THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES (GENESIS)

INTRODUCTION

Contents, Design, and Plan of the Book of Genesis The first book of Moses, which has the superscription tyviare in the original, Ge>nesiv Ko>smou in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX, and is called liber creationis by the Rabbins, has received the name of Genesis from its entire contents. Commencing with the creation of the heaven and the earth, and concluding with the death of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, this book supplies us with information with regard not only to the first beginnings and earlier stages of the world and of the human race, but also to those of the divine institutions which laid the foundation for the kingdom of God.

Genesis commences with the creation of the world, because the heavens and the earth form the appointed sphere, so far as time and space are concerned, for the kingdom of God; because God, according to His eternal counsel, appointed the world to be the scene both for the revelation of His invisible essence, and also for the operations of His eternal love within and among His creatures; and because in the beginning He created the world to be and to become the kingdom of God. The creation of the heaven and the earth, therefore, receives as its centre, paradise; and in paradise, man, created in the image of God, is the head and crown of all created beings.

The history of the world and of the kingdom of God begins with him. His fall from God brought death and corruption into the whole creation (Genesis 3:17ff.; Romans 8:19ff.); his redemption from the fall will be completed in and with the glorification of the heavens and the earth (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:1). By sin, men have departed and separated themselves from God; but God, in His infinite mercy, has not cut himself off from men, His creatures. Not only did He announce redemption along with punishment immediately after the fall, but from that time forward He continued to reveal Himself to them, that He might draw them back to Himself, and lead them from the path of destruction to the way of salvation. And through these operations of God upon the world in theophanies, or revelations by word and deed, the historical development of the human race became a history of the plan of salvation. The book of Genesis narrates that history in broad, deep, comprehensive sketches, from its first beginning to the time of the patriarchs, whom God chose from among the nations of the earth to be the bearers of salvation for the entire world. This long space of 2300 years (from Adam to the flood, 1656; to the entrance of Abram into Canaan, 365; to Joseph’s death, 285; in all, 2306 years) is divisible into two periods. The first period embraces the development of the human race from its first creation and fall to its dispersion over the earth, and the division of the one race into many nations, with different languages (2:4-11:26); and is divided by the flood into two distinct ages, which we may call the primeval age and the preparatory age. All that is related of the primeval age, from Adam to Noah, is the history of the fall; the mode of life, and longevity of the two families which descended from the two sons of Adam; and the universal spread of sinful corruption in consequence of the intermarriage of these two families, who differed so essentially in their relation to God (2:4-6:8).

The primeval history closes with the flood, in which the old world perished (6:9-8:19). Of the preparatory age, from Noah to Terah the father of Abraham, we have an account of the covenant which God made with Noah, and of Noah’s blessing and curse; the genealogies of the families and tribes which descended from his three sons; an account of the confusion of tongues, and the dispersion of the people; and the genealogical table from Shem to Terah (8:20-11:26).

The second period consists of the patriarchal era. From this we have an elaborate description of the lives of the three patriarchs of Israel, the family chosen to be the people of God, from the call of Abraham to the death of Joseph (11:27-50). Thus the history of humanity is gathered up into the history of the one family, which received the promise, that God would multiply it into a great people, or rather into a multitude of peoples, would make it a blessing to all the families of the earth, and would give it the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.

This general survey will suffice to bring out the design of the book of Genesis, viz., to relate the early history of the Old Testament kingdom of God. By a simple and unvarnished description of the development of the world under the guidance and discipline of God, it shows how God, as the preserver and governor of the world, dealt with the human race which He had created in His own image, and how, notwithstanding their fall and through the misery which ensued, He prepared the way for the fulfillment of His original design, and the establishment of the kingdom which should bring salvation to the world. Whilst by virtue of the blessing bestowed in their creation, the human race was increasing from a single pair to families and nations, and peopling the earth; God stemmed the evil, which sin had introduced, by words and deeds, by the announcement of His will in commandments, promises, and threats, and by the infliction of punishments and judgments upon the despisers of His mercy.

Side by side with the law of expansion from the unity of a family to the plurality of nations, there was carried on from the very first a law of separation between the ungodly and those that feared God, for the purpose of preparing and preserving a holy seed for the rescue and salvation of the whole human race. This double law is the organic principle which lies at the root of all the separations, connections, and dispositions which constitute the history of the book of Genesis. In accordance with the law of reproduction, which prevails in the preservation and increase of the human race, the genealogies show the historical bounds within which the persons and events that marked the various epochs are confined; whilst the law of selection determines the arrangement and subdivision of such historical materials as are employed.

So far as the plan of the book is concerned, the historical contents are divided into ten groups, with the uniform heading, “These are the generations” (with the exception of 5:1: “This is the book of the generations”); the account of the creation forming the substratum of the whole. These groups consist of the Tholedoth: hd;l]wOT 1. of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 2:4-4:26); 2. of Adam (5:1-6:8); 3. of Noah (6:9- 9:29); 4. of Noah’s sons (10:1-11:9); 5. of Shem (11:10-26); 6. of Terah (11:27-25:11); 7. of Ishmael (25:12-18); 8. of Isaac (25:19-35:29); 9. of Esau (26); and 10. of Jacob (37-50). There are five groups in the first period, and five in the second. Although, therefore, the two periods differ considerably with regard to their scope and contents, in their historical importance to the book of Genesis they are upon a par; and the number ten stamps upon the entire book, or rather upon the early history of Israel recorded in the book, the character of completeness.

This arrangement flowed quite naturally from the contents and purport of the book. The two periods, of which the early history of the kingdom of God in Israel consists, evidently constitute two great divisions, so far as their internal character is concerned. All that is related of the first period, from Adam to Terah, is obviously connected, no doubt, with the establishment of the kingdom of God in Israel, but only in a remote degree.

The account of paradise exhibits the primary relation of man to God and his position in the world. In the fall, the necessity is shown for the interposition of God to rescue the fallen. In the promise which followed the curse of transgression, the first glimpse of redemption is seen. The division of the descendants of Adam into a God-fearing and an ungodly race exhibits the relation of the whole human race to God. The flood prefigures the judgment of God upon the ungodly; and the preservation and blessing of Noah, the protection of the godly from destruction.

And lastly, in the genealogy and division of the different nations on the one hand, and the genealogical table of Shem on the other, the selection of one nation is anticipated to be the recipient and custodian of the divine revelation. The special preparations for the training of this nation commence with the call of Abraham, and consist of the care bestowed upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity, and of the promises which they received. The leading events in the first period, and the prominent individuals in the second, also furnished, in a simple and natural way, the requisite points of view for grouping the historical materials of each under a fivefold division. The proof of this will be found in the exposition. Within the different groups themselves the arrangement adopted is this: the materials are arranged and distributed according to the law of divine selection; the families which branched off from the main line are noticed first of all; and when they have been removed from the general scope of the history, the course of the main line is more elaborately described, and the history itself is carried forward.

According to this plan, which is strictly adhered to, the history of Cain and his family precedes that of Seth and his posterity; the genealogy of Japhet and Ham stands before that of Shem; the history of Ishmael and Esau, before that of Isaac and Jacob; and the death of Terah, before the call and migration of Abraham to Canaan. In this regularity of composition, according to a settled plan, the book of Genesis may clearly be seen to be the careful production of one single author, who looked at the historical development of the human race in the light of divine revelation, and thus exhibited it as a complete and well arranged introduction to the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God. THE CREATION OF THE WORLD The account of the creation, its commencement, progress, and completion, bears the marks, both in form and substance, of a historical document in which it is intended that we should accept as actual truth, not only the assertion that God created the heavens, and the earth, and all that lives and moves in the world, but also the description of the creation itself in all its several stages. If we look merely at the form of this document, its place at the beginning of the book of Genesis is sufficient to warrant the expectation that it will give us history, and not fiction, or human speculation. As the development of the human family has been from the first a historical fact, and as man really occupies that place in the world which this record assigns him, the creation of man, as well as that of the earth on which, and the heaven for which, he is to live, must also be a work of God, i.e., a fact of objective truth and reality.

The grand simplicity of the account is in perfect harmony with the fact. “The whole narrative is sober, definite, clear, and concrete. The historical events described contain a rich treasury of speculative thoughts and poetical glory; but they themselves are free from the influence of human invention and human philosophizing” (Delitzsch).

This is also true of the arrangement of the whole. The work of creation does not fall, as Herder and others maintain, into two triads of days, with the work of the second answering to that of the first. For although the creation of the light on the first day seems to correspond to that of the light-bearing stars on the fourth, there is no reality in the parallelism which some discover between the second and third days on the one hand, and the third and fourth on the other. On the second day the firmament or atmosphere is formed; on the fifth, the fish and fowl.

On the third, after the sea and land are separated, the plants are formed; on the sixth, the animals of the dry land and man. Now, if the creation of the fowls which fill the air answers to that of the firmament, the formation of the fish as the inhabitants of the waters ought to be assigned to the sixth day, and not to the fifth, as being parallel to the creation of the seas. The creation of the fish and fowl on the same day is an evident proof that a parallelism between the first three days of creation and the last three is not intended, and does not exist. Moreover, if the division of the work of creation into so many days had been the result of human reflection; the creation of man, who was appointed lord of the earth, would certainly not have been assigned to the same day as that of the beasts and reptiles, but would have been kept distinct from the creation of the beasts, and allotted to the seventh day, in which the creation was completed-a meaning which Richers and Keerl have actually tried to force upon the text of the Bible. In the different acts of creation we perceive indeed an evident progress from the general to the particular, from the lower to the higher orders of creatures, or rather a steady advance towards more and more concrete forms. But on the fourth day this progress is interrupted in a way which we cannot explain. In the transition from the creation of the plants to that of sun, moon, and stars, it is impossible to discover either a “well-arranged and constant progress,” or “a genetic advance,” since the stars are not intermediate links between plants and animals, and, in fact, have no place at all in the scale of earthly creatures.

If we pass on to the contents of our account of the creation, they differ as widely from all other cosmogonies as truth from fiction. Those of heathen nations are either hylozoistical, deducing the origin of life and living beings from some primeval matter; or pantheistical, regarding the whole world as emanating from a common divine substance; or mythological, tracing both gods and men to a chaos or world-egg. They do not even rise to the notion of a creation, much less to the knowledge of an almighty God, as the Creator of all things. f1 Even in the Etruscan and Persian myths, which correspond so remarkably to the biblical account that they must have been derived from it, the successive acts of creation are arranged according to the suggestions of human probability and adaptation. f2 In contrast with all these mythical inventions, the biblical account shines out in the clear light of truth, and proves itself by its contents to be an integral part of the revealed history, of which it is accepted as the pedestal throughout the whole of the sacred Scriptures. This is not the case with the Old Testament only; but in the New Testament also it is accepted and taught by Christ and the apostles as the basis of the divine revelation. The select only a few from the many passages of the Old and New Testaments, in which God is referred to as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the almighty operations of the living God in the world are based upon the fact of its creation: In Exodus 20:9-11; 31:12-17, the command to keep the Sabbath is founded upon the fact that God rested on the seventh day, when the work of creation was complete; and in Psalm 8 and 104, the creation is depicted as a work of divine omnipotence in close adherence to the narrative before us. From the creation of man, as described in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, Christ demonstrates the indissoluble character of marriage as a divine ordinance (Matthew 19:4-6); Peter speaks of the earth as standing out of the water and in the water by the word of God (2 Peter 3:5); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, “starting from Genesis 2:2, describes it as the motive principle of all history, that the Sabbath of God is to become the Sabbath of the creature” (Delitzsch).

The biblical account of the creation can also vindicate its claim to be true and actual history, in the presence of the doctrines of philosophy and the established results of natural science. So long, indeed, as philosophy undertakes to construct the universe from general ideas, it will be utterly unable to comprehend the creation; but ideas will never explain the existence of things. Creation is an act of the personal God, not a process of nature, the development of which can be traced to the laws of birth and decay that prevail in the created world. But the work of God, as described in the history of creation, is in perfect harmony with the correct notions of divine omnipotence, wisdom and goodness. The assertion, so frequently made, that the course of the creation takes its form from the Hebrew week, which was already in existence, and the idea of God’s resting on the seventh day, from the institution of the Hebrew Sabbath, is entirely without foundation.

There is no allusion in Genesis 2:2-3 to the Sabbath of the Israelites; and the week of seven days is older than the Sabbath of the Jewish covenant.

Natural research, again, will never explain the origin of the universe, or even of the earth; for the creation lies beyond the limits of the territory within its reach. By all modest naturalists, therefore, it is assumed that the origin of matter, or of the original material of the world, was due to an act of divine creation. But there is no firm ground for the conclusion which they draw, on the basis of this assumption, with regard to the formation or development of the world from its first chaotic condition into a fit abode for man. All the theories which have been adopted, from Descartes to the present day, are not the simple and well-established inductions of natural science founded upon careful observation, but combinations of partial discoveries empirically made, with speculative ideas of very questionable worth.

The periods of creation, which modern geology maintains with such confidence, that not a few theologians have accepted them as undoubted and sought to bring them into harmony with the scriptural account of the creation, if not to deduce them from the Bible itself, are inferences partly from the successive strata which compose the crust of the earth, and partly from the various fossil remains of plants and animals to be found in those strata. The former are regarded as proofs of successive formation; and from the difference between the plants and animals found in a fossil state and those in existence now, the conclusion is drawn, that their creation must have preceded the present formation, which either accompanied or was closed by the advent of man. But it is not difficult to see that the former of these conclusions could only be regarded as fully established, if the process by which the different strata were formed were clearly and fully known, or if the different formations were always found lying in the same order, and could be readily distinguished from one another.

But with regard to the origin of the different species of rock, geologists, as is well known, are divided into two contending schools: the Neptunists, who attribute all the mountain formations to deposit in water; and the Plutonists, who trace all the non-fossiliferous rocks to the action of heat.

According to the Neptunists, the crystalline rocks are the earliest or primary formations; according to the Plutonists, the granite burst through the transition and stratified rocks, and were driven up from within the earth, so that they are of later date. But neither theory is sufficient to account in this mechanical way for all the phenomena connected with the relative position of the rocks; consequently, a third theory, which supposes the rocks to be the result of chemical processes, is steadily gaining ground.

Now if the rocks, both crystalline and stratified, were formed, not in any mechanical way, but by chemical processes, in which, besides fire and water, electricity, galvanism, magnetism, and possibly other forces at present unknown to physical science were at work; the different formations may have been produced contemporaneously and laid one upon another.

Till natural science has advanced beyond mere opinion and conjecture, with regard to the mode in which the rocks were formed and their positions determined; there can be no ground for assuming that conclusions drawn from the successive order of the various strata, with regard to the periods of their formation, must of necessity be true. This is the more apparent, when we consider, on the one hand, that even the principal formations (the primary, transitional, stratified, and tertiary), not to mention the subdivisions of which each of these is composed, do not always occur in the order laid down in the system, but in not a few instances the order is reversed, crystalline primary rocks lying upon transitional, stratified, and tertiary formations (granite, syenite, gneiss, etc., above both Jura-limestone and chalk); and, on the other hand, that not only do the different leading formations and their various subdivisions frequently shade off into one another so imperceptibly, that no boundary line can be drawn between them and the species distinguished by oryctognosis are not sharply and clearly defined in nature, but that, instead of surrounding the entire globe, they are all met with in certain localities only, whilst whole series of intermediate links are frequently missing, the tertiary formations especially being universally admitted to be only partial.

The second of these conclusions also stands or falls with the assumptions on which they are founded, viz., with the three propositions: (1) that each of the fossiliferous formations contains an order of plants and animals peculiar to itself; (2) that these are so totally different from the existing plants and animals, that the latter could not have sprung from them; (3) that no fossil remains of man exist of the same antiquity as the fossil remains of animals.

Not one of these can be regarded as an established truth, or as the unanimously accepted result of geognosis. The assertion so often made as an established fact, that the transition rocks contain none but fossils of the lower orders of plants and animals, that mammalia are first met with in the Trias, Jura, and chalk formations, and warm-blooded animals in the tertiary rocks, has not been confirmed by continued geognostic researches, but is more and more regarded as untenable.

Even the frequently expressed opinion, that in the different forms of plants and animals of the successive rocks there is a gradual and to a certain extent progressive development of the animal and vegetable world, has not commanded universal acceptance. Numerous instances are known, in which the remains of one and the same species occur not only in two, but in several successive formations, and there are some types that occur in nearly all. And the widely spread notion, that the fossil types are altogether different from the existing families of plants and animals, is one of the unscientific exaggerations of actual facts. All the fossil plants and animals can be arranged in the orders and classes of the existing flora and fauna.

Even with regard to the genera there is no essential difference, although many of the existing types are far inferior in size to the forms of the old world. It is only the species that can be shown to differ, either entirely or in the vast majority of cases, from species in existence now. But even if all the species differed, which can by no means be proved, this would be no valid evidence that the existing plants and animals had not sprung from those that have passed away, so long as natural science is unable to obtain any clear insight into the origin and formation of species, and the question as to the extinction of a species or its transition into another has met with no satisfactory solution. Lastly, even now the occurrence of fossil human bones among those of animals that perished at least before the historic age, can no longer be disputed, although Central Asia, the cradle of the human race, has not yet been thoroughly explored by palaeontologists.

If then the premises from which the geological periods have been deduced are of such a nature that not one of them is firmly established, the different theories as to the formation of the earth also rest upon two questionable assumptions, viz., (1) that the immediate working of God in the creation was restricted to the production of the chaotic matter, and that the formation of this primary matter into a world peopled by innumerable organisms and living beings proceeded according to the laws of nature, which have been discovered by science as in force in the existing world; and (2) that all the changes, which the world and its inhabitants have undergone since the creation was finished, may be measured by the standard of changes observed in modern times, and still occurring from time to time.

But the Bible actually mentions two events of the primeval age, whose effect upon the form of the earth and the animal and vegetable world no natural science can explain. We refer to the curse pronounced upon the earth in consequence of the fall of the progenitors of our race, by which even the animal world was made subject to fqora> (Genesis 3:17, and Romans 8:20); and the flood, by which the earth was submerged even to the tops of the highest mountains, and all the living beings on the dry land perished, with the exception of those preserved by Noah in the ark. Hence, even if geological doctrines do contradict the account of the creation contained in Genesis, they cannot shake the credibility of the Scriptures.

But if the biblical account of the creation has full claim to be regarded as historical truth, the question arises, whence it was obtained. The opinion that the Israelites drew it from the cosmogony of this or the other ancient people, and altered it according to their own religious ideas, will need no further refutation, after what we have said respecting the cosmogonies of other nations. Whence then did Israel obtain a pure knowledge of God, such as we cannot find in any heathen nation, or in the most celebrated of the wise men of antiquity, if not from divine revelation? This is the source from which the biblical account of the creation springs. God revealed it to men-not first to Moses or Abraham, but undoubtedly to the first men, since without this revelation they could not have understood either their relation to God or their true position in the world. The account contained in Genesis does not lie, as Hofmann says, “within that sphere which was open to man through his historical nature, so that it may be regarded as the utterance of the knowledge possessed by the first man of things which preceded his own existence, and which he might possess, without needing any special revelation, if only the present condition of the world lay clear and transparent before him.”

By simple intuition the first man might discern what nature had effected, viz., the existing condition of the world, and possibly also its causality, but not the fact that it was created in six days, or the successive acts of creation, and the sanctification of the seventh day. Our record contains not merely religious truth transformed into history, but the true and actual history of a work of God, which preceded the existence of man, and to which he owes his existence. Of this work he could only have obtained his knowledge through divine revelation, by the direct instruction of God. Nor could he have obtained it by means of a vision. The seven days’ works are not so many “prophetico-historical tableaux,” which were spread before the mental eye of the seer, whether of the historian or the first man. The account before us does not contain the slightest marks of a vision, is no picture of creation, in which every line betrays the pencil of a painter rather than the pen of a historian, but is obviously a historical narrative, which we could no more transform into a vision than the account of paradise or of the fall. As God revealed Himself to the first man not in visions, but by coming to him in a visible form, teaching him His will, and then after his fall announcing the punishment (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:9ff.); as He talked with Moses “face to face, as a man with his friend,” “mouth to mouth,” not in vision or dream: so does the written account of the Old Testament revelation commence, not with visions, but with actual history. The manner in which God instructed the first men with reference to the creation must be judged according to the intercourse carried on by Him, as Creator and Father, with these His creatures and children. What God revealed to them upon this subject, they transmitted to their children and descendants, together with everything of significance and worth that they had experienced and discovered for themselves. This tradition was kept in faithful remembrance by the family of the godly; and even in the confusion of tongues it was not changed in its substance, but simply transferred into the new form of the language spoken by the Semitic tribes, and thus handed down from generation to generation along with the knowledge and worship of the true God, until it became through Abraham the spiritual inheritance of the chosen race. Nothing certain can be decided as to the period when it was committed to writing; probably some time before Moses, who inserted it as a written record in the Thorah of Israel.

GENESIS. 1:1

Verse 1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” — Heaven and earth have not existed from all eternity, but had a beginning; nor did they arise by emanation from an absolute substance, but were created by God. This sentence, which stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere heading, nor a summary of the history of the creation, but a declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe was called into being. That this verse is not a heading merely, is evident from the fact that the following account of the course of the creation commences with w (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact expressed in v. 1, as the primary foundation upon which they rest. tyviare (in the beginning) is used absolutely, like en arch> in John 1:1, and tyviare in Isaiah 46:10. The following clause cannot be treated as subordinate, either by rendering it, “in the beginning when God created..., the earth was,” etc., or “in the beginning when God created...(but the earth was then a chaos, etc.), God said, Let there be light” (Ewald and Bunsen). The first is opposed to the grammar of the language, which would require v. 2 to commence with xr,a, hy;h; ; the second to the simplicity of style which pervades the whole chapter, and to which so involved a sentence would be intolerable, apart altogether from the fact that this construction is invented for the simple purpose of getting rid of the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo, which is so repulsive to modern Pantheism. tyviare in itself is a relative notion, indicating the commencement of a series of things or events; but here the context gives it the meaning of the very first beginning, the commencement of the world, when time itself began. The statement, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, not only precludes the idea of the eternity of the world a parte ante, but shows that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the actual beginning of all things.

The verb ar;B; , indeed, to judge from its use in Joshua 17:15,18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally “to cut, or new,” but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (v. 27; Genesis 5:1-2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Numbers 16:30) or of that of grace (Exodus 34:10; Psalm 51:10, etc.). In this verse, however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heaven and the earth.” This expression is frequently employed to denote the world, or universe, for which there was no single word in the Hebrew language; the universe consisting of a twofold whole, and the distinction between heaven and earth being essentially connected with the notion of the world, the fundamental condition of its historical development (vid., Genesis 14:19,22; Exodus 31:17).

In the earthly creation this division is repeated in the distinction between spirit and nature; and in man, as the microcosm, in that between spirit and body. Through sin this distinction was changed into an actual opposition between heaven and earth, flesh and spirit; but with the complete removal of sin, this opposition will cease again, though the distinction between heaven and earth, spirit and body, will remain, in such a way, however, that the earthly and corporeal will be completely pervaded by the heavenly and spiritual, the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, and the earthly body being transfigured into a spiritual body (Rev 21:1-2; 1 Cor 15:35ff.). Hence, if in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, “there is nothing belonging to the composition of the universe, either in material or form, which had an existence out of God prior to this divine act in the beginning” (Delitzsch).

This is also shown in the connection between our verse and the one which follows: “and the earth was without form and void,” not before, but when, or after God created it. From this it is evident that the void and formless state of the earth was not uncreated, or without beginning. At the same time it is obvious from the creative acts which follow (vv. 3-18), that the heaven and earth, as God created them in the beginning, were not the wellordered universe, but the world in its elementary form; just as Euripides applies the expression ourano’s kai’ gai’a to the undivided mass ( morfh> mi>a ), which was afterwards formed into heaven and earth.

GENESIS. 1:2-5

The First Day.

Though treating of the creation of the heaven and the earth, the writer, both here and in what follows, describes with minuteness the original condition and progressive formation of the earth alone, and says nothing more respecting the heaven than is actually requisite in order to show its connection with the earth. He is writing for inhabitants of the earth, and for religious ends; not to gratify curiosity, but to strengthen faith in God, the Creator of the universe. What is said in v. 2 of the chaotic condition of the earth, is equally applicable to the heaven, “for the heaven proceeds from the same chaos as the earth.” “And the earth was (not became) waste and void.” The alliterative nouns tohu vabohu, the etymology of which is lost, signify waste and empty (barren), but not laying waste and desolating. Whenever they are used together in other places (Isaiah 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23), they are taken from this passage; but tohu alone is frequently employed as synonymous with ˆyiaæ , non-existence, and lb,h, , nothingness (Isaiah 40:17,23; 49:4). The coming earth was at first waste and desolate, a formless, lifeless mass, rudis indigestaque moles, hu’lee a’morfos (Wisdom 11:17) or ca>ov . “And darkness was upon the face of the deep.” µwOhT] , from µWh , to roar, to rage, denotes the raging waters, the roaring waves (Psalm 42:7) or flood (Exodus 15:5; Deuteronomy 8:7); and hence the depths of the sea (Job 28:14; 38:16), and even the abyss of the earth (Psalm 71:20). As an old traditional word, it is construed like a proper name without an article (Ewald, Gramm.). The chaotic mass in which the earth and the firmament were still undistinguished, unformed, and as it were unborn, was a heaving deep, an abyss of waters ( a>bussov , LXX), and this deep was wrapped in darkness. But it was in process of formation, for the Spirit of God moved upon the waters, jæWr (breath) denotes wind and spirit, like pneu>ma from pne>w . Ruach Elohim is not a breath of wind caused by God (Theodoret, etc.), for the verb does not suit this meaning, but the creative Spirit of God, the principle of all life (Psalm 33:6; 104:30), which worked upon the formless, lifeless mass, separating, quickening, and preparing the living forms, which were called into being by the creative words that followed. rchp in the Piel is applied to the hovering and brooding of a bird over its young, to warm them, and develop their vital powers (Deuteronomy 32:11). In such a way as this the Spirit of God moved upon the deep, which had received at its creation the germs of all life, to fill them with vital energy by His breath of life. The three statements in our verse are parallel; the substantive and participial construction of the second and third clauses rests upon the whyth of the first. All three describe the condition of the earth immediately after the creation of the universe. This suffices to prove that the theosophic speculation of those who “make a gap between the first two verses, and fill it with a wild horde of evil spirits and their demoniacal works, is an arbitrary interpolation” (Ziegler).

Verse 3. The word of God then went forth to the primary material of the world, now filled with creative powers of vitality, to call into being, out of the germs of organization and life which it contained, and in the order preordained by His wisdom, those creatures of the world, which proclaim, as they live and move, the glory of their Creator (Psalm 8). The work of creation commences with the words, “and God said.” The words which God speaks are existing things. “He speaks, and it is done; He commands, and it stands fast.” These words are deeds of the essential Word, the lo>gov , by which “all things were made.” Speaking is the revelation of thought; the creation, the realization of the thoughts of God, a freely accomplished act of the absolute Spirit, and not an emanation of creatures from the divine essence. The first thing created by the divine Word was “light,” the elementary light, or light-material, in distinction from the “lights,” or light-bearers, bodies of light, as the sun, moon, and stars, created on the fourth day, are called. It is now a generally accepted truth of natural science, that the light does not spring from the sun and stars, but that the sun itself is a dark body, and the light proceeds from an atmosphere which surrounds it. Light was the first thing called forth, and separated from the dark chaos by the creative mandate, “Let there be,” — the first radiation of the life breathed into it by the Spirit of God, inasmuch as it is the fundamental condition of all organic life in the world, and without light and the warmth which flows from it no plant or animal could thrive.

Verse 4. The expression in v. 4, “God saw the light that it was good,” for “God saw that the light was good,” according to a frequently recurring antiptosis (cf. Genesis 6:2; 12:14; 13:10), is not an anthropomorphism at variance with enlightened thoughts of God; for man’s seeing has its type in God’s, and God’s seeing is not a mere expression of the delight of the eye or of pleasure in His work, but is of the deepest significance to every created thing, being the seal of the perfection which God has impressed upon it, and by which its continuance before God and through God is determined. The creation of light, however, was no annihilation of darkness, no transformation of the dark material of the world into pure light, but a separation of the light from the primary matter, a separation which established and determined that interchange of light and darkness, which produces the distinction between day and night.

Verse 5. Hence it is said in v. 5, “God called the light Day, and the darkness Night;” for, as Augustine observes, “all light is not day, nor all darkness night; but light and darkness alternating in a regular order constitute day and night.” None but superficial thinkers can take offence at the idea of created things receiving names from God. The name of a thing is the expression of its nature. If the name be given by man, it fixes in a word the impression which it makes upon the human mind; but when given by God, it expresses the reality, what the thing is in God’s creation, and the place assigned it there by the side of other things. “Thus evening was and morning was one day.” dj;a, (one), like eiJ>v and unus, is used at the commencement of a numerical series for the ordinal primus (cf. Genesis 2:11; 4:19; 8:5,15). Like the numbers of the days which follow, it is without the article, to show that the different days arose from the constant recurrence of evening and morning. It is not till the sixth and last day that the article is employed (v. 31), to indicate the termination of the work of creation upon that day. It is to be observed, that the days of creation are bounded by the coming of evening and morning. The first day did not consist of the primeval darkness and the origination of light, but was formed after the creation of the light by the first interchange of evening and morning. The first evening was not the gloom, which possibly preceded the full burst of light as it came forth from the primary darkness, and intervened between the darkness and full, broad daylight.

It was not till after the light had been created, and the separation of the light from the darkness had taken place, that evening came, and after the evening the morning; and this coming of evening (lit., the obscure) and morning (the breaking) formed one, or the first day. It follows from this, that the days of creation are not reckoned from evening to evening, but from morning to morning. The first day does not fully terminate till the light returns after the darkness of night; it is not till the break of the new morning that the first interchange of light and darkness is completed, and a heemeronu’ktion has passed. The rendering, “out of evening and morning there came one day,” is at variance with grammar, as well as with the actual fact. With grammar, because such a thought would require dj;a, µwOy ; and with fact, because the time from evening to morning does not constitute a day, but the close of a day.

The first day commenced at the moment when God caused the light to break forth from the darkness; but this light did not become a day, until the evening had come, and the darkness which set in with the evening had given place the next morning to the break of day. Again, neither the words `br,[, hy;h; rq,Bo hy;h; , nor the expression rq,Bo `br,[, , evening-morning (= day), in Dan 8:14, corresponds to the Greek nucqh>meron , for morning is not equivalent to day, nor evening to night. The reckoning of days from evening to evening in the Mosaic law (Leviticus 23:32), and by many ancient tribes (the pre-Mohammedan Arabs, the Athenians, Gauls, and Germans), arose not from the days of creation, but from the custom of regulating seasons by the changes of the moon. But if the days of creation are regulated by the recurring interchange of light and darkness, they must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, of years or thousands of years, but as simple earthly days.

It is true the morning and evening of the first three days were not produced by the rising and setting of the sun, since the sun was not yet created; but the constantly recurring interchange of light and darkness, which produced day and night upon the earth, cannot for a moment be understood as denoting that the light called forth from the darkness of chaos returned to that darkness again, and thus periodically burst forth and disappeared. The only way in which we can represent it to ourselves, is by supposing that the light called forth by the creative mandate, “Let there be,” was separated from the dark mass of the earth, and concentrated outside or above the globe, so that the interchange of light and darkness took place as soon as the dark chaotic mass began to rotate, and to assume in the process of creation the form of a spherical body. The time occupied in the first rotations of the earth upon its axis cannot, indeed, be measured by our hour-glass; but even if they were slower at first, and did not attain their present velocity till the completion of our solar system, this would make no essential difference between the first three days and the last three, which were regulated by the rising and setting of the sun. f3 GENESIS 1:6-8 The Second Day.

When the light had been separated from the darkness, and day and night had been created, there followed upon a second fiat of the Creator, the division of the chaotic mass of waters through the formation of the firmament, which was placed as a wall of separation ldæB; in the midst of the waters, and divided them into upper and lower waters. [æyqir; , from [qær; to stretch, spread out, then beat or tread out, means expansum, the spreading out of the air, which surrounds the earth as an atmosphere.

According to optical appearance, it is described as a carpet spread out above the earth (Psalm 54:2), a curtain (Isaiah 40:22), a transparent work of sapphire (Exodus 24:10), or a molten looking-glass (Job 37:18); but there is nothing in these poetical similes to warrant the idea that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass, a sidh>reon , or ca>lkeon or polu’chalkon, such as Greek poets describe. The [æyqir; (rendered Veste by Luther, after the stere>wma of the LXX and firmamentum of the Vulgate) is called heaven in v. 8, i.e., the vault of heaven, which stretches out above the earth. The waters under the firmament are the waters upon the globe itself; those above are not ethereal waters F4 beyond the limits of the terrestrial atmosphere, but the waters which float in the atmosphere, and are separated by it from those upon the earth, the waters which accumulate in clouds, and then bursting these their bottles, pour down as rain upon the earth.

For, according to the Old Testament representation, whenever it rains heavily, the doors or windows of heaven are opened (Genesis 7:11-12; Psalm 78:23, cf. 2 Kings 7:2,19; Isaiah 24:18). It is in (or with) the upper waters that God layeth the beams of His chambers, from which He watereth the hills (Ps. 54:3,13), and the clouds are His tabernacle (Job 36:29). If, therefore, according to this conception, looking from an earthly point of view, the mass of water which flows upon the earth in showers of rain is shut up in heaven (cf. Genesis 8:2), it is evident that it must be regarded as above the vault which spans the earth, or, according to the words of Psalm 148:4, “above the heavens.” f5 GENESIS 1:9-13 The Third Day.

The work of this day was twofold, yet closely connected. At first the waters beneath the heavens, i.e., those upon the surface of the earth, were gathered together, so that the dry ( hc;B;yæ , the solid ground) appeared. In what way the gathering of the earthly waters in the sea and the appearance of the dry land were effected, whether by the sinking or deepening of places in the body of the globe, into which the water was drawn off, or by the elevation of the solid ground, the record does not inform us, since it never describes the process by which effects are produced. It is probable, however, that the separation was caused both by depression and elevation.

With the dry land the mountains naturally arose as the headlands of the mainland. But of this we have no physical explanations, either in the account before us, or in the poetical description of the creation in Psalm 54.

Even if we render Ps. 54:8, “the mountains arise, and they (the waters) descend into the valleys, to the place which Thou (Jehovah) hast founded for them,” we have no proof, in this poetical account, of the elevationtheory of geology, since the psalmist is not speaking as a naturalist, but as a sacred poet describing the creation on the basis of Genesis 1. “The dry” God called Earth, and “the gathering of the waters,” i.e., the place into which the waters were collected, He called Sea. µy; , an intensive rather than a numerical plural, is the great ocean, which surrounds the mainland on all sides, so that the earth appears to be founded upon seas (Psalm 24:2). Earth and sea are the two constituents of the globe, by the separation of which its formation was completed. The “seas” include the rivers which flow into the ocean, and the lakes which are as it were “detached fragments” of the ocean, though they are not specially mentioned here.

By the divine act of naming the two constituents of the globe, and the divine approval which follows, this work is stamped with permanency; and the second act of the third day, the clothing of the earth with vegetation, is immediately connected with it. At the command of God “the earth brought forth green ( av,D, ), seed yielding herb ( bc,[æ ), and fruit-bearing fruit-trees ( yrip] `x[e ).” These three classes embrace all the productions of the vegetable kingdom. av,D, , lit., the young, tender green, which shoots up after rain and covers the meadows and downs (2 Samuel 23:4; Job 38:27; Joel 2:22; Psalm 23:2), is a generic name for all grasses and cryptogamous plants. `bc,[, , with the epithet [ræz, [ræz; , yielding or forming seed, is used as a generic term for all herbaceous plants, corn, vegetables, and other plants by which seed-pods are formed. pry `ts: not only fruit-trees, but all trees and shrubs, bearing fruit in which there is a seed according to its kind, i.e., fruit with kernels. xr,a, `l[æ (upon the earth) is not to be joined to “fruittree,” as though indicating the superior size of the trees which bear seed above the earth, in distinction from vegetables which propagate their species upon or in the ground; for even the latter bear their seed above the earth.

It is appended to av;D; , as a more minute explanation: the earth is to bring forth grass, herb, and trees, upon or above the ground, as an ornament or covering for it. ˆymi (after its kind), from ˆymi species, which is not only repeated in v. 12 in its old form ˆymi in the case of the fruit-tree, but is also appended to the herb. It indicates that the herbs and trees sprang out of the earth according to their kinds, and received, together with power to bear seed and fruit, the capacity to propagate and multiply their own kind. In the case of the grass there is no reference either to different kinds, or to the production of seed, inasmuch as in the young green grass neither the one nor the other is apparent to the eye. Moreover, we must not picture the work of creation as consisting of the production of the first tender germs which were gradually developed into herbs, shrubs, and trees; on the contrary, we must regard it as one element in the miracle of creation itself, that at the word of God not only tender grasses, but herbs, shrubs, and trees, sprang out of the earth, each ripe for the formation of blossom and the bearing of seed and fruit, without the necessity of waiting for years before the vegetation created was ready to blossom and bear fruit. Even if the earth was employed as a medium in the creation of the plants, since it was God who caused it to bring them forth, they were not the product of the powers of nature, generatio aequivoca in the ordinary sense of the word, but a work of divine omnipotence, by which the trees came into existence before their seed, and their fruit was produced in full development, without expanding gradually under the influence of sunshine and rain.

GENESIS. 1:14-19

The Fourth Day.

After the earth had been clothed with vegetation, and fitted to be the abode of living beings, there were created on the fourth day the sun, moon, and stars, heavenly bodies in which the elementary light was concentrated, in order that its influence upon the earthly globe might be sufficiently modified and regulated for living beings to exist and thrive beneath its rays, in the water, in the air, and upon the dry land. At the creative word of God the bodies of light came into existence in the firmament, as lamps. On hy;h; , the singular of the predicate before the plural of the subject, in v. 14; Genesis 5:23; 9:29, etc., vid., Gesenius, Heb. Gr. §147. laæy; , bodies of light, light-bearers, then lamps. These bodies of light received a threefold appointment: (1) They were “to divide between the day and the night,” of, according to v. 18, between the light and the darkness, in other words, to regulate from that time forward the difference, which had existed ever since the creation of light, between the night and the day. (2) They were to be (or serve: hy;h; after an imperative has the force of a command) (a) for signs (sc., for the earth), partly as portents of extraordinary events (Matthew 2:2; Luke 21:25) and divine judgments (Joel 2:30; Jeremiah 10:2; Matthew 24:29), partly as showing the different quarters of the heavens, and as prognosticating the changes in the weather; (b) for seasons, or for fixed, definite times ( µydi[\wOm , from d[y to fix, establish)-not for festal seasons merely, but “to regulate definite points and periods of time, by virtue of their periodical influence upon agriculture, navigation, and other human occupations, as well as upon the course of human, animal, and vegetable life (e.g., the breeding time of animals, and the migrations of birds, Jeremiah 8:7, etc.); (c) for days and years, i.e., for the division and calculation of days and years. The grammatical construction will not allow the clause to be rendered as a Hendiadys, viz., “as signs for definite times and for days and years,” or as signs both for the times and also for days and years. (3) They were to serve as lamps upon the earth, i.e., to pour out their light, which is indispensable to the growth and health of every creature. That this, the primary object of the lights, should be mentioned last, is correctly explained by Delitzsch: “From the astrological and chronological utility of the heavenly bodies, the record ascends to their universal utility which arises from the necessity of light for the growth and continuance of everything earthly.” This applies especially to the two great lights which were created by God and placed in the firmament; the greater to rule the day, the lesser to rule the night. “The great” and “the small” in correlative clauses are to be understood as used comparatively (cf. Gesenius, §119, 1).

That the sun and moon were intended, was too obvious to need to be specially mentioned. It might appear strange, however, that these lights should not receive names from God, like the works of the first three days.

This cannot be attributed to forgetfulness on the part of the author, as Tuch supposes. As a rule, the names were given by God only to the greater sections into which the universe was divided, and not to individual bodies (either plants or animals). The man and the woman are the only exceptions (Genesis 5:2). The sun and moon are called great, not in comparison with the earth, but in contrast with the stars, according to the amount of light which shines from them upon the earth and determines their rule over the day and night; not so much with reference to the fact, that the stronger light of the sun produces the daylight, and the weaker light of the moon illumines the night, as to the influence which their light exerts by day and night upon all nature, both organic and inorganic-an influence generally admitted, but by no means fully understood. In this respect the sun and moon are the two great lights, the stars small bodies of light; the former exerting great, the latter but little, influence upon the earth and its inhabitants.

This truth, which arises from the relative magnitude of the heavenly bodies, or rather their apparent size as seen from the earth, is not affected by the fact that from the standpoint of natural science many of the stars far surpass both sun and moon in magnitude. Nor does the fact, that in our account, which was written for inhabitants of the earth and for religious purposes, it is only the utility of the sun, moon, and stars to the inhabitants of the earth that is mentioned, preclude the possibility of each by itself, and all combined, fulfilling other purposes in the universe of God. And not only is our record silent, but God Himself made no direct revelation to man on this subject; because astronomy and physical science, generally, neither lead to godliness, nor promise peace and salvation to the soul. Belief in the truth of this account as a divine revelation could only be shaken, if the facts which science has discovered as indisputably true, with regard to the number, size, and movements of the heavenly bodies, were irreconcilable with the biblical account of the creation.

But neither the innumerable host nor the immeasurable size of many of the heavenly bodies, nor the almost infinite distance of the fixed stars from our earth and the solar system, warrants any such assumption. Who can set bounds to the divine omnipotence, and determine what and how much it can create in a moment? The objection, that the creation of the innumerable and immeasurably great and distant heavenly bodies in one day, is so disproportioned to the creation of this one little globe in six days, as to be irreconcilable with our notions of divine omnipotence and wisdom, does not affect the Bible, but shows that the account of the creation has been misunderstood. We are not taught here that on one day, viz., the fourth, God created all the heavenly bodies out of nothing, and in a perfect condition; on the contrary, we are told that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and on the fourth day that He made the sun, the moon, and the stars (planets, comets, and fixed stars) in the firmament, to be lights for the earth. According to these distinct words, the primary material, not only of the earth, but also of the heaven and the heavenly bodies, was created in the beginning. If, therefore, the heavenly bodies were first made or created on the fourth day, as lights for the earth, in the firmament of heaven; the words can have no other meaning than that their creation was completed on the fourth day, just as the creative formation of our globe was finished on the third; that the creation of the heavenly bodies therefore proceeded side by side, and probably by similar stages, with that of the earth, so that the heaven with its stars was completed on the fourth day. Is this representation of the work of creation, which follows in the simplest way from the word of God, at variance with correct ideas of the omnipotence and wisdom of God? Could not the Almighty create the innumerable host of heaven at the same time as the earthly globe?

Or would Omnipotence require more time for the creation of the moon, the planets, and the sun, or of Orion, Sirius, the Pleiades, and other heavenly bodies whose magnitude has not yet been ascertained, than for the creation of the earth itself? Let us beware of measuring the works of Divine Omnipotence by the standard of human power. The fact, that in our account the gradual formation of the heavenly bodies is not described with the same minuteness as that of the earth; but that, after the general statement in v. 1 as to the creation of the heavens, all that is mentioned is their completion on the fourth day, when for the first time they assumed, or were placed in, such a position with regard to the earth as to influence its development; may be explained on the simple ground that it was the intention of the sacred historian to describe the work of creation from the standpoint of the globe: in other words, as it would have appeared to an observer from the earth, if there had been one in existence at the time. For only from such a standpoint could this work of God be made intelligible to all men, uneducated as well as learned, and the account of it be made subservient to the religious wants of all. f6 GENESIS 1:20-23 The Fifth Day. “God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms, with living beings, and let birds fly above the earth in the face (the front, i.e., the side turned towards the earth) of the firmament.” xræv; and `ãW[ are imperative. Earlier translators, on the contrary, have rendered the latter as a relative clause, after the peteina> peto>mena of the LXX, “and with birds that fly;” thus making the birds to spring out of the water, in opposition to Genesis 2:19.

Even with regard to the element out of which the water animals were created the text is silent; for the assertion that xræv; is to be understood “with a causative colouring” is erroneous, and is not sustained by Exodus 8:3 or Psalm 105:30. The construction with the accusative is common to all verbs of multitude. xr,v, and xræv; , to creep and swarm, is applied, “without regard to size, to those animals which congregate together in great numbers, and move about among one another.” yjæ vp,n, , anima viva, living soul, animated beings (vid., Genesis 2:7), is in apposition to xr,v, , “swarms consisting of living beings.”

The expression applies not only to fishes, but to all water animals from the greatest to the least, including reptiles, etc. In carrying out His word, God created (v. 21) the great “tanninim,” — lit., the long-stretched, from taanan, to stretch-whales, crocodiles, and other sea-monsters; and “all moving living beings with which the waters swarm after their kind, and all (every) winged fowl after its kind.” That the water animals and birds of every kind were created on the same day, and before the land animals, cannot be explained on the ground assigned by early writers, that there is a similarity between the air and the water, and a consequent correspondence between the two classes of animals. For in the light of natural history the birds are at all events quite as near to the mammalia as to the fishes; and the supposed resemblance between the fins of fishes and the wings of birds, is counterbalanced by the no less striking resemblance between birds and land animals, viz., that both have feet.

The real reason is rather this, that the creation proceeds throughout from the lower to the higher; and in this ascending scale the fishes occupy to a great extent a lower place in the animal economy than birds, and both water animals and birds a lower place than land animals, more especially the mammalia. Again, it is not stated that only a single pair was created of each kind; on the contrary, the words, “let the waters swarm with living beings,” seem rather to indicate that the animals were created, not only in a rich variety of genera and species, but in large numbers of individuals. The fact that but one human being was created at first, by no means warrants the conclusion that the animals were created singly also; for the unity of the human race has a very different signification from that of the so-called animal species. — (v. 22). As animated beings, the water animals and fowls are endowed, through the divine blessing, with the power to be fruitful and multiply. The word of blessing was the actual communication of the capacity to propagate and increase in numbers.

GENESIS. 1:24-31

The Sixth Day.

Sea and air are filled with living creatures; and the word of God now goes forth to the earth, to produce living beings after their kind. These are divided into three classes. hm;heB] , cattle, from µyrit;a\ ], mutum, brutum esse, generally denotes the larger domesticated quadrupeds (e.g., Genesis 47:18; Exodus 13:12, etc.), but occasionally the larger land animals as a whole. cm,r, (the creeping) embraces the smaller land animals, which move either without feet, or with feet that are scarcely perceptible, viz., reptiles, insects, and worms. In v. 25 they are distinguished from the race of water reptiles by the term hm;d;a xr,a, yjæ (the old form of the construct state, for xr,a, yjæ ), the beast of the earth, i.e., the freely roving wild animals. “After its kind:” this refers to all three classes of living creatures, each of which had its peculiar species; consequently in v. 25, where the word of God is fulfilled, it is repeated with every class. This act of creation, too, like all that precede it, is shown by the divine word “good” to be in accordance with the will of God. But the blessing pronounced is omitted, the author hastening to the account of the creation of man, in which the work of creation culminated. The creation of man does not take place through a word addressed by God to the earth, but as the result of the divine decree, “We will make man in Our image, after our likeness,” which proclaims at the very outset the distinction and pre-eminence of man above all the other creatures of the earth. The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity: modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis; or as an address by God to Himself, the subject and object being identical; or as communicative, an address to the spirits or angels who stand around the Deity and constitute His council.

The last is Philo’s explanation: diale>getai oJ tw>n oJ>lwn path>r tai>v eJautou> duna>mesin duna>meiv = angels). But although such passages as Kings 22:19ff., Psalm 89:8, and Dan 10, show that God, as King and Judge of the world, is surrounded by heavenly hosts, who stand around His throne and execute His commands, the last interpretation founders upon this rock: either it assumes without sufficient scriptural authority, and in fact in opposition to such distinct passages as Genesis 2:7,22; Isaiah 40:13 seq., Genesis 44:24, that the spirits took part in the creation of man; or it reduces the plural to an empty phrase, inasmuch as God is made to summon the angels to cooperate in the creation of man, and then, instead of employing them, is represented as carrying out the work alone.

Moreover, this view is irreconcilable with the words “in our image, after our likeness;” since man was created in the image of God alone (v. 27; Genesis 5:1), and not in the image of either the angels, or God and the angels.

A likeness to the angels cannot be inferred from Hebrews 2:7, or from Luke 20:36. Just as little ground is there for regarding the plural here and in other passages (Genesis 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 41:22) as reflective, an appeal to self; since the singular is employed in such cases as these, even where God Himself is preparing for any particular work (cf. Genesis 2:18; Psalm 12:5; Isaiah 33:10). No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis,-an interpretation which comprehends in its deepest and most intensive form (God speaking of Himself and with Himself in the plural number, not reverentiae causa, but with reference to the fullness of the divine powers and essences which He possesses) the truth that lies at the foundation of the trinitarian view, viz., that the potencies concentrated in the absolute Divine Being are something more than powers and attributes of God; that they are hypostases, which in the further course of the revelation of God in His kingdom appeared with more and more distinctness as persons of the Divine Being. On the words “in our image, after our likeness” modern commentators have correctly observed, that there is no foundation for the distinction drawn by the Greek, and after them by many of the Latin Fathers, between eikw>n (imago) and oJmoi>wsiv (similitudo), the former of which they supposed to represent the physical aspect of the likeness to God, the latter the ethical; but that, on the contrary, the older Lutheran theologians were correct in stating that the two words are synonymous, and are merely combined to add intensity to the thought: “an image which is like Us” (Luther); since it is no more possible to discover a sharp or well-defined distinction in the ordinary use of the words between µl,x, and tWmD] , than between b] and k] . µl,x, , from lxe , lit., a shadow, hence sketch, outline, differs no more from tWmD] , likeness, portrait, copy, than the German words Umriss or Abriss (outline or sketch) from Bild or Abbild (likeness, copy). b] and k] are also equally interchangeable, as we may see from a comparison of this verse with Genesis 5:1 and 3. (Compare also Leviticus 6:4 with Leviticus 27:12, and for the use of b] to denote a norm, or sample, Exodus 25:40; 30:32,37, etc.) There is more difficulty in deciding in what the likeness to God consisted. Certainly not in the bodily form, the upright position, or commanding aspect of the man, since God has no bodily form, and the man’s body was formed from the dust of the ground; nor in the dominion of man over nature, for this is unquestionably ascribed to man simply as the consequence or effluence of his likeness to God. Man is the image of God by virtue of his spiritual nature. of the breath of God by which the being, formed from the dust of the earth, became a living soul. f7 The image of God consists, therefore, in the spiritual personality of man, though not merely in unity of self-consciousness and self-determination, or in the fact that man was created a consciously free Ego; for personality is merely the basis and form of the divine likeness, not its real essence. This consists rather in the fact, that the man endowed with free self-conscious personality possesses, in his spiritual as well as corporeal nature, a creaturely copy of the holiness and blessedness of the divine life. This concrete essence of the divine likeness was shattered by sin; and it is only through Christ, the brightness of the glory of God and the expression of His essence (Hebrews 1:3), that our nature is transformed into the image of God again (Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24). “And they ( µd;a; , a generic term for men) shall have dominion over the fish,” etc. There is something striking in the introduction of the expression “and over all the earth,” after the different races of animals have been mentioned, especially as the list of races appears to be proceeded with afterwards. If this appearance were actually the fact, it would be impossible to escape the conclusion that the text is faulty, and that yjæ has fallen out; so that the reading should be, “and over all the wild beasts of the earth,” as the Syriac has it. But as the identity of “every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” ( xr,a, ) with “every thing that creepeth upon the ground” ( hmdah ) in v. 25 is not absolutely certain; on the contrary, the change in expression indicates a difference of meaning; and as the Masoretic text is supported by the oldest critical authorities (LXX, Sam., Onk.), the Syriac rendering must be dismissed as nothing more than a conjecture, and the Masoretic text be understood in the following manner. The author passes on from the cattle to the entire earth, and embraces all the animal creation in the expression, “every moving thing (kl-hrms) that moveth upon the earth,” just as in v. 28, “every living thing cmær; upon the earth.” According to this, God determined to give to the man about to be created in His likeness the supremacy, not only over the animal world, but over the earth itself; and this agrees with the blessing in v. 28, where the newly created man is exhorted to replenish the earth and subdue it; whereas, according to the conjecture of the Syriac, the subjugation of the earth by man would be omitted from the divine decree. — V. 27. In the account of the accomplishment of the divine purpose the words swell into a jubilant song, so that we meet here for the first time with a parallelismus membrorum, the creation of man being celebrated in three parallel clauses.

The distinction drawn between tae (in the image of God created He him) and tae (as man and woman created He them) must not be overlooked.

The word tae , which indicates that God created the man and woman as two human beings, completely overthrows the idea that man was at first androgynous (cf. Genesis 2:18ff.). By the blessing in v. 28, God not only confers upon man the power to multiply and fill the earth, as upon the beasts in v. 22, but also gives him dominion over the earth and every beast.

In conclusion, the food of both man and beast is pointed out in vv. 29, 30, exclusively from the vegetable kingdom. Man is to eat of “every seedbearing herb on the face of all the earth, and every tree on which there are fruits containing seed,” consequently of the productions of both field and tree, in other words, of corn and fruit; the animals are to eat of “every green herb,” i.e., of vegetables or green plants, and grass.

From this it follows, that, according to the creative will of God, men were not to slaughter animals for food, nor were animals to prey upon one another; consequently, that the fact which now prevails universally in nature and the order of the world, the violent and often painful destruction of life, is not a primary law of nature, nor a divine institution founded in the creation itself, but entered the world along with death at the fall of man, and became a necessity of nature through the curse of sin. It was not till after the flood, that men received authority from God to employ the flesh of animals as well as the green herb as food (Genesis 9:3); and the fact that, according to the biblical view, no carnivorous animals existed at the first, may be inferred from the prophetic announcements in Isaiah 11:6-8; 65:25, where the cessation of sin and the complete transformation of the world into the kingdom of God are described as being accompanied by the cessation of slaughter and the eating of flesh, even in the case of the animal kingdom.

With this the legends of the heathen world respecting the golden age of the past, and its return at the end of time, also correspond (cf. Gesenius on Isaiah 11:6-8). It is true that objections have been raised by natural historians to this testimony of Scripture, but without scientific ground. For although at the present time man is fitted by his teeth and alimentary canal for the combination of vegetable and animal food; and although the law of mutual destruction so thoroughly pervades the whole animal kingdom, that not only is the life of one sustained by the death of another, but “as the graminivorous animals check the overgrowth of the vegetable kingdom, so the excessive increase of the former is restricted by the beasts of prey, and of these again by the destructive implements of man;” and although, again, not only beasts of prey, but evident symptoms of disease are met with among the fossil remains of the aboriginal animals: all these facts furnish no proof that the human and animal races were originally constituted for death and destruction, or that disease and slaughter are older than the fall.

For, to reply to the last objection first, geology has offered no conclusive evidence of its doctrine, that the fossil remains of beasts of prey and bones with marks of disease belong to a pre-Adamite period, but has merely inferred it from the hypothesis already mentioned (pp. 25, 26) of successive periods of creation. Again, as even in the present order of nature the excessive increase of the vegetable kingdom is restrained, not merely by the graminivorous animals, but also by the death of the plants themselves through the exhaustion of their vital powers; so the wisdom of the Creator could easily have set bounds to the excessive increase of the animal world, without requiring the help of huntsmen and beasts of prey, since many animals even now lose their lives by natural means, without being slain by men or eaten by beasts of prey. The teaching of Scripture, that death entered the world through sin, merely proves that the human race was created for eternal life, but by no means necessitates the assumption that the animals were also created for endless existence.

As the earth produced them at the creative word of God, the different individuals and generations would also have passed away and returned to the bosom of the earth, without violent destruction by the claws of animals or the hand of man, as soon as they had fulfilled the purpose of their existence. The decay of animals is a law of nature established in the creation itself, and not a consequence of sin, or an effect of the death brought into the world by the sin of man. At the same time, it was so far involved in the effects of the fall, that the natural decay of the different animals was changed into a painful death or violent end. Although in the animal kingdom, as it at present exists, many varieties are so organized that they live exclusively upon the flesh of other animals, which they kill and devour; this by no means necessitates the conclusion, that the carnivorous beasts of prey were created after the fall, or the assumption that they were originally intended to feed upon flesh, and organized accordingly.

If, in consequence of the curse pronounced upon the earth after the sin of man, who was appointed head and lord of nature, the whole creation was subjected to vanity and the bondage of corruption (Romans 8:20ff.); this subjection might have been accompanied by a change in the organization of the animals, though natural science, which is based upon the observation and combination of things empirically discovered, could neither demonstrate the fact nor explain the process. And if natural science cannot boast that in any one of its many branches it has discovered all the phenomena connected with the animal and human organism of the existing world, how could it pretend to determine or limit the changes through which this organism may have passed in the course of thousands of years?

The creation of man and his installation as ruler on the earth brought the creation of all earthly beings to a close (v. 31). God saw His work, and behold it was all very good; i.e., everything perfect in its kind, so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the Creator, and accomplish the purpose of its existence. By the application of the term “good” to everything that God made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis “very” at the close of the whole creation, the existence of anything evil in the creation of God is absolutely denied, and the hypothesis entirely refuted, that the six days’ work merely subdued and fettered an ungodly, evil principle, which had already forced its way into it. The sixth day, as being the last, is distinguished above all the rest by the yVivi µwOy “a day, the sixth” (Gesenius, §111, 2a). GENESIS 2:1-3 The Sabbath of Creation. “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” ab;x; here denotes the totality of the beings that fill the heaven and the earth: in other places (see especially Neh 9:6) it is applied to the host of heaven, i.e., the stars (Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3), and according to a still later representation, to the angels also (1 Kings 22:19; Isaiah 24:21; Neh 9:6; Psalm 148:2). These words of v. 1 introduce the completion of the work of creation, and give a greater definiteness to the announcement in vv. 2, 3, that on the seventh day God ended the work which He had made, by ceasing to create, and blessing the day and sanctifying it. The completion or finishing ( hl;K; ) of the work of creation on the seventh day (not on the sixth, as the LXX, Sam., and Syr. erroneously render it) can only be understood by regarding the clauses vv. 2b and 3, which are connected with wykl by w consec. as containing the actual completion, i.e., by supposing the completion to consist, negatively in the cessation of the work of creation, and positively in the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day.

The cessation itself formed part of the completion of the work (for this meaning of tbæv; vid., Genesis 8:22; Job 32:1, etc.). As a human artificer completes his work just when he has brought it up to his ideal and ceases to work upon it, so in an infinitely higher sense, God completed the creation of the world with all its inhabitants by ceasing to produce anything new, and entering into the rest of His all-sufficient eternal Being, from which He had come forth, as it were, at and in the creation of a world distinct from His own essence. Hence ceasing to create is called resting (nuwach) in Exodus 20:11, and being refreshed (yinaapeesh) in Exodus 31:17. The rest into which God entered after the creation was complete, had its own reality “in the reality of the work of creation, in contrast with which the preservation of the world, when once created, had the appearance of rest, though really a continuous creation” (Ziegler, p. 27).

This rest of the Creator was indeed “the consequence of His selfsatisfaction in the now united and harmonious, though manifold whole;” but this self-satisfaction of God in His creation, which we call His pleasure in His work, was also a spiritual power, which streamed forth as a blessing upon the creation itself, bringing it into the blessedness of the rest of God and filling it with His peace. This constitutes the positive element in the completion which God gave to the work of creation, by blessing and sanctifying the seventh day, because on it He found rest from the work which He by making ( `hc;[; faciendo: cf. Ewald, §280d) had created. The divine act of blessing was a real communication of powers of salvation, grace, and peace; and sanctifying was not merely declaring holy, but “communicating the attribute of holy,” “placing in a living relation to God, the Holy One, raising to a participation in the pure clear light of the holiness of God.” On vwOdq; see Exodus 19:6.

The blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day had regard, no doubt, to the Sabbath, which Israel as the people of God was afterwards to keep; but we are not to suppose that the theocratic Sabbath was instituted here, or that the institution of that Sabbath was transferred to the history of the creation. On the contrary, the Sabbath of the Israelites had a deeper meaning, founded in the nature and development of the created world, not for Israel only, but for all mankind, or rather for the whole creation. As the whole earthly creation is subject to the changes of time and the law of temporal motion and development; so all creatures not only stand in need of definite recurring periods of rest, for the sake of recruiting their strength and gaining new power for further development, but they also look forward to a time when all restlessness shall give place to the blessed rest of the perfect consummation.

To this rest the resting of God ( hJ kata>pausiv ) points forward; and to this rest, this divine sabbatismo>v (Hebrews 4:9), shall the whole world, especially man, the head of the earthly creation, eventually come. For this God ended His work by blessing and sanctifying the day when the whole creation was complete. In connection with Hebrews 4, some of the fathers have called attention to the fact, that the account of the seventh day is not summed up, like the others, with the formula “evening was and morning was;” thus, e.g., Augustine writes at the close of his confessions: dies septimus sine vespera est nec habet occasum, quia sanctificasti eum ad permansionem sempiternam. But true as it is that the Sabbath of God has no evening, and that the sabbatismo>v , to which the creature is to attain at the end of his course, will be bounded by no evening, but last for ever; we must not, without further ground, introduce this true and profound idea into the seventh creation-day. We could only be warranted in adopting such an interpretation, and understanding by the concluding day of the work of creation a period of endless duration, on the supposition that the six preceding days were so many periods in the world’s history, which embraced the time from the beginning of the creation to the final completion of its development. But as the six creation-days, according to the words of the text, were earthly days of ordinary duration, we must understand the seventh in the same way; and that all the more, because in every passage, in which it is mentioned as the foundation of the theocratic Sabbath, it is regarded as an ordinary day (Exodus 20:11; 31:17). We must conclude, therefore, that on the seventh day, on which God rested from His work, the world also, with all its inhabitants, attained to the sacred rest of God; that the kata>pausiv and sabbatismo>v of God were made a rest and sabbatic festival for His creatures, especially for man; and that this day of rest of the new created world, which the forefathers of our race observed in paradise, as long as they continued in a state of innocence and lived in blessed peace with their God and Creator, was the beginning and type of the rest to which the creation, after it had fallen from fellowship with God through the sin of man, received a promise that it should once more be restored through redemption, at its final consummation.

I. HISTORY OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH

Contents and Heading

GENESIS 2:4

The historical account of the world, which commences at the completion of the work of creation, is introduced as the “History of the heavens and the earth,” and treats in three sections, (a) of the original condition of man in paradise (Genesis 2:5-25); (b) of the fall (ch. 3); (c) of the division of the human race into two widely different families, so far as concerns their relation to God (ch. 4).

The words, “these are the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth when they were created,” form the heading to what follows. This would never have been disputed, had not preconceived opinions as to the composition of Genesis obscured the vision of commentators. The fact that in every other passage, in which the formula “these (and these) are the tholedoth” occurs (viz., ten times in Genesis; also in Numbers 3:1; Ruth 4:18; 1 Chronicles 1:29), it is used as a heading, and that in this passage the true meaning of hd;l]wOT precludes the possibility of its being an appendix to what precedes, fully decides the question. The word hd;l]wOT, which is only used in the plural, and never occurs except in the construct state or with suffixes, is a Hiphil noun from dlæy; , and signifies literally the generation or posterity of any one, then the development of these generations or of his descendants; in other words, the history of those who are begotten or the account of what happened to them and what they performed.

In no instance whatever is it the history of the birth or origin of the person named in the genitive, but always the account of his family and life.

According to this use of the word, we cannot understand by the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth the account of the origin of the universe, since according to the biblical view the different things which make up the heavens and the earth can neither be regarded as generations or products of cosmogonic and geogonic evolutions, nor be classed together as the posterity of the heavens and the earth. All the creatures in the heavens and on earth were made by God, and called into being by His word, notwithstanding the fact that He caused some of them to come forth from the earth. Again, as the completion of the heavens and the earth with all their host has already been described in Genesis 2:1-3, we cannot understand by “the heavens and the earth,” in v. 4, the primary material of the universe in its elementary condition (in which case the literal meaning of dlæy; would be completely relinquished, and the “tholedoth of the heavens and the earth” be regarded as indicating this chaotic beginning as the first stage in a series of productions), but the universe itself after the completion of the creation, at the commencement of the historical development which is subsequently described.

This places its resemblance to the other sections, commencing with “these are the generations,” beyond dispute. Just as the tholedoth of Noah, for example, do not mention his birth, but contain his history and the birth of his sons; so the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth do not describe the origin of the universe, but what happened to the heavens and the earth after their creation. ar;B; does not preclude this, though we cannot render it “after they were created.” For even if it were grammatically allowable to resolve the participle into a pluperfect, the parallel expressions in Genesis 5:1-2, would prevent our doing so. As “the day of their creation” mentioned there, is not a day after the creation of Adam, but the day on which he was created; the same words, when occurring here, must also refer to a time when the heavens and the earth were already created: and just as in Genesis 5:1 the creation of the universe forms the starting-point to the account of the development of the human race through the generations of Adam, and is recapitulated for that reason; so here the creation of the universe is mentioned as the starting-point to the account of its historical development, because this account looks back to particular points in the creation itself, and describes them more minutely as the preliminaries to the subsequent course of the world. hbr’m is explained by the clause, “in the day that Jehovah God created the earth and the heavens.” Although this clause is closely related to what follows, the simplicity of the account prevents our regarding it as the protasis of a period, the apodosis of which does not follow till v. 5 or even v. 7.

The former is grammatically impossible, because in v. 5 the noun stands first, and not the verb, as we should expect in such a case (cf. Genesis 3:5).

The latter is grammatically tenable indeed, since vv. 5, 6, might be introduced into the main sentence as conditional clauses; but it is not probable, inasmuch as we should then have a parenthesis of most unnatural length. The clause must therefore be regarded as forming part of the heading. There are two points here that are worthy of notice: first, the unusual combination, “earth and heaven,” which only occurs in Psalm 148:13, and shows that the earth is the scene of the history about to commence, which was of such momentous importance to the whole world; and secondly, the introduction of the nameJEHOVAH in connection with\parELOHIM. That the hypothesis, which traces the interchange in the two names in Genesis to different documents, does not suffice to explain the occurrence of Jehovah Elohim in Genesis 2:4-3:24, even the supporters of this hypothesis cannot possibly deny.

Not only is God called Elohim alone in the middle of this section, viz., in the address to the serpent, a clear proof that the interchange of the names has reference to their different significations; but the use of the double name, which occurs here twenty times though rarely met with elsewhere, is always significant. In the Pentateuch we only find it in Exodus 9:30; in the other books of the Old Testament, in 2 Sam. 7:22,25; 1 Chr. 17:16-17; 2 Chr. 4:41-42; Ps. 84:8,11; and Psalm 50:1, where the order is reversed; and in every instance it is used with peculiar emphasis, to give prominence to the fact that Jehovah is truly Elohim, whilst in Psalm 50:1 the Psalmist advances from the general name El and Elohim to Jehovah, as the personal name of the God of Israel. In this section the combination Jehovah Elohim is expressive of the fact, that Jehovah is God, or one with Elohim. Hence Elohim is placed after Jehovah. For the constant use of the double name is not intended to teach that Elohim who created the world was Jehovah, but that Jehovah, who visited man in paradise, who punished him for the transgression of His command, but gave him a promise of victory over the tempter, was Elohim, the same God, who created the heavens and the earth.

The two names may be distinguished thus: Elohim, the plural of HæwOla’ , which is only used in the loftier style of poetry, is an infinitive noun from `hl;[; to fear, and signifies awe, fear, then the object of fear, the highest Being to be feared, like djæpæ , which is used interchangeably with it in Genesis 31:42,53, and ar;wOm in Psalm 76:12 (cf. Isaiah 8:12-13). The plural is not used for the abstract, in the sense of divinity, but to express the notion of God in the fulness and multiplicity of the divine powers. It is employed both in a numerical, and also in an intensive sense, so that Elohim is applied to the (many) gods of the heathen as well as to the one true God, in whom the highest and absolute fulness of the divine essence is contained. In this intensive sense Elohim depicts the one true God as the infinitely great and exalted One, who created the heavens and the earth, and who preserves and governs every creature. According to its derivation, however, it is object rather than subject, so that in the plural form the concrete unity of the personal God falls back behind the wealth of the divine potencies which His being contains. In this sense, indeed, both in Genesis and the later, poetical, books, Elohim is used without the article, as a proper name for the true God, even in the mouth of the heathen (1 Samuel 4:7); but in other places, and here and there in Genesis, it occurs as an appellative with the article, by which prominence is given to the absoluteness of personality of God (Genesis 5:22; 6:9, etc.).

The name Jehovah, on the other hand, was originally a proper name, and according to the explanation given by God Himself to Moses (Exodus 3:14-15), was formed from the imperfect of the verb hy;h; = hy;h; . God calls Himself hy;h; rv,a hy;h; , then more briefly hy;h; , and then again, by changing the first person into the third, hwO;hy] . From the derivation of this name from the imperfect, it follows that it was either pronounced yahawaah or hwO;hy] , and had come down from the pre-Mosaic age; for the form hy;h; had been forced out of the spoken language by hy;h; even in Moses’ time. The Masoretic pointing hwO;hy] belongs to a time when the Jews had long been afraid to utter this name at all, and substituted wn;doa , the vowels of which therefore were placed as Keri, the word to be read, under the Kethib hwO;hy] , unless hwO;hy] stood in apposition to wn;doa , in which case the word was read µyhila’ and pointed yehiowh (a pure monstrosity.) f8 This custom, which sprang from a misinterpretation of Leviticus 24:16, appears to have originated shortly after the captivity. Even in the canonical writings of this age the name Jehovah was less and less employed, and in the Apocrypha and the Septuagint version oJ Ku>riov (the Lord) is invariably substituted, a custom in which the New Testament writers follow the LXX (vid., Oehler).

If we seek for the meaning of hwO;hy] , the expression ‘hyh ‘shr ‘hyh, in Exodus 3:14, is neither to be rendered e>somai oJ>v e>somai (Aq., Theodt.), “I shall be that I shall be” (Luther), nor “I shall be that which I will or am to be” (M. Baumgarten). Nor does it mean, “He who will be because He is Himself, the God of the future” (Hoffmann). For in names formed from the third person imperfect, the imperfect is not a future, but an aorist.

According to the fundamental signification of the imperfect, names so formed point out a person as distinguished by a frequently or constantly manifested quality, in other words, they express a distinctive characteristic (vid., Ewald, §136; Genesis 25:26; 27:36, also 16:11 and 21:6). The Vulgate gives it correctly: ego sum qui sum, “I am who I am.” “The repetition of the verb in the same form, and connected only by the relative, signifies that the being or act of the subject expressed in the verb is determined only by the subject itself” (Hofmann).

The verb hy;h; signifies “to be, to happen, to become;” but as neither happening nor becoming is applicable to God, the unchangeable, since the pantheistic idea of a becoming God is altogether foreign to the Scriptures, we must retain the meaning “to be;” not forgetting, however, that as the Divine Being is not a resting, or, so to speak, a dead being, but is essentially living, displaying itself as living, working upon creation, and moving in the world, the formation of hwO;hy] from the imperfect precludes the idea of abstract existence, and points out the Divine Being as moving, pervading history, and manifesting Himself in the world. So far then as the words hyha rva hyha are condensed into a proper name in hwO;hy] , and God, therefore, “is He who is,” inasmuch as in His being, as historically manifested, He is the self-determining one, the nameJEHOVAH, which we have retained as being naturalized in the ecclesiastical phraseology, though we are quite in ignorance of its correct pronunciation, “includes both the absolute independence of God in His historical movements,” and “the absolute constancy of God, or the fact that in everything, in both words and deeds, He is essentially in harmony with Himself, remaining always consistent” (Oehler).

The “I am who am,” therefore, is the absolute I, the absolute personality, moving with unlimited freedom; and in distinction from Elohim (the Being to be feared), He is the personal God in His historical manifestation, in which the fulness of the Divine Being unfolds itself to the world. This movement of the person God in history, however, has reference to the realization of the great purpose of the creation, viz., the salvation of man.

Jehovah therefore is the God of the history of salvation. This is not shown in the etymology of the name, but in its historical expansion. It was as\parJEHOVAH that God manifested Himself to Abram (Genesis 15:7), when He made the covenant with him; and as this name was neither derived from an attribute of God, nor from a divine manifestation, we must trace its origin to a revelation from God, and seek it in the declaration to Abram, “I am Jehovah.” Just as Jehovah here revealed Himself to Abram as the God who led him out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give him the land of Canaan for a possession, and thereby described Himself as the author of all the promises which Abram received at his call, and which were renewed to him and to his descendants, Isaac and Jacob; so did He reveal Himself to Moses (Exodus 3) as the God of his fathers, to fulfil His promise to their seed, the people of Israel. Through these revelations Jehovah became a proper name for the God, who was working out the salvation of fallen humanity; and in this sense, not only is it used proleptically at the call of Abram (ch. 12), but transferred to the primeval times, and applied to all the manifestations and acts of God which had for their object the rescue of the human race from its fall, as well as to the special plan inaugurated in the call of Abram. The preparation commenced in paradise. To show this, Moses has introduced the name Jehovah into the history in the present chapter, and has indicated the identity of Jehovah with Elohim, not only by the constant association of the two names, but also by the fact that in the heading (v. 4b) he speaks of the creation described in ch. 1 as the work ofJEHOVAH ELOHIM.

PARADISE.

GENESIS. 2:5-6

The account in vv. 5-25 is not a second, complete and independent history of the creation, nor does it contain mere appendices to the account in ch. 1; but it describes the commencement of the history of the human race. This commencement includes not only a complete account of the creation of the first human pair, but a description of the place which God prepared for their abode, the latter being of the highest importance in relation to the self-determination of man, with its momentous consequences to both earth and heaven. Even in the history of the creation man takes precedence of all other creatures, as being created in the image of God and appointed lord of all the earth, though he is simply mentioned there as the last and highest link in the creation. To this our present account is attached, describing with greater minuteness the position of man in the creation, and explaining the circumstances which exerted the greatest influence upon his subsequent career.

These circumstances were-the formation of man from the dust of the earth and the divine breath of life; the tree of knowledge in paradise; the formation of the woman, and the relation of the woman to the man. Of these three elements, the first forms the substratum to the other two.

Hence the more exact account of the creation of Adam is subordinated to, and inserted in, the description of paradise (v. 7). In vv. 5 and 6, with which the narrative commences, there is an evident allusion to paradise: “And as yet there was (arose, grew) no shrub of the field upon the earth, and no herb of the field sprouted; for Jehovah El had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; and a mist arose from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” hy;h; in parallelism with tsaamach means to become, to arise, to proceed. Although the growth of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs are represented here as dependent upon the rain and the cultivation of the earth by man, we must not understand the words as meaning that there was neither shrub nor herb before the rain and dew, or before the creation of man, and so draw the conclusion that the creation of the plants occurred either after or contemporaneously with the creation of man, in direct contradiction to Genesis 1:11-12.

The creation of the plants is not alluded to here at all, but simply the planting of the garden in Eden. The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation. This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not. Moreover, the shrub and herb of the field do not embrace the whole of the vegetable productions of the earth. It is not a fact that the field is used in the second section in the same sense as the earth in the first.” hd,c; is not “the widespread plain of the earth, the broad expanse of land,” but a field of arable land, soil fit for cultivation, which forms only a part of the “earth” or “ground.”

Even the “beast of the field” in v. 19 and Genesis 3:1 is not synonymous with the “beast of the earth” in Genesis 1:24-25, but is a more restricted term, denoting only such animals as live upon the field and are supported by its produce, whereas the “beast of the earth” denotes all wild beasts as distinguished from tame cattle and reptiles. In the same way, the “shrub of the field” consists of such shrubs and tree-like productions of the cultivated land as man raises for the sake of their fruit, and the “herb of the field,” all seed-producing plants, both corn and vegetables, which serve as food for man and beast. — The mist ( dae , vapour, which falls as rain, Job 36:27) is correctly regarded by Delitzsch as the creative beginning of the rain ( rfæm; ) itself, from which we may infer, therefore, that it rained before the flood.

GENESIS. 2:7

“Then Jehovah God formed man from dust of the ground.” `rp;[; is the accusative of the material employed (Ewald and Gesenius). The Vav consec. imperf. in vv. 7, 8, 9, does not indicate the order of time, or of thought; so that the meaning is not that God planted the garden in Eden after He had created Adam, nor that He caused the trees to grow after He had planted the garden and placed the man there. The latter is opposed to v. 15; the former is utterly improbable. The process of man’s creation is described minutely here, because it serves to explain his relation to God and to the surrounding world. He was formed from dust (not de limo terrae, from a clod of the earth, for `rp;[; is not a solid mass, but the finest part of the material of the earth), and into his nostril a breath of life was breathed, by which he became an animated being. Hence the nature of man consists of a material substance and an immaterial principle of life. “The breath of life,” i.e., breath producing life, does not denote the spirit by which man is distinguished form the animals, or the soul of man from that of the beasts, but only the life-breath (vid., 1 Kings 17:17).

It is true, hm;v;n] generally signifies the human soul, but in Genesis 7:22 µyyijæ jæWrAtmæv]ni is used of men and animals both; and should any one explain this, on the ground that the allusion is chiefly to men, and the animals are connected per zeugma, or should he press the ruach attached, and deduce from this the use of neshamah in relation to men and animals, there are several passages in which neshamah is synonymous with ruach (e.g., Isaiah 42:5; Job 32:8; 33:4), or yjæ jæWr applied to animals (Genesis 6:17; 7:15), or again neshamah used as equivalent to nephesh (e.g., (Joshua 10:40, cf. vv. 28, 30, 32). For neshamah, the breathing, pnoh> , is “the ruach in action” (Auberlen). Beside this, the man formed from the dust became, through the breathing of the “breath of life,” a yjæ vp,n, , an animated, and as such a living being; an expression which is also applied to fishes, birds, and land animals (Genesis 1:20-21,24,30), and there is no proof of preeminence on the part of man. As yjæ vp,n, , psuch> zw>sa , does not refer to the soul merely, but to the whole man as an animated being, so hm;v;n] does not denote the spirit of man as distinguished from body and soul. On the relation of the soul to the spirit of man nothing can be gathered from this passage; the words, correctly interpreted, neither show that the soul is an emanation, an exhalation of the human spirit, nor that the soul was created before the spirit and merely received its life from the latter.

The formation of man from dust and the breathing of the breath of life we must not understand in a mechanical sense, as if God first of all constructed a human figure from dust, and then, by breathing His breath of life into the clod of earth which he had shaped into the form of a man, made it into a living being. The words are to be understood theoprepoo’s. By an act of divine omnipotence man arose from the dust; and in the same moment in which the dust, by virtue of creative omnipotence, shaped itself into a human form, it was pervaded by the divine breath of life, and created a living being, so that we cannot say the body was earlier than the soul. The dust of the earth is merely the earthly substratum, which was formed by the breath of life from God into an animated, living, self-existent being. When it is said, “God breathed into his nostril the breath of life,” it is evident that this description merely gives prominence to the peculiar sign of life, viz., breathing; since it is obvious, that what God breathed into man could not be the air which man breathes; for it is not that which breathes, but simply that which is breathed.

Consequently, breathing into the nostril can only mean, that “God, through His own breath, produced and combined with the bodily form that principle of life, which was the origin of all human life, and which constantly manifests its existence in the breath inhaled and exhaled through the nose” (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 62). Breathing, however, is common to both man and beast; so that this cannot be the sensuous analogon of the supersensuous spiritual life, but simply the principle of the physical life of the soul. Nevertheless the vital principle in man is different from that in the animal, and the human soul from the soul of the beast. This difference is indicated by the way in which man received the breath of life from God, and so became a living soul. “The beasts arose at the creative word of God, and no communication of the spirit is mentioned even in Genesis 2:19; the origin of their soul was coincident with that of their corporeality, and their life was merely the individualization of the universal life, with which all matter was filled in the beginning by the Spirit of God.

On the other hand, the human spirit is not a mere individualization of the divine breath which breathed upon the material of the world, or of the universal spirit of nature; nor is his body merely a production of the earth when stimulated by the creative word of God. The earth does not bring forth his body, but God Himself puts His hand to the work and forms him; nor does the life already imparted to the world by the Spirit of God individualize itself in him, but God breathes directly into the nostrils of the one man, in the whole fulness of His personality, the breath of life, that in a manner corresponding to the personality of God he may become a living soul” (Delitzsch). This was the foundation of the pre-eminence of man, of his likeness to God and his immortality; for by this he was formed into a personal being, whose immaterial part was not merely soul, but a soul breathed entirely by God, since spirit and soul were created together through the inspiration of God. As the spiritual nature of man is described simply by the act of breathing, which is discernible by the senses, so the name which God gives him (Genesis 5:2) is founded upon the earthly side of his being: ADAM, from hmda (adamah), earth, the earthly element, like homo from humus, or from cama> camai> cama>qen , to guard him from self-exaltation, not from the red colour of his body, since this is not a distinctive characteristic of man, but common to him and to many other creatures. The name man (Mensch), on the other hand, from the Sanskrit mânuscha, manuschja, from man to think, manas = mens, expresses the spiritual inwardness of our nature.

GENESIS. 2:8-9

The abode, which God prepared for the first man, was a “garden in Eden,” also called “the garden of Eden” (v. 15; Genesis 3:23-24; Joel 2:3), or Eden (Isaiah 51:3; Ezekiel 28:13; 31:9). Eden ( `ˆd,[e , i.e., delight) is the proper name of a particular district, the situation of which is described in v. 10ff.; but it must not be confounded with the Eden of Assyria (2 Kings 19:12, etc.) and Coelesyria (Amos 1:5), which is written with double seghol. The garden (lit., a place hedged round) was to the east, i.e., in the eastern portion, and is generally called Paradise from the Septuagint version, in which the word is rendered para>deisov . This word, according to Spiegel, was derived from the Zendic pairi-daêza, a hedging round, and passed into the Hebrew in the form sDer]pæ (Song 4:13; Eccl 2:5; Neh 2:8), a park, probably through the commercial relations which Solomon established with distant countries. In the garden itself God caused all kinds of trees to grow out of the earth; and among them were tow, which were called “the tree of life” and “the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” on account of their peculiar significance in relation to man (see v. 16 and Genesis 3:22). t[æDæ , an infinitive, as Jeremiah 22:16 shows, has the article here because the phrase [ræ bwOf t[æDæ is regarded as one word, and in Jeremiah from the nature of the predicate.

GENESIS. 2:10-14

“And there was a river going out of Eden, to water the garden; and from thence it divided itself, and became four heads;” i.e., the stream took its rise in Eden, flowed through the garden to water it, and on leaving the garden was divided into four heads or beginnings of rivers, that is, into four arms or separate streams. For this meaning of varo see Ezekiel 16:25; Lam 2:19. Of the four rivers whose names are given to show the geographical situation of paradise, the last two are unquestionably Tigris and Euphrates.

Hiddekel occurs in Dan 10:4 as the Hebrew name for Tigris; in the inscriptions of Darius it is called Tigrâ (or the arrow, according to Strabo, Pliny, and Curtius), from the Zendic tighra, pointed, sharp, from which probably the meaning stormy (rapidus Tigris, Hor. Carm. 4, 14, 46) was derived. It flows before ( hm;d]qi ), in front of, Assyria, not to the east of Assyria; for the province of Assyria, which must be intended here, was on the eastern side of the Tigris: moreover, neither the meaning, “to the east of,” nor the identity of hm;d]qi and µd,q, has been, or can be, established from Genesis 4:16; 1 Samuel 13:5, or Ezekiel 39:11, which are the only other passages in which the word occurs, as Ewald himself acknowledges.

P’rath, which was not more minutely described because it was so generally known, is the Euphrates; in old Persian, Ufrâta, according to Delitzsch, or the good and fertile stream; Ufrâtu, according to Spiegler, or the wellprogressing stream. According to the present condition of the soil, the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are not so closely connected that they could be regarded as the commencements of a common stream which has ceased to exist. The main sources of the Tigris, it is true, are only paces from the Euphrates, but they are to the north of Diarbekr, in a range of mountains which is skirted on three sides by the upper course of the Euphrates, and separates them from this river. We must also look in the same country, the highlands of Armenia, for the other two rivers, if the description of paradise actually rests upon an ancient tradition, and is to be regarded as something more than a mythical invention of the fancy.

The name Phishon sounds like the Phasis of the ancients, with which Reland supposed it to be identical; and Chavilah like Cholchis, the wellknown gold country of the ancients. But the Fa’sis ho Ko’lchos (Herod. 4, 37, 45) takes its rise in the Caucasus, and not in Armenia. A more probable conjecture, therefore, points to the Cyrus of the ancients, which rises in Armenia, flows northwards to a point not far from the eastern border of Colchis, and then turns eastward in Iberia, from which it flows in a southeasterly direction to the Caspian Sea. The expression, “which compasseth the whole land of Chavilah,” would apply very well to the course of this river from the eastern border of Colchis; for cbb does not necessarily signify to surround, but to pass through with different turns, or to skirt in a semi-circular form, and Chavilah may have been larger than modern Colchis. It is not a valid objection to this explanation, that in every other place Chavilah is a district of Southern Arabia. The identity of this Chavilah with the Chavilah of the Joktanites (Genesis 10:29; 25:18; Samuel 15:7) or of the Cushites (Genesis 10:7; 1 Chronicles 1:9) is disproved not only by the article used here, which distinguishes it from the other, but also by the description of it as land where gold, bdolach, and the shohamstone are found; a description neither requisite nor suitable in the case of the Arabian Chavilah, since there productions are not to be met with there. This characteristic evidently shows that the Chavilah mentioned here was entirely distinct from the other, and a land altogether unknown to the Iraelites.

What we are to understand by jlædoB] is uncertain. There is no certain ground for the meaning “pearls,” given in Saad. and the later Rabbins, and adopted by Bochart and others. The rendering bde’lla or bde’llion, bdellium, a vegetable gum, of which Cioscorus says, ohi de’ ma’delkon ohi de’ bolcho’n kalou’si, and Pliny, “alii brochon appellant, alii malacham, alii maldacon,” is favoured by the similarity in the name; but, on the other side, there is the fact that Pliny describes this gum as nigrum and hadrobolon, and Dioscorus as hupope’lion (blackish), which does not agree with Numbers 11:7, where the appearance of the white grains of the manna is compared to that of bdolach. — The stone shoham, according to most of the early versions, is probably the beryl, which is most likely the stone intended by the LXX ( oJ li>qov oJ pra>sinov , the leek-green stone), as Pliny, when speaking of beryls, describes those as probatissimi, qui viriditatem puri maris imitantur; but according to others it is the onyx or sardonyx (vid., Ges. s.v.). f9 The Gihon (from guwach to break forth) is the Araxes, which rises in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, flows from west to east, joins the Cyrus, and falls with it into the Caspian Sea. The name corresponds to the Arabic Jaihun, a name given by the Arabians and Persians to several large rivers.

The land of Cush cannot, of course, be the later Cush, or Ethiopia, but must be connected with the Asiatic Cossai’a, which reached to the Caucasus, and to which the Jews (of Shirwan) still give this name. But even though these four streams do not now spring from one source, but on the contrary their sources are separated by mountain ranges, this fact does not prove that the narrative before us is a myth. Along with or since the disappearance of paradise, that part of the earth may have undergone such changes that the precise locality can no longer be determined with certainty. f10 GENESIS 2:15-17 After the preparation of the garden in Eden God placed the man there, to dress it and to keep it. WhjeyNiyæ not merely expresses removal thither, but the fact that the man was placed there to lead a life of repose, not indeed in inactivity, but in fulfilment of the course assigned him, which was very different from the trouble and restlessness of the weary toil into which he was plunged by sin. In paradise he was to dress (colere) the garden; for the earth was meant to be tended and cultivated by man, so that without human culture, plants and even the different varieties of corn degenerate and grow wild. Cultivation therefore preserved ( rmæv; to keep) the divine plantation, not merely from injury on the part of any evil power, either penetrating into, or already existing in the creation, but also from running wild through natural degeneracy. As nature was created for man, it was his vocation not only to ennoble it by his work, to make it subservient to himself, but also to raise it into the sphere of the spirit and further its glorification.

This applied not merely to the soil beyond the limits of paradise, but to the garden itself, which, although the most perfect portion of the terrestrial creation, was nevertheless susceptible of development, and which was allotted to man, in order that by his care and culture he might make it into a transparent mirror of the glory of the Creator. — Here too the man was to commence his own spiritual development. To this end God had planted two trees in the midst of the garden of Eden; the one to train his spirit through the exercise of obedience to the word of God, the other to transform his earthly nature into the spiritual essence of eternal life. These trees received their names from their relation to man, that is to say, from the effect which the eating of their fruit was destined to produce upon human life and its development. The fruit of the tree of life conferred the power of eternal, immortal life; and the tree of knowledge was planted, to lead men to the knowledge of good and evil.

The knowledge of good and evil was no mere experience of good and ill, but a moral element in that spiritual development, through which the man created in the image of God was to attain to the filling out of that nature, which had already been planned in the likeness of God. For not to know what good and evil are, is a sign of either the immaturity of infancy (Deuteronomy 1:39), or the imbecility of age (2 Samuel 19:35); whereas the power to distinguish good and evil is commended as the gift of a king (1 Kings 3:9) and the wisdom of angels (2 Samuel 14:17), and in the highest sense is ascribed to God Himself (Genesis 3:5,22). Why then did God prohibit man from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, with the threat that, as soon as he ate thereof, he would surely die? (The inf. abs. before the finite verb intensifies the latter: vid., Ewald, §312a). Are we to regard the tree as poisonous, and suppose that some fatal property resided in the fruit?

A supposition which so completely ignores the ethical nature of sin is neither warranted by the antithesis, nor by what is said in Genesis 3:22 of the tree of life, nor by the fact that the eating of the forbidden fruit was actually the cause of death. Even in the case of the tree of life, the power is not to be sought in the physical character of the fruit. No earthly fruit possesses the power to give immortality to the life which it helps to sustain. Life is not rooted in man’s corporeal nature; it was in his spiritual nature that it had its origin, and from this it derives its stability and permanence also. It may, indeed, be brought to an end through the destruction of the body; but it cannot be exalted to perpetual duration, i.e., to immortality, through its preservation and sustenance. And this applies quite as much to the original nature of man, as to man after the fall. A body formed from earthly materials could not be essentially immortal: it would of necessity either be turned to earth, and fall into dust again, or be transformed by the spirit into the immortality of the soul.

The power which transforms corporeality into immortality is spiritual in its nature, and could only be imparted to the earthly tree or its fruit through the word of God, through a special operation of the Spirit of God, an operation which we can only picture to ourselves as sacramental in its character, rendering earthly elements the receptacles and vehicles of celestial powers. God had given such a sacramental nature and significance to the two trees in the midst of the garden, that their fruit could and would produce supersensual, mental, and spiritual effects upon the nature of the first human pair. The tree of life was to impart the power of transformation into eternal life. The tree of knowledge was to lead man to the knowledge of good and evil; and, according to the divine intention, this was to be attained through his not eating of its fruit. This end was to be accomplished, not only by his discerning in the limit imposed by the prohibition the difference between that which accorded with the will of God and that which opposed it, but also by his coming eventually, through obedience to the prohibition, to recognise the fact that all that is opposed to the will of God is an evil to be avoided, and, through voluntary resistance to such evil, to the full development of the freedom of choice originally imparted to him into the actual freedom of a deliberate and selfconscious choice of good.

By obedience to the divine will he would have attained to a godlike knowledge of good and evil, i.e., to one in accordance with his own likeness to God. He would have detected the evil in the approaching tempter; but instead of yielding to it, he would have resisted it, and thus have made good his own property acquired with consciousness and of his own free-will, and in this way by proper self-determination would gradually have advanced to the possession of the truest liberty. But as he failed to keep this divinely appointed way, and ate the forbidden fruit in opposition to the command of God, the power imparted by God to the fruit was manifested in a different way. He learned the difference between good and evil from his own guilty experience, and by receiving the evil into his own soul, fell a victim to the threatened death. Thus through his own fault the tree, which should have helped him to attain true freedom, brought nothing but the sham liberty of sin, and with it death, and that without any demoniacal power of destruction being conjured into the tree itself, or any fatal poison being hidden in its fruit.

GENESIS. 2:18-22

Creation of the Woman.

As the creation of the man is introduced in Genesis 1:26-27, with a divine decree, so here that of the woman is preceded by the divine declaration, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him dg,n, `rz,[e , a help of his like: “ i.e., a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may recognise himself” (Delitzsch). Of such a help the man stood in need, in order that he might fulfil his calling, not only to perpetuate and multiply his race, but to cultivate and govern the earth. To indicate this, the general word kngdw `zr is chosen, in which there is an allusion to the relation of the sexes. To call out this want, God brought the larger quadrupeds and birds to the man, “to see what he would call them ( ttæK; lit., each one); and whatsoever the man might call every living being should be its name.” The time when this took place must have been the sixth day, on which, according to Genesis 1:27, the man and woman were created: and there is no difficulty in this, since it would not have required much time to bring the animals to Adam to see what he would call them, as the animals of paradise are all we have to think of; and the deep sleep into which God caused the man to fall, till he had formed the woman from his rib, need not have continued long.

In Genesis 1:27 the creation of the woman is linked with that of the man; but here the order of sequence is given, because the creation of the woman formed a chronological incident in the history of the human race, which commences with the creation of Adam. The circumstance that in v. 19 the formation of the beasts and birds is connected with the creation of Adam by the imperf. c. w consec., constitutes to objection to the plan of creation given in ch. 1. The arrangement may be explained on the supposition, that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beasts, went back to their creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historians, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same thought would be simply this: “God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed.” f11 Moreover, the allusion is not to the creation of all the beasts, but simply to that of the beasts living in the field (game and tame cattle), and of the fowls of the air-to beasts, therefore, which had been formed like man from the earth, and thus stood in a closer relation to him than water animals or reptiles. For God brought the animals to Adam, to show him the creatures which were formed to serve him, that He might see what he would call them. Calling or naming presupposes acquaintance. Adam is to become acquainted with the creatures, to learn their relation to him, and by giving them names to prove himself their lord. God does not order him to name them; but by bringing the beasts He gives him an opportunity of developing that intellectual capacity which constitutes his superiority to the animal world. “The man sees the animals, and thinks of what they are and how they look; and these thoughts, in themselves already inward words, take the form involuntarily of audible names, which he utters to the beasts, and by which he places the impersonal creatures in the first spiritual relation to himself, the personal being” (Delitzsch).

Language, as W. v. Humboldt says, is “the organ of the inner being, or rather the inner being itself as it gradually attains to inward knowledge and expression.” It is merely thought cast into articulate sounds or words. The thoughts of Adam with regard to the animals, to which he gave expression in the names that he gave them, we are not to regard as the mere results of reflection, or of abstraction from merely outward peculiarities which affected the senses; but as a deep and direct mental insight into the nature of the animals, which penetrated far deeper than such knowledge as is the simple result of reflecting and abstracting thought. The naming of the animals, therefore, led to this result, that there was not found a help meet for man. Before the creation of the woman we must regard the man (Adam) as being “neither male, in the sense of complete sexual distinction, nor androgynous as though both sexes were combined in the one individual created at the first, but as created in anticipation of the future, with a preponderant tendency, a male in simple potentiality, out of which state he passed, the moment the woman stood by his side, when the mere potentia became an actual antithesis” (Ziegler).

Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man (v. 21). hm;Der]Tæ , a deep sleep, in which all consciousness of the outer world and of one’s own existence vanishes. Sleep is an essential element in the nature of man as ordained by God, and is quite as necessary for man as the interchange of day and night for all nature besides. But this deep sleep was different from natural sleep, and God caused it to fall upon the man by day, that He might create the woman out of him. “Everything out of which something new is to spring, sinks first of all into such a sleep” (Ziegler). [l;xe means the side, and, as a portion of the human body, the rib. The correctness of this meaning, which is given by all the ancient versions, is evident from the words, “God took one of his tw[lx ,” which show that the man had several of them. “And closed up flesh in the place thereof;” i.e., closed the gap which had been made, with flesh which He put in the place of the rib.

The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage. As the moral idea of the unity of the human race required that man should not be created as a genus or plurality, so the moral relation of the two persons establishing the unity of the race required that man should be created first, and then the woman from the body of the man. By this the priority and superiority of the man, and the dependence of the woman upon the man, are established as an ordinance of divine creation.

This ordinance of God forms the root of that tender love with which the man loves the woman as himself, and by which marriage becomes a type of the fellowship of love and life, which exists between the Lord and His Church (Eph. 6:32). If the fact that the woman was formed from a rib, and not from any other part of the man, is significant; all that we can find in this is, that the woman was made to stand as a helpmate by the side of the man, not that there was any allusion to conjugal love as founded in the heart; for the text does not speak of the rib as one which was next the heart. The word hn;B; is worthy of note: from the rib of the man God builds the female, through whom the human race is to be built up by the male (Genesis 16:2; 30:3).

GENESIS. 2:23-25

The design of God in the creation of the woman is perceived by Adam, as soon as he awakes, when the woman is brought to him by God. Without a revelation from God, he discovers in the woman “bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.” The words, “this is now ( µ[æpæ lit., this time) bone of my bones,” etc., are expressive of joyous astonishment at the suitable helpmate, whose relation to himself he describes in the words, “she shall be called Woman, for she is taken out of man.” hV;ai is well rendered by Luther, “Männin” (a female man), like the old Latin vira from vir. The words which follow, “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh,” are not to be regarded as Adam’s, first on account of the `al-keen, which is always used in Genesis, with the exception of Genesis 20:6; 42:21, to introduce remarks of the writer, either of an archaeological or of a historical character, and secondly, because, even if Adam on seeing the woman had given prophetic utterance to his perception of the mystery of marriage, he could not with propriety have spoken of father and mother.

They are the words of Moses, written to bring out the truth embodied in the fact recorded as a divinely appointed result, to exhibit marriage as the deepest corporeal and spiritual unity of man and woman, and to hold up monogamy before the eyes of the people of Israel as the form of marriage ordained by God. But as the words of Moses, they are the utterance of divine revelation; and Christ could quote them, therefore, as the word of God (Matthew 19:5). By the leaving of father and mother, which applies to the woman as well as to the man, the conjugal union is shown to be a spiritual oneness, a vital communion of heart as well as of body, in which it finds its consummation. This union is of a totally different nature from that of parents and children; hence marriage between parents and children is entirely opposed to the ordinance of God. Marriage itself, notwithstanding the fact that it demands the leaving of father and mother, is a holy appointment of God; hence celibacy is not a higher or holier state, and the relation of the sexes for a pure and holy man is a pure and holy relation.

This is shown in v. 25: “They were both naked ( `µwOr[; , with dagesh in the m, is an abbreviated form of `µroy[e Genesis 3:7, from `rW[ to strip), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Their bodies were sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust of the flesh.

THE FALL.

GENESIS. 3:1-8

The man, whom God had appointed lord of the earth and its inhabitants, was endowed with everything requisite for the development of his nature and the fulfilment of his destiny. In the fruit of the trees of the garden he had food for the sustenance of his life; in the care of the garden itself, a field of labour for the exercise of his physical strength; in the animal and vegetable kingdom, a capacious region for the expansion of his intellect; in the tree of knowledge, a positive law for the training of his moral nature; and in the woman associated with him, a suitable companion and help. In such circumstances as these he might have developed both his physical and spiritual nature in accordance with the will of God. But a tempter approached him from the midst of the animal world, and he yielded to the temptation to break the command of God. The serpent is said to have been the tempter. But to any one who reads the narrative carefully in connection with the previous history of the creation, and bears in mind that man is there described as exalted far above all the rest of the animal world, not only by the fact of his having been created in the image of God and invested with dominion over all the creatures of the earth, but also because God breathed into him the breath of life, and no help meet for him was found among the beasts of the field, and also that this superiority was manifest in the gift of speech, which enabled him to give names to all the rest-a thing which they, as speechless, were unable to perform-it must be at once apparent that it was not from the serpent, as a sagacious and crafty animal, that the temptation proceeded, but that the serpent was simply the tool of that evil spirit, who is met with in the further course of the world’s history under the name of Satan (the opponent), or the Devil ( oJ dia>bolov , the slanderer or accuser). f13 When the serpent, therefore, is introduced as speaking, and that just as if it had been entrusted with the thoughts of God Himself, the speaking must have emanated, not from the serpent, but from a superior spirit, which had taken possession of the serpent for the sake of seducing man. This fact, indeed, is not distinctly stated in the canonical books of the Old Testament; but that is simply for the same educational reason which led Moses to transcribe the account exactly as it had been handed down, in the pure objective form of an outward and visible occurrence, and without any allusion to the causality which underlay the external phenomenon, viz., not so much to oppose the tendency of contemporaries to heathen superstition and habits of intercourse with the kingdom of demons, as to avoid encouraging the disposition to transfer the blame to the evil spirit which tempted man, and thus reduce sin to a mere act of weakness.

But we find the fact distinctly alluded to in the book of Wisdom 2:24; and not only is it constantly noticed in the rabbinical writings, where the prince of the evil spirits is called the old serpent, or the serpent, with evident reference to this account, but it was introduced at a very early period into Parsism also. It is also attested by Christ and His apostles (John 8:44; Cor 11:3 and 14; Romans 16:20; Rev 12:9; 20:2), and confirmed by the temptation of our Lord. The temptation of Christ is the counterpart of that of Adam. Christ was tempted by the devil, not only like Adam, but because Adam had been tempted and overcome, in order that by overcoming the tempter He might wrest from the devil that dominion over the whole race which he had secured by his victory over the first human pair. The tempter approached the Saviour openly; to the first man he came in disguise. The serpent is not a merely symbolical term applied to Satan; nor was it only the form which Satan assumed; but it was a real serpent, perverted by Satan to be the instrument of his temptation (vv. 1 and 14). The possibility of such a perversion, or of the evil spirit using an animal for his own purposes, is not to be explained merely on the ground of the supremacy of spirit over nature, but also from the connection established in the creation itself between heaven and earth; and still more, from the position originally assigned by the Creator to the spirits of heaven in relation to the creatures of earth. The origin, force, and limits of this relation it is impossible to determine a priori, or in any other way than from such hints as are given in the Scriptures; so that there is no reasonable ground for disputing the possibility of such an influence. Notwithstanding his self-willed opposition to God, Satan is still a creature of God, and was created a good spirit; although, in proud self-exaltation, he abused the freedom essential to the nature of a superior spirit to purposes of rebellion against his Maker. He cannot therefore entirely shake off his dependence upon God. And this dependence may possibly explain the reason, why he did not come “disguised as an angel of light” to tempt our first parents to disobedience, but was obliged to seek the instrument of his wickedness among the beasts of the field.

The trial of our first progenitors was ordained by God, because probation was essential to their spiritual development and self-determination. But as He did not desire that they should be tempted to their fall, He would not suffer Satan to tempt them in a way which should surpass their human capacity. The tempted might therefore have resisted the tempter. If, instead of approaching them in the form of a celestial being, in the likeness of God, he came in that of a creature, not only far inferior to God, but far below themselves, they could have no excuse for allowing a mere animal to persuade them to break the commandment of God. For they had been made to have dominion over the beasts, and not to take their own law from them. Moreover, the fact that an evil spirit was approaching them in the serpent, could hardly be concealed from them. Its speaking alone must have suggested that; for Adam had already become acquainted with the nature of the beasts, and had not found one among them resembling himself-not one, therefore, endowed with reason and speech. The substance of the address, too, was enough to prove that it was no good spirit which spake through the serpent, but one at enmity with God. Hence, when they paid attention to what he said, they were altogether without excuse.

Verse 1-5. “The serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the field, which Jehovah God had made.” — The serpent is here described not only as a beast, but also as a creature of God; it must therefore have been good, like everything else that He had made. Subtilty was a natural characteristic of the serpent (Matthew 10:16), which led the evil one to select it as his instrument. Nevertheless the predicate `µWr[; is not used here in the good sense of fro>nimov (LXX), prudens, but in the bad sense of panou>rgov , callidus. For its subtilty was manifested as the craft of a tempter to evil, in the simple fact that it was to the weaker woman that it turned; and cunning was also displayed in what it said: “Hath God indeed said, Ye shall not eat of all the trees of the garden?” yKi ãaæ is an interrogative expressing surprise (as in 1 Samuel 23:3; 2 Samuel 4:11): “Is it really the fact that God has prohibited you from eating of all the trees of the garden?”

The Hebrew may, indeed, bear the meaning, “hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree?” but from the context, and especially the conjunction, it is obvious that the meaning is, “ye shall not eat of any tree.” The serpent calls God by the name of Elohim alone, and the woman does the same. In this more general and indefinite name the personality of the living God is obscured. To attain his end, the tempter felt it necessary to change the living personal God into a merely general numen divinium, and to exaggerate the prohibition, in the hope of exciting in the woman’s mind partly distrust of God Himself, and partly a doubt as to the truth of His word. And his words were listened to. Instead of turning away, the woman replied, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” She was aware of the prohibition, therefore, and fully understood its meaning; but she added, “neither shall ye touch it,” and proved by this very exaggeration that it appeared too stringent even to her, and therefore that her love and confidence towards God were already beginning to waver.

Here was the beginning of her fall: “for doubt is the father of sin, and skepsis the mother of all transgression; and in this father and this mother, all our present knowledge has a common origin with sin” (Ziegler). From doubt, the tempter advances to a direct denial of the truth of the divine threat, and to a malicious suspicion of the divine love (vv. 4, 5). “Ye will by no means die” ( alo is placed before the infinitive absolute, as in Psalm 49:8 and Amos 9:8; for the meaning is not, “he will not die;” but, ye will positively not die). “But God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and ye will be like God, knowing good and evil.” That is to say, it is not because the fruit of the tree will injure you that God has forbidden you to eat it, but from ill-will and envy, because He does not wish you to be like Himself. “A truly satanic double entendre, in which a certain agreement between truth and untruth is secured!” By eating the fruit, man did obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and in this respect became like God (vv. 7 and 22). This was the truth which covered the falsehood “ye shall not die,” and turned the whole statement into a lie, exhibiting its author as the father of lies, who abides not in the truth (John 8:44). For the knowledge of good and evil, which man obtains by going into evil, is as far removed from the true likeness of God, which he would have attained by avoiding it, as the imaginary liberty of a sinner, which leads into bondage to sin and ends in death, is from the true liberty of a life of fellowship with God.

Verse 6. The illusive hope of being like God excited a longing for the forbidden fruit. “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a pleasure to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise ( lkæc; signifies to gain or show discernment or insight); and she took of its fruit and ate, and gave to her husband by her (who was present), and he did eat.” As distrust of God’s command leads to a disregard of it, so the longing for a false independence excites a desire for the seeming good that has been prohibited; and this desire is fostered by the senses, until it brings forth sin. Doubt, unbelief, and pride were the roots of the sin of our first parents, as they have been of all the sins of their posterity. The more trifling the object of their sin seems to have been, the greater and more difficult does the sin itself appear; especially when we consider that the first men “stood in a more direct relation to God, their Creator, than any other man has ever done, that their hearts were pure, their discernment clear, their intercourse with God direct, that they were surrounded by gifts just bestowed by Him, and could not excuse themselves on the ground of any misunderstanding of the divine prohibition, which threatened them with the loss of life in the event of disobedience” (Delitzsch). Yet not only did the woman yield to the seductive wiles of the serpent, but even the man allowed himself to be tempted by the woman.

Verse 7-8. “Then the eyes of them both were opened” (as the serpent had foretold: but what did they see?), “and they knew that they were naked.”

They had lost “that blessed blindness, the ignorance of innocence, which knows nothing of nakedness” (Ziegler). The discovery of their nakedness excited shame, which they sought to conceal by an outward covering. “They sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” The word ˆaeT] always denotes the fig-tree, not the pisang (Musa paradisiaca), nor the Indian banana, whose leaves are twelve feet long and two feet broad, for there would have been no necessity to sew them together at all. rwOgj , perizw>mata , are aprons, worn round the hips. It was here that the consciousness of nakedness first suggested the need of covering, not because the fruit had poisoned the fountain of human life, and through some inherent quality had immediately corrupted the reproductive powers of the body (as Hoffmann and Baumgarten suppose), nor because any physical change ensued in consequence of the fall; but because, with the destruction of the normal connection between soul and body through sin, the body ceased to be the pure abode of a spirit in fellowship with God, and in the purely natural state of the body the consciousness was produced not merely of the distinction of the sexes, but still more of the worthlessness of the flesh; so that the man and woman stood ashamed in each other’s presence, and endeavoured to hide the disgrace of their spiritual nakedness, by covering those parts of the body through which the impurities of nature are removed.

That the natural feeling of shame, the origin of which is recorded here, had its root, not in sensuality or any physical corruption, but in the consciousness of guilt or shame before God, and consequently that it was the conscience which was really at work, is evident from the fact that the man and his wife hid themselves from Jehovah God among the trees of the garden, as soon as they heard the sound of His footsteps. hwO;hy] lwOq (the voice of Jehovah, v. 8) is not the voice of God speaking or calling, but the sound of God walking, as in 2 Samuel 5:24; 1 Kings 14:6, etc. — In the cool of the day (lit., in the wind of the day), i.e., towards the evening, when a cooling wind generally blows. The men have broken away from God, but God will not and cannot leave them alone. He comes to them as one man to another. This was the earliest form of divine revelation. God conversed with the first man in a visible shape, as the Father and Instructor of His children.

He did not adopt this mode for the first time after the fall, but employed it as far back as the period when He brought the beasts to Adam, and gave him the woman to be his wife (Genesis 2:19,22). This human mode of intercourse between man and God is not a mere figure of speech, but a reality, having its foundation in the nature of humanity, or rather in the fact that man was created in the image of God, but not in the sense supposed by Jakobi, that “God theomorphised when creating man, and man therefore necessarily anthropomorphises when he thinks of God.” The anthropomorphies of God have their real foundation in the divine condescension which culminated in the incarnation of God in Christ. They are to be understood, however, as implying, not that corporeality, or a bodily shape, is an essential characteristic of God, but that God having given man a bodily shape, when He created him in His own image, revealed Himself in a manner suited to his bodily senses, that He might thus preserve him in living communion with Himself.

GENESIS. 3:9-13

The man could not hide himself from God. “Jehovah God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” Not that He was ignorant of his hiding-place, but to bring him to a confession of his sin. And when Adam said that he had hidden himself through fear of his nakedness, and thus sought to hide the sin behind its consequences, his disobedience behind the feeling of shame; this is not to be regarded as a sign of peculiar obduracy, but easily admits of a psychological explanation, viz., that at the time he actually thought more of his nakedness and shame than of his transgression of the divine command, and his consciousness of the effects of his sin was keener than his sense of the sin itself. To awaken the latter God said, “Who told thee that thou wast naked?” and asked him whether he had broken His command. He could not deny that he had, but sought to excuse himself by saying, that the woman whom God gave to be with him had given him of the tree. When the woman was questioned, she pleaded as her excuse, that the serpent had beguiled her (or rather deceived her, exapa’teesen, 2 Cor 11:3). In offering these excuses, neither of them denied the fact. But the fault in both was, that they did not at once smite upon their breasts. “It is so still; the sinner first of all endeavours to throw the blame upon others as tempters, and then upon circumstances which God has ordained.”

GENESIS. 3:14-15

The sentence follows the examination, and is pronounced first of all upon the serpent as the tempter: “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed before all cattle, and before every beast of the field.” ˆmi , literally out of the beasts, separate from them (Deuteronomy 14:2; Judges 5:24), is not a comparative signifying more than, nor does it mean by; for the curse did not proceed from the beasts, but from God, and was not pronounced upon all the beasts, but upon the serpent alone. The kti>siv , it is true, including the whole animal creation, has been “made subject to vanity” and “the bondage of corruption,” in consequence of the sin of man (Romans 8:20-21); yet this subjection is not to be regarded as the effect of the curse, which was pronounced upon the serpent, having fallen upon the whole animal world, but as the consequence of death passing from man into the rest of the creation, and thoroughly pervading the whole.

The creation was drawn into the fall of man, and compelled to share its consequences, because the whole of the irrational creation was made for man, and made subject to him as its head; consequently the ground was cursed for man’s sake, but not the animal world for the serpent’s sake, or even along with the serpent. The curse fell upon the serpent for having tempted the woman, according to the same law by which not only a beast which had injured a man was ordered to be put to death (Genesis 9:5; Exodus 21:28-29), but any beast which had been the instrument of an unnatural crime was to be slain along with the man (Leviticus 20:15-16); not as though the beast were an accountable creature, but in consequence of its having been made subject to man, not to injure his body or his life, or to be the instrument of his sin, but to subserve the great purpose of his life. “Just as a loving father,” as Chrysostom says, “when punishing the murderer of his son, might snap in two the sword or dagger with which the murder had been committed.”

The proof, therefore, that the serpent was merely the instrument of an evil spirit, does not lie in the punishment itself, but in the manner in which the sentence was pronounced. When God addressed the animal, and pronounced a curse upon it, this presupposed that the curse had regard not so much to the irrational beast as to the spiritual tempter, and that the punishment which fell upon the serpent was merely a symbol of his own.

The punishment of the serpent corresponded to the crime. It had exalted itself above the man; therefore upon its belly it should go, and dust it should eat all the days of its life. If these words are not to be robbed of their entire meaning, they cannot be understood in any other way than as denoting that the form and movements of the serpent were altered, and that its present repulsive shape is the effect of the curse pronounced upon it, though we cannot form any accurate idea of its original appearance. Going upon the belly (= creeping, Leviticus 11:42) was a mark of the deepest degradation; also the eating of dust, which is not to be understood as meaning that dust was to be its only food, but that while crawling in the dust it would also swallow dust (cf. Micah 7:17; Isaiah 49:23). Although this punishment fell literally upon the serpent, it also affected the tempter if a figurative or symbolical sense. He became the object of the utmost contempt and abhorrence; and the serpent still keeps the revolting image of Satan perpetually before the eye. This degradation was to be perpetual. “While all the rest of creation shall be delivered from the fate into which the fall has plunged it, according to Isaiah 65:25, the instrument of man’s temptation is to remain sentenced to perpetual degradation in fulfilment of the sentence, ‘all the days of thy life.’ and thus to prefigure the fate of the real tempter, for whom there is no deliverance” (Hengstenberg, Christology Genesis 1:15). — The presumption of the tempter was punished with the deepest degradation; and in like manner his sympathy with the woman was to be turned into eternal hostility (v. 15).

God established perpetual enmity, not only between the serpent and the woman, but also between the serpent’s and the woman’s seed, i.e., between the human and the serpent race. The seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head, and the serpent crush the heel of the woman’s seed. The meaning, terere, conterere, is thoroughly established by the Chald., Syr., and Rabb. authorities, and we have therefore retained it, in harmony with the word suntri>bein in Romans 16:20, and because it accords better and more easily with all the other passages in which the word occurs, than the rendering inhiare, to regard with enmity, which is obtained from the combination of ãWv with ãaæv; . The verb is construed with a double accusative, the second giving greater precision to the first (vid., Ges. §139, note, and Ewald, §281). The same word is used in connection with both head and heel, to show that on both sides the intention is to destroy the opponent; at the same time, the expressions head and heel denote a majus and minus, or, as Calvin says, superius et inferius.

This contrast arises from the nature of the foes. The serpent can only seize the heel of the man, who walks upright; whereas the man can crush the head of the serpent, that crawls in the dust. But this difference is itself the result of the curse pronounced upon the serpent, and its crawling in the dust is a sign that it will be defeated in its conflict with man. However pernicious may be the bite of a serpent in the heel when the poison circulates throughout the body (Genesis 49:17), it is not immediately fatal and utterly incurable, like the cursing of a serpent’s head.

But even in this sentence there is an unmistakable allusion to the evil and hostile being concealed behind the serpent. That the human race should triumph over the serpent, was a necessary consequence of the original subjection of the animals to man. When, therefore, God not merely confines the serpent within the limits assigned to the animals, but puts enmity between it and the woman, this in itself points to a higher, spiritual power, which may oppose and attack the human race through the serpent, but will eventually be overcome. Observe, too, that although in the first clause the seed of the serpent is opposed to the seed of the woman, in the second it is not over the seed of the serpent but over the serpent itself that the victory is said to be gained. It, i.e., the seed of the woman will crush thy head, and thou (not thy seed) wilt crush its heel. Thus the seed of the serpent is hidden behind the unity of the serpent, or rather of the foe who, through the serpent, has done such injury to man.

This foe is Satan, who incessantly opposes the seed of the woman and bruises its heel, but is eventually to be trodden under its feet. It does not follow from this, however, apart from other considerations, that by the seed of the woman we are to understand one solitary person, one individual only. As the woman is the mother of all living (v. 20), her seed, to which the victory over the serpent and its seed is promised, must be the human race. But if a direct and exclusive reference to Christ appears to be exegetically untenable, the allusion in the word to Christ is by no means precluded in consequence. In itself the idea of [ræz, , the seed, is an indefinite one, since the posterity of a man may consist of a whole tribe or of one son only (Genesis 4:25; 21:12-13), and on the other hand, an entire tribe may be reduced to one single descendant and become extinct in him.

The question, therefore, who is to be understood by the “seed” which is to crush the serpent’s head, can only be answered from the history of the human race.

But a point of much greater importance comes into consideration here.

Against the natural serpent the conflict may be carried on by the whole human race, by all who are born of a woman, but not against Satan. As he is a fore who can only be met with spiritual weapons, none can encounter him successfully but such as possess and make use of spiritual arms. Hence the idea of the “seed” is modified by the nature of the foe. If we look at the natural development of the human race, Eve bore three sons, but only one of them, viz., Seth, was really the seed by whom the human family was preserved through the flood and perpetuated in Noah: so, again, of the three sons of Noah, Shem, the blessed of Jehovah, from whom Abraham descended, was the only one in whose seed all nations were to be blessed, and that not through Ishmael, but through Isaac alone. Through these constantly repeated acts of divine selection, which were not arbitrary exclusions, but were rendered necessary by differences in the spiritual condition of the individuals concerned, the “seed,” to which the victory over Satan was promised, was spiritually or ethically determined, and ceased to be co-extensive with physical descent.

This spiritual seed culminated in Christ, in whom the Adamitic family terminated, henceforward to be renewed by Christ as the second Adam, and restored by Him to its original exaltation and likeness to God. In this sense Christ is the seed of the woman, who tramples Satan under His feet, not as an individual, but as the head both of the posterity of the woman which kept the promise and maintained the conflict with the old serpent before His advent, and also of all those who are gathered out of all nations, are united to Him by faith, and formed into one body of which He is the head (Romans 16:20). On the other hand, all who have not regarded and preserved the promise, have fallen into the power of the old serpent, and are to be regarded as the seed of the serpent, whose head will be trodden under foot (Matthew 23:33; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). If then the promise culminates in Christ, the fact that the victory over the serpent is promised to the posterity of the woman, not of the man, acquires this deeper significance, that as it was through the woman that the craft of the devil brought sin and death into the world, so it is also through the woman that the grace of God will give to the fallen human race the conqueror of sin, of death, and of the devil. And even if the words had reference first of all to the fact that the woman had been led astray by the serpent, yet in the fact that the destroyer of the serpent was born of a woman (without a human father) they were fulfilled in a way which showed that the promise must have proceeded from that Being, who secured its fulfilment not only in its essential force, but even in its apparently casual form.

GENESIS. 3:16-19

It was not till the prospect of victory had been presented, that a sentence of punishment was pronounced upon both the man and the woman on account of their sin. The woman, who had broken the divine command for the sake of earthly enjoyment, was punished in consequence with the sorrows and pains of pregnancy and childbirth. “I will greatly multiply ( hb;r; is the inf. abs. for hb;r; , which had become an adverb: vid., Ewald, §240c, as in Genesis 16:10 and 22:17) thy sorrow and thy pregnancy: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” As the increase of conceptions, regarded as the fulfilment of the blessing to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28), could be no punishment, ˆwOrhe must be understood as in apposition to `ˆboX;[i thy sorrow (i.e., the sorrows peculiar to a woman’s life), and indeed (or more especially) thy pregnancy (i.e., the sorrows attendant upon that condition).

The sentence is not rendered more lucid by the assumption of a hendiadys. “That the woman should bear children was the original will of God; but it was a punishment that henceforth she was to bear them in sorrow, i.e., with pains which threatened her own life as well as that of the child” (Delitzsch). The punishment consisted in an enfeebling of nature, in consequence of sin, which disturbed the normal relation between body and soul. — The woman had also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease ( hq;WvT] from qWv to run, to have a violent craving for a thing), and with subjection to the man. “And he shall rule over thee.” Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also-a rule which was first softened by the sin-destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation, viz., that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.

Verse 17-19. “And unto Adam:” the noun is here used for the first time as a proper name without the article. In Genesis 1:26 and 2:5,20, the noun is appellative, and there are substantial reasons for the omission of the article.

The sentence upon Adam includes a twofold punishment: first the cursing of the ground, and secondly death, which affects the woman as well, on account of their common guilt. By listening to his wife, when deceived by the serpent, Adam had repudiated his superiority to the rest of creation. As a punishment, therefore, nature would henceforth offer resistance to his will. By breaking the divine command, he had set himself above his Maker, death would therefore show him the worthlessness of his own nature. “Cursed be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat it (the ground by synecdoche for its produce, as in Isaiah 1:7) all the days of thy life: thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.” The curse pronounced on man’s account upon the soil created for him, consisted in the fact, that the earth no longer yielded spontaneously the fruits requisite for his maintenance, but the man was obliged to force out the necessaries of life by labour and strenuous exertion.

The herb of the field is in contrast with the trees of the garden, and sorrow with the easy dressing of the garden. We are not to understand, however, that because man failed to guard the good creation of God from the invasion of the evil one, a host of demoniacal powers forced their way into the material world to lay it waste and offer resistance to man; but because man himself had fallen into the power of the evil one, therefore God cursed the earth, not merely withdrawing the divine powers of life which pervaded Eden, but changing its relation to man. As Luther says, “primum in eo, quod illa bona non fert quae tulisset, si homo non esset lapsus, deinde in eo quoque, quod multa noxia fert quae non tulisset, sicut sunt infelix lolium, steriles avenae, zizania, urticae, spincae, tribuli, adde venena, noxias bestiolas, et si qua sunt alia hujus generis.” But the curse reached much further, and the writer has merely noticed the most obvious aspect. f16 The disturbance and distortion of the original harmony of body and soul, which sin introduced into the nature of man, and by which the flesh gained the mastery over the spirit, and the body, instead of being more and more transformed into the life of the spirit, became a prey to death, spread over the whole material world; so that everywhere on earth there were to be seen wild and rugged wastes, desolation and ruin, death and corruption, or mataio>thv and fqora> (Romans 8:20-21). Everything injurious to man in the organic, vegetable and animal creation, is the effect of the curse pronounced upon the earth for Adam’s sin, however little we may be able to explain the manner in which the curse was carried into effect; since our view of the causal connection between sin and evil even in human life is very imperfect, and the connection between spirit and matter in nature generally is altogether unknown. In this causal link between sin and the evils in the world, the wrath of God on account of sin was revealed; since, as soon as the creation ( pa>sa hJ kti>siv , Romans 8:22) had been wrested through man from its vital connection with its Maker, He gave it up to its own ungodly nature, so that whilst, on the one hand, it has been abused by man for the gratification of his own sinful lusts and desires, on the other, it has turned against man, and consequently many things in the world and nature, which in themselves and without sin would have been good for him, or at all events harmless, have become poisonous and destructive since his fall. For in the sweat of his face man is to eat his bread ( µj,l, the bread-corn which springs from the earth, as in Job 28:5; Psalm 104:14) until he return to the ground. Formed out of the dust, he shall return to dust again.

This was the fulfilment of the threat, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” which began to take effect immediately after the breach of the divine command; for not only did man then become mortal, but he also actually came under the power of death, received into his nature the germ of death, the maturity of which produced its eventual dissolution into dust.

The reason why the life of the man did not come to an end immediately after the eating of the forbidden fruit, was not that “the woman had been created between the threat and the fall, and consequently the fountain of human life had been divided, the life originally concentrated in one Adam shared between man and woman, by which the destructive influence of the fruit was modified or weakened.” (v. Hoffmann), but that the mercy and long-suffering of God afforded space for repentance, and so controlled and ordered the sin of men and the punishment of sin, as to render them subservient to the accomplishment of His original purpose and the glorification of His name.

GENESIS. 3:20-21

As justice and mercy were combined in the divine sentence; justice in the fact that God cursed the tempter alone, and only punished the tempted with labour and mortality, mercy in the promise of eventual triumph over the serpent: so God also displayed His mercy to the fallen, before carrying the sentence into effect. It was through the power of divine grace that Adam believed the promise with regard to the woman’s seed, and manifested his faith in the name which he gave to his wife. hW;jæ Eve, an old form of yjæ , signifying life ( zwh> , LXX), or life-spring, is a substantive, and not a feminine adjective meaning “the living one,” nor an abbreviated form of m¦chauwaah, from chiuwaah = hy;j; (Genesis 19:32,34), the life-receiving one. This name was given by Adam to his wife, “because,” as the writer explains with the historical fulfilment before his mind, “she became the mother of all living,” i.e., because the continuance and life of his race were guaranteed to the man through the woman.

God also displayed His mercy by clothing the two with coats of skin, i.e., the skins of beasts. The words, “God made coats,” are not to be interpreted with such bare literality, as that God sewed the coats with His own fingers; they merely affirm “that man’s first clothing was the work of God, who gave the necessary directions and ability” (Delitzsch). By this clothing, God imparted to the feeling of shame the visible sign of an awakened conscience, and to the consequent necessity for a covering to the bodily nakedness, the higher work of a suitable discipline for the sinner.

By selecting the skins of beasts for the clothing of the first men, and therefore causing the death or slaughter of beasts for that purpose, He showed them how they might use the sovereignty they possessed over the animals for their own good, and even sacrifice animal life for the preservation of human; so that this act of God laid the foundation for the sacrifices, even if the first clothing did not prefigure our ultimate “clothing upon” (2 Cor 5:4), nor the coats of skins the robe of righteousness.

GENESIS. 3:22-24

Clothed in this sign of mercy, the man was driven out of paradise, to bear the punishment of his sin. The words of Jehovah, “The man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil,” contain no irony, as though man had exalted himself to a position of autonomy resembling that of God; for “irony at the expense of a wretched tempted soul might well befit Satan, but not the Lord.” Likeness to God is predicated only with regard to the knowledge of good and evil, in which the man really had become like God.

In order that, after the germ of death had penetrated into his nature along with sin, he might not “take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever ( yjæ contracted from yjæ = hy;j; , as in Genesis 5:5; 1 Samuel 20:31), God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.” With jlæv; (sent him forth) the narrative passes over from the words to the actions of God. From the µGæ (also) it follows that the man had not yet eaten of the tree of life. Had he continued in fellowship with God by obedience to the command of God, he might have eaten of it, for he was created for eternal life. But after he had fallen through sin into the power of death, the fruit which produced immortality could only do him harm. For immortality in a state of sin is not the zwh> aiw>niov , which God designed for man, but endless misery, which the Scriptures call “the second death” (Rev 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8). The expulsion from paradise, therefore, was a punishment inflicted for man’s good, intended, while exposing him to temporal death, to preserve him from eternal death. To keep the approach to the tree of life, “God caused cherubim to dwell (to encamp) at the east (on the eastern side) of the garden, and the (i.e., with the) flame of the sword turning to and fro” ( Ëpæh; , moving rapidly). The word bWrK] cherub has no suitable etymology in the Semitic, but is unquestionably derived from the same root as the Greek gru>pv or grupe>v , and has been handed down from the forefathers of our race, though the primary meaning can no longer be discovered.

The Cherubim, however, are creatures of a higher world, which are represented as surrounding the throne of God, both in the visions of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:22ff., Genesis 10:1) and the Revelation of John (John 4:6); not, however, as throne-bearers or throne-holders, or as forming the chariot of the throne, but as occupying the highest place as living beings ( yjæ , zw>a ) in the realm of spirits, standing by the side of God as the heavenly King when He comes to judgment, and proclaiming the majesty of the Judge of the world. In this character God stationed them on the eastern side of paradise, not “to inhabit the garden as the temporary representatives of man,” but “to keep the way of the tree of life,” i.e., to render it impossible for man to return to paradise, and eat of the tree of life. Hence there appeared by their side the flame of a sword, apparently in constant motion, cutting hither and thither, representing the devouring fire of the divine wrath, and showing the cherubim to be ministers of judgment.

With the expulsion of man from the garden of Eden, paradise itself vanished from the earth. God did not withdraw from the tree of life its supernatural power, nor did He destroy the garden before their eyes, but simply prevented their return, to show that it should be preserved until the time of the end, when sin should be rooted out by the judgment, and death abolished by the Conqueror of the serpent (1 Cor 15:26), and when upon the new earth the tree of life should flourish again in the heavenly Jerusalem, and bear fruit for the redeemed (Rev 20 and 21). THE SONS OF THE FIRST MAN.

GENESIS. 4:1-8

The propagation of the human race did not commence till after the expulsion from paradise. Generation in man is an act of personal free-will, not a blind impulse of nature, and rests upon a moral self-determination. It flows from the divine institution of marriage, and is therefore knowing ( [dæy; ) the wife. — At the birth of the first son Eve exclaimed with joy, “I have gotten ( hn;q; ) a man with Jehovah;” wherefore the child received the name Cain ( ˆyiqæ from ˆWq = hn;q; , kta>sqai ). So far as the grammar is concerned, the expression hwO;jiAta, might be rendered, as in apposition to vyai , “a man, the Lord” (Luther), but the sense would not allow it. For even if we could suppose the faith of Eve in the promised conqueror of the serpent to have been sufficiently alive for this, the promise of God had not given her the slightest reason to expect that the promised seed would be of divine nature, and might be Jehovah, so as to lead her to believe that she had given birth to Jehovah now. tae is a preposition in the sense of helpful association, as in Genesis 21:20; 39:2,21, etc. That she sees in the birth of this son the commencement of the fulfilment of the promise, and thankfully acknowledges the divine help in this display of mercy, is evident from the name Jehovah, the God of salvation. The use of this name is significant.

Although it cannot be supposed that Eve herself knew and uttered this name, since it was not till a later period that it was made known to man, and it really belongs to the Hebrew, which was not formed till after the division of tongues, yet it expresses the feeling of Eve on receiving this proof of the gracious help of God.

Verse 2-7. But her joy was soon overcome by the discovery of the vanity of this earthly life. This is expressed in the name Abel, which was given to the second son ( lb,h, , in pause lb,h, , i.e., nothingness, vanity), whether it indicated generally a feeling of sorrow on account of his weakness, or was a prophetic presentiment of his untimely death. The occupation of the sons is noticed on account of what follows. “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.” Adam had, no doubt, already commenced both occupations, and the sons selected each a different department. God Himself had pointed out both to Adam-the tilling of the ground by the employment assigned him in Eden, which had to be changed into agriculture after his expulsion; and the keeping of cattle in the clothing that He gave him (Genesis 3:21). Moreover, agriculture can never be entirely separated from the rearing of cattle; for a man not only requires food, but clothing, which is procured directly from the hides and wool of tame animals.

In addition to this, sheep do not thrive without human protection and care, and therefore were probably associated with man from the very first. The different occupations of the brothers, therefore, are not to be regarded as a proof of the difference in their dispositions. This comes out first in the sacrifice, which they offered after a time to God, each one from the produce of his vocation. — “In process of time” (lit., at the end of days, i.e., after a considerable lapse of time: for this use of µwOy cf. Genesis 40:4; Numbers 9:2) Cain brought of the fruit of the ground a gift ( hj;n]mi ) to the Lord; and Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and indeed (vav in an explanatory sense, vid., Ges. §155, 1) of their fat,” i.e., the fattest of the firstlings, and not merely the first good one that came to hand. chalaabiym are not the fat portions of the animals, as in the Levitical law of sacrifice.

This is evident from the fact, that the sacrifice was not connected with a sacrificial meal, and animal food was not eaten at this time. That the usage of the Mosaic law cannot determine the meaning of this passage, is evident from the word minchah, which is applied in Leviticus to bloodless sacrifices only, whereas it is used here in connection with Abel’s sacrifice. “And Jehovah looked upon Abel and his gift; and upon Cain and his gift He did not look.” The look of Jehovah was in any case a visible sign of satisfaction. It is a common and ancient opinion that fire consumed Abel’s sacrifice, and thus showed that it was graciously accepted. Theodotion explains the words by kai’ enepu’risen ho Theo’s. But whilst this explanation has the analogy of Leviticus 9:24 and Judges 6:21 in its favour, it does not suit the words, “upon Abel and his gift.” The reason for the different reception of the two offerings was the state of mind towards God with which they were brought, and which manifested itself in the selection of the gifts.

Not, indeed, in the fact that Abel brought a bleeding sacrifice and Cain a bloodless one; for this difference arose from the difference in their callings, and each necessarily took his gift from the produce of his own occupation. It was rather in the fact that Abel offered the fattest firstlings of his flock, the best that he could bring; whilst Cain only brought a portion of the fruit of the ground, but not the first-fruits. By this choice Abel brought plei>ona qusi>an para> Ka>i>n , and manifested that disposition which is designated faith ( pi>stiv ) in Hebrews 11:4. The nature of this disposition, however, can only be determined from the meaning of the offering itself.

The sacrifices offered by Adam’s sons, and that not in consequence of a divine command, but from the free impulse of their nature as determined by God, were the first sacrifices of the human race. The origin of sacrifice, therefore, is neither to be traced to a positive command, nor to be regarded as a human invention. To form an accurate conception of the idea which lies at the foundation of all sacrificial worship, we must bear in mind that the first sacrifices were offered after the fall, and therefore presupposed the spiritual separation of man from God, and were designed to satisfy the need of the heart for fellowship with God. This need existed in the case of Cain, as well as in that of Abel; otherwise he would have offered no sacrifice at all, since there was no command to render it compulsory. Yet it was not the wish for forgiveness of sin which led Adam’s sons to offer sacrifice; for there is no mention of expiation, and the notion that Abel, by slaughtering the animal, confessed that he deserved death on account of sin, is transferred to this passage from the expiatory sacrifices of the Mosaic law.

The offerings were expressive of gratitude to God, to whom they owed all that they had; and were associated also with the desire to secure the divine favour and blessing, so that they are to be regarded not merely as thankofferings, but as supplicatory sacrifices, and as propitiatory also, in the wider sense of the word. In this the two offerings are alike. The reason why they were not equally acceptable to God is not to be sought, as Hofmann thinks, in the fact that Cain merely offered thanks “for the preservation of this present life,” whereas Abel offered thanks “for the forgiveness of sins,” or “for the sin-forgiving clothing received by man from the hand of God.” To take the nourishment of the body literally and the clothing symbolically in this manner, is an arbitrary procedure, by which the Scriptures might be made to mean anything we chose. The reason is to be found rather in the fact, that Abel’s thanks came from the depth of his heart, whilst Cain merely offered his to keep on good terms with God-a difference that was manifested in the choice of the gifts, which each one brought from the produce of his occupation. This choice shows clearly “that it was the pious feeling, through which the worshiper put his heart as it were into the gift, which made the offering acceptable to God” (Oehler); that the essence of the sacrifice was not the presentation of a gift to God, but that the offering was intended to shadow forth the dedication of the heart to God. At the same time, the desire of the worshipper, by the dedication of the best of his possessions to secure afresh the favour of God, contained the germ of that substitutionary meaning of sacrifice, which was afterwards expanded in connection with the deepening and heightening of the feeling of sin into a desire for forgiveness, and led to the development of the idea of expiatory sacrifice. — On account of the preference shown to Abel, “it burned Cain sore (the subject, ‘wrath,’ is wanting, as it frequently is in the case of hr;j; , cf.

Genesis 18:30,32; 31:36, etc.), and his countenance fell” (an indication of his discontent and anger: cf. Jeremiah 3:12; Job 29:24). God warned him of giving way to this, and directed his attention to the cause and consequences of his wrath. “Why art thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen?” The answer to this is given in the further question, “Is there not, if thou art good, a lifting up” (sc., of the countenance)? It is evident from the context, and the antithesis of falling and lifting up ( lpæn; and ac;n; ), that µynip; must be supplied after taec] . By this God gave him to understand that his look was indicative of evil thoughts and intentions; for the lifting up of the countenance, i.e., a free, open look, is the mark of a good conscience (Job 11:15). “But if thou art not good, sin lieth before the door, and its desire is to thee (directed towards thee); but thou shouldst rule over it.” The fem. ha;F;jæ is construed as a masculine, because, with evident allusion to the serpent, sin is personified as a wild beast, lurking at the door of the human heart, and eagerly desiring to devour his soul (1 Peter 5:8). bfæy; , to make good, signifies here not good action, the performance of good in work and deed, but making the disposition good, i.e., directing the heart to what is good.

Cain is to rule over the sin which is greedily desiring him, by giving up his wrath, not indeed that sin may cease to lurk for him, but that the lurking evil foe may obtain no entrance into his heart. There is no need to regard the sentence as interrogative, “Wilt thou, indeed, be able to rule over it?” (Ewald), nor to deny the allusion in µyrit;a to the lurking sin, as Delitzsch does. The words do not command the suppression of an inward temptation, but resistance to the power of evil as pressing from without, by hearkening to the word which God addressed to Cain in person, and addresses to us through the Scriptures. There is nothing said here about God appearing visibly; but this does not warrant us in interpreting either this or the following conversation as a simple process that took place in the heart and conscience of Cain. It is evident from vv. 14 and 16 that God did not withdraw His personal presence and visible intercourse from men, as soon as He had expelled them from the garden of Eden. “God talks to Cain as to a wilful child, and draws out of him what is sleeping in his heart, and lurking like a wild beast before his door. And what He did to Cain He does to every one who will but observe his own heart, and listen to the voice of God” (Herder). But Cain paid no need to the divine warning.

Verse 8. He “said to his brother Abel.” What he said is not stated. We may either supply “it,” viz., what God had just said to him, which would be grammatically admissible, since rmæa; is sometimes followed by a simple accusative (Genesis 22:3; 44:16), and this accusative has to be supplied from the context (as in Exodus 19:25); or we may supply from what follows some such expressions as “let us go into the field,” as the LXX, Sam., Jonathan, and others have done. This is also allowable, so that we need not imagine a gap in the text, but may explain the construction as in Genesis 3:22-23, by supposing that the writer hastened on to describe the carrying out of what was said, without stopping to set down the words themselves. This supposition is preferable to the former, since it is psychologically most improbable that Cain should have related a warning to his brother which produced so little impression upon his own mind. In the field “Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” Thus the sin of Adam had grown into fratricide in his son. The writer intentionally repeats again and again the words “his brother,” to bring clearly out the horror of the sin. Cain was the first man who let sin reign in him; he was “of the wicked one” (1 John 3:12). In him the seed of the woman had already become the seed of the serpent; and in his deed the real nature of the wicked one, as “a murderer from the beginning,” had come openly to light: so that already there had sprung up that contrast of two distinct seeds within the human race, which runs through the entire history of humanity.

GENESIS. 4:9-10

Defiance grows with sin, and punishment keeps pace with guilt. Adam and Eve fear before God, and acknowledge their sin; Cain boldly denies it, and in reply to the question, “Where is Abel thy brother?” declares, “I know not, am I my brother’s keeper?” God therefore charges him with his crime: “What hast thou done! voice of thy brother’s blood crying to Me from the earth.” The verb “crying” refers to the “blood,” since this is the principal word, and the voice merely expresses the adverbial idea of “aloud,” or “listen” (Ewald, §317d). µD; (drops of blood) is sometimes used to denote natural hemorrhage (Leviticus 12:4-5; 20:18); but is chiefly applied to blood shed unnaturally, i.e., to murder. “Innocent blood has no voice, it may be, that is discernible by human ears, but it has one that reaches God, as the cry of a wicked deed demanding vengeance” (Delitzsch). Murder is one of the sins that cry to heaven. “Primum ostendit Deus se de factis hominum cognoscere utcunque nullus queratur vel accuset; deinde sibi magis charam esse homonum vitam quam ut sanguinem innoxium impune effundi sinat; tertio curam sibi piorum esse non solum quamdiu vivunt sed etiam post mortem” (Calvin). Abel was the first of the saints, whose blood is precious in the sight of God (Psalm 116:15); and by virtue of his faith, he being dead yet speaketh through his blood which cried unto God (Hebrews 11:4).

GENESIS. 4:11-14

“And now (sc., because thou hast done this) be cursed from the earth.”

From: i.e., either away from the earth, driven forth so that it shall no longer afford a quiet resting-place (Gerlach, Delitzsch, etc.), or out of the earth, through its withdrawing its strength, and thus securing the fulfilment of perpetual wandering (Baumgarten, etc.). It is difficult to choose between the two; but the clause, “which hath opened her mouth,” etc. seems rather to favour the latter. Because the earth has been compelled to drink innocent blood, it rebels against the murderer, and when he tills it, withdraws its strength, so that the soil yields no produce; just as the land of Canaan is said to have spued out the Canaanites, on account of their abominations (Leviticus 18:28). In any case, the idea that “the soil, through drinking innocent blood, became an accomplice in the sin of murder,” has no biblical support, and is not confirmed by Isaiah 26:21 or Numbers 35:33.

The suffering of irrational creatures through the sin of man is very different from their participating in his sin. “A fugitive and vagabond ( dWn [æWn , i.e., banished and homeless) shalt thou be in the earth.” Cain is so affected by this curse, that his obduracy is turned into despair, “My sin,” he says in v. 13, “is greater than can be borne.” `ˆwO[; ac;n; signifies to take away and bear sin or guilt, and is used with reference both to God and man. God takes guilt away by forgiving it (Exodus 34:7); man carries it away and bears it, by enduring its punishment (cf. Numbers 5:31). Luther, following the ancient versions, has adopted the first meaning; but the context sustains the second: for Cain afterwards complains, not of the greatness of the sin, but only of the severity of the punishment. “Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth, and from Thy face shall I be hid;...and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me.” The adamah, from the face of which the curse of Jehovah had driven Cain, was Eden (cf. v. 16), where he had carried on his agricultural pursuits, and where God had revealed His face, i.e., His presence, to the men after their expulsion from the garden; so that henceforth Cain had to wander about upon the wide world, homeless and far from the presence of God, and was afraid lest any one who found him might slay him.

By “every one that findeth me” we are not to understand omnis creatura, as though Cain had excited the hostility of all creatures, but every man; not in the sense, however, of such as existed apart from the family of Adam, but such as were aware of his crime, and knew him to be a murderer. For Cain is evidently afraid of revenge on the part of relatives of the slain, that is to say, of descendants of Adam, who were either already in existence, or yet to be born. Though Adam might not at this time have had “many grandsons and great-grandson,” yet according to v. 17 and Genesis 5:4, he had undoubtedly other children, who might increase in number, and sooner or later might avenge Abel’s death. For, that blood shed demands blood in return, “is a principle of equity written in the heart of every man; and that Cain should see that earth full of avengers is just like a murderer, who sees avenging spirits (Erinu’es) ready to torture him on every hand.”

GENESIS. 4:15

Although Cain expressed not penitence, but fear of punishment, God displayed His long-suffering and gave him the promise, “Therefore ( ˆKe not in the sense of ˆKe alo , but because it was the case, and there was reason for his complaint) whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” qayin kaal-horeeg, is cas. absolut. as in Genesis 9:6; and µWq avenged, i.e., resented, punished, as Exodus 21:20-21. The mark which God put upon Cain is not to be regarded as a mark upon his body, as the Rabbins and others supposed, but as a certain sign which protected him from vengeance, though of what kind it is impossible to determine.

God granted him continuance of life, not because banishment from the place of God’s presence was the greatest possible punishment, or because the preservation of the human race required at that time that the lives of individuals should be spared-for God afterwards destroyed the whole human race, with the exception of one family-but partly because the tares were to grow with the wheat, and sin develop itself to its utmost extent, partly also because from the very first God determined to take punishment into His own hands, and protect human life from the passion and wilfulness of human vengeance.

GENESIS. 4:16-24

The family of the Cainites.

V. 16. The geographical situation of the land of Nod, in the front of Eden ( hm;d]qi , see Genesis 2:14), where Cain settled after his departure from the place or the land of the revealed presence of God (cf. Jonah 1:3), cannot be determined. The name Nod denotes a land of flight and banishment, in contrast with Eden, the land of delight, where Jehovah walked with men.

There Cain knew his wife. The text assumes it as self-evident that she accompanied him in his exile; also, that she was a daughter of Adam, and consequently a sister of Cain. The marriage of brothers and sisters was inevitable in the case of the children of the first men, if the human race was actually to descend from a single pair, and may therefore be justified in the face of the Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons and daughters of Adam represented not merely the family but the genus, and that it was not till after the rise of several families that the bands of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct from one another, and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the violation of which is sin. (Comp. Leviticus 18.) His son he named Hanoch (consecration), because he regarded his birth as a pledge of the renovation of his life.

For this reason he also gave the same name to the city which he built, inasmuch as its erection was another phase in the development of his family. The construction of a city by Cain will cease to surprise us, if we consider that at the commencement of its erection, centuries had already passed since the creation of man, and Cain’s descendants may by this time have increased considerably in numbers; also, that `ry[i does not necessarily presuppose a large town, but simply an enclosed space with fortified dwellings, in contradistinction to the isolated tents of shepherds; and lastly, that the words hn;B; hy;h; , “he was building,” merely indicate the commencement and progress of the building, but not its termination. It appears more surprising that Cain, who was to be a fugitive and a vagabond upon the earth, should have established himself in the land of Nod. This cannot be fully explained, either on the ground that he carried on the pursuits of agriculture, which lead to settled abodes, or that he strove against the curse.

In addition to both the facts referred to, there is also the circumstance, that the curse, “the ground shall not yield to thee her strength,” was so mollified by the grace of God, that Cain and his descendants were enabled to obtain sufficient food in the land of his settlement, though it was by dint of hard work and strenuous effort; unless, indeed, we follow Luther and understand the curse, that he should be a fugitive upon the earth, as relating to his expulsion from Eden, and his removal ad incertum locum et opus, non addita ulla vel promissione vel mandato, sicut avis quae in libero caelo incerta vagatur. The fact that Cain undertook the erection of a city, is also significant. Even if we do not regard this city as “the first foundationstone of the kingdom of the world, in which the spirit of the beast bears sway,” we cannot fail to detect the desire to neutralize the curse of banishment, and create for his family a point of unity, as a compensation for the loss of unity in fellowship with God, as well as the inclination of the family of Cain for that which was earthly.

The powerful development of the worldly mind and of ungodliness among the Cainites was openly displayed in Lamech, in the sixth generation. Of the intermediate links, the names only are given. (On the use of the passive with the accusative of the object in the clause “to Hanoch was born (they bore) Irad,” see Ges. §143, 1.) Some of these names resemble those of the Sethite genealogy, viz., Irad and Jared, Mehujael and Mahalaleel, Methusael and Methuselah, also Cain and Cainan; and the names Enoch and Lamech occur in both families. But neither the recurrence of similar names, nor even of the same names, warrants the conclusion that the two genealogical tables are simply different forms of one primary legend. For the names, though similar in sound, are very different in meaning. Irad probably signifies the townsman, Jared, descent, or that which has descended; Mehujael, smitten of God, and Mahalaleel, praise of God; Methusael, man of prayer, and Methuselah, man of the sword or of increase.

The repetition of the two names Enoch and Lamech even loses all significance, when we consider the different places which they occupy in the respective lines, and observe also that in the case of these very names, the more precise descriptions which are given so thoroughly establish the difference of character in the two individuals, as to preclude the possibility of their being the same, not to mention the fact, that in the later history the same names frequently occur in totally different families; e.g., Korah in the families of Levi (Exodus 6:21) and Esau (Genesis 36:5); Hanoch in those of Reuben (ch. 46:9) and Midian (ch. 25:4); Kenaz in those of Judah (Numbers 32:12) and Esau (Genesis 36:11). The identity and similarity of names can prove nothing more than that the two branches of the human race did not keep entirely apart from each other; a fact established by their subsequently intermarrying. — Lamech took two wives, and thus was the first to prepare the way for polygamy, by which the ethical aspect of marriage, as ordained by God, was turned into the lust of the eye and lust of the flesh.

The names of the women are indicative of sensual attractions: Adah, the adorned; and Zillah, either the shady or the tinkling. His three sons are the authors of inventions which show how the mind and efforts of the Cainites were directed towards the beautifying and perfecting of the earthly life.

Jabal (probably = jebul, produce) became the father of such as dwelt in tents, i.e., of nomads who lived in tents and with their flocks, getting their living by a pastoral occupation, and possibly also introducing the use of animal food, in disregard of the divine command (Genesis 1:29). Jubal (sound), the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe, i.e., the inventors of stringed and wind instruments. rwONKi a guitar or harp; `bg;W[ the shepherd’s reed or bagpipe. Tubal-Cain, “hammering all kinds of cutting things (the verb is to be construed as neuter) in brass and iron;” the inventor therefore of all kinds of edge-tools for working in metals: so that Cain, from qiyn to forge, is probably to be regarded as the surname which Tubal received on account of his inventions.

The meaning of Tubal is obscure; for the Persian Tupal, iron-scoria, can throw no light upon it, as it must be a much later word. The allusion to the sister of Tubal-Cain is evidently to be attributed to her name, Naamah, the lovely, or graceful, since it reflects the worldly mind of the Cainites. In the arts, which owed their origin to Lamech’s sons, this disposition reached its culminating point; and it appears in the form of pride and defiant arrogance in the song in which Lamech celebrates the inventions of Tubal-Cain (vv. 23, 24): “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: Men I slay for my wound, and young men for my stripes.

For sevenfold is Cain avenged, and Lamech seven and seventy-fold.” The perfect græh; is expressive not of a deed accomplished, but of confident assurance (Ges. §126, 4; Ewald, §135c); and the suffixes in hr;WBjæ and [xæp, are to be taken in a passive sense.

The idea is this: whoever inflicts a wound or stripe on me, whether man or youth, I will put to death; and for every injury done to my person, I will take ten times more vengeance than that with which God promised to avenge the murder of my ancestor Cain. In this song, which contains in its rhythm, its strophic arrangement of the thoughts, and its poetic diction, the germ of the later poetry, we may detect “that Titanic arrogance, of which the Bible says that its power is its god (Habakkuk 1:11), and that it carries its god, viz., its sword, in its hand (Job 12:6)” (Delitzsch). — According to these accounts, the principal arts and manufactures were invented by the Cainites, and carried out in an ungodly spirit; but they are not therefore to be attributed to the curse which rested upon the family. They have their roots rather in the mental powers with which man was endowed for the sovereignty and subjugation of the earth, but which, like all the other powers and tendencies of his nature, were pervaded by sin, and desecrated in its service. Hence these inventions have become the common property of humanity, because they not only may promote its intended development, but are to be applied and consecrated to this purpose for the glory of God.

GENESIS 4:25,26 The character of the ungodly family of Cainites was now fully developed in Lamech and his children. The history, therefore, turns from them, to indicate briefly the origin of the godly race. After Abel’s death a third son was born to Adam, to whom his mother gave the name of Seth ( tve , from tyvi , a present participle, the appointed one, the compensation); “for,” she said, “God hath appointed me another seed (descendant) for Abel, because Cain slew him.” The words “because Cain slew him” are not to be regarded as an explanatory supplement, but as the words of Eve; and yKi by virtue of the previous tjæTæ is to be understood in the sense of yKi tjæTæ . What Cain (human wickedness) took from her, that has Elohim (divine omnipotence) restored. Because of this antithesis she calls the giver Elohim instead of Jehovah, and not because her hopes had been sadly depressed by her painful experience in connection with the first-born.

Verse 26. “To Seth, to him also ( aWh µGæ , intensive, vid., Ges. §121, 3) there was born a son, and he called his name Enosh.” vwOna’ , from vnæa; to be weak, faint, frail, designates man from his frail and mortal condition (Psalm 8:4; 90:3; 103:15, etc.). In this name, therefore, the feeling and knowledge of human weakness and frailty were expressed (the opposite of the pride and arrogance displayed by the Canaanitish family); and this feeling led to God, to that invocation of the name of Jehovah which commenced under Enos. hwO;hy] µve ar;q; , literally to call in (or by) the name of Jehovah, is used for a solemn calling of the name of God. When applied to men, it denotes invocation (here and Genesis 12:8; 13:4, etc.); to God, calling out or proclaiming His name (Exodus 33:19; 34:5). The name of God signifies in general “the whole nature of God, by which He attests His personal presence in the relation into which He has entered with man, the divine self-manifestation, or the whole of that revealed side of the divine nature, which is turned towards man” (Oehler). We have here an account of the commencement of that worship of God which consists in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, or in the acknowledgment and celebration of the mercy and help of Jehovah. While the family of Cainites, by the erection of a city, and the invention and development of worldly arts and business, were laying the foundation for the kingdom of this world; the family of the Sethites began, by united invocation of the name of God of grace, to found and to erect the kingdom of God.

II. HISTORY OF ADAM Generations from Adam to Noah.

GENESIS. 5:1-2

The origin of the human race and the general character of its development having been thus described, all that remained of importance to universal or sacred history, in connection with the progress of our race in the primeval age, was to record the order of the families (ch. 5) and the ultimate result of the course which they pursued (Genesis 6:1-8). — First of all, we have the genealogical table of Adam with the names of the first ten patriarchs, who were at the head of that seed of the woman by which the promise was preserved, viz., the posterity of the first pair through Seth, from Adam to the flood. We have also an account of the ages of these patriarchs before and after the birth of those sons in whom the line was continued; so that the genealogy, which indicates the line of development, furnishes at the same time a chronology of the primeval age. In the genealogy of the Cainites no ages are given, since this family, as being accursed by God, had no future history.

On the other hand, the family of Sethites, which acknowledged God, began from the time of Enos to call upon the name of the Lord, and was therefore preserved and sustained by God, in order that under the training of mercy and judgment the human race might eventually attain to the great purpose of its creation. The genealogies of the primeval age, to quote the apt words of M. Baumgarten, are “memorials, which bear testimony quite as much to the faithfulness of God in fulfilling His promise, as to the faith and patience of the fathers themselves.” This testimony is first placed in its true light by the numbers of the years. The historian gives not merely the age of each patriarch at the time of the birth of the first-born, by whom the line of succession was continued, but the number of years that he lived after that, and then the entire length of his life. Now if we add together the ages at the birth of the several first-born sons, and the hundred years between the birth of Shem and the flood, we find that the duration of the first period in the world’s history was 1656 years. We obtain a different result, however, from the numbers given by the LXX and the Samaritan version, which differ in almost every instance from the Hebrew text, both in ch. 5 and ch. 11 (from Shem to Terah), as will appear from the table on the following page. f17 The principal deviations from the Hebrew in the case of the other two texts are these: in ch. 5 the Samaritan places the birth of the first-born of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech 100 years earlier, whilst the Septuagint places the birth of the first-born o Verse 1-2. The heading in v. 1 runs thus: “This is the book (sepher) of the generations (tholedoth) of Adam.” On tholedoth, see Genesis 2:4. Sepher is a writing complete in itself, whether it consist of one sheet or several, as for instance the “bill of divorcement” in Deuteronomy 24:1,3. The addition of the clause, “in the day that God created man,” etc., is analogous to Genesis 2:4; the creation being mentioned again as the starting point, because all the development and history of humanity was rooted there.

GENESIS. 5:3-32

As Adam was created in the image of God, so did he beget “in his own likeness, after his image;” that is to say, he transmitted the image of God in which he was created, not in the purity in which it came direct from God, but in the form given to it by his own self-determination, modified and corrupted by sin. The begetting of the son by whom the line was perpetuated (no doubt in every case the first-born), is followed by an account of the number of years that Adam and the other fathers lived after that, by the statement that each one begat (other) sons and daughters, by the number of years that he lived altogether, and lastly, by the assertion tWm “and he died.” This apparently superfluous announcement is “intended to indicate by its constant recurrence that death reigned from Adam downwards as an unchangeable law (vid., Romans 5:14). But against this background of universal death, the power of life was still more conspicuous. For the man did not die till he had propagated life, so that in the midst of the death of individuals the life of the race was preserved, and the hope of the seed sustained, by which the author of death should be overcome.”

In the case of one of the fathers indeed, viz., Enoch (vv. 21ff.), life had not only a different issue, but also a different form. Instead of the expression “and he lived,” which introduces in every other instance the length of life after the birth of the first-born, we find in the case of Enoch this statement, “he walked with God (Elohim);” and instead of the expression “and he died,” the announcement, “and he was not, for God (Elohim) took him.”

The phrase “walked with God,” which is only applied to Enoch and Noah (Genesis 6:9), denotes the most confidential intercourse, the closest communion with the personal God, a walking as it were by the side of God, who still continued His visible intercourse with men (vid., 3:8). It must be distinguished from “walking before God” (Genesis 17:1; 24:40, etc.), and “walking after God” (Deuteronomy 13:4), both which phrases are used to indicate a pious, moral, blameless life under the law according to the directions of the divine commands. The only other passage in which this expression “walk with God” occurs is Malachi 2:6, where it denotes not the piety of the godly Israelites generally, but the conduct of the priests, who stood in a closer relation to Jehovah under the Old Testament than the rest of the faithful, being permitted to enter the Holy Place, and hold direct intercourse with Him there, which the rest of the people could not do. The article in h’lhym gives prominence to the personality of Elohim, and shows that the expression cannot refer to intercourse with the spiritual world.

In Enoch, the seventh from Adam through Seth, godliness attained its highest point; whilst ungodliness culminated in Lamech, the seventh from Adam through Cain, who made his sword his god. Enoch, therefore, like Elijah, was taken away by God, and carried into the heavenly paradise, so that he did not see (experience) death (Hebrews 11:5); i.e., he was taken up from this temporal life and transfigured into life eternal, being exempted by God from the law of death and of return to the dust, as those of the faithful will be, who shall be alive at the coming of Christ to judgment, and who in like manner shall not taste of death and corruption, but be changed in a moment. There is no foundation for the opinion, that Enoch did not participate at his translation in the glorification which awaits the righteous at the resurrection. For, according to 1 Cor 15:20,23, it is not in glorification, but in the resurrection, that Christ is the first-fruits.

Now the latter presupposes death. Whoever, therefore, through the grace of God is exempted from death, cannot rise from the dead, but reaches afqarsi>a , or the glorified state of perfection, through being “changed” or “clothed upon” (2 Cor 5:4). This does not at all affect the truth of the statement in Romans 5:12,14. For the same God who has appointed death as the wages of sin, and given us, through Christ, the victory over death, possesses the power to glorify into eternal life an Enoch and an Elijah, and all who shall be alive at the coming of the Lord without chaining their glorification to death and resurrection. Enoch and Elijah were translated into eternal life with God without passing through disease, death, and corruption, for the consolation of believers, and to awaken the hope of a life after death. Enoch’s translation stands about half way between Adam and the flood, in the 987th year after the creation of Adam. Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Jared were still alive.

His son Methuselah and his grandson Lamech were also living, the latter being 113 years old. Noah was not yet born, and Adam was dead. His translation, in consequence of his walking with God, was “an example of repentance to all generations,” as the son of Sirach says (Ecclus. 44:16); and the apocryphal legend in the book of Enoch Genesis 1:9 represents him as prophesying of the coming of the Lord, to execute judgment upon the ungodly (Jude 14-15). In comparison with the longevity of the other fathers, Enoch was taken away young, before he had reached half the ordinary age, as a sign that whilst long life, viewed as a time for repentance and grace, is indeed a blessing from God, when the ills which have entered the world through sin are considered, it is also a burden and trouble which God shortens for His chosen. That the patriarchs of the old world felt the ills of this earthly life in all their severity, was attested by Lamech (vv. 28, 29), when he gave his son, who was born 69 years after Enoch’s translation, the name of Noah, saying, “This same shall comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.”

Noah, jæwOnm; from nuwach to rest and jæWn to bring rest, is explained by µjæn; to comfort, in the sense of helpful and remedial consolation. Lamech not only felt the burden of his work upon the ground which God had cursed, but looked forward with a prophetic presentiment to the time when the existing misery and corruption would terminate, and a change for the better, a redemption from the curse, would come. This presentiment assumed the form of hope when his son was born; he therefore gave expression to it in his name. But his hope was not realized, at least not in the way that he desired. A change did indeed take place in the lifetime of Noah. By the judgment of the flood the corrupt race was exterminated, and in Noah, who was preserved because of his blameless walk with God, the restoration of the human race was secured; but the effects of the curse, though mitigated, were not removed; whilst a covenant sign guaranteed the preservation of the human race, and therewith, by implication, his hope of the eventual removal of the curse (Genesis 9:8-17).

The genealogical table breaks off with Noah; all that is mentioned with reference to him being the birth of his three sons, when he was 500 years old (v. 32; see Genesis 11:10), without any allusion to the remaining years of his life-an indication of a later hand. “The mention of three sons leads to the expectation, that whereas hitherto the line has been perpetuated through one member alone, in the future each of the three sons will form a new beginning (vid., 9:18-19; 10:1).” — M. Baumgarten. MARRIAGE OF THE SONS OF GOD AND THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN GENESIS 6:1-8 The genealogies in ch. 4 and 5, which trace the development of the human race through two fundamentally different lines, headed by Cain and Seth, are accompanied by a description of their moral development, and the statement that through marriages between the “sons of God” (Elohim) and the “daughters of men,” the wickedness became so great, that God determined to destroy the men whom He had created. This description applies to the whole human race, and presupposes the intercourse or marriage of the Cainites with the Sethites.

Verse 1-2. relates to the increase of men generally ( µd;a; , without any restriction), i.e., of the whole human race; and whilst the moral corruption is represented as universal, the whole human race, with the exception of Noah, who found grace before God (v. 8), is described as ripe for destruction (vv. 3 and 5-8). To understand this section, and appreciate the causes of this complete degeneracy of the race, we must first obtain a correct interpretation of the expressions “sons of God” (h’lhym bny) and “daughters of men” ( µdoa’ tBæ ). Three different views have been entertained from the very earliest times: the “sons of God” being regarded as (a) the sons of princes, (b) angels, (c) the Sethites or godly men; and the “daughters of men,” as the daughters (a) of people of the lower orders, (b) of mankind generally, (c) of the Cainites, or of the rest of mankind as contrasted with the godly or the children of God. Of these three views, the first, although it has become the traditional one in orthodox rabbinical Judaism, may be dismissed at once as not warranted by the usages of the language, and as altogether unscriptural.

The second, on the contrary, may be defended on two plausible grounds: first, the fact that the “sons of God,” in Job 1:6; 2:1, and 38:7, and in Dan 3:25, are unquestionably angels (also lyiaæ ˆBe in Psalm 29:1 and 89:7); and secondly, the antithesis, “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” Apart from the context and tenor of the passage, these two points would lead us most naturally to regard the “sons of God” as angels, in distinction from men and the daughters of men. But this explanation, though the first to suggest itself, can only lay claim to be received as the correct one, provided the language itself admits of no other. Now that is not the case.

For it is not to angels only that the term “sons of Elohim,” or “sons of Elim,” is applied; but in Psalm 73:15, in an address to Elohim, the godly are called “the generation of Thy sons,” i.e., sons of Elohim; in Deuteronomy 32:5 the Israelites are called His (God’s) sons, and in Hosea 1:10, “sons of the living God;” and in Psalm 80:17, Israel is spoken of as the son, whom Elohim has made strong.

These passages show that the expression “sons of God” cannot be elucidated by philological means, but must be interpreted by theology alone. Moreover, even when it is applied to the angels, it is questionable whether it is to be understood in a physical or ethical sense. The notion that “it is employed in a physical sense as nomen naturae, instead of angels as nomen officii, and presupposes generation of a physical kind,” we must reject as an unscriptural and gnostic error. According to the scriptural view, the heavenly spirits are creatures of God, and not begotten from the divine essence. Moreover, all the other terms applied to the angels are ethical in their character. But if the title “sons of God” cannot involve the notion of physical generation, it cannot be restricted to celestial spirits, but is applicable to all beings which bear the image of God, or by virtue of their likeness to God participate in the glory, power, and blessedness of the divine life-to men therefore as well as angels, since God has caused man to “want but little of Elohim,” or to stand but a little behind Elohim (Psalm 8:5), so that even magistrates are designated “Elohim, and sons of the Most High” (Psalm 82:6).

When Delitzsch objects to the application of the expression “sons of Elohim” to pious men, because, “although the idea of a child of God may indeed have pointed, even in the O.T., beyond its theocratic limitation to Israel (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1) towards a wider ethical signification (Psalm 73:15; Prov 14:26), yet this extension and expansion were not so completed, that in historical prose the terms ‘sons of God’ (for which ‘sons of Jehovah’ should have been used to prevent mistake), and ‘sons (or daughters) of men,’ could be used to distinguish the children of God and the children of the world,” — this argument rests upon the erroneous supposition, that the expression “sons of God” was introduced by Jehovah for the first time when He selected Israel to be the covenant nation. So much is true, indeed, that before the adoption of Israel as the first-born son of Jehovah (Exodus 4:22), it would have been out of place to speak of sons of Jehovah; but the notion is false, or at least incapable of proof, that there were not children of God in the olden time, long before Abraham’s call, and that, if there were, they could not have been called “sons of Elohim.” The idea was not first introduced in connection with the theocracy, and extended thence to a more universal signification.

It had its roots in the divine image, and therefore was general in its application from the very first; and it was not till God in the character of Jehovah chose Abraham and his seed to be the vehicles of salvation, and left the heathen nations to go their own way, that the expression received the specifically theocratic signification of “son of Jehovah,” to be again liberated and expanded into the more comprehensive idea of uiJoqesi>a tou> Qeou> (i.e., Elohim, not tou> kuri>ou = Jehovah), at the coming of Christ, the Saviour of all nations. If in the olden time there were pious men who, like Enoch and Noah, walked with Elohim, or who, even if they did not stand in this close priestly relation to God, made the divine image a reality through their piety and fear of God, then there were sons (children) of God, for whom the only correct appellation was “sons of Elohim,” since sonship to Jehovah was introduced with the call of Israel, so that it could only have been proleptically that the children of God in the old world could be called “sons of Jehovah.” But if it be still argued, that in mere prose the term “sons of God” could not have been applied to children of God, or pious men, this would be equally applicable to “sons of Jehovah.” On the other hand, there is this objection to our applying it to angels, that the pious, who walked with God and called upon the name of the Lord, had been mentioned just before, whereas no allusion had been made to angels, not even to their creation.

Again, the antithesis “sons of God” and “daughters of men” does not prove that the former were angels. It by no means follows, that because in v. µdoa’ denotes man as a genus, i.e., the whole human race, it must do the same in v. 2, where the expression “daughters of men” is determined by the antithesis “sons of God.” And with reasons existing for understanding by the sons of God and the daughters of men two species of the genus µdoa’ , mentioned in v. 1, no valid objection can be offered to the restriction of µdoa’ , through the antithesis Elohim, to all men with the exception of the sons of God; since this mode of expression is by no means unusual in Hebrew. “From the expression ‘daughters of men,’ “ as Dettinger observes, “it by no means follows that the sons of God were not men; any more than it follows from Jeremiah 32:20, where it is said that God had done miracles ‘in Israel, and among men,’ or from Isaiah 43:4, where God says He will give men for the Israelites, or from Judges 16:7, where Samson says, that if he is bound with seven green withs he shall be as weak as a man, for from Psalm 73:5, where it is said of the ungodly they are not in trouble as men, that the Israelites, or Samson, or the ungodly, were not men at all. In all these passages µd;a; (men) denotes the remainder of mankind in distinction from those who are especially named.”

Cases occur, too, even in simple prose, in which the same term is used, first in a general, and then directly afterwards in a more restricted sense.

We need cite only one, which occurs in Judg. In Genesis 19:30 reference is made to the coming of the children of Israel (i.e., of the twelve tribes) out of Egypt; and directly afterwards (Genesis 20:1-2) it is related that “all the children of Israel,” “all the tribes of Israel,” assembled together (to make war, as we learn from vv. 3ff., upon Benjamin); and in the whole account of the war, ch. 20 and 21, the tribes of Israel are distinguished from the tribe of Benjamin: so that the expression “tribes of Israel” really means the rest of the tribes with the exception of Benjamin. And yet the Benjamites were Israelites. Why then should the fact that the sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men prove that the former could not be men? There is not force enough in these two objections to compel us to adopt the conclusion that the sons of God were angels.

The question whether the “sons of Elohim” were celestial or terrestrial sons of God (angels or pious men of the family of Seth) can only be determined from the context, and from the substance of the passage itself, that is to say, from what is related respecting the conduct of the sons of God and its results. That the connection does not favour the idea of their being angels, is acknowledged even by those who adopt this view. “It cannot be denied,” says Delitzsch, “that the connection of Genesis 6:1-8 with ch. 4 necessitates the assumption, that such intermarriages (of the Sethite and Cainite families) did take place about the time of the flood (cf.

Matthew 24:38; Luke 17:27); and the prohibition of mixed marriages under the law (Exodus 34:16; cf. Genesis 27:46; 28:1ff.) also favours the same idea.” But this “assumption” is placed beyond all doubt, by what is here related of the sons of God. In v. 2 it is stated that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose,” i.e., of any with whose beauty they were charmed; and these wives bare children to them (v. 4). Now hV;ai jqæl; (to take a wife) is a standing expression throughout the whole of the Old Testament for the marriage relation established by God at the creation, and is never applied to pornei>a , or the simple act of physical connection. This is quite sufficient of itself to exclude any reference to angels. For Christ Himself distinctly states that the angels cannot marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; cf. Luke 20:34ff.). And when Kurtz endeavours to weaken the force of these words of Christ, by arguing that they do not prove that it is impossible for angels so to fall from their original holiness as to sink into an unnatural state; this phrase has no meaning, unless by conclusive analogies, or the clear testimony of Scripture, it can be proved that the angels either possess by nature a material corporeality adequate to the contraction of a human marriage, or that by rebellion against their Creator they can acquire it, or that there are some creatures in heaven and on earth which, through sinful degeneracy, or by sinking into an unnatural state, can become possessed of the power, which they have not by nature, of generating and propagating their species. As man could indeed destroy by sin the nature which he had received from his Creator, but could not by his own power restore it when destroyed, to say nothing of implanting an organ or a power that was wanting before; so we cannot believe that angels, through apostasy from God, could acquire sexual power of which they had previously been destitute.

Verse 3. The sentence of God upon the “sons of God” is also appropriate to men only. “Jehovah said: My spirit shall not rule in men for ever; in their wandering they are flesh.” “The verb ˆyDi = ˆyDi signifies to rule (hence ˆwOda; the ruler), and to judge, as the consequence of ruling. jæWr is the divine spirit of life bestowed upon man, the principle of physical and ethical, natural and spiritual life. This His spirit God will withdraw from man, and thereby put an end to their life and conduct. ggæv; is regarded by many as a particle, compounded of b¦, sha a contraction of rv,a , and µGæ (also), used in the sense of quoniam, because, ( væB] = rv,a , as væ or v, = rv,a Judges 5:7; 6:17; Song of Sol. 1:7). But the objection to this explanation is, that the µGæ , “because he also is flesh,” introduces an incongruous emphasis into the clause.

We therefore prefer to regard shagaam as the inf. of ggæv; = hg;v; with the suffix: “in their erring (that of men) he (man as a genus) is flesh;” an explanation to which, to our mind, the extremely harsh change of number (they, he), is no objection, since many examples might be adduced of a similar change (vid., Hupfeld on Psalm 5:10). Men, says God, have proved themselves by their erring and straying to be flesh, i.e., given up to the flesh, and incapable of being ruled by the Spirit of God and led back to the divine goal of their life. rc;B; is used already in its ethical signification, like sa>rx in the New Testament, denoting not merely the natural corporeality of man, but his materiality as rendered ungodly by sin. “Therefore his days shall be 120 years:” this means, not that human life should in future never attain a greater age than 120 years, but that a respite of 120 years should still be granted to the human race.

This sentence, as we may gather from the context, was made known to Noah in his 480th year, to be published by him as “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5) to the degenerate race. The reason why men had gone so far astray, that God determined to withdraw His spirit and give them up to destruction, was that the sons of God had taken wives of such of the daughters of men as they chose. Can this mean, because angels had formed marriages with the daughters of men? Even granting that such marriages, as being unnatural connections, would have led to the complete corruption of human nature; the men would in that case have been the tempted, and the real authors of the corruption would have been the angels. Why then should judgment fall upon the tempted alone? The judgments of God in the world are not executed with such partiality as this.

And the supposition that nothing is said about the punishment of the angels, because the narrative has to do with the history of man, and the spiritual world is intentionally veiled as much as possible, does not meet the difficulty.

If the sons of God were angels, the narrative is concerned not only with men, but with angels also; and it is not the custom of the Scriptures merely to relate the judgments which fall upon the tempted, and say nothing at all about the tempters. For the contrary, see Genesis 3:14ff. If the “sons of God” were not men, so as to be included in the term µd;a; , the punishment would need to be specially pointed out in their case, and no deep revelations of the spiritual world would be required, since these celestial tempters would be living with men upon the earth, when they had taken wives from among their daughters. The judgments of God are not only free from all unrighteousness, but avoid every kind of partiality. Verse 4. “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: these are the heroes ( rwOBGi ) who from the olden time ( `µl;wO[ , as in Psalm 25:6; 1 Samuel 27:8) are the men of name” (i.e., noted, renowned or notorious men). lypin] , from lpæn; to fall upon (Job 1:15; Joshua 11:7), signifies the invaders (epipi’ptontes Aq., biai>oi Sym.).

Luther gives the correct meaning, “tyrants:” they were called Nephilim because they fell upon the people and oppressed them. f19 The meaning of the verse is a subject of dispute. To an unprejudiced mind, the words, as they stand, represent the Nephilim, who were on the earth in those days, as existing before the sons of God began to marry the daughters of men, and clearly distinguish them from the fruits of these marriages. hy;h; can no more be rendered “they became, or arose,” in this connection, than hy;h; in Genesis 1:2. hy;h; would have been the proper word. The expression “in those days” refers most naturally to the time when God pronounced the sentence upon the degenerate race; but it is so general and comprehensive a term, that it must not be confined exclusively to that time, not merely because the divine sentence was first pronounced after these marriages were contracted, and the marriages, if they did not produce the corruption, raised it to that fulness of iniquity which was ripe for the judgment, but still more because the words “after that” represent the marriages which drew down the judgment as an event that followed the appearance of the Nephilim. “The same were mighty men:” this might point back to the Nephilim; but it is a more natural supposition, that it refers to the children born to the sons of God. “These,” i.e., the sons sprung from those marriages, “are the heroes, those renowned heroes of old.”

Now if, according to the simple meaning of the passage, the Nephilim were in existence at the very time when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, the appearance of the Nephilim cannot afford the slightest evidence that the “sons of God” were angels, by whom a family of monsters were begotten, whether demigods, daemons, or angel-men. f20 Verse 5-8. Now when the wickedness of man became great, and “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil the whole day,” i.e., continually and altogether evil, it repented God that He had made man, and He determined to destroy them. This determination and the motive assigned are also irreconcilable with the angel-theory. “Had the godless race, which God destroyed by the flood, sprung either entirely or in part from the marriage of angels to the daughters of men, it would no longer have been the race first created by God in Adam, but a grotesque product of the Adamitic factor created by God, and an entirely foreign and angelic factor” (Phil.). f21 The force of µjæn; , “it repented the Lord,” may be gathered from the explanatory `bxæ[; , “it grieved Him at His heart.” This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in His nature of His purposes. In this sense God never repents of anything (1 Samuel 15:29), “quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non praevisum accidit” (Calvin). The repentance of God is an anthropomorphic expression for the pain of the divine love at the sin of man, and signifies that “God is hurt no less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His heart with mortal anguish” (Calvin). The destruction of all, “from man unto beast,” etc., is to be explained on the ground of the sovereignty of man upon the earth, the irrational creatures being created for him, and therefore involved in his fall.

This destruction, however, was not to bring the human race to an end. “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” In these words mercy is seen in the midst of wrath, pledging the preservation and restoration of humanity.

III. HISTORY OF NOAH The important relation in which Noah stands both to sacred and universal history, arises from the fact, that he found mercy on account of his blameless walk with God; that in him the human race was kept from total destruction, and he was preserved from the all-destroying flood, to found in his sons a new beginning to the history of the world. The piety of Noah, his preservation, and the covenant through which God appointed him the head of the human race, are the three main pints in this section. The first of these is dismissed in a very few words. The second, on the contrary, viz., the destruction of the old world by the flood, and the preservation of Noah, together with the animals enclosed in the ark, is circumstantially and elaborately described, “because this event included, on the one hand, a work of judgment and mercy of the greatest significance to the history of the kingdom of God” — a judgment of such universality and violence as will only be seen again in the judgment at the end of the world; and, on the other hand, an act of mercy which made the flood itself a flood of grace, and in that respect a type of baptism (1 Peter 3:21), and of life rising out of death. “Destruction ministers to preservation, immersion to purification, death to new birth; the old corrupt earth is buried in the flood, that out of this grave a new world may arise” (Delitzsch).

PREPARATION FOR THE FLOOD.

GENESIS. 6:9-22

Verse 9-22. Verses 9-12 contain a description of Noah and his contemporaries; vv. 13-22, the announcement of the purpose of God with reference to the flood.

Verse 9. “Noah, a righteous man, was blameless among his generations:” righteous in his moral relation to God; blameless ( te>leiov , integer) in his character and conduct. rwOD, geneai> , were the generations or families “which passed by Noah, the Nestor of his time.” His righteousness and integrity were manifested in his walking with God, in which he resembled Enoch (Genesis 5:22).

Verse 10-12. In vv. 10-12, the account of the birth of his three sons, and of the corruption of all flesh, is repeated. This corruption is represented as corrupting the whole earth and filling it with wickedness; and thus the judgment of the flood is for the first time fully accounted for. “The earth was corrupt before God (Elohim points back to the previous Elohim in v. 9),” it became so conspicuous to God, that He could not refrain from punishment. The corruption proceeded from the fact, that “all flesh” — i.e., the whole human race which had resisted the influence of the Spirit of God and become flesh (see v. 3)-”had corrupted its way.” The term “flesh” in v. 12 cannot include the animal world, since the expression, “corrupted its way,” is applicable to man alone. The fact that in v. 13 and 17 this term embraces both men and animals is no proof to the contrary, for the simple reason, that in v. 19 “all flesh” denotes the animal world only, an evident proof that the precise meaning of the word must always be determined from the context.

Verse 13. “The end of all flesh is come before Me.” lae awOB, when applied to rumours, invariably signifies “to reach the ear” (vid., Genesis 18:21; Exodus 3:9; Est 9:11); hence µynip; awOB in this case cannot mean a me constitutus est (Ges.). xqe , therefore, is not the end in the sense of destruction, but the end (extremity) of depravity or corruption, which leads to destruction. “For the earth has become full of wickedness µynip; ,” i.e., proceeding from them, “and I destroy them along with the earth.” Because all flesh had destroyed its way, it should be destroyed with the earth by God. The lex talionis is obvious here.

Verse 14-15. Noah was exempted from the extermination. He was to build an ark, in order that he himself, his family, and the animals might be preserved. hb;Te , which is only used here and in Exodus 2:3,5, where it is applied to the ark in which Moses was placed, is probably an Egyptian word: the LXX render it ki>bwtov here, and qi>bh in Exodus; the Vulgate arca, from which our word ark is derived. Gopher-wood (ligna bituminata; Jerome) is most likely cypress. The aJp leg gopher is related to kopeer, resin, and kupa>rissov ; it is no proof to the contrary that in later Hebrew the cypress is called berosh, for gopher belongs to the pre-Hebraic times.

The ark was to be made cells, i.e., divided into cells, ˆqe (lit., nests, niduli, mansiunculae), and pitched ( rpæK; denom. from rp,Ko ) within and without with copher, or asphalte (LXX a>sfaltov , Vulg. bitumen). On the supposition, which is a very probable one, that the ark was built in the form not of a ship, but of a chest, with flat bottom, like a floating house, as it was not meant for sailing, but merely to float upon the water, the dimensions, 300 cubits long, 50 broad, and 30 high, give a superficial area of 15,000 square cubits, and a cubic measurement of 450,000 cubits, probably to the ordinary standard, “after the elbow of a man” (Deuteronomy 3:11), i.e., measured from the elbow to the end of the middle finger.

Verse 16. “Light shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit from above shalt thou finish it.” As the meaning light for rhæxo is established by the word tsaahaarayim, “double-light” or mid-day, the passage can only signify that a hole or opening for light and air was to be so constructed as to reach within a cubit of the edge of the roof. A window only a cubit square could not possibly be intended; for rhæxo is not synonymous with ˆwOLjæ (Genesis 8:6), but signifies, generally, a space for light, or by which light could be admitted into the ark, and in which the window, or lattice for opening and shutting, could be fixed; though we can form no distinct idea of what the arrangement was. The door he was to place in the side; and to make “lower, second, and third (sc., cells),” i.e., three distinct stories. f22 Verse 17-21. Noah was to build this ark, because God was about to bring a flood upon the earth, and would save him, with his family, and one pair of every kind of animal. lWBmæ , (the flood), is an archaic word, coined expressly for the waters of Noah (Isaiah 54:9), and is used nowhere else except Psalm 29:10. xr,a, `l[æ µyimæ is in apposition to mabbul: “I bring the flood, waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is a living breath” (i.e., man and beast). With Noah, God made a covenant. On tyriB] see Genesis 15:18. As not only the human race, but the animal world also was to be preserved through Noah, he was to take with him into the ark his wife, his sons and their wives, and of every living thing, of all flesh, two of every sort, a male and a female, to keep them alive; also all kinds of food for himself and family, and for the sustenance of the beasts.

Verse 22. “Thus did Noah, according to all that God commanded him” (with regard to the building of the ark). Cf. Hebrews 11:7.

HISTORY OF THE FLOOD.

The account of the commencement, course, and termination of the flood abounds in repetitions; but although it progresses somewhat heavily, the connection is well sustained, and no link could be erased without producing a gap.

GENESIS. 7:1-16

Verse 1-12. When the ark was built, and the period of grace (Genesis 6:3) had passed, Noah received instructions from Jehovah to enter the ark with his family, and with the animals, viz., seven of every kind of clean animals, and two of the unclean; and was informed that within seven days God would cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights. The date of the flood is then given (v. 6): “Noah was six hundred years old, and the flood was (namely) water upon the earth;” and the execution of the divine command is recorded in vv. 7-9. There follows next the account of the bursting forth of the flood, the date being given with still greater minuteness; and the entrance of the men and animals into the ark is again described as being fully accomplished (vv. 10-16). — The fact that in the command to enter the ark a distinction is now made between clean and unclean animals, seven of the former being ordered to be taken-i.e., three pair and a single one, probably a male for sacrifice-is no more a proof of different authorship, or of the fusion of two accounts, than the interchange of the names Jehovah and Elohim. For the distinction between clean and unclean animals did not originate with Moses, but was confirmed by him as a long established custom, in harmony with the law.

It reached back to the very earliest times, and arose from a certain innate feeling of the human mind, when undisturbed by unnatural and ungodly influences, which detects types of sin and corruption in many animals, and instinctively recoils from them (see my biblische Archäeologie ii. p. 20).

That the variations in the names of God furnish no criterion by which to detect different documents, is evident enough from the fact, that in Genesis 7:1 it is Jehovah who commands Noah to enter the ark, and in v. 4 Noah does as Elohim had commanded, whilst in v. 16, in two successive clauses, Elohim alternates with Jehovah-the animals entering the ark at the command of Elohim, and Jehovah shutting Noah in. With regard to the entrance of the animals into the ark, it is worthy of notice, that in vv. 9 and 15 it is stated that “they came two and two,” and in v. 16 that “the coming ones came male and female of all flesh.” In this expression “they came” it is clearly intimated, that the animals collected about Noah and were taken into the ark, without his having to exert himself to collect them, and that they did so in consequence of an instinct produced by God, like that which frequently leads animals to scent and try to flee from dangers, of which man has no presentiment.

The time when the flood commenced is said to have been the 600th year of Noah’s life, on the 17th day of the second month (v. 11). The months must be reckoned, not according to the Mosaic ecclesiastical year, which commenced in the spring, but according to the natural of civil year, which commenced in the autumn at the beginning of sowing time, or the autumnal equinox; so that the flood would be pouring upon the earth in October and November. “The same day were all the fountains of the great deep ( µwOhT] the unfathomable ocean) broken up, and the sluices (windows, lattices) of heaven opened, and there was (happened, came) pouring rain ( µv,G, in distinction from rfæm; ) upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights.” Thus the flood was produced by the bursting forth of fountains hidden within the earth, which drove seas and rivers above their banks, and by rain which continued incessantly for 40 days and 40 nights.

Verse 13-16. “In the self-same day had Noah...entered into the ark:” awOB, pluperfect “had come,” not came, which would require awOB. The idea is not that Noah, with his family and all the animals, entered the ark on the very day on which the rain began, but that on that day he had entered, had completed the entering, which occupied the seven days between the giving of the command (v. 4) and the commencement of the flood (v. 10).

GENESIS. 7:17-24

Verses 17-24 contain a description of the flood: how the water increased more and more, till it was 15 cubits above all the lofty mountains of the earth, and how, on the one hand, it raised the ark above the earth and above the mountains, and, on the other, destroyed every living being upon the dry land, from man to cattle, creeping things, and birds. “The description is simple and majestic; the almighty judgment of God, and the love manifest in the midst of the wrath, hold the historian fast. The tautologies depict the fearful monotony of the immeasurable expanse of water: omnia pontus erant et deerant litera ponto.” The words of v. 17, “and the flood was (came) upon the earth for forty days,” relate to the days’ rain combined with the bursting forth of the foundations beneath the earth. By these the water was eventually raised to the height given, at which it remained 150 days (v. 24).

But if the water covered “all the high hills under the whole heaven,” this clearly indicates the universality of the flood. The statement, indeed, that it rose 15 cubits above the mountains, is probably founded upon the fact, that the ark drew 15 feet of water, and that when the waters subsided, it rested upon the top of Ararat, from which the conclusion would very naturally be drawn as to the greatest height attained. Now as Ararat, according to the measurement of Perrot, is only 16,254 feet high, whereas the loftiest peaks of the Himalaya and Cordilleras are as much as 26,843, the submersion of these mountains has been thought impossible, and the statement in v. has been regarded as a rhetorical expression, like Deuteronomy 2:25 and 4:19, which is not of universal application. But even if those peaks, which are higher than Ararat, were not covered by water, we cannot therefore pronounce the flood merely partial in its extent, but must regard it as universal, as extending over every part of the world, since the few peaks uncovered would not only sink into vanishing points in comparison with the surface covered, but would form an exception not worth mentioning, for the simple reason that no living beings could exist upon these mountains, covered with perpetual snow and ice; so that everything that lived upon the dry land, in whose nostrils there was a breath of life, would inevitably die, and, with the exception of those shut up in the ark, neither man nor beast would be able to rescue itself, and escape destruction.

A flood which rose 15 cubits above the top of Ararat could not remain partial, if it only continued a few days, to say nothing of the fact that the water was rising for 40 days, and remained at the highest elevation for days. To speak of such a flood as partial is absurd, even if it broke out at only one spot, it would spread over the earth from one end to the other, and reach everywhere to the same elevation. However impossible, therefore, scientific men may declare it to be for them to conceive of a universal flood of such a height and duration in accordance with the known laws of nature, this inability on their part does not justify any one in questioning the possibility of such an event being produced by the omnipotence of God. It has been justly remarked, too, that the proportion of such a quantity of water to the entire mass of the earth, in relation to which the mountains are but like the scratches of a needle on a globe, is no greater than that of a profuse perspiration to the body of a man. And to this must be added, that, apart from the legend of a flood, which is found in nearly every nation, the earth presents unquestionable traces of submersion in the fossil remains of animals and plants, which are found upon the Cordilleras and Himalaya even beyond the limit of perpetual snow. f23 In v. 23, instead of hj;m; (imperf. Niphal) read hj;m; (imperf. Kal): “and He (Jehovah) destroyed every existing thing,” as He had said in v. 4.

GENESIS. 8:1-5

With the words, “then God remembered Noah and all the animals...in the ark,” the narrative turns to the description of the gradual decrease of the water until the ground was perfectly dry. The fall of the water is described in the same pictorial style as its rapid rise. God’s “remembering” was a manifestation of Himself, an effective restraint of the force of the raging element. He caused a wind to blow over the earth, so that the waters sank, and shut up the fountains of the deep, and the sluices of heaven, so that the rain from heaven was restrained. “Then the waters turned ( bWv i.e., flowed off) from the earth, flowing continuously (the inf. absol. bWv Ëlæy; expresses continuation), and decreased at the end of 150 days.” The decrease first became perceptible when the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat on the 17th day of the seventh month; i.e.,, reckoning 30 days to a month, exactly 150 days after the flood commenced.

From that time forth it continued without intermission, so that on the first day of the tenth month, probably 73 days after the resting of the ark, the tops of the mountains were seen, viz., the tops of the Armenian highlands, by which the ark was surrounded. Ararat was the name of a province (2 Kings 19:37), which is mentioned along with Minni (Armenia) as a kingdom in Jeremiah 51:27, probably the central province of the country of Armenia, which Moses v. Chorene calls Arairad, Araratia. The mountains of Ararat are, no doubt, the group of mountains which rise from the plain of the Araxes in two lofty peaks, the greater and lesser Ararat, the former 16,254 feet above the level of the sea, the latter about 12,000. This landing-place of the ark is extremely interesting in connection with the development of the human race as renewed after the flood. Armenia, the source of the rivers of paradise, has been called “a cool, airy, well-watered mountain-island in the midst of the old continent;” but Mount Ararat especially is situated almost in the middle, not only of the great desert route of Africa and Asia, but also of the range of inland waters from Gibraltar to the Baikal Sea-in the centre, too, of the longest line that can be drawn through the settlements of the Caucasian race and the Indo- Germanic tribes; and, as the central point of the longest land-line of the ancient world, from the Cape of Good Hope to the Behring Straits, it was the most suitable spot in the world, for the tribes and nations that sprang from the sons of Noah to descend from its heights and spread into every land (vid., K. v. Raumer, Paläst. pp. 456ff.).

GENESIS. 8:6-12

Forty days after the appearance of the mountain tops, Noah opened the window of the ark and let a raven fly out (lit., the raven, i.e., the particular raven known from that circumstance), for the purpose of ascertaining the drying up of the waters. The raven went out and returned until the earth was dry, but without being taken back into the ark, as the mountain tops and the carcases floating upon the water afforded both resting-places and food. After that, Noah let a dove fly out three times, at intervals of seven days. It is not distinctly stated that he sent it out the first time seven days after the raven, but this is implied in the statement that he stayed yet other seven days before sending it out the second time, and the same again before sending it the third time (vv. 10 and 12). The dove, when first sent out, “found no rest for the sole of its foot;” for a dove will only settle upon such places and objects as are dry and clean.

It returned to the ark and let Noah take it in again (vv. 8, 9). The second time it returned in the evening, having remained out longer than before, and brought a fresh ( ãr;f; freshly plucked) olive-leaf in its mouth. Noah perceived from this that the water must be almost gone, had “abated from off the earth,” though the ground might not be perfectly dry, as the olivetree will put out leaves even under water. The fresh olive-leaf was the first sign of the resurrection of the earth to new life after the flood, and the dove with the olive-leaf a herald of salvation. The third time it did not return; a sign that the waters had completely receded from the earth. The fact that Noah waited 40 days before sending the raven, and after that always left an interval of seven days, is not to be accounted for on the supposition that these numbers were already regarded as significant. The 40 days correspond to the 40 days during which the rain fell and the waters rose; and Noah might assume that they would require the same time to recede as to rise. The seven days constituted the week established at the creation, and God had already conformed to it in arranging their entrance into the ark (Genesis 7:4,10). The selection which Noah made of the birds may also be explained quite simply from the difference in their nature, with which Noah must have been acquainted; that is to say, from the fact that the raven in seeking its food settles upon every carcase that it sees, whereas the dove will only settle upon what is dry and clean.

GENESIS. 8:13-19

Noah waited some time, and then, on the first day of the first month, in the 601st year of his life, removed the covering from the ark, that he might obtain a freer prospect over the earth. He could see that the surface of the earth was dry; but it was not till the 27th day of the second month, days, therefore, after the removal of the roof, that the earth was completely dried up. Then God commanded him to leave the ark with his family and all the animals; and so far as the latter were concerned, He renewed the blessing of the creation (v. 17 cf. Genesis 1:22). As the flood commenced on the 17th of the second month of the 600th year of Noah’s life, and ended on the 27th of the second month of the 601st year, it lasted a year and ten days; but whether a solar year of 360 of 365 days, or a lunar year of 352, is doubtful. The former is the more probable, as the first five months are said to have consisted of 150 days, which suits the solar year better than the lunar. The question cannot be decided with certainty, because we neither know the number of days between the 17th of the seventh month and the 1st of the tenth month, nor the interval between the sending out of the dove and the 1st day of the first month of the 601st year.

NOAH’S SACRIFICE, CURSE, AND BLESSING.

Two events of Noah’s life, of world-wide importance, are recorded as having occurred after the flood: his sacrifice, with the divine promise which followed it (Genesis 8:20-9:17); and the prophetic curse and blessing pronounced upon his sons (9:18-29).

GENESIS. 8:20-22

The first thing which Noah did, was to build an altar for burnt sacrifice, to thank the Lord for gracious protection, and pray for His mercy in time to come. This jæBez]mi , lit., a place for the offering of slain animals, from jbæz, , like qusiasth>rion from qu>ein -is the first altar mentioned in history. The sons of Adam had built no altar for their offerings, because God was still present on the earth in paradise, so that they could turn their offerings and hearts towards that abode. But with the flood God had swept paradise away, withdrawn the place of His presence, and set up His throne in heaven, from which He would henceforth reveal Himself to man (cf.

Genesis 9:5,7). In future, therefore, the hearts of the pious had to be turned towards heaven, and their offerings and prayers needed to ascend on high if they were to reach the throne of God. To give this direction to their offerings, heights or elevated places were erected, from which they ascended towards heaven in fire.

From this the offerings received the name of `hl;[o from `hl;[o , the ascending, not so much because the sacrificial animals ascended or were raised upon the altar, as because they rose from the altar to haven (cf.

Judges 20:40; Jeremiah 48:15; Amos 4:10). Noah took his offerings from every clean beast and every clean fowl-from those animals, therefore, which were destined for man’s food; probably the seventh of every kind, which he had taken into the ark. “And Jehovah smelled the smell of satisfaction,” i.e., He graciously accepted the feelings of the offerer which rose to Him in the odour of the sacrificial flame. In the sacrificial flame the essence of the animal was resolved into vapour; so that when man presented a sacrifice in his own stead, his inmost being, his spirit, and his heart ascended to God in the vapour, and the sacrifice brought the feeling of his heart before God. This feeling of gratitude for gracious protection, and of desire for further communications of grace, was well-pleasing to God. He “said to His heart’ (to, or in Himself; i.e., He resolved), “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, because the image (i.e., the thought and desire) of man’s heart is evil from his youth up (i.e., from the very time when he begins to act with consciousness).”

This hardly seems an appropriate reason. As Luther says: “Hic inconstantiae videtur Deus accusari posse. Supra puniturus hominem causam consilii dicit, quia figmentum cordis humani malum est. Hic promissurus homini gratiam, quod posthac tali ira uti nolit, eandem causam allegat.” Both Luther and Calvin express the same thought, though without really solving the apparent discrepancy. It was not because the thoughts and desires of the human heart are evil that God would not smite any more every living thing, that is to say, would not exterminate it judicially; but because they are evil from his youth up, because evil is innate in man, and for that reason he needs the forbearance of God; and also (and here lies the principal motive for the divine resolution) because in the offering of the righteous Noah, not only were thanks presented for past protection, and entreaty for further care, but the desire of man was expressed, to remain in fellowship with God, and to procure the divine favour. “All the days of the earth;” i.e., so long as the earth shall continue, the regular alternation of day and night and of the seasons of the year, so indispensable to the continuance of the human race, would never be interrupted again.

GENESIS. 9:1-2

These divine purposes of peace, which were communicated to Noah while sacrificing, were solemnly confirmed by the renewal of the blessing pronounced at the creation and the establishment of a covenant through a visible sign, which would be a pledge for all time that there should never be a flood again. In the words by which the first blessing was transferred to Noah and his sons (v. 2), the supremacy granted to man over the animal world was expressed still more forcibly than in Genesis 1:26 and 28; because, inasmuch as sin with its consequences had loosened the bond of voluntary subjection on the part of the animals to the will of man-man, on the one hand, having lost the power of the spirit over nature, and nature, on the other hand, having become estranged from man, or rather having rebelled against him, through the curse pronounced upon the earthhenceforth it was only by force that he could rule over it, by that “fear and dread” which God instilled into the animal creation. Whilst the animals were thus placed in the hand (power) of man, permission was also given to him to slaughter them for food, the eating of the blood being the only thing forbidden.

GENESIS. 9:3-7

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; even as the green of the herb have I given you all ( lKoAta, = lKojæ ).” These words do not affirm that man then first began to eat animal food, but only that God then for the first time authorized, or allowed him to do, what probably he had previously done in opposition to His will. “Only flesh in its soul, its blood ( µD; in apposition to vp,n, ), shall ye not eat;” i.e., flesh in which there is still blood, because the soul of the animal is in the blood. The prohibition applies to the eating of flesh with blood in it, whether of living animals, as is the barbarous custom in Abyssinia, or of slaughtered animals from which the blood has not been properly drained at death. This prohibition presented, on the one hand, a safeguard against harshness and cruelty; and contained, on the other, “an undoubted reference to the sacrifice of animals, which was afterwards made the subject of command, and in which it was the blood especially that was offered, as the seat and soul of life (see note on Leviticus 17:11,14); so that from this point of view sacrifice denotes the surrender of one’s own inmost life, of the very essence of life, to God” (Ziegler).

Allusion is made to the first again in the still further limitation given in v. 5: “and only Ëaæ ) your blood, with regard to your souls ( l] indicative of reference to an individual object, Ewald, §310a), will I seek (demand or avenge, cf. Psalm 9:13) from the hand of every beast, and from the hand of man, from the hand of every one, his brother;” i.e., from every man, whoever he may be, because he is his (the slain man’s) brother, inasmuch as all men are brethren. The life of man was thus made secure against animals as well as men. God would avenge or inflict punishment for every murder-not directly, however, as He promised to do in the case of Cain, but indirectly by giving the command, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” and thus placing in the hand of man His own judicial power. “This was the first command,” says Luther, “having reference to the temporal sword. By these words temporal government was established, and the sword placed in its hand by God.” It is true the punishment of the murderer is enjoined upon “man” universally; but as all the judicial relations and ordinances of the increasing race were rooted in those of the family, and grew by a natural process out of that, the family relations furnished of themselves the norm for the closer definition of the expression “man.”

Hence the command does not sanction revenge, but lays the foundation for the judicial rights of the divinely appointed “powers that be” (Romans 13:1). This is evident from the reason appended: “for in the image of God made He man.” If murder was to be punished with death because it destroyed the image of God in man, it is evident that the infliction of the punishment was not to be left to the caprice of individuals, but belonged to those alone who represent the authority and majesty of God, i.e., the divinely appointed rulers, who for that very reason are called Elohim in Psalm 82:6. This command then laid the foundation for all civil government, and formed a necessary complement to that unalterable continuance of the order of nature which had been promised to the human race for its further development. If God on account of the innate sinfulness of man would no more bring an exterminating judgment upon the earthly creation, it was necessary that by commands and authorities He should erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil, and thus lay the foundation for a well-ordered civil development of humanity, in accordance with the words of the blessing, which are repeated in v. 7, as showing the intention and goal of this new historical beginning.

GENESIS. 9:8-17

To give Noah and his sons a firm assurance of the prosperous continuance of the human race, God condescended to establish a covenant with them and their descendants, and to confirm this covenant by a visible sign for all generations. tyriB] µWq is not equivalent to tyriB] træK; ; it does not denote the formal conclusion of an actual covenant, but the “setting up of a covenant,” or the giving of a promise possessing the nature of a covenant. In summing up the animals in v. 10, the prepositions are accumulated: first b] embracing the whole, then the partitive ˆmi restricting the enumeration to those which went out of the ark, and lastly l] , “with regard to,” extending it again to every individual. There was a correspondence between the covenant (v. 11) and the sign which was to keep it before the sight of men (v. 12): “I give (set) My bow in the cloud” (v. 13).

When God gathers ( `ˆnæ[; v. 14, lit., clouds) clouds over the earth, “the bow shall be seen in the cloud,” and that not for man only, but for God also, who will look at the bow, “to remember His everlasting covenant.” An “everlasting covenant” is a covenant “for perpetual generations,” i.e., one which shall extend to all ages, even to the end of the world. The fact that God Himself would look at the bow and remember His covenant, was “a glorious and living expression of the great truth, that God’s covenant signs, in which He has put His promises, are real vehicles of His grace, that they have power and essential worth not only with men, but also before God” (O. v. Gerlach). The establishment of the rainbow as a covenant sign of the promise that there should be no flood again, presupposes that it appeared then for the first time in the vault and clouds of heaven. From this it may be inferred, not that it did not rain before the flood, which could hardly be reconciled with Genesis 2:5, but that the atmosphere was differently constituted; a supposition in perfect harmony with the facts of natural history, which point to differences in the climate of the earth’s surface before and after the flood.

The fact that the rainbow, that “coloured splendour thrown by the bursting forth of the sun upon the departing clouds,” is the result of the reciprocal action of light, and air, and water, is no disproof of the origin and design recorded here. For the laws of nature are ordained by God, and have their ultimate ground and purpose in the divine plan of the universe which links together both nature and grace. “Springing as it does from the effect of the sun upon the dark mass of clouds, it typifies the readiness of the heavenly to pervade the earthly; spread out as it is between heaven and earth, it proclaims peace between God and man; and whilst spanning the whole horizon, it teaches the all-embracing universality of the covenant of grace” (Delitzsch). GENESIS 9:18-25 The second occurrence in the life of Noah after the flood exhibited the germs of the future development of the human race in a threefold direction, as manifested in the characters of his three sons. As all the families and races of man descend from them, their names are repeated in v. 18; and in prospective allusion to what follows, it is added that “Ham was the father of Canaan.” From these three “the earth (the earth’s population) spread itself out.” “The earth” is used for the population of the earth, as in Genesis 10:25 and 11:1, and just as lands or cities are frequently substituted for their inhabitants. xpæn; : probably Niphal for xpæn; , from xWp to scatter (11:4), to spread out. “And Noah the husbandman began, and planted a vineyard.” As hm;d;a vyai cannot be the predicate of the sentence, on account of the article, but must be in apposition to Noah, [fæn; and lWj must be combined in the sense of “began to plant” (Ges. §142, 3).

The writer does not mean to affirm that Noah resumed his agricultural operations after the flood, but that as a husbandman he began to cultivate the vine; because it was this which furnished the occasion for the manifestation of that diversity in the character of his sons, which was so eventful in its consequences in relation to the future history of their descendants. In ignorance of the fiery nature of wine, Noah drank and was drunken, and uncovered himself in his tent (v. 21). Although excuse may be made for this drunkenness, the words of Luther are still true: “Qui excusant patriarcham, volentes hanc consolationem, quam Spiritus S. ecclesiis necessariam judicavit, abjuciunt, quod scilicen etiam summi sancti aliquando labuntur.” This trifling fall served to display the hearts of his sons. Ham saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Not content with finding pleasure himself in his father’s shame, “nunquam enim vino victum patrem filius resisset, nisi prius ejecisset animo illam reverentiam et opinionem, quae in liberis de parentibus ex mandato Dei existere debet” (Luther), he just proclaimed his disgraceful pleasure to his brethren, and thus exhibited his shameless sensuality.

The brothers, on the contrary, with reverential modesty covered their father with a garment ( hl;m]ci the garment, which was at hand), walking backwards that they might not see his nakedness (v. 23), and thus manifesting their childlike reverence as truly as their refined purity and modesty. For this they receive their father’s blessing, whereas Ham reaped for his son Canaan the patriarch’s curse. In v. 24 Ham is called ˆf;q; ˆBe “his (Noah’s) little son,” and it is questionable whether the adjective is to be taken as comparative in the sense of “the younger,” or as superlative, meaning “the youngest.” Neither grammar nor the usage of the language will enable us to decide. For in 1 Samuel 17:14, where David is contrasted with his brothers, the word means not the youngest of the four, but the younger by the side of the three elder, just as in Genesis 1:16 the sun is called “the great” light, and the moon “the little” light, not to show that the sun is the greatest and the moon the least of all lights, but that the moon is the smaller of the two.

If, on the other hand, on the ground of 1 Samuel 16:11, where “the little one” undoubtedly means the youngest of all, any one would press the superlative force here, he must be prepared, in order to be consistent, to do the same with haggadol, “the great one,” in Genesis 10:21, which would lead to this discrepancy, that in the verse before us Ham is called Noah’s youngest son, and in Genesis 10:21 Shem is called Japhet’s oldest brother, and thus implicite Ham is described as older than Japhet. If we do not wish lightly to introduce a discrepancy into the text of these two chapters, no other course is open than to follow the LXX, Vulg. and others, and take “the little” here and “the great” in Genesis 10:21 as used in a comparative sense, Ham being represented here as Noah’s younger son, and Shem in Genesis 10:21 as Japhet’s elder brother. Consequently the order in which the three names stand is also an indication of their relative ages. And this is not only the simplest and readiest assumption, but is even confirmed by ch. 10, though the order is inverted there, Japhet being mentioned first, then Ham, and Shem last; and it is also in harmony with the chronological datum in Genesis 11:10, as compared with ch. 5:32 (vid., ch. 11:10).

To understand the words of Noah with reference to his sons (vv. 25-27), we must bear in mind, on the one hand, that as the moral nature of the patriarch was transmitted by generation to his descendants, so the diversities of character in the sons of Noah foreshadowed diversities in the moral inclinations of the tribes of which they were the head; and on the other hand, that Noah, through the Spirit and power of that God with whom he walked, discerned in the moral nature of his sons, and the different tendencies which they already displayed, the germinal commencement of the future course of their posterity, and uttered words of blessing and of curse, which were prophetic of the history of the tribes that descended from them. In the sin of Ham “there lies the great stain of the whole Hamitic race, whose chief characteristic is sexual sin” (Ziegler); and the curse which Noah pronounced upon this sin still rests upon the race.

It was not Ham who was cursed, however, but his son Canaan. Ham had sinned against his father, and he was punished in his son. But the reason why Canaan was the only son named, is not to be found in the fact that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham, and Ham the youngest son of Noah, as Hofmann supposes. The latter is not an established fact; and the purely external circumstance, that Canaan had the misfortune to be the youngest son, could not be a just reason for cursing him alone. The real reason must either lie in the fact that Canaan was already walking in the steps of his father’s impiety and sin, or else be sought in the name Canaan, in which Noah discerned, through the gift of prophecy, a significant omen; a supposition decidedly favoured by the analogy of the blessing pronounced upon Japhet, which is also founded upon the name. Canaan does not signify lowland, nor was it transferred, as many maintain, from the land to its inhabitants; it was first of all the name of the father of the tribe, from whom it was transferred to his descendants, and eventually to the land of which they took possession.

The meaning of Canaan is “the submissive one,” from [næK; to stoop or submit, Hiphil, to bend or subjugate (Deuteronomy 9:3; Judges 4:23, etc.). “Ham gave his son the name from the obedience which he required, though he did not render it himself. The son was to be the servant (for the name points to servile obedience) of a father who was as tyrannical towards those beneath him, as he was refractory towards those above. The father, when he gave him the name, thought only of submission to his own commands. But the secret providence of God, which rules in all such things, had a different submission in view” (Hengstenberg, Christol. i. 28, transl.). “Servant of servants (i.e., the lowest of slaves, vid., Ewald, §313) let him become to his brethren.” Although this curse was expressly pronounced upon Canaan alone, the fact that Ham had no share in Noah’s blessing, either for himself or his other sons, was a sufficient proof that his whole family was included by implication in the curse, even if it was to fall chiefly upon Canaan. And history confirms the supposition. The Canaanites were partly exterminated, and partly subjected to the lowest form of slavery, by the Israelites, who belonged to the family of Shem; and those who still remained were reduced by Solomon to the same condition (1 Kings 9:20-21). The Phoenicians, along with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians, who all belonged to the family of Canaan, were subjected by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans; and the remainder of the Hamitic tribes either shared the same fate, or still sigh, like the negroes, for example, and other African tribes, beneath the yoke of the most crushing slavery.

GENESIS. 9:26

In contrast with the curse, the blessings upon Shem and Japhet are introduced with a fresh “and he said,” whilst Canaan’s servitude comes in like a refrain and is mentioned in connection with both his brethren:

Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem, and let Canaan be servant to them.”

Instead of wishing good to Shem, Noah praises the God of Shem, just as Moses in Deuteronomy 33:20, instead of blessing Gad, blesses Him “that enlargeth Gad,” and points out the nature of the good which he is to receive, by using the name Jehovah. This is done “propter excellentem benedictionem. Non enim loquitur de corporali benedictione, sed de benedictione futura per semen promissum. Eam tantam videt esse ut explicari verbis non possit, ideo se vertit ad gratiarum actionem” (Luther).

Because Jehovah is the God of Shem, Shem will be the recipient and heir of all the blessings of salvation, which God as Jehovah bestows upon mankind. ttæK; = ttæK; neither stands for the singular ttæK; (Ges. §103, 2), nor refers to Shem and Japhet. It serves to show that the announcement does not refer to the person relation of Canaan to Shem, but applies to their descendants.

GENESIS. 9:27-29

“Wide let God make it to Japhet, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem.”

Starting from the meaning of the name, Noah sums up his blessing in the word ht;p; (japht), from ht;p; to be wide (Prov 20:19), in the Hiphil with l] , to procure a wide space for any one, used either of extension over a wide territory, or of removal to a free, unfettered position; analogous to l] bjær; , Genesis 26:22; Psalm 4:1, etc. Both must be retained here, so that the promise to the family of Japhet embraced not only a wide extension, but also prosperity on every hand. This blessing was desired by Noah, not from Jehovah, the God of Shem, who bestows saving spiritual good upon man, but from Elohim, God as Creator and Governor of the world; for it had respect primarily to the blessings of the earth, not to spiritual blessings; although Japhet would participate in these as well, for he should come and dwell in the tents of Shem. The disputed question, whether God or Japhet is to be regarded as the subject of the verb “shall dwell,” is already decided by the use of the word Elohim. If it were God whom Noah described as dwelling in the tents of Shem, so that the expression denoted the gracious presence of God in Israel, we should expect to find the name Jehovah, since it was as Jehovah that God took up His abode among Shem in Israel.

It is much more natural to regard the expression as applying to Japhet, (a) because the refrain, “Canaan shall be his servant,” requires that we should understand v. 27 as applying to Japhet, like v. 26 to Shem; (b) because the plural, tents, is not applicable to the abode of Jehovah in Israel, inasmuch as in the parallel passages “we read of God dwelling in His tent, on His holy hill, in Zion, in the midst of the children of Israel, and also of the faithful dwelling in the tabernacle or temple of God, but never of God dwelling in the tents of Israel” (Hengstenberg); and (c) because we should expect that act of affection, which the two sons so delicately performed in concert, to have its corresponding blessing in the relation established between the two (Delitzsch).

Japhet’s dwelling in the tents of Shem is supposed by Bochart and others to refer to the fact, that Japhet’s descendants would one day take the land of the Shemites, and subjugate the inhabitants; but even the fathers almost unanimously understand the words in a spiritual sense, as denoting the participation of the Japhetites in the saving blessings of the Shemites.

There is truth in both views. Dwelling presupposes possession; but the idea of taking by force is precluded by the fact, that it would be altogether at variance with the blessing pronounced upon Shem. If history shows that the tents of Shem were conquered and taken by the Japhetites, the dwelling predicted here still relates not to the forcible conquest, but to the fact that the conquerors entered into the possessions of the conquered; that along with them they were admitted to the blessings of salvation; and that, yielding to the spiritual power of the vanquished, they lived henceforth in their tents as brethren (Psalm 133:1).

And if the dwelling of Japhet in the tents of Shem presupposes the conquest of the land of Shem by Japhet, it is a blessing not only to Japhet, but to Shem also, since, whilst Japhet enters into the spiritual inheritance of Shem, he brings to Shem all the good of this world (Isaiah 60). “The fulfilment,” as Delitzsch says, “is plain enough, for we are all Japhetites dwelling in the tents of Shem; and the language of the New Testament is the language of Javan entered into the tents of Shem.” To this we may add, that by the Gospel preached in this language, Israel, though subdued by the imperial power of Rome, became the spiritual conqueror of the orbis terrarum Romanus, and received it into his tents. Moreover it is true of the blessing and curse of Noah, as of all prophetic utterances, that they are fulfilled with regard to the nations and families in question as a whole, but do not predict, like an irresistible fate, the unalterable destiny of every individual; on the contrary, they leave room for freedom of personal decision, and no more cut off the individuals in the accursed race from the possibility of conversion, or close the way of salvation against the penitent, than they secure the individuals of the family blessed against the possibility of falling from a state of grace, and actually losing the blessing. Hence, whilst a Rahab and an Araunah were received into the fellowship of Jehovah, and the Canaanitish woman was relieved by the Lord because of her faith, the hardened Pharisees and scribes had woes pronounced upon them, and Israel was rejected because of its unbelief.

In vv. 28, 29, the history of Noah is brought to a close, with the account of his age, and of his death.

IV. HISTORY OF THE SONS OF NOAH Pedigree of the Nations.

GENESIS. 10:1-5

Of the sons of Noah, all that is handed down is the pedigree of the nations, or the list of the tribes which sprang from them (ch. 10), and the account of the confusion of tongues, together with the dispersion of men over the face of the earth (Genesis 11:1-9); two events that were closely related to one another, and of the greatest importance to the history of the human race and of the kingdom of God. The genealogy traces the origin of the tribes which were scattered over the earth; the confusion of tongues shows the cause of the division of the one human race into many different tribes with peculiar languages. The genealogy of the tribes is not an ethnographical myth, nor the attempt of an ancient Hebrew to trace the connection of his own people with the other nations of the earth by means of uncertain traditions and subjective combinations, but a historical record of the genesis of the nations, founded upon a tradition handed down from the fathers, which, to judge from its contents, belongs to the time of Abraham (cf. Hävernick’s Introduction to Pentateuch, pp. 118ff. transl.), and was inserted by Moses in the early history of the kingdom of God on account of its universal importance in connection with sacred history. For it not only indicates the place of the family which was chosen as the recipient of divine revelation among the rest of the nations, but traces the origin of the entire world, with the prophetical intention of showing that the nations, although they were quickly suffered to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16), were not intended to be for ever excluded from the counsels of eternal love.

In this respect the genealogies prepare the way for the promise of the blessing, which was one day to spread from the chosen family to all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:2-3). — The historical character of the genealogy is best attested by the contents themselves, since no trace can be detected, either of any pre-eminence given to the Shemites, or of an intention to fill up gaps by conjecture or invention. It gives just as much as had been handed down with regard to the origin of the different tribes.

Hence the great diversity in the lists of the descendants of the different sons of Noah. Some are brought down only to the second, others to the third or fourth generation, and some even further; and whilst in several instances the founder of a tribe is named, in others we have only the tribes themselves; and in some cases we are unable to determine whether the names given denote the founder or the tribe. In many instances, too, on account of the defects and the unreliable character of the accounts handed down to us from different ancient sources with regard to the origin of the tribes, there are names which cannot be identified with absolute certainty. f25 Verse 1-2. Descendants of Japhet. — In v. 1 the names of the three sons are introduced according to their relative ages, to give completeness and finish to the Tholedoth; but in the genealogy itself Japhet is mentioned first and Shem last, according to the plan of the book of Genesis as already explained at p. 21. In v. 2 seven sons of Japhet are given. The names, indeed, afterwards occur as those of tribes; but here undoubtedly they are intended to denote the tribe-fathers, and may without hesitation be so regarded. For even if in later times many nations received their names from the lands of which they took possession, this cannot be regarded as a universal rule, since unquestionably the natural rule in the derivation of the names would be for the tribe to be called after its ancestor, and for the countries to receive their names from their earliest inhabitants. Gomer is most probably the tribe of the Cimmerians, who dwelt, according to Herodotus, on the Maeotis, in the Taurian Chersonesus, and from whom are descended the Cumri or Cymry in Wales and Brittany, whose relation to the Germanic Cimbri is still in obscurity.

Magog is connected by Josephus with the Scythians on the Sea of Asof and in the Caucasus; but Kiepert associates the name with Macija or Maka, and applies it to Scythian nomad tribes which forced themselves in between the Arian or Arianized Medes, Kurds, and Armenians. Madai are the Medes, called Mada on the arrow-headed inscriptions. Javan corresponds to the Greek Ba’oon, from whom the Ionians ( Ba>onev ) are derived, the parent tribe of the Greeks (in Sanskrit Javana, old Persian Junâ). Tubal and Meshech are undoubtedly the Tibareni and Moschi, the former of whom are placed by Herodotus upon the east of the Thermodon, the latter between the sources of the Phasis and Cyrus. Tiras: according to Josephus, the Thracians, whom Herodotus calls the most numerous tribe next to the Indian. As they are here placed by the side of Meshech, so we also find on the old Egyptian monuments Mashuash and Tuirash, and upon the Assyrian Tubal and Misek (Rawlinson).

Verse 3. Descendants of Gomer. Ashkenaz: according to the old Jewish explanation, the Germani; according to Knobel, the family of Asi, which is favoured by the German legend of Mannus, and his three sons, Iscus (Ask, Aska’nios), Ingus, and Hermino. Kiepert, however, and Bochart decide, on geographical grounds, in favour of the Ascanians in Northern Phrygia.

Riphath: in Knobel’s opinion the Celts, part of whom, according to Plutarch, crossed the o>rh RiJ>paia , Montes Rhipaei, towards the Northern Ocean to the furthest limits of Europe; but Josephus, whom Kiepert follows, supposed Chiba’thees to be Paphlagonia. Both of these are very uncertain. Togarmah is the name of the Armenians, who are still called the house of Thorgom or Torkomatsi.

Verse 4. Descendants of Javan. Elishah suggests Elis, and is said by Josephus to denote the Aeolians, the oldest of the Thessalian tribes, whose culture was Ionian in its origin; Kiepert, however, thinks of Sicily. Tarshish (in the Old Testament the name of the colony of Tartessus in Spain) is referred by Knobel to the Etruscans or Tyrsenians, a Pelasgic tribe of Greek derivation; but Delitzsch objects, that the Etruscans were most probably of Lydian descent, and, like the Lydians of Asia Minor, who were related to the Assyrians, belonged to the Shemites. Others connect the name with Tarsus in Cilicia. But the connection with the Spanish Tartessus must be retained, although, so long as the origin of this colony remains in obscurity, nothing further can be determined with regard to the name.

Kittim embraces not only the Citiaei, Citienses in Cyprus, with the town Cition, but, according to Knobel and Delitzsch, probably “the Carians, who settled in the lands at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea; for which reason Ezekiel (Genesis 27:6) speaks of the “isles of Chittim.” Dodanim (Dardani): according to Delitzsch, “the tribe related to the Ionians and dwelling with them from the very first, which the legend has associated with them in the two brothers Jasion and Dardanos;” according to Knobel, “the whole of the Illyrian or north Grecian tribe.”

Verse 5. “From these have the islands of the nations divided themselves in their lands;” i.e., from the Japhetites already named, the tribes on the Mediterranean descended and separated from one another as they dwell in their lands, “every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” The islands in the Old Testament are the islands and coastlands of the Mediterranean, on the European shore, from Asia Minor to Spain.

GENESIS. 10:6-20

Descendants of Ham Cush: the Ethiopians of the ancients, who not only dwelt in Africa, but were scattered over the whole of Southern Asia, and originally, in all probability, settled in Arabia, where the tribes that still remained, mingled with Shemites, and adopted a Shemitic language. Mizraim is Egypt: the dual form was probably transferred from the land to the people, referring, however, not to the double strip, i.e., the two strips of land into which the country is divided by the Nile, but to the two Egypts, Upper and Lower, two portions of the country which differ considerably in their climate and general condition. The name is obscure, and not traceable to any Semitic derivation; for the term rwOxm; in Isaiah 19:6, etc., is not to be regarded as an etymological interpretation, but as a significant play upon the word. The old Egyptian name is Kemi (Copt. Chêmi, Kême), which, Plutarch says, is derived from the dark ash-grey colour of the soil covered by the slime of the Nile, but which it is much more correct to trace to Ham, and to regard as indicative of the Hamitic descent of its first inhabitants. Put denotes the Libyans in the wider sense of the term (old Egypt. Phet; Copt. Phaiat), who were spread over Northern Africa as far as Mauritania, where even in the time of Jerome a river with the neighbouring district still bore the name of Phut; cf. Bochart, Phal. iv. 33. On Canaan, see ch. ix. 25.

Verse 7. Descendants of Cush. Seba: the inhabitants of Meroë; according to Knobel, the northern Ethiopians, the ancient Blemmyer, and modern Bisharin. Havilah: the Auali>tai or Abali>tai of the ancients, the Macrobian Ethiopians in modern Habesh. Sabtah: the Ethiopians inhabiting Hadhramaut, whose chief city was called Sabatha or Sabota. Raamah:

Chegma’, the inhabitants of a city and bay of that name in south-eastern Arabia (Oman). Sabtecah: the Ethiopians of Caramania, dwelling to the east of the Persian Gulf, where the ancients mention a seaport town and a river Damuda’kee. The descendants of Raamah, Sheba and Dedan, are to be sought in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf, “from which the Sabaean and Dedanitic Cushites spread to the north-west, where they formed mixed tribes with descendants of Joktan and Abraham.” See notes on v. 28 and Genesis 25:3.

Verse 8-9. Besides the tribes already named, there sprang from Cush Nimrod, the founder of the first imperial kingdom, the origin of which is introduced as a memorable event into the genealogy of the tribes, just as on other occasions memorable events are interwoven with the genealogical tables (cf. 1 Chronicles 2:7,23; 4:22-23,39-41). f26 Nimrod “began to be a mighty one in the earth.” rwOBGi is used here, as in Genesis 6:4, to denote a man who makes himself renowned for bold and daring deeds. Nimrod was mighty in hunting, and that in opposition to Jehovah ( enanti>on kuri>ou , LXX); not before Jehovah in the sense of, according to the purpose and will of Jehovah, still less, like µyhila’ in Jonah 3:3, or tw> Qew> in Acts 7:20, in a simply superlative sense. The last explanation is not allowed by the usage of the language, the second is irreconcilable with the context. The name itself, Nimrod from dræm; , “we will revolt,” points to some violent resistance to God. It is so characteristic that it can only have been given by his contemporaries, and thus have become a proper name. f27 In addition to this, Nimrod as a mighty hunter founded a powerful kingdom; and the founding of this kingdom is shown by the verb hy;h; with w consec. to have been the consequence or result of his strength in hunting, so that the hunting was most intimately connected with the establishment of the kingdom. Hence, if the expression “a mighty hunter” relates primarily to hunting in the literal sense, we must add to the literal meaning the figurative signification of a “hunter of men” (“trapper of men by stratagem and force,” Herder); Nimrod the hunter became a tyrant, a powerful hunter of men. This course of life gave occasion to the proverb, “like Nimrod, a mighty hunter against the Lord,” which immortalized not his skill in hunting beasts, but the success of his hunting of men in the establishment of an imperial kingdom by tyranny and power. But if this be the meaning of the proverb, hwO;hy] µynip; “in the face of Jehovah” can only mean in defiance of Jehovah, as Josephus and the Targums understand it.

And the proverb must have arisen when other daring and rebellious men followed in Nimrod’s footsteps, and must have originated with those who saw in such conduct an act of rebellion against the God of salvation, in other words, with the possessors of the divine promises of grace. f28 Verse 10. “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel,” the well-known city of Babylon on the Euphrates, which from the time of Nimrod downwards has been the symbol of the power of the world in its hostility to God;-”and Erech” (Are’ch, LXX), one of the seats of the Cutheans (Samaritans), Ezra 4:9, no doubt Orchoë, situated, according to Rawlinson, on the site of the present ruins of Warka, thirty hours’ journey to the south-east of Babel;-and Accad (Archa’d, LXX), a place not yet determined, though, judging from its situation between Erech and Calneh, it was not far from either, and Pressel is probably right in identifying it with the ruins of Niffer, to the south of Hillah;-”and Calneh:” this is found by early writers on the cite of Ctesiphon, now a great heap of ruins, twenty hours north-east of Babel. These four cities were in the land of Shinar, i.e., of the province of Babylon, on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris.

Verse 11-12. From Shinar Nimrod went to Assyria ( rWVaæ is the accusative of direction), the country on the east of the Tigris, and there built four cities, or probably a large imperial city composed of the four cities, or probably a large imperial city composed of the four cities named.

As three of these cities-Rehoboth-Ir, i.e., city markets (not “street-city,” as Bunsen interprets it), Chelach, and Resen-are not met with again, whereas Nineveh was renowned in antiquity for its remarkable size (vid., Jonah 3:3), the words “this is the great city” must apply not to Resen, but to Nineveh. This is grammatically admissible, if we regard the last three names as subordinate to the first, taking as the sign of subordination (Ewald, §339a), and render the passage thus: “he built Nineveh, with Rehoboth-Ir, Cheloch, and Resen between Nineveh and Chelach, this is the great city.” From this it follows that the four places formed a large composite city, a large range of towns, to which the name of the (wellknown) great city of Nineveh was applied, in distinction from Nineveh in the more restricted sense, with which Nimrod probably connected the other three places so as to form one great capital, possibly also the chief fortress of his kingdom on the Tigris. These four cities most likely correspond to the ruins on the east of the Tigris, which Layard has so fully explored, viz., Nebbi Yûnus and Kouyunjik opposite to Mosul, Khorsabad five hours to the north, and Nimrud eight hours to the south of Mosul. f30 Verse 13-14. From Mizraim descended Ludim: not the Semitic Ludim (v. 22), but, according to Movers, the old tribe of the Lewâtah dwelling on the Syrtea, according to others, the Moorish tribes collectively. Whether the name is connected with the Laud flumen (Plin. v. 1) is uncertain; in any case Knobel is wrong in thinking of Ludian Shemites, whether Hyksos, who forced their way to Egypt, or Egyptianized Arabians. Anamim: inhabitants of the Delta, according to Knobel. He associates the Enemetiei’m of the LXX with Sanemhit, or Northern Egypt: “tsanemhit, i.e., pars, regio septentrionis.” Lehabim (= Lubim, Nah 3:9) are, according to Josephus, the Li>buev or Du’bies, not the great Libyan tribe (Phut, v. 6), which Nahum distinguishes from them, but the Libyaegyptii of the ancients.

Naphtuchim: in Knobel’s opinion, the Middle Egyptians, as the nation of Pthah, the god of Memphis: but Bochart is more probably correct in associating the name with Ge’fthus in Plut. de Is., the northern coast line of Egypt. Pathrusim: inhabitants of Pathros, Bathou’rees, Egypt. Petrês, land of the south; i.e., Upper Egypt, the Thebais of the ancients.

Casluchim: according to general admission the Colchians, who descended from the Egyptians (Herod. ii. 104), though the connection of the name with Cassiotis is uncertain. “From thence (i.e., from Casluchim, which is the name of both people and country) proceeded the Philistines.” Philistim, LXX Fulistiei’m or Allo’fuloi, lit., emigrants or immigrants from the Ethiopic fallâsa. This is not at variance with Amos 9:7 and Jeremiah 47:4, according to which the Philistines came from Caphtor, so that there is no necessity to transpose the relative clause after Philistim. The two statements may be reconciled on the simple supposition that the Philistian nation was primarily a Casluchian colony, which settled on the southeastern coast line of the Mediterranean between Gaza (v. 19) and Pelusium, but was afterwards strengthened by immigrants from Caphtor, and extended its territory by pressing out the Avim (Deuteronomy 2:23, cf.

Joshua 13:3). Caphtorim: according to the old Jewish explanation, the Cappadocians; but according to Lakemacher’s opinion, which has been revived by Ewald, etc., the Cretans. This is not decisively proved, however, either by the name Cherethites, given to the Philistines in 1 Samuel 30:14; Zeph 2:5, and Ezekiel 25:16, or by the expression “isle of Caphtor” in Jeremiah 47:4.

Verse 15-20. From Canaan descended “Zidon his first-born, and Heth.”

Although Zidon occurs in v. 19 and throughout the Old Testament as the name of the oldest capital of the Phoenicians, here it must be regarded as the name of a person, not only because of the apposition “his first-born,” and the verb dlæy; , “begat,” but also because the name of a city does not harmonize with the names of the other descendants of Canaan, the analogy of which would lead us to expect the nomen gentile “Sidonian” (Judges 3:3, etc.); and lastly, because the word Zidon, from dWx to hunt, to catch, is not directly applicable to a sea-port and commercial town, and there are serious objections upon philological grounds to Justin’s derivation, “quam a piscium ubertate Sidona appellaverunt, nam piscem Phoenices Sidon vocant” (var. hist. 18, 3). Heth is also the name of a person, from which the term Hittite (Genesis 25:9; Numbers 13:29), equivalent to “sons of Heth” (Genesis 23:5), is derived. “The Jebusite:” inhabitants of Jebus, afterwards called Jerusalem. “The Amorite:” not the inhabitants of the mountain or heights, for the derivation from rymia; , “summit,” is not established, but a branch of the Canaanites, descended from Emor (Amor), which was spread far and wide over the mountains of Judah and beyond the Jordan in the time of Moses, so that in Genesis 15:16; 48:22, all the Canaanites are comprehended by the name. “The Girgashites,” Gergesai’os (LXX), are also mentioned in Genesis 15:21; Deuteronomy 7:1, and Joshua 24:11; but their dwelling-place is unknown, as the reading Gergeseenoi’ in Matthew 8:28 is critically suspicious. “The Hivites” dwelt in Sichem (Genesis 34:2), at Gibeon (Joshua 9:7), and at the foot of Hermon (Joshua 11:3); the meaning of the word is uncertain. “The Arkites:” inhabitants of Arkee’, to the north of Tripolis at the foot of Lebanon, the ruins of which still exist (vid., Robinson). “The Sinite:” the inhabitants of Sin or Sinna, a place in Lebanon not yet discovered. “The Arvadite,” or Aradians, occupied from the eighth century before Christ, the small rocky island of Arados to the north of Tripolis. “The Zemarite:” the inhabitants of Simyra in Eleutherus. “The Hamathite:” the inhabitants or rather founders of Hamath on the most northerly border of Palestine (Numbers 13:21; 34:8), afterwards called Epiphania, on the river Orontes, the present Hamâh, with 100,000 inhabitants.

The words in v. 18, “and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad,” mean that they all proceeded from one local centre as branches of the same tribe, and spread themselves over the country, the limits of which are given in two directions, with evident reference to the fact that it was afterwards promised to the seed of Abraham for its inheritance, viz., from north to south-”from Sidon, in the direction (lit., as thou comest) towards Gerar (see Genesis 20:1), unto Gaza,” the primitive Avvite city of the Philistines (Deuteronomy 2:23), now called Guzzeh, at the S.W. corner of Palestine-and thence from west to east, in the direction towards Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim (see 19.24) to Lesha,” i.e., Calirrhoe, a place with sulphur baths, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, in Wady Serka Maein (Seetzen and Ritter).

GENESIS. 10:21-22

Descendants of Shem.

Verse 21 . For the construction, vid., Genesis 4:26. Shem is called the father of all the sons of Eber, because two tribes sprang from Eber through Peleg and Joktan, viz., the Abrahamides, and also the Arabian tribe of the Joktanides (vv. 26ff.). — On the expression, “the brother of Japhet lwOdG; ,” see Genesis 9:24. The names of the five sons of Shem occur elsewhere as the names of the tribes and countries; at the same time, as there is no proof that in any single instance the name was transferred from the country to its earliest inhabitants, no well-grounded objection can be offered to the assumption, which the analogy of the other descendants of Shem renders probable, that they were originally the names of individuals. As the name of a people, Elam denotes the Elymaeans, who stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea, but who are first met with as Persians no longer speaking a Semitic language. Asshur: the Assyrians who settled in the country of Assyria, Atouri’a, to the east of the Tigris, but who afterwards spread in the direction of Asia Minor. Arphaxad: the inhabitants of Arrhapachi’chtis in northern Assyria. The explanation given of the name, viz., “fortress of the Chaldeans” (Ewald), “highland of the Chaldeans” (Knobel), “territory of the Chaldeans” (Dietrich), are very questionable.

Lud: the Lydians of Asia Minor, whose connection with the Assyrians is confirmed by the names of the ancestors of their kings. Aram: the ancestor of the Aramaeans of Syria and Mesopotamia.

GENESIS. 10:23-24

Descendants of Aram.

Uz: a name which occurs among the Nahorides (Genesis 22:21) and Horites (36:28), and which is associated with the Aisi’tai of Ptolemy, in Arabia deserta towards Babylon; this is favoured by the fact that Uz, the country of Job, is called by the LXX cw>ra Ausi>tiv , although the notion that these Aesites were an Aramaean tribe, afterwards mixed up with Nahorides and Horites, is mere conjecture. Hul: Delitzsch associates this with Cheli (Cheri), the old Egyptian name for the Syrians, and the Hylatae who dwelt near the Emesenes (Plin. 5, 19). Gether he connects with the name give in the Arabian legends to the ancestor of the tribes Themûd and Ghadis. Mash: for which we find Meshech in 1 Chronicles 1:17, a tribe mentioned in Psalm 120:5 along with Kedar, and since the time of Bochart generally associated with the porov Ma>sion above Nisibis.

GENESIS. 10:25-29

Among the descendants of Arphaxad, Eber’s eldest son received the name of Peleg, because in his days the earth, i.e., the population of the earth, was divided, in consequence of the building of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:8). His brother Joktan is called Kachtan by the Arabians, and is regarded as the father of all the primitive tribes of Arabia. The names of his sons are given in vv. 26-29. There are thirteen of them, some of which are still retained in places and districts of Arabia, whilst others are not yet discovered, or are entirely extinct. Nothing certain has been ascertained about Almodad, Jerah, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, and Jobab. Of the rest, Sheleph is identical with Salif or Sulaf (in Ptl. 6, 7, Dalapeenoi’), an old Arabian tribe, also a district of Yemen. Hazarmaveth (i.e., forecourt of death) is the Arabian Hadhramaut in South-eastern Arabia on the Indian Ocean, whose name Jauhari is derived from the unhealthiness of the climate. Hadoram: the Adrami’tai of Ptol. 6, 7, Atramitae of Plin. 6, 28, on the southern coast of Arabia. Uzal: one of the most important towns of Yemen, south-west of Mareb. Sheba: the Sabaeans, with the capital Saba or Mareb, Mariaba regia (Plin.), whose connection with the Cushite (v. 7) and Abrahamite Sabaeans (Genesis 25:3) is quite in obscurity. Ophir has not yet been discovered in Arabia; it is probably to be sought on the Persian Gulf, even if the Ophir of Solomon was not situated there. Havilah appears to answer to Chaulaw of Edrisi, a district between Sanaa and Mecca. But this district, which lies in the heart of Yemen, does not fit the account in 1 Samuel 15:7, nor the statement in Genesis 25:18, that Havilah formed the boundary of the territory of the Ishmaelites. These two passages point rather to Chaulotai’oi, a place on the border of Arabia Petraea towards Yemen, between the Nabataeans and Hagrites, which Strabo describes as habitable.

GENESIS. 10:30-31

The settlements of these Joktanides lay from Mesha towards Sephar the mountain of the East,” Mesha is still unknown: according to Gesenius, it is Mesene on the Persian Gulf, and in Knobel’s opinion, it is the valley of Bisha or Beishe in the north of Yemen; but both are very improbable.

Sepher is supposed by Mesnel to be the ancient Himyaritish capital, Shafâr, on the Indian Ocean; and the mountain of the East, the mountain of incense, which is situated still farther to the east. — The genealogy of the Shemites closes with v. 31, and the entire genealogy of the nations with v. 32. According to the Jewish Midrash, there are seventy tribes, with as many different languages; but this number can only be arrived at by reckoning Nimrod among the Hamites, and not only placing Peleg among the Shemites, but taking his ancestors Salah and Eber to be names of separate tribes. By this we obtain for Japhet 14, for Ham 31, and for Shem 25-in all 70 names. The Rabbins, on the other hand, reckon 14 Japhetic, Hamitic, and 26 Semitic nations; whilst the fathers make 72 in all. But as these calculations are perfectly arbitrary, and the number 70 is nowhere given or hinted at, we can neither regard it as intended, nor discover in it “the number of the divinely appointed varieties of the human race,” or “of the cosmical development,” even if the seventy disciples (Luke 10:1) were meant to answer to the seventy nations whom the Jews supposed to exist upon the earth. GENESIS 10:32 The words, “And by these were the nations of the earth divided in the earth after the flood,” prepare the way for the description of that event which led to the division of the one race into many nations with different languages.

THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES.

GENESIS. 11:1

“And the whole earth (i.e., the population of the earth, vid., Genesis 2:19) was one lip and one kind of words:” unius labii eorundemque verborum.

The unity of language of the whole human race follows from the unity of its descent from one human pair (vid., 2:22). But as the origin and formation of the races of mankind are beyond the limits of empirical research, so no philology will ever be able to prove or deduce the original unity of human speech from the languages which have been historically preserved, however far comparative grammar may proceed in establishing the genealogical relation of the languages of different nations.

GENESIS. 11:2-4

As men multiplied they moved from the land of Ararat “eastward,” or more strictly to the south-east, and settled in a plain. h[;q]Bi does not denote a valley between mountain ranges, but a broad plain, pedi>on me>ga , as Herodotus calls the neighbourhood of Babylon. There they resolved to build an immense tower; and for this purpose they made bricks and burned them thoroughly ( hp;rec; “to burning” serves to intensify the verb like the inf. absol.), so that they became stone; whereas in the East ordinary buildings are constructed of bricks of clay, simply dried in the sun. For mortar they used asphalt, in which the neighbourhood of Babylon abounds.

From this material, which may still be seen in the ruins of Babylon, they intended to build a city and a tower, whose top should be in heaven, i.e., reach to the sky, to make to themselves a name, that they might not be scattered over the whole earth. µve ttæK; `hc;[; denotes, here and everywhere else, to establish a name, or reputation, to set up a memorial (Isaiah 63:12,14; Jeremiah 32:20, etc.). The real motive therefore was the desire for renown, and the object was to establish a noted central point, which might serve to maintain their unity. The one was just as ungodly as the other. For, according to the divine purpose, men were to fill the earth, i.e., to spread over the whole earth, not indeed to separate, but to maintain their inward unity notwithstanding their dispersion. But the fact that they were afraid of dispersion is a proof that the inward spiritual bond of unity and fellowship, not only “the oneness of their God and their worship,” but also the unity of brotherly love, was already broken by sin. Consequently the undertaking, dictated by pride, to preserve and consolidate by outward means the unity which was inwardly lost, could not be successful, but could only bring down the judgment of dispersion.

GENESIS. 11:5-9

“Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men had built” (the perfect hn;B; refers to the building as one finished up to a certain point). Jehovah’s “coming down” is not the same here as in Exodus 19:20; 34:5; Numbers 11:25; 12:5, viz., the descent from heaven of some visible symbol of His presence, but is an anthropomorphic description of God’s interposition in the actions of men, primarily a “judicial cognizance of the actual fact,” and then, v. 7, a judicial infliction of punishment. The reason for the judgment is given in the word, i.e., the sentence, which Jehovah pronounces upon the undertaking (v. 6): “Behold one people ( `µ[æ lit., union, connected whole, from `µmæ[; to bind) and one language have they all, and this (the building of this city and tower) is (only) the beginning of their deeds; and now (sc., when they have finished this) nothing will be impossible to them ( µhe rxæB; alo lit., cut off from them, prevented) which they purpose to do” ( µmæz; for µmæz; from µmæz; , see Genesis 9:19).

By the firm establishment of an ungodly unity, the wickedness and audacity of men would have led to fearful enterprises. But God determined, by confusing their language, to prevent the heightening of sin through ungodly association, and to frustrate their design. “Up” ( bhæy; “go to,” an ironical imitation of the same expression in vv. 3 and 4), “We will go down, and there confound their language (on the plural, see Genesis 1:26; lben; for llæB; , Kal from llæB; , like µmæz; in v. 6), that they may not understand one another’s speech.” The execution of this divine purpose is given in v. 8, in a description of its consequences: “Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.” We must not conclude from this, however, that the differences in language were simply the result of the separation of the various tribes, and that the latter arose from discord and strife; in which case the confusion of tongues would be nothing more than “dissensio animorum, per quam factum sit, ut qui turrem struebant distracti sint in contraria studia et consilia” (Bitringa).

Such a view not only does violence to the words “that one may not discern (understand) the lip (language) of the other,” but is also at variance with the object of the narrative. When it is stated, first of all, that God resolved to destroy the unity of lips and words by a confusion of the lips, and then that He scattered the men abroad, this act of divine judgment cannot be understood in any other way, than that God deprived them of the ability to comprehend one another, and thus effected their dispersion. The event itself cannot have consisted merely in a change of the organs of speech, produced by the omnipotence of God, whereby speakers were turned into stammerers who were unintelligible to one another. This opinion, which is held by Bitringa and Hofmann, is neither reconcilable with the text, nor tenable as a matter of fact. The differences, to which this event gave rise, consisted not merely in variations of sound, such as might be attributed to differences in the formation in the organs of speech (the lip or tongue), but had a much deeper foundation in the human mind.

If language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human language into different national dialects must be sought in an effect produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, conception, thought, and will was broken up. This inward unity had no doubt been already disturbed by sin, but the disturbance had not yet amounted to a perfect breach. This happened first of all in the event recorded here, through a direct manifestation of divine power, which caused the disturbance produced by sin in the unity of emotion, thought, and will to issue in a diversity of language, and thus by a miraculous suspension of mutual understanding frustrated the enterprise by which men hoped to render dispersion and estrangement impossible. More we cannot say in explanation of this miracle, which lies before us in the great multiplicity and variety of tongues, since even those languages which are genealogically related-for example, the Semitic and Indo-Germanic-were no longer intelligible to the same people even in the dim primeval age, whilst others are so fundamentally different from one another, that hardly a trace remains of their original unity. With the disappearance of unity the one original language was also lost, so that neither in the Hebrew nor in any other language of history has enough been preserved to enable us to form the least conception of its character. f31 The primitive language is extinct, buried in the materials of the languages of the nations, to rise again one day to eternal life in the glorified form of the kainai> glw>ssai intelligible to all the redeemed, when sin with its consequences is overcome and extinguished by the power of grace. A type of pledge of this hope was given in the gift of tongues on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church on the first Christian day of Pentecost, when the apostles, filled with the Holy Ghost, spoke with other or new tongues of “the wonderful works of God,” so that the people of every nation under heaven understood in their own language (Acts 2:1-11).

From the confusion of tongues the city received the name Babel ( lb,B; i.e., confusion, contracted from lB,l]Bæ from llæB; to confuse), according to divine direction, though without any such intention on the part of those who first gave the name, as a standing memorial of the judgment of God which follows all the ungodly enterprises of the power of the world. f32 Of this city considerable ruins still remain, including the remains of an enormous tower, Birs Nimrud, which is regarded by the Arabs as the tower of Babel that was destroyed by fire from heaven. Whether these ruins have any historical connection with the tower of the confusion of tongues, must remain, at least for the present, a matter of uncertainty. With regard to the date of the event, we find from v. 10 that the division of the human race occurred in the days of Peleg, who was born 100 years after the flood. In 150 or 180 years, with a rapid succession of births, the descendants of the three sons of Noah, who were already 100 years old and married at the time of the flood, might have become quite numerous enough to proceed to the erection of such a building. If we reckon, for example, only four male and four female births as the average number to each marriage, since it is evident from Genesis 11:12ff. that children were born as early as the 30th or 35th year of their parent’s age, the sixth generation would be born by 150 years after the flood, and the human race would number 12,288 males and as many females. Consequently there would be at least about 30,000 people in the world at this time. V. HISTORY OF SHEM GENESIS 11:10-26 After describing the division of the one family which sprang from the three sons of Noah, into many nations scattered over the earth and speaking different languages, the narrative returns to Shem, and traces his descendants in a direct line to Terah the father of Abraham. The first five members of this pedigree have already been given in the genealogy of the Shemites; and in that case the object was to point out the connection in which all the descendants of Eber stood to one another. They are repeated here to show the direct descent of the Terahites through Peleg from Shem, but more especially to follow the chronological thread of the family line, which could not be given in the genealogical tree without disturbing the uniformity of its plan. By the statement in v. 10, that “Shem, a hundred years old, begat Arphaxad two years after the flood,” the chronological date already given of Noah’s age at the birth of his sons (Genesis 5:32) and at the commencement of the flood (7:11) are made still more definite.

As the expression “after the flood” refers to the commencement of the flood (Genesis 9:28), and according to ch. 7:11 the flood began in the second month, or near the beginning of the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, though the year 600 is given in Genesis 7:6 in round numbers, it is not necessary to assume, as some do, in order to reconcile the difference between our verse and Genesis 5:32, that the number 500 in ch. 5:32 stands as a round number for 502. On the other hand, there can be no objection to such an assumption. The different statements may be easily reconciled by placing the birth of Shem at the end of the five hundredth year of Noah’s life, and the birth of Arphaxad at the end of the hundredth year of that of Shem; in which case Shem would be just 99 years old when the flood began, and would be fully 100 years old “two years after the flood,” that is to say, in the second year from the commencement of the flood, when he begat Arphaxad. In this case the “two years after the flood” are not to be added to the sum-total of the chronological data, but are included in it.

The table given here forms in a chronological and material respect the direct continuation of the one in ch. 5, and differs from it only in form, viz., by giving merely the length of life of the different fathers before and after the birth of their sons, without also summing up the whole number of their years as is the case there, since this is superfluous for chronological purposes. But on comparing the chronological data of the two tables, we find this very important difference in the duration of life before and after the flood, that the patriarchs after the flood lived upon an average only half the number of years of those before it, and that with Peleg the average duration of life was again reduced by one half. Whilst Noah with his years belonged entirely to the old world, and Shem, who was born before the flood, reached the age of 600, Arphaxad lived only 438 years, Salah 433, and Eber 464; and again, with Peleg the duration of life fell to years, Reu also lived only 239 years, Serug 230, and Nahor not more than 148.

Here, then, we see that the two catastrophes, the flood and the separation of the human race into nations, exerted a powerful influence in shortening the duration of life; the former by altering the climate of the earth, the latter by changing the habits of men. But while the length of life diminished, the children were born proportionally earlier. Shem begat his first-born in his hundredth year, Arphaxad in the thirty-fifth, Salah in the thirtieth, and so on to Terah, who had no children till his seventieth year; consequently the human race, notwithstanding the shortening of life, increased with sufficient rapidity to people the earth very soon after their dispersion.

There is nothing astonishing, therefore, in the circumstance, that wherever Abraham went he found tribes, towns, and kingdoms, though only years had elapsed since the flood, when we consider that eleven generations would have followed one another in that time, and that, supposing every marriage to have been blessed with eight children on an average (four male and four female), the eleventh generation would contain 12,582,912 couples, or 25,165,824 individuals.

And is we reckon ten children as the average number, the eleventh generation would contain 146,484,375 pairs, or 292,968,750 individuals.

In neither of these cases have we included such of the earlier generations as would be still living, although their number would be by no means inconsiderable, since nearly all the patriarchs from Shem to Terah were alive at the time of Abram’s migration. In v. 26 the genealogy closes, like that in Genesis 5:32, with the names of three sons of Terah, all of whom sustained an important relation to the subsequent history, viz., Abram as the father of the chosen family, Nahor as the ancestor of Rebekah (cf. v. with Genesis 22:20-23), and Haran as the father of Lot (v. 27). VI. HISTORY OF TERAH Family of Terah.

GENESIS. 11:27-32

The genealogical data in vv. 27-32 prepare the way for the history of the patriarchs. The heading, “These are the generations of Terah,” belongs not merely to vv. 27-32, but to the whole of the following account of Abram, since it corresponds to “the generations” of Ishmael and of Isaac in Genesis 25:12 and 19. Of the three sons of Terah, who are mentioned again in v. to complete the plan of the different Toledoth, such genealogical notices are given as are of importance to the history of Abram and his family.

According to the regular plan of Genesis, the fact that Haran the youngest son of Terah begat Lot, is mentioned first of all, because the latter went with Abram to Canaan; and then the fact that he died before his father Terah, because the link which would have connected Lot with his native land was broken in consequence. “Before his father,” µynip; `l[æ lit., upon the face of his father, so that he saw and survived his death.

Ur of the Chaldees is to be sought either in the “Ur nomine persicum castellum” of Ammian (25, 8), between Hatra and Nisibis, near Arrapachitis, or in Orhoi, Armenian Urrhai, the old name for Edessa, the modern Urfa. — v. 29. Abram and Nahor took wives from their kindred.

Abram married Sarai, his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), of whom it is already related, in anticipation of what follows, that she was barren. Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of his brother Haran, who bore to him Bethuel, the father of Rebekah (22:22-23). The reason why Iscah is mentioned is doubtful. For the rabbinical notion, that Iscah is another name for Sarai, is irreconcilable with Genesis 20:12, where Abram calls Sarai his sister, daughter of his father, though not of his mother; on the other hand, the circumstance that Sarai is introduced in v. 31 merely as the daughter-in-law of Terah, may be explained on the ground that she left Ur, not as his daughter, but as the wife of his son Abram. A better hypothesis is that of Ewald, that Iscah is mentioned because she was the wife of Lot; but this is pure conjecture.

According to v. 31, Terah already prepared to leave Ur of the Chaldees with Abram and Lot, and to remove to Canaan. In the phrase “they went forth with them,” the subject cannot be the unmentioned members of the family, such as Nahor and his children; though Nahor must also have gone to Haran, since it is called in Genesis 24:10 the city of Nahor. For if he accompanied them at this time, there is no perceptible reason why he should not have been mentioned along with the rest. The nominative to the verb must be Lot and Sarai, who went with Terah and Abram; so that although Terah is placed at the head, Abram must have taken an active part in the removal, or the resolution to remove. This does not, however, necessitate the conclusion, that he had already been called by God in Ur.

Nor does Genesis 15:7 require any such assumption. For it is not stated there that God called Abram in Ur, but only that He brought him out. But the simple fact of removing from Ur might also be called a leading out, as a work of divine superintendence and guidance, without a special call from God. It was in Haran that Abram first received the divine call to go to Canaan (12:1-4), when he left not only his country and kindred, but also his father’s house.

Terah did not carry out his intention to proceed to Canaan, but remained in Haran, in his native country Mesopotamia, probably because he found there what he was going to look for in the land of Canaan. Haran, more properly Charan, ˆr;j; , is a place in north-western Mesopotamia, the ruins of which may still be seen, a full day’s journey to the south of Edessa (Gr.

Ca’rrhai, Lat. Carrae), where Crassus fell when defeated by the Parthians.

It was a leading settlement of the Ssabians, who had a temple there dedicated to the moon, which they traced back to Abraham. There Terah died at the age of 205, or sixty years after the departure of Abram for Canaan; for, according to v. 26, Terah was seventy years old when Abram was born, and Abram was seventy-five years old when he arrived in Canaan. When Stephen, therefore, placed the removal of Abram from Haran to Canaan after the death of his father, he merely inferred this from the fact, that the call of Abram (ch. 12) was not mentioned till after the death of Terah had been noticed, taking the order of the narrative as the order of events; whereas, according to the plan of Genesis, the death of Terah is introduced here, because Abram never met with his father again after leaving Haran, and there was consequently nothing more to be related concerning him. CALL OF ABRAM. HIS REMOVAL TO CANAAN, AND JOURNEY INTO EGYPT.

GENESIS. 12:1-3

The life of Abraham, from his call to his death, consists of four stages, the commencement of each of which is marked by a divine revelation of sufficient importance to constitute a distinct epoch. The first stage (ch. 12- 14) commences with his call and removal to Canaan; the second (ch. 15- 16), with the promise of a lineal heir and the conclusion of a covenant; the third (ch. 17-21), with the establishment of the covenant, accompanied by a change in his name, and the appointment of the covenant sign of circumcision; the fourth (ch. 22-25:11), with the temptation of Abraham to attest and perfect his life of faith. All the revelations made to him proceed from Jehovah; and the name Jehovah is employed throughout the whole life of the father of the faithful, Elohim being used only where Jehovah, from its meaning, would be either entirely inapplicable, or at any rate less appropriate. f33 Verse 1-3. The Call. — The word of Jehovah, by which Abram was called, contained a command and a promise. Abram was to leave all-his country, his kindred (see Genesis 43:7), and his father’s house-and to follow the Lord into the land which He would show him. Thus he was to trust entirely to the guidance of God, and to follow wherever He might lead him. But as he went in consequence of this divine summons into the land of Canaan (v. 5), we must assume that God gave him at the very first a distinct intimation, if not of the land itself, at least of the direction he was to take.

That Canaan was to be his destination, was no doubt made known as a matter of certainty in the revelation which he received after his arrival there (v. 7). — For thus renouncing and denying all natural ties, the Lord gave him the inconceivably great promise, “I will make of thee a great nation; and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing.” The four members of this promise are not to be divided into two parallel members, in which case the athnach would stand in the wrong place; but are to be regarded as an ascending climax, expressing four elements of the salvation promised to Abram, the last of which is still further expanded in v. 3. By placing the athnach under µve the fourth member is marked as a new and independent feature added to the other three. The four distinct elements are 1. increase into a numerous people; 2. a blessing, that is to say, material and spiritual prosperity; 3. the exaltation of his name, i.e., the elevation of Abram to honour and glory; 4. his appointment to be the possessor and dispenser of the blessing.

Abram was not only to receive blessing, but to be a blessing; not only to be blessed by God, but to become a blessing, or the medium of blessing, to others. The blessing, as the more minute definition of the expression “be a blessing” in v. 3 clearly shows, was henceforth to keep pace as it were with Abram himself, so that (1) the blessing and cursing of men were to depend entirely upon their attitude towards him, and (2) all the families of the earth were to be blessed in him. llæq; , lit., to treat as light or little, to despise, denotes “blasphemous cursing on the part of a man;” rræa; “judicial cursing on the part of God.” It appears significant, however, “that the plural is used in relation to the blessing, and the singular only in relation to the cursing; grace expects that there will be many to bless, and that only an individual here and there will render not blessing for blessing, but curse for curse.” — In v. 3 b, Abram, the one, is made a blessing for all.

In the word µyrit;a the primary meaning of b, in, is not to be given up, though the instrumental sense, through, is not to be excluded. Abram was not merely to become a mediator, but the source of blessing for all. The expression “all the families of the ground” points to the division of the one family into many (Genesis 10:5,20,31), and the word hm;d;a to the curse pronounced upon the ground (Genesis 3:17). The blessing of Abraham was once more to unite the divided families, and change the curse, pronounced upon the ground on account of sin, into a blessing for the whole human race. This concluding word comprehends all nations and times, and condenses, as Baumgarten has said, the whole fulness of the divine counsel for the salvation of men into the call of Abram. All further promises, therefore, not only to the patriarchs, but also to Israel, were merely expansions and closer definitions of the salvation held out to the whole human race in the first promise. Even the assurance, which Abram received after his entrance into Canaan (v. 6), was implicitly contained in this first promise; since a great nation could not be conceived of, without a country of its own.

This promise was renewed to Abram on several occasions: first after his separation from Lot (Genesis 13:14-16), on which occasion, however, the “blessing” was not mentioned, because not required by the connection, and the two elements only, viz., the numerous increase of his seed, and the possession of the land of Canaan, were assured to him and to his seed, and that “for ever;” secondly, in Genesis 18:18 somewhat more casually, as a reason for the confidential manner in which Jehovah explained to him the secret of His government; and lastly, at the two principal turning points of his life, where the whole promise was confirmed with the greatest solemnity, viz., in ch. 17 at the commencement of the establishment of the covenant made with him, where “I will make of thee a great nation” was heightened into “I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee,” and his being a blessing was more fully defined as the establishment of a covenant, inasmuch as Jehovah would be God to him and to his posterity (vv. 3ff.), and in ch. 22 after the attestation of his faith and obedience, even to the sacrifice of his only son, where the innumerable increase of his seed and the blessing to pass from him to all nations were guaranteed by an oath.

The same promise was afterwards renewed to Isaac, with a distinct allusion to the oath (Genesis 26:3-4), and again to Jacob, both on his flight from Canaan for fear of Esau (Genesis 28:13-14), and on his return thither (Genesis 35:11-12). In the case of these renewals, it is only in ch. 28:14 that the last expression, “all the families of the Adamah,” is repeated verbatim, though with the additional clause “and in thy seed;” in the other passages “all the nations of the earth” are mentioned, the family connection being left out of sight, and the national character of the blessing being brought into especial prominence. In two instances also, instead of the Niphal Ërær; we find the Hithpael Ërær; . This change of conjugation by no means proves that the Niphal is to be taken in its original reflective sense.

The Hithpael has no doubt the meaning “to wish one’s self blessed” (Deuteronomy 29:19), with b of the person from whom the blessing is sought (Isaiah 65:16; Jeremiah 4:2), or whose blessing is desired (Genesis 48:20).

But the Niphal Ëræb]ni has only the passive signification “to be blessed.”

And the promise not only meant that all families of the earth would wish for the blessing which Abram possessed, but that they would really receive this blessing in Abram and his seed. By the explanation “wish themselves blessed” the point of the promise is broken off; and not only is its connection with the prophecy of Noah respecting Japhet’s dwelling in the tents of Shem overlooked, and the parallel between the blessing on all the families of the earth, and the curse pronounced upon the earth after the flood, destroyed, but the actual participation of all the nations of the earth in this blessing is rendered doubtful, and the application of this promise by Peter (Acts 3:25) and Paul (Galatians 3:8) to all nations, is left without any firm scriptural basis. At the same time, we must not attribute a passive signification on that account to the Hithpael in Genesis 22:18 and 24:4. In these passages prominence is given to the subjective attitude of the nations towards the blessing of Abraham-in other words, to the fact that the nations would desire the blessing promised to them in Abraham and his seed.

GENESIS. 12:4-5

Removal to Canaan.

Abram cheerfully followed the call of the Lord, and “departed as the Lord had spoken to him.” He was then 75 years old. His age is given, because a new period in the history of mankind commenced with his exodus. After this brief notice there follows a more circumstantial account, in v. 5, of the fact that he left Haran with his wife, with Lot, and with all that they possessed of servants and cattle, whereas Terah remained in Haran (cf.

Genesis 11:31). `hc;[; rv,a vp,n, are not the souls which they had begotten, but the male and female slaves that Abram and Lot had acquired.

GENESIS. 12:6

On his arrival in Canaan, “Abram passed through the land to the place of Sichem:” i.e., the place where Sichem, the present Nablus, afterwards stood, between Ebal and Gerizim, in the heart of the land. “To the terebinth (or, according to Deuteronomy 11:30, the terebinths) of Moreh:” ˆwOlae lyiaæ (Genesis 14:6) and hl;ae are the terebinth, ˆwOLaæ and hL;aæ the oak; though in many MSS and editions ˆwOLaæ and ˆwOlae are interchanged in Joshua 19:33 and Judges 4:11, either because the pointing in one of these passages is inaccurate, or because the word itself was uncertain, as the ever-green oaks and terebinths resemble one another in the colour of their foliage and their fissured bark of sombre grey. — The notice that “the Canaanites were then in the land” does not point to a post-Mosaic date, when the Canaanites were extinct. For it does not mean that the Canaanites were then still in the land, but refers to the promise which follows, that God would give this land to the seed of Abram (v. 7), and merely states that the land into which Abram had come was not uninhabited and without a possessor; so that Abram could not regard it at once as his own and proceed to take possession of it, but could only wander in it in faith as in a foreign land (Hebrews 11:9).

GENESIS. 12:7

Here in Sichem Jehovah appeared to him, and assured him of the possession of the land of Canaan for his descendants. The assurance was made by means of an appearance of Jehovah, as a sign that this land was henceforth to be the scene of the manifestation of Jehovah. Abram understood this, “and there builded he an altar to Jehovah, who appeared to him,” to make the soil which was hallowed by the appearance of God a place for the worship of the God who appeared to him.

GENESIS. 12:8-9

He did this also in the mountains, to which he probably removed to secure the necessary pasture for his flocks, after he had pitched his tent there. “Bethel westwards and Ai eastwards,” i.e., in a spot with Ai to the east and Bethel to the west. The name Bethel occurs here proleptically: at the time referred to, it was still called Luz (Genesis 28:19); its present name if Beitin (Robinson’s Palestine). At a distance of about five miles to the east was Ai, ruins of which are still to be seen, bearing the name of Medinet Gai (Ritter’s Erdkunde). On the words “called upon the name of the Lord,” see Genesis 4:26. From this point Abram proceeded slowly to the Negeb, i.e., to the southern district of Canaan towards the Arabian desert (vid., Genesis 20:1). GENESIS 12:10-14 Abram in Egypt.

Abram had scarcely passed through the land promised to his seed, when a famine compelled him to leave it, and take refuge in Egypt, which abounded in corn; just as the Bedouins in the neighbourhood are accustomed to do now. Whilst the famine in Canaan was to teach Abram, that even in the promised land food and clothing come from the Lord and His blessing, he was to discover in Egypt that earthly craft is soon put to shame when dealing with the possessor of the power of this world, and that help and deliverance are to be found with the Lord alone, who can so smite the mightiest kings, that they cannot touch His chosen or do them harm (Psalm 105:14-15). — When trembling for his life in Egypt on account of the beauty of Sarai his wife, he arranged with her, as he approached that land, that she should give herself out as his sister, since she really was his half-sister (Genesis 11:29). He had already made an arrangement with her, that she should do this in certain possible contingencies, when they first removed to Canaan (Genesis 20:13). The conduct of the Sodomites (ch. 19) was a proof that he had reason for his anxiety; and it was not without cause even so far as Egypt was concerned. But his precaution did not spring from faith. He might possibly hope, that by means of the plan concerted, he should escape the danger of being put to death on account of his wife, if any one should wish to take her; but how he expected to save the honour and retain possession of his wife, we cannot understand, though we must assume, that he thought he should be able to protect and keep her as his sister more easily, than if he acknowledged her as his wife. But the very thing he feared and hoped to avoid actually occurred.

GENESIS. 12:15-20

The princes of Pharaoh finding her very beautiful, extolled her beauty to the king, and she was taken to Pharaoh’s house. As Sarah was then years old (cf. Genesis 17:17 and 12:4), her beauty at such an age has been made a difficulty by some. But as she lived to the age of 127 (Genesis 23:1), she was then middle-aged; and as her vigour and bloom had not been tried by bearing children, she might easily appear very beautiful in the eyes of the Egyptians, whose wives, according to both ancient and modern testimony, were generally ugly, and faded early. Pharaoh (the Egyptian ouro, king, with the article Pi) is the Hebrew name for all the Egyptian kings in the Old Testament; their proper names being only occasionally mentioned, as, for example, Necho in 2 Kings 23:29, or Hophra in Jeremiah 44:30. For Sarai’s sake Pharaoh treated Abram well, presenting him with cattle and slaves, possessions which constitute the wealth of nomads.

These presents Abram could not refuse, though by accepting them he increased his sin. God then interfered (v. 17), and smote Pharaoh and his house with great plagues. What the nature of these plagues was, cannot be determined; they were certainly of such a kind, however, that whilst Sarah was preserved by them from dishonour, Pharaoh saw at once that they were sent as punishment by the Deity on account of his relation to Sarai; he may also have learned, on inquiry from Sarai herself, that she was Abram’s wife. He gave her back to him, therefore, with a reproof for his untruthfulness, and told him to depart, appointing men to conduct him out of the land together with his wife and all his possessions. shileeach, to dismiss, to give an escort (Genesis 18:16; 31:27), does not necessarily denote an involuntary dismissal here. For as Pharaoh had discovered in the plague the wrath of the God of Abraham, he did not venture to treat him harshly, but rather sought to mitigate the anger of his God, by the safeconduct which he granted him on his departure. But Abram was not justified by this result, as was very apparent from the fact, that he was mute under Pharaoh’s reproofs, and did not venture to utter a single word in vindication of his conduct, as he did in the similar circumstances described in Genesis 10:11-12. The saving mercy of God had so humbled him, that he silently acknowledged his guilt in concealing his relation to Sarah from the Egyptian king.

ABRAM’S SEPARATION FROM LOT.

GENESIS. 13:1-4

Abram, having returned from Egypt to the south of Canaan with his wife and property uninjured, through the gracious protection of God, proceeded with Lot [Sæmæ “according to his journeys” (lit., with the repeated breaking up of his camp, required by a nomad life; on [sæn; to break up a tent, to remove, see Exodus 12:37) into the neighbourhood of Bethel and Ai, where he had previously encamped and built an altar (Genesis 12:8), that he might there call upon the name of the Lord again. That ar;q; (v. 4) is not a continuation of the relative clause, but a resumption of the main sentence, and therefore corresponds with Ëlæy; (v. 3), “he went...and called upon the name of the Lord there,” has been correctly concluded by Delitzsch from the repetition of the subject Abram.

GENESIS. 13:5-7

But as Abram was very rich ( dbeK; , lit., weighty) in possessions ( hn,q]mi , cattle and slaves), and Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents ( lh,ao for µylih’a; , Ges. §93, 6, 3) for his men, of whom there must have been many therefore, the land did not bear them when dwelling together ( ac;n; , masculine at the commencement of the sentence, as is often the case when the verb precedes the subject, vid., Ges. §147), i.e., the land did not furnish space enough for the numerous herd to graze. Consequently disputes arose between the two parties of herdsmen. The difficulty was increased by the fact that the Canaanites and Perizzites were then dwelling in the land, so that the space was very contracted. The Perizzites, who are mentioned here and in Genesis 34:30; Judges 1:4, along with the Canaanites, and who are placed in the other lists of the inhabitants of Canaan among the different Canaanitish tribes (Genesis 15:20; Exodus 3:8,17, etc.), are not mentioned among the descendants of Canaan (Genesis 10:15-17), and may therefore, like the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, and Rephaim (15:19-21), not have been descendants of Ham at all.

The common explanation of the name Perizzite as equivalent to hz;r;p] xr,a, bvæy; “inhabitant of the level ground” (Ezekiel 38:11), is at variance not only with the form of the word, the inhabitant of the level ground being called yzir;p] (Deuteronomy 3:5), but with the fact of their combination sometimes with the Canaanites, sometimes with the other tribes of Canaan, whose names were derived from their founders. Moreover, to explain the term “Canaanite,” as denoting “the civilised inhabitants of towns,” or “the trading Phoenicians,” is just as arbitrary as if we were to regard the Kenites, Kenizzites, and the other tribes mentioned Genesis 15:19ff. along with the Canaanites, as all alike traders or inhabitants of towns. The origin of the name Perizzite is involved in obscurity, like that of the Kenites and other tribes settled in Canaan that were not descended from Ham. But we may infer from the frequency with which they are mentioned in connection with the Hamitic inhabitants of Canaan, that they were widely dispersed among the latter. Vid., Genesis 15:19-21.

GENESIS. 13:8-9

To put an end to the strife between their herdsmen, Abram proposed to Lot that they should separate, as strife was unseemly between jbæz, hV;ai , men who stood in the relation of brethren, and left him to choose his ground. “If thou to the left, I will turn to the right; and if thou to the right, I will turn to the left.” Although Abram was the older, and the leader of the company, he was magnanimous enough to leave the choice to his nephew, who was the younger, in the confident assurance that the Lord would so direct the decision, that His promise would be fulfilled.

GENESIS. 13:10-13

Lot chose what was apparently the best portion of the land, the whole district of the Jordan, or the valley on both sides of the Jordan from the Lake of Gennesareth to what was then the vale of Siddim. For previous to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, this whole country was well watered, “as the garden of Jehovah,” the garden planted by Jehovah in paradise, and “as Egypt,” the land rendered so fertile by the overflowing of the Nile, “in the direction of Zoar.” Abram therefore remained in the land of Canaan, whilst Lot settled in the cities of the plain of the Jordan, and tented (pitched his tents) as far as Sodom. In anticipation of the succeeding history (ch. 19), it is mentioned here (v. 13), that the inhabitants of Sodom were very wicked, and sinful before Jehovah.

GENESIS. 13:14-18

After Lot’s departure, Jehovah repeated to Abram (by a mental, inward assurance, as we may infer from the fact that rmæa; “said” is not accompanied by ha;r; “he appeared”) His promise that He would give the land to him and to his seed in its whole extent, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward, and would make his seed innumerable like the dust of the earth. From this we may see that the separation of Lot was in accordance with the will of God, as Lot had no share in the promise of God; though God afterwards saved him from destruction for Abram’s sake.

The possession of the land is promised `µl;wO[ `d[æ “for ever.” The promise of God is unchangeable. As the seed of Abraham was to exist before God for ever, so Canaan was to be its everlasting possession. But this applied not to the lineal posterity of Abram, to his seed according to the flesh, but to the true spiritual seed, which embraced the promise in faith, and held it in a pure believing heart.

The promise, therefore, neither precluded the expulsion of the unbelieving seed from the land of Canaan, nor guarantees to existing Jews a return to the earthly Palestine after their conversion to Christ. For as Calvin justly says, “quam terra in saeculum promittitur, non simpliciter notatur perpetuitas; sed quae finem accepit in Christo.” Through Christ the promise has been exalted from its temporal form to its true essence; through Him the whole earth becomes Canaan (vid., Genesis 17:8). That Abram might appropriate this renewed and now more fully expanded promise, Jehovah directed him to walk through the land in the length of it and the breadth of it. In doing this he came in his “tenting,” i.e., his wandering through the land, to Hebron, where he settled by the terebinth of the Amorite Mamre (Genesis 14:13), and built an altar to Jehovah. The term bvæy; (set himself, settled down, sat, dwelt) denotes that Abram made this place the central point of his subsequent stay in Canaan (cf. Genesis 14:13; 18:1, and ch. 23). On Hebron, see Genesis 23:2.

ABRAM’S MILITARY EXPEDITION; AND HIS SUBSEQUENT MEETING WITH MELCHIZEDEK.

GENESIS. 14:1-12

The war, which furnished Abram with an opportunity, while in the promised land of which as yet he could not really call a single rood his own, to prove himself a valiant warrior, and not only to smite the existing chiefs of the imperial power of Asia, but to bring back to the kings of Canaan the booty that had been carried off, is circumstantially described, not so much in the interests of secular history as on account of its significance in relation to the kingdom of God. It is of importance, however, as a simple historical fact, to see that in the statement in v. 1, the king of Shinar occupies the first place, although the king of Edom, Chedorlaomer, not only took the lead in the expedition, and had allied himself for that purpose with the other kings, but had previously subjugated the cities of the valley of Siddim, and therefore had extended his dominion very widely over hither Asia. If, notwithstanding this, the time of the war related here is connected with “the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar,” this is done, no doubt, with reference to the fact that the first worldly kingdom was founded in Shinar by Nimrod (Genesis 10:10), a kingdom which still existed under Amraphel, though it was now confined to Shinar itself, whilst Elam possessed the supremacy in inner Asia. There is no ground whatever for regarding the four kings mentioned in v. 1 as four Assyrian generally or viceroys, as Josephus has done in direct contradiction to the biblical text; for, according to the more careful historical researches, the commencement of the Assyrian kingdom belongs to a later period; and Berosus speaks of an earlier Median rule in Babylon, which reaches as far back as the age of the patriarchs (cf. M. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, p. 271).

It appears significant also, that the imperial power of Asia had already extended as far as Canaan, and had subdued the valley of the Jordan, no doubt with the intention of holding the Jordan valley as the high-road to Egypt. We have here a prelude of the future assault of the worldly power upon the kingdom of God established in Canaan; and the importance of this event to sacred history consists in the fact, that the kings of the valley of the Jordan and the surrounding country submitted to the worldly power, whilst Abram, on the contrary, with his home-born servants, smote the conquerors and rescued their booty-a prophetic sign that in the conflict with the power of the world the seed of Abram would not only not be subdued, but would be able to rescue from destruction those who appealed to it for aid.

Verse 1-2. In vv. 1-3 the account is introduced by a list of the parties engaged in war. The kings named here are not mentioned again. On Shinar, see Genesis 10:10; and on Elam, Genesis 10:22. It cannot be determined with certainty where Ellasar was. Knobel supposes it to be Artemita, which was also called Chala’sar, in southern Assyria, to the north of Babylon.

Goyim is not used here for nations generally, but is the name of one particular nation or country. In Delitzsch’s opinion it is an older name for Galilee, though probably with different boundaries (cf. Joshua 12:23; Judges 4:2; and Isaiah 9:1). — The verb `hc;[; (made), in v. 2, is governed by the kings mentioned in v. 1. To Bela, whose king is not mentioned by name, the later name Zoar (vid., Genesis 19:22) is added as being better known. Verse 3. “All these (five kings) allied themselves together, (and came with their forces) into the vale of Siddim ( µyDici , prob. fields of plains), which is the Salt Sea;” that is to say, which was changed into the Salt Sea on the destruction of its cities (Genesis 19:24-25). That there should be five kings in the five cities ( penta>poliv , Wisdom 10:6) of this valley, was quite in harmony with the condition of Canaan, where even at a later period every city had its king.

Verse 4-6. The occasion of the war was the revolt of the kings of the vale of Siddim from Chedorlaomer. They had been subject to him for twelve years, “and the thirteenth year they rebelled.” In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came with his allies to punish them for their rebellion, and attacked on his way several other cities to the east of the Arabah, as far as the Elanitic Gulf, no doubt because they also had withdrawn from his dominion. The army moved along the great military road from inner Asia, past Damascus, through Peraea, where they smote the Rephaims, Zuzims, Emims, and Horites. “The Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim:” all that is known with certainty of the Rephaim is, that they were a tribe of gigantic stature, and in the time of Abram had spread over the whole of Peraea, and held not only Bashan, but the country afterwards possessed by the Moabites; from which possessions they were subsequently expelled by the descendants of Lot and the Amorites, and so nearly exterminated, that Og, king of Bashan, is described as the remnant of the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 2:20; 3:11,13; Joshua 12:4; 13:12).

Beside this, there were Rephaim on this side of the Jordan among the Canaanitish tribes (Genesis 15:20), some to the west of Jerusalem, in the valley which was called after them the valley of the Rephaim (Joshua 15:8; 18:16; 2 Samuel 5:18, etc.), others on the mountains of Ephraim (Joshua 17:15); while the last remains of them were also to be found among the Philistines (2 Samuel 21:16ff.; 1 Chronicles 20:4ff.). The current explanation of the name, viz., “the long-stretched,” or giants (Ewald), does not prevent our regarding ap;r; as the personal name of their forefather, though no intimation is given of their origin. That they were not Canaanites may be inferred from the fact, that on the eastern side of the Jordan they were subjugated and exterminated by the Canaanitish branch of the Amorites. Notwithstanding this, they may have been descendants of Ham, though the fact that the Canaanites spoke a Semitic tongue rather favours the conclusion that the oldest population of Canaan, and therefore the Rephaim, were of Semitic descent. At any rate, the opinion of J. G. Müller, that they belonged to the aborigines, who were not related to Shem, Ham, and Japhet, is perfectly arbitrary. — Ashteroth Karnaim, or briefly Ashtaroth, the capital afterwards of Og of Bashan, was situated in Hauran; and ruins of it are said to be still seen in Tell Ashtereh, two hours and a half from Nowah, and one and three-quarters from the ancient Edrei, somewhere between Nowah and Mezareib (see Ritter, Erdkunde). f33 “The Zuzims in Ham” were probably the people whom the Ammonites called Zam zummim, and who were also reckoned among the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 2:20). Ham was possibly the ancient name of Rabba of the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 3:11), the remains being still preserved in the ruins of Ammân. — “The Emim in the plain of Kiryathaim:” the µymiyae or hm;yae (i.e., fearful, terrible), were the earlier inhabitants of the country of the Moabites, who gave them the name; and, like the Anakim, they were also reckoned among the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 2:11). Kiryathaim is certainly not to be found where Eusebius and Jerome supposed, viz., in Caria’da, Coraiatha, the modern Koerriath or Kereyat, ten miles to the west of Medabah; for this is not situated in the plain, and corresponds to Kerioth (Jeremiah 48:24), with which Eusebius and Jerome have confounded Kiryathaim. It is probably still to be seen in the ruins of el Teym or et Tueme, about a mile to the west of Medabah. “The Horites (from yrij , dwellers in caves), in the mountains of Seir,” were the earlier inhabitants of the land between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, who were conquered and exterminated by the Edomites (Genesis 36:20ff.). — “To El-paran, which is by the wilderness:” i.e., on the eastern side of the desert of Paran (see Genesis 21:21), probably the same as Elath (Deuteronomy 2:8) or Eloth (1 Kings 9:26), the important harbour of Aila on the northern extremity of the so-called Elanitic Gulf, near the modern fortress of Akaba, where extensive heaps of rubbish show the site of the former town, which received its name El or Elath (terebinth, or rather wood) probably from the palm-groves in the vicinity.

Verse 7. From Aila the conquerors turned round, and marched (not through the Arabah, but on the desert plateau which they ascended from Aila) to En-mishpat (well of judgment), the older name of Kadesh, the situation of which, indeed, cannot be proved with certainty, but which is most probably to be sought for in the neighbourhood of the spring Ain Kades, discovered by Rowland, to the south of Bir Seba and Khalasa (Elusa), twelve miles E.S.E. of Moyle, the halting-place for caravans, near Hagar’s well (Genesis 16:14), on the heights of Jebel Halal (see Ritter, Erdkunde, and Numbers 13). “And they smote all the country of the Amalekites,” i.e., the country afterwards possessed by the Amalekites (vid., Genesis 26:12), to the west of Edomitis on the southern border of the mountains of Judah (Numbers 13:29), “and also the Amorites, who dwelt in Hazazon-Thamar,” i.e., Engedi, on the western side of the Dead Sea (2 Chronicles 20:2).

Verse 8-12. After conquering all these tribes to the east and west of the Arabah, they gave battle to the kings of the Pentapolis in the vale of Siddim, and put them to flight. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fell there, the valley being full of asphalt-pits, and the ground therefore unfavourable for flight; but the others escaped to the mountains ( rhæ for rhæ ), that is, to the Moabitish highlands with their numerous defiles. The conquerors thereupon plundered the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and carried off Lot, who dwelt in Sodom, and all his possessions, along with the rest of the captives, probably taking the route through the valley of the Jordan up to Damascus.

GENESIS. 14:13-16

A fugitive (lit., the fugitive; the article denotes the genus, Ewald, §277) brought intelligence of this to Abram the Hebrew ( `yrib][i , an immigrant from beyond the Euphrates). Abram is so called in distinction from Mamre and his two brothers, who were Amorites, and had made a defensive treaty with him. To rescue Lot, Abram ordered his trained slaves ( Ëynij; , i.e., practised in arms) born in the house (cf. Genesis 17:12), 318 men, to turn out (lit., to pour themselves out); and with these, and (as the supplementary remark in v. 24 shows) with his allies, he pursued the enemy as far as Dan, where “he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night,” — i.e., he divided his men into companies, who fell upon the enemy by night from different sides-”smote them, and pursued them to Hobah, to the left (or north) of Damascus.” Hobah has probably been preserved in the village of Noba, mentioned by Troilo, a quarter of a mile to the north of Damascus. So far as the situation of Dan is concerned, this passage proves that it cannot have been identical with Leshem or Laish in the valley of Beth Rehob, which the Danites conquered and named Dan (Judges 18:28-29; Joshua 19:47); for this Laish-Dan was on the central source of the Jordan, el Leddan in Tell el Kady, which does not lie in either of the two roads, leading from the vale of Siddim or of the Jordan to Damascus. f35 This Dan belonged to Gilead (Deuteronomy 34:1), and is no doubt the same as the Dan-jaan mentioned in 2 Samuel 24:6 in connection with Gilead, and to be sought for in northern Peraea to the south-west of Damascus.

GENESIS. 14:17-24

-As Abram returned with the booty which he had taken from the enemy, the king of Sodom (of course, the successor to the one who fell in the battle) and Melchizedek, king of Salem, came to meet him to congratulate him on his victory; the former probably also with the intention of asking for the prisoners who had been rescued. They met him in “the valley of Shaveh, which is (what was afterwards called) the King’s dale.” This valley, in which Absalom erected a monument for himself (2 Samuel 18:18), was, according to Josephus, two stadia from Jerusalem, probably by the brook Kidron therefore, although Absalom’s pillar, which tradition places there, was of the Grecian style rather than the early Hebrew. The name King’s dale was given to it undoubtedly with reference to the event referred to here, which points to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. For the Salem of Melchizedek cannot have been the Salem near to which John baptized (John 3:23), or Aenon, which was eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis, as a march of about forty hours for the purpose of meeting Abraham, if not romantic, would, at least be at variance with the text of Scripture, where the kings are said to have gone out to Abram after his return.

It must be Jerusalem, therefore, which is called by the old name Salem in Psalm 76:2, out of which the name Jerusalem (founding of peace, or possession of peace) was formed by the addition of the prefix ha;r; = yWry] “founding,” or vWry] “possession.” Melchizedek brings bread and wine from Salem “to supply the exhausted warriors with food and drink, but more especially as a mark of gratitude to Abram, who had conquered for them peace, freedom, and prosperity” (Delitzsch). This gratitude he expresses, as a priest of the supreme God, in the words, “Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, the founder of heaven and earth; and blessed be God, the Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” The form of the blessing is poetical, two parallel members with words peculiar to poetry, rxæ for byeao , and ( ˆwOyl][, lae without the article is a proper name for the supreme God, the God over all (cf. Exodus 18:11), who is pointed out as the only true God by the additional clause, “founder of the heaven and the earth.”

On the construction of Ërær; with l] , vid., Genesis 31:15; Exodus 12:16, and Ges. §143, 2. hn;q; , founder and possessor: hn;q; combines the meanings of kti>zein and kta>sqai . This priestly reception Abram reciprocated by giving him the tenth of all, i.e., of the whole of the booty taken from the enemy. Giving the tenth was a practical acknowledgment of the divine priesthood of Melchizedek; for the tenth was, according to the general custom, the offering presented to the Deity. Abram also acknowledged the God of Melchizedek as the true God; for when the king of Sodom asked for his people only, and would have left the rest of the booty to Abram, he lifted up his hand as a solemn oath “to Jehovah, the Most High God, the founder of heaven and earth,” — acknowledging himself as the servant of this God by calling Him by the name Jehovah-and swore that he would not take “from a thread to a shoe-string,” i.e., the smallest or most worthless thing belonging to the king of Sodom, that he might not be able to say, he had made Abram rich. µai , as the sign of an oath, is negative, and in an earnest address is repeated before the verb. “Except yde[l]Bi , lit., not to me, nothing for me) only what the young men (Abram’s men) have eaten, and the portion of my allies...let them take their portion:” i.e., his followers should receive what had been consumed as their share, and the allies should have the remainder of the booty.

Of the property belonging to the king of Sodom, which he had taken from the enemy, Abram would not keep the smallest part, because he would not have anything in common with Sodom. On the other hand, he accepted from Salem’s priest and king, Melchizedek, not only bread and wine for the invigoration of the exhausted warriors, but a priestly blessing also, and gave him in return the tenth of all his booty, as a sign that he acknowledged this king as a priest of the living God, and submitted to his royal priesthood. In this self-subordination of Abram to Melchizedek there was the practical prediction of a royal priesthood which is higher than the priesthood entrusted to Abram’s descendants, the sons of Levi, and foreshadowed in the noble form of Melchizedek, who blessed as king and priest the patriarch whom God had called to be a blessing to all the families of the earth. The name of this royal priest is full of meaning: Melchizedek, i.e., King of Righteousness. Even though, judging from Joshua 10:1,3, where a much later king is called Adonizedek, i.e., Lord of Righteousness, this name may have been a standing title of the ancient kings of Salem, it no doubt originated with a king who ruled his people in righteousness, and was perfectly appropriate in the case of the Melchizedek mentioned here.

There is no less significance in the name of the seat of his government, Salem, the peaceful or peace, since it shows that the capital of its kings was a citadel of peace, not only as a natural stronghold, but through the righteousness of its sovereign; for which reason David chose it as the seat of royalty in Israel; and Moriah, which formed part of it, was pointed out to Abraham by Jehovah as the place of sacrifice for the kingdom of God which was afterwards to be established. And, lastly, there was something very significant in the appearance in the midst of the degenerate tribes of Canaan of this king of righteousness, and priest of the true God of heaven and earth, without any account of his descent, or of the beginning and end of his life; so that he stands forth in the Scriptures, “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.”

Although it by no means follows from this, however, that Melchizedek was a celestial being (the Logos, or an angel), or one of the primeval patriarchs (Enoch or Shem), as Church fathers, Rabbins, and others have conjectured, and we can see in him nothing more than one, perhaps the last, of the witnesses and confessors of the early revelation of God, coming out into the light of history from the dark night of heathenism; yet this appearance does point to a priesthood of universal significance, and to a higher order of things, which existed at the commencement of the world, and is one day to be restored again. In all these respects, the noble form of this king of Salem and priest of the Most High God was a type of the God-King and eternal High Priest Jesus Christ; a thought which is expanded in Hebrews on the basis of this account, and of the divine utterance revealed to David in the Spirit, that the King of Zion sitting at the right hand of Jehovah should be a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4). THE COVENANT.

GENESIS. 15:1-6

With the formula “after these things” there is introduced a new revelation of the Lord to Abram, which differs from the previous ones in form and substance, and constitutes a new turning point in his life. The “word of Jehovah” came to him “in a vision;” i.e., neither by a direct internal address, nor by such a manifestation of Himself as fell upon the outward senses, nor in a dream of the night, but in a state of ecstasy by an inward spiritual intuition, and that not in a nocturnal vision, as in Genesis 46:2, but in the day-time. The expression “in a vision” applies to the whole chapter.

There is no pause anywhere, nor any sign that the vision ceased, or that the action was transferred to the sphere of the senses and of external reality.

Consequently the whole process is to be regarded as an internal one. The vision embraces not only vv. 1-4 and 8, but the entire chapter, with this difference merely, that from v. 12 onwards the ecstasy assumed the form of a prophetic sleep produced by God. It is true that the bringing Abram out, his seeing the stars (v. 5), and still more especially his taking the sacrificial animals and dividing them (vv. 9, 10), have been supposed by some to belong to the sphere of external reality, on the ground that these purely external acts would not necessarily presuppose a cessation of ecstasy, since the vision was no catalepsy, and did not preclude the full (?) use of the outward senses.

But however true this may be, not only is every mark wanting, which would warrant us in assuming a transition from the purely inward and spiritual sphere, to the outward sphere of the senses, but the entire revelation culminates in a prophetic sleep, which also bears the character of a vision. As it was in a deep sleep that Abram saw the passing of the divine appearance through the carefully arranged portions of the sacrifice, and no reference is made either to the burning of them, as in Judges 6:21, or to any other removal, the arrangement of the sacrificial animals must also have been a purely internal process. To regard this as an outward act, we must break up the continuity of the narrative in a most arbitrary way, and not only transfer the commencement of the vision into the night, and suppose it to have lasted from twelve to eighteen hours, but we must interpolate the burning of the sacrifices, etc., in a still more arbitrary manner, merely for the sake of supporting the erroneous assumption, that visionary procedures had no objective reality, or, at all events, less evidence of reality than outward acts, and things perceived by the senses.

A vision wrought by God was not a mere fancy, or a subjective play of the thoughts, but a spiritual fact, which was not only in all respects as real as things discernible by the senses, but which surpassed in its lasting significance the acts and events that strike the eye. The covenant which Jehovah made with Abram was not intended to give force to a mere agreement respecting mutual rights and obligations-a thing which could have been accomplished by an external sacrificial transaction, and by God passing through the divided animals in an assumed human form-but it was designed to establish the purely spiritual relation of a living fellowship between God and Abram, of the deep inward meaning of which, nothing but a spiritual intuition and experience could give to Abram an effective and permanent hold.

Verse 1-6. The words of Jehovah run thus: “Fear not, Abram: I am a shield to thee, thy reward very much.” hb;r; an inf. absol., generally used adverbially, but here as an adjective, equivalent to “thy very great reward.”

The divine promise to be a shield to him, that is to say, a protection against all enemies, and a reward, i.e., richly to reward his confidence, his ready obedience, stands here, as the opening words “after these things” indicate, in close connection with the previous guidance of Abram. Whilst the protection of his wife in Egypt was a practical pledge of the possibility of his having a posterity, and the separation of Lot, followed by the conquest of the kings of the East, was also a pledge of the possibility of his one day possessing the promised land, there was as yet no prospect whatever of the promise being realized, that he should become a great nation, and possess an innumerable posterity. In these circumstances, anxiety about the future might naturally arise in his mind. To meet this, the word of the Lord came to him with the comforting assurance, “Fear not, I am thy shield.” But when the Lord added, “and thy very great reward,” Abram could only reply, as he thought of his childless condition: “Lord Jehovah, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go childless?” Of what avail are all my possessions, wealth, and power, since I have no child, and the heir of my house is Eliezer the Damascene? qv,m, , synonymous with qv;m]mi (Zeph 2:9), possession, or the seizure of possession, is chosen on account of its assonance with qc,M,Dæ . qv,m,AˆB, , son of the seizing of possession = seizer of possession, or heir. Eliezer of Damascus (lit., Damascus viz., Eliezer): Eliezer is an explanatory apposition to Damascus, in the sense of the Damascene Eliezer; though qc,M,Dæ , on account of its position before rz[yla , cannot be taken grammatically as equivalent to yqic]MæDæ . f36 To give still more distinct utterance to his grief, Abram adds (v. 3): “Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed; and lo, an inmate of my house ( ytiBeAˆB, in distinction from tyiBæAdyliy] , home-born, Genesis 14:14) will be my heir.” The word of the Lord then came to him: “Not he, but one who shall come forth from thy body, he will be thine heir.” God then took him into the open air, told him to look up to heaven, and promised him a posterity as numerous as the innumerable host of stars (cf. Genesis 22:17; 24:4; Exodus 32:13, etc.). Whether Abram at this time was “in the body or out of the body,” is a matter of no moment. The reality of the occurrence is the same in either case.

This is evident from the remark made by Moses (the historian) as to the conduct of Abram in relation to the promise of God: “And he believed in Jehovah, and He counted it to him for righteousness.” In the strictly objective character of the account in Genesis, in accordance with which the simple facts are related throughout without any introduction of subjective opinions, this remark appears so striking, that the question naturally arises, What led Moses to introduce it? In what way did Abram make known his faith in Jehovah? And in what way did Jehovah count it to him as righteousness? The reply to both questions must not be sought in the New Testament, but must be given or indicated in the context. What reply did Abram make on receiving the promise, or what did he do in consequence?

When God, to confirm the promise, declared Himself to be Jehovah, who brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees to give him that land as a possession, Abram replied, “Lord, whereby shall I know that I shall possess it?” God then directed him to “fetch a heifer of three years old,” etc.; and Abram fetched the animals required, and arranged them (as we may certainly suppose, thought it is not expressly stated) as God had commanded him. By this readiness to perform what God commanded him, Abram gave a practical proof that he believed Jehovah; and what God did with the animals so arranged was a practical declaration on the part of Jehovah, that He reckoned this faith to Abram as righteousness.

The significance of the divine act is, finally, summed up in v. 18, in the words, “On that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram.” Consequently Jehovah reckoned Abram’s faith to him as righteousness, by making a covenant with him, by taking Abram into covenant fellowship with Himself. ˆmæa; , from ˆmæa; to continue and the preserve, to be firm and to confirm, in Hiphil to trust, believe ( pisteu>sin ), expresses “that state of mind which is sure of its object, and relies firmly upon it;” and as denoting conduct towards God, as “a firm, inward, personal, self-surrendering reliance upon a personal being, especially upon the source of all being,” it is construed sometimes with l] (e.g., Deuteronomy 9:23), but more frequently with b] (Numbers 14:11; 20:12; Deuteronomy 1:32), “to believe the Lord,” and “to believe on the Lord,” to trust in HJm - pisteu>ein epi> to>n Qeo>n , as the apostle has more correctly rendered the epi>steusen tw> Qew> of the LXX (vid., Romans 4:5).

Faith therefore is not merely assensus, but fiducia also, unconditional trust in the Lord and His word, even where the natural course of events furnishes no ground for hope or expectation. This faith Abram manifested, as the apostle has shown in Romans 4; and this faith God reckoned to him as righteousness by the actual conclusion of a covenant with him. hq;d;x] , righteousness, as a human characteristic, is correspondence to the will of God both in character and conduct, or a state answering to the divine purpose of a man’s being. This was the state in which man was first created in the image of God; but it was lost by sin, through which he placed himself in opposition to the will of God and to his own divinely appointed destiny, and could only be restored by God. When the human race had universally corrupted its way, Noah alone was found righteous before God (Genesis 7:1), because he was blameless and walked with God (6:9). This righteousness Abram acquired through his unconditional trust in the Lord, his undoubting faith in His promise, and his ready obedience to His word.

This state of mind, which is expressed in the words hwO;hy] ˆmæa; , was reckoned to him as righteousness, so that God treated him as a righteous man, and formed such a relationship with him, that he was placed in living fellowship with God. The foundation of this relationship was laid in the manner described in vv. 7-11.

GENESIS. 15:7-10

Abram’s question, “Whereby shall I know that I shall take possession of it (the land)?” was not an expression of doubt, but of desire for the confirmation or sealing of a promise, which transcended human thought and conception. To gratify this desire, God commanded him to make preparation for the conclusion of a covenant. “Take Me, He said, a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon;” one of every species of the animals suitable for sacrifice. Abram took these, and “divided them in the midst,” i.e., in half, “and placed one half of each opposite to the other ( tr,B, vyai , every one its half, cf. Genesis 42:25; Num. 17:17); only the birds divided he not,” just as in sacrifice the doves were not divided into pieces, but placed upon the fire whole (Leviticus 1:17). The animals chosen, as well as the fact that the doves were left whole, corresponded exactly to the ritual of sacrifice.

Yet the transaction itself was not a real sacrifice, since there was neither sprinkling of blood nor offering upon an altar (oblatio), and no mention is made of the pieces being burned. The proceeding corresponded rather to the custom, prevalent in many ancient nations, of slaughtering animals when concluding a covenant, and after dividing them into pieces, of laying the pieces opposite to one another, that the persons making the covenant might pass between them. Thus Ephraem Syrus (1, 161) observes, that God condescended to follow the custom of the Chaldeans, that He might in the most solemn manner confirm His oath to Abram the Chaldean. The wide extension of this custom is evident from the expression used to denote the conclusion of a covenant, tyriB] træK; to hew, or cut a covenant, Aram. q¦raam g¦raz, Greek ho’rkia te’mnein, faedus ferire, i.e., ferienda hostia facere faedus; cf.

Bochart (Hieroz. 1, 332); whilst it is evident from Jeremiah 34:18, that this was still customary among the Israelites of later times. The choice of sacrificial animals for a transaction which was not strictly a sacrifice, was founded upon the symbolical significance of the sacrificial animals, i.e., upon the fact that they represented and took the place of those who offered them. In the case before us, they were meant to typify the promised seed of Abram. This would not hold good, indeed, if the cutting of the animals had been merely intended to signify, that any who broke the covenant would be treated like the animals that were there cut in pieces. But there is no sure ground in Jeremiah 34:18ff. for thus interpreting the ancient custom. The meaning which the prophet there assigns to the symbolical usage, may be simply a different application of it, which does not preclude an earlier and different intention in the symbol. The division of the animals probably denoted originally the two parties to the covenant, and the passing of the latter through the pieces laid opposite to one another, their formation into one: a signification to which the other might easily have been attached as a further consequence and explanation.

And if in such a case the sacrificial animals represented the parties to the covenant, so also even in the present instance the sacrificial animals were fitted for that purpose, since, although originally representing only the owner or offerer of the sacrifice, by their consecration as sacrifices they were also brought into connection with Jehovah. But in the case before us the animals represented Abram and his seed, not in the fact of their being slaughtered, as significant of the slaying of that seed, but only in what happened to and in connection with the slaughtered animals: birds of prey attempted to eat them, and when extreme darkness came on, the glory of God passed through them.

As all the seed of Abram was concerned, one of every kind of animal suitable for sacrifice was taken, ut ex toto populo et singulis partibus sacrificium unum fieret (Calvin). The age of the animals, three years old, was supposed by Theodoret to refer to the three generations of Israel which were to remain in Egypt, or the three centuries of captivity in a foreign land; and this is rendered very probable by the fact, that in Judges 6:25 the bullock of seven years old undoubtedly refers to the seven years of Midianitish oppression. On the other hand, we cannot find in the six halves of the three animals and the undivided birds, either 7 things or the sacred number 7, for two undivided birds cannot represent one whole, but two; nor can we attribute to the eight pieces any symbolical meaning, for these numbers necessarily followed from the choice of one specimen of every kind of animal that was fit for sacrifice, and from the division of the larger animals into two.

GENESIS. 15:11

“Then birds of prey ( `fyi[æ with the article, as Genesis 14:13) came down upon the carcases, and Abram frightened them away.” The birds of prey represented the foes of Israel, who would seek to eat up, i.e., exterminate it. And the fact that Abram frightened them away was a sign, that Abram’s faith and his relation to the Lord would preserve the whole of his posterity from destruction, that Israel would be saved for Abram’s sake (Psalm 105:42). GENESIS 15:12-16 “And when the sun was just about to go down (on the construction, see Ges. §132), and deep sleep ( hm;Der]Tæ , as in Genesis 2:21, a deep sleep produced by God) had fallen upon Abram, behold there fell upon him terror, great darkness.” The vision here passes into a prophetic sleep produced by God. In this sleep there fell upon Abram dread and darkness; this is shown by the interchange of the perfect lpæn; and the participle lpæn; .

The reference to the time is intended to show “the supernatural character of the darkness and sleep, and the distinction between the vision and a dream” (O. v. Gerlach). It also possesses a symbolical meaning. The setting of the sun prefigured to Abram the departure of the sun of grace, which shone upon Israel, and the commencement of a dark and dreadful period of suffering for his posterity, the very anticipation of which involved Abram in darkness.

For the words which he heard in the darkness were these (vv. 13ff.): “Know of a surety, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them (the lords of the strange land), and they (the foreigners) shall oppress them 400 years.” That these words had reference to the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt, is placed beyond all doubt by the fulfilment. The 400 years were, according to prophetic language, a round number for the 430 years that Israel spent in Egypt (Exodus 12:40). “Also that nation whom they shall serve will I judge (see the fulfilment, Exodus 6:11); and afterward shall they come out with great substance (the actual fact according to Exodus 12:31-36). And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, and be buried in a good old age (cf. Genesis 25:7-8); and in the fourth generation they shall come hither again.” The calculations are made here on the basis of a hundred years to a generation: not too much for those times, when the average duration of life was above 150 years, and Isaac was born in the hundredth year of Abraham’s life. “For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” Amorite, the name of the most powerful tribe of the Canaanites, is used here as the common name of all the inhabitants of Canaan, just as in Joshua 24:15 (cf. Genesis 10:5), Judges 6:10, etc.).

By this revelation Abram had the future history of his seed pointed out to him in general outlines, and was informed at the same time why neither he nor his descendants could obtain immediate possession of the promised land, viz., because the Canaanites were not yet ripe for the sentence of extermination. GENESIS 15:17 When the sun had gone down, and thick darkness had come on ( hy;h; impersonal), “behold a smoking furnace, and (with) a fiery torch, which passed between those pieces,” — a description of what Abram saw in his deep prophetic sleep, corresponding to the mysterious character of the whole proceeding. rWNTæ , a stove, is a cylindrical fire-pot, such as is used in the dwelling-houses of the East. The phenomenon, which passed through the pieces as they lay opposite to one another, resembled such a smoking stove, from which a fiery torch, i.e., a brilliant flame, was streaming forth.

In this symbol Jehovah manifested Himself to Abram, just as He afterwards did to the people of Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire. Passing through the pieces, He ratified the covenant which He made with Abram. His glory was enveloped in fire and smoke, the produce of the consuming fire-both symbols of the wrath of God (cf. Psalm 18:9, and Hengstenberg in loc.), whose fiery zeal consumes whatever opposes it (vid., Exodus 3:2). — To establish and give reality to the covenant to be concluded with Abram, Jehovah would have to pass through the seed of Abram when oppressed by the Egyptians and threatened with destruction, and to execute judgment upon their oppressors (Exodus 7:4; 12:12).

In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in Genesis 22:16, or by His life in Deuteronomy 32:40, or by His soul in Amos 6:8 and Jeremiah 51:14. It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offerer was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however, that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfil the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace. GENESIS 15:18-21 In vv. 18-21 this divine revelation is described as the making of a covenant ( tyriB] , from rBæ to cut, lit., the bond concluded by cutting up the sacrificial animals), and the substance of this covenant is embraced in the promise, that God would give that land to the seed of Abram, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates. The river ( rh;n; ) of Egypt is the Nile, and not the brook ( ljænæ ) of Egypt (Numbers 34:5), i.e., the boundary stream Rhinocorura, Wady el Arish. According to the oratorical character of the promise, the two large rivers, the Nile and the Euphrates, are mentioned as the boundaries within which the seed of Abram would possess the promised land, the exact limits of which are more minutely described in the list of the tribes who were then in possession. Ten tribes are mentioned between the southern border of the land and the extreme north, “to convey the impression of universality without exception, of unqualified completeness, the symbol of which is the number ten” (Delitzsch).

In other passages we find sometimes seven tribes mentioned (Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 3:10), at other times six (Exodus 3:8,17; 23:23; Deuteronomy 20:17), at others five (Exodus 13:5), at others again only two (Genesis 13:7); whilst occasionally they are all included in the common name of Canaanites (Genesis 12:6). The absence of the Hivites is striking here, since they are not omitted from any other list where as many as five or seven tribes are mentioned. Out of the eleven descendants of Canaan (Genesis 10:15-18) the names of four only are given here; the others are included in the common name of the Canaanites. On the other hand, four tribes are given, whose descent from Canaan is very improbable. The origin of the Kenites cannot be determined. According to Judges 1:16; 4:11, Hobab, the brother-in-law of Moses, was a Kenite. His being called Midianite (Numbers 10:29) does not prove that he was descended from Midian (Genesis 25:2), but is to be accounted for from the fact that he dwelt in the land of Midian, or among the Midianites (Exodus 2:15).

This branch of the Kenites went with the Israelites to Canaan, into the wilderness of Judah (Judges 1:16), and dwelt even in Saul’s time among the Amalekites on the southern border of Judah (1 Samuel 15:6), and in the same towns with members of the tribe of Judah (1 Samuel 30:29). There is nothing either in this passage, or in Numbers 24:21-22, to compel us to distinguish these Midianitish Kenites from those of Canaan. The Philistines also were not Canaanites, and yet their territory was assigned to the Israelites. And just as the Philistines had forced their way into the land, so the Kenites may have taken possession of certain tracts of the country. All that can be inferred from the two passages is, that there were Kenites outside Midian, who were to be exterminated by the Israelites. On the Kenizzites, all that can be affirmed with certainty is, that the name is neither to be traced to the Edomitish Kenaz (Genesis 36:15,42), nor to be identified with the Kenezite Jephunneh, the father of Caleb of Judah (Numbers 32:12; Joshua 14:6: see my Comm. on Joshua, p. 356, Eng. tr.). — The Kadmonites are never mentioned again, and their origin cannot be determined. On the Perizzites see Genesis 13:7; on the Rephaims, ch. 14:5; and on the other names, Genesis 10:15-16.

BIRTH OF ISHMAEL GENESIS. 16:1-6

As the promise of a lineal heir (Genesis 15:4) did not seem likely to be fulfilled, even after the covenant had been made, Sarai resolved, ten years after their entrance into Canaan, to give her Egyptian maid Hagar to her husband, that if possible she might “be built up by her,” i.e., obtain children, who might found a house or family (Genesis 30:3). The resolution seemed a judicious one, and according to the customs of the East, there would be nothing wrong in carrying it out. Hence Abraham consented without opposition, because, as Malachi (Malachi 2:15) says, he sought the seed promised by God. But they were both of them soon to learn, that their thoughts were the thoughts of man and not of God, and that their wishes and actions were not in accordance with the divine promise. Sarai, the originator of the plan, was the first to experience its evil consequences.

When the maid was with child by Abram, “her mistress became little in her eyes.” When Sarai complained to Abram of the contempt she received from her maid (saying, “My wrong,” the wrong done to me, “come upon thee,” cf. Jeremiah 51:35; Genesis 27:13), and called upon Jehovah to judge between her and her husband, Abram gave her full power to act as mistress towards her maid, without raising the slave who was made a concubine above her position. But as soon as Sarai made her feel her power, Hagar fled. Thus, instead of securing the fulfilment of their wishes, Sarai and Abram had reaped nothing but grief and vexation, and apparently had lost the maid through their self-concerted scheme. But the faithful covenant God turned the whole into a blessing.

GENESIS. 16:7-12

Hagar no doubt intended to escape to Egypt by a road used from time immemorial, that ran from Hebron past Beersheba, “by the way of Shur.” — Shur, the present Jifar, is the name given to the north-western portion of the desert of Arabia (cf. Exodus 15:22). There the angel of the Lord found her by a well, and directed her to return to her mistress, and submit to her; at the same time he promised her the birth of a son, and an innumerable multiplication of her descendants. As the fruit of her womb was the seed of Abram, she was to return to his house and there bear him a son, who, though not the seed promised by God, would be honoured for Abram’s sake with the blessing of an innumerable posterity. For this reason also Jehovah appeared to her in the form of the Angel of Jehovah (cf. p. 82). hr,h; is adj. verb. as in Genesis 28:24, etc.: “thou art with child and wilt bear;” dlæy; for dlæy; (Genesis 17:19) is found again in Judges 13:5,7.

This son she was to call Ishmael (“God hears”), “for Jehovah hath hearkened to thy distress.” `yni[; afflictionem sine dubio vocat, quam Hagar afflictionem sentiebat esse, nempe conditionem servitem et quod castigata esset a Sara (Luther). It was Jehovah, not Elohim, who had heard, although the latter name was most naturally suggested as the explanation of Ishmael, because the hearing, i.e., the multiplication of Ishmael’s descendants, was the result of the covenant grace of Jehovah. Moreover, in contrast with the oppression which has had endured and still would endure, she received the promise that her son would endure no such oppression. “He will be a wild ass of a man.” The figure of a ar,p, , onager, that wild and untameable animal, roaming at its will in the desert, of which so highly poetic a description is given in Job 39:5-8, depicts most aptly “the Bedouin’s boundless love of freedom as he rides about in the desert, spear in hand, upon his camel or his horse, hardy, frugal, revelling in the varied beauty of nature, and despising town life in every form;” and the words, “his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him,” describe most truly the incessant state of feud, in which the Ishmaelites live with one another or with their neighbours. “He will dwell before the face of all his brethren.” µynip; `l[æ denotes, it is true, to the east of (cf. Genesis 25:18), and this meaning is to be retained here; but the geographical notice of the dwelling-place of the Ishmaelites hardly exhausts the force of the expression, which also indicated that Ishmael would maintain an independent standing before (in the presence of) all the descendants of Abraham. History has confirmed this promise. The Ishmaelites have continued to this day in free and undiminished possession of the extensive peninsula between the Euphrates, the Straits of Suez, and the Red Sea, from which they have overspread both Northern Africa and Southern Asia.

GENESIS. 16:13-14

In the angel, Hagar recognised God manifesting Himself to her, the presence of Jehovah, and called Him, “Thou art a God of seeing; for she said, Have I also seen here after seeing?” Believing that a man must die if he saw God (Exodus 20:19; 33:20), Hagar was astonished that she had seen God and remained alive, and called Jehovah, who had spoken to her, “God of seeing,” i.e., who allows Himself to be seen, because here, on the spot where this sight was granted her, after seeing she still saw, i.e., remained alive. From this occurrence the well received the name of “well of the seeing alive,” i.e., at which a man saw God and remained alive.

Beer-lahai-roi: according to Ewald, ha;r; yjæ is to be regarded as a composite noun, and l] as a sign of the genitive; but this explanation, in which ha;r; is treated as a pausal form of yair’ , does not suit the form ha;r; with the accent upon the last syllable, which points rather to the participle ha;r; with the first pers. suffix.

On this ground Delitzsch and others have decided in favour of the interpretation given in the Chaldee version, “Thou art a God of seeing, i.e., the all-seeing, from whose all-seeing eye the helpless and forsaken is not hidden even in the farthest corner of the desert.” “Have I not even here (in the barren land of solitude) looked after Him, who saw me?” and Beerlahai- roi, “the well of the Living One who sees me, i.e., of the omnipresent Providence.” But still greater difficulties lie in the way of this view. It not only overthrows the close connection between this and the similar passages Genesis 32:31; Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:22, where the sight of God excites a fear of death, but it renders the name, which the well received from this appearance of God, an inexplicable riddle. If Hagar called the God who appeared to her yair’ lae because she looked after Him whom she saw, i.e., as we must necessarily understand the word, saw not His face, but only His back; how could it ever occur to her or to any one else, to call the well Beer-lahai-roi, “well of the Living One, who sees me,” instead of Beer-el-roi? Moreover, what completely overthrows this explanation, is the fact that neither in Genesis nor anywhere in the Pentateuch is God called “the Living One;” and throughout the Old Testament it is only in contrast with the dead gods of idols of the heathen, a contrast never thought of here, that the expressions yjæ µyhila’ and yjæ lae occur, whilst yjæ is never used in the Old Testament as a name of God.

For these reasons we must abide by the first explanation, and change the reading ha;r; into yair’ . f38 With regard to the well, it is still further added that it was between Kadesh (Genesis 14:7) and Bered. Though Bered has not been discovered, Rowland believes, with good reason, that he has found the well of Hagar, which is mentioned again in Genesis 24:62; 25:11, in the spring Ain Kades, to the south of Beersheba, at the leading place of encampment of the caravans passing from Syria to Sinai, viz., Moyle, or Moilahi, or Muweilih (Robinson, Pal. i. p. 280), which the Arabs call Moilahi Hagar, and in the neighbourhood of which they point out a rock Beit Hagar. Bered must lie to the west of this.

GENESIS. 16:15-16

Having returned to Abram’s house, Hagar bare him a son in his 86th year.

He gave it the name Ishmael, and regarded it probably as the promised seed, until, thirteen years afterwards, the counsel of God was more clearly unfolded to him.

SEALING OF THE COVENANT BY THE GIVING OF NEW NAMES AND BY THE RITE OF CIRCUMCISION.

GENESIS. 17:1-3

The covenant had been made with Abram for at least fourteen years, and yet Abram remained without any visible sign of its accomplishment, and was merely pointed in faith to the inviolable character of the promise of God. Jehovah now appeared to Him again, when he was ninety-nine years old, twenty-four years after his migration, and thirteen after the birth of Ishmael, to give effect to the covenant and prepare for its execution.

Having come down to Abram in a visible form (v. 22), He said to him, “I am El Shaddai (almighty God): walk before Me and be blameless.” At the establishment of the covenant, God had manifested Himself to him as Jehovah (Genesis 15:7); here Jehovah describes Himself as El Shaddai, God the Mighty One. yDævæ : from ddæv; to be strong, with the substantive termination ai, like yGæjæ the festal, yv;yviy] the old man, ynæysi the thorngrown, etc.

This name is not to be regarded as identical with Elohim, that is to say, with God as Creator and Preserver of the world, although in simple narrative Elohim is used for El Shaddai, which is only employed in the more elevated and solemn style of writing. It belonged to the sphere of salvation, forming one element in the manifestation of Jehovah, and describing Jehovah, the covenant God, as possessing the power to realize His promises, even when the order of nature presented no prospect of their fulfilment, and the powers of nature were insufficient to secure it. The name which Jehovah thus gave to Himself was to be a pledge, that in spite of “his own body now dead,” and “the deadness of Sarah’s womb” (Romans 4:19), God could and would give him the promised innumerable posterity. On the other hand, God required this of Abram, “Walk before Me (cf. Genesis 5:22) and be blameless” (6:9). “Just as righteousness received in faith was necessary for the establishment of the covenant, so a blameless walk before God was required for the maintenance and confirmation of the covenant.” This introduction is followed by a more definite account of the new revelation; first of the promise involved in the new name of God (vv. 2-8), and then of the obligation imposed upon Abram (vv. 9-14). “I will give My covenant,” says the Almighty, “between Me and thee, and multiply thee exceedingly.” tyriB] ˆtæn; signifies, not to make a covenant, but to give, to put, i.e., to realize, to set in operation the things promised in the covenant-equivalent to setting up the covenant (cf. v. 7 and Genesis 9:12 with 9:9). This promise Abram appropriated to himself by falling upon his face in worship, upon which God still further expounded the nature of the covenant about to be executed. GENESIS 17:4-8 On the part of God ( ynæa placed at the beginning absolutely: so far as I am concerned, for my part) it was to consist of this: (1) that God would make Abram the father ( baæ instead of baæ chosen with reference to the name Abram) of a multitude of nations, the ancestor of nations and kings; (2) that He would be God, show Himself to be God, in an eternal covenant relation, to him and to his posterity, according to their families, according to all their successive generations; and (3) that He would give them the land in which he had wandered as a foreigner, viz., all Canaan, for an everlasting possession. As a pledge of this promise God changed his name µr;b]aæ , i.e., high father, into µh;r;b]aæ , i.e., father of the multitude, from ba; and µh;r;b]aæ , Arab. ruhâm = multitude. In this name God gave him a tangible pledge of the fulfilment of His covenant, inasmuch as a name which God gives cannot be a mere empty sound, but must be the expression of something real, or eventually acquire reality.

GENESIS. 17:9-14

On the part of Abraham ( hT;aæ thou, the antithesis to ynæa , as for me, v. 4) God required that he and his descendants in all generations should keep the covenant, and that as a sign he should circumcise himself and every male in his house. lWm Niph. of lWm , and lmæn; perf. Niph. for µj,Lmæn] , from llæm; = lWm . As the sign of the covenant, circumcision is called in v. 13, “the covenant in the flesh,” so far as the nature of the covenant was manifested in the flesh. It was to be extended not only to the seed, the lineal descendants of Abraham, but to all the males in his house, even to every foreign slave not belonging to the seed of Abram, whether born in the house or acquired (i.e., bought) with money, and to the “son of eight days,” i.e., the male child eight days old; with the threat that the uncircumcised should be exterminated from his people, because by neglecting circumcision he had broken the covenant with God. The form of speech aWh vp,n, træK; , by which many of the laws are enforced (cf.

Exodus 12:15,19; Leviticus 7:20-21,25, etc.), denotes not rejection from the nation, or banishment, but death, whether by a direct judgment from God, an untimely death at the hand of God, or by the punishment of death inflicted by the congregation or the magistrates, and that whether tWm tWm is added, as in Exodus 31:14, etc., or not.

This is very evident from Leviticus 17:9-10, where the extermination to be effected by the authorities is distinguished from that to be executed by God Himself (see my biblische Archäologie ii. §153, 1). In this sense we sometimes find, in the place of the earlier expression “from his people,” i.e., his nation, such expressions as “from among his people” (Leviticus 17:4,10; Numbers 15:30), “from Israel” (Exodus 12:15; Numbers 19:13), “from the congregation of Israel” (Exodus 12:19); and instead of “that soul,” in Leviticus 17:4,9 (cf. Exodus 30:33,38), we find “that man.”

GENESIS. 17:15-21

The appointment of the sign of the covenant was followed by this further revelation as to the promised seed, that Abram would receive it through his wife Sarai. In confirmation of this her exalted destiny, she was no longer to be called Sarai ( yræc; , probably from rræc; with the termination ai, the princely), but hr;c; , the princess; for she was to become nations, the mother of kings of nations. Abraham then fell upon his face and laughed, saying in himself (i.e., thinking), “Shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old, or shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?” “The promise was so immensely great, that he sank in adoration to the ground, and so immensely paradoxical, that he could not help laughing” (Del.). “Not that he either ridiculed the promise of God, or treated it as a fable, or rejected it altogether; but, as often happens when things occur which are least expected, partly lifted up with joy, partly carried out of himself with wonder, he burst out into laughter” (Calvin).

In this joyous amazement he said to God (v. 18), “O that Ishmael might live before Thee!” To regard these words, with Calvin and others, as intimating that he should be satisfied with the prosperity of Ishmael, as though he durst not hope for anything higher, is hardly sufficient. The prayer implies anxiety, lest Ishmael should have no part in the blessings of the covenant. God answers, “Yes ( lb;a imo), Sarah thy wife bears thee a son, and thou wilt call his name Isaac (according to the Greek form Isaa>k , for the Hebrew qj;x]yi , i.e., laughter, with reference to Abraham’s laughing; v. 17, cf. Genesis 21:6), and I will establish My covenant with him,” i.e., make him the recipient of the covenant grace. And the prayer for Ishmael God would also grant: He would make him very fruitful, so that he should beget twelve princes and become a great nation. But the covenant, God repeated (v. 21), should be established with Isaac, whom Sarah was to bear to him at that very time in the following year. — Since Ishmael therefore was excluded from participating in the covenant grace, which was ensured to Isaac alone; and yet Abraham was to become a multitude of nations, and that through Sarah, who was to become “nations” through the son she was to bear (v. 16); the “multitude of nations” could not include either the Ishmaelites or the tribes descended from the sons of Keturah (Genesis 25:2ff.), but the descendants of Isaac alone; and as one of Isaac’s two sons received no part of the covenant promise, the descendants of Jacob alone.

But the whole of the twelve sons of Jacob founded only the one nation of Israel, with which Jehovah established the covenant made with Abraham (Exodus 6 and 20-24), so that Abraham became through Israel the lineal father of one nation only. From this it necessarily follows, that the posterity of Abraham, which was to expand into a multitude of nations, extends beyond this one lineal posterity, and embraces the spiritual posterity also, i.e., all nations who are grafted ek pi>stewv Abraa>m into the seed of Abraham (Romans 4:11-12, and 16, 17). Moreover, the fact that the seed of Abraham was not to be restricted to his lineal descendants, is evident from the fact, that circumcision as the covenant sign was not confined to them, but extended to all the inmates of his house, so that these strangers were received into the fellowship of the covenant, and reckoned as part of the promised seed.

Now, if the whole land of Canaan was promised to this posterity, which was to increase into a multitude of nations (v. 8), it is perfectly evident, from what has just been said, that the sum and substance of the promise was not exhausted by the gift of the land, whose boundaries are described in Genesis 15:18-21, as a possession to the nation of Israel, but that the extension of the idea of the lineal posterity, “Israel after the flesh,” to the spiritual posterity, “Israel after the spirit,” requires the expansion of the idea and extent of the earthly Canaan to the full extent of the spiritual Canaan, whose boundaries reach as widely as the multitude of nations having Abraham as father; and, therefore, that in reality Abraham received the promise “that he should be the heir of the world” (Romans 4:13). f39 And what is true of the seed of Abraham and the land of Canaan must also hold good of the covenant and the covenant sign. Eternal duration was promised only to the covenant established by God with the seed of Abraham, which was to grow into a multitude of nations, but not to the covenant institution which God established in connection with the lineal posterity of Abraham, the twelve tribes of Israel. Everything in this institution which was of a local and limited character, and only befitted the physical Israel and the earthly Canaan, existed only so long as was necessary for the seed of Abraham to expand into a multitude of nations.

So again it was only in its essence that circumcision could be a sign of the eternal covenant. Circumcision, whether it passed from Abraham to other nations, or sprang up among other nations independently of Abraham and his descendants (see my Archäologie, §63, 1), was based upon the religious view, that the sin and moral impurity which the fall of Adam had introduced into the nature of man had concentrated itself in the sexual organs, because it is in sexual life that it generally manifests itself with peculiar force; and, consequently, that for the sanctification of life, a purification or sanctification of the organ of generation, by which life is propagated, is especially required.

In this way circumcision in the flesh became a symbol of the circumcision, i.e., the purification, of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6, cf. Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25; Ezekiel 44:7), and a covenant sign to those who received it, inasmuch as they were received into the fellowship of the holy nation (Exodus 19:6), and required to sanctify their lives, in other words, to fulfil all that the covenant demanded. It was to be performed on every boy on the eighth day after its birth, not because the child, like its mother, remains so long in a state of impurity, but because, as the analogous rule with regard to the fitness of young animals for sacrifice would lead us to conclude, this was regarded as the first day of independent existence (Leviticus 22:27; Exodus 22:29; see my Archäologie, §63).

GENESIS. 17:22-27

When God had finished His address and ascended again, Abraham immediately fulfilled the covenant duty enjoined upon him, by circumcision himself on that very day, along with all the male members of his house.

Because Ishmael was 13 years old when he was circumcised, the Arabs even now defer circumcision to a much later period than the Jews, generally till between the ages of 5 and 13, and frequently even till the 13th year.

VISIT OF JEHOVAH, WITH TWO ANGELS, TO ABRAHAM’S TENT.

Having been received into the covenant with God through the rite of circumcision, Abraham was shortly afterwards honoured by being allowed to receive and entertain the Lord and two angels in his tent. This fresh manifestation of God had a double purpose, viz., to establish Sarah’s faith in the promise that she should bear a son in her old age (vv. 1-15), and to announce the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (vv. 16-33).

GENESIS. 18:1-5

When sitting, about mid-day, in the grove of Mamre, in front of his tent, Abraham looked up and unexpectedly saw three men standing at some distance from him ( `l[æ above him, looking down upon him as he sat), viz., Jehovah (v. 13) and two angels (Genesis 19:1); all three in human form.

Perceiving at once that one of them was the Lord ( wn;doa , i.e., God), he prostrated himself reverentially before them, and entreated them not to pass him by, but to suffer him to entertain them as his guests: “Let a little water be fetched, and wash your feet, and recline yourselves (hishaa`een to recline, leaning upon the arm) under the tree.” — “Comfort your hearts:” lit., “strengthen the heart,” i.e., refresh yourselves by eating and drinking (Judges 19:5; 1 Kings 21:7). “For therefore (sc., to give me an opportunity to entertain you hospitably) have ye come over to your servant:” ˆKe `l[æ yKi does not stand for yKi ˆKe `l[æ (Ges. thes. p. 682), but means “because for this purpose” (vid., Ewald, §353).

GENESIS. 18:6-8

When the three men had accepted the hospitable invitation, Abraham, just like a Bedouin sheikh of the present day, directed his wife to take three seahs (374 cubic inches each) of fine meal, and back cakes of it as quickly as possible ( `hG;[u round unleavened cakes baked upon hot stones); he also had a tender calf killed, and sent for milk and butter, or curdled milk, and thus prepared a bountiful and savoury meal, of which the guests partook.

The eating of material food on the part of these heavenly beings was not in appearance only, but was really eating; an act which may be attributed to the corporeality assumed, and is to be regarded as analogous to the eating on the part of the risen and glorified Christ (Luke 24:41ff.), although the miracle still remains physiologically incomprehensible.

GENESIS. 18:9-15

During the meal, at which Abraham stood, and waited upon them as the host, they asked for Sarah, for whom the visit was chiefly intended. On being told that she was in the tent, where she could hear, therefore, all that passed under the tree in front of the tent, the one whom Abraham addressed as Adonai (my Lord), and who is called Jehovah in v. 13, said, “I will return to thee ( yjæ `t[e ) at this time, when it lives again” ( yjæ , reviviscens, without the article, Ges. §111, 2b), i.e., at this time next year; “and, behold, Sarah, thy wife, will (then) have a son.” Sarah heard this at the door of the tent; “and it was behind Him” (Jehovah), so that she could not be seen by Him as she stood at the door. But as the fulfilment of this promise seemed impossible to her, on account of Abraham’s extreme age, and the fact that her own womb had lost the power of conception, she laughed within herself, thinking that she was not observed. But that she might know that the promise was made by the omniscient and omnipotent God, He reproved her for laughing, saying, “Is anything too wonderful (i.e., impossible) for Jehovah? at the time appointed I will return unto thee,” etc.; and when her perplexity led her to deny it, He convicted her of falsehood. Abraham also had laughed at this promise (Genesis 17:17), and without receiving any reproof. For his laughing was the joyous outburst of astonishment; Sarah’s, on the contrary, the result of doubt and unbelief, which had to be broken down by reproof, and, as the result showed, really was broken down, inasmuch as she conceived and bore a son, whom she could only have conceived in faith (Hebrews 11:11).

GENESIS. 18:16-19

After this conversation with Sarah, the heavenly guests rose up and turned their faces towards the plain of Sodom ( µynip; `l[æ , as in Genesis 19:28; Numbers 21:20; 23:28). Abraham accompanied them some distance on the road; according to tradition, he went as far as the site of the later Caphar barucha, from which you can see the Dead Sea through a ravinesolitudinem ac terras Sodomae. And Jehovah said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I propose to do? Abraham is destined to be a great nation and a blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:2-3); for I have known, i.e., acknowledged him (chosen him in anticipative love, [dæy; as in Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:4), that he may command his whole posterity to keep the way of Jehovah, to practise justice and righteousness, that all the promises may be fulfilled in them.” God then disclosed to Abraham what he was about to do to Sodom and Gomorrah, not, as Kurtz supposes, because Abraham had been constituted the hereditary possessor of the land, and Jehovah, being mindful of His covenant, would not do anything to it without his knowledge and assent (a thought quite foreign to the context), but because Jehovah had chosen him to be the father of the people of God, in order that, by instructing his descendants in the fear of God, he might lead them in the paths of righteousness, so that they might become partakers of the promised salvation, and not be overtaken by judgment. The destruction of Sodom and the surrounding cities was to be a permanent memorial of the punitive righteousness of God, and to keep the fate of the ungodly constantly before the mind of Israel. To this end Jehovah explained to Abraham the cause of their destruction in the clearest manner possible, that he might not only be convinced of the justice of the divine government, but might learn that when the measure of iniquity was full, no intercession could avert the judgment-a lesson and a warning to his descendants also.

GENESIS. 18:20

“The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, yea it is great; and their sin, yea it is very grievous.” The cry is the appeal for vengeance or punishment, which ascends to heaven (Genesis 4:10). The yKi serves to give emphasis to the assertion, and is placed in the middle of the sentence to give the greater prominence to the leading thought (cf. Ewald, §330).

GENESIS. 18:21-33

God was about to go down, and convince Himself whether they had done entirely according to the cry which had reached Him, or not. hl;K; `hc;[; , lit., to make completeness, here referring to the extremity of iniquity, generally to the extremity of punishment (Nah 1:8-9; Jeremiah 4:27; 5:10): hl;K; is a noun, as Isaiah 10:23 shows, not an adverb, as in Exodus 11:1. After this explanation, the men (according to Genesis 19:1, the two angels) turned from thence to go to Sodom (v. 22); but Abraham continued standing before Jehovah, who had been talking with him, and approached Him with earnestness and boldness of faith to intercede for Sodom. He was urged to this, not by any special interest in Lot, for in that case he would have prayed for his deliverance; nor by the circumstance that, as he had just before felt himself called upon to become the protector, avenger, and deliverer of the land from its foes, so he now thought himself called upon to act as mediator, and to appeal from Jehovah’s judicial wrath to Jehovah’s covenant grace (Kurtz), for he had not delivered the land from the foe, but merely rescued his nephew Lot and all the booty that remained after the enemy had withdrawn; nor did he appeal to the covenant grace of Jehovah, but to His justice alone; and on the principle that the Judge of all the earth could not possibly destroy the righteous with the wicked, he founded his entreaty that God would forgive the city if there were but fifty righteous in it, or even if there were only ten.

He was led to intercede in this way, not by “communis erga quinque populos misericordia” (Calvin), but by the love which springs from the consciousness that one’s own preservation and rescue are due to compassionate grace alone; love, too, which cannot conceive of the guilt of others as too great for salvation to be possible. This sympathetic love, springing from the faith which was counted for righteousness, impelled him to the intercession which Luther thus describes: “sexies petiit, et cum tanto ardore ac affectu sic urgente, ut prae nimia angustia, qua cupit consultum miseris civitatibus, videatur quasi stulte loqui.” There may be apparent folly in the words, “Wilt Thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?” but they were only “violenta oratio et impetuosa, quasi cogens Deum ad ignoscendum.” For Abraham added, “peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou also destroy and not forgive ( ac;n; , to take away and bear the guilt, i.e., forgive) the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?” and described the slaying of the righteous with the wicked as irreconcilable with the justice of God. He knew that he was speaking to the Judge of all the earth, and that before Him he was “but dust and ashes” — “dust in his origin, and ashes in the end;” and yet he made bold to appeal still further, and even as low as ten righteous, to pray that for their sake He would spare the µ[æpæ Ëaæ (v. 32) signifies “only this (one) time more,” as in Exodus 10:17. This “seemingly commercial kind of entreaty is,” as Delitzsch observes, “the essence of true prayer. It is the holy anai>deia , of which our Lord speaks in Luke 11:8, the shamelessness of faith, which bridges over the infinite distance of the creature from the Creator, appeals with importunity to the heart of God, and ceases not till its point is gained. This would indeed be neither permissible nor possible, had not God, by virtue of the mysterious interlacing of necessity and freedom in His nature and operations, granted a power to the prayer of faith, to which He consents to yield; had He not, by virtue of His absoluteness, which is anything but blind necessity, placed Himself in such a relation to men, that He not merely works upon them by means of His grace, but allows them to work upon Him by means of their faith; had He not interwoven the life of the free creature into His own absolute life, and accorded to a created personality the right to assert itself in faith, in distinction from His own.” With the promise, that even for the sake of ten righteous He would not destroy the city, Jehovah “went His way,” that is to say, vanished; and Abraham returned to his place, viz., to the grove of Mamre. The judgment which fell upon the wicked cities immediately afterwards, proves that there were not ten “righteous persons” in Sodom; by which we understand, not merely ten sinless or holy men, but ten who through the fear of God and conscientiousness had kept themselves free from the prevailing sin and iniquity of these cities.

INIQUITY AND DESTRUCTION OF SODOM.

ESCAPE OF LOT, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT HISTORY.

GENESIS. 19:1-5

The messengers (angels) sent by Jehovah to Sodom, arrived there in the evening, when Lot, who was sitting at the gate, pressed them to pass the night in his house. The gate, generally an arched entrance with deep recesses and seats on either side, was a place of meeting in the ancient towns of the East, where the inhabitants assembled either for social intercourse or to transact public business (vid., Genesis 34:20; Deuteronomy 21:19; 22:15, etc.). The two travellers, however (for such Lot supposed them to be, and only recognised them as angels when they had smitten the Sodomites miraculously with blindness), said that they would spend the night in the bjor] the broad open space within the gate-as they had been sent to inquire into the state of the town. But they yielded to Lot’s entreaty to enter his house; for the deliverance of Lot, after having ascertained his state of mind, formed part of their commission, and entering into his house might only serve to manifest the sin of Sodom in all its heinousness. While Lot was entertaining his guests with the greatest hospitality, the people of Sodom gathered round his house, “both old and young, all people from every quarter” (of the town, as in Jeremiah 51:31), and demanded, with the basest violation of the sacred rite of hospitality and the most shameless proclamation of their sin (Isaiah 3:9), that the strangers should be brought out, that they might know them. [dæy; is applied, as in Judges 19:22, to the carnal sin of paederastia, a crime very prevalent among the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:22ff., 20:23), and according to Romans 1:27, a curse of heathenism generally.

GENESIS. 19:6-11

Lot went out to them, shut the door behind him to protect his guests, and offered to give his virgin daughters up to them. “Only to these men ( lae , an archaism for hL,ae , occurs also in v. 25; Genesis 26:3-4; Leviticus 18:27, and Deuteronomy 4:42; 7:22; 19:11; and lae for hL,ae in 1 Chronicles 20:8) do nothing, for therefore (viz., to be protected from injury) have they come under the shadow of my roof.” In his anxiety, Lot was willing to sacrifice to the sanctity of hospitality his duty as a father, which ought to have been still more sacred, “and committed the sin of seeking to avert sin by sin.” Even if he expected that his daughters would suffer no harm, as they were betrothed to Sodomites (v. 14), the offer was a grievous violation of his paternal duty. But this offer only heightened the brutality of the mob. “Stand back” (make way, Isaiah 49:20), they said; “the man, who came as a foreigner, is always wanting to play the judge” (probably because Lot had frequently reproved them for their licentious conduct, Peter 2:7,8): “not will we deal worse with thee than with them.” With these words they pressed upon him, and approached the door to break it in. The men inside, that is to say, the angels, then pulled Lot into the house, shut the door, and by miraculous power smote the people without with blindness ( rwen]sæ here and 2 Kings 6:18 for mental blindness, in which the eye sees, but does not see the right object), as a punishment for their utter moral blindness, and an omen of the coming judgment.

GENESIS. 19:12-14

The sin of Sodom had now become manifest. The men, Lot’s guests, made themselves known to him as the messengers of judgment sent by Jehovah, and ordered him to remove any one that belonged to him out of the city. “Son-in-law (the singular without the article, because it is only assumed as a possible circumstance that he may have sons-in-law), and thy sons, and thy daughters, and all that belongs to thee” (sc., of persons, not of things).

Sons Lot does not appear to have had, as we read nothing more about them, but only “sons-in-law ( tBæ jqæl; ) who were about to take his daughters,” as Josephus, the Vulgate, Ewald, and many others correctly render it. The LXX, Targums, Knobel, and Delitzsch adopt the rendering “who had taken his daughters,” in proof of which the last two adduce ax;m; in v. 15 as decisive. But without reason; for this refers not to the daughters who were still in the father’s house, as distinguished form those who were married, but to his wife and two daughters who were to be found with him in the house, in distinction from the bridegrooms, who also belonged to him, but were not yet living with him, and who had received his summons in scorn, because in their carnal security they did not believe in any judgment of God (Luke 17:28-29). If Lot had had married daughters, he would undoubtedly have called upon them to escape along with their husbands, his sons-in-law.

GENESIS. 19:15-16

As soon as it was dawn, the angels urged Lot to hasten away with his family; and when he still delayed, his heart evidently clinging to the earthly home and possessions which he was obliged to leave, they laid hold of him, with his wife and his two daughters, `l[æ hwO;hy] hl;m]j, , “by virtue of the sparing mercy of Jehovah (which operated) upon him,” and led him out of the city.

GENESIS. 19:17-22

When they left him here ( jnæy; , to let loose, and leave, to leave to one’s self), the Lord commanded him, for the sake of his life, not to look behind him, and not to stand still in all the plain ( rK;Ki , Genesis 13:10), but to flee to the mountains (afterwards called the mountains of Moab). In v. 17 we are struck by the change from the plural to the singular: “when they brought them forth, he said.” To think of one of the two angels-the one, for example, who led the conversation-seems out of place, not only because Lot addressed him by the name of God, “Adonai” (v. 18), but also because the speaker attributed to himself the judgment upon the cities (vv. 21, 22), which is described in v. 24 as executed by Jehovah. Yet there is nothing to indicate that Jehovah suddenly joined the angels. The only supposition that remains, therefore, is that Lot recognised in the two angels a manifestation of God, and so addressed them (v. 18) as Adonai (my Lord), and that the angel who spoke addressed him as the messenger of Jehovah in the name of God, without its following from this, that Jehovah was present in the two angels.

Lot, instead of cheerfully obeying the commandment of the Lord, appealed to the great mercy shown to him in the preservation of his life, and to the impossibility of his escaping to the mountains, without the evil overtaking him, and entreated therefore that he might be allowed to take refuge in the small and neighbouring city, i.e., in Bela, which received the name of Zoar (Genesis 14:2) on account of Lot’s calling it little. Zoar, the Deegoo’r of the LXX, and Segor of the crusaders, is hardly to be sought for on the peninsula which projects a long way into the southern half of the Dead Sea, in the Ghor of el Mezraa, as Irby and Robinson (Pal. iii. p. 481) suppose; it is much more probably to be found on the south-eastern point of the Dead Sea, in the Ghor of el Szaphia, at the opening of the Wady el Ahsa (vid., v.

Raumer, Pal. p. 273, Anm. 14).

GENESIS. 19:23-25

“When the sun had risen and Lot had come towards Zoar (i.e., was on the way thither, but had not yet arrived), Jehovah caused it to rain brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven, and overthrew those cities, and the whole plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and the produce of the earth.” In the words “Jehovah caused it to rain from Jehovah” there is no distinction implied between the hidden and the manifested God, between the Jehovah present upon earth in His angels who called down the judgment, and the Jehovah enthroned in heaven who sent it down; but the expression “from Jehovah” is emphatica repetitio, quod non usitato naturae ordine tunc Deus pluerit, sed tanquam exerta manu palam fulminaverit praeter solitum morem: ut satis constaret nullis causis naturalibus conflatam fuisse pluviam illam ex igne et sulphure (Calvin). The rain of fire and brimstone was not a mere storm with lightning, which set on fire the soil already overcharged with naphtha and sulphur. The two passages, Psalm 11:6 and Ezekiel 38:22, cannot be adduced as proofs that lightning is ever called fire and brimstone in the Scriptures, for in both passages there is an allusion to the event recorded here. The words are to be understood quite literally, as meaning that brimstone and fire, i.e., burning brimstone, fell from the sky, even though the examples of burning bituminous matter falling upon the earth which are given in Oedmann’s vermischte Sammlungen (iii. 120) may be called in question by historical criticism. By this rain of fire and brimstone not only were the cities and their inhabitants consumed, but even the soil, which abounded in asphalt, was set on fire, so that the entire valley was burned out and sank, or was overthrown ( Ëpæh; ) i.e., utterly destroyed, and the Dead Sea took its place. f40 In addition to Sodom, which was probably the chief city of the valley of Siddim, Gomorrah and the whole valley (i.e., the valley of Siddim, Genesis 14:3) are mentioned; and along with these the cities of Admah and Zeboim, which were situated in the valley (Deuteronomy 29:23, cf. Hosea 11:8), also perished, Zoar alone, which is at the south-eastern end of the valley, being spared for Lot’s sake. Even to the present day the Dead Sea, with the sulphureous vapour which hangs about it, the great blocks of saltpetre and sulphur which lie on every hand, and the utter absence of the slightest trace of animal and vegetable life in its waters, are a striking testimony to this catastrophe, which is held up in both the Old and New Testaments as a fearfully solemn judgment of God for the warning of self-secure and presumptuous sinners.

GENESIS. 19:26-28

On the way, Lot’s wife, notwithstanding the divine command, looked “behind him away,” — i.e., went behind her husband and looked backwards, probably from a longing for the house and the earthly possessions she had left with reluctance (cf. Luke 17:31-32)-and “became a pillar of salt.” We are not to suppose that she was actually turned into one, but having been killed by the fiery and sulphureous vapour with which the air was filled, and afterwards encrusted with salt, she resembled an actual statue of salt; just as even now, from the saline exhalation of the Dead Sea, objects near it are quickly covered with a crust of salt, so that the fact, to which Christ refers in Luke 17:32, may be understood without supposing a miracle. f41 In v. 27, 28, the account closes with a remark which points back to Genesis 18:17ff., viz., that Abraham went in the morning to the place where he had stood the day before, interceding with the Lord for Sodom, and saw how the judgment had fallen upon the entire plain, since the smoke of the country went up like the smoke of a furnace. Yet his intercession had not been in vain.

GENESIS. 19:29-38

For on the destruction of these cities, God had thought of Abraham, and rescued Lot. This rescue is attributed to Elohim, as being the work of the Judge of the whole earth (Genesis 18:25), and not to Jehovah the covenant God, because Lot was severed from His guidance and care on his separation from Abraham. The fact, however, is repeated here, for the purpose of connecting with it an event in the life of Lot of great significance to the future history of Abraham’s seed.

Verse 30-35. From Zoar Lot removed with his two daughters to the (Moabitish) mountains, for fear that Zoar might after all be destroyed, and dwelt in one of the caves hr;[;m] with the generic article), in which the limestone rocks abound (vid., Lynch), and so became a dweller in a cave.

While there, his daughters resolved to procure children through their father; and to that end on two successive evenings they made him intoxicated with wine, and then lay with him in the might, one after the other, that they might conceive seed. To this accursed crime they were impelled by the desire to preserve their family, because they thought there was no man on the earth to come in unto them, i.e., to marry them, “after the manner of all the earth.” Not that they imagined the whole human race to have perished in the destruction of the valley of Siddim, but because they were afraid that no man would link himself with them, the only survivors of a country smitten by the curse of God. If it was not lust, therefore, which impelled them to this shameful deed, their conduct was worthy of Sodom, and shows quite as much as their previous betrothal to men of Sodom, that they were deeply imbued with the sinful character of that city. The words of vv. 33 and 35, “And he knew not of her lying down and of her rising up,” do not affirm that he was in an unconscious state, as the Rabbins are said by Jerome to have indicated by the point over µWq : “quasi incredibile et quod natura rerum non capiat, coire quempiam nescientem.” They merely mean, that in his intoxicated state, though not entirely unconscious, yet he lay with his daughters without clearly knowing what he was doing.

Verse 36-38. But Lot’s daughters had so little feeling of shame in connection with their conduct, that they gave names to the sons they bore, which have immortalized their paternity. Moab, another form of mee’aab “from the father,” as is indicated in the clause appended in the LXX: le>gousa ek tou> patro>v mou , and also rendered probable by the reiteration of the words “of our father” and “by their father” (vv. 32, 34, and 36), as well as by the analogy of the name Ben-Ammi = Ammon, Amma’n le’gousa Uhio’s ge’nous mou (LXX). For `ˆwOM[æ , the sprout of the nation, bears the same relation to `µ[æ , as ˆwOmg]aæ , the rush or sprout of the marsh, to µgæa Delitzsch). — This account was neither the invention of national hatred to the Moabites and Ammonites, nor was it placed here as a brand upon those tribes. These discoveries of a criticism imbued with hostility to the Bible are overthrown by the fact, that, according to Deuteronomy 2:9,19, Israel was ordered not to touch the territory of either of these tribes because of their descent from Lot; and it was their unbrotherly conduct towards Israel alone which first prevented their reception into the congregation of the Lord, Deuteronomy 23:4-5. — Lot is never mentioned again. Separated both outwardly and inwardly from Abraham, he was of no further importance in relation to the history of salvation, so that even his death is not referred to. His descendants, however, frequently came into contact with the Israelites; and the history of their descent is given here to facilitate a correct appreciation of their conduct towards Israel.

ABRAHAM’S SOJOURN AT GERAR.

GENESIS. 20:1-3

After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham removed from the grove of Mamre at Hebron to the south country, hardly from the same fear as that which led Lot from Zoar, but probably to seek for better pasture. Here he dwelt between Kadesh (Genesis 14:7) and Shur (16:7), and remained for some time in Gerar, a place the name of which has been preserved in the deep and broad Wady Jurf el Gerâr (i.e., torrent of Gerar) about eight miles S.S.E. of Gaza, near to which Rowland discovered the ruins of an ancient town bearing the name of Khirbet el Gerâr. Here Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar, like Pharaoh in Egypt, took Sarah, whom Abraham had again announced to be his sister, into his harem-not indeed because he was charmed with the beauty of the woman of 90, which was either renovated, or had not yet faded (Kurtz), but in all probability “to ally himself with Abraham, the rich nomad prince” (Delitzsch). From this danger, into which the untruthful statement of both her husband and herself had brought her, she was once more rescued by the faithfulness of the covenant God. In a dream by night God appeared to Abimelech, and threatened him with death ( tWm hNehi en te moriturum) on account of the woman, whom he had taken, because she was married to a husband.

GENESIS. 20:4-7

Abimelech, who had not yet come near her, because God had hindered him by illness (vv. 6 and 17), excused himself on the ground that he had done no wrong, since he had supposed Sarah to be Abraham’s sister, according to both her husband’s statement and her own. This plea was admitted by God, who told him that He had kept him from sinning through touching Sarah, and commanded him to restore the woman immediately to her husband, who was a prophet, that he might pray for him and save his life, and threatened him with certain death to himself and all belonging to him in case he should refuse. That Abimelech, when taking the supposed sister of Abraham into his harem, should have thought that he was acting “in innocence of heart and purity of hands,” i.e., in perfect innocence, is to be fully accounted for, from his undeveloped moral and religious standpoint, by considering the customs of that day.

But that God should have admitted that he had acted “in innocence of heart,” and yet should have proceeded at once to tell him that he could only remain alive through the intercession of Abraham, that is to say, through his obtaining forgiveness of a sin that was deserving of death, is a proof that God treated him as capable of deeper moral discernment and piety. The history itself indicates this in the very characteristic variation in the names of God. First of all (v. 3), Elohim (without the article, i.e., Deity generally) appears to him in a dream; but Abimelech recognises the Lord, Adonai, i.e., God (v. 4); whereupon the historian represents µyhlah (Elohim with the article), the personal and true God, as speaking to him.

The address of God, too, also shows his susceptibility of divine truth.

Without further pointing out to him the wrong which he had done in simplicity of heart, in taking the sister of the stranger who had come into his land, for the purpose of increasing his own harem, since he must have been conscious of this himself, God described Abraham as a prophet, whose intercession alone could remove his guilt, to show him the way of salvation. A prophet: lit., the God-addressed or inspired, since the “inward speaking” (Ein-sprache) or inspiration of God constitutes the essence of prophecy. Abraham was profh>thv as the recipient of divine revelation, and was thereby placed in so confidential a relation to God, that he could intercede for sinners, and atone for sins of infirmity through his intercession.

GENESIS. 20:8-9

Abimelech carried out the divine instructions. The next morning he collected his servants together and related what had occurred, at which the men were greatly alarmed. He then sent for Abraham, and complained most bitterly of his conduct, by which he had brought a great sin upon him and his kingdom.

GENESIS. 20:10-13

“What sawest thou,” i.e., what hadst thou in thine eye, with thine act (thy false statement)? Abimelech did this publicly in the presence of his servants, partly for his own justification in the sight of his dependents, and partly to put Abraham to shame. The latter had but two weak excuses: (1) that he supposed there was no fear of God at all in the land, and trembled for his life because of his wife; and (2) that when he left his father’s house, he had arranged with his wife that in every foreign place she was to call herself his sister, as she really was his half-sister. On the subject of his emigration, he expressed himself indefinitely and with reserve, accommodating himself to the polytheistic standpoint of the Philistine king: “when God (or the gods, Elohim) caused me to wander,” i.e., led me to commence an unsettled life in a foreign land; and saying nothing about Jehovah, and the object of his wandering as revealed by Him.

GENESIS. 20:14-16

Abimelech then gave him back his wife with a liberal present of cattle and slaves, and gave him leave to dwell wherever he pleased in his land. To Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given a thousand shekele of silver to thy brother; behold, it is to thee a covering of the eyes (i.e., an expiatory gift) with regard to all that are with thee (“because in a mistress the whole family is disgraced,” Del.), and with all-so art thou justified.” The thousand shekels (about £131) were not a special present made to Sarah, but indicate the value of the present made to Abraham, the amount of which may be estimated by this standard, that at a later date (Exodus 21:32) a slave was reckoned at 30 shekels. By the “covering of the eyes” we are not to understand a veil, which Sarah was to procure for 1000 shekels; but it is a figurative expression for an atoning gift, and is to be explained by the analogy of the phrase p ynep] rp,Ki “to cover any one’s face,” so that he may forget a wrong done (cf. Genesis 32:21; and Job 9:24, “he covereth the faces of the judges,” i.e., he bribes them). tjækæwOnw] can only be the pers. fem. sing. perf. Niphal, although the Dagesh lene is wanting in the t; for the rules of syntax will hardly allow us to regard this form as a participle, unless we imagine the extremely harsh ellipsis of tjækæwOn for T]aæ tjækæwOn . The literal meaning is “so thou art judged,” i.e., justice has been done thee.

GENESIS. 20:17-18

After this reparation, God healed Abimelech at Abraham’s intercession; also his wife and maids, so that they could bear again, for Jehovah had closed up every womb in Abimelech’s house on Sarah’s account. ‘mhwt, maids whom the king kept as concubines, are to be distinguished from hj;p]vi female slaves (v. 14). That there was a material difference between them, is proved by 1 Samuel 25:41. rxæ[; µj,r,AlK; does not mean, as is frequently supposed, to prevent actual childbirth, but to prevent conception, i.e., to produce barrenness (1 Samuel 1:5-6). This is evident from the expression “He hath restrained me from bearing” in Genesis 16:2 (cf. Isaiah 66:9, and 1 Samuel 21:6), and from the opposite phrase, “open the womb,” so as to facilitate conception (Genesis 29:31, and 30:22). The plague brought upon Abimelech’s house, therefore, consisted of some disease which rendered the begetting of children (the coitus) impossible.

This might have occurred as soon as Sarah was taken into the royal harem, and therefore need not presuppose any lengthened stay there. There is no necessity, therefore, to restrict dlæy; to the women and regard it as equivalent to dlæy; , which would be grammatically inadmissible; for it may refer to Abimelech also, since dlæy; signifies to beget as well as to bear. We may adopt Knobel’s explanation, therefore, though without approving of the inference that v. 18 was an appendix of the Jehovist, and arose from a misunderstanding of the word dlæy; in v. 17. A later addition v. 18 cannot be; for the simple reason, that without the explanation give there, the previous verse would be unintelligible, so that it cannot have been wanting in any of the accounts. The name Jehovah, in contrast with Elohim and Ha- Elohim in v. 17, is obviously significant. The cure of Abimelech and his wives belonged to the Deity (Elohim). Abraham directed his intercession not to Elohim, an indefinite and unknown God, but to µyhlah ; for the God, whose prophet he was, was the personal and true God. It was He too who had brought the disease upon Abimelech and his house, not as Elohim or Ha-Elohim, but as Jehovah, the God of salvation; for His design therein was to prevent the disturbance of frustration of His saving design, and the birth of the promised son from Sarah.

But if the divine names Elohim and Ha-Elohim indicate the true relation of God to Abimelech, and here also it was Jehovah who interposed for Abraham and preserved the mother of the promised seed, our narrative cannot be merely an Elohistic side-piece appended to the Jehovistic account in Genesis 12:14ff., and founded upon a fictitious legend. The thoroughly distinctive character of this event is a decisive proof of the fallacy of any such critical conjecture. Apart from the one point of agreement-the taking of Abraham’s wife into the royal harem, because he said she was his sister in the hope of thereby saving his own life (an event, the repetition of which in the space of 24 years is by no means startling, when we consider the customs of the age)-all the more minute details are entirely different in the two cases. In king Abimelech we meet with a totally different character from that of Pharaoh. We see in him a heathen imbued with a moral consciousness of right, and open to receive divine revelation, of which there is not the slightest trace in the king of Egypt.

And Abraham, in spite of his natural weakness, and the consequent confusion which he manifested in the presence of the pious heathen, was exalted by the compassionate grace of God to the position of His own friend, so that even the heathen king, who seems to have been in the right in this instance, was compelled to bend before him and to seek the removal of the divine punishment, which had fallen upon him and his house, through the medium of his intercession. In this way God proved to the Philistine king, on the one hand, that He suffers no harm to befall His prophets (Psalm 105:15), and to Abraham, on the other, that He can maintain His covenant and secure the realization of His promise against all opposition from the sinful desires of earthly potentates. It was in this respect that the event possessed a typical significance in relation to the future attitude of Israel towards surrounding nations.

BIRTH OF ISAAC. EXPULSION OF ISHMAEL.

ABIMELECH’S TREATY WITH ABRAHAM.

GENESIS. 21:1-7

Birth of Isaac Jehovah did for Sarah what God had promised in Genesis 17:6 (cf. 18:14): she conceived, and at the time appointed bore a son to Abraham, when he was 100 years old. Abraham gave it the name of Jizchak (or Isaac), and circumcised it on the eighth day. The name for the promised son had been selected by God, in connection with Abraham’s laughing (Genesis 17:17 and 19), to indicate the nature of his birth and existence. For as his laughing sprang from the contrast between the idea and the reality; so through a miracle of grace the birth of Isaac gave effect to this contrast between the promise of God and the pledge of its fulfilment on the one hand, and the incapacity of Abraham for begetting children, and of Sarah for bearing them, on the other; and through this name, Isaac was designated as the fruit of omnipotent grace working against and above the forces of nature. Sarah also, who had previously laughed with unbelief at the divine promise (18:12), found a reason in the now accomplished birth of the promised son for laughing with joyous amazement; so that she exclaimed, with evident allusion to his name, “A laughing hath God prepared for me; every one who hears it will laugh to me” (i.e., will rejoice with me, in amazement at the blessing of God which has come upon me even in my old age), and gave a fitting expression to the joy of her heart, in this inspired tristich (v. 7): “Who would have said unto Abraham: Sarah is giving suck; for I have born a son to his old age.” llæm; is the poetic word for rbæd; , and ymi before the perfect has the sense of-whoever has said, which we should express as a subjunctive; cf. 2 Kings 20:9; Psalm 11:3, etc.

GENESIS. 21:8-21

Expulsion of Ishmael.

The weaning of the child, which was celebrated with a feast, furnished the outward occasion for this. Sarah saw Ishmael mocking, making ridicule on the occasion. “Isaac, the object of holy laughter, was made the butt of unholy wit or profane sport. He did not laugh ( qjox] ), but he made fun ( qjæx] ). The little helpless Isaac a father of nations! Unbelief, envy, pride of carnal superiority, were the causes of his conduct. Because he did not understand the sentiment, ‘Is anything too wonderful for the Lord?’ it seemed to him absurd to link so great a thing to one so small” (Hengstenberg). Paul calls this the persecution of him that was after the Spirit by him that was begotten after the flesh (Galatians 4:29), and discerns in this a prediction of the persecution, which the Church of those who are born after the spirit of faith endures from those who are in bondage to the righteousness of the law.

Verse 9-13. Sarah therefore asked that the maid and her son might be sent away, saying, the latter “shall not be heir with Isaac.” The demand, which apparently proceeded from maternal jealousy, displeased Abraham greatly “because of his son,” — partly because in Ishmael he loved his own flesh and blood, and partly on account of the promise received for him (Genesis 17:18 and 20). But God (Elohim, since there is no appearance mentioned, but the divine will was made known to him inwardly) commanded him to comply with Sarah’s demand: “for in Isaac shall seed (posterity) be called to thee.” This expression cannot mean “thy descendants will call themselves after Isaac,” for in that case, at all events, [ræz, would be used; for “in (through) Isaac shall seed be called into existence to thee,” for ar;q; does not mean to call into existence; but, “in the person of Isaac shall there be posterity to thee, which shall pass as such,” for ar;q; includes existence and the recognition of existence. Though the noun is not defined by any article, the seed intended must be that to which all the promises of God referred, and with which God would establish His covenant (Genesis 17:21, cf. Romans 9:7-8; Hebrews 11:18). To make the dismissal of Ishmael easier to the paternal heart, God repeated to Abraham (v. 13) the promise already given him with regard to this son (Genesis 17:20).

Verse 14-16. The next morning Abraham sent Hagar away with Ishmael.

The words, “he took bread and a bottle of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it ( µWc participle, not perfect) upon her shoulder, and the boy, and sent her away,” do not state the Abraham gave her Ishmael also to carry.

For w¦’et-hayeled does not depend upon µWc and ˆtæn; because of the copula w, but upon jqæl; , the leading verb of the sentence, although it is separated from it by the parenthesis “putting it upon her shoulder.” It does not follow from these words, therefore, that Ishmael is represented as a little child. Nor is this implied in the statement which follows, that Hagar, when wandering about in the desert, “cast the boy under one of the shrubs,” because the water in the bottle was gone. For dl,y, like r[ænæ does not mean an infant, but a boy, and also a young man (Genesis 4:23);- Ishmael must have been 15 or 16 years old, as he was 14 before Isaac was born (cf. v. 5, and 16:16);-and Ëlæv; , “to throw,” signifies that she suddenly left hold of the boy, when he fell exhausted from thirst, just as in Matthew 15:30 riJ>ptein is used for laying hastily down. Though despairing of his life, the mother took care that at least he should breathe out his life in the shade, and she sat over against him weeping, “in the distance as archers,” i.e., according to a concise simile very common in Hebrew, as far off as archers are accustomed to place the target. Her maternal love could not bear to see him die, and yet she would not lose sight of him.

Verse 17-19. Then God heard the voice (the weeping and crying) of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, “What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not, for God hath heard the voice of the boy, where he is” (b’sr for rv,a µwOqm; , 2 Samuel 15:21), i.e., in his helpless condition: “arise, lift up the lad,” etc. It was Elohim, not Jehovah, who heard the voice of the boy, and appeared as the angel of Elohim, not of Jehovah (as in Genesis 16:7), because, when Ishmael and Hagar had been dismissed from Abraham’s house, they were removed from the superintendence and care of the covenant God to the guidance and providence of God the ruler of all nations. God then opened her eyes, and she saw what she had not seen before, a well of water, from which she filled the bottle and gave her son to drink.

Verse 20-21. Having been miraculously saved from perishing by the angel of God, Ishmael grew up under the protection of God, settled in the wilderness of Paran, and “became as he grew up an archer.” Although preceded by ldæG; , the bbær; is not tautological; and there is no reason for attributing to it the meaning of “archer,” in which sense bbær; alone occurs in the one passage Genesis 49:23. The desert of Paran is the present large desert of et-Tih, which stretches along the southern border of Canaan, from the western fringe of the Arabah, towards the east to the desert of Shur (Jifar), on the frontier of Egypt, and extends southwards to the promontories of the mountains of Horeb (vid., Numbers 10:12). On the northern edge of this desert was Beersheba (proleptically so called in v. 14), to which Abraham had removed from Gerar; so that in all probability Hagar and Ishmael were sent away from his abode there, and wandered about in the surrounding desert, till Hagar was afraid that they should perish with thirst. Lastly, in preparation for Genesis 25:12-18, it is mentioned in v. 21 that Ishmael married a wife out of Egypt.

GENESIS. 21:22-30

Abimelech’s Treaty with Abraham.

Through the divine blessing which visibly attended Abraham, the Philistine king Abimelech was induced to secure for himself and his descendants the friendship of a man so blessed; and for that purpose he went to Beersheba, with his captain Phicol, to conclude a treaty with him. Abraham was perfectly ready to agree to this; but first of all he complained to him about a well which Abimelech’s men had stolen, i.e., had unjustly appropriated to themselves. Abimelech replied that this act of violence had never been made known to him till that day, and as a matter of course commanded the well to be returned. After the settlement of this dispute the treaty was concluded, and Abraham presented the king with sheep and oxen, as a material pledge that he would reciprocate the kindness shown, and live in friendship with the king and his descendants. Out of this present he selected seven lambs and set them by themselves; and when Abimelech inquired what they were, he told him to take them from his hand, that they might be to him (Abraham) for a witness that he had digged the well. It was not to redeem the well, but to secure the well as his property against any fresh claims on the part of the Philistines, that the present was given; and by the acceptance of it, Abraham’s right of possession was practically and solemnly acknowledged.

GENESIS. 21:31-32

From this circumstance, the place where it occurred received the name [bæv, raeB] , i.e., seven-well, “because there they sware both of them.” It does not follow from this note, that the writer interpreted the name “oathwell,” and took [bæv, in the sense of h[;Wbv] . The idea is rather the following: the place received its name from the seven lambs, by which Abraham secured to himself possession of the well, because the treaty was sworn to on the basis of the agreement confirmed by the seven lambs.

There is no mention of sacrifice, however, in connection with the treaty (see Genesis 26:33). [bæv; to swear, lit., to seven one’s self, not because in the oath the divine number 3 is combined with the world-number 4, but because, from the sacredness of the number 7, the real origin and ground of which are to be sought in the number 7 of the work of creation, seven things were generally chosen to give validity to an oath, as was the case, according to Herodotus (3, 8), with the Arabians among others. Beersheba was in the Wady es-Seba, the broad channel of a winter-torrent, 12 hours’ journey to the south of Hebron on the road to Egypt and the Dead Sea, where there are still stones to be found, the relics of an ancient town, and two deep wells with excellent water, called Bir es Seba, i.e., seven-well (not lion-well, as the Bedouins erroneously interpret it): cf. Robinson’s Pal. i. pp. 300ff.

GENESIS. 21:33

Here Abraham planted a tamarisk and called upon the name of the Lord (vid., Genesis 4:26), the everlasting God. Jehovah is called the everlasting God, as the eternally true, with respect to the eternal covenant, which He established with Abraham (Genesis 17:7). The planting of this long-lived tree, with its hard wood, and its long, narrow, thickly clustered, evergreen leaves, was to be a type of the ever-enduring grace of the faithful covenant God. GENESIS 21:34 Abraham sojourned a long time there in the Philistines’ land. There Isaac was probably born, and grew up to be a young man (Genesis 22:6), capable of carrying the wood for a sacrifice; cf. 22:19. The expression “in the land of the Philistines” appears to be at variance with v. 32, where Abimelech and Phicol are said to have returned to the land of the Philistines. But the discrepancy is easily reconciled, on the supposition that at that time the land of the Philistines had no fixed boundary, at all events, towards the desert. Beersheba did not belong to Gerar, the kingdom of Abimelech in the stricter sense; but the Philistines extended their wanderings so far, and claimed the district as their own, as is evident from the fact that Abimelech’s people had taken the well from Abraham. On the other hand, Abraham with his numerous flocks would not confine himself to the Wady es Seba, but must have sought for pasture-ground in the whole surrounding country; and as Abimelech had given him full permission to dwell in his land (20:15), he would still, as heretofore, frequently come as far as Gerar, so that his dwelling at Beersheba (22:19) might be correctly described as sojourning (nomadizing) in the land of the Philistines.

OFFERING UP OF ISAAC UPON MORIAH.

FAMILY OF NAHOR.

GENESIS. 22:1-4

Offering Up of Isaac.

For many years had Abraham waited to be fulfilled. At length the Lord had given him the desired heir of his body by his wife Sarah, and directed him to send away the son of the maid. And now that this son had grown into a young man, the word of God came to Abraham to offer up this very son, who had been given to him as the heir of the promise, for a burnt-offering, upon one of the mountains which should be shown him. This word did not come from his own heart-was not a thought suggested by the sight of the human sacrifices of the Canaanites, that he would offer a similar sacrifice to his God; nor did it originate with the tempter to evil. The word came from Ha-Elohim, the personal, true God, who tried him ( hs;n; ), i.e., demanded the sacrifice of the only, beloved son, as a proof and attestation of his faith. The issue shows, that God did not desire the sacrifice of Isaac by slaying and burning him upon the altar, but his complete surrender, and a willingness to offer him up to God even by death.

Nevertheless the divine command was given in such a form, that Abraham could not understand it in any other way than as requiring an outward burnt-offering, because there was no other way in which Abraham could accomplish the complete surrender of Isaac, than by an actual preparation for really offering the desired sacrifice. This constituted the trial, which necessarily produced a severe internal conflict in his mind. Ratio humana simpliciter concluderet aut mentiri promissionem aut mandatum non esse Dei sed Diaboli; est enim contradictio manifesta. Si enim debet occidi Isaac, irrita est promissio; sin rata est promissio, impossibile est hoc esse Dei mandatum (Luther). But Abraham brought his reason into captivity to the obedience of faith. He did not question the truth of the word of God, which had been addressed to him in a mode that was to his mind perfectly infallible (not in a vision of the night, however, of which there is not a syllable in the text), but he stood firm in his faith, “accounting that god was able to raise him up, even from the dead” Hebrews 11:19).

Without taking counsel with flesh and blood, Abraham started early in the morning (vv. 3, 4), with his son Isaac and two servants, to obey the divine command; and on the third day (for the distance from Beersheba to Jerusalem is about 20 1/2 hours; Rob. Pal. iii. App. 66, 67) he saw in the distance the place mentioned by God, the land of Moriah, i.e., the mountainous country round about Jerusalem. The name hY;riwOm , composed of the Hophal partic. of ha;r; and the divine name yh, an abbreviation of hwO;hy] (lit., “the shown of Jehovah,” equivalent to the manifestation of Jehovah), is no doubt used proleptically in v. 2, and given to the mountain upon which the sacrifice was to be made, with direct reference to this event and the appearance of Jehovah to Abraham there. This is confirmed by v. 14, where the name is connected with the event, and explained in the fuller expression Jehovah-jireh. On the ground of this passage the mountain upon which Solomon built the temple is called hY;riwOm with reference to the appearance of the angel of the Lord to David on that mountain at the threshing-floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24:16-17), the old name being revived by this appearance. GENESIS 22:5-8 When in sight of the distant mountain, Abraham left the servants behind with the ass, that he might perform the last and hardest part of the journey alone with Isaac, and, as he said to the servants, “worship yonder and then return.” The servants were not to see what would take place there; for they could not understand this “worship,” and the issue even to him, notwithstanding his saying “we will come again to you,” was still involved in the deepest obscurity. This last part of the journey is circumstantially described in vv. 6-8, to show how strong a conflict every step produced in the paternal heart of the patriarch. They go both together, he with the fire and the knife in his hand, and his son with the wood for the sacrifice upon his shoulder. Isaac asks his father, where is the lamb for the burnt-offering; and the father replies, not “Thou wilt be it, my son,” but “God (Elohim without the article-God as the all-pervading supreme power) will provide it;” for he will not and cannot yet communicate the divine command to his son. Non vult filium macerare longa cruce et tentatione (Luther).

GENESIS. 22:9-10

Having arrived at the appointed place, Abraham built an altar, arranged the wood upon it, bound his son and laid him upon the wood of the altar, and then stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

GENESIS. 22:11-13

In this eventful moment, when Isaac lay bound like a lamb upon the altar, about to receive the fatal stroke, the angel of the Lord called down from heaven to Abraham to stop, and do his son no harm. For the Lord now knew that Abraham was µyhila’ arey; God-fearing, and that his obedience of faith did extend even to the sacrifice of his own beloved son. The sacrifice was already accomplished in his heart, and he had fully satisfied the requirements of God. He was not to slay his son: therefore God prevented the outward fulfilment of the sacrifice by an immediate interposition, and showed him a ram, which he saw, probably being led to look round through a rustling behind him, with its horns fast in a thicket ( rjæaæ adv. behind, in the background); and as an offering provided by God Himself, he sacrificed it instead of his son. GENESIS 22:14 From this interposition of God, Abraham called the place Jehovah-jireh, “Jehovah sees,” i.e., according to v. 8, provides, providet; so that ( rv,a , as in Genesis 13:16, is equivalent to ˆKe `l[æ , 10:9) men are still accustomed to say, “On the mountain where Jehovah appears” ( ha;r; ), from which the name Moriah arose. The rendering “on the mount of Jehovah it is provided” is not allowable, for the Niphal of the verb does not mean provideri, but “appear.” Moreover, in this case the medium of God’s seeing or interposition was His appearing.

GENESIS. 22:15-19

After Abraham had offered the ram, the angel of the Lord called to him a second time from heaven, and with a solemn oath renewed the former promises, as a reward for this proof of his obedience of faith (cf. Genesis 12:2-3). To confirm their unchangeableness, Jehovah swore by Himself (cf.

Hebrews 6:13ff.), a thing which never occurs again in His intercourse with the patriarchs; so that subsequently not only do we find repeated references to this oath (Genesis 24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exodus 13:5,11; 33:1, etc.), but, as Luther observes, all that is said in Psalm 89:36; 132:11; 110:4 respecting the oath given to David, is founded upon this. Sicut enim promissio seminis Abrahae derivata est in semen Davidis, ita Scriptura S. jusjurandum Abrahae datum in personam Davidis transfert. For in the promise upon which these psalms are based nothing is said about an oath (cf. 2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 17:1). The declaration on oath is still further confirmed by the addition of hwO;hy] µaun] “edict (Ausspruch) of Jehovah,” which, frequently as it occurs in the prophets, is met with in the Pentateuch only in Numbers 14:28, and (without Jehovah) in the oracles of Balaam, Numbers 24:3,15- 16. As the promise was intensified in form, so was it also in substance. To express the innumerable multiplication of the seed in the strongest possible way, a comparison with the sand of the sea-shore is added to the previous simile of the stars. And this seed is also promised the possession of the gate of its enemies, i.e., the conquest of the enemy and the capture of his cities (cf. Genesis 24:60).

This glorious result of the test so victoriously stood by Abraham, not only sustains the historical character of the event itself, but shows in the clearest manner that the trial was necessary to the patriarch’s life of faith, and of fundamental importance to his position in relation to the history of salvation. The question, whether the true God could demand a human sacrifice, was settled by the fact that God Himself prevented the completion of the sacrifice; and the difficulty, that at any rate God contradicted Himself, if He first of all demanded a sacrifice and then prevented it from being offered, is met by the significant interchange of the names of God, since God, who commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac, is called Ha-Elohim, whilst the actual completion of the sacrifice is prevented by “the angel of Jehovah,” who is identical with Jehovah Himself. The sacrifice of the heir, who had been both promised and bestowed, was demanded neither by Jehovah, the God of salvation or covenant God, who had given Abraham this only son as the heir of the promise, nor by Elohim, God as creator, who has the power to give life and take it away, but by He- Elohim, the true God, whom Abraham had acknowledged and adored as his personal God, and with whom he had entered into a personal relation.

Coming from the true God whom Abraham served, the demand could have no other object than to purify and sanctify the feelings of the patriarch’s heart towards his son and towards his God, in accordance with the great purpose of his call. It was designed to purify his love to the son of his body from all the dross of carnal self-love and natural selfishness which might still adhere to it, and so to transform it into love to God, from whom he had received him, that he should no longer love the beloved son as his flesh and blood, but simply and solely as a gift of grace, as belonging to his Goda trust committed to him, which he should be ready at any moment to give back to God. As he had left his country, kindred, and father’s house at the call of God (Genesis 12:1), so was he in his walk with God cheerfully to offer up even his only son, the object of all his longing, the hope of his life, the joy of his old age.

And still more than this, not only did he possess and love in Isaac the heir of his possessions (Genesis 15:2), but it was upon him that all the promises of God rested: in Isaac should his seed be called (21:12). By the demand that he should sacrifice to God this only son of his wife Sarah, in whom his seed was to grow into a multitude of nations (17:4,6,16), the divine promise itself seemed to be cancelled, and the fulfilment not only of the desires of his heart, but also of the repeated promises of his God, to be frustrated. And by this demand his faith was to be perfected into unconditional trust in God, into the firm assurance that God could even raise him up from the dead. — But this trial was not only one of significance to Abraham, by perfecting him, through the conquest of flesh and blood, to be the father of the faithful, the progenitor of the Church of God; Isaac also was to be prepared and sanctified by it for his vocation in connection with the history of salvation.

In permitting himself to be bound and laid upon the altar without resistance, he gave up his natural life to death, to rise to a new life through the grace of God. On the altar he was sanctified to God, dedicated as the first beginning of the holy Church of God, and thus “the dedication of the first-born, which was afterwards enjoined in the law, was perfectly fulfilled in him.” If therefore the divine command exhibits in the most impressive way the earnestness of the demand of God upon His people to sacrifice all to Him, not excepting the dearest of their possessions (cf. Matthew 10:37, and Luke 14:26); the issue of the trial teaches that the true God does not demand a literal human sacrifice from His worshippers, but the spiritual sacrifice of an unconditional denial of the natural life, even to submission to death itself. By the sacrifice of a ram as a burnt-offering in the place of his son, under divine direction, not only was animal sacrifice substituted for human, and sanctioned as an acceptable symbol of spiritual self-sacrifice, but the offering of human sacrifices by the heathen was condemned and rejected as an ungodly eqeloqrhskei>a .

And this was done by Jehovah, the God of salvation, who prevented the outward completion of the sacrifice. By this the event acquires prophetic importance for the Church of the Lord, to which the place of sacrifice points with peculiar clearness, viz., Mount Moriah, upon which under the legal economy all the typical sacrifices were offered to Jehovah; upon which also, in the fulness of time, God the Father gave up His onlybegotten Son as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, that by this one true sacrifice the shadows of the typical sacrifices might be rendered both real and true. If therefore the appointment of Moriah as the scene of the sacrifice of Isaac, and the offering of a ram in his stead, were primarily only typical in relation to the significance and intent of the Old Testament institution of sacrifice; this type already pointed to the antitype to appear in the future, when the eternal love of the heavenly Father would perform what it had demanded of Abraham; that is to say, when God would not spare His only Son, but give Him up to the real death, which Isaac suffered only in spirit, that we also might die with Christ spiritually, and rise with Him to everlasting life (Romans 8:32; 6:5, etc.). GENESIS 22:20-24 Descendants of Nahor.

With the sacrifice of Isaac the test of Abraham’s faith was now complete, and the purpose of his divine calling answered: the history of his life, therefore, now hastens to its termination. But first of all there is introduced quite appropriately an account of the family of his brother Nahor, which is so far in place immediately after the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, that it prepares the way for the history of the marriage of the heir of the promise.

The connection is pointed out in v. 20, as compared with Genesis 11:29, in the expression, “she also.” Nahor, like Ishmael and Jacob, had twelve sons, eight by his wife Milcah and four by his concubine; whereas Jacob had his by two wives and two maids, and Ishmael apparently all by one wife. This difference with regard to the mothers proves that the agreement as to the number twelve rests upon a good historical tradition, and is no product of a later myth, which traced to Nahor the same number of tribes as to Ishmael and Jacob. For it is a perfectly groundless assertion or assumption, that Nahor’s twelve sons were the fathers of as many tribes.

There are only a few names, of which it is probable that their bearers were the founders of tribes of the same name. On Uz, see Genesis 10:23. Buz is mentioned in Jeremiah 25:23 along with Dedan and Tema as an Arabian tribe; and Elihu was a Buzite of the family of Ram (Job 32:2). Kemuel, the father of Aram, was not the founder of the Aramaeans, but the forefather of the family of Ram, to which the Buzite Elihu belonged-Aram being written for Ram, like Arammim in 2 Kings 8:29 for Rammim in Chronicles 22:5. Chesed again was not the father of the Chasdim (Chaldeans), for they were older than Chesed; at the most he was only the founder of one branch of the Chasdim, possibly those who stole Job’s camels (Knobel; vid., Job 1:17). Of the remaining names, Bethuel was not the founder of a tribe, but the father of Laban and Rebekah (Genesis 25:20). The others are never met with again, with the exception of Maachach, from whom probably the Maachites (Deuteronomy 3:14; Joshua 12:5) in the land of Maacah, a small Arabian kingdom in the time of David (2 Samuel 10:6,8; 1 Chronicles 19:6), derived their origin and name; though Maachah frequently occurs as the name of a person (1 Kings 2:39; 1 Chronicles 11:43; 27:16). DEATH OF SARAH; AND PURCHASE OF THE CAVE AT MACHPELAH.

GENESIS. 23:1-2

Sarah is the only woman whose age is mentioned in the Scriptures, because as the mother of the promised seed she became the mother of all believers (1 Peter 3:6). She died at the age of 127, thirty-seven years after the birth of Isaac, at Hebron, or rather in the grove of Mamre near that city (Genesis 13:18), whither Abraham had once more returned after a lengthened stay at Beersheba (22:19). The name Kirjath Arba, i.e., the city of Arba, which Hebron bears here and also in Genesis 35:27, and other passages, and which it still bore at the time of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites (Joshua 14:15), was not the original name of the city, but was first given to it by Arba the Anakite and his family, who had not yet arrived there in the time of the patriarchs. It was probably given by them when they took possession of the city, and remained until the Israelites captured it and restored the original name. The place still exists, as a small town on the road from Jerusalem to Beersheba, in a valley surrounded by several mountains, and is called by the Arabs, with allusion to Abraham’s stay there, el Khalil, i.e., the friend (of God), which is the title given to Abraham by the Mohammedans. The clause “in the land of Canaan” denotes, that not only did Sarah die in the land of promise, but Abraham as a foreigner acquired a burial-place by purchase there. “And Abraham came” (not from Beersheba, but from the field where he may have been with the flocks), “to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her,” i.e., to arrange for the customary mourning ceremony.

GENESIS. 23:3-16

He then went to the Hittites, the lords and possessors of the city and its vicinity at that time, to procure from them “a possession of a buryingplace.”

The negotiations were carried on in the most formal style, in a public assembly “of the people of the land,” i.e., of natives (v. 7), in the gate of the city (v. 10). As a foreigner and sojourner, Abraham presented his request in the most courteous manner to all the citizens (“all that went in at the gate,” vv. 10, 18; a phrase interchangeable with “all that went out at the gate,” Genesis 34:24, and those who “go out and in,” Jeremiah 17:19). The citizens with the greatest readiness and respect offered “the prince of God,” i.e., the man exalted by God to the rank of a prince, “the choice” ( rj;b]mi , i.e., the most select) of their graves for his use (v. 6). But Abraham asked them to request Ephron, who, to judge from the expression “his city” in v. 10, was then ruler of the city, to give him for a possession the cave of Machpelah, at the end of his field, of which he was the owner, “for full silver,” i.e., for its full worth.

Ephron thereupon offered to make him a present of both field and cave.

This was a turn in the affair which is still customary in the East; the design, so far as it is seriously meant at all, being either to obtain a present in return which will abundantly compensate for the value of the gift, or, what is still more frequently the case, to preclude any abatement in the price to be asked. The same design is evident in the peculiar form in which Ephron stated the price, in reply to Abraham’s repeated declaration that he was determined to buy the piece of land: “a piece of land of 400 shekels of silver, what is that between me and thee” (v. 15)? Abraham understood it so [mæv; v. 16), and weighed him the price demanded. The shekel of silver “current with the merchant,” i.e., the shekel which passed in trade as of standard weight, was 274 Parisian grains, so that the price of the piece of land was £52, 10s.; a very considerable amount for that time.

GENESIS. 23:17-19

“Thus arose ( µWq ) the field...to Abraham for a possession;” i.e., it was conveyed to him in all due legal form. The expression “the field of Ephron which is at Machpelah” may be explained, according to v. 9, from the fact that the cave of Machpelah was at the end of the field, the field, therefore, belonged to it. In v. 19 the shorter form, “cave of Machpelah,” occurs; and in v. 20 the field is distinguished from the cave. The name Machpelah is translated by the LXX as a common noun, to> sph>laion to> diplou>n , from hl;Pek]mæ doubling; but it had evidently grown into a proper name, since it is sued not only of the cave, but of the adjoining field also (Genesis 49:30; 50:13), though it undoubtedly originated in the form of the cave.

The cave was before, i.e., probably to the east of, the grove of Mamre, which was in the district of Hebron. This description cannot be reconciled with the tradition, which identifies Mamre and the cave with Ramet el Khalil, where the strong foundation-walls of an ancient heathen temple (according to Rosenmüller’s conjecture, an Idumaean one) are still pointed out as Abraham’s house, and where a very old terebinth stood in the early Christian times; for this is an hour’s journey to the north of modern Hebron, and even the ancient Hebron cannot have stretched so far over the mountains which separate the modern city from Rameh, but must also, according to Genesis 37:14, have been situated in the valley (see Robinson’s later Biblical Researches, pp. 365ff.). There is far greater probability in the Mohammedan tradition, that the Harem, built of colossal blocks with grooved edges, which stands on the western slope of the Beabireh mountain, in the north-western portion of the present town, contains hidden within it the cave of Machpelah with the tomb of the patriarchs (cf. Robinson, Pal. ii. 435ff.); and Rosen. is induced to look for Mamre on the eastern slope of the Rumeidi hill, near to the remarkable well Ain el Jedid.

GENESIS. 23:20

The repetition of the statement, that the field with the cave in it was conveyed to Abraham by the Hittites for a burial-place, which gives the result of the negotiation that has been described with, so to speak, legal accuracy, shows the great importance of the event to the patriarch. The fact that Abraham purchased a burying-place in strictly legal form as an hereditary possession in the promised land, was a proof of his strong faith in the promises of God and their eventual fulfilment. In this grave Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, were buried; there Jacob buried Leah; and there Jacob himself requested that he might be buried, thus declaring his faith in the promises, even in the hour of his death.

ISAAC’S MARRIAGE.

GENESIS. 24:1-4

After the death of Sarah, Abraham had still to arrange for the marriage of Isaac. He was induced to provide for this in a mode in harmony with the promise of God, quite as much by his increasing age as by the blessing of God in everything, which necessarily instilled the wish to transmit that blessing to a distant posterity. He entrusted this commission to his servant, “the eldest of his house,” — i.e., his upper servant, who had the management of all his house (according to general opinion, to Eliezer, whom he had previously thought of as the heir of his property, but who would now, like Abraham, be extremely old, as more than sixty years had passed since the occurrence related in Genesis 15:2)-and made him swear that he would not take a wife for his son from the daughters of the Canaanites, but would fetch one from his (Abraham’s) native country, and his kindred. Abraham made the servant take an oath in order that his wishes might be inviolably fulfilled, even if he himself should die in the interim.

In swearing, the servant put his hand under Abraham’s hip. This custom, which is only mentioned here and in Genesis 47:29, the so-called bodily oath, was no doubt connected with the significance of the hip as the part from which the posterity issued (46:26), and the seat of vital power; but the early Jewish commentators supposed it to be especially connected with the rite of circumcision. The oath was by “Jehovah, God of heaven and earth,” as the God who rules in heaven and on earth, not by Elohim; for it had respect not to an ordinary oath, but to a question of great importance in relation to the kingdom of God. “Isaac was not regarded as a merely pious candidate for matrimony, but as the heir of the promise, who must therefore be kept from any alliance with the race whose possessions were to come to his descendants, and which was ripening for the judgment to be executed by those descendants” (Hengstenberg, Dissertations i. 350). For this reason the rest of the negotiation was all conducted in the name of Jehovah.

GENESIS. 24:5-9

Before taking the oath, the servant asks whether, in case no woman of their kindred would follow him to Canaan, Isaac was to be conducted to the land of his fathers. But Abraham rejected the proposal, because Jehovah took him from his father’s house, and had promised him the land of Canaan for a possession. He also discharged the servant, if that should be the case, from the oath which he had taken, in the assurance that the Lord through His angel would bring a wife to his son from thence.

GENESIS. 24:10-20

The servant then went, with ten camels and things of every description belonging to his master, into Mesopotamia to the city of Nahor, i.e., Haran, where Nahor dwelt (Genesis 11:31, and 12:4). On his arrival there, he made the camels kneel down, or rest, without the city by the well, “at the time of evening, the time at which the women come out to draw water,” and at which, now as then, women and girls are in the habit of fetching the water required for the house (vid., Robinson’s Palestine ii. 368ff.). He then prayed to Jehovah, the God of Abraham, “Let there come to meet me to-day,” sc., the person desired, the object of my mission. He then fixed upon a sign connected with the custom of the country, by the occurrence of which he might decide upon the maiden ( r[ænæ puella, used in the Pentateuch for both sexes, except in Deuteronomy 22:19, where hr;[næ occurs) whom Jehovah had indicated as the wife appointed for His servant Isaac. jkæy; (v. 14) to set right, then to point out as right; not merely to appoint. He had scarcely ended his prayer when his request was granted.

Rebekah did just what he had fixed upon as a token, not only giving him to drink, but offering to water his camels, and with youthful vivacity carrying out her promise. Niebuhr met with similar kindness in those regions (see also Robinson, Pal. ii. 351, etc.). The servant did not give himself blindly up to first impressions, however, but tested the circumstances.

GENESIS. 24:21

“The man, wondering at her, stood silent, to know whether Jehovah had made his journey prosperous or not.” ha;v; , from ha;v; to be desert, inwardly laid waste, i.e., confused. Others derive it from ha;v; = h[;v; to see; but in the Hithpael this verb signifies to look restlessly about, which is not applicable here.

GENESIS. 24:22-28

After the watering of the camels was over, the man took a golden nosering of the weight of a beka, i.e., half a shekel (Exodus 38:26), and two golden armlets of 10 shekels weight, and (as we find from vv. 30 and 47) placed these ornaments upon her, not as a bridal gift, but in return for her kindness. He then asked her about her family, and whether there was room in her father’s house for him and his attendants to pass the night there; and it was not trill after Rebekah had told him that she was the daughter of Bethuel, the nephew of Abraham, and had given a most cheerful assent to his second question, that he felt sure that this was the wife appointed by Jehovah for Isaac. He then fell down and thanked Jehovah for His grace and truth, whilst Rebekah in the meantime had hastened home to relate all that had occurred to “her mother’s house,” i.e., to the female portion of her family. dseje the condescending love, tm,a, the truth which God had displayed in the fulfilment of His promise, and here especially manifested to him in bringing him to the home of his master’s relations.

GENESIS. 24:29-49

As soon as Laban her brother had seen the splendid presents and heard her account, he hurried out to the stranger at the well, to bring him to the house with his attendants and animals, and to show to him the customary hospitality of the East. The fact that Laban addressed him as the blessed of Jehovah (v. 31), may be explained from the words of the servant, who had called his master’s God Jehovah. The servant discharged his commission before he partook of the food set before him (the Kethibh µcæy; in v. 33 is the imperf. Kal of µcæy; = µWc ); and commencing with his master’s possessions and family affairs, he described with the greatest minuteness his search for a wife, and the success which he had thus far met with, and then (in v. 49) pressed his suit thus: “And now, if he will show kindness and truth to my lord, tell me; and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand or to the left,” sc., to seek in other families a wife for Isaac.

GENESIS. 24:50-51

Laban and Bethuel recognised in this the guidance of God, and said, “From Jehovah (the God of Abraham) the thing proceedeth; we cannot speak unto thee bad or good,” i.e., cannot add a word, cannot alter anything (Numbers 24:13; 2 Samuel 13:22). That Rebekah’s brother Laban should have taken part with her father in deciding, was in accordance with the usual custom (cf. Genesis 34:5,11,25; Judges 21:22; 2 Samuel 13:22), which may have arisen from the prevalence of polygamy, and the readiness of the father to neglect the children (daughters) of the wife he cared for least.

GENESIS. 24:52-53

After receiving their assent, the servant first of all offered thanks to Jehovah with the deepest reverence; he then gave the remaining presents to the bride, and to her relations (brother and mother); and after everything was finished, partook of the food provided. GENESIS 24:54-60 The next morning he desired at once to set off on the journey home; but her brother and mother wished to keep her with them `rwOc[; owOa µwOy , “some days, or rather ten;” but when she was consulted, she decided to so, sc., without delay. “Then they sent away Rebekah their sister (Laban being chiefly considered, as the leading person in the affair) and her nurse” (Deborah; Ch. Genesis 35:8), with the parting wish that she might become the mother of an exceedingly numerous and victorious posterity. “Become thousands of myriads” is a hyperbolical expression for an innumerable host of children. The second portion of the blessing (v. 60b) is almost verbatim the same as Genesis 22:17, but is hardly borrowed thence, as the thought does not contain anything specifically connected with the history of salvation.

GENESIS. 24:61-67

When the caravan arrived in Canaan with Rebekah and her maidens, Isaac had just come from going to the well Lahai-Roi (Genesis 16:14), as he was then living in the south country; and he went towards evening ( `br,[, hn;p; , at the turning, coming on, of the evening, Deuteronomy 23:12) to the field “to meditate.” It is impossible to determine whether Isaac had been to the well of Hagar which called to mind the omnipresence of God, and there, in accordance with his contemplative character, had laid the question of his marriage before the Lord (Delitzsch), or whether he had merely travelled thither to look after his flocks and herds (Knobel). But the object of his going to the field to meditate, was undoubtedly to lay the question of his marriage before God in solitude. jæWc , meditari, is rendered “to pray” in the Chaldee, and by Luther and others, with substantial correctness. The caravan arrived at the time; and Rebekah, as soon as she saw the man in the field coming to meet them, sprang ( lpæn; signifying a hasty descent, Kings 5:21) from the camel to receive him, according to Oriental custom, in the most respectful manner. She then inquired the name of the man; and as soon as she heard that it was Isaac, she enveloped herself in her veil, as became a bride when meeting the bridegroom. ãy[ix; , qe>ristron , the cloak-like veil of Arabia (see my Archäologie, §103, 5). The servant then related to Isaac the result of his journey; and Isaac conducted the maiden, who had been brought to him by God, into the tent of Sarah his mother, and she became his wife, and he loved her, and was consoled after his mother, i.e., for his mother’s death. lh,ao , with h local, in the construct state, as in Genesis 20:1; 28:2, etc.; and in addition to that, with the article prefixed (cf. Ges. Gram. §110, 2bc).

ABRAHAM’S MARRIAGE TO KETURAH HIS DEATH AND BURIAL.

GENESIS. 25:1-2

Abraham’s Marriage to Keturah is generally supposed to have taken place after Sarah’s death, and his power to beget six sons at so advanced an age is attributed to the fact, that the Almighty had endowed him with new vital and reproductive energy for begetting the son of the promise. But there is no firm ground for this assumption; as it is not stated anywhere, that Abraham did not take Keturah as his wife till after Sarah’s death. It is merely an inference drawn from the fact, that it is not mentioned till afterwards; and it is taken for granted that the history is written in strictly chronological order. But this supposition is precarious, and is not in harmony with the statement, that Abraham sent away the sons of the concubines with gifts during his own lifetime; for in the case supposed, the youngest of Keturah’s sons would not have been more than twenty-five or thirty years old at Abraham’s death; and in those days, when marriages were not generally contracted before the fortieth year, this seems too young for them to have been sent away from their father’s house.

This difficulty, however, is not decisive. Nor does the fact that Keturah is called a concubine in v. 6, and 1 Chronicles 1:32, necessarily show that she was contemporary with Sarah, but may be explained on the ground that Abraham did not place her on the same footing as Sarah, his sole wife, the mother of the promised seed. Of the sons and grandsons of Keturah, who are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 1:32 as well as here, a few of the names may still be found among the Arabian tribes, but in most instances the attempt to trace them is very questionable. This remark applies to the identification of Zimran with Cabra’m (Ptol. vi. 7, 5), the royal city of the Cinaidokolpi’tai to the west of Mecca, on the Red Sea; of Jokshan with the Cassani’tai, on the Red Sea (Ptol. vi. 7, 6), or with the Himyaritish tribe of Jakish in Southern Arabia; of Ishbak with the name Shobek, a place in the Edomitish country first mentioned by Abulfeda; of Shuah with the tribe Syayhe to the east of Aila, or with Szyhhan in Northern Edom (Burckhardt, Syr. 692, 693, and 945), although the epithet the Shuhite, applied to Bildad, points to a place in Northern Idumaea. There is more plausibility in the comparison of Medan and Midian with Eodia’na on the eastern coast of the Elanitic Gulf, and Madia>ua , a tract to the north of this (Ptol. vi. 7, 2, 27; called by Arabian geographers Madyan, a city five days’ journey to the south of Aila). The relationship of these two tribes will explain the fact, that the Midianim, Genesis 37:28, are called Medanim in v. 36.

GENESIS. 25:3-4

Of the sons of Jokshan, Sheba was probably connected with the Sabaeans, who are associated in Job 6:19 with Tema, are mentioned in Job 1:15 as having stolen Job’s oxen and asses, and, according to Strabo (xvi. 779), were neighbours of the Nabataeans in the vicinity of Syria. Dedan was probably the trading people mentioned in Jeremiah 25:23 along with Tema and Bus (Isaiah 21:13; Jeremiah 49:8), in the neighbourhood of Edom (Ezekiel 24:15), with whom the tribe of Banu Dudan, in Hejas, has been compared. On their relation to the Cushites of the same name, vid., Genesis 10:7 and 28-Of the sons of Dedan, the Asshurim have been associated with the warlike tribe of the Asir to the south of Hejas, the Letushim with the Banu Leits in Hejas, and the Leummim with the tribe of the Banu Lâm, which extended even to Babylon and Mesopotamia. Of the descendants of Midian, Ephah is mentioned in Isaiah 60:6, in connection with Midian, as a people trading in gold and incense. Epher has been compared with the Banu Gifar in Hejas; Hanoch, with the place called Hanakye, three days’ journey to the north of Medinah; Abidah and el-daah, with the tribes of Abide and Vadaa in the neighbourhood of Asir. But all this is very uncertain.

GENESIS. 25:5-6

Before his death, Abraham made a final disposition of his property. Isaac, the only son of his marriage with Sarah, received all his possessions. The sons of the concubines (Hagar and Keturah) were sent away with presents from their father’s house into the east country, i.e., Arabia in the widest sense, to the east and south-east of Palestine. GENESIS 25:7-8 Abraham died at the good old age of 175, and was “gathered to his people.” This expression, which is synonymous with “going to his fathers” (Genesis 15:15), or “being gathered to his fathers” (Judges 2:10), but is constantly distinguished from departing this life and being buried, denotes the reunion in Sheol with friends who have gone before, and therefore presupposes faith in the personal continuance of a man after death, as a presentiment which the promises of God had exalted in the case of the patriarchs into a firm assurance of faith (Hebrews 11:13).

GENESIS. 25:9-10

The burial of the patriarch in the cave of Machpelah was attended to by Isaac and Ishmael; since the latter, although excluded from the blessings of the covenant, was acknowledged by God as the son of Abraham by a distinct blessing (Genesis 17:20), and was thus elevated above the sons of Keturah.

GENESIS. 25:11

After Abraham’s death the blessing was transferred to Isaac, who took up his abode by Hagar’s well, because he had already been there, and had dwelt in the south country (Genesis 24:62). The blessing of Isaac is traced to Elohim, not to Jehovah; because it referred neither exclusively nor preeminently to the gifts of grace connected with the promises of salvation, but quite generally to the inheritance of earthly possessions, which Isaac had received from his father.

VII. HISTORY OF ISHMAEL (Compare 1 Chronicles 1:28-31) GENESIS 25:12-18 To show that the promises of God, which had been made to Ishmael (Genesis 16:10ff. and 17:20), were fulfilled, a short account is given of his descendants; and according to the settled plan of Genesis, this account precedes the history of Isaac. This is evidently the intention of the list which follows of the twelve sons of Ishmael, who are given as princes of the tribes which sprang from them. Nebajoth and Kedar are mentioned in Isaiah 60:7 as rich possessors of flocks, and, according to the current opinion which Wetzstein disputes, are the Nabataei et Cedrei of Pliny (h. n. 5, 12). The Nabataeans held possession of Arabia Petraea, with Petra as their capital, and subsequently extended toward the south and north-east, probably as far as Babylon; so that the name was afterwards transferred to all the tribes to the east of the Jordan, and in the Nabataean writings became a common name for Chaldeans (ancient Babylonians), Syrians, Canaanites, and others.