Genesis 09

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:31:55utc

We can divide this last chapter about Noah's life in two parts: The verses 1-20 deal with God's promise to Noah and mankinds, vs. 21-29 tell the story of Noah's sin and the curse upon Ham.

Vs. 1-20 - There is a parallel between vs.1-3 of this chapter and ch. 1:28,29. In the verses 1-3 we read: "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.' " And ch. 1:28-29 says: "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for you.' " It is quite obvious what difference the fall into sin has made.

The command to be fruitful and to fill the earth is the same, but the relationship between man and the rest of the creation is no longer the same. Man is not the peaceful ruler anymore. The animals are no longer his friends, and he is no longer the friend of the animals. Man changed from vegetarian to omnivore. The death of his fellow creatures, the animals, has become a necessity to stay alive, both spiritually and physically. Killing has become a way of life. The fact that God sanctions it does not make it good. It is an accommodation to the situation in which sin has changed the conditions. The blood of the animal will serve to cover his sin, and the meat will be his food.

Theologians are divided in their opinion about whether man ate meat before the fall or not. The Bible does not give any indication one way or another. It could be that the use of meat for food was practiced, but only officially sanctioned after the flood. But then we can ask the question as to whether the fear of man was upon the animals before the flood too. Adam Clarke suggests that dominion of the animals over man may have increased before the flood to the point where, had the flood not occurred, wild animals could have wiped out mankind. There is no way of knowing whether this is true. In the same vein we do not know whether cannibalism was practiced before the flood either! The verses 5, and 6 would surely leave this possibility open.

It strikes me, though, that through generations of use we have come to the point where we accept the killing of animals and the eating of their meat as normal, without often realizing how contrary to this is to the basic principles of creation. I think Gandhi was wrong in abstaining from eating meat, but he surely had a point which I can appreciate. Usually, vegetarianism is based on a denial of the existence of sin. The same goes for Schweitzer's "Reverence for life."[ 1 ]

Vs. 4 is clearly a prohibition to eat blood: "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." Evidently the Hebrew is difficult to translate here, and consequently different interpretations abound. But the meaning is obvious that the blood of animals is not meant for food, since it has other purposes. I do not think it is merely a protection for the animal against human cruelty. In Leviticus, where this command to Noah is incorporated into the Mosaic law, we read: " Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood; I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."[ 2 ]The idea seems to be that since animal blood is used to atone for sin, man is not allowed to use it for any other purpose.

The question remains what our interpretation of this prohibition should be now, after the death of Christ. Atonement by the blood of an animal was only a picture of the real atonement by the blood of Christ. The writer to the Hebrews makes this clear, when he says: "Because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus...."[ 3 ] We have the famous passage from the book of Acts. James is the spokesman of these words: "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."[ 4 ]

I take it that the reference to the preaching of the law of Moses is inserted as a testimony to the Jews, who were living all over the area where the young churches were being established. If that is true, it would mean that the eating of blood in itself was not considered intrinsically sinful, but that if Jews would see heathen Christians doing this, they would reject the Gospel on the basis that it opposed the law of Moses, and the command that God had given to Noah. Animal blood has lost its significance as a means of atonement for sin since the blood of Jesus was poured out. We could even say that emphasis upon the prohibition to eat animal blood would diminish the value of the blood of Christ; which would be a very serious matter. We can hardly maintain at present that eating or not eating of animal blood would in any way add to or subtract of our salvation. In a certain way the eating of blood would fit into the same category as the requirement for circumcision that brought such uproar in the early church.

Vs. 4,5 and 6 go together. We read: "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The common factor is the blood, which is the seat of the soul in the Bible. Speaking about Jesus' death on the cross, Isaiah says: "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."[ 5 ]The NIV says : "Because he poured out his life unto death."

I take "I will demand an accounting from every animal" to mean that God holds man responsible for the killing of the animal, not that the animal would be called to give account for the killing of man, as some commentators think. Man is allowed to eat meat, but God will not allow any senseless killing. Here the spilling of animal blood comes in. The animal that is to be eaten has to be killed in such a way that the blood is poured out. This command was later incorporated into the Mosaic law. " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth.' "[ 6 ]Vs. 11 explains the reason for this: "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." The link between the killing of an animal and the killing of a man is not only in the fact that both are killed, but that the animal substitutes for man. Man is allowed to live because the animal dies for him. He was created in the image of God, when God blew His Spirit into Adam's nostrils. The killing of animals is allowed for various reasons, but the killing of a man never, except as the execution of the death penalty for murder.

So there are two references to the first chapters of Genesis in this chapter. Vs. 3 refers to ch. 2:16 and vs. 6 to ch. 1:26. The chapter starts out with a blessing and it ends with a curse. God blesses Noah and his children and Noah curses his grandson. The content of the blessing is fertility. We read in vs. 1 and 7 "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth." "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

In the verses 11-17 we read about God's promise never to destroy life on earth again by a flood. This promise is confirmed with the appearance of a rainbow. Whether the rainbow was a new phenomenon after the flood or whether it had appeared before, we do not know. If I understand correctly what caused the flood: the disappearance of heavy layers of humidity; it seems probable that the sun never interacted in such a way with the water vapors in the sky that the sunlight would break up into its basic colors.

The rainbow is in the Bible connected with the glory of God. We find it mentioned in Ezekiel, where the prophet sees the glory of God: "Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking,"[ 7 ]and in Revelations where John catches a glance of the glory of God in heaven. "The one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne."[ 8 ]The rainbow portrays the holiness of God. John says about the character of God, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."[ 9 ] The rainbow is light, broken up by a prism into color. We would not be able to imagine a world without color. We are attracted by color, often without knowing why. Evidently, the holiness of God appeals to the image of God in us. Once we are redeemed, God's holiness is very attractive to us. Noah and his family must have experienced some of the thrill of God's presence after the terrible ordeal they went through. God's glory comes to them as an assurance that there will be no more judgment for them. They passed from death into life.

In vs. 16 God calls the rainbow a sign of "the everlasting covenant." We read: "Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." The expression "everlasting covenant" is used several times in the Bible in connection with things that are obviously not everlasting. God affirms an everlasting covenant with Abraham and Jacob and with David. Evidently, the earthly conditions are to be taken as a shadow of a heavenly reality. Just as much as the rainbow which we see with our mortal eyes is an image of God's holiness, not the essence itself, so God's promises have a deeper significance than for just the transitory conditions on earth.

In this context we have to understand the word "remember." The omniscient God cannot forget, consequently, He does not have to remember. The expression is of course anthropomorphic, but also it is meant to show that there is a link between events on earth and things in heaven.

We should try to imagine what it must have been like to go through the flood and come out alive as the only survivors and then be confronted with the breathtaking beauty of a rainbow as an expression of the presence of a Holy God. No wonder Noah built an altar and put sacrifice upon sacrifice on it. The Bible does not say too little when it gives the testimony about Noah, that Noah walked with God. He knew God intimately, and was partaker of His glory. And yet, as the writer to the Hebrews says: "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."[ 10 ]

Let us repeat one more time: The rainbow was the sign of the covenant between God and man. It was an expression of God's holiness. The covenant was not only meant to show God's deep sorrow over what happened, but also to alleviate man's fear. What guarantee do we have that this planet is safe enough to live on? For people who have no choice but to live on it anyhow, this can be a condition that brings about ulcers. God's holiness, that is God's character guarantees us our safety. This guarantee does not only cover us against natural disasters, such as floods and earthquakes, but also in our struggle for life. Jesus said: "So do not worry, saying, 'what shall we eat?' Or 'What shall we drink?' Or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."[ 11 ]

And in Hebrews we read: "Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, 'Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.' So we say with confidence, 'The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?' "[ 12 ]

Paul goes even further when he says: "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."[ 13 ] All this is only valid, of course, for people who have entered into a covenant relationship with God. Those who do not believe in God's holiness do better to fear.

About the "everlasting covenant" The Pulpit Commentary says the following: "Literally, the covenant of eternity. One of those pregnant Scripture sayings that have in them an almost inexhaustible fullness of meaning, which does not in the first sight disclose itself to the eye of the unreflecting reader. In so far as the Noahic covenant was simply a promise that there should be no recurrence of a flood, the covenant of eternity had a corresponding limit in its duration to the period of this present terrestrial economy. But, rightly viewed, the Noahic covenant was the original Adamic covenant set up again in a different form; and hence, when applied to it, the phrase covenant of eternity is entitled to retain its highest and fullest significance, as a covenant reaching from eternity to eternity."

The verses 18,19, which close the account of the flood, seem to run ahead to the next chapter, where the genealogy of Noah's sons is given. The point seems to be that the ark was the birthplace of whole world population. But the fact that Shem is mentioned first, puts the accent upon the Jewish race and the mentioning of the name of Canaan seems to prepare us for the following story, as well as for the events that are later told in the book of Exodus and even as far ahead as the conquest of the land in Joshua. With this running ahead of his subject, Moses want to emphasize that which is important, so that we are prepared to understand this when we get that far in his book.

So these two verses contain the germ of the chapters that follow. Ch. 10 will give us more details about the nation that came from these three men. Ch. 11 is foreshadows in the phrase "from them came the people who were scattered over the earth." And the name of Canaan introduces us to the person who is going to be cursed in the next story, and so it seems to give more validity to the conquest of the country, later on in the Pentateuch.

The last part of the story of the life of Noah is not very complimentary. The NIV says: "Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard." The RSV puts it differently: "Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard." But there does not seem to be any compelling reason for this translation. If the grape had survived the flood, it is logical to suppose that people had cultivated it before and had made wine with the juice thereof. It is also hard to believe that people would not have become drunk before the flood either.

The story of Noah's drunkenness and the subsequent curse and blessing pronounced is wrought with problems. It is very easy to presume, as Adam Clarke does, that Noah was innocent, because otherwise God would not have given him "the gift of prophecy." But the Bible gives us no reason to believe that Noah did not know what effect the wine would have upon him. And the fact remains that his stupor brought the worst out of him. It can not be denied either that only that which is inside can be brought out. In uncovering himself, Noah uncovered his sinful tendencies.

We have meditated upon the problem of nakedness in connection with the fall of Adam and Eve. It seems hard to reconcile what we read in ch. 6:9: "This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God," with "When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent." Yet it does not appear that Noah lost his status with God in this experience. We have to remember that being blameless and walking with God does not imply sinless condition. We must remember the definition of blessedness in David gives in the psalms: "blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered."[ 14 ]Noah was blameless, not because he did not sin, but because his sins were atoned for.

Still, there is no excuse of Noah's behavior. We take away from the image of God in him, if we diminish his responsibility. I do not believe either that the fact that he prophesied and that the prophecy stuck, is proof of his innocence. We have the case of Balaam in the book of Numbers.[ 15 ]The implication of the story of Balaam is that if he had pronounced a curse upon the people of Israel, it would not have been without effect. That is why Balaam was prevented from saying anything that was contrary to the blessing the LORD had put on His people. There is no doubt about Balaam's character.

So the curse Noah puts on Ham's son Canaan does not prove anything about Noah's character. The question remains whether what Noah did was in the will of the LORD. Obviously, God did not want him to get drunk. Ham was at fault in poking fun at his father's indecent exposure, but Noah was still responsible for his behavior. And I have a large question mark in my mind regarding the validity of Noah's curse.

But first we have to think about the situation that lay at the base of it all. We have touched upon the mystery of man's feelings of shame in connection with the fall. The issue is not physical nakedness, but the condition of one's soul. Adam and Eve were ashamed, not because of their bodies, but because of the corruption that was inside them. We have seen that God did not tear off their fig leaves and expose them. God gave them a better cover through the death of a fellow creature. We could say that God respects man secret, even the secret of his sinful condition, because He respects man. God's atonement restores our dignity. So what Ham did amounted to the mocking of his father's secret. He acted as if he, himself, had nothing to cover. He did as if God's cover for his father was not enough. We may see through people's covers and masks, but we are not allowed to expose them. What God has covered let no man expose!

This goes for the New Testament dispensation as well. Our sins may be washed away in the blood of Jesus Christ instead of covered by the blood of an animal, and our hearts may be born again by the Holy Spirit; we all have a sinful nature that has to be covered by God's grace in order to make us fit for living. As fellow members of the body of Christ, we have to learn to live with this in one another. We have the assurance that God will perfect the work He has begun in each one of us. There will be no more masks in heaven and no more shame.

Paul says: "Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."[ 16 ]

This leaves us with the mystery of the curse and its effectiveness. Ham must have mocked Noah in front of his two brothers. We understand that when vs. 22 says: "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside," it does not just mean that he passed on the information. Not only did he not do anything to spare his father any embarrassment, but he talked also. Sometimes it cannot be helped that we see things and discover other people's secrets. It is when we pass it on that we become responsible. Paul says: "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."[ 17 ] Ham showed no love toward his father. That was his greatest sin. He had no guarantee that he would not fall into the same sin one day. Maybe he had already. That is why Paul says elsewhere: "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted."[ 18 ]

Shem and Japheth behaved in a most commendable way. But they must have talked also because, otherwise, Noah would not have found out how he woke up covered. The Bible gives us no indication as to what happened.

This brings us to the first prophecy and the first curse pronounced on the new earth. As a matter of fact, it is the first curse put upon a human being by another human. In ch. 4:11 it seems as if God curses Cain. But in the reading of the RSV we understand that it was the earth that cursed Cain, not God. "And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand." (RSV) Noah is the first man to curse another man.

I do not say this flippantly, but one should never exercise the gift of prophecy under a hangover. It seems to me that Noah's prophecy was just as much part of his sinful behavior as his drunkenness. The meanest part of it was that he hit his son where it hurt most: in his child. What did Canaan have to do with this? Some commentators imply Canaan's guilt, but there is no indication that the son knew even what his father had done or said. Satan has a way of attacking God's children in their own children. Those attacks are much harder to endure than those upon our own person.

In spite of the above, the prophecy sticks. Noah may have regretted later what he said, but he said it; and it could not be undone. It was as when someone pushes inadvertently the wrong button, but the mechanism works, whether the button is pushed on purpose or not. The framework for the future world population was put up and nothing has been able to change it until the coming of the Gospel.

Noah's curse has been through the centuries an excuse, even a pious excuse for nations and races to suppress and mistreat one another. The slave trade the Europeans carried out between Africa and North America was at least in part based on biblical grounds. Now is it hard to prove who descended from whom. Obviously the inhabitants of Canaan, were the ones mentioned in ch. 15:19-21: "The land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites." But there is no way to prove that the black inhabitants of the African continent are descendents of Canaan. They may be children of Ham, but the curse was only pronounced on Canaan, not on Cush, Mizraim or Put.

The big question, however, is in how far Noah's words were a real prophecy. Were they the Word of God, or the words of an angry man? And why did Noah pick Canaan, the youngest of Ham's sons and not Cush? Since there is no indication of Canaan's personal involvement in the incident, we have to presume that Canaan, as the youngest, was his father's darling. Noah tried to hit Ham where it would hurt him most. I find it hard to accept that Noah's curse was the Word of God. By saying this I do not mean to take away anything from the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. I simply do not believe that it was God who cursed Ham or Canaan.

This does not mean either that Ham was not guilty of sin. His lack of respect for his father was a lack of love. How tragically does this incident illustrate men's sinful nature. Here is the only surviving family in a world that was washed clean by the flood. But there is no clean, new beginning. The germ of sin was carried through the flood. Sin survived the flood in the heart of man. The world was cleansed, but man was still vile.

Noah's curse condemns Canaan to slavery. The curse is tantamount to a selling of Canaan into slavery. In the two previous cases where God deals with the sin of an individual a curse is pronounced. In Adam's case the ground is cursed; in Cain's the earth curses the murderer. There the punishment seems to be built in. We cannot say that about Noah's curse. Noah introduces a new evil element in human relations. Noah invented slavery.

With the following blessing upon Shem the curse seems both aggravated and diminished. Noah does not bless Shem personally, but he blesses the God of Shem, thus indicating a special relationship between God and Shem's descendants. It could be that this revelation was not new, but it is the first time there is an indication that the line to redemption would run through Shem. But then in the same breath Canaan is made into Shem's slave. Undoubtedly, this prophecy was fulfilled in the conquest of Canaan, however imperfectly this was carried out after Joshua's death.[ 19 ] And for some of the Canaanites, this meant that they shared in Shem's salvation.

Noah's prophecy takes us through the line of history of salvation that God had started Himself in ch. 3:15: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." The offspring will be in the line of Shem and it is within the boundaries of his family that further selection will take place, that will ultimately lead to the fullness of time when God will become man through a virgin in Nazareth.

In blessing the God of Shem, Noah uses the double name YHWH and Elohim. In doing this he did more than only confuse the Yahwist and Elohist researchers of higher criticism. He indicated that the God of the covenant was going to keep His promise for salvation of mankind through Shem. Noah's prophecy should have been a cause for celebration. As it turned out it became part of a curse. It is amazing how often fulfillment of promises that God has given for man's salvation, materialize in the most dismal form and under the worst of circumstances. The great event of Yom Kipur, the entering of a human being in the presence of God in the Holy of Holiest, started with the death of Aaron sons, who were killed when they acted foolishly under the influence of wine. The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the LORD. The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die, because I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover. "This is how Aaron is to enter the sanctuary area: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.[ 20 ]

The choice of the place for the building of the temple in Jerusalem was determined during a plague that killed thousands of people. When David saw the angel of death above the threshing place of Araunah, he offered there and we read: "Then David said, "The house of the LORD God is to be here, and also the altar of burnt offering for Israel."[ 21 ]

So with Noah's curse and blessing we are confronted with this general phenomenon. God develops His promised salvation for mankind often in a thick disguise, under the most unlikely circumstances. This does not excuse man's sinful behavior, but it proves that God makes all things work together for good for those who love Him, as Paul says: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."[ 22 ]

The blessing part in vs. 26 and 27 may even be harder to explain: "He also said, 'Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.' " Noah does not pronounce a direct blessing on Shem in the same way as he cursed Canaan directly. The praise is for "the LORD, the God of Shem!" This is a reference to the covenant God made with Shem and his descendants. God is called by the name YHWH. Noah speaks, prophetically, about God's promise to Abraham: "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."[ 23 ]

This blessing partly offsets the curse. Because even as a slave of Shem, Canaan will be blessed by the God of Shem, through Shem. We see a miraculous example of this the in Negro slaves who were brought to America and became Christians there. I never realized before that, in part, this is a fulfillment of Noah's prophecy.

Moses wrote these words from the vantagepoint of one who had seen the fulfillment of Noah's prophecy. The higher criticism will say that he put these words in Noah's mouth. We won't stoop to answer this allegation. But we have to admit that the prophecy gives a unity to the book of Genesis that can only be called supernatural. Moses may have been able to see part of the fulfillment in the Exodus and the prospect of the conquest of Canaan, but he could have had no idea of how Japheth would come to live in the tents of Shem. This did not start to happen until the first heathen in Antioch turned to the Lord in Acts: "Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord."[ 24 ]

And so takes Noah's strange prophesy us to the end of his long life. Next to Methusalah, Noah was the oldest patriarch on record in the Bible. He represents the end of one world and the beginning of another. He saw death and came through alive. He was a man who walked with God and saved humanity from extinction. He also was the first sinner to enter the new world and to introduce a curse in it. He was a type of Christ, but an imperfect one. His life makes us realize that mankind had to wait for the One who was yet to come.

[ 1 ] Erfurcht vor dem Leben

[ 2 ] Lev. 17:10,11

[ 3 ] Heb. 10:4,19

[ 4 ] Acts 15:20,21,28,29

[ 5 ] Isa. 53:12 (KJV)

[ 6 ] Lev.17:13

[ 7 ] Ezek.1:28

[ 8 ] Rev. 4:3

[ 9 ] I John 1:5

[ 10 ] Heb. 11:39,40

[ 11 ] Matt. 6:31-33

[ 12 ] Heb. 13:5,6

[ 13 ] Phil. 4:6,7

[ 14 ] Ps .32:1

[ 15 ] See Num. 22 and 23

[ 16 ] Phil. 1:6

[ 17 ] I Cor. 13:6,7

[ 18 ] Gal. 6:1

[ 19 ] See Judges 1:27-35

[ 20 ] Lev. 16:1-3

[ 21 ] I Chr. 22:1

[ 22 ] Rom. 8:28

[ 23 ] Gen. 12:2,3

[ 24 ] Acts 11:20,21