Noah and the Curse of Ham
Written by T. M. Suffield |
Tuesday, January 2, 2024
There is a common theme in Genesis of younger sons, or occasionally even first sons, wanting to usurp their father’s role. We know something similar is going on by the nature of the curse, it involves authority and submission, implying a sin of rebellion. We might notice that Shem and Japheth (typologically Jews and Gentiles—see Irenaeus On the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching) solve the problem by re-robing Noah, and that the robe bears the definite article ‘the mantle.’ Clothes, especially robes and mantles, are authoritative garments in the Bible’s symbolic world—much like the metaphorical meaning that ‘mantle’ bears in English today. They replace his authority.
There’s this strange moment in Noah’s life where he gets drunk, falls down naked, his son Ham sees him naked, and then he curses Ham. It leads to the frequent accusation that Noah was a drunkard, which at best might be true but is missing the wood for the trees.
You can read the story in Genesis 9. Is Noah just an angry drunk? What did Ham do wrong?
It’s also been the cause of much racist nonsense, with the curse of Ham linked to theories where a particular ‘race’ (in the modern sense rather than the Biblical one) are cursed because of their descent from Ham. All of that should be rejected as evil. The first thing we should notice is that Ham isn’t cursed. There is no curse of Ham. Instead his son, Noah’s grandson, Canaan is cursed as a result of Ham’s actions. Which feels instinctively unfair to us but is perhaps a hint that something more is going on here. It also makes us think of the eventual defeat of the various Canaanite peoples by the Hebrews—the eventual result of the curse. That doesn’t clarify what’s happening but it’s worth noticing the way this pans out in the story.
So, what’s going on? Let’s try and look at this interrogatively. There are three broad questions to answer: Does Noah get drunk? What does Ham do to him? Why does he curse Canaan rather than Ham.
Does Noah Get Drunk?
Yes. That was easy enough. It’s his characterisation as a drunkard that I take some issue with, partly because it assumes a habitual behaviour but mostly because it tries to find the moral of the story in Noah’s misuse of God’s good gift of wine rather than in whatever Ham has done wrong.
Noah may have been a drunkard, but there’s nothing in the text that would make us think so. It is possible to read the text as suggesting that he simply rested after drinking, though I think that unlikely looking at how the Hebrew word is used elsewhere in the Bible. I think the Bible says he got a bit merry and went to sleep—unwise, but not the parallel to Adam’s fall in the story. I don’t think this is a good thing or to be commended (Ephesians 5), nor is it incidental to the story, but it’s not its hinge either.
Noah’s planting of the vineyard was a good thing, a fulfilment of his declaration to be the man of rest. He prefigures Christ as the provider of wine at the table and is planting a new Eden.
A Snake in the Garden
There is a snake in the garden though: Ham. Noah removes his robe of office within his tent to sleep. Perhaps someone else wants to usurp or ridicule his role; the robe is a textual clue to this.
What is it that Ham does? A flat reading of the text is that he glances at his father without his clothes on and mocks him to his brothers, who then carefully recover Noah’s nakedness. This leaves us with questions though, why is it that this is worthy of a curse?
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
A Reading in Aquinas, with Commentary: Or, a Problem with Theological Retrieval Demonstrated
Our objection to worshiping images is that it is idolatry because that worship does not pass through them to Christ, but is actually just worshiping artwork in the same way that ancient idolaters were actually just worshiping statues. Such images do not direct our devotion to Christ, but away from him (who is invisible to us by God’s sovereign will) and to mistaken notions of one of his two natures. They are not necessary for our devotion – for they are not necessary for us to worship the Father and the Spirit.
The teaching of Thomas Aquinas has been much debated recently, and it is advantageous that we consider his own writings and not merely others about them. Below is the full text of Aquinas’ consideration of worshiping images of Christ from his Summa Theologiae IIIa, Q.25, Art. 3, followed by my commentary upon it. Note that when Thomas uses “latria” or “adoration” he means worship: “worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name latreia (latinized, latria), for which the best translation that our language affords is the word Adoration” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia).
Article 3: Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of “latria”?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s image should not be adored with the adoration of “latria.” For it is written (Ex. 20:4): “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything.” But no adoration should be given against the commandment of God. Therefore Christ’s image should not be adored with the adoration of “latria.”
Objection 2: Further, we should have nothing in common with the works of the Gentiles, as the Apostle says (Eph. 5:11). But the Gentiles are reproached principally for that “they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man,” as is written (Rm. 1:23). Therefore Christ’s image is not to be adored with the adoration of “latria.”
Objection 3: Further, to Christ the adoration of “latria” is due by reason of His Godhead, not of His humanity. But the adoration of “latria” is not due to the image of His Godhead, which is imprinted on the rational soul. Much less, therefore, is it due to the material image which represents the humanity of Christ Himself.
Objection 4: Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the Divine worship that is not instituted by God; wherefore the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:23) when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Church, says: “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” But Scripture does not lay down anything concerning the adoration of images. Therefore, Christ’s image is not to be adored with the adoration of “latria.”
On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 16) quotes Basil as saying: “The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype,” i.e., the exemplar. But the exemplar itself—namely, Christ—is to be adored with the adoration of “latria;” therefore also His image.
I answer that, As the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. i), there is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed towards the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the image in so far as it is the image of something else. And between these movements there is this difference; that the former, by which one is moved towards an image as a certain thing, is different from the movement towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is towards the image as an image, is one and the same as that which is towards the thing. Thus, therefore, we must say that no reverence is shown to Christ’s image, as a thing—for instance, carved or painted wood: because reverence is not due save to a rational creature. It follows therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an image. Consequently, the same reverence should be shown to Christ’s image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of “latria,” it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of “latria.”
Reply to Objection 1: This commandment does not forbid the making of any graven thing or likeness, but the making thereof for the purpose of adoration, wherefore it is added: “Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them.” And because, as stated above, the movement towards the image is the same as the movement towards the thing, adoration thereof is forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing whose image it is. Wherefore in the passage quoted we are to understand the prohibition to adore those images which the Gentiles made for the purpose of venerating their own gods, i.e., the demons, and so it is premised: “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” But no corporeal image could be raised to the true God Himself, since He is incorporeal; because, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): “It is the highest absurdity and impiety to fashion a figure of what is Divine.” But because in the New Testament God was made man, He can be adored in His corporeal image.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle forbids us to have anything in common with the “unfruitful works” of the Gentiles, but not with their useful works. Now the adoration of images must be numbered among the unfruitful works in two respects. First, because some of the Gentiles used to adore the images themselves, as things, believing that there was something Divine therein, on account of the answers which the demons used to give in them, and on account of other such like wonderful effects. Secondly, on account of the things of which they were images; for they set up images to certain creatures, to whom in these images they gave the veneration of “latria.” Whereas we give the adoration of “latria” to the image of Christ, Who is true God, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Reverence is due to the rational creature for its own sake. Consequently, if the adoration of “latria” were shown to the rational creature in which this image is, there might be an occasion of error—namely, lest the movement of adoration might stop short at the man, as a thing, and not be carried on to God, Whose image he is. This cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in insensible material.
Reply to Objection 4: The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:14): “Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word”—that is by word of mouth—“or by our epistle”—that is by word put into writing. Among these traditions is the worship of Christ’s image. Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of Christ, which is in Rome.
Commentary
Aquinas bases his claim that it is proper to worship the image of Christ on Basil’s opinion that worship passes through images and to what they purport to represent: since it is proper to worship Christ, therefore it is thought proper to worship images of him. This false premise contravenes Scripture’s prohibition of images (Ex. 20:4) and its conception of idolatry as consisting in the absurd worship of inanimate objects (Isa. 44:9-20; Jer. 10); and note that Aquinas’ Scripture references are found in the objections which he conspires to refute, not his own position. The only verse he references in support is 2 Thess. 2:14, which he interprets as providing blanket approval for Rome’s traditions, their frequent contradiction of Scripture’s explicit commands notwithstanding.
Aquinas’ answer is also based on Aristotle’s reasoning (“the Philosopher” in the Summa) about how thought works in adoration. Scripture warns us to beware lest human philosophy lead us astray: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). The Aristotelian notion Aquinas propounds here is mistaken, for he distinguishes regarding an image as it is in itself and regarding it insofar as it represents something else. Since an image of Christ is not regarded for its own sake, but insofar as it intends to represent Christ, Aquinas reasons it is proper to worship his images.
By such reasoning idolatry cannot exist, provided the worshiper regards an idol not as a statue but as representing what it purports to represent. This contradicts Scripture’s conception of the evil of idolatry as reducing its committers to the folly of worshiping mere objects.
No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?” (Isa. 44:19).
In his Reply to Objection 1, Aquinas reasons that the evil of idolatry is that it is directed to false gods, not to objects as such. Again, that is not Scripture’s position (Ps. 135:15-18), and in this Aquinas’ reliance on Aristotle corrupts his exegesis. It might appear that 1 Cor. 10:14-22 supports Aquinas. Yet the best understanding of that passage’s teaching that idolaters offer sacrifice to demons is that idolaters’ worship does not pass through idols to demons, but by worshiping idols they do the bidding of the demons who use such worship of objects to ensnare them (1 Cor. 12:2; Gal. 4:8).
Aquinas regards it as improper to image God, since he is incorporeal. Images of Christ are acceptable, however, because in Christ God has taken to himself a “corporeal image.” In this lies much of the error of images of Christ and why many do not approve them for any use, much less worship. No one has ever portrayed Christ in the fullness of his being; at the most he can portray his humanity, and in fact he cannot even do that. The most he can do is portray what he imagines Christ’s humanity looked like, but long experience has shown that this never escapes the distortions of the artist’s preconceived cultural bias – hence in the West, Jesus is ever portrayed as a pale European, not a Levantine Jew. We should not worship some artist’s ridiculous, culture-bound notion of Jesus’ humanity. Such attempts to portray him also fail because they seek to portray him as he was during his first advent, not as he is now. Jesus’ present appearance is such that John strained the limits of description to give an idea of it (Rev. 1:12-16), and that it overwhelmed him (v. 17). No human art can accurately represent Christ as he is now.
To summarize, our objection to worshiping images is that it is idolatry because that worship does not pass through them to Christ, but is actually just worshiping artwork in the same way that ancient idolaters were actually just worshiping statues. Such images do not direct our devotion to Christ, but away from him (who is invisible to us by God’s sovereign will) and to mistaken notions of one of his two natures. They are not necessary for our devotion – for they are not necessary for us to worship the Father and the Spirit.
In this lies the weakness of ‘retrieving’ Thomas. It is a strange notion that renewing theology requires retrieving someone who taught the goodness of idolatry on the basis of self-justifying church tradition and Aristotelian philosophy, and in direct contradiction to Scripture, the exegesis of which was actually perverted by the tradition and philosophy in view. It is something of a mystery how that comports with 1 Cor. 5:11 (“I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is . . . an idolater”).
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation.
Related Posts: -
When Elders Disagree
Throughout the whole process, seek to extend grace to the fellow elders that God has designed to lead his church. A plurality of elders is a precious gift of God. Where one elder might be quick, bold, or decisive, others balance him out with gentleness, discernment, thoughtfulness, and pastoral care. And where some elders may be eager to please with great compassion, their fellow elders can encourage them to not neglect biblical principles and to lead with candor and clarity.
How should fellow elders of the same church navigate dissent, discord, and differences? In the early church, an argument arose between Barnabas and Paul that created tension, strife, and controversy (Acts 15:39). Barnabas was eager to reintegrate John Mark as a traveling companion, yet Paul wanted to move on without him, judging him to be unreliable (Acts 15:38). This “sharp disagreement” resulted in one of the most prominent divisions in the life of the early church.
On our own elder teams, the number of issues we can disagree over is legion. Should we observe the Lord’s Supper every week or just once a month? Do we serve wine or grape juice or offer both? If Baptist, do we admit into membership those baptized as infants? Do we hold one Sunday worship service or go to multiple services (or even multiple campuses)? Should we use a team-preaching model or have one main preacher? What’s the ideal age to allow the baptism of believing children? Do we employ one musical style or have a traditional and contemporary service? How long should services run? Do we discipline this recalcitrant member? Do we send this dear family to serve overseas? And on and on.
When instincts differ among elders on the same team, what can we do? How can we preserve plurality, honor divergent views, and shepherd in harmony with fellow elders?
Foundations for Disagreement
We might start with some foundations that can keep disagreements from becoming destructive — and that can also prevent some disagreements altogether.
First, start by cultivating a spirit of genuine trust outside the moment of disagreement. Create space to get to know one another, to spend time together, to grow in gratitude for each other, and to laugh and play together. Learn about one another. Be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of fellow elders. Gain a deep appreciation of their spiritual gifts and what they contribute to the team. Then give each other permission to speak your minds without repercussion. Seek to cultivate healthy conflict by the kind of open disagreement that neither maligns another’s character nor calls into question his loyalty. Give each other the benefit of the doubt.
Second, develop a robust affirmation of faith for elder candidates. Don’t leave core doctrines up for grabs. Unity on the church’s central beliefs and theology is essential for an elder team’s health. The more robust a statement of faith, the more unity your elder team will have as a foundation beneath your disagreements. This unity will cultivate shared instincts on church life, shepherding, philosophy of ministry, and the mission of the church. If 97 percent of your doctrines, beliefs, and practices are settled, it’s much easier to wrestle together over the remaining 3 percent where differences emerge.
Third, seek to understand one another’s perspectives and experiences. An elder’s history, spouse, friends, background, and education shape his views. What shapes your concerns, conclusions, or inclinations? We all come with different presuppositions, experiences, and ideas. Get them on the table, and be aware of others’ typical blind spots as well as your own. A plurality of elders provides insight, accountability, and protection from going astray.
Moving Through Disagreement
Once the foundation is laid, how does an elder team go from disagreement to moving forward? Here are four questions to ask when wrestling with a particular issue.
1. What does the Bible say?
An elder team should be eager to study the Scriptures together to understand what the Bible says about this issue. This study may not solve our disagreement, but it’s the starting place to bring our ideas in conformity with God’s word. The God-breathed Scriptures are for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, equipping us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
Read More
Related Posts: -
“Luther’s Psalm”: A Look at the 46th Psalm
The Psalmist uses three metaphors to describe God in the opening verse. He is a refuge–a safe place to hide in times of trouble. He is strength–he can do all things, as the people of Israel had just witnessed with the victory of Judah over the Moabites and Amorites as recounted in 2 Chronicles 20. But he is also an ever-present help whenever trouble comes. Unlike the Canaanite deities, YHWH may be “found” in times of trial. He is with us, not far away. He is active, not indifferent. He is the fortress for his people, keeping us safe no matter what the circumstances may be. Although we always need him, he is “found” (“with us”) when we need him most. Because the LORD of Hosts is all of these things, in verses 2-3 the Psalmist affirms, “therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way, though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling.”
Luther’s Interest in Psalm 46
Most people cannot recite Psalm 46 from memory. But many are so familiar with the words to Martin Luther’s famous hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” that they can sing it without looking at the hymnal. “Ein Feste Burg ist unser Gott” is actually Luther’s paraphrase of Psalm 46. This Psalm has several very familiar lines, has been cited by American presidents (most recently by Barak Obama), and portions of it appear in well-known Jewish prayers. Found in Book Two of the Psalter and attributed to the Sons of Korah, it is classified as a “Psalm of Zion.” It contains loud echoes from Psalm 2, where that divine protection promised to the king, is extended to include his capital city (Jerusalem). Charles Spurgeon aptly speaks of the 46th Psalm as “the song of faith in troubled times.”[1] Martin Luther thought this Psalm of such comfort, he put it to verse.
It is important to reflect upon Psalm 46, because we sing this particular Psalm as often as any other–often in the form of Luther’s famous paraphrase. Before we take up the text of the Psalm–where we will find much deep and rich biblical theology–I think it appropriate to consider Luther’s use of this Psalm, then debunk one of the persistent myths surrounding the version of the Psalm which appears in the KJV, and then look at the context in which the Psalm was originally composed. Then, we will look at the text of the Psalm while making various points of application as we go.
As for Luther and “A Mighty Fortress,” although there are many theories about when it was written and for what occasion, Luther’s hymn first appears in a 1531 hymnal which would indicate that Luther wrote it several years earlier, likely in 1527-29. This was ten years or so after his 95 theses were circulated throughout Europe, igniting the theological fire which became the Protestant Reformation. The black plague was especially virulent throughout much of Europe in the winter of 1527, nearly killing Luther’s son. Luther was also a physical wreck during this time (from exhaustion). He began spending much time reading and reflecting upon Psalm 46, especially its promise that God is the bulwark (fortress) who never fails. From Luther’s reflection on that word of comfort, the famous hymn was born.
According to one writer, “many times during this dark and tumultuous period, when terribly discouraged, [Luther] would turn to his co-laborer, Philipp Melanchthon, and say, ‘Come, Philipp, let us sing the forty-sixth Psalm.’”[2] Luther said of this particular Psalm, “we sing this psalm to the praise of God, because He is with us and powerfully and miraculously preserves and defends His church and His word against all fanatical spirits, against the gates of hell, against the implacable hatred of the devil, and against all the assaults of the world, the flesh, and sin.”[3] Because our fathers in the faith were sustained throughout their trials by their knowledge and love of the Psalter, we would be foolish to ignore their wise counsel, and the faithful example they have set before us.
A Persistent Rumor
One persistent rumor which needs to be debunked is that William Shakespeare helped prepare the translation of this Psalm which appears in the King James Version of the Bible. As the spurious theory goes, the 46th word of the Psalm is “shake,” while the 46th word from the end of the Psalm is “spear.” Furthermore, the bard was forty-six years old in 1611 when the translation of the KJV was completed. Unfortunately, the only way this will work is if you do not count the word “selah” which appears in three places in the Psalm. Selah is an indication to the musicians that this is a place to pause. No doubt, there are some interesting coincidences here. But then, it is a shame that people are so preoccupied with interesting coincidences, because, apparently, coincidences are far more intriguing than making an effort to understand how this particular Psalm speaks of Jesus Christ.
The Songs of Zion
As for the background to the Psalm itself, this Psalm (along with a number others) is usually classified as a “Song of Zion.” The Zion Songs are identified as such because these Psalms proclaim the excellencies of Zion (the mountain upon which Jerusalem and the temple are located), which is the apple of YHWH’s eye. In these Psalms YHWH is depicted as the great warrior-king who protects his own as he advances his kingdom. These Psalms are also polemical–they are a response to Canaanite polytheism. In contrast, the Songs of Zion proclaim that YHWH alone is God, and it is he who made the mountains where the Canaanites foolishly believed their “gods” dwelt.
But the Zion motif is not just limited to the physical mountain upon which the city of Jerusalem happens to sit. Zion is the very symbol of God’s kingdom on earth, a kingdom which has a visible expression in the city of Jerusalem and in its temple. Yet the people of Israel also know that YHWH’s kingdom extends beyond Zion to the ends of the earth. In the Zion Songs, it is YHWH who protects the earthly Zion, and its people, and its ruler. It is YHWH who provides for his people–especially during their trials. It is YHWH who blesses them, when (in faith), they obey his covenant. And it is YHWH who will bring down the covenant curses upon Israel when they disobey him. The citizens of spiritual Zion trust in YHWH’s promise. They delight in his presence. They seek to honor him through living lives of gratitude–loving him and neighbor. And they believe that YHWH will see them through the worst of times and trials, which is why they both praise him and call upon his name in these songs.[4]
It is in this sense then that Zion is the center of Israelite life, and why the earthly mount Zion and city of Jerusalem, points beyond the city and the temple to the new Jerusalem and the heavenly city. At this point in redemptive history, Zion is the holy mount where YHWH chooses to be present with his people. He delights when his people acknowledge him as the true and living God. All of this points ahead to the coming of Jesus Christ who is the true temple, and the true Israel, and in whom and through whom the kingdom of God is realized in the new covenant era.
As the author of Hebrews tells Christian worshipers in Hebrews 12:22-24,“but you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.”
When we assemble for worship, we do so as citizens of the heavenly Zion, the city of the living God, whose inhabitants have been made perfect by the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. We too sing the “Songs of Zion,” but we sing them in reference to God’s kingdom and to the covenant mediator, Jesus.
The Historical Background to the Psalm’s Composition
The historical situation behind the composition of this Psalm is likely the events recounted in 2 Chronicles 20, when YHWH defeats the tribe of Judah’s enemies while the people uncharacteristically pray and wait for YHWH to act on their behalf–which he does.[5] According to verses 4 and following of 2 Chronicles 20,“and Judah assembled to seek help from the Lord; from all the cities of Judah they came to seek the Lord. And Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the new court, and said, ‘O Lord, God of our fathers, are you not God in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. In your hand are power and might, so that none is able to withstand you. Did you not, our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel, and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend? And they have lived in it and have built for you in it a sanctuary for your name, saying, ‘If disaster comes upon us, the sword, judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we will stand before this house and before you—for your name is in this house—and cry out to you in our affliction, and you will hear and save.’”
In verse 22, the Chronicler tells us that YHWH brought about Judah’s successful ambush of their enemies and as a consequence,
“Judah came to the watchtower of the wilderness, they looked toward the horde, and behold, there were dead bodies lying on the ground; none had escaped. When Jehoshaphat and his people came to take their spoil, they found among them, in great numbers, goods, clothing, and precious things, which they took for themselves until they could carry no more. They were three days in taking the spoil, it was so much.”
Having witnessed YHWH thoroughly defeat their vastly superior enemy and protect his city, the Sons of Korah composed this song of triumphal victory. They directed the choirmaster to use the 46th Psalm on a special occasion–most likely during times of crisis.[6]
The Structure of the Psalm
The 46th Psalm is divided into three stanzas, each marked off by “selah” (pause). The first stanza (vv. 1-3) reminds us of God’s power over nature, while the second stanza (vv. 4-7) describes YHWH’s power in defending his holy city from all attackers.
Read More
Related Posts: