The question relates to two passages in the book of Genesis. When Joseph met his brothers in Egypt who had sold him into slavery, he did not make himself known and tried them instead to see whether they were willing to leave one of their brothers, Benjamin, behind in jail, while enjoying their own freedom and escape from the Egyptian court. Joseph ordered that money and his special cup be placed in the sacks of his brothers upon their departure, but then to pursue them.

In this very context, we read in Genesis 44:4-6: “When they had gone out of the city, and were not yet far off, Joseph said to his servant, ‘Get up, follow the men; and when you overtake them, say to them, ‘Why have you repaid evil for good? Is not this the one from which my lord drinks, and with which he indeed practices divination? You have done evil in so doing.’ So he overtook them, and he spoke to them these same words.” The Authorized Version (AV) reads: “Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?”

Also, in Genesis 44:15, we read that Joseph told his brothers, after the cup was “discovered” in Benjamin’s sack: “Did you not know that such a man as I can certainly practice divination?”

In Genesis 44:6 and 15, the Hebrew word for the English expression “practice divination” or “divine” is nachash. Young’s defines it as, “use enchantment.”

It is clear that the word can describe demonic divination or enchantment.

We read in Deuteronomy 18:10: “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft [AV: that useth divination], or a soothsayer [AV: observer of times], or one who interprets omens [AV: enchanter, Hebr. nachash], or a sorcerer [witch], or one who conjures spells [charmer], or a medium [consulter with familiar spirits], or a spiritist [wizard], or one who calls up the dead [necromancer].”

Also, note the following passages in the Authorized Version:

Numbers 23:23: “… [There is] no enchantment [nachash] against Jacob, no divination [Hebrew: qesem] against Israel.”

Numbers 24:1: “… to seek for enchantment [nachash; New KJB: sorcery].”

2 Kings 17:17: “[The evil Israelites] used divination [qesem] and enchantments [nachash].”

2 Kings 21:6: “[The evil king Manasseh] used enchantments [nachash].”

2 Chronicles 33:6: “[Manasseh] used enchantments [nachash].”

Leviticus 19:26: “… neither shall ye use enchantment [nachash] nor observe times.”

From this, some commentaries conclude that Joseph used demonic enchantment or divination.

For instance, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:

“The word shews that the silver cup was a sacred one, by means of which Joseph sought and obtained oracles. Some have inferred that he must have been admitted into the priests’ guild, in order to be able to practise divination. It appears that water having been poured into a vessel or cup, gold or silver or precious stones were thrown into it, and the oracle or divination was derived from the rings, ripples, or sparkles, which appeared. The name given to this class of magic was ‘hydromancy.’”

Similarly the Broadman Bible Commentary, which expresses the hope, however, that Joseph did not do so:

“The silver cup was used for divining. Small objects were placed in the cup so that veiled references could be seen in their configurations. Von Rad cites a custom in Germany of pouring lead into water on New Year’s Eve as ‘a final vestige of the custom.’ Did Joseph really divine in this manner? Or was he just playing a game with the brothers? The cup was certainly a part of the paraphernalia of his office, and he was probably expected to use it. One could hope that he had not substituted this method of determining the future for the spiritual insight he had formerly known…”

Other commentaries leave the question unanswered as well:

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes:

“Divining by cups… was a common custom in Egypt (Herodotus ii. 83). It is here mentioned to enhance the value of the cup. Whether Joseph really practised any sort of divination cannot be determined from this passage.”

The concept that Joseph practiced demonic divination is difficult to accept. Joseph is mentioned as one of the faithful patriarchs who will receive the promise of eternal life (Hebrews 11:21-22, 39-40).

Therefore, many commentaries conclude that in order to test his brothers, Joseph did not practice divination, but that he pretended to do so, or that he did not dispute the superstition attached to his cup.

The idea seems to be that “Joseph may have allowed them to think he practiced divination with this cup to instill more fear in them—as it would look to them like they would be charged with the theft of something of great importance in Egypt.” In other words, as some put it, “Joseph may have claimed he used it to divine matters in order to raise the stakes and incite more fear in his brothers’ hearts.” Some say that “Joseph was representing himself as an administrator of a pagan land. He adapted himself, his actions, and his language to the character of such an administrator, as it would appear in the eyes of his unsuspecting brothers.” It is alleged that he acted in this way, including the possession of a valuable cup from which he could divine, to “keep up the appearance of being thoroughly Egyptian” and a great and powerful Egyptian, as such.

For instance, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary writes:

“Divination by cups, to ascertain the course of futurity, was one of the prevalent superstitions of ancient Egypt, as it is of Eastern countries still. It is not likely that Joseph, a pious believer in the true God, would have addicted himself to this superstitious practice. But he might have availed himself of that popular notion to carry out the successful execution of his stratagem for the last decisive trial of his brethren.”

The Geneva Study Bible states:

“Because the people thought he could divine, he attributes to himself that knowledge: or else he pretends that he consults with soothsayers: which deceit is worthy to be reproved.”

The Ryrie Study Bible states:

“It is unlikely that Joseph used divination; rather, this statement (made in order to attach specific significance to the cup) was part of the situation Joseph contrived in order to test his brothers.

The German Schlachter Bibel comments:

“The cup was a holy vessel, which symbolized the authority of his office as the Egyptian vice-king. The reference to superstition does not have to mean that Joseph engaged in such pagan-religious rites. He later allowed his brothers to assume such.”

Torahclass.com states:

“Actually, it was a bowl… a silver bowl. The master of the house in Egypt in those days, if judged a sage, a seer, had a special bowl from which he and he alone drank. But, it was also used for the purpose of divining messages from the gods. One can only imagine how Joseph came by this ‘diviner’s bowl’… likely it was a gift from the Pharaoh, because Joseph was undoubtedly, after accurately interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams, determined the highest and best sage, diviner, in all the land. Typically, the bowl was filled with water, and then gold or silver objects, amulets, sometimes with magic inscriptions written on them, were put into the water, and from the reflections the seer would attempt to see the future.  It is unimaginable that Joseph actually used the bowl for anything except to drink from… but to keep up the appearance of being thoroughly Egyptian, he used the common knowledge of the bowl as an implement of divination to continue to test his brothers.”

However, even the concept that Joseph wrongfully pretended to practice divination to “test” his brothers is difficult to believe. Some argued that “Joseph did not order his steward to tell a direct lie—rather, he simply told him to ask a question. The real answer would have been no. But the brothers didn’t know this.” But this conclusion is not convincing and does not agree with the plain context of the passage.

Another interpretation has been proposed, that “this is one of the few cases in which God permitted the use of objects to discern His will. Other examples include the casting of lots (Leviticus 16:7-10), the priest’s use of the Urim and Thummim (Numbers 27:21), and Gideon’s use of the fleece (Judges 6:36-40). If Joseph did practice divination with the silver cup, it was not divination in the pagan sense but seeking God’s will through a particular method.”

However, the examples, cited above, never use the Hebrew word nachash to describe these godly practices. Even though some, such as the Eastons’s Bible Dictionary, speak of these godly activities as “divination by lot”, “divination by dreams” and “divination by Urim and Thummim,” these are just human descriptions, since the Bible nowhere refers to these acceptable methods as “divination” or “enchantment.”

However, a much more acceptable and compelling understanding evolves when we consider that the Hebrew word nachash can also have a different meaning than “divination” or “enchantment.”

Strong’s defines it as: “to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; gen. to prognosticate, certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) enchantment, learn by experience, indeed, diligently observe.”

And so, the Benson Commentary explains:

“Genesis 44:5. Whereby indeed he divineth — The original word may be rendered, For which he would search thoroughly…”

The Commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke agrees, stating:

“I take the word… nachash here in its general acceptation of to view attentively, to inquire…”

Based on this evaluation, the following commentary in Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible makes interesting reading:

“Joseph never practised any thing of this kind, so neither would he… make as if he did… but the words… may signify to tempt, to try, to make an experiment, and by experience to know a thing… and so the Arabic version, ‘and indeed he hath tried you by it’: so Aben Ezra interprets it of his trying of them by it, whether they were thieves or not… it seems best of all to understand this not of the cup as the instrument by which he tried, searched, and inquired into things, but as the object searched after and inquired of; for the word signifies to inquire, and make a strict observation of things, and thereby make shrewd guesses and conjectures… diligent inquiry would be made after it, and it would be at once conjectured that it was taken away, not by any of the household, but by those strangers that had dined with Joseph…”

We find the use of the Hebrew word nachash in the following two passages which do not refer to divination at all. Genesis 30:27 is translated as: “I have learned by experience that the LORD has blessed me”; and 1 Kings 20:33 states that “the men were watching closely to see whether any sign of mercy would come from him.”

Also, Joseph’s statement in Genesis 44:15 is rendered in the Living Bible as: “Didn’t you know such a man as I would know who stole it?”

Some German translations render Genesis 44:15 in the way that Joseph would be able to “discern” (“durchschauen”; Hoffnung fuer Alle); “certainly find out” (“gewiss erkunden”; Zuercher); or “figure it out” (“erraten koennte”; Luther 1891).

An additional interesting parallel has been proposed regarding Joseph’s cup of great financial value and the partaking of the cup of wine at the time of Passover. A write-up by Aletheia Bible College points out:

“The Hebrew for ‘divineth’ means literally ‘to make trial’; their taking of the cup was their trial / judgment. Thus we drink either blessing or condemnation to ourselves by taking the cup. The word used by the LXX for ‘divineth’ in Gen. 44:5 occurs in the NT account of the breaking of the bread [and drinking of the wine] service: ‘everyone should examine himself, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup’ (1 Cor. 11:28)…”

In conclusion, it does not appear that Joseph practiced demonic divination or that he lied to his brothers by pretending that he was engaged in divination or enchantment; nor, that that type of divination by using his cup would have been acceptable in God’s eyes. Rather, Joseph had his valuable cup of prestige placed in Benjamin’s sack to test the bothers thereby whether they would forsake Benjamin (as they had forsaken and even sold Joseph into slavery) or whether they would stand by him. The cup was not a cup through or by which Joseph “divined” or “searched” the future–but it was the object which was “lost” and for which Joseph was searching, and it was the object by which the brothers were being tested or examined as to whether they would be loyal to Benjamin and their father Jacob.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In the first part, we discussed the biblical passages pertaining to the second Passover, i.e. Numbers 9 and 2 Chronicles 30. We read that those who were unable to partake of the first Passover [at the beginning of the 14^th day of Nisan, the first month in the Hebrew calendar], due to ritual uncleanness or absence because of a long journey, were allowed to take the second Passover. They would do so EXACTLY 30 days later [at the beginning of the 14^th day of Iyar, the second month in the Hebrew calendar], and in EXACTLY the same way as the first Passover was observed. We also saw that under King Hezekiah, the whole congregation kept the second Passover, and they proceeded to keep seven Days of Unleavened Bread, followed by another seven days of celebration.

In the past, there has been some confusion as to whether or not to keep the Days of Unleavened Bread [or some resemblance of abstaining from unleavened bread for seven days], following the second Passover.

For instance, it has been recommended that if a person keeping the second Passover did NOT observe the Days of Unleavened Bread after the first Passover, he or she should observe seven days of unleavened bread after taking the second Passover. It was also mentioned, however, that the first and last days of this period of unleavened bread following the second Passover would NOT be Sabbaths.

This approach does not seem to find biblical support. Numbers 9 does not mention anything about keeping any of the Days of Unleavened Bread after the second Passover. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible points out correctly that in Old Testament times, the second Passover was to be eaten “in the same manner as the first passover was eaten, Exodus 12:8; only no mention is made of keeping the feast of unleavened bread seven days…”

When reading about how the Jews observe the second Passover (“Pesach Sheni” in Hebrew), it is pointed out that the festival is only one day this time, rather than seven. In other words, a “shifting” takes place from a seven day festival to a one day event (the Jews consider the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread as constituting one festival, calling it “Passover,” even though technically, the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread are two different festivals). They continue explaining that it is not necessary to remove leaven from one’s premises for seven days, following the second Passover, or to abstain from eating leavened products during that time.

When reviewing the incident in 2 Chronicles 30 under King Hezekiah, we find that the whole occurrence was quite unorthodox in that people partook of the second Passover who were, under the ritual law, not permitted to do so, due to their ceremonial uncleanness (verse 18), but that Hezekiah prayed to God for “atonement” (verse 18) and God listened to him and forgave and “healed” them (verse 20), while the Levites ate throughout the feast for seven days, “making confession” (verse 22). Subsequently, the whole assembly agreed to continue the celebration for another seven days (verse 23; notice that the words “the feast” in this verse are in italics, meaning that they are not in the original Hebrew). The 14-day observance after the second Passover was done voluntarily; there was no biblical command to do so.

We do not know how exactly those 14 days were kept. But in any event, this occurrence cannot be used as a precedence for those today who keep the second Passover, so that they would need to also keep seven days of unleavened bread, because IF we were to look at the occurrence under King Hezekiah as binding for us today, then 14 days would have to be kept in some way, not just seven.

We should also understand why God was willing to “overlook” or pass over the inaccurate observance of the Passover at that time. Until King Hezekiah, there is no record that the children of Israel and Judah even kept the Passover after Joshua and Samuel (compare 2 Chronicles 35:18). They might have done so, but not with the same zeal and dedication as they did under King Hezekiah. And it appears that they did not keep it again after Hezekiah, at least not with the same zeal, until the service was temporarily restored under King Josiah (2 Chronicles 35). In the incident of 2 Chronicles 30, under King Hezekiah, God forgave them their inadequacies as He looked at their new-found zeal and dedication to His Word, even though their understanding was not perfect. Even under Moses, it appears that only very few Passovers were actually held.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers states the following pertaining to Joshua 5:10:

“This is the third Passover in Israel’s history. The first two were kept under Moses–(1) in Egypt, when the Lord delivered them; (2) the second at Sinai, when He had ‘brought them unto Himself.’ (3) The third is on the other side [of the] Jordan under Joshua. Two belong to the Exodus, or going out; one to the Eisodus, or coming in… The law in Exodus 12:48 is, “no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” Hence, while they wandered in the wilderness, this uncircumcised generation could not keep the Passover.”

The Benson Commentary agrees, stating this pertaining to Joshua 5:10:

“The children of Israel kept the passover — Which was their third passover: the first was in Egypt, Exodus 12.; the second at mount Sinai, Numbers 9.; the third here; for in their wilderness travels, these and several other sacrifices were neglected, Amos 5:25. While they were in the wilderness, they were denied the comfort of this ordinance, as a further token of God’s displeasure. But now God comforted them again, after the time that he had afflicted them.”

Likewise Matthew Poole’s Commentary: “This [in Joshua 5:10] was their third passover: the first was in Egypt, Exo 12; the second at Mount Sinai, Num 9; the third here; for in their wilderness travels these and all other sacrifices were neglected, Amos 5:25.”

Very little has been published in the past in Church of God literature about the specific circumstances allowing or even encouraging a person to take the second Passover, when he or she did not partake of the first Passover. If anything was said at all, it was stated that the person was “unable” to take the first Passover; that “he or she inadvertently misse[d] the first Passover due to circumstances beyond their control”; that “strenuous circumstances occurred”; or that they were “not able” to keep the first Passover “due to illness or other emergency circumstances.”

Commentaries are also very vague. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states that it “was understood in later days to include all good reasons which might prevent anyone from keeping the festival.” The Benson Commentary says that “the Hebrews think that other hinderances [sic] of like nature are comprehended; as if one be hindered by a disease, or by any other such kind of uncleanness.”

We are informed that the definition of “distant journey” has been interpreted very liberally by the rabbinic tradition.

In the Church of God, it has been understood for a long time that the examples in Numbers 9 are not exclusive. A baptized person who was unable to keep the Passover because of sickness (perhaps lying in a hospital bed without any privacy) was always permitted and encouraged to take the second Passover.

There might be additional unusual circumstances which might have to be scrutinized carefully; and it is important to provide here a few more specific details for the purpose of assisting and guiding in this process. The following comments are not introducing “new doctrine,” nor are they meant to be understood as providing definitive doctrinal or administrative decisions of the Church, but rather, to help sharpen our thinking pertaining to what might or might not constitute “unusual circumstances” in specific situations. However, converted members contemplating to take the second Passover should never do so without prior consultation and counsel with the ministry.

If baptized members did not take the first Passover because of what might be described as “spiritual uncleanness” (more on this term below), which was followed by genuine repentance, would they be allowed to partake of the second Passover, or would they have to wait another year and then partake of the next first Passover? Would this situation be analogous to the ritual uncleanness prohibiting a person to partake of the first Passover? Persons who were ritually unclean could not take the first Passover, but they could take the second Passover when they had become ritually clean. Would the spiritual analogy apply so that those who were “spiritually” unclean could not/should not take the first Passover (that is why it is always emphasized during the Passover ceremony that no one should take the Passover if he/she is harboring grudges against someone else), but once they became spiritually clean, they could partake of the second Passover?

[On the other hand, a person thinking that he or she should not partake of the first Passover because of “spiritual” uncleanness would make a mistake when unilaterally deciding not to do so. Such a person might very well be sinning, as Paul commands us to examine ourselves and then to TAKE the Passover (1 Corinthians 11:28). A decision in this regard, pro or con, should always be first discussed and counseled with the ministry.]

In addition, when someone is not baptized, he would not be spiritually “clean,” but once he is baptized, he would be spiritually “clean” and therefore able to take the Passover. Does this understanding help us in determining certain developments pertaining to the second Passover? Let us suppose that someone would be ready for baptism prior to the (first) Passover, but could not be baptized just before the Passover, because of practical problems, such as no minister being present prior to Passover. Would this person who becomes baptized a few days after the first Passover be allowed to take the second Passover? We saw that a person could not partake of the first Passover when he was ritually unclean, but he could partake of the second Passover if he became ritually clean in the meantime. Would this analogy apply to spiritual cleanness due to baptism; in other words, could the spiritual analogy apply that when an unbaptized person who is spiritually unclean and therefore prevented from taking the (first) Passover, as he or she would take it unworthily, would be able to take the second Passover after he or she becomes spiritually clean through baptism?

One argument against this concept might be that the ritually unclean person was physically circumcised; that is, he could have taken the first Passover if it had not been for his ritual uncleanness or his being on a journey. The spiritual analogy might mean that the person was baptized (spiritually circumcised), but could not take the first Passover for reasons other than not being baptized, while an unbaptized person could not have partaken of the first Passover in the first place. In addition, there is no biblical record that a man who was not physically circumcised could partake of the Passover. On the other hand, as mentioned above, there are very few biblical records when the Passover was kept in the first place, and the command of physical circumcision only applied to men, not women, but women did participate in the Old Testament Passover observances.

One might also consider that just because conditions prevented the baptism from taking place before the first Passover through no one’s fault, should this preclude taking the second Passover after baptism which took place right after the first Passover? Had all the relevant conditions been in place; e.g., availability of a minister and a suitable place for baptism, then the baptism would have taken place prior to Passover. The person had no fault in not being baptized in time for the first Passover. The Israelites who could not keep the Passover because they were defiled by the dead body of a man, asked Moses: “Why are we kept from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the children of Israel?” (Numbers 9:7). Today, a person presents himself, as a living sacrifice, to God the Father and Jesus Christ at Passover, while accepting THE Sacrifice of Christ for the ongoing remission of his sins.

We should also consider that in the situation under King Hezekiah, the first Passover could not be observed, among other reasons, as there were not enough Levites present who had “consecrated “ themselves (2 Chronicles 30:3). Could this analogy apply in a situation today when no minister was present prior to the first Passover to baptize a person?

In Matthew 18:18 we read Christ’s words to His ministry: “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

It ultimately requires a decision by the Church ministry, considering all the facts and circumstances in a given situation, as to whether it should be recommended to a person who did not observe the first Passover to be allowed to observe the second Passover. It would have to be an individual decision of the local minister, reviewing all the facts and circumstances, whether to recommend the second Passover for someone who was baptized right after the first Passover, because the baptism could not take place before the first Passover, through no fault of the person. The same might apply when a baptized person did not take the first Passover due to “spiritual” uncleanness but subsequently genuinely repents and is desirous of taking the second Passover. This might also include a situation when an ill-advised “decision” by a member was made not to take the first Passover which might turn out to have been incorrect, due to a wrong evaluation of the circumstances or due to a wrong understanding of pertinent facts, and when the member repents of his or her mistake and has the strong desire to take the second Passover. In either case, an individual should not take it upon himself or herself, without the consultation with a minister, to take the second Passover on his or her own. Although the ultimate decision rests with the individual member, it is strongly recommended that he or she counsels first with the ministry on the matter of the second Passover.

From the way Numbers 9:10-12 is rendered in some translations, one might conclude that a person MUST take the second Passover if the situation warrants it, and that the person were to sin if he or she would not do it. The Authorized Version states that those who could not keep the first Passover “shall” keep it on the 14^th day of the second month. (The Revised Standard Version and the Revised English Bible state it in similar terms, i.e. “shall” keep it, or even “must” keep it). However, this is not what Numbers 9:10-12 seems to want to convey. Rather, the idea seems to be that when the second Passover is to be observed, it must be at that particular time; it must be “to the LORD”; and it must be in accordance with the ordinances of the (first) Passover. The New King James Bible renders these verses in this way, thereby accurately reflecting the intended meaning:

“… he may still keep the LORD’s Passover. On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all of the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.”

Also compare the New International Version; the New American Bible (“he may still keep the LORD’s Passover”); and the New Jerusalem Bible (he “can still keep a Passover for Yahweh”).

In any event, applying the principles of Numbers 9 to the New Testament Church, it will be the ministry who is to make a recommendation in a given situation, as to whether it is advisable or recommended to take or not to take the second Passover, based on godly inspiration, conveying what God may bind or loose in heaven in a specific case. Undoubtedly, the ministry has been given authority to make decisions in such cases, as God has given the ministry authority to declare, based on godly-revealed wisdom and discernment, whether someone has repented of his or her sin, or not (John 20:23). However, if the ministry, under godly inspiration, concludes that the second Passover “may” or “should be” taken, then a person’s decision to ignore the ministry and act contrarily might very well be sinful.

This would also be true for the first Passover when the ministry concludes, under godly inspiration, that there are no reasons to prevent someone from taking the first Passover, and the member just chooses to ignore such advice. The reverse is true as well: When the ministry, under godly inspiration, concludes that the first or second Passover should not be taken under the particular circumstances, then the member might sin if he or she acts contrary to that conclusion and partakes of the first or second Passover anyhow. It really boils down to the question as to whether we believe that God inspires His ministry in cases like these, or whether we are entitled to just do whatever we please (compare Judges 17:6; 21:25). [Of course, if it is concluded that a second Passover should not or does not need to be taken, then the person is of course required to partake of the next first Passover, unless circumstances dictate otherwise, as discussed above.]

Another question is how the second Passover is to be kept. The answer is: Similarly as to how the first Passover is being kept at home by those who are scattered and unable to attend the Passover service in person. The Church of the Eternal God and its international affiliates have prepared pre-recorded material for those baptized Church members who are eligible to take the first (or second) Passover at home. Normally, the Passover service consists of three parts: The footwashing; the partaking of the bread; and the partaking of the wine. When only one person is observing the Passover at home, then the footwashing ceremony must be dispensed of, for obvious reasons.

When two or more persons are partaking of the Passover at home, then—if husband and wife—they would wash each other’s feet, and if additional men and women are participating, then men would wash the feet of the other men, and women of the other women. If a ministerial couple who had partaken of the first Passover are present for the second Passover in order to assist someone who might need help, then the minister could officiate the second Passover service, but he and his wife should not partake of the Passover themselves, as otherwise, they would keep the Passover more than once within a year, which would be against God’s Law.

In conclusion, we would strongly recommend that converted members who may be in doubt as to whether or not to take the first or second Passover, should not make a unilateral decision in this regard, but counsel first with the Church ministry for guidance and direction.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link