that be good? Let’s just talk about God’s rule and His kingdom.
I just love it that He says to them, “Just say that the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Now what are you going to do? Just go around saying that over and over again? No, of course not. Fill it up with all of the content that that term deserves … Well, there’s a sense of urgency in that statement. I know and you know that it wasn’t long after this until the Lord turned away from Israel, because they didn’t take the message offered to them. I think there is urgency and immanency in this world too. I don’t know how long we have before the Lord comes, and we need to be proclaiming the kingdom with urgency. Effective missionaries have a divine commission, central objective, and a clear message.
We say that the world feels far from heavenly, so how did the kingdom of heaven come to earth?
Henry explains how heaven has come to earth in light of the first Pentecost, which could not have taken place without three other events — our Lord’s death on the cross, His resurrection and His ascension into heaven — after which the Holy Spirit came to all believers, at that time in Jerusalem and, in future, until the end of the world, our Lord’s Second Coming in glory:
Christ, in the gospel, is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, Heb 13 8. Afterwards, indeed, when the Spirit was poured out, and the Christian church was formed, this kingdom of heaven came, which was now spoken of as at hand; but the kingdom of heaven must still be the subject of our preaching: now it is come, we must tell people it is come to them, and must lay before them the precepts and privileges of it; and there is a kingdom of glory yet to come, which we must speak of as at hand, and quicken people to diligence from the consideration of that.
MacArthur says there are certain things those in the ministry should not preach about:
It wasn’t psychology; it wasn’t philosophy; it wasn’t human wisdom; it wasn’t politics. It was not economics. The message was the kingdom of heaven and its imminence. The nearness of the kingdom.
Jesus told the Apostles they were to cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons; they were not to be paid, because they received without payment, therefore, they were to give without payment (verse 8).
An atheist once said to me, ‘Jesus was nothing more than a glorified magician’.
Henry proves him wrong by describing His healing miracles, which He enabled the Apostles to also perform. They were acts of mercy, not magic:
To use their power in doing good: not “Go and remove mountains,” or “fetch fire from heaven,” but, Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers. They are sent abroad as public blessings, to intimate to the world, that love and goodness were the spirit and genius of that gospel which they came to preach, and of that kingdom which they were employed to set up. By this it would appear, that they were the servants of that God who is good and does good, and whose mercy is over all his works; and that the intention of the doctrine they preached, was to heal sick souls, and to raise those that were dead in sin; and therefore, perhaps, that of raising the dead is mentioned; for though we read not of their raising any to life before the resurrection of Christ, yet they were instrumental to raise many to spiritual life.
MacArthur says that the miracles confirmed the power of the message:
Now, let’s … pick it up where we left off last time. Those who represent Christ – and this is essential – those who represent Christ must have a confirming credential. If you were to go out and preach Jesus Christ, what reason would people have to believe anything that you said was really from God? Why should they believe that? Why should they believe the Twelve when they went out and said, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand”? Why should they believe that? And when they said, “The Messiah is here, and it’s none other than Jesus of Nazareth,” and when they preached the principles of the king – and maybe they would repeat much of the Sermon on the Mount – while they were preaching all of this, why would the people want to believe that? Why should they believe it? …
… They had to have something that made them convincing. Now, we’ve already discussed the specifics of healing, and cleansing lepers, and raising the dead, and casting out demons. All of that’s gone on in chapters 8 and 9. We’ve seen the Lord do that already … But I want you to see some rich truth here about the nature of these specific things. The credentials were the key to marking them out as representatives of God …
What is the sign of an apostle? Signs, wonders, and mighty deeds. Reversing those, mighty deeds were miracles. They created wonder, and the wonder was a sign that pointed to God as the source. Paul says, “How did you know I was an apostle and came behind not the chiefest apostle? Because of the signs of an apostle: wonders, mighty deeds, miracles.” That was the proof.
… they were revealing the great heart of God. And God cares for people who are hurting, and people who suffer, and people who are poor, and people who are sick. Yes, it dramatized the mercy of God.
Let’s look at not being paid for healing miracles.
Henry says:
… they are cautioned not to make a gain of the power they had to work miracles: they must cure gratis, further to exemplify the nature and complexion of the gospel kingdom, which is made up, not only of grace, but of free grace … Their power to heal the sick cost them nothing, and, therefore, they must not make any secular advantage to themselves of it.
Henry recalls the episode in Acts where the magician Simon Magus wants to pay for the power to perform miracles:
Simon Magus would not have offered money for the gifts of the Holy Ghost, if he had not hoped to get money by them; Acts 8 18. Note, The consideration of Christ’s freeness in doing good to us, should make us free in doing good to others.
His was a sad story. He heard Philip the Evangelist (not Philip the Apostle) speak in Samaria and was so moved that he became a Christian (Acts 8:9-13). Philip tried to give the gifts of the Holy Spirit to his converts but could not. So, Peter and John travelled from Jerusalem to Samaria to transmit those holy gifts by the laying on of hands. They did not give them to Simon Magus, who offered them money in order that they might do so. Instead, Peter rebuked him, saying that he should repent of such a heinous sin (Acts 8:14-25).
MacArthur says:
In Acts 8, when he saw the power that the apostles had, and he tried to buy it. And he was willing to pay any price, because he knew he could make it back a thousand times over. Peter said, “Your money perish with you. You can’t buy the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit is a free gift.
There was Jewish tradition involved in not accepting money for doing the Lord’s work:
A rabbi was bound by the law to give his teaching freely and for nothing. The rabbi was forbidden to take money for teaching the law which Moses had freely received from God. The only time the rabbi, said the Talmud, could ever take money for his teaching was if he taught a small child, because that was the responsibility of the parents. And if they were shirking their responsibility in favor of having the rabbi do it, they needed to pay him for it, because it was their job.
This is supposed to be true in the Church, too:
First Peter says, chapter 5, “We don’t do this for filthy lucre.” Paul says to Timothy, “When you look for an elder, find a man who is not interested in gain.” Paul says to Titus, “When you ordain elders in every city, find a man who’s not interested in personal gain.”
MacArthur says that when he is invited to preach outside of his church, he never asks for a fee. One place sent him a cheque for $3, which he returned to them, but generally speaking, he receives much more:
… the rest of the time I get more than I’m worth. But the issue with me is not to set a price. Do you see? I received the power and the call and the gifts free. God gave them to me; I can’t charge you for that. So, I’ll never set a price. I’ll never ask a fee …
I call this a settled contentment. A settled contentment. One who represents Christ and is sent out as an ambassador or a missionary for Christ doesn’t put a price on his ministry, trusts God to supply, and God’ll supply through the people according to the diligence and faithfulness of his ministry. But the point is here, whatever he receives he is to be – what? – content.
Jesus had more to say about material goods, beginning with the instruction that they take no gold, silver or copper — coins — in their belts (verse 9).
MacArthur explains that this was a matter of faith and also one of putting away materialism:
I believe God will meet my needs. Look at verse 9. Now He says to them, “As you go, you guys don’t take gold, or silver, or copper in your purses.” Now, that’s all coinage – different kinds of coinage. There was gold coinage, silver coinage, and copper coinage. He says, “Don’t take any money.”
Don’t think, “I’m going to go, but first of all, I’ve got to amass a fortune to support this deal. I mean if I’m not going to charge anybody, and freely I’ve received, and freely I give, then it’s obvious that I’ve got to support myself. So, as soon as I get all my money collected and stuffed into my purse, I’ll be on my way.”
Jesus went further. He said that the Apostles were not to take a bag for their journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff; for labourers deserve their food (verse 10).
MacArthur says Jesus meant not to take a second tunic, second pair of sandals or an extra staff:
He says, “Don’t take a thing. Don’t take any money at all. Not only that, don’t take a food bag.” That’s what the word “bag” probably means, a bag of supplies and so forth, a food bag. “And don’t take two coats, figuring, ‘Boy, if something happens to my one’” – it’s an overcoat – “‘one overcoat, I got to have another one.’ And don’t take an extra pair of shoes, and don’t take an extra staff” – is what that means.
“Wow.” You say, “Well, wait a minute. I can’t tell anybody my price, and I can’t take anything with me. I’m going out there naked. I got nothing.”
Ah, a spiritual principle at the end of verse 10. Just remember this, “The workman is worthy of his sustenance.” Who made that principle up? God says, “I did. And I will manage the resources.”
So, you go in confident faith. You don’t take anything. This is like survival training. You go out there without anything. What are you trying to teach these people, Lord? “Confident faith, confident trust.”
MacArthur says that this, too, was an ancient principle amongst rabbis:
This is how the rabbis were. They were never to price anything, they were never to demand anything, they were never to ask a fee, but always the people were to supply their needs.
Those who took care of rabbis were said to be blessed by God in return:
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaacov said, “He who receives a rabbi into his house or as his guest and lets him have his enjoyment from his possessions, the Scripture ascribes to him as if he’d offered the continual offerings.” I mean God’s going to bless him because he took care of God’s servant. And so, you have a double thing here. You see? God’s man has never to be over-concerned with material things, but the people of God must see it their duty to support him. I can’t put the price, but it’s your responsibility before God to support the one who serves, “For the worker is worthy of his sustenance.”
Jesus told the Apostles that, whenever they enter a village, they should find out who is worthy and stay with them until they leave (verse 11).
‘Worthy’ here means ‘God-fearing’, not a local rich ‘worthy’.
Henry says:
Enquire who is worthy, who there are that have some fear of God before their eyes, and have made a good improvement of the light and knowledge they have.
MacArthur says:
“Worthy” doesn’t mean wealthy. It means worthy. What does that mean? Somebody whose character, somebody whose lifestyle, somebody whose integrity would be a fitting place for you to stay. For example, if you go into town, and you stay in a horrible, horrible home of dissolute, unregenerate, vile, wicked people, and you walk out of that every day to preach the message of holiness, nobody’s going to believe you. They’re going to identify you with the unholiness of that place you live.
There is another aspect to this. You might get invited to a grander home rather than the humble one where you are lodging.
MacArthur gives us a personal example:
You find a place that’s worthy for the occupancy of a representative of Jesus Christ; be careful where you stay. But when you find that place, “abide till you leave the town.” In other words, stay there all the time. This is what’s going to happen. You’re going to go into town; every time it’ll happen this way. And I’ve had this happen when you go to a meeting. Some dear saint’ll come up and say, “Oh, would you stay with us? We’d love to have you.”
And you’re so well received, you say, “Of course.” And you to go their home, and it’s a humble, little place, just a humble – and the food is not the bill of fare at some fancy restaurant; it’s just, you know – if you’re in the South, it’s grits and green eggs, whatever, just something real simple.
And you just – and then about two days later, somebody comes along and says, “Now, we don’t know where you’re staying, but we live up on the hill. And we’ve got eight swimming pools, and we’ve got a herd of horses.” You know? “I mean we have a suite that you…”
And you know you’re saying to yourself, “Oh, that would be really nice. How do I get out of this place I…”
You see, that’s all solved right here. Wherever you go when you get there, you stay. Wherever you are, you remain with a settled contentment. If God wants you up the hill, then they’ll meet you first when you come to town.
… the point here is, wherever it is that God in His providence takes you, be content to stay there, and don’t be in the ministry to see how much comfort you can generate for yourself. See? Settled contentment …
Public preaching would lead to hospitable invitations. And they were to be careful not to lodge, first of all, in a disreputable place, and secondly, not to start climbing a social ladder, but to concentrate on the business at hand.
Jesus said that when they enter a house for the first time, they should greet it (verse 12). A greeting in the ancient world involved more than saying hello. It was all about being complimentary and blessing the people who lived there.
MacArthur tells us:
What was the common Jewish greeting? Shalom, peace. What did it mean? Oh, it meant everything. It meant wholeness, and soundness, and health, and welfare, and prosperity, and well-being, and blessing, and benediction from God. Just pour out your blessing and say, “This house is blessed of God.”
Jesus said that if the house was worthy, the Apostles were to let their peace come upon it, but, if it turned out to be unworthy, they were to let their peace return to them (verse 13).
Henry explains our Lord’s intention with this instruction:
First, For satisfaction to the apostles. The common salutation was, Peace be unto you; this, as they used it, was turned into gospel; it was the peace of God, the peace of the kingdom of heaven, that they wished. Now lest they should make a scruple of pronouncing this blessing upon all promiscuously, because many were utterly unworthy of it, this is to clear them of that scruple; Christ tells them that this gospel prayer (for so it was now become) should be put up for all, as the gospel proffer was made to all indefinitely, and that they should leave it to God who knows the heart, and every man’s true character, to determine the issue of it. If the house be worthy, it will reap the benefit of your blessing; if not, there is no harm done, you will not lose the benefit of it; it shall return to you, as David’s prayers for his ungrateful enemies did, Ps 35 13. Note, It becomes us to judge charitably of all, to pray heartily for all, and to conduct ourselves courteously to all, for that is our part, and then to leave it with God to determine what effect it shall have upon them, for that is his part.
Secondly, For direction to them. “If, upon your salutation, it appear that they are indeed worthy, let them have more of your company, and so let your peace come upon them; preach the gospel to them, peace by Jesus Christ; but if otherwise, if they carry it rudely to you, and shut their doors against you, let your peace, as much as in you lies, return to you. Retract what you have said, and turn your backs upon them; by slighting this, they have made themselves unworthy of the rest of your favours, and cut themselves short of them.” Note, Great blessings are often lost by a neglect seemingly small and inconsiderable, when men are in their probation and upon their behaviour. Thus Esau lost his birthright (Gen 25 34), and Saul his kingdom, 1 Sam 13 13, 14.
MacArthur says this custom was widespread in the Middle East:
There must be a rejection of the contemptuous. He says at the end of verse 13, “If the house is not worthy, if they’re not receptive, they’re not interested, then let your peace return to you. Now, that’s a sort of an oriental expression. They would give their peace, and if the house wasn’t worthy, they’d take it back. In other words, they would unbless. They would come to a home, and they would say, “Peace be unto you in the name of Christ.” And the home would be vile and rejecting. And so, they would say, “We take our peace back. This house is unblessed.” They actually would do that. They would confront the situation in that way by removing the blessing that they had verbally given.
And so, He says, “If you find a place where they are not worthy, then let your peace return to you; don’t waste it on them; take it back. Don’t give them God’s benediction if they’re not worthy of God’s benediction. Don’t tell them God’s going to bless them.”
It’s the same thing in the epistles of John, where John says, “Do not, when you have someone come along who denies Christ, do not bid him” – what? – “Godspeed or you become a partaker in his evil deed.” Don’t pronounce benedictions on people who are godless. See? Don’t say, “Bless you, brother,” to someone who isn’t regenerated. God’s blessing is not to be thrown around so indiscriminately. Nor is that person to live under the illusion that they are really redeemed when they’re not, or blessed when they’re not. So, let it return to you.
Jesus said that if anyone refuses to listen to them, they should shake the dust off their feet as they leave that house or town (vesre 14).
This, too, was a common occurrence in the Jewish world, with dust representing Gentile dirt:
Now, that was an – that was a little physical thing the Jews did. Whenever they went into a Gentile country, of course they got covered with dust. And when they came back into Israel, they didn’t want to bring Gentile dust into Israel, because they believed that Gentile dust would defile things.
So, before they entered Israel, they shook all this dust off of them so they wouldn’t bring any Gentile dirt back in. So, He says, “Now, you’re going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And if they don’t hear your message, you treat them the way you’d treat a Gentile.” It’s exactly what Paul did in Acts chapter 15 – or chapter 13, when he went into the synagogue and they didn’t receive his message, and he says he shook the dust from off his feet and went next door to the Gentiles. He treated the Jews like Gentiles and the Gentiles like Jews. Treat them as a pagan …
… the point is this, the assumption is that when they have seen the miracles, and when they have fully heard the message, and when they have been given ample opportunity to respond, and their conclusion is rejection, then you leave and treat them as the pagans that they are.
Jesus said, emphasising His statement with ‘truly’, that such a town would find itself worse off than Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement (verse 15).
Henry explains:
Note, [1.] There is a day of judgment coming, when all those that refused the gospel will certainly be called to account for it; however they now make a jest of it. They that would not hear the doctrine that would save them, shall be made to hear the sentence that will ruin them. Their judgment is respited till that day. [2.] There are different degrees of punishment in that day. All the pains of hell will be intolerable; but some will be more so than others. Some sinners sink deeper into hell than others, and are beaten with more stripes. [3.] The condemnation of those that reject the gospel, will in that day be severer and heavier than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom is said to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, Jude 7. But that vengeance will come with an aggravation upon those that despise the great salvation. Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked (Gen 13 13), and that which filled up the measure of their iniquity was, that they received not the angels that were sent to them, but abused them (Gen 19 4, 5), and hearkened not to their words, v. 14. And yet it will be more tolerable for them than for those who receive not Christ’s ministers and hearken not to their words. God’s wrath against them will be more flaming, and their own reflections upon themselves more cutting.
MacArthur has more:
And here’s the key, verse 15, “And it’ll be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.” And it wasn’t very good for Sodom and Gomorrah, was it? I mean it rained fire and brimstone, drowned both those two cities so that they can’t even be found today. We have no trace of them left. In fact, they think they must be under the south end of the Dead Sea because they can’t find any trace of them at all.
And so, as it was in absolute, utter, total devastating and eternal destruction on those two cities, it’ll be worse for a house or a city in Galilee that refuses you. Why? People, that assumes that the town in Galilee or the house in Galilee knew more, heard more than Sodom and Gomorrah did, the point being they must then have had an awful lot of information. So, the idea being that when a city with a greater exposure to the truth of God – namely the representatives of the Lord Christ Himself, giving them the message and authenticating it with their credentials – turns their back on that, you have a Hebrews chapter situation where they have been exposed to all of the data and all of the situation, and they’ve refused; it’s impossible for them to be renewed to repentance; shake the dust and leave. When you’ve done your best, and they are unreceptive but contemptuous, don’t waste your time. Divine judgment is set on that city and that house. Very severe.
MacArthur sums up what we have learned thus far:
Listen; the Lord sent out the Twelve two by two. He said, “Here are the principles for an effective mission: first, a divine commission, then a central objective, a clear message, a confirming credential, a confident faith, a settled contentment, a concentration on the receptive, and rejection of the contemptuous.”
All being well, tomorrow’s post will conclude with the final eight verses in this reading, in which Jesus covers the future persecution of the Apostles, how Christianity will divide households and the message that the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Churchmouse Campanologist 