The Genesis of the World and of the Primitive Time of the Human Race, as the Genesis of the Primitive Religion until the Development of Heathendom, and of its Antithesis in the Germinating Patriarchalism. Genesis 1-11—————— FIRST PARTTHE GENESIS OF THE WORLD, OF THE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, AND OF THE MEN. Ch. 1 and 2FIRST SECTIONThe Heaven, the Earth, and Man. The Creation and the World in an Upward series of Physical and Generic Development. Universalistic.Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3A.—The Antithesis of Heaven and Earth, the Symbol of all Religion1In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. B.—The Three First Creative Days. The Great Divisions (by means of Light, Heat, and Chemical Affinity), or the Three Living Contrasts: Light and Darkness (or the Dark Spherical Material); the Ζtherial Waters (or the Vapor-Form) and the Earthly Waters (or the Fluid Precipitate); the Water Proper and the Land. The nearest Limit of these Divisions: the Vegetable World as a Symbolic of Commencing Life analogous to the Result of the Three Last Creative Days in the Appearing of Man.2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved [hovered, brooded] upon the face of the waters. 3And God said: Let there be light, and there was light. 4And God saw the light [the beauty of the light] that it was good [θεֹ ?α, good and fair; as the Greek καλὸν, fair and good]; and God divided the light from the darkness [made a division between the luminous and the dark element]. 5And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night [source of day, source of night]. And the evening and the morning were the first day [i.e., by this division is measured one divine day, or day of God—one day here is for first day]. 6And God said: Let there be a firmament [extension, expansion] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9And God said: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together [combining] of the waters [as water proper] called he Seas; and God saw that it was good [second pause of contemplation]. 11And God said: Let the earth bring forth grass [grow grass], the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after his kind. And God saw that it was good [third pause of contemplation]. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. C.—The Three Last Creative Days. The Three Great Combinings: 1. The Heavenly Luminaries and the Earth generally; 2. the Heavenly Luminaries and Water and Air; 3. the Heavenly Luminaries and the Earth-Soil as a Pre-Conditioning of Individual Formations. Or the Three Parallelisms of the Three First Creative Days.st day, The Light;4th day, The Luminaries;d day, The Waters under and above the Firmament;5th day, The Fishes in the Seas and the Birds of the Heavens;d day, The Liberated Earth-Soil, and the Plants upon it;6th day, The Land-Animals, and over them Man.And God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years. 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth. And it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth; 18And to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good [fourth pause of contemplation]. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20And God said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly [Lange: Let the waters swarm] the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly [Lange and English marg. rendering: Let fowl fly] above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind. And God saw that it was good [fifth pause of contemplation]. 22And God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas; and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind. And it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. And God saw that it was good [sixth pause of contemplation]. D.—The Limit, Aim, of all the Creative Days (especially of the three last), the Antitype of the Vegetable Creation at the End of the Third Day: which Antitype is Man, the Likeness of God, and the Sabbath, in which God rests from His Work.26And God said: Let us make man in our image after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them. Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruitof a tree yielding seed; to you shall it be for meat; 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat. And it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good [seventh pause of contemplation] And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 2:1-2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested [had begun to rest] from all his work which [he as] God created and made [Lange: um es zu machen; English marg.: created to make]. AND 1. See on the Introduction to Genesis, and under the head of Literature, the catalogue of cosmological works that belong here. Compare, especially, the Literature Catalogue given by Knobel and Delitzsch. 2. The passages of Scripture that have a special connection: Job; Psalms 8, 19, 104; Proverbs 8; Isaiah 40; John 1:1; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 11:3; Revelation 21:13. This account of the world’s creation evidently forms an ascending line, a series of generations whose highest point and utmost limit is reached in man. The six days’ works arrange themselves in orderly contrast; and in correspondence to this are the sections as they have been distinguished by us: a. The creation of heaven and earth in general, and which may also be regarded as the first constituting of the symbolical opposition of the two; b. the three first creative days, or the three great divisions which constitute the great elementary oppositions or polarities of the world, and which are the conditioning of all creature-life: 1. The element of light and the dark shadow-casting masses, or the concrete darkness, and which we must not confound with the evening and the morning; 2. the gaseous form of the ζther, especially of the atmosphere, and the fluid form of the earth-sphere; 3. the opposition between the water and the firm land. In respect to this it must be observed that the waters, of Genesis 1:2, are a different thing from the waters of Gen 1:6; Genesis 1:9, since it still encloses the light and the matter of the earth. Moreover, “the waters” of Genesis 1:6 is not yet properly water; since it encloses still the earth material. The first mention of elementary water in the proper sense, is at Genesis 1:9. c. The three last creative days, wherein the above parallel is to be observed; d. the limit or aim of creation—man—the sabbath of God. 4. Genesis 1:1-2, the ground-laying for the creation of the heaven and the earth. Considered cosmologically and geologically.—In the beginning.— The construction maintained by Bunsen and others (Raschi, Ewald, Aben Ezra) is as follows: In the beginning when God created heaven and earth, and when the earth was waste and desolate, and darkness was over the primeval flood, and the breath of God moved upon the waters, then God said, Let there be light, and there was light. This construction is, in the first place, opposed throughout to the language of Genesis, as in its brief yet grand declarations it proceeds from one concluded sentence to another. Secondly, it contradicts the context, in which the creation of light is a significant, yet still an isolated, moment. If we were to follow Bunsen, it would be the introduction of the Persian light-religion rather than the religion of the Old Testament. And, finally, in the third place, it obliterates that distinguishing ground-idea of the theocratic monotheism with which, in the very start, the word of revelation confronts all pagan dualism,—in other words, the truth, that in regard to the manner of creation, God is the sole causality of heaven and earth in an absolute sense. The view of Aben Ezra that αְּ ?ψֵ ?ΰωִׁ ?ιϊ is ever in the construct state, and that it means here, “in the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth,” etc., is contradicted by the occurrence of the word in the absolute state, Deuteronomy 33:21.—αְּ ?ψֵ ?ΰωִׁ ?ιϊ (from ψֹ ?ΰω = ψֵ ?ΰωׁ). The substantive without the article. It is true, this cannot be rendered in the beginning, taken absolutely, so that the beginning should have a significance, or an existence for itself. It would be, moreover, a tautology to say in the beginning of things when God created them, etc., that is, when there was the beginning of things; or else we must take bereshith mystically: in principio, that is, in filio, as Basil, Ambrose, and others (see Leop. Schmid, Explanation of the Holy Scriptures, p. 4), which is not allowable, although it is true that the New Testament doctrine advances at once to the determination that God created all things through the Son (John 1:3; John 1:11; Hebrews 1:2; comp. Psalms 33:6). It is not easy to take the word adverbially: originally, or in the first place (Knobel); for the immediately following enumeration of the creative days shows that the author would have time begin with the creation of the world. According to Delitzsch the author does not mean “to express the doctrinal proposition that the world had its beginning in time, and is not eternal, but only that the creation of the heavens and the earth was the beginning of all history.” This interpretation seems arbitrary. Bereshith relates especially to time, or to the old, the first time (Isaiah 46:10; Job 42:12). It may be further said that αְּ can mean with or through. It is, therefore, the most obvious way to interpret it: in a beginning, and that, too, the first, or the beginning of time, God created the heavens and the earth (with the time the space; the latter denoted through the antitheses of heaven and earth). From that first beginning must be distinguished the six new beginnings of the six days’ works; for the creating goes on through the six days. In a beginning of time, therefore, that lies back of the six days’ works, must that first foundation-plan of the world have been made, along with the creation of the heaven and the earth in their opposition. The first verse is therefore not a superscription for the representation that follows, but the completed ouranology despatched in one general declaration, although the cosmical generation, which is described Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:14, is again denoted along with it. That the sun, moon, and stars are perfected for the earth on the fourth day, is an indication that God’s creating still goes on in the heavens, even as the creating of the periods of development in the earth, after its first condition as waste and desolate, when it went forth from the hand of God as a spherical form without any distinct inward configuration.—αָּ ?ψָ ?ΰ, in Piel to cut, hew, form; but in Kal it is usually employed of divine productions new, or not previously existing in the “sphere of nature or history (Exodus 34:10; Numbers 16:30, and frequently in the Prophets), or of spirit (Psalms 51:12, and the frequent κτίζειν in the N. T.); but never denoting human productions, and never used with the accusative of the material.” Delitzsch. And thus the conception of creating is akin to that of the miraculous, in so far that the former would mean a creating in respect to initial form, the latter in respect to novelty of production. (On the kindred expressions in the Zendavesta, see Delitzsch.) It is to be noted how αָּ ?ψָ ?ΰ differs from ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ and ιִ ?φֶ ?ψ (Genesis 2:2 and Genesis 1:7). That in this creating there is not meant, at all, any demiurgical forming out of pre-existing material, appears from the fact that the kind of material, as something then or just created, is strongly signified in the first condition of the earth, Genesis 1:2, and in the creation of light. This shows itself, in like manner, in the general unconditioned declaration that God is the creative author, or original, of heaven and earth.—Elohim, see the Divine Names in the Introduction.—δַ ?ωָׁ ?ξַ ?ιִ ?ν. According to the Arabic it would denote the antithesis of the High (or the height) to the Lower—that is, the earth. The plural form is significant, denoting the abundance and the variety of the upper spaces. This appears still more in the expression, the heaven of heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14, and Psalms 68:34). 5. Genesis 1:2-5. Preparation of the geologico-cosmological description of the days’ works. First Creative Day.—ϊֹּ ?δεּ εָ ?αֹ ?δεּ. The earth was. This is spoken of its unarranged original or fundamental state, or of heaven and earth in general. Thohu Vabohu, alliteratives and at the same time rhymes, or like sounding; similar alliteratives occurring thus in all the Pentateuch as signs of very old and popular forms of expression (Genesis 4:12; Exodus 23:1; Exodus 23:5; Numbers 5:18; Deuteronomy 2:15). We find them also in Isaiah and elsewhere as characteristic features of a poetical, artistic, keen, and soaring spirit. They are at the same time pictorial and significant of the earth’s condition. For, according to Hupfeld and Delitzsch, ϊֹ ?δεּ passes over from the primitive sense of roaring to that of desolateness and confusion. The last becomes the common sense, or that which characterizes the natural waste (Deuteronomy 32:10) as a positive desolation, as, for example, of a city (Isaiah 34:11). It is through the conception of voidness, nothingness, that Thohu and Bohu are connected. Delitzsch regards the latter word as related to αδν, which means to be brutal. Both seem doubtful, but the more usual reference to αδδ in the sense of void or emptiness is to be preferred. We have aimed at giving the rhyming or similarity of the sounds in our translation (German: φden-wόst and wόsten-φd). The desert is waste, that is, a confused mass without order; the waste is desert, that is, void, without distinction of object. The first word denotes rather the lack of form, the second the lack of content in the earliest condition of the earth. It might, therefore, be translated form-less, matter-less. “Rudis indigestaque moles, in a word, a chaos,” says Delitzsch. It would be odd if in this the biblical view should so cleanly coincide with the mythological. Chaos denotes the void space (as in a similar manner the old Northern Ginnun-gagap, gaping of yawnings, the gaping abyss, which also implies present existing material), and in the next place the rude unorganized mass of the world-material. There is, however, already here the world-form, heaven and earth, and along with this a universal heaven-and-earth-form is presupposed. It is not said that in the beginning the condition of the heavens was thohu and bohu,—at least of the heavens of the earth-world, as Delitzsch maintains; at all events, the earth goes neither out of chaos, nor out of “the same chaos” as the heavens. It is clean against the text to say that the chaos, as something that is primarily the earth, embraces, at the same time, the heaven that exists with and for the earth. For it is very clear that the language relates to the original condition of the earth, although the genesis of the earth may serve, by way of analogy, for the genesis of the universe. εְ ?ηωֶׁ ?κ, the first condition of the earth was ϊְ ?δεֹ ?ν (from δεν, to roar, be in commotion), wave, storm-flood, ocean, abyss. The first state of the earth was itself the Thehom, and over this roaring-flood lay the darkness spread abroad. It is wholly anticipatory when we say that “this undulating mass of waters was not the earth itself in the condition of thohu and bohu, but that it enclosed it; for on the third day the firm land (ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ) goes forth from the waters.” Delitzsch. Further on, Psalms 104:6 is cited to show that, originally, water proper surrounded the firm earth-kernel, and Job 38:8, according to which the sea breaks forth out of the mother’s womb (the earth)—poetical representations that are true enough, if one does not take them according to the letter; in which case they are in direct contradiction to each other. The waters, of Genesis 1:2, is quite another thing than the water proper of the third creative day; it is the fluid (or gaseous) form of the earth itself in its first condition. 2 Peter 3:5 is not opposed to this; for as the water takes form, the earth breaks out of the water, just as the water comes forth from the earth in consequence of the creative division. The darkness is just the absence of the phenomenal, or the absence of light (for the vision view) in the condition of the earth itself,—in other words, night.—εְ ?ψεּ ?ηַ, But the spirit of God hovered over (Ang., moved upon). The breath of man, the wind of the earth, and the spirit, especially the spirit of God, are symbolical analogies. The breath is the life-unity and life-motion of the physical creature, the wind is the unity and life-motion of the earth, the spirit is the unity and life-motion of the life proper to which it belongs; the spirit of God is the unity and life-motion of the creative divine activity. It is not a wind of God to which the language here primarily relates (Theodoret, Saadia, Herder, and others), but the spirit of God truly (wherefore the word ψησ, Delitzsch; comp. Psalms 33:6). From this place onward, and throughout the whole Scripture, the spirit of God is the single formative principle evermore presenting itself with personal attributes in all the divine creative constitutions, whether of the earth, of nature, of the theocracy, of the Tabernacle, of the church, of the new life, or of the new man. The Grecian analogue is that of Eros (or Love) in its reciprocal action with the Chaos, and to this purpose have the later Targums explained it: the spirit of love. It was ξְ ?ψַ ?ηֶ ?τֶ ?ϊ (hovering) over the waters. The conception of brooding cannot be obtained out of Deu 32:11 (Delitzsch), for the eagle does not brood over the living young, but wakes them, draws them out (educates), makes them lively. The mythological world-egg of the Persians has no place here. Should we adopt any view of this formative energy of the spirit of God (which may have worked upon the unorganized mass through the medium of a great wind of God) it would consist in this, that by its inflowing it differentiated this mass, that is, conformably to its being, called out points of unity, and divisions which fashioned the mass to multiplicity in the contrasts that follow. It separated the heterogenous, and bound together the homogenous, and so prepared the way for the dividing the light from the darkness. It cannot be said, however, that “all the co-energizing powers in the formation of the world were the emanations or determinations of this spirit of God.” For we must distinguish the creative words with αָ ?ψָ ?ΰ from ιָ ?φַ ?ψ, or the forming by the spirit of God. The object, however, of this forming is not the primitive matter, but the flowing earth-sphere. Just as little can one say that the six days’ works have their beginning in Genesis 1:3; for the result of the first day is not the light merely, but also the darkness (see Isaiah 45:7). Concerning the theosophic interpretation of thohu vabohu as a world in ruins which had come from God’s judgment on the Fall of the Angels (see Genesis 1:3). Genesis 1:3. Let there be light.—Here begin the geologico-cosmical creative periods. This new beginning, therefore, must be distinguished from that first creation of the heavens and the earth which is to be regarded as having no creative beginning before it. Henceforth the treatment is that of a sacred geology, yet regarded in its biblical sense as geologico-cosmological. Hence, in Genesis 1:3, the creation of the light-heaven; Genesis 1:8, the creation of the air-heaven; Genesis 1:14, the creation of the star-heaven; Genesis 1:26, the creation of the heavenly core of the earth itself.—And God said.—“Ten times is this word, εַ ?ιּ ?ΰֹ ?ξֶ ?ψ, repeated in the history of the seven days.” The omnipotence of the creative word, Psalms 33:9 : He spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood (Romans 4:17). The creative-word in its deeper significance: Psalms 33:6; Isaiah 40:26; John 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 11:3; Colossians 1:16. The light, the first distinct creative formation, and, therefore, the formation-principle, or the pre-conditioning for all further formations. Of this formative dividing power of light, physical science teaches us. It is now tolerably well understood, that the light is not conditioned by perfected luminous bodies, but, on the contrary, that light bodies are conditioned by a preceding luminous element. Thus there is set aside the objection taken by Celsus, by the Manichζans, and by rationalism generally, namely, the supposed inversion of order in having first the light and afterwards the luminous body. And yet the light without any substratum is just as little conceivable as the darkness. The question arises, how the author conceived the going forth of the light, whether out of the dark bosom of the earth-flood, or out of the dark bosom of the forming heaven? As the view of the heavenly lights (light bodies) Genesis 1:14, is geocentric, so may the same view prevail here of the heaven-light itself. By this is meant that in the fact of the first illumination of the earth the author presents the fact of the birth of light generally in the world, without declaring thereby that the date of the genesis of the earth’s light is also the date of the genesis of light universally. But we may well take the birth of light in the earth (or the earth becoming light) as the analogue whereon is presented the birth of light in the heaven, just as in the creation of man there is symbolized the creation of the spirit-world collectively. We let alone here the question whether the light is an emanation (an outflowing) of a luminous element, or an undulation from a luminous body; only it may be remarked that sound goes on all sides, and may, therefore, be supposed to undulate in sonorous waves, whilst the ray of light, on the other hand, goes directly, for which reason the application to it of such an undulation of sonorous waves would seem unsuitable. The idea of an ζtherial vibration may make a medium between emanation and undulation. Without doubt, however, the meaning here is not merely a light-appearing which goes forth out of the heaven-ground, and breaks through the dark vapor of the earth, or from heavenly clouds of light (such as the primary form of the creation may have appeared to be), but an immediate lighting up of the luminous element in the earth itself, something like what the Polar night gives rise to in the northern aurora; enough that it is said of the contrast presented between the illuminating and the shade-producing element. The light goes, however, in the first place, out of the dark world-forms (not the mere world material) after that the spirit of God, as formative principle, has energized in them. The spirit of God is the spiritual light that goes out from God; therefore its working goes before the creation of the outer light; and therefore, too, it is that this light is the symbol, and its operation similar to the operation, of the spirit—that is, the formation and the revelation of beauty.—And there was light.—The famed sublimity of this expression as given by Longinus (in a somewhat doubtful text) and others, is predicated on the pure simplicity and confidence with which it sets forth the omnipotence of the creative word.—And God saw the light that it was good.—The first beauty is the light itself. For the Hebrew θεֹ ?α denotes the beautiful along with the good, even as the Greek καλὸν denotes the good along with the beautiful. The sense: that it was good, does not seem easy; and therefore Tertullian (and more lately Neumann) have accepted the quia of the Itala. On the other hand, Delitzsch remarks: “The conclusion is that to God each single work of creation appears good.” The conclusion lies, perhaps, in the pause of solemn contemplation, out of which, at the end, goes forth the perfect sabbath. It is because the religious human soul recognizes the fair and the good in the event of the appearing, that there is therein reflected to it the fountain of this spiritual ethical satisfaction, namely the contemplation of God Himself. Still the contemplation of God does not regard the object as though captivated by it because it is fair, but it rejoices therein that it is fair; or we may say that, in a certain manner, it is the very efficacy of this contemplation that it becomes fair.—And God divided between the light and the darkness.—Although it is farther said that God named the light day and the darkness night, still it must not be supposed that here there is meant only the interchange between day and night as the ordaining of the points of division between both, namely morning and evening. Although light and darkness, day and night, are called after their appearing, yet are they still, all the more, very day and night, in other words, the very causalities themselves. The light denotes all that is simply illuminating in its efficacy, all the luminous element; the darkness denotes all that is untransparent, dark, shadow-casting; both together denote the polarity of the created world, as it exists between the light-formations and the night-formations—the constitution of the day and night. “One sees,” says Delitzsch, “how false is the current and purely privative conception of darkness; as when, for example, a mediζval interpreter (Maxima Bibl. Lugd. vi. p. 868) says: sicut silentium nihil est, sed ubi vox non est silentium dicitur, sic tenebr� nihil sunt, sed ubi lux non est tenebr� dicuntur.” It is true, there must be presupposed for the daylight an illuminating source or fountain of light, and so for the darkness a shadow-casting causality (James 1:16); but it would be quite wrong to say that light and darkness are two principles (according to the course of the earlier theosophists: Jacob Bφhm, and a later school: Baumgarten and others). If it is farther said that the darkness has not the witness θεֹ ?α (good), it may be replied that it certainly has it mediately, Genesis 1:31. It is indeed said still earlier: “We do not read that the tohu and bohu, that the tehom with the darkness lying over it originated in the divine call into being (fiat), therefore they had their origin in some other way.” This is a very unwarranted conclusion; so also, then, must the heavens have originated in some other way. The heaven, however, has its origin in the word of the Lord (Psalms 33), and so also the night and the darkness (Isaiah 45:7) as well as the abyss (Psalms 104:8). It is, therefore, a hard inconsequence when Delitzsch, following the mythological views, regards the thohu wabhohu as the chaos enclosing even the heaven in its birth (p. 93), and still farther regards it theosophically as the ruined habitation of condemned demons. In the historical derivation of the last opinion (p. 105) Delitzsch appears to have confounded two distinct views: the scholastic, that God had formed the human world for the purpose of filling up the void that arose in heaven after the fall of the angels, and the theosophic, that the terrestrial region of the world was, in the earlier time, the abode of Lucifer and his companions, which afterwards, through their guilt, became a thohu vabhohu out of which God laid the foundation of a new world. In this view the thohu vabhohu is “the glowing material mass into which the power of God’s wrath had melted the original world after it had become corrupted by the fall of the spirits (pp. 105 and 114 below),—or it was the rudis indigestaque moles into which God had compressed and precipitated that spiritual but now ungodly world condemned to the flames in consequence of its materializing, and this for the purpose of making it the substratum of a new creation which had its beginning in the fact that God had placed the chaos of this old fire-invaded world wholly under water.” One might well ask: shall the fire-brand itself (the old burnt-up earth) be the chaos, or the divine reaction through the quenching in water? Was the fire-brand the work of the demons, or did it come through God’s judgment and counteraction? All such resolutions of the difficulty are in a state of mutual confusion. And this is no wonder, for a certain theosophic hankering after dualism with its two principles can only veil itself in dark and fantastic phrases. In opposition to these gnosticising representations of matter, the demands of a pure monotheism require of us an acquiescence in the idea that matter too is good, because it is from God,—in so far, indeed, as we can speak of pure matter in general terms. The more particular fountain of this view—after certain older preludes and popular representations (Delitzsch, p. 106) derived from Gnostic traditions—is Jacob Bφhm (Myst. Magn. p. 67) and the Gnostic teachers that arose after him, Friedrich von Meyer, Baumgarten (Genesis), and others. With peculiar zeal hath Kurtz also taken part in these theosophic phantasies, as also in those other of the miscegenations or sexual confusions between the angels of heaven and the daughters of earth (Genesis 6). The grounds presented by Delitzsch, in opposition to his earlier contrary view (as given in the first two editions of his Commentary), are the following: 1. In the interpretation aforesaid one would, to be sure, expect εַ ?ϊְּ ?δִ ?ι instead of εְ ?δָ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?δ, but the conscious connection need not lie precisely in the consciousness of the writer; he relates simply a matter of fact. And yet he must have been more enlightened in respect to the nature of things than our scientific man. A blind narration of facts would here be as inconsistent as a pure indication of a theosophic sense in thohu vabhohu. 2. Thohu has, indeed, a predominating privative character; it arises, however (Isaiah 34:11; Isaiah 24:10; Jeremiah 4:23), from a positive destruction. But how natural was it to apply the pictorial thohu vabhohu to such a condition. What more purely privative than the word nothing? and yet we say it of positive states of destruction. According to Delitzsch, in the methods of its construction (world-brand, quenching-water) must Plutonism and Neptunism have reached their deepest grounding. The grounds that follow are in no respects better (p. 104). What have rendered the hypothesis suspicious from its beginning hitherto are its apocryphal or popular origin (Delitzsch, p. 105), its Gnostic coloring, and its affinity to that other scholastic phantasma that God had created men to fill up the vacuum in the fallen angel-world. It must, however, become very evident that the representation of an “overcoming of the darkness,” in the physical sense in which it here presents itself, is utterly foreign to the holy text; it is like the mingling of conceptions, namely of a physical and an ethical darkness. The representation, then, of Genesis 1:2 will be clearly a picturing of the primitive condition of the earth, as it became in consequence of the first general creation, Genesis 1:1. Besides, this hypothesis obliterates that line which everywhere else appears between the angelic and human regions and natures. Finally, Genesis 1:2, as a representation of the flowing, form-receptive condition of the earth-mass gives the bases for all farther ascending formations. Add to this that, in such case, the region of Lucifer would have been visited by the fire-judgment earlier than Lucifer himself—a representation which runs counter to the usual order of things—not to say, that, on such a supposition, Lucifer himself should have been rightly banished from the whole extent of the earth-region. Or, can it be that God has built the new house of humanity upon the foul beams of a demoniac power? But it is not worth our while to dwell more fully upon a representation which is so characterized by its own sharp contradictions.—And there was evening and there was morning.—Here, in the first place, we must not suppose that the evening and the morning were merely the sequence of the preceding darkness and of the light that followed it, notwithstanding that the first evening and morning so fittingly append themselves to such a contrast. Still less are we to think of the usual evening and morning, since the earth had not yet been astronomically arranged. Evening and morning denote rather the interval of a creative day, and this is evidently after the Hebrew mode of reckoning; the day is reckoned from sunset. The morning that follows stands for the second half of the day proper. In the same manner was the day reckoned by the Arabians, the Athenians (νυχθήμιρον), the Germans, and the Gauls. It is against the text for Delitzsch to put as the ground here the Babylonish reckoning of the day, namely from the dawning of the morning. The earlier theological representation, that by the creative periods were to be understood the usual astronomical days, is now only held by individuals (Baumgarten, Calwer Handbuch, Keil’s Genesis). It is opposed to this, in the first place, that the creative days are already numbered before the determination of the astronomical relation of the earth to the sun, although on other grounds must we hold that the days from the fourth onward were not astronomical; there are in the way, secondly, the idea of the first day whose evening had its beginning in that dark thohu vabhohu which had no evening before it, as well as the idea of the seventh day, the day of God’s rest, which is not defined by an evening and a morning, but runs on through the ordained course of the world; there is, thirdly, the idea of the day of God as it is given to us in the 90th Psalm, which is traditionally ascribed to Moses (Genesis 1:4). That this time-determination of a thousand years does not denote an exactly measured chronological period, but still a period defined by essential marks of time, appears from the converse of Psalms 90. in 2 Peter 3:8 (a thousand years as one day, and one day as a thousand years), and also from the thousand years of the judgment-time as the transition period from the present state of the world to that which lies beyond (Revelation 20). This comprehensive significance has the divine day (God’s day) or the judgment-day pre-eminently in the Old Testament (Isaiah 2:12; Joe 1:15; Ezekiel 13:5). Delitzsch, who also holds that the creative days are periods, reckons, as another argument, that in Genesis 2:4 the six days are denoted as one day. Add to this the very usual mode of speech, according to which, day in the Old Testament often denotes a longer duration of time, for example, in the formula even to this day. We are not, however, to conceive of the evening and morning of the single creative days as merely symbolic intervals of the day of God. According to the analogy of the first day, the evening is the time of a peculiar chaotic fermentation of things, whilst the morning is the time of that new, fair, solemn world-building that corresponds to it. With each evening there is also indicated a new birth-travail of things, a new earth-revolution which elevates the old formation that went before it—a seeming darkening, a seeming sunset or going down of the world; and so later with this same appearance came on the flood; and so, too, in ZaGen Genesis 14:7, the day of the commencing judgment is, with the highest significance, denoted an evening. No less significant is it in the eschatological words of our Lord: and the sun shall withdraw its light, Matthew 24:29. With each morning, on the contrary, there is a new, a higher, a fairer, and a richer state of the world. In this way do the evening and morning in the creative periods have the highest significance for an agreement of the sacred geology with the results of the scientific geology. The meaning would seem to be incorrectly taken by Delitzsch when he says: “With each effort of the divine creating is it morning, with each remission it is evening” (p. 106). The most peculiar work of God, we may rather say, would appear to be each of those stormy revolutions, in which the spirit of God hovers like an eagle over the chaotic fermentations; in the creative mornings, on the contrary, come in the holy rests when God surveys the new work and sees how good it Isa. (Comp. Von Rougemont, History of the Earth, p. 7: “Evening: a dark return of chaos.” Doubtless the designation lacks propriety in all respects, and yet it may lead to the right.) [Note on the Relation of the First Verse of Genesis 1. to the Rest of the .—Among all the interpretations of Genesis 1., the most difficult as well as the most unsatisfactory is that which regards the first verse as referring to a period indefinitely remote, and all that follows as comprised in six solar days. It is barely hinted at by some of the patristic writers, but has become a favorite with certain modern commentators, as furnishing them with a method of keeping the ordinary days, and yet avoiding the geological difficulty, or seeming to avoid it, by throwing all its signs of the earth’s antiquity into this chasm that intervenes between the first and second verses. The objections to it may be thus stated: (1) Besides the peculiar difficulties that attend any view of ordinary solar days, such as a morning and evening without a sun, or the language of succession, of growth, and of a seeming nature, without any consistent corresponding reality, there is another and greater incongruity in connecting this with a former and very different state of things, or mode of proceeding, with which, after all, it has no real connection either in the realm of nature or of divine providence. (2) It is a building of this world on the ruins of a former, without any natural or moral reasons therefor. The states preceding, as understood by this hypothesis, were in no sense preparatory. The catastrophe which makes way for it seems entirely arbitrary, and in no sense resembles the pauses described in Genesis, each one of which is in the upward order, and anticipatory of the work that follows. (3) It is evidently brought in as a possible escape from the difficulties of geology, and would never have been seriously maintained had it not been for them. (4) It has to make the heavens of the first verse a different heavens from that of the eighth, without any exegetical warrant therefor. This is a rationalizing interpretation, carrying with it a conception of our modern astronomy, and almost wholly unknown to the Scriptures, which everywhere speaks of the heavens and the earth therein mentioned as one system. It is the heavens of our earth, built upon it as described in Genesis 1:6; Genesis 1:8; Psalms 104; 1 Samuel 2:8, etc., and always taken in connection with it; not a far-off astronomical heavens, though the rudiments of such an idea come afterwards into the Hebrew. Thus in predictions, whether of destruction or of renovation, the heavens and the earth go together. “I create new heavens and a new earth,” Isaiah 66:22; Psalms 102:27, and other passages. The language is exactly parallel to that of Gen 1:1, and yet we cannot suppose that there is included here the astronomical heaven of stars and planets, at least according to the conceptions of our modern astronomy. It is a renewal of the earth, in some way, together with those celestial or sky phenomena that are in connection with it, as parts, in fact, of the tellurian system. It is the same language, the same mode of conceiving, as late down in Scripture as the 2d Epistle of Peter Genesis 3:5-7—the “earth and heavens” that were of old before the flood are put in contrast with “the earth and heavens that are now,” and which are to be changed for “a new earth and heavens” “according to the promise (Genesis 1:13) to which we look.” It is the same language that occurs repeatedly in the Revelations (Genesis 21:1), and which, whatever we may think of its prophetic meaning, shows the fixedness of the conception down to the latest times of the scriptural canon. (5) It violates the principles of a rational and grammatical exegesis, in making a separation between the first and second verses, of which there is no trace or reason in the language itself. If used in the same way in narrating historical events, in any other part of the Bible, no one would have thought of the verb αָּ ?ψָ ?ΰ, in the first, and δָ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?δ, in the second verse, otherwise than as cotemporaneous or, in direct continuation at least, with no chasm of time between them long or short. It would have been interpreted like the precisely similar sentence, Job 1:1 : “There was a man in the land of Uz, and the man was, etc., δָ ?ιָ ?δΰִ ?ιωׁ αְ ?ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υΞςεּ ?υεְ ?δָ ?ιָ ?δδָ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ. Who would think of separating the second δָ ?ιָ ?δ here from the first, or sundering the evident continuity? If it be said that the context in Job controls, and the very nature of the subject, so should it also in Genesis, unless we make a new context after our own imaginations, especially as there are clear ways in Hebrew of expressing such a parting of the terms, had it been designed to do so. Besides this, it is opposed to the usual force of the conjunction ε. Taken even as a mere copulative, it would not allow of such a sharp and remote severance. But ε is much more than this in Hebrew. It is seldom without a time sense, or an inferential sense, showing a connection, not only of mere event, but also of reason and causality. So here it shows the reason for the use of αָּ ?ψָ ?ΰ in the preceding verse. “In the beginning God created,” formed, fashioned, the earth; for it was formless and void, or when it was formless and void, etc. Let one take Noldius’ Concordance of the Hebrew Particles, and see how often (in the great majority of cases, we may say) the conjunction wau has this close-joining inferential sense. It is much more usual than its bare copulative force, but even this is out of harmony with the hypothesis of severance as commonly presented. See also Introd. to Genesis 1. pp. 129, 130.—T. L.] 6. Genesis 1:6-8. Second Creative Day.—Let there be a firmament.—Rakia (from ψָ ?χַ ?ς, to stretch, spread out, beat out) an extension or expansion, rendered in the LXX and by others, στερέυμα, and in the Vulgate firmamentum,—names which are more material than ψָ ?χִ ?ιςַ. Knobel: “The heaven was to the Hebrews a material substance (Exodus 24:10), a fixed vault established upon the waters that surrounded the circle of the earth (Proverbs 8:27), firm as a molten mirror (Job 37:18), and borne up by the highest hills, which are therefore called the pillars and foundations of the heaven (2 Samuel 22:8; Job 26:11); openings or doors are ascribed to it (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 28:17; Psalms 78:23). There are the same representations elsewhere.” But we must not forget that Hebrew modes of expression for objects that have a religious bearing, do ever contain a symbolical element which disdains the literal pressure. Therefore the stars which in Genesis 1:17 are fixed in the heaven, can nevertheless, according to Isaiah 40:26, set themselves in motion as a host of God; and hence it is that the one heaven expands itself into a heaven of heavens. And thus the heavens bends down to the earth (Psalms 18:10); or is spread out like tapestry (Psalms 104:2), or its beams are waters (Genesis 1:3), whilst the same heaven again is called the footstool of God.—In the midst of the waters.—We must beware here of thinking of a mass of elementary water; quite as little could a fluid mass which is yet identified with the light be elementary, and just as little can it be a flood, or collection of water, which consists of the three factors air, earth, and water. At this point then is completed the second division. The true standpoint of contemplation would seem to be the view, that in the azure welkin of the sky the clouds appear to give out their evaporation, and to withdraw themselves behind the blue expanse like a supercelestial gathering of water (Psalms 104:3; Psalms 104:13). It follows from this, however, that the visible clouds and the rain may be assigned to the lower collection of waters, and that there is meant here the gaseous water as it forms a unity with the air, and so makes an ethereal atmosphere (not “the water-masses that hover over the air-strata of the atmosphere”). Delitzsch here mistakes the symbolical element. “It must be admitted,” he says, “that in this the Old Testament is chargeable with a defect, for a physical connection between the descending rain-waters and the heavenly waters, which is also indicated in the New Testament (Revelation 4:6) cannot be maintained.” Indeed, it is with the actual physical connection between the invisible collection of water (the gas-formed) and the visible, that the contrast is established; it is the polaric tension which even the phenomenological extension brings to view. But why should the Septuagint correct the text here with the addition, Genesis 1:8 : And God saw, whilst the Hebrew text has it not? Had the prophetic author some anticipation that the blue vault of heaven was merely an appearance, whilst the savans of the Septuagint had no such anticipation, and, therefore, proceeded to doctor the passage? There may, indeed, be an exaggeration of this conception of the upper waters, since Philoponus and the other church fathers understand by the same the ether that is beyond the earth’s atmosphere; nevertheless, their view would seem to be more correct than that which refers the expression to a proper cloud-formed atmospheric water.—And God named the firmament heaven, ωָׁ ?ξָ ?ιִ ?ν. See Genesis 1:1. Delitzsch: Here is meant the heaven of the earth-world; Genesis 1:1, on the contrary, refers to the heaven and the heaven of heavens. But if the firmament is “the immeasurable far-reaching height,” there is a failure, or falling short, in the limiting of the conception. A main point appears to be, that the rakia is presented to view as the symbolic dividing of the super-earthly heaven, a phenomenal appearance of that house of God to which all who pray to God look up. For the later cosmological interpretations of the upper waters, see Delitzsch, p. 108. 7. Genesis 1:9-13. Third Creative Day. Genesis 1:9. Let the waters be gathered together.—The bringing the earth into form and the creation of the vegetable world.—That the physical dividing of the earth-mass and of the water-mass is here presented, is clear. There would appear, however, to be signified a preceding chemical separation of both elements, which had withdrawn themselves from the inner or under core of the earth. The expression ιχָּ ?εεּ δַ ?ξַּ ?ιִ ?νdenotes properly not merely an outward assembling, but an intensive close combining (see Gesenius, χָ ?εָ ?δ). Upon the formation of the water proper, as it is now introduced, is conditioned the firm underlying of the earth. The completing of this division, however, has for its consequence that flowing together of the water into its peculiar place, with which immediately the self-forming earth-soil now comes into visibility. It is thereby implied that the elevations and depressions of the earth’s surface—the hills and vales, the highlands and the ocean-depths—are here formed, just as it is so precisely set forth, Psalms 104:6-8 (with which compare Proverbs 8:24). And so, too, the creation of the hills is here only indicated, or rather presented, as a consequence of the creation of the sea (see Psalms 90:2; Deuteronomy 33:15; Habakkuk 3:3). Thus much is clear: as long as the water and the earth-mass are not divided, there can be no mention of any origination of the hills. With the sea-life, however, must begin also the earth-life, that is, the working of the inner earth-fire that causes the up-heavings. It is a wrong apprehension of the waters of Gen 1:2 and Genesis 1:6, when one takes the story of cretion as favoring a one-sided Neptunism (Wagner). The volcanic action of the earth in the formation of the earth, is not expressed, indeed, but it is throughout freely implied; it would appear to be indicated, Psalms 104:8. There is truly no difficulty in supposing that the formation of the hills kept on through the succeeding creative days. In respect to this, Delitzsch expresses himself better than Hofmann: “Generally,” says he, “the works of the single creative days consist only in laying foundations; the birth-process that is introduced in each, extends its efficacy beyond it, and, in this sense we say with Hofmann (i. p. 278): ‘Not how long, but how many times, God created is the thing intended to be set forth.’ ” Much more have we to distinguish between the distinct creative acts and the creative evolutions. Even after the creative division of the first day the evolving of light may still go on, and the same thought holds good of the efficacy of the succeeding acts of each of the other days. The act itself means the introduction of a new principle out of the word of God, which, as such, has the form of an epoch-creating event. Genesis 1:10. And God named the dry earth land, that is, earth-soil in the narrower sense, and, therefore, it is that ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υ has no article.—And the water named he sea.—Properly seas, “or rather ocean; for it is more intensive than a numerical plural, and is therefore (as in Psalms 46:4) construed in the singular.” Delitzsch. On the other hand, Knobel would make prominent the singleness of the seas in the rendering Weltmeer, or world-sea, main sea, or ocean.—And God saw.—Now has the earth-formation come into visibility, though only in its first outlines, or, according to the idea of the naturalist, as an insular appearing of the land-region as it unfolds itself to view.—Let the earth bring forth (sprout, germinate).—It is agreeable to the nature of the earth as well as of the plant that both are together as soon as possible. The earth has an inclination to germinate, the plant to appear. In truth, its origination is a new creative act. In the proper place is this creation narrated; for the plant denotes the transformation of the elementary materials, earth, air, water, which are now present in organic life through the inward working of the light. It forms the preconditioning, as the sign or prognostic, of the awaiting animal creation. And though it has need of the light too in some measure, it does not yet want the sunshine in its first subordinate kinds. The question now arises, whether we must distinguish three kinds of plants: γֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?ΰ, tender green;ςֵ ?ωֶׁ ?α, herbs and shrubs, vegetables and grain (or the smaller growths generally), and ςֵ ?υλְּ ?ψִ ?ι, fruit-tree, according to the view of Knobel, embracing all trees inasmuch as they all bear seed. Delitzsch, as well as Knobel, assumes this threefold division. Farther on, however, we see that the more general kinds precede (lights, water-swarmings), in order that they may become more or less specific. And here γֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?ΰ may present the universal conception of all vegetable life in its first germination (although including along with it the more particular kinds of cryptogamic and the grasses), whilst in this way the contrast between the herbaceous plants and the trees becomes more prominent (Umbreit, Ewald). Thence, too, it appears that the sign of seed-formation, of propagation, and of particular specification, is ascribed to all plants. Closer observations in respect to single particulars may be found in Knobel. We must protest against the exposition of Delitzsch: “Its origination follows in that way which is unavoidable to a creative beginning, and which is to it essentially what is called a generatio equivoca; that is, it does this in measure as the earth, through the word of the divine power, receives strength to generate the vegetable germ.” The sentence contains a contradiction in so far as the question still relates to the divine word of power; but this divine word of power creates not merely a strength, or force, in general; each new and distinct creative word introduces a new and distinct principle into the already existing sphere of nature—a principle which hitherto had not been present in it. Along with the various species and seeds, along with the determinate propagation of plants, each after its kind, there clearly and distinctly comes in that conception of nature which is already announced in the great contrasts. The words: upon the earth, ςַ ?μΞδָ ?ΰָ ?ψְ ?υ (Genesis 1:11), are interpreted by Knobel of the high growth of the trees (over the earth) in contrast with the plants which cleave closer to the ground, and which are regarded by Delitzsch as a present clothing of the earth. With respect to Genesis 1:20, we may assume that Knobel is right. In the contemplation of the young world, this majestic rising above the earth in the case of the tall trees, as in that of the birds, has a peculiar excitement for the imagination. With the plants there appears the first thing that is distinctly symbolic of life as well as of their individual beauty. 8. Genesis 1:14-19. Fourth Creative Day. Beginning of the second triad.—The preconditions of the now expectant animal and human life, are the lights of heaven, the stars, or heavenly bodies, partly as physical quickening powers, and partly as signs of the division of time for the human culture-world. It is theirs, in the first place, to make the distinction between day and night, between light and darkness, and to rule over the day and night—to make that great contrast upon which the human developments, as well as the animal nature-life, are essentially conditioned, such as sleep, waking, generation, diversities in the animal world—animals of the day and animals of the night, etc. It agrees well with the text, that again, whilst it makes a more special mention of the ordinance of the heavenly bodies, it gives the chief prominence to their spiritual or humane appointment: let them be for signs and for festivals, and for days, and for years. The question arises here, whether these appointments are to be taken as four (Luther, Calvin, Delitzsch, Knobel); or that three are meant: namely, for signs of times, for days, and for years (Rosenmόller, Eichhorn, De Wette, Baumgarten); or only two: for signs, for times, including in the latter both days and years (Schumann, Maurer). For the first view, indeed, there speaks the simple series of the appointments, but there is, too, the consideration that the spiritual (or ecclesiastical) appointments of the heavenly bodies are not exhausted in the chronological. The sign ΰεֹ ?ϊ has oftentimes in the Old Testament a religious significance. Thus the rainbow is established for the sign (ΰεֹ ?ϊ) of the covenant between Jehovah and Noah, together with his sons (Genesis 9:12). Later, Abraham receives in the starry heaven a sign of the divine promise. But when it is said (Jeremiah 10:2): Ye must not be afraid of the signs of heaven, there is not reprobated therein the meaning of the signs of heaven in their right significance, but only the heathenish misconception of them. The primitive religion was throughout symbolic; it was a contemplation of the invisible deity through symbolic signs, and the most universal of them were sun, moon, and stars. It was thus that the primitive symbolic religion became heathenish; the religious symbolic degenerated into an irreligious mythical; the glory of God was suffered to pass away in the form of transitory signs; it became identified with them, whilst men utterly lost the consciousness of the difference. The true representatives of the primitive religion on its light-side held fast this consciousness, as in the example of Melchizedek; but they reverenced God as such under the name El Elion (God Most High). It is an improper inference when Knobel here would refer this to the unusual phenomena of the heaven, such as the darkening or eclipse of the sun and moon, the red aspect of the latter (in an eclipse), the comets, the fiery appearances, etc. Moreover, we cannot find indicated here, as Delitzsch does, an astrological importance of the heavenly bodies, on which he remarks: “This ancient universally accepted influence is undeniable, a thing not to be called in question in itself considered, but only in its extent.” The question refers to the signs of the theocratic belief, such as are celebrated Psalms 8. and Psalms 19, from which the culture-signs of agriculture, navigation, and travel, must not be excluded. Thence, by right consequence, must be added the festival signs, ξεֹ ?ςֲ ?γִ ?ιν. Moed, it is true, denotes, in general, an appointed time, but it comes in close connection with the word Jehovah before the festival seasons. The significant time-sections of the Israelites were, moreover, religious sabbaths, new moons (Psalms 104:19), and yearly festivals which were likewise regulated by the moon. Upon the two religious appointments of the heavenly bodies (signs of belief, signs of worship) follow the two ethical and humane: the determination of the days and therewith of the days-works—the determination of the years and therewith the regulation of life and its duration. Hereupon follows the more common determination of the heavenly lights for the animal life in general.—To give light upon the earth.—With the light of the sun there is also determined its vital warmth. Thus the text speaks first of the appointment of the heavenly bodies for the earth-world (Genesis 1:14-15), and then of the creation of the luminaries in their variety and distinct appointments, in which the stars form a special class, Genesis 1:16. After this there is mention of their location and their efficacy; their place is the firmament; their primary operation is to give light; next follows their government, that is, that peculiar determination of the day and night that is necessary for the preservation of life. The third thing is the division between light and darkness, the instituting of the vicissitude of day and night. For here must the dividing of light from darkness denote something quite different from that of Gen 1:4; it is not the division of the luminous and the shadowy, but of the day-light and the night-shadow themselves. But now arises the question: How comes it that the first mention of the creation of the heavenly bodies is on the fourth day? It follows from the fundamental cosmical laws that the earth, before the sun, was not prepared for bringing forth the plants. It is saying too little to affirm that this place must only be understood phenomenally, or that the earlier created heavenly bodies make their first appearance on the fourth day along with the clearing-up of the atmosphere. But, on the other hand, surely, it is saying too much, when we assume that the formation of the starry world, or even of our own solar and planetary system, had its beginning in the fourth creative period. This representation is inorganic, abnormal. It is just as little supported by any sound cosmogony as demanded by the scriptural text. As little as the text requires that in general the first light of the universe should have its origination cotemporaneous with the light out of the thohu vabhohu of the earth, just as little does the place before us demand that we should date the absolutely first formation of the heavenly bodies from the fourth creative day. This, however, agrees well with our text, that both the appearing of the starry world, and the development and operation of the solar system, were first made ready for the earth on that same day in which the earth became ready for the sun. On the fourth creative day, therefore, there is completed the cosmical regulation of the world for the earth, and of the earth for the world. See more under the Theological and Ethical. 9. Genesis 1:20-23. Fifth Creative Day.—Corresponding then to the second day (of the first triad) we have here (on the second day of the second triad) the animation of the water and the air in the marine and winged creatures. The creation of the marine animals begins first. It is not only because they are the most imperfect creatures, but because the water is a more quickening and a more primitive conditioning of life than the earth. The like holds true of the air. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ See Genesis 1:1 ff for the passage quote with footnotes for Genesis 2:1-312. Genesis 2:1-3. The Divine Sabbath. Genesis 2:1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished.—A solemn retrospect introducing the sabbath of God.—And all their host.—A concrete denoting of the universe from the predominant terrestrial stand-point. The host has reference to the heaven, so far, at all events, as the stars are meant. As the host of the earth, however, denotes its inhabitants (Isaiah 34:2), so the thought, moreover, gives an intimation of the inhabitants of the heaven. “The passage in the book of Nehemiah (Genesis 9:6) that treats of the creation supposes correctly that in the host of heaven (φְ ?αַ ?ΰ) the angels are included.” Delitzsch. When he says farther: “The stars, according to the more ancient representation (Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian) are set forth as a host for battle, or that together with the angels they are assigned a portion in the conflict of light with darkness whose theatre is the earth created within the surrounding sphere of the luminous heavenly bodies,”—all such remarks may be taken as Parsic rather than purely Biblical.Genesis 2:2. And on the seventh day God ended His work.—The difficulty that arises from the mention here of a completion of God’s work on the seventh day, as before it seemed to have been on the sixth, has given occasion to the Septuagint, the Syriac, and many exegetes to put the sixth day in place of the seventh. Others (Calvin, Drusius, etc.) have read εַ ?ιְ ?λַ ?μ as pluperfect (had finished) contrary to the grammar. Knobel explains the word with Tuch and others: God let it come to an end on that day. Delitzsch in a similar manner. Richers wrongly places a completion of the creation on the seventh day. Kurtz speaks of a heptζmeron. It seems to us, however, that the rest of God does not denote a remaining inactive merely, or a doing nothing. The perfecting of the work on the seventh is likewise something positive: namely, that God celebrated His work (kept a holy day of solemn triumph over it) and blessed the sabbath. To celebrate, to bless, to consecrate, is the finishing sabbath-work—a living, active, priestly doing, and not merely a laying aside of action. “The Father worketh hitherto,” says Christ in relation to His healings on the sabbath (John 5:17). The doing of God in respect to the completed creation is of a festive kind (solemn, stately, holy), a directing of motion and of an unfolding of things now governed by law, in contrast with that work of God which was reflected in the pressure of a stormy development, and in the great revolutions and epochs of the earth’s formation. “His ξְ ?μָ ?ΰλָ ?δ (His work) was the completion of a task which He had proposed.” Delitzsch. God rests now and triumphs in that last finish of His work, the paradisaical man; God’s great festival is reflected in Adam’s holy-day. In accordance with his supposition that the creative days were not numbered from evening to morning, but in the contrary order (which is opposed to the text), Delitzsch holds that not the evening of the sixth day, but the morning of the seventh, was the real beginning of the sabbath (p. 127). But the evening of the sixth day lies back before the sixth day, whilst of an evening and a morning of the seventh day there is no mention at all. Had we taken the creative days as periods generally, or the evenings as merely remissions of the creative activity, the question about the evening and the morning of the seventh day would have had no right sense. If we truly take the evenings as denoting creative crises, then may it be asked: did not a crisis follow upon the creation of Adam? and this may we find intimated (Genesis 2:21) in the deep sleep of Adam. Still must we suppose that the completion of Adam’s creation took place towards the evening or decline of the sixth day. Genesis 2:3. And God blessed the seventh day.—The blessing of the seventh day may of itself denote primarily that it was appointed for rest and re-creation, “which is a blessing for the laboring man and beast (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14).” But the earlier blessings say: Be ye fruitful and multiply, and to bless means to wish for, and to promise one infinite multiplications in the course of life, as to curse means to wish for one an infinite multiplication of evil—that is, to imprecate, or pray against him. The blessing of the sabbath must consist in this, that it gives birth to all the festivals (or rests) of God, and all the festivals of men—that it endlessly propagates itself as a heavenly nature above the self-propagating earthly nature, until it has become an everlasting sabbath. Its most distinct birth is the New Testament Sunday. But this Sunday must mediate the heavenly Sunday. “It makes it to be an inexhaustible fountain of re-creation” (or new life). Delitzsch.—And hallowed it.—To hallow is to take an Object out of its worldly relation, and to devote it to God. There is, indeed, nothing before us here of a worldly relation in a profane sense, and so far can the negative force here have no place in the hallowing. Without doubt, however, the contrast is this: he withdraws it from labor for the sake of the world, and establishes it as the festival for God. In six days’ work had God condescended and given Himself up to live for the world; on the sabbath, He ordains that the world must live for God. He blessed and hallowed it, because He rested therein—that is, He appointed His own rest, as a ground and rule for the rest of man, and of the creatures, on the seventh day (see Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17). “According to the author God made this appointment at the creation, but He leaves its execution to a time after Moses, when, in the desert of Sin, He practically leads Israel to the festival of the seventh day, and thereupon makes publication of the law of the sabbath on Sinai (Exodus 31:12; Exodus 35:1). There is nothing known of any observation of the sabbath before the time of Moses.” Knobel. This holds good only of the legal establishment of the sabbath, for the custom of keeping a day of rest was not confined to the Jews only. Concerning the name ωַׁ ?αָּ ?ϊ, which the creative account does not contain, see Delitzsch, p. 130. Derivations: 1. From ωַׁ ?αְּ ?ϊַ ?ι, an old name of Saturn; 2. from (ωִׁ ?αְ ?ςַ ?ϊ) ωַׁ ?αְ ?ςַ ?ϊ, the seventh day (Lactantius); 3. contracted from ωַׁ ?αֶּ ?ϊֶ ?ϊ, the time of holy rest, which is the most likely.—Which He had created and made (marginal reading in English Bible: created to make). Grammatically the infinitive construct μַ ?ςֲ ?ωׂ ?εֹ ?ϊ is rendered by the Latin faciendo. Still the explanation: which God being active (that is, by doing, or by an effort) had created, would be quite idle, were it not that one would find in the language the recognition of an antithesis to the doctrines of emanation, or generally, to the supposed heathenish pathological and fatalistic modes of creation. Delitzsch thus modifies the faciendo (or μַ ?ςֲ ?ωׂ ?εֹ ?ϊ): the creating is fundamental, whilst the making, or the forming, is consequential. Then there would be denoted thereby the continuing of the divine activity beyond the time of the creative work. In respect to the four verses that follow, which Delitzsch, too, as well as Ewald and others, would make the subscription of the previous section, not the superscription of the one that follows (as Tuch, De Wette, and others), compare Delitzsch, p. 133. Knobel says (p. 7): “The Elohist has a superscription before every principal section in Genesis, and so much the more must he have had such a superscription placed before his first narration.” Ilgen, Pott, and Schumann have rightly found the same (Genesis 2:4) in the words: “these are the origines of the heaven and the earth,” etc. The word tholedoth, then, must have suffered a misplacement. According to Delitzsch it is a closing formula. We hold it to be the superscription to what follows, because the word tholedoth must otherwise have regularly preceded, and because our text regards the tholedoth, or generations of the heavens and the earth, as conditioned in its principles through the creation of the earth and the heavens—that is, the earth, and especially Adam as the principal point of view for the whole. AND ETHICAL1. The contrast which is at once drawn between heaven and earth, and whose symbolical significance cannot be ignored, proves, in the first place, that the whole period before us, from Genesis 1-12, is to be considered under the point of view of the history of primeval religion. Secondly, the constitution of man in the image of God, the history of Adam, of Abel, of the Sethites, etc.; and, further, the contrast openly appearing at the close of this section between the uniting and separating of the peoples on the one hand, and the budding theocracy on the other. Thirdly, all periods lying in the middle between these two extreme points. Within this section, which presents the contrast between the primeval religion and the patriarchal religion of Abraham, now appear individual contrasts: 1. The contrast between the paradise-world and the sin-world; 2. the contrast between the anomism of the human race before the flood, and the heathenism of man after the flood. And to these add the more special contrasts which are to be brought out by the separate sections. The primitive religion is to be distinguished from the religion of Abraham by the following points: 1. In the primitive religion, the symbolical sign is first, and the word second; in the patriarchal religion, the word of God is first, and the symbolical sign is second. (See Genesis 12:1; Genesis 12:7.) 2. In the primitive religion the continuance of the living faith in God is sporadic. This, it is true, is in connection with genealogical relations (Seth, Noah, Shem), as the appearance of Melchisedek especially proves (comp. Hebrews 7:3); and, as a gradually fading twilight, it goes on through the times until the days of Abraham, forming continually, as natural religion, the background of all the heathenism of humanity. The faith of Abraham, on the contrary, forms with the patriarchal religion a genealogical and historical sequence. The aurora of the morning in Abraham contrasts with the twilight of the evening in Melchisedek. Melchisedek looks, with the faithful of the heathen world, back to the lost Paradise; Abraham looks forward to the future city of God—his religion is the religion of the future. 3. The symbolical primitive religion is yet, in its exterior, overgrown with mythological heathendom. While it forms the bright side of the primal religious world, its dark side arises from the mythologizing of the symbols (Romans 1:19-23). With the patriarchal religion, however, the contrast between the theocratic faith and heathendom has become fixed. 4. With the historic form of this contrast, it is at the same time conclusive that heathendom maintains its relative light side in the history of humanism, and the theocratic popular history its relative dark side, which increases to the rejection of the Messiah and the death on the cross. The material development of salvation among the Jews, and the formal development of the human form of salvation among the heathen (Greeks and Romans), are for each other, just as the evil tendencies of heathendom and Judaism unite with each other in the crucifying of Christ. 2. Within our division appears the beautiful contrast that the creation of the world is once represented in the genetic order as an ascending development of life, so that man seems the aim (τέλος) of all things; then, from Genesis 2, 3, onward, in principial order, according to which man, as a divine idea, is the principle with which, and for which, the world, and especially Paradise, was created. The first view is universalistic, and hence Elohistic; the latter is theocratic, and hence Jehovistic. 3. The form of the account of the creation: religious symbolical chronicle; its source: a revealed word or image effected by the vision of a prophecy looking backwards (see Introduction). The objections of Delitzsch against the mediation of the knowledge of creation to men through divine revelation in human vision (see 79 sqq.), rest on a want of appreciation of the scriptural idea of vision, as already indicated. Delitzsch, with the more ancient catholic supernaturalism, explains our account from a divine teaching, which is defined as the interposing voice of the Spirit of God, and the guidance, through it, of man’s own spirit. To this ultra-supernaturalistic view of Delitzsch and Keil is opposed the rationalistic one of Hofmann, namely, that the account of the creation is the transposed impression in history which the world made on the first-created man reflecting on its origin. To the purely historical conception of a wonderfully preserved or regenerated (Delitzsch) tradition of revelation or legend, is contrasted the mythical conception in various forms, effected through the allegorical interpretation of Philo; which is followed by many church Fathers, and by Herder in his adoption of a parabolic hieroglyphic. a. Moral myth as a ground for the commandment of the sabbath (Paulus). b. Philosophical myth, especially the natural philosophical (Eichhorn and others). We have already shown in the Introduction why we cannot join in either the purely historical or the mythical view, but must insist on the specific of a religious symbolical history. The vision might be designated as intuition, in so far as we carry back the respective knowledge to the unfallen man. 4. In our section the world is represented according to its four different relations: 1. As creation; 2. as nature; 3. as cosmos; 4. as ζon (see Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 222 sqq.). The idea of creation is expressed by the word αψΰ, as well as by the going forth ten times of the Omnific Word of God. God said, “Let there be, and there was.” The account of nature, 1. through the great contrasts, separations, and combinations: heaven and earth, darkness and light, atmospheric waters and terrestrial waters, firmament and terra firma, land and water, sky and earth. 2. Through the designation of plants, that they should bear seed, each according to its kind. 3. Through the blessing on animals: be fruitful and multiply, and the distinction of various kinds of animals, as also finally the blessing on men. 4. Through the relation of the various creatures to the sphere of birth or life corresponding to them (especially water and earth), through their coming forth from these spheres at the creating word. Especially belong here the picturesque expressions: Thohu, Vabhohu.—ϊַּ ?γְ ?ωֶׁ ?ΰδָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υγֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ΰωֶׁ ?ψֶ ?υ—ςֵ ?υτְ ?ψִ ?ιςֹ ?ωֶׂ ?δτְ ?ψִ ?ι—ςֵ ?ωֶׂ ?αξַ ?ζְ ?ψִ ?ιςַ ζֶ ?ψַ ?ς—δָ ?ψֹ ?ξֵ ?ωׂ ?—τְ ?ψֹ ?εּ εּ ?ψְ ?αεּ ?—εְ ?ςεֹ ?σιְ ?ςεֹ ?τֵ ?σ—ιִ ?ωְׁ ?ψְ ?φεּ δַ ?τַּ ?ιִ ?νδָ ?ψֶ ?ξֶ ?ωׁ 5. The six days’ work itself.—The idea of the cosmos. It appears distinctly in all the solemn pauses of the creative work, as they are marked with the sevenfold repetition of the words: and God saw that it was good. The celebration of the sabbath also belongs here, as it points back to the beautiful completion of the universe.—But the idea of the ζon appears with the fact that man is made the end and aim of all days of creation, by which it is clearly pronounced that he is the real principle in which the world and its origin is comprehended. The history of the earth is thus made the lifetime of humanity. Its profoundest principle of development and measure of time is the support of man. 5. The Creation.—On the dogmatic doctrine of the creation, see Hase, Hutter, Hahn: “Doctrine of Faith,” and Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics.” Here comes especially into consideration 1. the relation of the doctrine of the creation to the Logos, John 1:1-3. The first verse of Genesis clearly forms the ground presupposed in that passage, God spake; through His word He created the world, says Genesis; His word is a personal divine life, says John, and the New Testament in general, especially Colossians 1:15-19; Genesis 2:3-9. According to Genesis everything is created through the idea of man in the image of God with a view to this man; according to the New Testament it is through the idea of Christ, who is the principal of humanity, with a view to Christ. As Adam was the principle of the creation, so is Christ the principle of humanity. Therefore it reads: “God hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4; comp. John 17:5). The creation is, in its most essential point, the production of the eternal God-Man in the eternal to-day. In man nature has passed beyond itself, from the relative, symbolical independence, to the perfected and real, to freedom; it has in him the mediator of its redemption, of its glorification. The beautiful cosmos, this unity of all varieties, which combines in it an endless complex of unities, to the production of external harmony and beauty, has, in Christ, the most beautiful of the children of men, its middle point, the centre of its ideal beauty. Finally, the first ζon, which is fixed by the life of Adam, has for its core, its root, and its aim, the second ζon fixed by Christ. 2. The relation to the Holy Ghost. The spirit is the living, self-impelling unity of spiritual life, the breath of the soul, as the wind forms the spirit of the earth, the vital, ever-active unity of its varieties. The Spirit of God hovering over the waters, is the divine, creative, living unity, which rules over the fermenting process of the Thohu Vabhohu; hence, as the peripheral principle of formation (at one with the central principle of formation, the Logos), it effectuates the separations and the combinations by which the formation of the earth is determined. In the New Testament, however, it appears in its personal strength, as the unity of all works of revelation of the Father and the Son, and as the absolute, spiritual principle of formation which effects the glorification of the world through the separation of the ungodly and the godly, and through the combination of everything godly in the church and the kingdom of God. 3. The relation of the creation to the Divine Being. In the creation, God appears as the creator, who calls forth things as out of nothing. But from the genesis out of the pure nothing, are distinguished the creative things as proceeding from the life or breath of the creator’s word, with which they come forth into existence (Psalms 104:30); and finally man stands complete with the features of divine affinity, proceeding from the thought of His heart, from His counsel, as created in His image, and intended to be His visible administrator on earth. In the New Testament, however, the paternal feature of the Divine Being has unvailed itself as a paternity, from which all paternity in heaven and on earth proceeds, but which, in the most special sense, refers to Christ, the image of the Divine Being. By the relation of the work of creation to the coming Christ, the whole creation becomes an advance representation, a symbol of Christ in a series of symbolical degrees, of which each represents in advance the next following one. Through the relation of Christ to the Father, the whole creation receives the mark of the human, especially of revelation, or of the wonderful (as denoted by the lion), of resignation, or of sacrifice (as denoted by the ox), and of the reflection of light, that is, the idea (as denoted by the eagle). But the spirit, as the unitary life of the revelation of the Father and of the Son, is reflected as creative wisdom in all creative movements of the world, and, indeed, in the fundamental forms of separation and combination, of centrifugal and centripetal force, of repelling and attracting operations.—The account of the creation, Gen. Genesis 1, is not a dogma of the trinity of God; the completed creation, however, as a work of God and revelation, is a mirror of the trinity, and a prophecy of the revelation of its future (see Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 206 ff. 4. The relation of the creation to revelation. The most general sphere of the revelation of God, that which forms the basis of all future revelations, is the creation of heaven and earth as the objective revelation of God, which corresponds with the subjective revelation of God in his image, Man 1:5. The relation of the doctrine of the creation to the heathen and post-heathen view of the world. It denies polytheism, for the creator of all things appears as the only one, and if his name stands in the plural (Elohim), the element of truth in polytheism (in contrast to Judaism) is therewith recognized, namely, the variety of the revelation of the one God in the variety of his strength, works, and signs, and the variety of the impressions which he thereby produces. It denies pantheism, for God distinguishes himself by his creation of the world; he creates the world through his conscious word, consequently freely, and stands in personal completion before his work and over it, so that the world is neither to be regarded as an emanation of his divine being, nor especially as a metamorphosis of the divine being, (the second form of it,) or, vice versa, God as the emanation of the world. But it emphasizes also the true in pantheism (in contrast to deism): the animating omnipresence and revelation of God in the world, with his creating word, with his spirit hovering over the formation of the world, with his image in the dispositions and destination of man. It denies dualism, for God appears as the creator of all things directly. He is also the originator of the Thohu Vabhohu of fermenting elements; he finds in the creation no blame, and, at the end of the sixth day, everything is very good. The true in dualism is, however, also retained (against fatalism), namely, the contrast between the materials and the formative power, between the natural degrees and the natural principles, between nature and spirit. But the doctrine of creation denies much more the antichristian polytheism, that is, atomism, even to its most modern form of materialism, as such materialism rejects not only the truth of the spirit, of personal life, of the Godhead, of the immortality of the soul, and of liberty, consequently all ethical principles, but also the physical principia of crystal formation, of the formation of plants and animals. It does this by making matter regarded as devoid of all visibility, and in so far thoroughly hypothetical and abstract, or rather the infinity of feigned abstract substances (with which the Thohu Vabhohu, as a living fermentation of appearing elements, is not to be confounded), the sole God-resembling factor of all phenomena of life, such phenomena consisting of two classes, of which the physical and abstract spiritual is to be in accordance with the play of matter, the ethical, on the contrary, a bare appearance, having no conceivable or comprehensible reality. The living God here stands in contrast with the multitude of these dark idols of a feigned deity, and he places opposite the subordinate elements of life the superordinate vital principles, which give the elements their cosmical form, whilst over all he places the ruler man, with his godlike, spiritual nature. The only thing that endures as an element of truth in materialism is the infinite and subtle conformity to law that is found in material things, a fact which spiritualism nowadays far too much disregards. The doctrine of creation also denies with increased emphasis the intensified pantheism, i.e., the most modern pantheism as opposed to personality—the pantheism which makes everything proceed from an impersonal thought, in order to let everything again disappear through continual metamorphoses (morphologism) in impersonal thoughts; for the scriptural doctrine makes all thoughts of creation proceed from an unconditioned personality, pass through fixed forms, and culminate in a conditioned personality. The truth that lies in such self-deification is recognized in this, that all works of the absolute thinking are themselves thoughts. He has spoken thoughts which have become works of creation. Finally, it denies the dynamical dualism (or the dualism of power), i.e., that hierarchical absolutism which holds as evil not only the material world, but still more the entire realm of spirit and spiritual life regarded as something to be controlled with infinite care, and with the infinite art and power of an abstract authority; for it testifies for the word of God as immanent in the world, and thereby holds fast the element of truth in that hierarchism, according to which the spirit of God hovers over the waters, and man as the administrator of God is commanded, with reference to all animal life in the world: Rule over them, and make them subject to you. At the very first verse and word of Genesis, it clearly steps over that impure sink of dualism beyond which the entire heathen and philosophical view of the world could never go. It does this, by contrasting God in his eternal self-perfection to the creation which arose with time. The doctrine of the creation is the first act of revelation and of faith in the history of the kingdom of God. It would lead too far, should we attempt to show how the three heathen errors of religion are ever present with each other, although at one time polytheism, at one time pantheism, and at another time dualism, prevails. We make this observation, however, to indicate thereby that we do not ignore the pantheistic basis of Gnosticism, even when it plays with polytheism, since we present it according to its prevailing characteristic as dualism. But not only are the coarse ground-forms of the ancient and modern darkening of the doctrine of the creation to be judged by the first chapter of Genesis, but also the more subtle, Christianly modified forms, as, on the one hand, they present themselves in Gnosticism, (with which we also reckon Manichζism and its later shoots, extending to our time: Priscillianism, Paulicianism, Bogomiles, Albigenses, dualistic theosophs of Jacob Bφhm), and, on the other hand, in Ebionitism, as it has found its continuation in the later Monarchianism, and still more modern deism. The Gnostics ground their opposition to the Old Testament on a paganistic misinterpretation of the New, and thus they may be ranged according to their more or less hostile attitude to the Old Testament, and as representing various heathenish views of the world which, after the manner of old Palimpsests, placed one upon the other, appear through the overlying Christianity. Among such Palimpsests, on which a form of Christianity has been overwritten, may be reckoned the Samaritan (Simon Magus), Syrian (Saturninus, etc.), Alexandrian (Basilides), old-Egyptian (Ophiten), Hellenic (Karpocrates), Ponto-Asiatic (Marcion), and Persian Gnostics (Manes). Finally, in Mohammed, the Arabian Gnosticism and Ebionitism ran together, as the again broken forms of Subordinatianism and Monarchianism ran together in Arianism. Through the manifold modifications which Christian dualism experienced immediately, and especially in the course of time, one must not be led astray in respect to the Unity of the genus. Just so, pure Ebionitism, whose naked image is Jewish Talmudism (as it is to be recognized throughout by its oblique position to the New Testament and the New Testament elements in the Old), has passed through various mutations whose ground-thought remains the same: namely, a fatalistic, eternalized, ontological divorcement between God and the world, through the law of religion or nature, whether the form of the change be called deism, naturalism, or rationalism. And, finally, the mixed form of gnostic Ebionitism, which was prepared through the Alexandrian system of Philo, and whose naked image is the Jewish Kabbala, has remained unchanged, through all mutations, in its ground-thoughts, whether they appear as Montanism, Donatism, or pseudo-Dionysian, mediζval and modern ultra-supernaturalism, as inflexible baptismism, or yielding spiritualism. Together with the true difference between God and the world, the doctrine of creation expresses also the true combination between both, and finds the living mediation of this contrast in the man created in the image of God; whereas, dualism makes the difference a separation, while pantheism makes the combination a mixture, and the still observable, polytheistic reminiscence in Christendom vacillates, in its love of fables, between creature deification and creature demonizing. 6. The relation of the temporal creation to the eternity of God. It is quite as wrong to transfer gnostically the origin of the real world to the eternity of God, to fix the existence of God according to theogony by speaking of a becoming of God, or of an obscure basis in God (Bφhm), or of an origin of the material contemporary with the self-affirmation of God (Rothe), as it is to declare, with scholastic super-naturalism, that God indeed might have left the world uncreated. Against the first view, there is the declaration that the world had a beginning, which, a little farther on, is fixed as the beginning of time. Against the latter, there is the declaration that God chose believing humanity from eternity in Christ, as it is also indicated in our text, by the decree of God at the creation of man, and by the image of God. The world rests therefore, as an actual and temporal world, on an eternal ideal ground. Its ideal preparation is eternal, but its genesis is temporal, for it is conditioned by the gradual growing, and the beautiful rhythm of growth is time. 7. In the significant number ten, the number of actual historical completion, the account is repeated: God said, Let there be, and there was. The speaking of God now certainly indicates the thinking of God, and it thence follows that all works of creation are thoughts of God (idealism). But it indicates also a will, making himself externally known, an active operation of God, and thence it follows that all the works of creation are deeds of God (realism). Both, however, thinking and operating, are one in the divine speaking, the primal source of all language, his personally making himself known, although we cannot bring up the thought of this speaking to the conception (personalism). Through creating, speaking, making, forming, the world is ever again and again denoted as the free deed of God. 8. Theological definitions of the creation. The creatio is distinguished as a single act and as a permanent fact. A third period is, however, at the same time pointed out, namely, the continuance of the doing in the deed, so that the world would not only fall to pieces, but would pass away, if God withdrew himself from it. The thought that he cannot withdraw from it in his love, should not be confounded with the untenable thought that he might not be able to withdraw from it in his omnipotence. The absolute dependence of the world on God is at all times the same (see Psalms 104:30; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). On the relation of the creation to the trinity, compare Hase, Hutter, p. 149, and Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 206 ff.—The expression, creation from nothing, is borrowed from the apocryphical word, 2Ma 7:28 : ἐξοὐκὄντων; comp. Hebrews 11:3. It denies that an eternal material, or indeed that anything, was present as a (material) substratum of the creation. One can, however, misinterpret the expression by making the act of creation one of abstract will, absolved from any divine breath of life (Gόntherianism). On determining the creatio ex nihilo we distinguish the nihil negativum, by denying the eternity of matter as substratum of the creation, and the nihil privativum, by assuming that God at first created matter as nihil privativum, then the forms in the hexaλmeron. This the modus creationis: first, matter; then, the form. This idea of a matter as something before form, does not correspond, however, to the idea of a quickening or life-giving activity in creation. With the beginning of creation there is immediately established the contrast of heaven and earth, i.e., different spheres, which as such are not mere matter; and with the Thohu Vabhohu of the first earth-form there is immediately established the constructive activity of the spirit of God. The demiurgic conception presupposes an eternal world-matter, whether regarded according to the Persian idea as evil, or according to the Greek as blind, heterogeneous, and antagonistic, or according to the Indian idea as magically mutable, which eternal world-matter must, in all cases, make the demiurgic formation a thing of mere arbitrary sport. The true idea of the work of creation lies between this and the theurgo-magical, according to which God had made the universe, in abstract positiveness, a pure material contrast of His divine being. This is a conception in which the creating word, the spirit of God hovering over the waters, the image of God, or even the omnipresence of God in the world, do not receive their just due. As the aim of the creation finally (finis creationis), there have been distinguished the highest or last aim, God’s glorification, and the intermediate aim, the welfare of his creatures and the happiness of man. But it must be observed that God glorifies himself in the happiness of men, and that the latter should find their happiness in contemplating the glory of God. 9. The Relation of the Mosaic Account of the Creation to the Mythological Legends of the Creation.—The cosmogonies of the heathen are confounded with their theogonies, as their gods with primeval man. See Lόcken: “The Traditions of the Human Race, or the Primitive Revelation of God among the Heathen,” Mόnster, 1856. “These cosmogonies are all very similar to each other. At first chaos is placed at the head as a disordered mass (chaos alone?). This chaos develops or forms itself into the world-egg. This egg, which plays a certain part in the cosmogonies, is only a conception called forth by the apparent form of the earth, so that the sky presents itself as the shell and the earth as the yolk of this great egg. With this shaping of chaos into a world-egg, or earth-sphere, arises then, according to the representation of these cosmogonies, the first being, the ‘first-born,’ or the first man. This first man originating with (out of) the world-egg, the father and founder of all life, is now, according to the popular conception, a giant-like being. As the present man, according to primitive conception, is a microcosm, so is that first being, in heathen conception, the macrocosm itself, originating all life in nature by developing from himself the various parts of the world-organism, heaven and earth, sun and moon, mountains and rivers. Now by dividing or killing this macrocosmic being, or by mingling its generating parts with earthly things (especially fertilizing water, as in the story of Chronos), the lower life of nature begins, and things can multiply in sexual division and separation. This is the whole nucleus of all cosmogonies. And we would here observe, how frequent it is in heathen conceptions that all primitive generating being is imagined under the form of a great world-animal (as an immense ox or goat, for example), and as such worshipped. Thus the first being of the Persians is the ox Abudad, and the Egyptians worshipped it as a goat under the name of Mendes.” Here, however, the following is to be observed: 1. Behind, beside, or over the chaos, or the disordered matter, usually stands a mysterious form of the highest divinity: Brahma among the Indians, Fimbultyr among the Teutons, Ormuzd among the Persians. 2. With the Hesiodic Gaia, which proceeds from chaos (i.e., from boundless empty space), there is also Eros; so in the Chinese legend the first macrocosmic man or giant (Panku) is formed with the earth. In like manner Brahma with the Indians, and Ymer with the Teutons, become, by the division of their limbs, the foundation of the world. 3. Matter is always fixed with the divinity, or the divinity with matter. But matter is coherent with God in the predominantly pantheistic systems of emanation. According to the Indo-Brahmic, Platonic, and Alexandrian system of emanation, matter emanates with the world from divinity; according to the Egyptian and mythologico-Grecian system, divinity emanates from the world, from chaos, or the ocean. According to the predominantly dualistic systems, the world arises from a mixture in the conflict between the emanations of the predominantly spiritual, light, good God, and the emanations of the predominantly material, dark, wicked God—sometimes in a decidedly hostile position of the two powers, as in the Persian mythology, sometimes in a more peaceful parallelism, as in the Slavonian. For the various cosmologies, compare the quoted work of Lόcken, p. 33; Delitzsch, pp. 81, 83, and 609; Hahn: Compendium, p. 374, with reference to Wuttke: “The Cosmogonies of the Heathen Nations before the Time of Jesus and the Apostles,” Hague, 1850. The Chaldean myth of the creation, as given by Berosus, is found in Eusebius: “Chronicles,” i. p. 22; Syncellus, i. p. 25; the Phenician myth as given by Sanchoniaton in Eusebius: Prζparatio Evangelica, i. p. 10; the Egyptian myth in Diodorus Siculus, i. 7 and 10; a Grecian myth in Hesiod’s Theogony, Genesis 2:1-16 sqq.; the Indian myths in P. von Bohlen: “Ancient India,” i. p. 158; Lassen: “Indian Antiquities,” iii. p. 387 (at the beginning of the code of Manu); the Zend myth in Avesta, the Etrurian myth in Suidas under Tyrrhenia (see the “Commentary” of Keil and Delitzsch, p. 8); the Scandinavian myth in the Edda, etc. According to the older conceptions of the days of creation as combined with biblical chronology, one could speak of a date of the creation. Starke is satisfied with the correctness of the date: 23d of October, 4004 before Christ. Schrφder makes the date the 1st or 17th of September, 4201, but adds; “The Son of Man knew not the day nor the hour when heaven and earth should pass away, but the child of man would know the year and the day when heaven and earth arose.” The autumn seems to have been chosen on account of the ripe fruits, without reflecting that on the entire earth it must ever be autumn somewhere. 10. The World as Nature. a. The Ancient View of the World, that of the Bible and of Modern Times.—The world-view of the ancients was based on appearance, according to which the earth formed a centre reposing under the moving, rolling starry world; this geocentric view received a scientific expression in the well-known Ptolemaic system. This system was abandoned in the time of the Reformation for the helio-centric system of Copernicus. But because the Bible, with respect to astronomical matters, speaks the language of common life, which is yet authorized in accordance with appearances (the sun rises, sets, etc.), it was supposed that the Copernican system contradicted the teaching of Holy Writ, and not only the papal council imagined that in its treatment of Galileo, but even Melancthon was of the same opinion, and to the present day such protests, even on the Protestant side, have not entirely died away (see the attacks on Dr. Franz in Sangerhausen in Diesterweg’s “Astronomy,” p. 104; also p. 20, especially p. 325). These prove how often a contracted Bible belief can injure more than profit the faith. The Copernican theory was especially supposed to be in contradiction with the passage in Joshua 10:12-13. While men were torturing themselves with this difficulty springing from a blind adherence to the literal rendering, a much greater one was gradually stepping forth out of the background. The consequences of the Copernican system were developed, according to the discoveries of Herschel, in this wise: the sun among its planets is only a single star of heaven, and the earth is one of its smallest planets. Since now the fixed stars of heaven are nothing but suns, and these suns are all, according to the analogy of ours, surrounded by planetary groups, there appear to be countless numbers of planets, of which very many are larger than our earth. How shall we now retain the thought, that the earth is the sole scene of the revelation of God, as Holy Writ declares: the scene of the incarnation of God, and the centre of a reconciliation, dissolution, and glorification of the world, embracing heaven and earth. The Hegelian philosophy sought at first to meet this difficulty in its own interest. In order to make the earth the sole arena of the evolutions of mind, which was to reach the full glory of its self-consciousness in the Hegelian system, the whole starry world was declared to be destitute of spirits and in the main spiritless—mere films of light, etc. (see Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 279). The effort was made to render this barren view agreeable to theology with the pretence that it was in accordance with the Bible, and favored the faith (“Land of Glory,” p. 12 ff.). Against this insinuation the author wrote the articles which are collected in the work: “The Land of Glory” (Meurs), Bielefeld, 1838, with reference to the work of Pfaff: “Man and the Stars.” The results of modern astronomy (according to Struve, Mδdler, Schubert, etc.), viz., that the other planets of our solar system have not, in the first place, the same plastic consistency nor the same planetary relations as our earth, and secondly, that the stellar world is divided into a solar planetary region like our solar system, and a solar astral region (the world of double stars, of eternal sunshine), were applied to the biblical Christian view of the world as recognizing (in its conception of various places of discipline and punishment) a place beneath the world on the one hand, and a place above it on the other; consequently the contrast of a region of growing and a region of perfected life, of the church militant and the church triumphant, of the earthly and the heavenly, of the earthly-human and the angelic life. Above all, it was observed that with the doctrine of the ascension of Christ the existence of a land of glory, in contradistinction to the earthly sphere of day and night, birth and death, or the sphere of the creative, was settled. This work was followed by the work of Kurtz: “Bible and Astronomy,” 1st ed. 1842. In the meanwhile there sprung up a third representation of cosmology, which was again to fix the geocentric stand-point in a spiritual respect. This was mainly induced by A. von Schaden, but diligently prosecuted by Dr. Ebrard, recently in his work: “The Results of Natural Science,” Kφnigsberg, 1861. With respect to our planetary system, the said work endeavors to prove that the earth is its teleological centre, and to that end, farther, that the other planets could be either not at all or only partly inhabitable; that they are only accretions to the planetary nature, having their places there simply on account of the earth; and that considered under any other point of view they could only appear as caricatures of the planetary nature. Delitzsch (p. 614) is in general inclined to this view. He permits, however, a natural philosopher by profession (Prof. Franz Pfaff), to speak for him, who nevertheless acknowledges (after a severe criticism of the plant-family) that there may be imagined elsewhere such beings as are organized in correspondence to the prevailing relations on other heavenly bodies. But one cannot see how the conceptions in question can be called “creatures of fantasy.” We consider the view of the pure unreality of the extra-earthly planetary world as neither cosmologically grounded, nor of wholesome tendency in aid of a biblical view of the world. As respects the first point, one must clearly distinguish between an inhabitability of the planets of our solar system for beings of our earthly organization, and a similar inhabitability for spiritual beings in general. If the earthly organization of man is to fix the measure for the habitableness of supra-terrene bodies, then must we also apply the analogy to the most beautiful and brilliant stellar-world. And what must become of the departed human souls, separated from their bodies? How shall there be found a native region for angelic spirits? But it would redound little to the glorification of the living God of Holy Writ to consider the whole planetary group of our sun, the earth alone excepted, as spiritless wastes. Whatever in this respect is true of the Hegelian system in general, in its relation to the stellar-world, is true of the said view in special reference to our planetary system. [Note on the Astronomical Objection to Revelation.—The question of the planets’ inhabitability, especially in its religious and biblical bearings, has been very ably and scientifically discussed in a work entitled “The Plurality of Worlds” by Prof. Whewell of Oxford. The author maintains a view similar to that of Dr. Ebrard, that the earth is the advanced planet of the system, and that the most scientific evidence goes to show that the others (especially the largest, or those of least density) are in a rudimentary or inchoate state. The same may be true of all the visible bodies of the stellar spaces. The only reasoning against it is simply the question, why not, pourquoi non, as Montaigne employs it, without any inductive evidence. This author employs also the modern view in geology with great pertinence and force: Immense times without life or with only the lowest forms of life! If this is not inconsistent with the divine wisdom and goodness, then immense spaces without life, or with only the lowest forms of life, for a certain time, is no more inconsistent. So far, however, as this presents a difficulty to revelation and Christianity, it is not due to modern science alone, or even mainly. The inhabitability of the planets, and the “plurality of worlds,” are as much a priori thoughts, that is, rising of themselves to the musing meditative mind, as they are the results of any scientific or inductive reasoning. In both cases, imagination is the chief power of the mind employed, though modern science has furnished it with its stronger stimulants. As such a priori or independent thought, the notion of a plurality, or even an infinity, of worlds, was very ancient. It was, however, larger than the modern notion, being rather a plurality of κοσμοὶ, or mundi (that is, total visible universes) than of worlds used, as the name is now used, of planetary or stellar bodies. It was the old question of the soul demanding a sufficient reason for the non-existence, the absence of which reason seemed to be itself a proof of the actual existence. Why not? If one world, why not two—three—more—numberless? See Plutarch: De Placitis Philosophorum, vol. v. p. 239, Leip. ed., where among other statements and arguments he quotes the saying of Metrodorus: ἄτοπονεἶναιἐνμεγάλῳπεδίῳἕναστάχυνγενηθῆναι, καὶἑνακόσμονἐντῷἀπείρῳ, “it is absurd (incredibly strange) that there should be but one head of wheat in a great plain, and no less so, that there should be but one cosmos in infinite space.” The other idea of the planets’ inhabitability appears also in the Greek poetry. See especially the fragment given by Proclus: ἄλληνγαῖανἀπείρατονἥντεσελήνηνἀθάνατοικλῄζουσιν, ἐπιχθόνιοιδέτεμήνηνἡπόλλ’ ρὔρε’ ἔχει, πόλλ’ ἄστεαπολλὰμέλαθρα.Another land of vast extent, Immortals call Selene, men, the moon, A land of mountains, cities, palaces. The Bible is charged with narrowness in its space conceptions, but how narrow is that science, or that philosophy, which while vaunting itself, perhaps, on its superior range of view, has no idea of any higher being than man, and sometimes would seem to reject any other conception of deity than that of a developed humanity, slowly becoming a god, an κtre suprκme, to the nature still below. How glorious the Scripture doctrine appears in the contrast, as starting with an all-perfect personal being: Jehovah Tzebaoth, Jehovah of Hosts, with cherubim and seraphim, ἀρχαί, κυριότητες, living principles, ruling energies, angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. If not in space conceptions, yet how sublimely in the higher idea of ascending ranks of being do the Scriptures surpass the low and narrow views of Herbert, Comte, and Darwin. After a past eternity of progress, nature and the cosmos have just struggled up to man! This is the highest limit yet reached after a movement so immeasurably long, yea, endless in one direction; and that, too, not man as the Scripture represents him, a primus homo, an exalted being, so constituted by the inspiration that gave him birth, and signed him with the image of the eternal God, but man just rising above the ape, just emerging from that last growth of nature that preceded him in this interminable series of chance selections at last falling into some seeming order, and of random developments that never came from any preceding idea. Man as he now appears on earth, and whom Scripture pronounces a fallen being, the highest product of an endless time! Such is “the positive philosophy,” so boastful of its discoveries in width and space, but so exceedingly low and narrow in respect to the other and grander dimension! It discards theology and metaphysics as belonging to a still lower stage of this late-born child of nature, but alas for man if all the glory of his being, all his higher thinking, has already thus passed away! We may thank the Living God for giving to us an ideal world, as in itself a proof of something above nature, and of a higher actual even now in nature than our sense and our science ever have drawn, or may ever expect to draw, from it. The objection to revelation to which Lange here alludes as drawn from the modern astronomy is itself simply anthropopathic. They who make it imagine Deity to be just such a one as themselves. If He has two worlds to take care of, it is incredible that His providence should be as particular, and His interest as near, as though He had but one to govern. Such a mode of thinking makes worth, too, and rank, wholly quantitative and numerical, banishing, in fact, all intrinsic quality, and intrinsic value, from the world of things and ideas. The bigger the universe in space, the less the worth in each part, as a part, and this without any distinction between the purely physical or material to which such a quantitative rule of inverse proportion might apply, and the moral and spiritual, which can never be measured by it. The force of this objection comes from the fact of the imagination overpowering the reason. The lower though more vivid faculty impedes or silences for a time the higher. Reason teaches intuitively, or as derived from the very idea of God, that His care and providence towards any one rational and moral agent cannot be diminished by the number of other rational and moral agents, or be any less than it would be if such agent had been alone with Deity in the universe. The light and heat of the sun are the same whether the recipients are few or many. The case, therefore, may be thus stated: If a certain manifestation of the divine care for, and interest in, our world and race (namely, such as is revealed in the Bible) would not be incredible on the supposition of their being but one such world or race, then such credibility is not at all diminished by the discovery that there are others, few or many, to any extent conceivable. We must hold firmly to this as a pure rational judgment against the swaying imagination invading the reason, and even assuming to take its place. If the interest revealed by Christianity could be pronounced credible before the discoveries of astronomy (and this is assumed as the ground of the argument), then such measure is equally credible now, or we are convicted of judging God anthropopathically, however we may dignify the feeling with the name of an enlarged and liberal philosophy. Besides, there is no end to the argument until it banishes all providence, all government, all divine interest conceivable in the cosmos—everything, in short, which distinguishes the divine idea from that of a wholly impersonal nature. On a certain scale of the universe the Old Testament becomes incredible. On a wider sweep Christianity, the old Christianity of the Church, can no longer be believed. The incarnation and the atonement must be thrown out; God could not have cared to that extent for this petty world. Turn the telescope, so as to enlarge the field, or, through its inverted lenses, behold the objects still farther off, and “liberal Christianity” disappears. Even that has too much of divine interest for the new view. Draw out the slide still farther, and the very latest and faintest “phase of faith” departs. Everything resembling a providence or care of any kind for the individual becomes incredible in this time and space ratio. Prayer is gone, and hope, and all remains of any fear or love of God. Farther on, and races are thrown out of the scale as well as individuals; even a general providence of any kind becomes an obsolete idea. Not only the earth but solar and stellar systems become infinitesimals, or quantities that may be neglected in the calculus that sums the series. There is no end to this. We have no right to limit it by the present size or power of our telescopes. The present visible worlds of astronomy may be no more—they probably are no more—to the whole, than a single leaf to the forests of the Orinoco. The false idea must be carried on until every conception of every relation of a personal deity to finite beings, of any rank, utterly disappears, and a view no better than blank atheism—yea, worse than atheism, for that does not mock us with any pretense of theism—takes the place of all moral fear as well as of all religion. And this raises the farther question: If such be the diminishing effect on the religion, what must it be on the science and the philosophy? If human sins and human salvation become such small things when seen through this inverted glass, what becomes of all human knowledge, human genius, and human boasting of it? We do not find that the men who make these objections, as drawn from the magnitude of the universe, are more humble than others; but surely they ought to be so, after having thus shown their own moral and physical nothingness, and, along with it, the utter insignificance of their science. In one aspect, his mere physical aspect, man is indeed insignificant. The Scripture does not hesitate to call him a worm. It pronounces all nations “vanity”—“the small dust of the balance,” unappreciable physically in the great cosmical scales—“less than nothing and emptiness.” Such is its view of man in one direction, whilst in the other his value is to be estimated by the incarnation of Christ, and the very fact that the Infinite One condescends to make a revelation of Himself to such a being.—T. L.] The cosmology of the Bible is geocosmic in its practical point of view. After it has presented to us the creation of the heavens and the earth, it lets us conclude from the development of the earth the development of the heavens, namely in respect to the creation of light and of man. From the spirit-world of earth we are to conclude a spirit-world of heaven. But it superabundantly indicates a development of the earthly solar system parallel with the development of the earth (Genesis 1:14). That heaven is an inhabited region, appears from many passages, e.g., Genesis 28:12; and also that this region is divided into a rich multitude of various departments. And the question is not only of heaven, but also of the heaven of heavens (1 Kings 8:27). Christ teaches us too: In My father’s house are many mansions (John 14:2). But finally the Holy Writ informs us clearly, that notwithstanding the changeability, and necessity for rejuvenation, of the entire universe (Psalms 102:27; Isaiah 51:6), there is yet a contrast between the regions of growth on this side, and of perfection on the other (Ezekiel 1:21; 1 Peter 1:4; 2 Peter 3:13, etc.). In this respect the newest and purest astronomical view of the world corresponds entirely to this biblical distinction between the regions of growth here, and of perfection beyond. But the Bible also promises for the form of the world, even on this side, a new structure and perfection. Once all was night; but in the present order of things day and night alternate; in the future the new world shall be raised beyond the contrast of day and night (Revelation 21). Formerly all was sea; the present order consists in the contrast of land and sea; in the new world the sea shall be no more. b. The Idea of Nature in the Bible. The Bible and the Investigation of Nature.—We have shown in passing that the Scriptures fully recognize the idea of nature, i.e., of the conditioned going forth of the fixed life of nature from a fundamental principle peculiarly belonging to it. Every creative word becomes the ideal dynamical basis of a real principle. At first appear the principles of the separation. The separation of heaven and earth has the more general signification of universe on the one side, and of a special world-sphere on the other as represented by the earth, of which we now speak. At the second separation (light and darkness) the co-operation of the spirit of God is brought out, i.e., of the creative formative activity of God; at the third separation (water and land) the co-operation of light is presupposed. The natural law set up by Harvey (see Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 259): omne vivum ex ovo, has been again brilliantly restored in modern times by the exact investigation of nature in opposition to the theory of generatio �quivoca, which natural philosophy had taught (see Sobernheim: “Elements of General Physiology,” Berlin, 1844). In Delitzsch also the conception of the generatio �quivoca plays a part in the account of the creation (p. 111), because he has not sufficiently considered that the creative words, in the ideal they carry, form the foundation of the actual principles of nature. From the last-quoted principle it appears as follows: 1. Every grade of nature is fixed by a corresponding principle of nature, the natural principle of the plant, etc. 2. By its unfolding, this principle brings to light the standard of its development as the natural law of its grade. The natural principle is the first, the natural law is the second. 3. By the new principle of the higher grade of nature, the natural law of the preceding grade is modified in accordance with the new and higher life. The plant modifies the natural law of gravity, the animal modifies the local attachment of the plant; in man the animal instinct is effaced. 4. With each new life-principle God creates a new thing. The creation of the new is however the most general idea of the miracle, as the announcement of what is new is the most general idea of prophecy. Consequently, each new natural principle is to the preceding surpassed grade of nature as a miracle. “The animal is a miracle for the vegetable world” (Hegel). From this relation of the new natural principles, as they form the new degrees of nature, it follows that all nature is a symbolical support and prophecy of the ethical miracle of the kingdom of God. For as the first man, Adam, miraculously changes the natural law of the animal world, that is, changes instinct into human freedom, thus does Christ, as the new man from heaven, as the completed life-principle and miracle, change the Adamic laws of life into fundamental laws of the kingdom of God. It is in accordance with his nature to perform miracles within the Adamic sphere (1 Corinthians 15). 5. But what is true of the laws of nature, is also true of the matter of nature. Principle is the first thing in nature, law is the second, matter, as we know it, is the third. For through the intervention of a new and higher natural principle in the world by means of the creative word supporting it, the life of the preceding grade is reduced to the grade of matter. Thus by the appearance of the vegetable principle, the elementary world becomes matter for new formations; so, too, the animal reduces the vegetable world to the grade of material, and in like manner does man change the grade of the animal world. But the man from heaven makes from the elements of the Adamic world the matter for a new world. The materialists of our day have ridiculed the idea of a life-power which should be different from the supposed fundamental matter of the world. Instead of the life-power, there should have been opposed to them something more real: the life-principle. The life-principle is fundamentally distinguished in the contrast of plastic formative power and material substratum. They are both mutually established each with the other, but above them stands the principle. The materialist, therefore, as he explains everything from a force of matter, which no man has ever yet seen (see Lange’s “Miscellaneous Writings,” 1st vol. p. 54), does not only deny the existence of the human soul and its ethical nature and highest causality, the Godhead, but he is also the antagonist of the genuine zoologist who believes in the reality of the animal principle, as he is of the genuine botanist who does not consider the vegetable formations a shadowy play of matter on the wall, and of the crystallographer who connects imponderable forces and polarity—yea, of the genuine chemist too, who has perceived that the relations of elective affinity in substances extend beyond the atomistic conceptions. May it not possibly be explained, that as the material side of the natural principle is formed by the creating word, so is the reference of the origin of matter to a pure thought of God something else than the reference to the difficult enigma of a creative matter; and experience proves that the coarser matter everywhere, as outside or precipitate, proceeds from finer formations. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONMan—Paradise—the Paradisaical Pair and the Paradisaical Institutions,—Theocratic—Jehovistic. Genesis 2:4-25.A.—The Earth waiting for Man.4These are the generations [genealogies] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [here the six days are one day] that the Lord God [not God Jehovah, much less God the Eternal. Israel’s God as God of all the world] made the earth and the heavens [the theocratic heavens are completed from the earth], 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man [Adam] to till the ground [adamah]. B.—The Creation of the Paradisaical Man.6But there went up a mist from the earth [including the sea] and watered the whole face of the earth [the adamah or the land]. 7And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. C.—The Creation of Paradise.8And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden [land of delight], and there he put the man whom he had formed: 9And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted and became into four heads. 11The name of the first is Pison [spreading]; that is it which compasseth 12[winds through] the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good [fine]; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13And the name of the second river is Gihon [gushing], the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia [Cush]. 14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel [swift-flowing]; that is it which goeth toward the East of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. D.—The Paradise Life.15And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat [ΰλμϊΰλμ]. 17But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [ξεϊϊξεν]. E.—Paradisaical Development and Institutions.18And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him [λπβγε, his contrast, reflected image, his other I]. 19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. 21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. 22And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man [ischah, man-ess, because taken from isch, man]. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. AND 1. The present section, Genesis 2:4-25, is connected with the one that follows to the end of Genesis 3, by the peculiar divine designation of Jehovah Elohim. It has also a still closer connection with Genesis 4, inasmuch as the next toledoth, or generations, begin with Genesis 5:1. That, however, Genesis 2:25 is really a separate portion, appears from the strong contrast in which the history of the fall, Genesis 3, stands to the history of Paradise, Genesis 2. Keil denotes the whole division, even to the next toledoth (Genesis 5:1), as the history of the heavens and the earth. Upon the completing of the creative work, Genesis 1, there follows the commencing historical development of the world, with the history of the heavens and the earth in three sections: a. Of the primitive condition of man in Paradise (Genesis 2:5-25); b. of the fall (Genesis 3); c. of the breaking up of the one human race into two distinct and separately disposed races (Genesis 4). It must be remarked, however, in the first place, that in Genesis 2 there is not yet any proper beginning of historical development in the strict sense, and, secondly, that Genesis 4:1 to Genesis 6:7 do evidently cohere in a definite unity presenting, as consequence of the history of the fall, 1. the unfolding of the line of Cain, 2. the unfolding of the line of Seth, and 3. the inter-folding of both lines to their mutual corruption. So far, therefore, does the history of the first world proceed under the religious point of view. But the generations of the heavens and the earth go on from the beginning of our present section to Genesis 5. In respect to this, Keil rightly maintains that the phrase eleh tholedoth (these the generations) must be the superscription to what follows (Genesis 2:33). The question arises: in what sense? On good ground does Keil insist that toledoth (a noun derived from the Hiphilδεμιγ, in the construct plural, and denoting properly the generations, or the posterity of any one) means not the historical origin of the one named in the genitive, but ever the history of the generations and the life that proceeds from him—or his series of descendants (we may add) as his own genesis still going on in his race. This word, therefore, in its relation to heaven and earth, cannot denote the original beginning of the heaven and the earth (Delitzsch thinks otherwise), but only the historical development of heaven and earth after they are finished. For the toledoth or “generations of Noah,” for example, do not denote his own birth and begetting, but his history and the begetting of his sons. From what has been said it follows, therefore, that the human history, from Genesis 2 to the end of Genesis 4, is not to be regarded as a history of the earth only, but also of the heavens. And in a mystical sense, truly, Paradise is heaven and earth together. Let us now keep specially in view the section of Jehovah Elohim, chs. 2 and 3. When we bear in mind that the name Jehovah Elohim occurs twenty times in this section in place of Elohim that had been used hitherto (the exceptions, Genesis 3:1; Genesis 3:3; Genesis 3:5, are very characteristic), and that, besides this, it is found only once in the Pentateuch (Exodus 9:30), the significance of this connection becomes very clear. When once, however, the documentary unity of the Elohim and Jehovah sections is clearly entertained, this section becomes immediately a declaration that the Covenant-God of Israel, originally the Covenant-God of Adam in Paradise, is one with Elohim the God of all the world. Immediately, too, is there established the central stand-point of the theocratic spirit, according to which Jehovah is the God of all the world, and Adam, with his Paradise, is the microcosmic centre of all the world (in respect to the names Jehovah and Elohim, see Keil, p. 35). As far as specially concerns our section, Genesis 2, Knobel gives it the superscription: “The Creation, Narration Second.” It must be remarked, however, that here the genesis of the earth, in contrast with the generative series that follows, is presented according to the principle that determines the ordering of things; so that Adam, as such principle, stands at the head. (It is according to Aristotle’s proposition: the posterior in appearance, the prior in idea.) The representation must, indeed, give him a basis in an already existing earth; yet still for the paradisaical earth is it true that the earth is first through man. The paradisaical earth with its institutions, uniting as they do the contrast of heaven and earth, or rather of earth and heaven, is the fundamental idea of the second chapter. For an apprehension of this contrast, in part akin to and partly variant, see Delitzsch, p. 138. From the very supposition of the earth as existing, it appears that the author presupposes still another representation of the creation, and that the present is only meant to give a supplement from another side. It is incorrect to say here, as Knobel does, that the origin of plants in general goes before the origin of man. 2. Genesis 2:4. The construction of De Wette is to this effect: “At the time when God Jehovah made earth and heaven, there was no shrub of the field,” etc. Still harsher and more difficult is the construction of Bunsen: “At the time when God the Ever lasting made heaven and earth, and there was not yet any shrub of the field upon the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprouted (for Jehovah God had not yet made it to rain upon the earth, etc.), then did God the Everlasting form man,” etc. Both of these are untenable and opposed to the simple expression of the text. (See also Delitzsch and Keil.) Genesis 2:4 is indeed not altogether easy. On the day in which the Lord made the earth and the heavens, that is, on the one great day, in which here the hexaλmeron is included (with special reference, indeed, to its closing period), there commenced the history of the heavens and the earth in their becoming created—that is, in the same period in which they became created. Out of the paradisaical history: Earth and heaven, arose the converse history: Heaven and earth, in a religious sense, just as in a genetic sense there was the same order from the beginning. 3. Genesis 2:5-6. And every plant of the field.—The word λֹּ ?μ with the negative particle is equivalent to the German gar nichts, not at all. The Hebrew conjunction ε leaves it at first view undecided, whether the superscription goes on so as to take in the words, and every herb, etc. And yet, on that view, there would be a failure of any concluding sense. The most probable view, therefore, is that which regards the conjunction as merely a transition particle, and passes it over in the translation. According to Knobel and others this narration is actually at variance with that of Genesis 1, as, for example, in its view of the dryness of the earth before the introduction of the plants, etc. (see Genesis 2:22), and, therefore, we must conclude that it belongs to another narrator. In regard to this assumption of different documents, we may refer to the Introduction (for the modes of representation in the Jehovistic portions, see Knobel, p. 23; likewise the head Literature, p. 24). The designed unity of both representations appears from the manner and way in which, even according to Knobel, the second of these narrations, in many of its references, presupposes the first. The full explanation of this unity becomes obvious from the harmonic contrast which arises when the universal creation of the world is regarded from the ideal stand-point of the Jehovah belief (see John 17:5; Ephesians 1:4). The author carries us back to the time of the hexaλmeron, when no herb of the field had yet grown. Nevertheless there is not meant by this the beginning of the third creative day, but the time of the sixth. The apparent contradiction, however, disappears, when we lay the emphasis upon the expression “of the field,” and by the herbs and plants of the field that are here meant, understand the nobler species of herbs that are the growth of culture. In opposition to Delitzsch, Keil correctly distinguishes between ωγδ and ΰψυ. Delitzsch has not sufficiently removed the difficulty that arises when we carry back the date of this to the time before vegetation existed. There would be (apparent) contradiction (he admits) between the two narratives, but not an inexplicable one—then it is no contradiction at all. It is the paradisaical plants, therefore; these did not yet exist; for they presuppose man. See other interpretations in Lange’s “Positive Dogmatic,” p. 242. Keil connects our interpretation with that of Baumgarten: “By the being of the plant is denoted its growth and germination.” This is ever wont to follow very soon after the planting of the germ. By assuming, indeed, a certain emphasis on the verbs ιδιδ and ιφξη, we may get the sense: the herbs of the field were not yet rightly grown, the plant was not yet come to its perfection of form or feature, because the conditions of culture were as yet wanting. But this thought connects itself more or less with that of plants produced by cultivation, which, as such, presuppose the existence of man.—Had not caused it to rain.—To the human cultivation of the world belong two distinct things: first the rain from heaven together with sunshine, and secondly the labor and care of man. Both conditions fail as yet, but now, for the first time, comes in the first mode of nurture. The fog-vapor that arose from the earth (ha-aretz, including the sea) waters the earth-soil (the adamah). It is rightly inferred from Genesis 2:6 that the vapor which arose from the earth indicates the first rain. If it means that the mist then first arose from the earth, there would seem to be indicated thereby the form of rain, or, at all events, of some extraordinary fall of the dew. From this place, and from the history of the flood (especially the appearance of the rainbow), it was formerly inferred that until the time of the deluge no rain had actually fallen. But from the fact that the rainbow was first made a sign of the covenant for Noah, it does not at all follow that it had not actually existed before; just as little as it follows from the sign of the starry night which Abraham received (Genesis 15), that there had been no starry night before, or from the institution of the covenant-sign of circumcision, that circumcision had not earlier existed as a popular usage (two points which the Epistle of Barnabas has well distinguished, although the critics have partially failed in understanding it. Epistle of Barnabas ix.). A similar view must be taken of the previous natural history of the paschal lamb, of the dove, and of the eucharistic supper; they were ever earlier than the sacramental appointment. In fact, there is in this place no express mention made of rain proper, and it may well suggest here one of those heavy falls of dew that take place in the warmer climates. Our text may fairly mean, not that the rain was a mere elementary phenomenon, but that it belonged to the divinely ordered economy of human cultivation in its interchange with the labor of man. The most we can say is, that the watering of the soil was a precondition to the creation of man himself. Just as cultivation after this, so must also, primarily, the cultivator of the soil come into existence under the dew of heaven. Moreover, the earthly organization of man consists, in good part, of water. The words Adam and adamah are used here, as we may well believe, to denote a close relationship of kin. As Adam, however, is not simply from the earth (ha-aretz), so the adamah is not simply the theocratic earth-soil prepared by the God who created man. Adam is the man in his relation to the earth, and so is adamah the earth in its relation to man. [Note on the Summary of the First Creative Account in the Second.—Knobel has to admit the internal evidence showing that this second account recognizes the first and is grounded upon it, thereby disproving the probability of a contrariety either intended or unseen. The attempt, however, of Lange, and of others cited, to reconcile the seeming difficulties, can hardly be regarded as giving full satisfaction. Another method, therefore, may be proposed, which we think is the one that would most obviously commend itself to the ordinary reader who believed in the absolute truthfulness of the account, and knew nothing of any documentary theory. The two narratives are a continuation of the same story. The second is by the same author as the first, or by one in perfect harmony with him, and evidently referring to all that had been previously said as the ground-work of what is now to be more particularly added respecting man, and which may be called the special subject of this second part. Hence the preparatory recapitulation, just as Xenophon in each book of the Anabasis presents a brief summary of the one preceding. This reference to the previous account thus commences: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth”—that is, as has been already told. That ϊμγεϊ refers to the creative growths, births, evolutions, or whatever else we might call them, would be the first and most obvious thought. When told that they mean the generations of Adam, as subsequently given, and this because “Paradise is heaven and earth together,” or “Adam with his Paradise is the microcosmic centre of the world,” we admit the justness and beauty of the thoughts, but find it difficult to be satisfied with the exposition. Again, whoever will examine the uses of ΰμδ (these) in Noldius’ “Concordance,” will find that it refers as often, and perhaps oftener, to what precedes than to what follows. The context alone determines, and here it decidedly points to the first chapter. There is, however, no difficulty in taking it both ways, as a subscription to the first passage, or as a superscription to the second, at the same time. That “the generations of the heavens and the earth” means the previous creative account, and not that which comes after, would seem to be decided by the words immediately added, αְּ ?δִ ?αָּ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?ν, “in their being created”—“in the day (that is, the time or period taken as a whole) of the Lord God’s making the earth and heavens.” To seek for mysteries here in the transposition of the words “earth and heavens,” would be like a similar search by the Jewish Masorites of something occult in the little (δΧζςιψΰ) δ of the word αδαψΰν. Either the whole previous time is referred to, or, as is more probable, the earliest part of it, before not only man but vegetation also. Or, in the day, may mean, as some have thought, the first day, when the material of the earth and heavens had been created, but all was yet unformed. Now this seems to be very much what is meant by what follows in Genesis 2:5-6. In the day when God made the earth and heavens; here the writer might have stopped, so far as his main design was concerned, and gone on immediately to give the intended more particular account of man; but he is led to enlarge his recapitulating summary by an addition that may be regarded either as parenthetical or exegetical—“the earth and heavens, and every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb before it grew,” etc. He puts the greatest and the smallest things together to denote totality. All was made before man. And then, to make the language more emphatic in the assertion of its being a divine work, and that it was before man, who is excluded from all agency in its production, it is further declared that this first appearance of the vegetable world was not, in its origin, an ordinary production of nature (such as growth produced by rain), and was wholly independent of human cultivation. It had not yet rained in the ordinary way, that is, the regular production and reproduction of the seasons had not yet taken place, and there was no man to till the ground. It was after this first supernatural vegetation that the irrigating processes commenced, when God made “a law for the rain (ηֹ ?χμַ ?ξָּ ?θָ ?ψ, legem pluviis, Job 28:26), and caused the mist to go up (the evaporation and condensation) that watered the whole face of the ΰγξδ, the earth’s soil. This assertion of supernatural growths being premised as antecedent summary, the writer immediately proceeds to the main and direct subject of this second section: εַ ?ιִּ ?ιφֶ ?ψ, and after this (as is demanded by the ε conversive denoting sequence of event) the Lord God formed man.” The language is irregular and parenthetical, but artless and clear, at least in its general design. The terms employed are those that a writer with those primitive conceptions would use in impressing the idea of the supernatural. The first plants were made to grow without that help of rain and of human cultivation which they now require. A striking difference between this and the first account is that it is wholly unchronological, just as would be expected in a summary of a recapitulation. It is an introduction to man, as showing briefly what was done for him before he is brought into the world, and then what follows is wholly confined to him. Thus viewed, there is the strongest internal evidence that the two accounts are from one and the same author, who has neither desire nor motive to enlarge upon what he had previously said. It is the style of one who understands himself, and who has no fear of being misunderstood, or taken for another, by his reader. Perhaps the best view of the whole case would be gained by making a fair paraphrase, which is only putting it into a more modern style of language and conception: ‘Such were the generations of the heavens and the earth in that early day when God made not only the great earth and heavens, but even the lowly shrub and plant—made them by His own divine word—made them when they yet were not (as Raschi gives the sense of θψν, without preceding causality) without the aid of rain—before the rain and before any human cultivation. For it was after this early day (ε in εΰγ being grammatically both illative and denoting sequence) that the mists began to go up (ιςμδ, the unconnected future form here denoting series, habit, or continuance, see Job 1:5; Judges 14:10; Psalms 32:4), from which come the descending rains that now water the earth. And it was after all this that the Lord God made man, his body from the earth (from nature), his spirit from His own divine inspiration; and thus it was that man became a living soul.’ The ΰγ or mist here that went up can mean nothing but the rain itself. It is the same process, and that the word is to be so regarded is evident from its use, Job 36:27 : “For He maketh small the drops of water, when they pour down the rain of its vapor,” ιζχεξθψμΰγε. It may be a question whether λμωιη (Genesis 2:4) is to be taken as the object of ςωεϊ, Genesis 2:3, as it commonly is, or is to be regarded as connected with what follows, so as to be the subject of the verbal force that is in θψν. This word is not well rendered before, as though a thing could be before it was, unless in an ideal sense, which we cannot suppose to be the writer’s meaning here. The being in the earth was essential to its being a plant; otherwise it is but the idolon or imago of a plant, according to the crude and untenable view that would represent God as outwardly or mechanically making it and then putting it in the earth to be brought forth (see Introduction to the First Chapter, p.—). The word θψν, says Raschi, is equivalent to ςγμΰ, until not, or, not yet, and contains averbal assertive force. So the Targum of Onkelos renders it, and the Syriac by a similar idiom, ܐ ?ܐ ?ܒ ?ܝ ?ܠ ?܂ ?ܠ ?ܝ ?̣ ?. It would then read: And as for the shrub, it (was) not yet in the earth, the herb had not yet begun to grow; thus giving to θֶ ?ψֶ ?ν the force of a negative verb, like ΰιο, only with the idea of time. And then, with this negative force in θψν, the λμ, according to the Hebrew idiom, makes a universal negative of the strongest kind, being equivalent to gar nichts, as Lange says—nothing at all. Thus the expression: every shrub was not, etc., which with us would be a particular or partial negative equivalent to not every, is the widest universal in the Hebrew: In the day of God’s making the earth and the heavens, when (as ε may well be rendered) there was not the least sign of shrub or plant growing in the earth. See Lud. de Dieu: Critica Sacra, in loc. This is, in the main, the view of Delitzsch, though he still seems to have some perplexities about the time. We get clear, however, of the difficulties of Lange and others. There is no need of bringing this vegetation down to the sixth day, and referring it to the growth of cultivated plants from the adamah. The language will not bear it. In like manner there is disposed of the explanation of some of the Jewish Rabbis, that the plants barely came to the surface on the third day, but for the want of rain did not come forth and reach their perfection until the sixth. Maimonides says justly, that this is against the positive declaration that the “earth did bring them forth” (Genesis 1:12). In refuting it, however, he lays the emphasis on ωγδ, the field, in distinction from the earth generally, and so regards it as spoken of cultivated plants. But this seems forced, and there stands in the way of it the word ωιη, which is especially used of uncultivated growths, as of the desert, Job 30:4; Job 30:7, or of the wild bushes in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba, Genesis 21:15. See the attempts to reconcile the two accounts in Wordsworth, Murphy, and Jacobus. The trouble springs from the assuming of a chronology, and endeavoring to find it, when the chief feature of this second narrative, or of the summary that precedes it, is its wholly unchronological character. There is no time in it. The near and the remote are brought together: In the day when God made the heavens and the earth, from the firmament down to the shrub—or, when there was not a sign of a plant in the earth—made them by His divine word, before there was any rain (compare Proverbs 8:24, αΰιοξςιπεϊπλαγιξιν, when there were no fountains full of water), though afterwards “He made a law for the rain,” and the mists went up and descended to fertilize the earth, etc. This absence of rain was somewhere in this summed-up day of creation; its place, however, is not fixed in the series, and it is alluded to not for its own sake, but in connection with the plants as originating from a higher causality.—T. L.] 4. Genesis 2:7. The Lord God formed man.—Knobel: “As the principal creation of the earth the author has him created before all his fellow-creatures.” This is incorrect, inasmuch as the representation evidently has in view no genealogical or chronological order. It only presents him as the chief divine thought, at the head of the Paradise-creation. “In respect to the mode of origin of the divine-formed man the first chapter says nothing; it only indicates that man is of a higher, and, at the same time, of an earthly nature, without being a product of the earth. But now, on the threshold of a history rising and revealing its purposes, there is need to know something more particular in respect to his mode of origin, so that, along with the fact of his existence, we may understand his established relation to God, to the surrounding vegetable and animal world, and to the earth in general.” Delitzsch. The spirit of the Old Testament, with all correctness, represents the nature of man, in respect to his bodily substance, as earthly; and just so does physiology determine. In the matter of his body man consists of earthly elements; in a wider sense he is out of the earth (Genesis 18:27; Psalms 103:14), and at his death he goes back to his mother-earth (Genesis 3:19; Genesis 3:23; Job 10:9; Job 34:15; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 3:20; Ecclesiastes 12:7). “According to the classical myth Prometheus formed the first man of earthy and watery material (Apollodorus, Ovid, Juvenal), and in the same manner Vulcan made the first woman (Pandora) out of earth (Hesiod). In other places the ancients represent man as generated out of the earth (Plato in the Kritias, and others, Virgil) as well as the beasts.” Knobel. The name Adam does not denote precisely one taken from the earth (ΰψυ, γηγενής), but one formed from the adamah, the soil of cultivation in its paradisaical state; just as the Latin homo from humus, and the Greek χοϊκός from χοός, do not refer back to the earth-matter generally, but to the earth-soil as adapted to cultivation. This derivation from adamah is adopted by most (Kimchi, Rosenmόller, and others). On the contrary, others, after Josephus, derive the word from the verb ΰγν, to be red, with reference to the ruddy color of man, or the reddish soil of Palestine. Knobel, again, explains it, with Ludolf, from the Ζthiopian ΰγν, to be pleasant, agreeable, according to which it would denote something of comely form. One Jewish Doctor, and after him Eichhorn and Richers, would make the word γν (Ezekiel 19:10 = γξεϊ) the etymological ground, and would, therefore, give it pre-eminently the meaning of image or likeness. The two first explanations are in so far one as the primitive contemplation saw the reflection of the reddish earth in the glow of the ruddy cheek or in the color of the blood. In this it must be maintained that the earthly lowliness of man, as thereby expressed, becomes modified by the superior excellence of the primitive paradisaical earth. First after the fall does it thus properly become the lowliness of this lower earth. As, therefore, in respect to one half, the lower descent of the outward human nature is expressed by the name Adam, so also, on the other side, there is the hidden nobleness of the adamah, and the destiny of man to draw the adamah along with it in its development to a higher life. In respect to the Greek word for man, ἄνθρωπος (= ὁἄνωἀθρῶν, the upward looking), compare Delitzsch, p. 141, and Knobel, p. 25. So also for the Indo-Germanic Mensch, in the Sanscrit manu (from mna, to think, related to manas, spirit), see the notes in Delitzsch, p. 619. The translations of ςτψ, dust, also clay, soil (Leviticus 14:42; Leviticus 14:45; English Version, mortar), are exegetical; Vulgate: De limo terr�; Luther: Out of the earth-clod; Symmachus and Theodolion: χοῦνἀπὸτῆςἀδαμᾶ, God formed him out of the dust of the earth. The verb ιφψ must certainly have its emphatic distinction here from αψΰ and ςωη. It denotes the curious structure of man according to his idea, as an act of the divine conscious wisdom (Psalms 139:13; Proverbs 8:31).—And breathed into his nostrils.—“The inbreathing takes place through the nostrils; for this is the organ of the breath, but the breath itself is the expression and sign of the inward existing life. From the breath of God comes the life of man (Job 33:4; Isaiah 42:5), and the breath in the nostrils of man is the divine breathing (Job 27:3). In a similar manner does the Challaic myth make the creature to be formed of earthy matter and the divine blood; the blood is taken for the seat of life (see Genesis 9:4).” Knobel. The expression evidently presents the formative agency of God in an anthropomorphic form. There is the mouth of God and the nostrils of the man as he comes into existence; it is as though He had waked him into life with a kiss (compare 1 Kings 17:21). It evidently means the impartation of the divine life, on which depends the divine kinsmanship of man (Acts 17:28-29). πωξδ (from πων), breath, spirit, breath of the spirit, breath of man, life of the spirit, is more specific than ψεη, more universal than πτω, but may be interchanged with both, as something that stands between them; yet only in relation to man. Here it evidently denotes something which is common both to God and man, something which goes forth from God and enters into man—God’s “breath of life,” that is, the spirit of God in its active self-motion, as in man it calls out the spiritual principle, the spirit of his life, but none the less as the spirit in its actual personality. The πωξδ, or breath of God, has the predicate ηιιν (life or lives) from the adjective ηַ ?ιָּ ?δ (Genesis 1), in order to distinguish primarily the living subject, and, in the next place, the life itself. The life, in its most intensive sense, is the unity of the life in all living persons, and in any living thing;—it is the personality. πֶ ?τֶ ?ωׁ (from πָ ?τַ ?ωׁ, to breathe), the life’s breath, the soul of life, anima, ψυχή, the principle of the animal vitality, and, in this respect, the life itself; in a wider sense it is animus, the personal spiritual soul, the psychical affection, the man himself. In our text it denotes the man in his totality as living soul. In consequence of the formation of the human figure out of dust from the earth-soil, and the animation of this figure through the impartation of the life from God, does man become a living soul. For the psychology of the passage, see the Fundamental Ideas. 5. Genesis 2:8. Planted a garden in Eden.—As Jehovah-God (farther on, Genesis 2:15-16) is named as the establisher of the order of life, of natural science, or of the human knowledge of it (Genesis 2:19), of marriage and the law of the family (Genesis 2:21; Genesis 2:24), as the judge and founder of the religion of the promise and of the moral conflict on the earth, of the earthly state of sorrow and discipline (Genesis 3:7), and, finally, as the immediate director of human chastity and the author of the human clothing (Genesis 2:21), so also here, in the beginning, is He represented as the first Planter, the Founder of human culture, which is as yet identical with the human cultus or worship. Delitzsch transfers this planting to the time of the first vegetable creation (p. 146); but this is not agreeable to the sense of the text, which does not relate things chronologically, and presupposes the creation of man. In consequence of the previous preparation for the future of man in the bedewing of the earth, an Eden is already originated. The name Eden (enjoyment, pleasure, delight), as the region of Paradise, would denote, according to Delitzsch, a land determinate but no longer ascertainable by us; since the Assyrian Eden, he thinks, which is vocalized by the doubled segol and mentioned Isaiah 37:12, and the C�lo-Syriac Eden mentioned Amos 15, are altogether different. But if the garden in Eden had its name from a determinate boundary and enclosure, and if the paradisaical streams went forth in all the world, then it becomes a very serious question whether the author had in view any distinct boundary of Eden itself, as any determinate land. It appears, at all events, to have been his intention to represent the whole paradisaical adamah as an Eden in respect to its nature and laying out, although he meant by it, primarily, the undetermined wide environs that surrounded man, whilst, at the same time, supposing a distinction between Eden and the earth generally. There is also the passage, Genesis 4:16, which seems to presuppose a limitation of Eden to one determinate region; still it must be noticed, in the mean time, that the soil becomes cursed for man’s sake. According to the representation, it is a view that takes the form of three spheres: the earth, the Paradise, the garden. At all events, the best supposition in regard to man is that he was created in Eden, although by a new act of God he is early transferred to the centre of Eden, that is, of the Paradise. Besides this place, the name Eden occurs Genesis 2:10; Genesis 2:15; Genesis 3:23; Genesis 4:16; Genesis 13:10; Joe 2:3; Ezekiel 31:16; Ezekiel 31:18.—A garden, βַּ ?ο. The Septuagint translates it παράδεισος; the Vulgate: Paradisus. “Spiegel explains this word (Avesta, i. p. 293) according to the Zend: Paοri daιza, is a heaping round, an enclosing, with which the Hebrew βο (properly, something covered or sheltered) well agrees. It is carried out of the Indo-Germanic into the Shemitic, and is found in the Hebrew, where it has the pronunciation τַ ?ψְ ?γֵ ?ν (Par-dhes), Cantic. Genesis 4:13; Nehemiah 2:8; Ecclesiastes 2:5.” Knobel. An explanation, now set aside, is that which derives it from the Sanscrit paradξηa (alien, foreign, wondrous land). The conceptions—Garden of Eden, Eden Garden, Garden of God—by reason of the symbolical significance of these expressions, play into each other. By the garden, according to Knobel, is to be understood “a garden of trees.” Thus much is clear, that the garden of the paradisaical nature was distinguished for its trees. The garden lay in the eastern district of the Eden region (ξχγν); there is probably indicated along with this the stand-point of the reporter. The Eastern land is the home-land of humanity.—There He put the man.—As the creation of Eve is transferred to Paradise, it is as well not to lay stress upon the fact of Adam’s having been created outside of Paradise; the fundamental idea consists in this, that Adam was immediately transferred from his state of nature (or his universal relation to the adamah) into the state of culture, or his particular relation to Paradise. “Both facts are announced before in a summary way, but are unfolded in what follows; just as the facts summarily announced in the first verse of Genesis 1 receive afterwards a wider explanation.” Delitzsch. 6. Genesis 2:9-14. And out of the ground made the Lord to grow.—We must not regard this act as a chronological following of the preceding. Man finds himself well-cared for in Paradise by means of its abundance. This consists in fruit-trees of every kind. It may fairly be regarded here as an indication of the spirituality of the human enjoyment, that the lovely aspect of the trees is named first, then the good that is given along with it—that is, agreeable and healthsome food—but this spiritual side of the human enjoyment comes out, in its perfection, with the mention of the two trees that form a contrast in the midst of the garden; for, according to Genesis 3:3, the tree of knowledge stands likewise in the midst of the garden. The significance and efficacy of the tree of life are more particularly given Genesis 3:22; it could have procured for Adam the power of living on forever. That this efficacy is not to be regarded as something purely physical appears from the contrast of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whose efficacy, again, on its own side, is not to be regarded as purely spiritual (see Genesis 3:22). The spiritual side of the tree of life is also supposed Revelation 2:7; Revelation 22:2. It is, therefore, just a false contrast when Knobel tells us that “the narrator supposes in Paradise two trees, of which the fruits of the one strengthen the physical power of life and sustain the life itself, whilst that of the other arouses and advances the spiritual power, and thereby induces a higher knowledge.” (!) Truly, the garden appears a “region of wonder, on account of this tree not only, but as the place of God’s personal presence, the place of the vocal utterance of a spiritual voice by the serpent, and on account of the cherubim. The wonderful consists, in the first place, in this, that here is the region of innocence, of the integrity both of the human spirit and of the surrounding nature, and that, consequently, here the spiritual and the natural are embraced in perfect union; whilst therefore it is, that outward things become of typical and symbolical significance in their potential measure. It belongs now to the perfection of the garden, not merely that it is watered with its own Paradise rivers, but also, that by means of the four streams that go out from its one united stream it stands in close connection with the whole earth, and sends forth to it its own peculiar blessings. From the reading of the text: a stream went out, instead of, a stream goes out, Delitzsch finds proof that the author speaks of Paradise as of a thing purely past. Much rather, however, does he speak of Paradise after the fall, as of a place at least still existing, but closely shut up by means of the cherubim. That is, the representation is not now purely geographical; it is also, at the same time, throughout symbolic. According to our representation, the stream originates, not in Paradise itself, but outside of it, in the land of Eden; and so here, too, as in the case of Adam, must we distinguish between the origin in nature, and the destiny that was to have its development in culture. In Paradise itself, therefore, does this one stream, on its going out of the garden, divide itself into four (ψΰωιν) flood-heads (not “rain-streams,” nor “brooks”), which as four rivers part themselves in all the world, the stream-heads become head-streams.—The name of the first is Pishon: The free-flowing (Fόrst); the full-flowing (Gesenius). By the name Pishon has been understood 1. the Phasis, 2. the Phasis-Araxes of Xenophon, 3. the Bisynga or Fradatti (Buttmann), 4. the Indus (Schulthess), 5. the Ganges (Josephus, Eusebius, Bertheau), 6. the Hyphasis (Haneberg), 7. the Nile (the Midrash), 8. the Goschah (C. Ritter). See the Doctrinal and Ethical.—That is it which encompasses the whole land of Havilah.—According to Fόrst, it is the same with circuit, region. (This is what Havilah probably signifies; according to Delitzsch it means sandy land.) The word ραα (primarily, to surround) may be interpreted of a circuitous flowing round, though it also occurs in the sense of surrounding on one side. The verb may also denote a winding passage through (Isaiah 23:16, ραιςιψ, “Go round about through the city”), and here it may be better conceived of as a winding through than as an encompassing. We choose an expression that at the same time calls to mind a region of streams.—Where there is gold.—That is, especially or abundantly—the mother-country of gold, not only in respect to quantity, but also in respect to quality.—The gold of that land is good.—Besides its fine gold, Havilah is also famous for its spices, such as Bdolach (Numbers 11:7), similar to manna, or according to Josephus Bdellion, and, similarly named (see Knobel), “an odoriferous and very costly gum, which is indigenous in India and Arabia, in Babylonia and Media, and especially in Bactriana. It must have been well known to the Hebrews.” To this is added, in the third place, the precious stone ωֹׁ ?δַ ?ν, schoham. According to most interpreters it is an onyx stone, sardonyx, or sardius, which belong together to the species chalcedon. The Targumists and others would understand by schoham the sea-green beryl. The onyx, on the contrary, has the color of the human finger-nails, and that is denoted by the name. With this agrees ωֹׁ ?δַ ?ν as “signifying something thin, delicate, pale” (Knobel). In respect to the geography, see further on.—The name of the second river is Gihon.—“According to Josephus, Ant. i. 1, 3, Kimchi, and others, also as might be inferred from the Septuagint translation of Jer 2:18, Ben Lira 24, 27, there was understood by it the Nile, which flows through all the south-lands (λεω) that fell within the circuit of the narrator’s view” (Fόrst). Under the Gihon, moreover, according to the Shemitic use of the word, there have been understood the Oxus, the Pyramus, and the Ganges. λεω, the dark-colored (?), is a proper name for the oldest son of Ham, the ancestor of the Ζthiopians. Thence it is given to the south-land, especially Meroe, and, thereupon, to Ζthiopia and the south-region generally. And yet under the like name may be understood a dark-colored people that dwelt in southern India, in Upper Egypt, and in South Arabia (Ktesias and Arrian). In like manner are there different geographical districts under this name (see Fόrst: Lexicon).—The name of the third river is Hiddekel.—The Tigris, the rushing, so named from its violent flowing. Daniel 10:4, it is called the great river—so also the Euphrates. The Zend form is tigra, tigr, tigira, swift, raging.—Toward the east of Assyria (Lange: Before or in front of Assyria). The word χγξϊ before Assyria can also mean to the east, but as a preposition it has the more common sense before, frontward. The latter sense, taken freely, is here to be preferred; since the Tigris, in fact, forms the western boundary of Assyria. According to some, Assyria is to be taken here in a wider sense.—The fourth river is Euphrates.—The outbreaking, the violent. It is the greatest river of Western Asia, and, therefore, called the great river, or the river, without anything more. The origin of the Greek form Εὐφράτης is explained either from τְ ?ψָ ?ϊ = ΰֶ ?τְ ?ψָ ?ϊ, or from the Persian Ifrat, Ufrat. For the different derivations, see Fόrst. 7. Genesis 2:15-17. Took the man and put him in the garden.—The author takes up again what is said in the 8th verse about the transfer of Adam to Paradise, but adds to it, at the same time, the purpose for which it was done, namely, to dress it and to keep it. According to Delitzsch man was created outside of Paradise; since he must first see the extra-paradisaical earth, in order that he might have a worthy estimation of the glory of Paradise, and of his own vocation as extending thence over the whole world. Such an assignment of a purpose is altogether too didactic. The garden is the place of the human vocation, and of the human enjoyment in its undivided unity. This enjoyment has two sides, to eat and to refrain. In like manner the vocation has two sides, to dress and to keep. The first thing is to dress it; for nature, which grows wild or rank without the care of man, becomes ennobled under the human hand (Delitzsch). Says the same writer, this work was as widely different from agriculture proper, as Paradise itself differed from the later cultivated land, but it was still work; “and work was so far from being unparadisaical, that, according to Genesis 2:1-3, even the creation is regarded as a work of God.” We must distinguish, however, work in its narrower sense, as it stands under the burden of vanity (made subject to vanity, Romans 8:20) from the paradisaical work, or activity. Even of the later Israel is it said: There is no toil in Zion. According to Delitzsch, the whole earth, from Paradise out, was to become a Paradise: “The garden is the most holy (or the holy of holies), Eden is the holy place, whilst the whole earth around is its porch and court.” The comparison is not wholly applicable; since where there are no spiritual orders, there could be no proper mention of court and sanctuary.—And to keep it.—The garden, as such, is uninclosed and unwalled; still must Adam watch and protect it. This is, in fact, a very significant addition, and seems to give a strong indication of danger as threatening man and Paradise from the side of an already existing power of evil (Delitzsch and others), although, even in that case, the guarding of the garden belonged to man’s vocation; since against the misuse of his freedom, he had only to take care of his own free will, and, with it, the possession and the integrity of Paradise. Knobel refers the care with which Adam was charged, to the task appointed him of guarding Paradise against the mischief of the wild beasts.—Of every tree of the garden.—Says Knobel: “The author clearly assumes that in the early period men lived alone from the fruit of trees, and at a later period first advanced to the use of herbs and grain (Genesis 3:17), whilst the Elohist, in the very beginning, assigns both to men (Genesis 1:29). According to the classical writers, such as Plato (Polit. 272), Strabo, and others, men in the beginning ate herbs, berries, bark, and fruit of trees, especially acorns; the raising of grain came in later.” That the paradisaical man did not eat herbs is nowhere said; but the fruit of the trees is prominently presented because of its symbolic relation to the two mysterious trees in the midst of the garden. The free enjoyment of all trees is strongly expressed by the intensive idiom, ΰָ ?λֹ ?μϊֹּ ?ΰλֵ ?μ. So much the more precise, therefore, is the limitation of the freedom.—But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.—According to Hoffmann and Richers, θεαεψς means good and bad simply. Delitzsch denies this, and rightly. “The good,” says he, “is obedience with its good, the bad is disobedience with its evil consequences. Here it must be remarked, that the conception of physical evil can be, at the most, only as a consequence of moral evil, and that, therefore, the ethical contrast is the main thing, though not to the exclusion of the physical side. The tree, in any case, was a tree that might produce this knowledge; that is, it was the tree of probation, through which Adam might come to a conscious distinction of good and evil, and, thereby, to a moral transition from the state of innocent simplicity into a state of conscious, religious virtue. Did he not sin, then he learned, in a normal way, to know the distinction between good and evil—the good as the actuality of believing obedience towards God, which was, at the same time, the maintaining of his own life in its self-command and freedom—the evil, as the possibility of an unbelieving and disobedient behavior towards God, which must have for its consequent, slavish desire and death. The opinion of Hilarius cannot be sustained (Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 162): Arbor futuri de se mendacii nomen accepit. For, ‘not to know good and evil,’ is the sign of the infantile childishness (Deuteronomy 1:39) or of senile obtuseness (2 Samuel 19:36); the conscious free choice of the one or the other indicates the most mature period of life (or that of the so-named anni discretionis, Isaiah 7:15; Hebrews 5:14). So to know good and evil, and to distinguish between them, is called the charisma or gift of a king (1 Kings 3:9), the wisdom of the angel (2 Samuel 14:17), and, in its higher exercise, of God Himself (Genesis 3:5; Genesis 3:22). By the tree of knowledge of good and evil man is to attain to a consciousness and to a confirmation of his freedom of choice, and, in fact (according to God’s purpose in his determination for good), to a freedom of power—that is, to a true freedom available for the choice of good or its opposite. It was designed to bring out the necessary self-determination of a creature choosing freely, either for or against God, either for the God-willed good or the possible evil—and so to make perfect its independence. The very idea of a free personal being carries with it the necessity that its relation to God be a relation of free love” (Delitzsch). It is an entire perversion of the meaning of this probation-tree to teach, as the Gnostic Ophites did, that, only through the eating of this tree, is man enabled to attain to his self-conscious free development, or, as Hegel and his school have taught in modern times, that sin is a necessary transition-point to good. The victory of Christ in the temptation shows us how it is for man to come to the knowledge of good and evil in a normal, and not in an abnormal, way. The knowledge of the distinction which Adam obtained in this way, was in him from the beginning, though dark and confused. Along with his freedom of choice, heretofore undeveloped, there was established, not only his capability of probation, but also his need of such probation. This probation does, indeed, suppose the previous existence of a divine νόμος, or law (Delitzsch, p. 154); but we err when we confound this paradisaical νόμος with the law of Moses as it was given to sinners. Moreover, the Mosaic commands are not mere positive instructions; they are, to the extent of the ten commandments, moral laws of nature precisely adapted to the human state, but because of their having become foreign and objective to the consciousness of the sinner, they are, therefore, placed before him in the way of positive revelation. In the νόμοι, or institutions of Paradise, however, must the abiding laws of life constitute the ground of that revelation-form which is adapted to the commands. That is, in relation to the tree of probation, God could not have made it to be a tree of probation in the exercise merely of an arbitrary positiveness; there must lie in the tree itself an innate efficacy; and a natural speech, that may serve as a warning to man against its use. The sign-word of the tree (or the designating name) would, through the divine interpretation, become to man a positive paradisaical prohibition. Even granting, moreover, that the tree was not properly a poison-tree, still the explanation that belongs to it has been too lightly treated, since it might have led us upon the proper track; but that its tendency must have been to produce a change in the human spiritual frame, is a doctrine to be firmly held (see Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 409). It becomes important as an elucidation of this mysterious fact, when we are told that the sin of Noah, the second head of our race, became manifest through the enjoyment of wine. To say nothing of the coarse conceptions of Bφhme and others as lately taken in a mythical sense by Sφrensen, we must decidedly protest against the theosophical dualistic representation of the probation-tree as we find it in Baumgarten (p. 43), and still later in Delitzsch. “When we remember,” says Delitzsch, “that the paradisaical vocation and destiny of man had for its aim the overcoming of evil that had intruded into the creation, we cannot wonder at there being a tree in Paradise itself, created indeed by God, but whose mysterious background was a dark ground of death and evil placed by God in ward; which tree, in order that man might not fall into the participation of evil, and thereby of death, is hedged around by the divine prohibition, not as by an arbitrary sentence, but as by a warning rather of holy love” (p. 155). We may not resort to the myths of the Thibetans, Hindus, etc. (p. 155), in support of an assertion of such a nature that, according to it, we cannot think of anything determinate or ordained, without setting forth under it, in opposition both to the Scriptures and to the monotheistic consciousness, a material evil (or an evil inherent in matter). According to Delitzsch, the tree actually carried in it “the power of death.” The question arises: What is meant by the threatening: “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Knobel holds the sense to be, that he should die immediately; because the infinitive absolute before the finite verb, he says, expresses the undoubted, the certain, the actual. But notwithstanding this, Adam must have lived quite a long time after the fall. In vain is it attempted to set aside this difficulty either by the rendering to become mortal (Targum, Symmachus, Hieronymus, and others), or by making it that introduction of pain and sorrow into life which goes before death in our conception of it (Calvin, Gerhard, and others). Still less, indeed, can we think of a death-penalty to be positively inflicted (Batav., Tuch, Ewald, and others). The nearest solution is overlooked, namely, that the expression must have, even here; an ideal symbolical force; in other words, that death here, corresponding to the biblical conception of death, must be taken primarily to mean a moral death which goes out of the soul, or heart, and through the soul-life, gradually fastens itself, in every part, upon the physical organism (Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 471). The sign of becoming suddenly dead does not necessarily belong to the conception of death. It allows too of a long dying in the physical department. Hoffmann has not thought of this in that very strange exposition of his, which it is hardly worth while to cite. Knobel lays much stress upon it, that man, according to Genesis 3:19; Genesis 3:22 (as he insists), was not created immortal. It is true, that after the fall the tree of life is named as the condition of permanent duration; but the possibility of falling into death, under the supposition of transgression and separation from the tree of life, is something quite different from what we embrace under the conception of mortality. Knobel, with Clericus and others, would refer the threatening, in the first place, to the hurtful, life-endangering power of the fruit, and supposes, therefore, that the strong expression: thou shalt immediately die, is to be understood in a pedagogical sense (or as a warning is given to children); and yet it would be rightly an announcement of death, since man, through his sin, throws from him the enjoyment of the tree of life. Let it be then a representation of the Hebrew mode of thinking; but the connection of the promise of long life to the observance of the divine commands throughout the Old Testament (Knobel, p. 33) is not a mere Hebraic representation; it is carried still farther in the New Testament in the words: Whosoever believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. And yet it must be perceived that already in the Old Testament, and so certainly here, the conception of life, as also the conception of death, hath its ethical and ideal ground; on account of which the tree of life is not to be thought of as having a merely physical efficacy. Rightly, too, has Keil, who is here in special opposition to Delitzsch, defended the spiritual propriety of the ethical conception. 8. To Genesis 2:18-25. It is not good that the man should be alone.—Keil: “As the creation of man is introduced by a divine decree, so the creation of woman is preceded by God’s declaration: It is not good, etc.” On the supposition that the second chapter, like the first, presents the genesis of man in a generic chronological series, as we find it in Delitzsch, there arises a difficulty in respect to the second. Then must man have existed so long a time before the creation of the trees of Paradise that he must have died of hunger; since he would have had around him only a plant-producing district, and would have existed then for himself alone as the one only completed being; just as the body, too, of this man would have been something first completed, and then the soul imparted to this body from without. Without doubt, however, this genetic chronological conception of the second chapter is a misapprehension of its antithetical and complementary relation to the first. It is not good that man, etc. What can this mean after it had been so often said in the first chapter, He saw that it was good? The expression does not denote a condition positively bad, but rather an incompleteness of being, whose continuance would eventually pass over from the negative not good, or a manifest want, into the positive not good, or a hurtful impropriety. It must be observed that this point of time lies between the last preceding declaration respecting God on the fifth day: and He saw that it was good, and the final judgment very good, at the close of the sixth. According to Knobel the sense would be this: Jehovah shows that a solitary existence is not good for man; He determines upon the creation of some being that may correspond to him, and forms first the beasts for the purpose of seeing whether they would satisfy the human want. (!) To this conception the text is throughout opposed, and especially in the words: I will make a help for him (λְּ ?πֶ ?βְ ?γּ ?εֹ) as his opposite (his converse), not merely his like (Delitzsch). The exposition of Delitzsch: He needed such a one that when he had it before him he might recognize himself, obliterates the peculiar point of the expression. It allows, too, of its application to the relation of one man to another. The opposite (or converse) here spoken of, depends not upon any if, or casual condition. What is meant by this obliteration becomes evident farther on. The primary thing (he seems to think) is to provide a help for man in his vocation-destiny; but then there comes also into view the possibility that he may transgress the command of God, and die the death, in which case the aim of the creation would be rendered vain. How suspicious this! the making the motive for the creation of the woman to be this future possible eventuality—especially since Eve herself it is who realizes that possibility. Moreover, Delitzsch means that Adam would then, as the second seduced, have been rather the object of the divine compassion (but Eve, the first seduced, what of her!), and finally leaves us to conclude that it does not mean: I will make one like to him that he may propagate his race. But see Genesis 1:28, where the theosophic deriving of the propagation of the race from the eventuality of the fall is clear, and without reserve, and forever cut off. When there is given to λְּ ?πֶ ?βֶ ?γ the sense to be conformable, or correspondent (see Knobel), it does not bring out the emphasis of the word, in this place, according to the original import of the root πβγ; although, on the other side, the sensual meaning, anteriora, i. e., pudenda (Schultens, and others), can only be regarded as a coarse exaggeration of the expression. Genesis 2:19. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field.—Obviously does the representation that follows serve as an introduction to the representation of the creation of the woman; that is, the order observed in mentioning the creating of the beasts is determined by a motive not at all chronological, but looking only to the fact itself. But in what could this motive lie? In bringing the beasts before him, was there something of a purpose in the Creator to awaken in man a consciousness of the need of some help of kindred birth to himself? This is the supposition of Michaelis and Rosenmόller. Delitzsch and Keil have something of the same thought (p. 48). On the other hand, it is the supposition of Jacob Bφhme and other theosophists that from looking at the beasts in pairs, there was awakened a sinful desire in the as yet androgynic Adam. These wild phantasies (Myst. Mag. p. 116) have yet been able to influence the latest representations of the paradisaical relations. Bφhme’s views of the sexual relations are perfectly abominable. It has been maintained that in the first chapter the creation of the stars is laid on the fourth creative day for the purpose of counteracting the heathen star-worship; since the stars, or heavenly bodies, are brought in as conditioned by the preceding creations, especially that of light. In analogy with this view, and in opposition to the animal-worship of the heathen-world, would the passage before us represent the beasts as creations subordinate to man: in the first place, because man had to give them names, and, secondly, because among them all he found nothing of like birth with himself, to say nothing of any superiority. At all events, for the Oriental mind, the passage presents a very significant elevation of the woman, as human, over the lower animal-world, and her equality of birth with the man. It is no real difference, as Knobel holds it is, that here the Creator forms the beasts out of the ground, whilst in the first chapter they come forth (and yet in consequence of the creative word) from the earth. Creating and forming are just different points of view of the same conception. The apparent difference proceeds partly from this, that here we have the more definite, namely the forming of the beasts out of the earth. The beasts of the field; taken here in the comprehensive sense—the wild and the tame.—And every fowl of the air (the heavens).—The fish of the sea and the reptiles are passed over. Keil finds the ground of it in this, that both classes, the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven, are like men in being formed out of the earth, and, therefore, stand to him in nearer relation than the water-animals and the reptiles. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND PARTTHE GENESIS OF THE WORLD-HISTORY, OF THE TRIAL, OF THE SIN OF MAN, OF THE , OF DEATH, OF THE -TRIUMPH, OF THE BETWEEN A DIVINE AND A WORLDLY IN , LASTLY OF THE SECTIONThe Lost Paradise. Genesis 3:1-24.A.—The Temptation.Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle [properly: alone subtle among all beasts] than all the beasts of the field which the Lord God had made; and he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden. 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. 3But 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. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as Gods knowing good and evil. B.—The Sin.6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also to her husband [to partake with her] and he did eat. C.—The Guilt.7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day [the evening breeze]: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. D.—The Judgment and the Promise.9And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. 11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? 12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest unto me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat. 13And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me and I did eat. 14And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field: upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it [Vulgate: ipsa te, etc.] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed is the ground for thy sake [from its connection with thee]; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it [get food from it] all the days of thy life. 18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field [instead of the garden]. 19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread until thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. E.—The Hope and the Compassion.20And Adam [man from the earth] called his wife’s name Eve [life, life-giving] because she was the mother of all living. 21Unto Adam also, and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them. 22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever [as the everlasting man, according to the idea of the everlasting Jew]. F.—The Merciful Decree of Punishment and Discipline.23Therefore the Lord God sent him forth [the intensive Piel form of the verb] from the garden of Eden [the blissful garden] to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims [cherubs] and a flaming sword which turned every way [yet ever maintaining its place] to keep the way of the tree of life [Seraphim; comp. Psalms 104:4; Psalms 18:10-15; Isaiah 6:2]. AND 1. The comparatively stronger symbolical that appeared in the representation of the primeval facts, and which we have noted in the second chapter, continues here also in the third; since the subject is the primeval history of Adam, as it is, at the same time, the primitive history of man, or of humanity. The fact of the first temptation is the symbol of every human temptation; the fact of the first fall is the symbol of every human transgression; the great mistake that lay in the first human sin is the symbol of every effect of sin. 2. Genesis 3:1. Now the serpent.—The tree of knowledge, a part of the vegetable world, was made by God the medium of probation; from the animal world proceeds the serpent as the instrument of the temptation which God did not make. True it is, that the serpent appears as the probable author of this temptation, but such probability is weakened by what is said Genesis 1:25; Genesis 2:20. “It was (though Richers denies it) a good creation of God, though different, as originally created, from what it afterwards became” (Delitzsch). Through this supposition, however, of another created quality, he is brought nearer to the view of Richers. Does it appear as the mere instrument of a tempting spirit belonging to the other world, then must the decree of judgment, as pronounced, have regard not so much to it as to the spirit of sin, whose instrument and allegorical symbol it had become. How it could be such an instrument may be briefly explained by its craftiness; how it becomes an allegorical representation of the Evil One is taught us afterwards in the enmity that is proclaimed between the woman and the serpent. According to Nork (Etym.-Symb.-Myth. Real-Wφrterbuch), “the serpent is just as well the figure of health and renovation, as of death; since it every year changes its skin, and ejects, moreover, its venom. This double peculiarity, and double character, as ἀγαθοδαίμων and κακοδαίμων, is indicated not only in language, but also in myths, in sculpture, and in modes of worship.” In this relation, however, we must distinguish two diverging views of the ancient peoples. To the Egyptian reverence for the serpent stands in opposition the abhorrence for it among the Israelites (see the article “Serpent” in the “Biblical Dictionary for Christian People”), Greeks, Persians, and Germans. Among the Slavonians, too, does the serpent appear to have been an object of religious fear; and from them may there have come modified views to the Germans, as from the Egyptians to the Greeks. Concerning the species of serpents mentioned in the Bible, see Winer. It may not be without significance that Genesis (Genesis 3) is in such distinct contrast with the Egyptian views, not only in respect to the serpent, but also in respect to the Egyptian cultus of death and the other world. Delitzsch thinks that the serpent could hardly, at that time, have had such a name as πָ ?ηָ ?ωׁ, since this (from πָ ?ηַ ?ωׁ, to hiss) is derived from its present constitution. In this way the original constitution of the seductive serpent is regarded by him in a more favorable light than the nature of the tree of probation. Knobel, on the contrary, is of opinion that “the choice of the serpent was occasioned by the Persian myth, then known to the Hebrews, which makes the evil being Ahriman to be the tempter of the first man (giving to him the form and designation of the serpent), and represents him as the introducer of monstrous serpent forms.” Nevertheless, since in his time (according to Knobel), the belief in a devil was still foreign to the Hebrews, the author, he maintains, meant a real serpent, “as Josephus also rightly supposes (Antiq. i. 1, 4), as well as Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, and most of the later commentators.” There is, however, not the slightest reason for deriving the primitive tradition, here given in its original Hebrew form, from any Persian myth, nor, in the second place, for ascribing to the Hebrews, not only a dependence on such Persian myth, but also an acknowledgment of its symbolical character or demoniacal background without any reasons for such anticipation; and, thirdly, is the alternative of its being either an actual serpent, or the devil himself, wholly untenable.—Now the serpent was more subtle. The question arises whether the adjective ςָ ?ψεּ ?ν here stands in connection with ξִ ?ο as expressing the comparative degree. At all events, the wholly analogous passage, Genesis 3:14 (reminding us of this even by similarity of sound, ξִ ?λֹּ ?μςָ ?ψεּ ?ν—ΰָ ?ψεּ ?ψξִ ?λֹּ ?μ) cannot mean: cursed more than every beast of the field. Among the beasts, the serpent was just a single example of cunning; and so is it afterwards said of the curse. “Wisdom is a native property of the serpent (Matthew 10:16), on account of which the Evil One chose it his instrument. Nevertheless, the predicate ςָ ?ψεּ ?ν is not given to it here in the good sense of φρόνιμος (Sept.), prudent, but in the bad sense of πανοῦργος, callidus, crafty. For its wisdom presents itself as the craft of the tempter in this respect, that it applies itself to the weaker woman.” Keil.—And he said unto the woman.—The idea that the wife had a wish to be independent, and, for the sake of release, had withdrawn herself out of the man’s sight, as we find it in Milton, is original indeed, but sets up, when closely examined, a beginning of the fall before the fall itself.—Yea, hath God said.—The deluding ambiguity of his utterance is admirably expressed by the particles ΰַ ?σλִּ ?ι. The word in question denotes a questioning surprise, which may have in view now a yes, and now a no, according to the connection. This is the first striking feature in the beginning of the temptation. In the most cautious manner there is shown the tendency to excite doubt. Then the expression aims, at the same time, to awaken mistrust, and to weaken the force of the prohibition: Not eat of every tree of the garden! But, finally, there is also intended the lowering of belief through the bare use of the single name Elohim. The demon that has taken possession of the serpent cannot naturally recognize God as Jehovah, the Covenant-God for men. Knobel thinks, that the author left out the name Jehovah to avoid profaning it. Keil interprets: In order to reach his aim must the tempter seek to transform the personal living God into a universal numen divinum. But would, then, the Elohim of ch. i. be merely an universal numen divinum? The assault is directed against the paradisaical covenant of God with men; therefore it is that the serpent cannot utter the name Jehovah. 3. Genesis 3:2-3. And the woman said unto the serpent.—That the serpent should address the woman, and not the man, is explained from the circumstance that the woman is the weaker and the seducible (1 Peter 3:7). The text, however, supposes that the woman knew the prohibition of God, and in some way, indeed, through the man. Still, the woman does not offer, in her defence, this mediateness of her knowledge, as neither does Adam present as an excuse that he saw that Eve did not die from the eating of the fruit. The answer of both appears to be wholly right, and to correct the serpent she would seem to make the prohibition still stronger by the addition: Neither shall ye touch it. And yet by this very addition does her first wavering disguise itself under the form of an overdoing obedience. The first failure is her not observing the point of the temptation, and the allowing herself to to be drawn into an argument with the tempter; the second, that she makes the prohibition stronger than it really is, and thus lets it appear that to her, too, “the prohibition seems too strict” (Keil); the third is, that she weakens the prohibition by reducing it to the lesser caution: lest ye die, thus making the motive to obedience to be predominantly the fear of death. Or simply thus: She begins herself to doubt, and to explain away the simple clear prohibition of God, instead of turning away from the author of the doubt. There is something, too, in the thought that the woman does not denote God as her Covenant-God. And yet many have regarded her first answer as a sign of steadfastness in the beginning. 4. Genesis 3:4-5. Ye shall not surely die.—This bold step in the temptation seems to suppose a wavering already observable in the woman; although, in truth, it may be noted, that, in spite of the perfect readiness of answer, the temptation of our Lord, Matthew 4, even advances in increasingly bolder forms. Still those forms are properly co-ordinate, whilst here the gradation is very strongly marked. Moreover, Christ, as the perfect man, could allow Satan to come out in all his boldness, whilst here the unprotected woman can only find safety in an immediate turning away. 5. And the serpent said.—The temptation steps out from the area of cautious craft into that of a reckless denial of the truth of God’s prohibition, and a malicious suspicion of its object. Ye shall not die at all; thus is the truth of the threatening stoutly denied; that is, the doubt becomes unbelief. The way, however, is not prepared for the unbelief without first arousing a feeling of distrust in respect to God’s love, His righteousness, and even His power. Along with this, and entering with it, there must be also a proud self-confidence; and a wilful striving after a false independence. For the transition from doubt to unbelief the way is specially opened through a false security. The serpent denies all evil consequences as arising from the forbidden enjoyment, whilst he promises, on the contrary, the best and most glorious results from the same.—For God doth know that in the day, etc.—The imitation of the divine language contains a species of mockery. Your eyes, says the voice of the tempter, instead of closing in death, will be, for the first time, truly opened. Here it is to be remarked, that the hour when unbelief is born is immediately the birth-hour of superstition. The serpent would have the woman believe, that on eating of that fruit she would become wonderfully enlightened, and, at the same time, raised to a divine glory. And so, in like manner, is every sin a senseless and superstitious belief in the salutary effects of sin. The promise of the tempter’s voice is first regarded for its own sake, and then as a complaint against God. Against the immediate deadly effect it sets the immediate pleasurable effect, whilst, at the same time, it represents the condition of men hitherto as a lamentable one—as an existence with closed eyes. Against the fearful threatening: to die the death, it sets the opened eyes, and the being like God, as a caricaturing, as it were, of that promise which had appointed men to the image of God. The eyes were opened—a biblical expression which in the Old Testament frequently denotes a high spiritual seeing, either as an enlightenment in respect to truth, or as the seeing of some theophanic manifestation in prophetic vision (Genesis 21:29; Numbers 22:21). The knowledge, however, of good and evil, as the words are employed by Satan, must here denote not merely a condition of higher intelligence, but rather a state of perfect independence of God. They would then know of themselves what was good and what was evil, and would no longer need the divine direction. To the same effect the assurance: for God doth know, etc. This must mean: He enviously seeks to keep back your happiness; and He is envious because He is weak in opposition to nature, because the fruit of the forbidden tree will make you independent of Him, and because He is tyrannical and without love in His dealings with you. In this distorting of the divine image, there is reflected the darkening of the divine consciousness which the temptation tends to call out in the woman, and actually does call out. In all this it must be noted, that the temptation here is already at work with those crafty lies (see 2 Thessalonians 2:9) which it has employed through the whole course of the world’s history—that is, with lies containing elements of the truth, but misplaced and distorted. Already that first question of the serpent contains a truth, so far as man ought to become conscious in himself of the certainty and divine suitableness of God’s commands. The doubt, however, which tends to life, is to be distinguished from that which tends to death, by its design and direction. The tendency of the devil is to scepticism. But in this bold assurance of the serpent which immediately follows, namely, that no evil effects, but only good, would result from the eating, there lies the truth that the outward death would not immediately succeed the enjoyment of the forbidden fruit; that with the consciousness of guilt there comes in a conscious though a disturbed distinction between good and evil, and that the sinner has placed himself in a false independence through his own self-wilfulness (comp. Genesis 3:22). When we take it all together, however, it is the appointment to the divine image which the spirit of the tempter perverts into a caricature: Ye shall be as gods, and into an anticipation of immediately reaching their aim: “A satanic amphiboly, in which truth and falsehood are united to a certain degree of coincidence.” Ziegler. Comp. Job 8:44. Very dark is Knobel’s comprehension of this passage: “In the account of the Jehovist,” he says, “God appears to be jealous of ambitious men (Genesis 3:22; Genesis 6:3; Genesis 11:16). This same view of the jealousy of the gods appears also among the Grecian writers, e. g., Herod, i. 32; iii. 40. vii. 10, 46; Pausan. ii. 33; iii.; comp. Nδgelsbach: ‘Homeric Theology,’ p. 33.”6. Genesis 3:6. And when the woman saw.—There is truly indicated by the words, according to Luther’s translation, the lustful looking of the woman; but the expression presents, besides, the spiritual disturbance that attended it. She beheld it now with a glance made false by the germinating unbelief, or, so to speak, enchanted by it. “The satanic promise drove the divine threatening out of her thought. Now she beholds the tree with other eyes (Genesis 3:6). Three times is it said how charming the tree appeared to her.” “The words επηξγδςυμδωׂ ?λιμ (to be desired, to make one wise) are taken by Hofmann for a remark of the narrator.” Delitzsch rightly rejects this view. First, there is painted, in general, the overpowering charm of the tree. It appears to her as something from which it would be good to eat; that is, good for food. The charm has now, too, its sensual side: The tree is, moreover, pleasant to the eye. It appears also to have a special worth in supplying a want; it is to be desired to make one wise. The sensual desire and the demoniacal spiritual interest (especially curiosity and pride) unite in leading her to the fall. Tuch, Beck, Baumgarten, and others, give to μְ ?δַ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμ the sense of making wise: it appeared to her as a means for spiritual advancement. Delitzsch (as also Knobel) disputes this, with the remark that it docs not agree with the word πδξγ (a thing to be desired). But why should there not be supposed a charm in this property of making wise? Herein is indicated not only the common power which the charm of novelty has for our human nature in general, but also its special influence on the female nature.—She took of the fruit thereof and did eat.—The decisive act of sin (James 1:15). Knobel: The heart follows the eyes (Job 31:7; Ecclesiastes 11:9).—And gave also unto her husband.—The addition ςִ ?ξָּ ?δּ interpreted by Delitzsch as denoting “an actual presence, instead of mere association.” We hold both suppositions to be wrong. An actual presence of the husband standing mute in the very scene of the temptation presents great difficulty; whilst the second view amounts to nothing. If it is taken, however, as the representation of an eating together, then the language is an abridgment; after that she had eaten she gave it to her husband to eat thereof after her, or to eat with her. In the very moments of temptation, as we must take the account, there comes in the perception of the fact, that she does not die from the eating; and so it is that the wife’s power of persuasion, and Adam’s sympathy with her, are not made specially prominent. 7. Genesis 3:7-8. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.—In the relation between the antecedent here and what follows there evidently lies a terrible irony. The promise of Satan becomes half fulfilled, though, indeed, in a different sense from what they had supposed: Their eyes were opened; they had attained to a developed self-consciousness. But all that they had reached in the first place was to become conscious of their nakedness as now an indecent exposure. It is here in this first irony, as appearing in the divine treatment of the consequences of sin, that we get a clear view of that ironical aspect in the divine penal righteousness which shows itself in the Scripture, and in the whole history of the world (see Psalms 2:4; Acts 4:24; Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 469). Knobel would really regard the new knowledge as a pure step of progress. “As a consequence of the enjoyment they knew their nakedness, whereas before, like unconscious, unembarrassed children, they had no thought of their nakedness, or of their personal contrasts. At once did they perceive that to go naked was no longer proper for them. They had attained, in consequence, to a moral insight. Shame entered into men in near cotemporaneity with their knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil; it belongs to the very beginning of moral cognition and development. This shame, in its lowest degree, limits itself to the covering of the sexual nakedness.” The question here, however, is not respecting a moral reform, but a religious deterioration. The reflection upon their nakedness and its unseemliness becomes, in the light of the symbolical representation, necessarily known as the first form of the entering consciousness of guilt. They have lost the unconscious dominion of the spirit over the bodily and sensuous appearance, and henceforth there enters into the conscience the world-historical strife between the spirit and the flesh—a strife whose prime cause lies in the fact that the spirit came out of the communion of the spirit of God, whose form consists in the fact that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and whose effect (the feeling of hateful nakedness) is, indeed, attended by a reaction of the shame-feeling, but which can only manifest itself in the effort to cover, in the most scanty way, the nakedness revealed. In this part of the body the feeling of nakedness manifests itself as a sense of exposure that needs covering, not because that fruit poisoned the fountain of human life, or, by means of an innate property, immediately effected a corruption of the body, so far as propagation is concerned (Von Hoffmann, Baumgarten), nor because, in consequence of the fall, a physical change had taken place; but simply because, in the taking away by sin of the normal relation between the soul and the body, the body ceases to be any longer a pure instrument of the spirit which is united to God. “This part of the body is called ςֶ ?ψְ ?εָ ?δ (e. g., Genesis 9:22) and αָּ ?ωֶׂ ?ψ (e. g., Leviticus 9:2; comp. Exodus 28:42), because nakedness and flesh, which shame bids men cover, culminate in them.” Delitzsch. In what follows, wherein he says that here the contrast between the spiritual and the natural, having lost its point of unity, is of the sharpest kind, and that the beastlike in the human appearance appears here most bestial, Delitzsch is approaching again the theosophic mode of view; although it is true that man, from his demoniacal striving after something too great for him, falls back into a beastly laxity of behavior, which, however, even here shame contends against, and seeks to veil. As the death of man, in its historical aspect, stands in counter-relation to the human generations in their historical aspect, so it would seem that whilst the first presentiment of death, in the first human consciousness of guilt, must give a shock to men, there would also be, in connection with this foreboding of death, another presentiment of a call to sexual propagation; but along with this, and in order to this, there would be a feeling which would seek to veil it, with its acts and organs, as by a sacred law. This modesty, or bashfulness, of man, however, relates not merely to natural generation, but also to the spiritual and the churchly; as though all origin demanded its covering—its creative night. The commendation of the first growths of intelligence in a man’s soul produces a feeling of blushing diffidence, and so, too, the churchly birth hath its reverent and modest veiling. When, therefore, along with the presentiment of death, and of the generic or sexual destiny (which, nevertheless, we cannot make independent of man’s historical death), there comes in the feeling of shame in the first men, so also, as a symbolic expression therefor, there enters into them, along with the guilt, an inner death, and the sense of the want of renovation. For the refutation of Knobel’s view, that by the fig-tree here is not meant the usual fig-tree, but the plant named pisang, or banana, see Delitzsch and Keil. See also more particularly, respecting the tree in question, Knobel and Delitzsch.—And they heard the voice.—Knobel, Keil, and Delitzsch explain the word χεֹ ?μ here, not of the voice of the Lord, but of the sound or rustling noise made by the Deity as he walked; and they compare it with Leviticus 26:33; Numbers 16:34; 2 Samuel 5:24. By such an interpretation is the symbolical element left entirely out of view. For beings in their condition, this sound of God walking must evidently have become a voice; but besides this it is said, farther on, that God called to Adam. At all events, the voice here becomes first a call. “In the cool of the day, that is, towards evening, when a cooling breeze is wont to arise.” Keil. To this we may add: and when also there comes to man a more quiet and contemplative frame of soul. So Delitzsch remarks very aptly: “God appears, because at that time men are in a state most susceptible of serious impressions. Every one experiences, even to this day, the truth of what is narrated. In the evening the dissipating impressions of the day become weaker, there is stillness in the soul; more than at other times do we feel left to ourselves, and then, too, there awake in us the sentiments of sadness, of longing, of insulation, and of the love of home. Thus with our first parents; when evening comes, the first intoxication of the satanic delusion subsides, stillness reigns within; they feel themselves isolated from the communion of God, parted from their original home, whilst the darkness, as it comes rushing in upon them, makes them feel that their inner light has gone out.” Farther on Delitzsch maintains that God appeared to man as one man appears to another, though this had not been the original mode of the divine converse with him. The theophanies had their beginning first after the fall ; and according to his explanation, “God now for the first time holds converse with men in an outward manner, corresponding to their materialization and alienated state.” On the other hand, Keil maintains, “that God held converse with the first men in a visible form, as a father and educator of his children, and that this was the original mode of the divine revelation, not coming in for the first time after the fall.” In neither can we suppose that there is taught a twofold incarnation of God, first in Paradise, and then in Christ. In like manner, too, must we regard the question here as unanswered, in what respect the theophanies (which were mediated in all cases through vision-seeing states of soul) are to be distinguished from real outward appearances in human form. Hofmann would complete the knowledge of Paradise, by taking as the appointed mode of revelation-God’s appearance to them as soaring on the cherubim. Delitzsch, moreover, informs us (after Hofmann, perhaps) that God, at this time, did not come down from heaven, since he yet dwelt upon the earth. More worthy of our confidence is the language of Keil: “Men have separated themselves from God, but God cannot and will not give them up.”—And Adam and his wife hid themselves.—Clearly an expression of guilt-consciousness, as also, an indication, at the same time, of the fall into sin, and of the decline into a state of corruption. The particular characteristics are these: consciousness of their transgression, of its effect, of their spiritual and bodily nakedness, of their separation from God—of a feeling of distrustful, selfish, and servile fear, in the presence of God, and of the loss of their spiritual purity, as originating in their guilt, together with the false notion that they can hide themselves from God. Moreover, the regular consistency which appears in this progress of sin must not be overlooked. Through this status corruptionis, the first common act of sin passes over into a second. Taken symbolically, this is the history of every individual fall into sin. “They hid themselves through modesty,” says Knobel. With all this, there is presented in the flight of the sinner from God a feeling of exculpation; yet still, again, it is attainted with self-deception, with a want of truth and humility.—Amongst the trees.—In the deepest density and darkness of the garden, which now becomes an emblem of the world, and of that worldly enjoyment in which the sinner seeks to hide himself. 8. Genesis 3:9-19. Where art thou?—Knobel: “Jehovah must now call for man, who, at other times, was ever there.” Delitzsch: “It is clear, that not for his own sake does God direct this inquiring call to man, but only for man’s sake. God does in truth seek them, not because they are gone from his knowledge, but because they are lost from his communion.” It is a consequence of the very being of God as a person, if he would not violently surprise man with his omnipresence and his omniscience, that he should freely assume the form of seeking him, that is, of drawing nigh unto him gradually, in a way of mercy; since man must seek and find Him. The Good Shepherd seeks and finds the lost sheep; the sinner must seek and find God; the relation must be an ethical covenant relation. Delitzsch says farther: “This word, ΰַ ?ιֶּ ?λָּ ?δ (where art thou?) echoes through the whole human world, and in each individual man.” That is, in a symbolical sense, the passage denotes every case of a sinner seeking his divine home. Delitzsch: “The heathen world feeling after God (ψηλαφᾶν, Acts 17:27) is the consequence of this evening call, ΰַ ?ιֶּ ?λְּ ?δ, and of the longing for home that is thereby evoked.—I heard thy voice in the garden.—Knobel: “His slight covering is sufficient as against the familiar wife, but not as against the high and far-seeing Lord of the Garden.” (!) The question may be asked, why God called to Adam, though Eve had been first in sin? Without doubt is Eve included in the more universal significance of the word Adam (man), yet still the call is directed to the individual Adam. In a certain sense, however, is this Adam, as the household lord of the wife, answerable for her step, notwithstanding that he himself is ensnared with her. The ethical arraignment for the complaint against the wife proceeds through Adam. But thus appears also here the additional indication that Adam is denoted as the first author of the hiding, as Eve was first in the sin itself. According to the mere laws of modesty (Knobel) the wife should rather have appeared in the foreground here. According to Keil, “when Adam says that he hid himself for fear, on account of his nakedness (thereby seeking to hide his sin behind its consequences, and his disobedience behind his feeling of shame), it is not a sign of special obduracy, but may easily be taken psychologically; as that, in fact, the feeling of nakedness and shame were sooner present to his consciousness than the transgression of the divine command, and that he felt the consequences of sin more than he recognized the sin itself.” Delitzsch would amend this by adding: “although all that he says is purely involuntary self-accusation.” It is to be observed that here appears the first mingling and confusion of sin and of evil, that is, that punishment of sin ordained of God, and which is the peculiar characteristic of our redemption-needing humanity. Genesis 3:11. Who told thee that thou wast naked?—Knobel: “From this behavior Jehovah recognised at once what had happened.” Hardly can any such anthropomorphism be found in the sense of the text. Keil says better: “It is for the sake of awaking this recognition of sin that God speaks.” The question, however, concerns not merely the means by which the recognition of sin may be brought out, but in a special manner the methods through which its confession may be educed. So also Delitzsch. “His explanation, however, of the interrogative ξι as indicating that a personal power was the final original cause of the change that had passed upon man,” is far beyond the mark. For it is not the occasion of sin that is referred to here, but the occasion of the consciousness of nakedness. This, however, comes not from without, but from within. There lies, moreover, in the question that immediately follows: Hast thou eaten of the tree? the explanation of the meaning of the first. Genesis 3:12. And the man said, the woman whom thou gavest.—An acknowledgment of sin by Adam, but not true and sincere. The guilt proper is rolled upon the woman, and indirectly upon God himself; in which, however, there is naturally expressed a general exculpation, only God is put forward as the occasion of the calamity that has arisen. The loss of love that comes out in this interposing of the wife is, moreover, particularly denoted in this, that he grudges to call her Eva, or my wife (see this form of grudging, Genesis 37:32; Job 3:20, where he says he instead of God;Luke 15:30; this thy son, John 9:12; where is he? namely, Jesus, etc.). “That woman by my side, she who was given to me by God as a trusty counsellor, she gave me the fruit;” in this form, again, is Eve in part excused by an imputation to God. Genesis 3:13. And the Lord God said unto the woman, what is this that thou hast done?—God follows up the transgression, even to the root—not the psychological merely, but the historical root.—The serpent beguiled me.—Although temptation is a beguiling, yet here, in the gross delusions of the serpent, and the wife’s inclination to excuse herself, the latter conception is the more obvious one. Genesis 3:14. To the serpent he said, because thou hast done this.—It is no more said here, wherefore hast thou done this? although the serpent is previously introduced as speaking, and, therefore, as capable of maintaining conversation. Therein lies the supposition, that the trial has now reached the fountain-head of sin, the purely evil purpose (the demoniacal) having no deeper ground, and requiring no further investigation. Accordingly, there follow now the fatal dooms, according to the consequences of each particular evil act. The serpent receives his sentence first: thou art cursed.—The sense of ξִ ?ο (rendered in the English translation above, or comparatively) is clearly that of selection: among all cattle, or out of all cattle (Clericus, Tuch, Knobel). It does not mean, therefore, cursed, that is, abhorred, by all cattle (Gesenius, De Wette, et al.) or above all cattle, that is, comparatively more cursed (Rosenmόller et al.). The sentence pronounced upon the serpent proceeds in a threefold gradation. Its explanation brings up, of itself, the question, whether the whole sentence bears upon the serpent alone, or in connection with something else, or only in a symbolical sense. Surely the general doom, cursed be thou (singular) among all cattle, and among all beasts (corresponding with the causality: subtle among all beasts, prominently), indicates a symbolical background of the whole judgment. 1. Quidam statuunt maledictionem latam in serpentem solum (quia hic confertur cum aliis bestiis) non in diabolum, quia is antea maledictus erat. 2. Alii in diabolum solum, quia brutus serpens non poterat juste puniri. 3. Alii applicantv. 14ad serpentem, v.15in diabolum. At vero tu et te idem sunt in utroque versu. 4. Alii existimant cam in utrumque latam. Quam sententiam verissimam judico. Medusin Poli Commentar. ad h. l. The inconsistency that arises when we would understand v. 14 of the serpent only, and v. 15, on the contrary, of Satan, is very apparent. The various diversities of interpretation are a consequence of a want of clearness in respect to the fundamental exegetical law, that here an historical foreground is everywhere connected with a symbolical background. Accordingly, both the historical and the symbolical go together through all the three dooms imposed upon the serpent; it is in the third act, however (the protevangel, as it is called), that the symbolical becomes especially prominent, and casts its light over the whole passage.—First judgment doom: Upon thy belly shalt thou go; that is, as the worm steals over the earth with its length of body, “as a mean and despised crawler in the dust (Deuteronomy 32:24; Micah 7:17).” It is a fact that the serpent did not originally have this inferior mode of motion like the worm, and it is this circumstance partly, and partly the consideration that along with his speaking the serpent presented to Eve the appearance of a trusty domestic animal, that appears to have given occasion to the expression: among all cattle, as a complement to which there is added: among all the beasts of the field. And to this effect is the remark of Knobel, that “for the time before the curse, the author must have ascribed to the serpent another kind of movement, and perhaps another form. It is reckoned here with the αδξδ (cattle), v. 1 with the ηιϊδωγδ (or beasts of the field).” In respect to this, it must be noticed, that there has also been maintained the supposition of his having before gone erect (Luther, Mόnster, Fag. Gerhard, Osiander) and been possessed of bone (Joseph., Ant. i. 1, 4; Ephraim, Jarchi, Merc.). Delitzsch and Keil, moreover, favor the view, that the serpent’s form and manner of motion were wholly transformed (Delitzsch) or changed (Keil). Delitzsch: “As its speaking was the first demoniacal miracle, so is this transformation the first divine.” Instead of that, we hold that this exposition only works in favor of the mythical interpretation (Knobel), since it mistakes the symbolical of the expression; on which, beside, it can only touch in the phrase to “eat the earth.” According to Delitzsch, “the eating of dust does not denote the exclusive food of the serpent, but only the involuntary consequence of its winding in the dust.” So, moreover, the expression, “On thy belly shalt thou go,” cannot denote that he was deprived of bone and wing, but only the involuntary consequence of the manifestation of the serpent’s hostile attitude to men, namely, that it should now wind about timorously upon its belly, or go stealing about in the most secret manner; whereas, before this, it could, with impunity, perform its meanderings before their eyes, yea, even stand upright in some respects, and twine itself round the trees. The older exegesis had some excuse, since it did not always know how to separate the conception of a biblical miracle wrought for judgment, or deliverance, from a magical metamorphosis. The assumption, however, at the present day, of such a metamorphosis, has to answer the question, whether through it the conception of a miracle is not changed, as well as that of nature itself. That, in fact, in consequence of the fall, and of their changed attitude towards men, the forms of animals can undergo monstrous changes, and have often been thus changed, though still remaining on the basis of their generic organization, is shown in the case of dogs who run wild; but the exposition above mentioned extends itself illimitably beyond any conception of deterioration. As far as concerns the symbolical side of the first sentence, it is clear that before any wider relation (to Satan), we must hold to the specific appointment, that the tempting evil shall no longer meander about the world, bold and free, but, in correspondence with its earthly meanness, and bestial association, shall wind along the ground in the most sly, and sneaking, and secret manner, eating the dust of the earth, and feeding itself upon the coarsest elements of life, or the very mould of death. This sentence, then, in the next place, avails not only against evil in general, but the Evil One himself. And therewith is denoted, at the same time, The second doom. Knobel: “According to the older representations, serpents licked the dust, and enjoyed it as their food. (Compare Micah 7:17; Isaiah 65:25; Bochart:Hieroz. iii. p. 245).” Here it is supposed that Micah and Isaiah have merely taken Genesis too literally; whereas Knobel interprets: “it is compelled to swallow down the dust as it moves here and there with its mouth upon the ground.” As the serpent, the allegorical type of the temptation, is sentenced to have its mouth in the dust, so is the genius of the serpent condemned to feed on elements which are a coarse prelude, or a nauseous after-game, of life.—Third doom of the serpent; the Protevangel. The rationalistic interpretation, which is last defended by Knobel, finds here denoted only the relation between the serpent-nature and the human race. That is, Genesis here, in one of its most ethically significant passages, flattens down into a mere physical anthropological observation. It is true that the physical here forms the point of departure. “Enmity shall exist between the serpent and the woman, and between the descendants of both. Man hates the serpent as a creature in direct contrariety to himself, persecutes and destroys it.” (To this point the words of Plautus: Mercat. iv. 4, 21, aliquem odisse �que atque angues.) It is also hostile to man, and bites him when uncharmed. In Pliny: Nat. Hist. x. 96, it is called immitissimum animalium genus. Compare also Ovid, Metamorph. xii. Genesis 804: calcato immitior hydro. It appears, as matter of fact, to have been the creature of the primitive world that was the most absolutely opposed to culture, and which, proceeding from the dragons of the earlier earth-periods, found its way through the last catastrophes into the newly prepared world, or had been organically metamorphosed—like “the den-inhabiting brood of the old dragons,” which, in a worse sense than any other beast could have done it, render the earth uncomfortable, destined as it was to culture; and therefore is it devoted to destruction in the world into which it had passed over. In connection with this fact, the thought readily occurs, how very appropriate that the natural relation between the serpent-brood and the human race, destined ever, and here anew, to the kingdom of God, should become a symbol of the religious ethical conflict between the evil and the good, upon earth. In opposition to the rationalistic stands the orthodox interpretation of our passage, which refers it to Satan on the one side, and to Christ, the personal Messiah, on the other. According to most of the older interpreters, the seed of the woman denotes directly the Messiah. (See Hengstenberg: “Christology of the Old Testament,” I. p. 21.) In respect to it, however, the Romish interpreters make a very bold variation. They do this in correspondence with the translation of the Vulgate: ipsa (instead of ipse) conteret caput tuum, which is condemned, not only by the Hebrew text, and the Septuagint, but in the “Quest. Heb.” of Hieronymus, who was himself the author of the Vulgate, as also by Petrus Chrysologus and Pope Leo the Great (see Calmet’sComm. p. 120); whilst Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and others, have ranged themselves on the side of the Vulgate. Calmet interprets: in eundem sensum (namely, the right sense of the Hebrew text) reddi potest vulgata; neque aliter B. Virgo conterere valuit serpentem quam per filium suum Jesum Christum. So also says Von Schrank in his “Commentary:” in Hebr�o quidem habetur, ille (δεּ ?ΰ) conteret caput tuum: ergo semen mulieris, i.e. Jesus Christus conteret, sed res eodem redit: nam neque sanctissima Virgo aliter quam partu suo, i.e. in virtute Jesu Christi filii sui, caput serpentis contrivisse credenda est. Both authors, indeed, gave these wrested interpretations before the latest Papistical glorification of Mary. In modern times has the interpretation which refers the seed of the woman to the personal Messiah been defended by Philippi. In the primary sense, says Delitzsch, it is only promised that humanity shall win this victory, for δεּ ?ΰ (he) relates back to ζֶ ?ψַ ?ςΰִ ?ωָׁ ?δ (seed of the woman); as, however, the seed of the serpent has its unity in Satan, so it may be fairly conjectured that the conquering party, the seed of the woman, has also a person for its unity—a conjecture which, as we readily concede to Philippi (“Treatise concerning the Protevangel in Kliefoth-Meier’s Church Periodical,” 1855, pp. 519–548), is the more obvious; since in this second sentence the pronoun δεּ ?ΰ has for its object not the seed of the serpent, but the serpent, and in it Satan himself. It is, however an incorrect opinion, that δεּ ?ΰ has immediately, and exclusively, a personal sense, and that the organic process of the annunciation of redemption demands this. The conception of δεּ ?ΰ is that of a circle, and Jesus Christ, or, as the Targum says, King Messiah, is evermore in the course of the redemptive history the prominent centre of this circle. So Delitzsch says, too, that Christ is essentially meant as the centre of humanity, or as the head of humanity, especially of the redeemed, as Keil says. We miss here the distinct exposition, whether the prophecy directly applies to Christ as a conscious announcement, or only impliedly, in as far as Christ is the kernel and the star of the woman’s seed. Hengstenberg regards the place as more decidedly relating to the collective posterity of the woman (“Christology,” i. p. 22). “Truly hast thou inflicted a sore wound upon the woman (such would be the import of the words addressed to the serpent), and thou, with thy fellow-serpents, wilt continue to lie in ambush for her descendants. Nevertheless, with all thy desire to hurt, wilt thou be only able to inflict curable wounds upon the human race, whilst, on the other hand, the posterity of the woman shall at last triumph over thee, and make thee feel thine utter impotency. This interpretation is found, indeed, in the Targum of Jonathan, and in the Jerusalem Targum, which, by the seed of the woman, understand the Jews who in the days of the Messiah shall vanquish Sammael. Paul seems to proceed on this view, Romans 16:20, where the promise is collectively referred to Christ. More lately has it found an acute advocate in Calvin, and then in Herder.” As the interpretation of the whole Protevangel is specially conditioned on the choice of expressions in detail, we apply ourselves to the analysis of the passage. As it is the third and most important part of the doom, taken collectively, so does it also divide itself again into three parts, whose point of gravity may also be said to be in three divisions. 1. Enmity between thee and the woman.—In place of the false, ungodly, and man-destroying peace between the serpent and the woman, must there come in, between them, a good and salutary enmity, established by God. That the woman may have a special abhorrence of the serpent, after her experience of the deception which she charges back upon him, and that the falsehood of the serpent, which had all along before been enmity, should now be unmasked,—this is the point of departure. But, since this enmity, as occasioned by an ethical event, must be itself substantially ethical—since the serpent is denoted as permanently present in his serpent-seed—since, finally, there is mention, at the end, of one head of the same—so does the whole passage have for its aim the ethical power of temptation, which must have worked in some way through the physical serpent, notwithstanding that a being morally evil is characterized, chap. Genesis 3:1, and throughout the whole process of the temptation. The woman, however, is set in opposition to the serpent, in the first place, because she has been seduced by him, but then, too, in order to set forth more prominently the ethical character of the human enmity against the serpent. We must take into view here the predominant susceptibility of the woman, which, in its curiosity, had become a special susceptibility to temptation, but which now must become a predominant susceptibility for the divine appointment of enmity between them; add to which that, in general, man becomes master of evil only through a feminine susceptibility for the assistance of God. 2. Between thy seed and her seed.—That is, the appointment of this enmity shall work on permanently through the generations that are to come; the strife shall never cease. And truly, it thus continues as a war between the serpent-seed in its one totality, and the woman’s seed in its one totality. And now here the symbolical sense presents itself much stronger; for in all the occasional conflicts between men and serpents there is no universal and generic war between both. But this indicates a working of the power of temptation as a unit against the unitary moral power of the woman’s seed in the conflict. In general, it is a contrast between the mysterious power of evil from the other world, and the human race altogether in this. Since, however, men alone can belong to the genuine seed of the woman, as it carries on the enmity of the woman against the serpent, so it is clear, that from the opposite direction it must be men that fall in with the society of the serpent’s seed (that is, the demons and their powers), or in other words, become ethically children of the power of temptation. 3. It shall bruise.—Here now the question arises: what is the meaning of that enigmatic verb ωׁ ?εּ ?σ? The Septuagint translates: αὐτόςσουτηρήσεικεφαλὴνκαὶσὺτηρήσειςαὐτοῦπτέρναν; the Vulgate: ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus. The Septuagint is consistent in having the same expression (τηρήσει-ς) in both cases, but it is the one which, in view of the Alexandrian spiritualism, is the weakest of them all. The Vulgate chooses for both members of the sentence interpretations of the same word that lie too far apart. This is evidently done in order that, on the one side, the ipsa (the she, or the Virgin in that translation) may exhibit the highest possible degree of heroism, whilst on the other side, under the protecting veneration of the monastic theology, she does not suffer the least injury to her heel. The word ωׁ ?εּ ?σ is interpreted in various ways: 1. terere, conterere. So the Syriac, the Samaritan, and others (such as our German and English versions). So also Clericus, Tuch, Baumgarten, Rφdiger; also, with special reference to Romans 16:20, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Keil. In any case, it would be an epexegetical translation, if we would find the expressions, to tread with the foot, and to pierce, in one common conception, lying at the ground of both. Moreover, this same word, as used Psalms 139:11, and Job 9:17, cannot denote either to tread, or to pierce. Just as little, on the other side, can it mean insidiari, or inhiare, to assail or pursue in a hostile manner—as Umbreit, Gesenius, and Knobel explain the word with reference to its supposed affinity with ωׁ ?ΰσ. The middle conception, which suits both places here, and which commends itself as suitable to the two parallel passages, Job 9 and Psalms 139, is to lay hold of, seize, hit. Keil: “The same word is used in relation to the head and the heel, to indicate that the enmity on both sides is aimed at the destruction of the opponent—for which purpose by head and heel are expressed majus and minus, or, as Calvin says, superius and inferius. This contra - arises, indeed, out of the very nature of the foes. The serpent who crawls in the dust, if he would destroy man walking in his uprightness, can only seize him by the heel; whereas, man can crush his head. But this difference itself is already a consequence of the curse pronounced upon the serpent, and its crawling in the dust is a premonition that in the strife with man it must, at last, succumb. Be it even that the bite of the serpent in the heel is even deadly when its poison penetrates throughout the whole body (Genesis 49:17), yet it is not immediately mortal, nor incurable, like the crushing of the serpent’s head. There comes also into consideration: 1. The contrast: head and heel. The life, like the poison, of the serpent, is in its head, and is destroyed with it. The heel of man is the least vulnerable, whilst it is that part of the body which is the most easily healed. 2. The conscious, adaptive aiming of the woman’s seed, the blind, brutal, and ill-directed assault of the serpent. The seed of the woman seizes the power of evil in its central life, in its principle; the seed of the serpent attacks the power of good in its most outward and assailable appearance. 3. The very moment in which the serpent bites at the heel of the man, is the one in which the latter brings down the crushing foot upon its head. It is, indeed, not without significance, that the seed of the woman is presented in the singular, and in fact, in the last decisive moment, set in opposition, not to the seed of the serpent, but to the serpent himself—as is pointed out by Hengstenberg and others. Here now must we distinguish between the prophetical and the typical elements of prophecy—as also the prophecies that are strictly verbal. The prophetic element is present in the prophet’s consciousness; the typical element is not, although it may be consciously present to the spirit of revelation that guides him. Our text appears primarily, indeed, as the immediate speech of God, the all-knowing, who sees beforehand every thing in the future; but still, the measure of consciousness in our prophecy can become determinate to us only according to the presumable degree of consciousness in the author of Genesis, or, still further, in those who actually brought down the tradition contained in chapter 3. In relation, therefore, to this human prophetical consciousness, and its germinal state of development, must we distinguish between the conscious prophecy of the word and the unconscious prophecy of the typical expression. So in Psalms 16. the conscious prophecy says, through my communion with God I shall possess immeasurable joys of life; the typical expression, however, is fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2). So also says the prophet, Isaiah 7 : the young prophet wife shall, 1. conceive; 2. bear a son, whose name, 3. with joyful hope they shall call Immanuel. The typical expression, however, is a prediction of Christ, the son of the virgin. In this sense, also, does Paul allow himself to interpret the singular, in thy seed, as a typical prophecy of Christ. And we doubt not, that here, too, the spirit of the type chose this expression, the seed of the woman, with an ζonian consciousness of its rich significance. If we go back, however, to the conscious prophecy, so it may be safe to say, that with the humanity in general, on its light side, there is also placed its core—as it is with Judah (Genesis 49:10), and Israel (Hosea 11:1). In truth, the core, or heart, is ever embraced in concrete unity with the hull, but to the biblical view is this gravitation to the unity peculiar from the very beginning. On the other side, however, according to the New Testament, and the patristic unveiling of its significance, is the seed of the woman not exclusively to be referred to the individuality of Christ. Christ, as the Christ in the universal humanity, is here to be understood; especially in the second clause, at least, as also, therefore, in the third according to Paul (Romans 16:20). There remains, finally, the question how the temptation of the first pair by the serpent is to be understood. According to Knobel there is found in our passage just as little reference to the devil as to the Messiah (p. 48). Consequently would the whole passage become a mere physical myth. Von Bohlen goes back to the kindred traditions of the ancients, and finds it of the deepest significance that in the printed Samaritan text there is λָּ ?ηָ ?ωׁ, liar, instead of πδω, serpent. According to one of the Indian myths, Krishna, in the form of the sun, contends with the Evil One, in the form of serpent. In like manner in Egypt, Typhon, whose name is interpreted by Serpent, persecutes his brother Osiris, or the sun. Hercules possesses himself of the golden apple of the Hesperides, which the Serpent guarded. According to Bohlen, however, the nearest source of our narrative, as of Paradise in general, lies in Iran. Ahriman, according to the Zendavesta, in the form of a serpent brought of his fruits to men, who were of the pure creation of Ormuzd. And so, according to him, as also according to Rosenmόller, must the author of our account have had that as a model before his eyes. And yet, somehow, we know not how he distinguishes from it the simple sense of the Israelitish narrator. The reference of Bohlen only shows how our primitive tradition spreads itself in the manifold adumbrations and transformations of the most varied mythological systems, even as the like holds true in respect to the cosmogony, the first human pair, Paradise, and still further on in respect to the flood. In opposition to all this stands the traditional view of the Church, that under the serpent as instrument and symbol our passage consciously intends the devil (see Hengstenberg: “Christology,” p. 5; Delitzsch, p. 168; Keil, p. 51). In respect to this, there is no doubt that in the Holy Scripture there lies before us a connected line of testimonies whose object is ever the same demoniac tempting spirit—a line which, going out from the serpent in the passage before us, reaches even to the close of the New Testament in the Apocalypse, Genesis 12:3; Genesis 12:9; Genesis 12:13; Genesis 20:2; Genesis 20:10. The identity is established by the cited places of the Apocalypse, by 2 Corinthians 11:3 (compare Genesis 3:14) by the Book of Wis 2:23; with which again in connection stands John 8:44; though to this have been objected certain weakening interpretations (Lόcke, and others). It is so also in Romans 16:20. Here is every where evident the relation of the fall to the serpent according to its symbolical significance. In many more ways, as in the Book of Wis 2:24; John 8:44; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Romans 16:20, there appears the identity of the tempting Spirit, which worked through the serpent, with the figure of the devil as he appears later in the Scripture. That, indeed, the physical serpent could not have been meant, as the tempter in our passage, shows itself from the distinct appearance of consciousness in respect to the great separation between man and the animal world (Genesis 2:19-20), as it is rightly presented by Hengstenberg; it also appears from the collective declaration that every creation of God was good (Genesis 1), and from the ethical features which in the third chapter the serpent assumes as a maliciously subtle creature, as well as from the symbolical background which ever shows itself stronger and stronger in the primitive condemnation. Next to the identity of the tempting spirit behind the serpent and Satan, comes now its continuity. Before all, in the Old Testament. First Stage of the idea: Indication of evil spirits, and of one especially as an apostate, pre-eminently in Azazel, Leviticus 16:8; in symbols of the Evil One, Deuteronomy 32:17; in the Schedim (Septuagint, δαιμόνια, properly, master-gods), and the Seirim, Isaiah 13:21. Second Stage: The appearance of Satan as the foe of man, as the tempter and accuser, Job 1, 2; 1 Chronicles 21:1. Third Stage: The designation of Satan as the enemy of God, as the fallen founder of an evil dominion in opposition to the establishment of the divine kingdom, ZeGen Genesis 3:1; Isaiah 27:1; serpents and dragon-forms as symbols of the reign of Antichrist; Daniel 7, the beasts out of the sea. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONCain and Abel.—The Cainites.—The ungodly Worldliness of the First Civilization. Genesis 4:1-261 And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain [the gotten, or possession], and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord [from, or with the God of the future, or 2 Jehovah]. And again she bare his brother Abel [Habel, the perishable; δֶ ?αֶ ?μ, vanishing breath of life]. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought [offered] from the fruit of the ground an offering [ξπηδ] unto the Lord. 4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect [looked in mercy] unto Abel and to his offering. 5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7If thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted? [Lange translates more correctly, lifting up of the countenance.] and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door [like a ravenous beast for prey]. And unto thee shall be his desire 8[sin’s desire—sin personified], and thou shalt rule [but thou shalt rule] over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother [repeating God’s words hypocritically or mockingly to him. This is adapted to Lange’s translation, Cain told it to his brother. See Exegetical notes]: And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother, and slew him. 9And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not; am I my brother’s keeper? 10And he said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy 11brother’s blood [properly, blood-drops, plural] crieth unto me from the ground. And now thou art cursed from the earth [which had before been cursed, Genesis 3:17; Bunsen: away from this ground], which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. 12When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield to thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond [πςεπγ, frightened and driven on, shunned and abhorred] shalt thou be in the earth. 13And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment [Lange renders it guilt, which is certainly nearer the 14Hebrew ςεπι] is greater than I can bear. Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth [from the open, cleared, inhabited district of the earth]; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 15And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. 16And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod [exile] on the east of Eden. 17And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch [Hanoch, the devoted, initiated], and he builded a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch. 18And unto Enoch was born Irad [city, ςιψγ ְ ?ςιψ, townsman, or, with elision of one ς, prince of a city]: and Irad begat Mehujael [Fόrst and Gesenius: ξηδ, smitten of God; questionable whether it is not rather, purified, formed by God]: and Mahujael [Hebrew, Mahujiel] begat Methusael [man of God, great man of God, ω ,ξֵ ?ϊ for ΰωψ, and ΰμ]: and Methusael begat Lamech [strong young man; Gesenius]. 19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah [ornament, decoration, elegant], and the name of the other was Zillah [Gesenius: shadow; Fuerst: sounding, song, from φμμ; or player]. 20And Adah bare Jabal [Fuerst: rambler, wanderer, nomade, from ιαμ]: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and of such as have cattle. 21And his brother’s name was Jubal [Fuerst: one triumphing, harper, from ιָ ?αֵ ?μ]. He was the father of all such as handle the harp and the organ. 22And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-Cain [Gesenius: smith, mason, or lance-maker; literally, brass of kain, that is, brass weapons], an instructor of every artificer [Lange more correctly: hammerer or polisher of all cutting instruments] in brass and iron; and the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah [loveliness, the lovely]. 23And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah hear my voice, Ye wives of Lamech hearken unto my speech; For I have slain a man to my wounding; And a young man, to my hurt. 24If Cain shall be avenged seven-fold, Truly Lamech seventy and seven-fold [Bunsen: seven times seventy]. 25And Adam knew his wife again, and she bare a son, and called his name Seth [fixed, compensation, settled], for God (Elohim), said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew. 26And to Seth also was there born a son, and he called his name Enos [man, weak man, son of man]. Then began men to call upon [call out, proclaim] the name of the Lord [the name Jehovah, in distinction from Elohim, though not according to the full conception of the name. See Exodus 6.. AND 1. The propagation of the human race through the formation of the family, is, in its beginning, laid outside of Paradise, not because it was in contradiction with the paradisaical destiny, but because it had, from the beginning, an unparadisaical character (that is, not in harmony with the first life as led in Paradise.—T. L.). Immediately, however, even in the first Adamic generation, the human race presents itself in the contrast of a godless and a pious line, in proof that the sinful tendency propagates itself along with the sin, whilst it shows at the same time that not as an absolute corruption, or fatalistic necessity, does it lay its burden upon the race. This contrast, which seems broken up by the fratricide of Cain, is restored again at the close of our chapter, by the birth and destination of Seth. In regard to its chief content, however, the section before us is a characterizing of the line of Cain. It is marked by a very rapid unfolding of primitive culture, but throughout in a direction worldly and ungodly, just as we find it afterwards among the Hamites. The ideality of art, to which the Cainites in their formative tendency have already advanced, appears as a substitute for the reality of a religious-ideal course of life, and becomes ministerial to sin and to a malignant pride. Not without ground are the decorative dress (the name Adah), the musical skill (the name Zillah) and beauty of the daughters of Cain brought into view. For after the contrast presented in chapter 5 between the Sethites, who advance in the pure direction of a godly life, and the Cainites, who are ever sinking lower and lower in an ungodly existence, there is shown, chapter 6, how an intercourse arises between them, and how the Sethites, infatuated by the charms of the Cainitish women, introduce a mingling of both lines, and, thereby, a universal corruption. According to Knobel the chapter must be regarded as the genealogical register of Adam, though this does not agree, he says, with the genealogical register of the Elohist (Genesis 5), which names Seth as the first-born (!) of Adam. The ethnological table (Genesis 10), he tells us, can only embrace the Caucasian race, whilst the Cainites can only be a legendary representation of the East Asian tribes (p. 53), the author of which thereby places himself in opposition to the later account, that represents all the descendants of Cain as perishing in the flood. The traits of the Cainitic race, as presented by Knobel, belong not alone to the East Asiatic people. They are ground-forms of primitive worldliness in the human race. In respect to the genealogical table of Genesis 4, 5, Knobel remarks “that the Cainitic table agrees tolerably well with the Sethic” (p. 54). For the similarities and differences of both tables, comp. Keil, p. 71. These relations will be more distinctly shown in the interpretation of the names. Concerning the Jehovistic peculiarities of language in this section, see Knobel, p. 56. 2. Genesis 4:1-2. “Men are yet in Eden, but no longer in the garden of Eden.” Delitzsch. Procreation a knowing. The moral character of sexual intercourse. Love a personal knowing. The love of marriage, in its consummation, a spiritual corporeal knowing. The expression is euphemistic. In the Pentateuch only, in the supplementary corrections of the original writing. The like in other ancient languages. The name Cain is explained directly from χָ ?πִ ?ιϊִ ?ι, the gotten. The word χπδ may mean, to create, to bring out, also to gain, to attain, which we prefer.—I have gotten a man from the Lord.—The interpretation of Luther and others, including Philippi, namely, “the man, the Lord,” not only anticipates the unfolding of the Messianic idea, but goes beyond it; for the Messiah is not Jehovah absolutely. And yet the explanation: with the help of Jehovah (with his helpful presence, Knobel), is too weak. So too the Vulgate is incorrect: per Deum, or the interpretation of Clericus: ξֵ ?ΰֵ ?ϊ, from Jehovah, that is, in association, in connection with Jehovah, I have gotten a man. In this it remains remarkable, that in the name itself, the more particular denotation is wanting. We may be allowed, therefore, to read: a man with Jehovah, that is, one who stands in connection with Jehovah; yet it may be that the mode of gaining: gotten with Jehovah, characterizes the name itself. The choice of the name Jehovah denotes here the God of the covenant. In the blessed confidence of female hope, she would seem, with evident eagerness, to greet, in the new-born, the promised woman’s seed (Genesis 3:15), according to her understanding of the word. Lamech, too, although on better grounds, expected something immensely great from his son Noah. We must observe here that the mother is indicated as the name-giver. In the case of the second name, Abel (Habel), which denotes a swiftly-disappearing breath of life, or vanity, or nothingness, nothing of the kind is said. Yet in place of the great and hasty joy of hope, there seems to have come a fearful motherly presentiment (Delitzsch, p. 199). That they were twins, as Kimchi holds, is a sense the text does not favor. Abel as shepherd, especially of the smaller cattle (φΰο), is the type of the Israelitish patriarchs. Cain, as the first-born, takes the agricultural occupation to which his father was first appointed. The oldest ground-forms, therefore, of the human calling, which Adam united in himself, are divided between his two sons in a normal way (Cain was, in a certain sense, the heir by birth, and the ground-proprietor). It must be remarked, too, that agriculture, as the older form, does not appear as the younger in its relation to cattle-breeding. “Both modes of living belong to the earliest times of humanity, and, according to Varro and Dicζarchus in Porphyry, follow directly after the times when men lived upon the self-growing fruits of the earth.” Knobel. “In the choice of different callings by the two brothers, we seek in vain for any indication of a difference in moral disposition.” So Keil maintains, against Hofmann, that agriculture was a consequence of the cursing of the ground. Delitzsch, however, together with Hofmann, is inclined to the opinion that in the brothers’ choice of different callings there was already expressed the different directions of their minds,—that Abel’s calling was directed to the covering of the sinful nakedness by the skins of beasts (Hofmann), and therefore Abel was a shepherd (!). Delitzsch, too, would have it that Abel took the small domestic cattle, only for the sake of their skins, and, to some extent, for their milk, though this was a kind of food which had not been used in Paradise. It would follow, then, that if Abel slew the beasts for the sake of their skins, and, moreover, offered to God in sacrifice only the fat parts of the firstlings, it must have been that he suffered the flesh in general of the slaughtered animals to become offensive and go to corruption. It would follow, too, that the human sacerdotal partaking of the sacrificial offering, which later became the custom in most cases, had not yet taken place; not to say that the supposition of the enjoyment of animal food having been first granted, Genesis 9:3, is wholly incorrect. 3. Genesis 4:3-8. The first offerings. The difference between the offering pleasing to God, and that to which he has not respect. The envy of a brother, the divine warning, and the brother’s murder. The fratricide in its connection with the offering, a type of all religious wars. The expression ξχυιξιν denotes the passing of a definite and considerable time (Knobel: after the beginning of their respective occupations), and indicates also a harvest-season; yet to take it for the end of the year, as is done by De Wette, Van Bohlen, and others, is giving it too definite a sense.—It came to pass that Cain brought of the fruits of the ground, ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ (from ξπη; Arabic: to make a present, “the most general name of the offering, as also χָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?ο.” Delitzsch). Fruits belonged to the oldest offerings. Though no altar is mentioned, as also in Genesis 8:20, it is nevertheless to be supposed. In the offering of Abel it is prominently stated that he brought of the firstborn of his herds (αְּ ?λεֹ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ), but it is not said of Cain that his offerings were first fruits—αִּ ?λּ ?εּ ?ψִ ?ιν. There is added, moreover, in respect to Abel, the word: εּ ?ξֵ ?ηֶ ?μְ ?αֵּ ?δֶ ?ο (and of the fat thereof). Knobel explains this as meaning, from their fat; Keil, on the contrary, understands it of the fat pieces, that is, of the fattest of the firstlings. The ground taken by some, that it was because no sacrificial feasts had been instituted, or because men had not yet eaten of flesh, is pure hypothesis. It shows rather that we must not think here of the animal offerings of Leviticus. Here arise two questions: 1. By what was it made known that God looked to the offering of Abel,—that is, with gracious complacency? Many commentators say that Jehovah set on fire the offering of Abel by fire from heaven, according to Leviticus 9:24; Judges 6:21 (Theodotion, Hieronymus, &c.). Delitzsch: the look of Jehovah was a fire-glance that set on fire the offering. Keil, however, reminds us how it is said, that to Abel himself, as well as to his offering, the look of Jehovah was directed. Knobel assumes, with Schumann, that it suits better to think of a personal appearance of Jehovah at the time of the offering, with which, too, corresponds better the dealing with Cain that follows. The safest way is to stand by the fact simply, that God graciously accepted the offering of Abel; but as in later times the acceptance was outwardly actualized by the miraculous sacrificial flame, so here, it suits best to think on some such mode of acceptance, though not on the “fiery glance” alone. 2. Wherein lay the ground of this distinction? Knobel: “The gift of Abel was of more value than the small offering of Cain. In all sacrificial laws the offerings of animals have the chief place.” So also the Emperor Julian, according to Cyril of Alexandria (Delitzsch, p. 200). According to Hofmann (“Scripture Proof,” i. p. 584), Cain, when he brought his offering of the fruits of his agriculture, thanked God only “for the prolongation of this present life, for the support of which he had been so laboriously striving: whereas Abel in offering the best animals of his herd, thanked God for the forgiveness of his sins, of which the continued sign was the clothing that had been given of God.” For this too advanced symbolic of the clothing skins, there is no Scripture ground, and rightly says Delitzsch: the thought of expiation connects itself not with the skins, but with the blood (see also Keil’s Polemic,—against Hofmann, p. 66). Yet Delitzsch contradicts himself when he says, with Gregory the Great: omne quod datur Deo ex dantis mente pensatur, and then adds: “the unbloody offering of Cain, as such, was only the expression of a grateful present, or, taken in its deepest significance, a consecrated offering of self; but man needs, before all things, the expiation of his death-deserving sins, and for this the blood obtained through the slaying of the victims serves as a symbol.” It is, however, just as much anticipating to identify the blood-offering with the specific expiation offering, as it is to give directly to the living faith in God’s pure promise the identical character of faith in the specific mode of atonement. The Epistle to the Hebrews lays the whole weight of the satisfaction expressed in Abel’s offering upon his faith (Genesis 11:4). Abel appears here as the proper mediator of the institution of the faith-offering for the world. As the doctrine of creation is introduced to the world through the faith of the primitive humanity, so in a similar manner did Abel bring into the world the belief in the symbolical propitiatory offering in its universal form; as after him Enoch was the occasion of introducing the belief of the immortal life, and so on. Keil, too, contends against the view that through the slaying of an animal Abel already made known the avowal that his sins deserved death. And yet it is a fact that a difference in the state of heart of the two brothers is indicated in the appearance of their offerings. Keil finds, as a sign of this difference, that Abel’s thanks come from the depths of his heart, whilst Cain’s offering is only to make terms with God in the choice of his gifts. Delitzsch regards it as emphatic that Abel offered the firstlings of his herds, and, moreover, the fattest parts of them, whilst Cain’s offering was no offering of first fruits. This difference appears to be indicated, in fact, as a difference in relation to the earliness, the joyfulness, and freshness of the offerings. After the course of some time, it means, Cain offered something from the fruits of the ground. But immediately afterwards it is said expressly: Abel had offered (δֵ ?αֵ ?ιΰ, preterite, βַ ?ρΞδεּ ?ΰ); and farther it is made prominent that he brought of the firstlings, the fattest and best. These outward differences in regard to the time of the offerings, and the offerings themselves, have indeed no significance in themselves considered, but only as expressing the difference between a free and joyful faith in the offering, and a legal, reluctant state of heart. It has too the look as though Cain had brought his offering in a self-willed way, and for himself alone,—that is, he brought it to his own altar, separated, in an unbrotherly spirit, from that of Abel.—And Cain was very wroth.—Literally, he was greatly incensed (inflamed). (ΰτּ ?ε denotes the distended nostril.—T. L.). The wrath was a fire in his soul (Jeremiah 15:14; Jeremiah 17:4).—And his countenance fell.—“Cain hung down his head, and looked upon the earth. This is the posture of one darkly brooding (Jeremiah 3:12; Job 29:24), and prevails to this day in the East as a sign of evil plottings” (Burkhardt, “Arabian Proverbs,” p. 248).—And the Lord said unto Cain.—This presupposes a certain measure of susceptibility for divine revelation; as does also his previous offering, though done in his own way. Jehovah, in a warning manner, calls his attention to the symptom of his wicked thoughts,—his brooding posture.—If thou doest well, &c.—The explanation of Arnheim and Bunsen: Whether thou bringest fair gifts or not, sin lurks at the door, &c., does not take the word ωְׁ ?ΰֵ ?ϊ in its nearest connection, namely, in contrast with the falling of the countenance, as the lifting it up in freedom and serenity. Should we take ωְׁ ?ΰֵ ?ϊ for the lifting up (the acceptance) of the offering, still would its better and nearer sense lie in the idea that good behavior is the right offering. And yet on account of the contrast, the lifting up of the countenance would seem to be the meaning most obviously suggested. We need not to be reminded that along with good behavior there is also meant an inward state, yet the expression tells us that that inward state will also actualize itself in the right way. Genesis 4:8. And Cain talked with Abel.—Knobel represents these words as a crux interpretum. Rosenmόller and others interpret it: he talked with Abel, that is, he had a paroxysm or fit of goodness and spoke again peaceably with his brother. It is against this that the use of ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ for γִּ ?αֵּ ?ψ cannot be authenticated by sure examples. Therefore Hieronymus, Aben Ezra, and others, interpret it: he told it (namely, what Jehovah had said to him) to his brother. On the contrary, Knobel remarks: it does not seem exactly consistent that the still envious Cain should thus relate his own admonition. Here, however, the question arises whether we are required to take ειΰξψ in that manner. The sense of this may be that Cain simply preached to his brother in a mocking manner the added apothegm, sin lieth at the door. In a similar manner, to say the least, did Ahab preach to Elias, Caiaphas to our Lord Christ, Cajetan to Luther, &c. The Samaritan text has the addition: πֵ ?μְ ?λָ ?δηַ ?ωָּׂ ?γֶ ?δ (let us go into the field). It has been acknowledged by the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and certain individual critics. But even ancient testimonies show it to have been an interpolation. Knobel, together with Bφttcher, has recourse to a conjecture that the reading should be ωׁ ?ξψ (he watched), instead of ΰξψ. Delitzsch, again, supposes that the narration hastens beyond the oratio directa, or the direct address, and gives immediately its carrying out in place of the thing said, that is, he regards the invitation, “let us go into the field,” as implied or understood in the act. In a similar way, Keil. We turn back to the above interpretation with the remark that the narrator had no need to state precisely that Cain preserved the penal words of God as solely for himself, if he meant to tell us that out of this warning admonition Cain had made a hypocritical address to his brother.—Cain rose up against Abel his brother.—The words “his brother,” how many times repeated! The sin of the fall has advanced quickly to that of fratricide. The divinely charged envy in the sin of Eve, wherein there is reflected an analogue of the envy of man against God, is here again advanced from envy of a brother to hatred, then from hatred to a vile obduracy against the warning words of God, and so on, even to fratricide. Therein, too, it is evident that the tempter of man is a murderer of man. Yet still this is not in the sense as though John 8:44 had reference only to this fact. In the sense of this latter passage, Satan was the murderer of Cain,—a thing, however, which manifests itself in the murder of Abel. The fact here narrated will form a connected unity with that of Genesis 3. The working of Satan in Genesis 3 comes fully out in the fact narrated in Genesis 4 “Cain is the first man who lets sin rule over him; he is ἐκτοῦπονηροῦ (of the evil one), 1 John 3:12.” Delitzsch. 4. Genesis 4:9-16 The Judgment of Cain. Where is Abel thy brother?—The divine arraignment analogous to the arraignment of Adam and Eve. But Cain evades every acknowledgment. He lies, and denies in an impudent manner; then comes boldly out with the scornful expression: Am I my brother’s keeper? “What a fearful advance from the resort and exculpation of our first parents after the fall, so full of shame and anguish, to this shameless lying; this brutality, so void of love and feeling!” Delitzsch. Irreligiousness, together with an inhuman want of feeling, stand out in continually increasing, reciprocal action. Upon this impudent denial follows the accusation and the judgment. The streams of his brother’s blood are represented as his accusers, and the earth itself must bear witness against him.—What hast thou done?—So we read, since we take the sense of that which follows to be: A voice hast thou made, etc. “The deed belongs to those crimes that cry to Heaven (Genesis 18:20; Genesis 19:13; Exodus 3:9). Therefore does Abel’s blood cry up to Heaven that God, the lord and judge, may punish the murderer. All blood shed unrighteously must be avenged (Genesis 9:5); according to the ancient view it cries to God continually, until vengeance takes place. Hence the prayer, that the earth may not drink in the blood shed upon it, in order that it may not thereby be made invisible and inaudible (Isaiah 26:21; Ezekiel 24:7; Job 16:18).” Knobel. Compare Psalms 116:15; Hebrews 11:4; Revelation 6:9 Calvin: Ostendit Deus, se de factis hominum cognoscere utcunque nullus queratur vel accuset; deinde sibi magis caram esse hominum vitam, quam ut sanguinem innoxium impune effundi sinat; tertio, curam sibi piorum esse non solum quamdiu vivunt, sed etiam post mortem. The blood as the living flow of the life, and the phenomenal basis of the soul (primarily as basis of the nerve-life) has a voice which is as the living echo of the blood-clad soul itself. It is the symbol of the soul crying for its right (to live), and in this way affects immediately the human feeling.—And now art thou cursed, etc.—The words following (ξοδΰγξδ) are explained in different ways: 1. My curse shall smite thee from this land; that is, here shall be its execution (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and others; Knobel, Keil, more or less definitely). 2. Cursed away from the district; that is, driven forth by the curse (Rosenmόller, Tuch, Gerlach, Delitzsch). 3. As in the history of the first judgment there appear two cursings, it is proper to look back to them. There is the serpent cursed directly as Cain is here. But the earth, too, is cursed for Adam’s sake. Since now here, in the curse of Cain, the earth is again mentioned, the obvious interpretation becomes: thou thyself shalt be cursed in a much severer degree than the earth. The earth, which through Adam’s natural sin has become to a certain extent partaker of his guilt, shall appear innocent in presence of thine unnatural crime; yea, it becomes thy judge.—Which hath opened her mouth.—This is the moving reason for the form of the preceding penal sentence. So Delitzsch interprets: the ground has drunk innocent blood, and so is made a participant in the sin of murder (Isaiah 26:21; Numbers 35:31). Keil disputes this, and on good grounds. “It is because the earth has been compelled to drink the innocent blood which has been shed that, therefore, it opposes itself to the murderer, and refuses to yield its strength (λֹּ ?η its fruits or crops, Job 31:40) to his cultivation; so that it returns him no produce, just as the land of Canaan is said to have spit out the Canaanites, on account of the abominable crimes with which they had utterly defiled it (Leviticus 18:28).” It is clear that in this case there is transferred to the earth a ministration of punishment against Cain. Since Cain has done violence to nature itself, even to the ground, in that it has been compelled to drink his brother’s blood, therefore must it take vengeance on him in refusing to him its strength. The curse proper, however, of Cain must be, that through the power of his guilt-consciousness he must become a fugitive and a vagabond upon the earth. πςεπγ, a paronomasia, as in Genesis 1:2. The first word (participle from πες) denotes the inward quaking, trembling, and unrest, the second (from πεγ) the outward fleeing, roving, restlessness. The interpretation, therefore, of Delitzsch is incorrect, “that the earth in denying to Cain the expected fruits of his labor, drives him ever on from one land to another.” The proper middle point of his curse is his inner restlessness. More correctly says Delitzsch: “ban of banning, wandering of exile, is the history of Cain’s curse; how directly opposite to that which is proclaimed by the blood of the other Abel, the Holy and Righteous one (Acts 3:14).” Knobel, according to the view above noticed, interprets the words “fugitive and vagabond,” as indicating in the author a knowledge of the roaming races of the East.—My punishment is greater than I can bear [Lange renders it my guilt, ςεπι].—The question arises whether this expression means my sin, or my punishment. The old interpretations (Septuagint, Vulgate) render it my sin, and accordingly give πωΰ the sense of forgiveness. My sin is too great to be ever forgiven. This expression of despair into which his earlier confidence sinks down, has been interpreted by some as denoting Cain’s repentance, which, analogous to the repentance of Judas, fails of salvation through self-will and want of faith, or rather, bears him on more fully to destruction. But since ςεο may denote also the punishment of sin (Genesis 19:15; Isaiah 5:18), and since Cain further on laments the greatness of his punishment, Delitzsch, Keil, and others, with Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Calvin, etc., take the sense to be: my punishment is too great, that is, greater than I can bear. But now the question arises, whether there is not here in view a double sense, as indicated by the very choice of the expression; and this the more, since, in fact, there lies also in Cain’s repentance a similar double sense. The sin is evidently acknowledged, but only in the reflex view of the punishment, and because of the punishment (attritio in contrast with contritio). The self-accusation, therefore, that the sin is held unpardonable, is, at the same time, an accusation of the judge for having laid upon him an unendurable burden. The reservation of the heart still unbroken in its selfishness and pride, makes the self-accusation, in this kind of repentance, an accusation of the doom itself; it is “the sorrow of the world that worketh death.” It is, however, the lies bound up with the pride that gives the impassioned utterance its curiously varied coloring.—Behold thou hast driven me out.—Out of the sentence of his own conscience, through which God lets him become a fugitive and a vagabond, Cain makes a clear, positive, divine decree of banishment. Thereby does it appear to him a heavier doom that he must go forth from the presence of the adamah in Eden, than his departure from the presence of God (though before he had put the latter first); and, finally, they are both to him the harder punishment, since now “every one that finds shall slay him.” It is the full, unbroken, selfish fear of death, that falls upon him like a giant, rather than the wish that he may be slain by the avenger of blood, whoever he may be. But therein does his outer understanding of it give notice of the sentence: thou shalt be a fugitive and a vagabond. It has changed, for him, into the threatening: avengers of blood will everywhere hunt and slay thee (Proverbs 28:1).—Behold thou drivest me forth this day from the face of the Adamah, that is, out of Eden. “In Eden dwelt Jehovah, whose presence guaranteed protection and security.” Knobel. But would Cain take comfort in the idea of the divine protection? It is suffering and punishment, in itself, that, as he says, he is directly driven forth (βψω) from that home still so rich and charming, where, moreover, through his tilling of the ground he meant to become a permanent possessor.—And from thy face shall I be hid.—Knobel: “Outside of Eden, withdrawn from thy look. In a similar manner Jonah believed that by his withdrawal from Canaan, the land of Jehovah’s habitation, he should escape from his territorial jurisdiction.” On the contrary, Delitzsch and Keil: “from the place where Jehovah revealed his presence.” It must be observed that he mentions this suffering as of second moment. It sounds partly as a complaint, and partly as a threatening; for it is the specific expression of the morose self-consciousness that it flees from the presence of God, whilst it maintains, in order to have some plea of right, that it has been forced to do so. When I lose the face of my home, then also am I compelled to flee from the face of God. Though in every place he would fain hide from the face of God, yet the obvious sense here is neither the unbiblical thought that God dwelt only in Eden (or in Canaan), nor the loss of the beholding of the cherubim. The idea that man can hide himself from God the Scripture everywhere treats as a mere false representation of the evil conscience. It is clearly growling despair that will no more seek the presence of Jehovah through prayer and sacrifice, under the pretence that it is no more allowed to do so. Cain, however, has still religious insight enough to know, that the further from God, the deeper does he fall into the danger of death.—Every one that findeth me.—How could Cain fear lest the blood avenger should slay him, when the earth was uninhabited? Josephus, Kimchi, Michaelis, have referred the declaration to the ravenous beasts. Clericus, Dathe, Delitzsch, Keil, and others, have referred it to the family of Adam. Schumann and Tuch find in it an oversight of the narrator. Knobel takes it as embracing the representation of their having been primitive inhabitants of Eastern Asia (Chinese immigrants, perhaps) with whom Cain had fought. Delitzsch says: “It is clear that the blood avengers whom Cain feared, must be those who should exist in the future, when his father’s family had become enlarged and spread abroad; for that the murderer should be punished with death (we might even say that the taking vengeance for blood is the fountain of regulated law and right respecting murder) is a righteous sentence written in any man’s breast; and that Cain already sees the earth full of avengers, is just the way of the murderer who sees himself on all sides surrounded by avenging spirits (̓Εριννύες), and feels himself subjected to their tormentings.” Keil adds: “Though Adam, at that time, had not many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren, yet, according to Genesis 4:17, Genesis 5:4, he must, at that time, doubtless, have had already other children, who might multiply, and, earlier or later, avenge Abel’s death.” In aid of this supposition we must take the representation that would give to Cain an immensely long life. Cain’s complaint was an indirect prayer for the mitigation of the punishment. Jehovah consents to the prayer in his sense, that is, he knows that the fear of Cain is, in great part, a reflection from his evil conscience, and, consequently, the destiny which is appointed to him appears to serve more for the silencing (not giving rest to) his frantic excitement, than as designed to protect him outwardly from any danger. For not absolutely shall he know himself protected, but only through the threatening of a seven-fold blood-vengeance against his pursuer, whoever he might be, and through the warning of the same as given by a sign. There appears to Knobel a difficulty in the question, Who then would undertake the blood-vengeance on behalf of Cain, seeing he had no companions? Seven-fold shall he be punished, or shall he (Cain) become avenged.—Set a mark upon Cain.—According to the traditional interpretation, God put a sign on Cain himself, which would make him known; and hence the proverbial expression: the mark of Cain. On the contrary, the literal language has the preposition μ (to or for). Another old interpretation (Aben Ezra, Baumgarten, Delitzsch) will have it that God gave him a token for his security, in order that he might not be slain. The language, however, does not denote a sign of security for Cain that would make him absolutely safe, but only a sign of warning, and threatening, for some possible pursuer, and which might possibly remain unnoticed, though serving to Cain himself as a conscious sign for the quieting of his fears. According to Knobel, the author had in mind, perhaps, some celestial phenomenon, which should every time make its appearance and warn away the assailant. Such a divine intervention, however, would be a placing the murderer in absolute security, and besides a thing simply inconceivable. The warning sign for the pursuer of Lamech, whoever he might be, was the newly invented weapons of his son Tubal-Cain. The warning sign that should serve for the protection of Cain, must disclose to the pursuers the threatening prospect of a seven-fold blood-vengeance. Such a sign, although for Cain, may be, notwithstanding, represented as on Cain in some kind of threatening defence, perhaps, or in the attendance of his wife; it is enough that the history is silent, or simply means to tell us that God already, immediately after the first deed of murder, had established a modification of the natural, impulsive, and impassioned, taking of vengeance for blood;—a warning sign, in fact, that the carrying out of the blood-vengeance would have for its consequence the extirpation of the whole human race. But why this exemption of Cain? To this question every kind of answer has been given (comp. Delitzsch and Keil). The chief thing was, that this banishment had in itself the significance of a social human death. It was a member cut off from the human community, as in the New Testament history of Judas. Besides, the unfolding of the Cainitish existence was to reveal an unfolding of death in a higher degree, and, at the same time, to do service to human culture in the dissemination of the Cainitish talent. Finally, there comes into consideration, in relation to Cain, what is said by Delitzsch: “He was gracious to him in the prolongation of his time of grace, because he recognized the sin as sin.” But at the same time, God himself gives here the first example for the significance of the law of pardon in the later society. To demand the death of Cain was properly the right only of Abel’s parents. But these were also Cain’s parents. The right of pardoning is the right of modifying or mitigating the punishment in view of special mitigating circumstances.—And Cain went out.—“The name πεγ denotes a land of escape and banishment, and is therefore the contrast to the happy land of Eden, where Jehovah walks and communes with men.” Keil. The land lay eastward of Eden. In other respects it cannot be definitely determined; for Cain carried everywhere the land of Nod with him in his heart. Knobel thinks here again of China. 5. Genesis 4:17-23. Cain and the Cainites.—And Cain knew his wife.—Here comes in the supposition that Adam must have already had daughters too. Cain’s wife could only have been a daughter of Adam, consequently his sister, and Abel’s sister. She still adheres, nevertheless, to the fearful man, and follows him in his misery, which is also a testimony to a humane side in his life. The marriage of sisters was, in the beginning, a condition for the propagation of the human race. At the commencement of the race, the contrasts in the members of the family must have been so strongly regarded, that thereby the conditions for a true marriage could be present in the same family; whilst the most significant motive for the later prohibition of sister marriages, such as the establishment of a new band of love, and the consequent separation of the sisterly and marriage relations, could not yet have become effectual. Keil, moreover, remarks that the sons and daughters of Adam represent not merely the family, but the race; this is indeed the case, even in single families, though on a reduced scale. Some have thought it strange that Cain should have built a city for his son. But in this objection it is overlooked that the main conception of a primitive city is simply that of a walled fortification. The city must have been a very small one. Cain might have built it for an entire patriarchal race. Moreover, it reads, as Keil calls attention to it, ιַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ιαֹּ ?πֶ ?δ, he was building. It was the thought and the work of his life, in proof that immediately after the protection offered to him by God, he longed for something to fortify himself against the fear of his conscience, and had need to fix for himself an outward station, in opposition to his inner unsettled condition. “Even if we do not, with Delitzsch, regard this city as the foundation-stone of the worldly rule in which the spirit of the beast predominates, yet we must not misapprehend therein the effort to remove the curse of banishment, and to create for his race a point of unity as a compensation for the lost unity in society with God; neither must we lose sight of the continual tendency of the Cainitish life to the earthly. The mighty development of the world-feeling, and of ungodliness, among the Cainites, becomes conspicuous with Lamech in the sixth generation.” Keil. This comes to be, indeed, the ground idea of the Cainite development, that in the symbolic ideality of culture, it seeks an offset to the real ideality of the living cultus (or worship), even as this is generally the character of the secularized worldliness; that is, it makes a development of culture, in itself legitimate, to be its one and all. If after this we take into view the names of the Cainitish line, it will serve for a confirmation of what has been said. 1.     Henoch, initiation, the initiated and his city. 2.      Irad, townsman, citizen, urbanus, civilis. 3.     Mahujael, or Mahijael, the purified, or the formed of God (ξηδ). 4.     Methusael, the (strengthened) man of God. 5.     Lamech, strong youth. His two wives: Adah, the decorated, Zillah, the musical player (according to Schrφder, the dark brunette). [Schrφder is all wrong.—T. L.] 6.     The sons of Lamech, by Adah: Jabal, the traveller (nomade), and Jubal, the jubilant, the musician. By Zillah: Tubal Cain, worker in brass or iron (according to the Persian, Thubal; Gesenius), the lance-forger (according to the Shemetic, mason)—if not more probably: brass (or iron) of Cain, that is, the forger of the weapons in which the Cainites trusted. His sister Naamah, the lovely. Cain and Adam included, this is eight generations; whereas the line of Seth that follows (Genesis 5) embraces ten generations. On account of the like names, Henoch and Lamech, Irad and Jared, Kain and Kenan, Mahujael and Mahalael, Methusael and Methuselah, Knobel supposes a mingling of both genealogies, or one common primitive legend in two forms; Keil contends against this by laying emphasis on the difference of the names that appear to be similar, and the different position of those that are alike. For the sake of comparison we let the line of Seth immediately follow: 1. Adam (earth-man). 2. Seth (compensation, or the established). 3. Enoch (weak man). 4. Cainan (profit, a mere like-sounding of Cain). 5. Mahalaleel, praise of God (only an echo of Mahujael). 6. Jared, descending, the descender (only a resemblance in sound to Irad). 7. Enoch or Henoch, the consecrated. Here the devoted, or consecrated, follows the descending; in the Cainitish line he follows Cain. The one was the occupier of a city in the world, the other was translated to God; both consecrations, or devotions, stand, therefore, in full contrast. 8. Methuselah. According to the usual interpretation: man of the arrow, of the weapons of war. As he forms a chronological parallel with the Cainitic Lamech, so may we regard this name as indicating that he introduced these newly invented weapons of the Cainites into the line of Seth, in order to be a defence against the hostile insolence of the Cainites. It consists with this interpretation, that with him there came into the line of Seth a tendency to the worldly, after which it goes down with it, and with the age. Even the imposing upon his son the name Lamech, the strong youth, may be regarded as a warlike demonstration against the Cainitic Lamech. Therefore, 9. Lemech or Lamech. 10. Noah, the rest, the quieter, or peacemaker. With Lamech, who greeted in his son the future pacificator, there appears to be indicated, in the line of Seth, a direction, peaceful, yet troubled with toil and strife. It was just such an age, however, as might have for its consequence the alliances and minglings with the Cainites that are now introduced, and which have so often followed the exigencies of war. This Sethian Lamech, however, forms a significant contrast with the Cainitic. The one consoles himself with the newly invented weapons of his son Tubal Cain, as his security against the fearful blood-vengeance. The other comforts himself with the hope that with his son there shall come a season of holy rest from the labor and pains that are burdened with the curse of God. In regard to both lines in common, the following is to be remarked: 1. The names in the Cainitic line are, for the most part, expressive of pride, those of the Sethic, of humility. 2. The Cainitic line is carried no farther than to the point of its open corruption in polygamy, quarrelsomeness, and consecration of art to the service of sin. The Sethic line forms in its tenth period the full running out of a temporal world-development, in which Enoch, the seventh, properly appears as the highest point. 3. Against the mention of the Cainitic wives, their charms, and their art, appears in the Sethic line only the mention of sons and daughters. It serves for an introduction to the sixth chapter. Concerning the repeated appearance of like names, compare what is said by Keil, p. 71. Zillah can just as well mean the shadowy as the sounding, yet the latter interpretation is commended by the context. By the invention of Jubal a distinction is made between stringed and wind instruments. In its relation to Tubal Cain the word ηֹ ?ψֵ ?ωׁ must be taken as neuter; since otherwise Tubal Cain would appear as the smith that forged the smiths. The song of Lamech is the first decidedly poetic form in the Scriptures, more distinct than Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:23, as is shown by the marked parallelism of the members. It is the consecration of poetry to the glorification of a Titanic insolence, and, sung as it was in the ears of both his wives, stands as a proof that lust and murder are near akin to each other. Rightly may we suppose (with Hamann and Herder), that the invention of his son Tubal Cain, that is, the invention of weapons, made him so excessively haughty, whilst the invention of his son Jubal put him in a position to sing to his wives his song of hate and vengeance. This indicates, at the same time, an immeasurable pride in his talented sons. He promises himself the taking of a blood-vengeance, vastly enhanced in degree, but shows, at the same time, by the citation of the case of his ancestor Cain, that the dark history of that bad man had become transformed into a proud remembrance for his race. The meaning of the song, however, is not, I have slain a man (Septuagint, Vulgate, &c.). He supposes the case that he were now wounded, or now slain; that is, it looks to the future (Aben Ezra, Calvin, &c). We may take the λִּ ?ι with which the song begins as an expression of assurance, and the preterite of the verb as denoting the certainty of the declaration (see Delitzsch, p. 214). We think it better, however, to take it hypothetically, as Nδgelsbach and others have done, and this too as corresponding to the sense as well as to the grammatical expression. In respect to the inventions of the Chinese, and the discovery of music as coming out of the shepherd-life, compare Knobel, p. 65. In regard to the conjectures concerning these genealogies, see the Catalogue of Literature, p. 56. Thus, for example, Jubal is connected with Apollo, and Tubal Cain with Vulcan. The similarity of particular forms in popular traditions cannot justify us in confounding them. Knobel refers here, in the view he takes, to the bloodthirsty cruelty of the Mongolian tribes. Ewald finds in the three sons of Lamech (Noah?) the representatives of three principal states according to the Judζan conceptions (see Delitzsch, p. 212; also similar interpretations of Ewald, p. 211). 6. Genesis 4:24-26. Seth.—And called his name Seth.—Seth may denote compensation for Abel (Knobel, Keil),—one who comes in the place of Abel who has been slain and taken away; and in this way he is said to be fixed, established. Eve called the giver Elohim, according to Knobel, because the Sethites were elohists; according to Keil it was because the divine power had compensated her for what human wickedness had taken away. The fact that the name Jehovah, as mentioned further on, came to be adopted in connection with Enoch (weak man), may lead to the thought, indeed, of a lowering of hopes, and yet there lies an expression of hope in this, that she regards Seth as a permanent compensation for Abel.—And to Seth,—to him also was born a son.—Enoch,—a designation of weakness, frailty; probably a sorrowful remembrance of Abel (Psalms 8:5; Psalms 90:3).—Then began men to call.—χָ ?ψָ ?ΰαּ, primarily, to call on the name of Jehovah, and then to proclaim him, to announce. Men had before this prayed and called upon God, but now they begin to reverence God as Jehovah. But why not before, in the time of Seth? God as Jehovah is the covenant God of a pious race, of a future full of promise. First with Enoch does there appear the sure prospect of a new line of promise, after the line of Cain had lost it. With a new divine race, and a new believing generation, there ever presents itself the name Jehovah, and ever with a higher glory. Now it is for the first time after Eve’s first theocratic jubilee-cry of hope. Delitzsch is inclined to think that men now called upon Jehovah in the direction of the East (where the Cainites made their settlement). Moreover, it must be that here is narrated the beginning of a formal divine worship. In respect to this, as also in respect to the two pillars of Seth’s descendants of which Josephus speaks, compare Delitzsch, p. 218. The language undoubtedly refers to a general honoring of the name Jehovah among the pious Sethites. Concerning the name of God, compare the Bibelwerk, Matt., p. 125 (Am. ed.). In relation to Jehovah is the name of special significance, because Jehovah is the God of the covenant, or of the revelation of salvation, and because the name of God, whilst on the one side it denotes his revelation, does, on the other, present the reflex of his revelation in the human religious recognition, that is, in religion itself. In respect to the supposition that the primitive religion was the true religion, as we find it in Romans 1:19-21, Knobel gives an account in its historical relation (p. 67). According to a Hebrew interpretation of the word δεּ ?ηַ ?μ, as though from the word ημμ, to profane, and which Hieronymus mentions, though he rejects it, there must have begun, in the days of Enoch, a species of image-worship, as a profanation of the name of Jehovah (see Rahmer, “The Hebrew Traditions in the Works of Hieronymus,” p. 20). It is a Rabbinical figment, resting upon the misinterpretation of a word, and of the whole text. AND ETHICAL1. The propagation of the human race is outside of Paradise, not because it is first occasioned by sin, but rather because it supposes a distinct development of mankind, and is tainted with its sin. 2. The human pairing is not an act of natural necessity, but a free ethical love, a knowing, as its fruit is a begetting, a witnessing. 3. The first mother’s-joy after the first mother’s-anguish, is a spirit of high enthusiasm, and, therefore, an expression of believing hope in the coming salvation. It takes the form of womanly precipitancy, and may mean that now she has borne the serpent-crusher (gotten him, or brought him forth). This is the first misreckoning in respect to the times and hours of God, and the person who is to bring salvation, but the believing hope itself is not a vain thing. Upon this high soaring, as it appears in the mother’s naming of Cain (εὕρηκα, see John 1:42), there follows, after the human fashion, a great lowering of hope, as shown in the naming of the second son, wherein there appears to be indicated a fearful motherly foreboding, which may have been already occasioned by the conduct of the young Cain. 4. The formation of the family: the fundamental law of human relations (“next to the conjugal the parental, the sisterly and brotherly, the general relation of kindred,” Delitzsch) and of all human ordinances. Church and state, with their binding cement, the school, all in the embryo form. The offering. The sentence upon Cain for his brother’s murder. The first moral lesson, an admonition or warning to Cain. 5. In the bosom of the first family there appears the first contrast between the two ground-forms of the human calling,—between worldly power and a divine endurance, between an ungodly and a godly direction, between one who was godless and one who was pious, between one who was loaded in life with the curse of God and one who was slain for his piety, yet whose death, blood, and right, had still an abiding value in the eyes of God. 6. The religious offering is indicated and introduced as early as humanity in the state of sin, Genesis 3:21. It has its origin in thankfulness for God’s gifts, and the acknowledgment that all belongs to him and must be presented or consecrated to him. It is, moreover, an expression of the feeling that the failure to present a real and perfect obedience of the heart and will, and of a perfectly holy life with prayer, is attested by the symbolical offering, which, as such, denotes a longing for, and a craving need of restoration to, that perfect condition wherein life and offering unite in one. Concerning the offering, see Exodus and Leviticus. 7. God’s pleasure in the one offering, his displeasure at the other. See the Exegetical notes. 8. God’s warning to Cain. Sin evidently appears in Cain in an advanced stage of progress, and this indicates hereditary sinfulness. The divine warning, moreover, characterizes this hereditary tendency to sin, in its most peculiar being, not as a fatalistic force, but as a seducing inclination to evil, as a tempting power which already, like a ravenous wild beast, was crouching at his door, and ready to spring upon him. Therefore does God ascribe to him a capacity to rule over sin by the aid of the warning word of God standing as security to him for such assistance. It does not depend upon his choice whether he shall be tempted or not, but it does belong to his choice, whether he will let sin have its will in him, or whether he himself shall rule over it. Sin (though feminine) is presented in the figure of a male beast, or of a masculine nature,—as a lion, dragon, or serpent. On account of a supposed strangeness in the expression: rule over him (or it), Ewald takes it as a question: Wilt thou be able to rule over it? And Delitzsch holds that it does not mean the ruling over the sin that is lurking for him, but only over the inward temptation. But this inward temptation, in so far as it is temptation only, is just the sin that is crouching at the door; for the door denotes the entrance to his inclination, or to his will. Keil corrects Delitzsch by saying: “it is not the holding down of the inner temptibility which is commanded, but the withstanding of that power of evil which invades man from without,”—a view which here gives no proper sense. The personification of sin, and what is said about its desire and its craving after men (as though to devour them), appears not without significance, yet still the remembrance of 1 Peter 5:8 should not lead us to find here, as Delitzsch does, a conscious intimation of Satan. More rightly does the Book of Wisdom make a distinction between men’s being raised out of the fall, on the one hand, or their permitting sin to charm them, increase in strength, and so give power to the hereditary sinful tendency, on the other (Wisd. of Solomon, Genesis 1:13-16; Genesis 2:24; Genesis 10:1). What is said Romans 5:12 : “Death has passed upon all men,” bears alike upon all; but what follows: ἐφ’ ᾧπάντεςἥμαρτεν, allows an endless diversity of individual character, and within the ratios of its gradations, forms that contrast between the pious and the godless, between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, which the Scripture everywhere sets forth. 9. The Fratricide. “Thus sin attains to its dominion, and in the outward act reveals its inhuman, beastly, diabolical nature. Devilish hate, brutal savageness; it is in these two together that murder has its origin. At the same time there comes out openly here, for the first time, the conflict of the two seeds in the relations of man to man. It is the serpent-nature of Cain under whose stab in the heel Abel falls—the first example of martyrdom; in appearance a defeat, but in truth a victory. From the innocent murdered man, there goes on, even to the case of Zachariah the son of Jehoiada, one great stream of blood throughout the whole history of the Old Testament (Matthew 23:35). At the very head of the New Testament history does the bloody deed of Cain against his brother Abel again repeat itself in its counterpart, the bloody act of the Jewish people as committed against God’s most ‘holy child Jesus,’ their brother in the flesh. Thenceforth flows on the stream of martyr-blood through the whole history of the Church. Death and murder proceeding from him who was ἀνθρωποκτόνοςἀπ’ ἀρχῆς (a murderer from the beginning, John 8:44), become indigenous in the history of man, and of the world, and rule in a thousand forms.” Delitzsch. 10. The death of Abel; the second powerful proof of the prophetic significance of his bloody offering. Abel appears as the special prophet and mediator of the peculiar idea of the Old Testament revelation, or as the one who introduces into the world the typical sacrifice—that is, the symbolical representation of a yielding up of the individual will and life to God through death, in order to the taking away the separation between God and man; and which representation (as it unfolds) must over become more and more the type of the real propitiation as set forth in the New Testament. Therefore would Abel be justified by his act of faith, even as Abraham was (Hebrews 11:4); and to such an extent must the offering of Abel be referred back to a divine occasioning, or some divine institution. 11. The first murder of a brother proceeded from a strife concerning religion. It appears to be presupposed that Cain, in his sacrificial worship, had wilfully separated himself from Abel. This would be the first separation. The second is that his offering, whilst it appeared in a stinted form, remained throughout an unbloody sacrifice. Communion in the offering would have made it of richer value. The mark of servility, legality, joylessness, and an envious jealousy of his brother’s altar, appears quite prominent. Therefore it is, too, that he fails of the blessing, and the seal of the divine acceptance. The effect, however, is not repentance, but envy, fanaticism, hate, obduracy against God’s word, and, finally, the murder of his brother. The first war was a religious war. From thence have all the wars in the world’s history had their motive and their coloring. Even with the most modern wars religion has more to do than is commonly thought. The altar, the centre as it is of all holy sacrificial acts, is the centre also of all that is horrible in the history of the world; since it is the religious idea, in some form, that is the moving power of human history. 12. Already has the first-born lost his birthright, through a proud confidence in its prerogative, out of which is developed envy of his brother’s preference, and from this, again, in the course of its progress, scorn and hate. In this form goes the story through the history of the world, through the history of religion, of the church, and of the state. Thus, many a time does the prerogative of birth, which in itself and normally is a blessing, become transformed into a prerogative of hereditary sin and guilt (Matthew 3:9). 13. As chapter 3d presents to us the archetype of the genesis of sin, even to the evil act, so does chapter 4th give us the form of the genesis, and of the unfolding of obduracy. The commencing point is irreligiosity, that is, an offering worthless and hypocritical in its idea (Romans 1:21). The consequences that immediately follow are unfriendliness, envy, brotherly hate, rage, grudging, and moroseness. To this succeeds an impenitent demeanor towards the divine voice of warning, as shown in a wicked silence. Then comes the consummation of his evil behavior towards his brother. The first example of this was probably a mocking perversion of what God had said, into a presumptuous retort upon his brother; then the bold throwing off the mask in the murder itself, as it took place in the field, upon the boundaries of their respective callings. Now again, on God’s arraignment, his impudent, diabolical lying, and Titanic presumption, but which becomes, after the imposition of the penalty, a howling despair. Thus it is that while in his presumption, and in his despondency, he becomes an enemy of God, so is he also a foe of man; seeing that his disordered imagination peoples the world with human beings who stand to him on a footing of deadly hostility. When in this spirit he goes forth as a fugitive and a vagabond from the land of Eden to a land of solitary exile, and there builds a city, the main significance of it lies in its walls. It is a fortress to defend himself against any of Adam’s future children who may not belong to the Cainite race. 14. The judgment on Cain, a parallel to the first judgment, Genesis 3, just as the behavior of Cain is a counterpart, and a parallel, to the behavior of his parents. As a parallel it reminds us of the behavior of the serpent. “Clamitat ad c�lum vox sanguinis, etc.; it is like the old saying of the four heaven-crying sins. When the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that by means of his faith, Abel, though dead, yet speaketh (λαλεῖ), it must mean that the cry of his blood, regarded as still heard, is a proof that even after death he is still an object of the divine care, one still unforgotten, not lost—still living.” Delitzsch. At the same time is the cry of this martyr-blood the first signal of that voice, whether of the blood or of the spirit, which ever calls for God’s judgment, first upon Jerusalem (Matthew 23:15; comp. Genesis 2:18), and finally upon the whole world (Revelation 6:10). Only the call of the blood of Christ it is that transforms this judgment into a judgment of deliverance for all who shall receive salvation (Hebrews 12:24). 15. The chief points in the sentence against Cain. He is cursed from the ground. The very nature of the ground, so to speak, becomes an angel (or minister) of penal vengeance against the unnatural transgressor. He hath aroused it against him in its innermost nature, in forcing it to drink his brother’s blood. Henceforth will earth deny to him its fruits. Where the murderer perpetrated the murder, the grass grows no more. The fratricide makes the ground the place of judgment. The war desolates the land. The curse proper, however, lies on the conscience itself. His heavy consciousness of guilt, incapable of being healed, and in its deceit, its presumption, and its despondency, driven to despair, must make him a fugitive and a vagabond upon the earth. He is banished beyond any protecting enclosure, from every place of rest; and though he may surround himself with walls as high as heaven, he is still a banished Azazel (Leviticus 16:22)—the prince of exiles. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD SECTIONAdam and Seth.—The Sethites or Macrobii (the long-lived).—The living Worship and the Blessing of the Life-renewing in the Line of the Sons of God Genesis 5:1-32 (compare 1 Chronicles 1:1-4)1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. 2Male and female created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam [man] in the day when they were created. 3And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth [fixed, compensation]. 4And the days of Adam after Hebrews 5 had begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. 6And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enosh [man, weak man]. 7And Seth lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred and seven years and begat sons and daughters. 8 9And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died. And 10Enosh lived ninety years and begat Cainan [gain, gainful, industrious]. And Enosh lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters. 11And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years; and he died. 12And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel [renown, praise of God]. 13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters. 14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and hedied. 15And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years and begat Jared [descent, one descending]. 16And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 17And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years; and he died. 18And Jared lived a hundred and sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch [the devoted, mysterious]. 19And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 20And all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty and two years; and he died. 21And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah [Gesenius: man of the arrow; First: man of war; Delitzsch: man of growth]. 22And Enoch walked with God [lived in communion with God] after he begat Methuselah three hundred years and begat sons and daughters. 23And all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty and five years. 24And Enoch walked with God and he was not 25[disappeared suddenly], for God took him. And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech [the strong young man, or hero]. 26And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. 27And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty and nine years; and he died. 28And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years and begat a son. 29And he called his name Noah [rest, rest-bringer], saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed. 30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah, five hundred ninety and five years and begat sons and daughters. 31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years; and he died. 32And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begat Shem [name, preserver of the name] and Ham [heat, from ηξν] and Japheth [wide-spreading, room-making, from τϊδ]. AND 1. The line of Seth, as the line of the pious worshippers of God, is carried on to Noah, with whom the first humanity from the stem of Seth, now purified in the flood, passes over to a new age: so that the name Seth, as in verification of Eve’s maternal prophecy, becomes established in contrast with Abel the mere breath of life, and the line of Cain drowned in the flood. The question may be asked, Why is not the superscription placed before the 25th verse of the fourth chapter? The documentary hypothesis answers: it is because here again the Elohim document takes up the history. We let that question rest, though here verse 29th, with its name Jehovah, does not have the look of an interpolation. It must be remarked, nevertheless, that in the preceding section it was necessary for Seth to appear as the representative of Abel. But here again begins the history of Seth as the history of Adam himself; since only through Seth does Adam live on beyond the flood, and even to the world’s end. In respect to its inner nature, therefore, is the section Elohistic; that is, it presents the universal grounding of the whole human race, not merely that of the line of Shem or of the theocracy of Abraham. Knobel represents the section according to the documentary hypothesis: “The Elohist ranges the genealogical table of Adam immediately after the account of creation, Genesis 1 (?), and connects with it directly his history of the flood, Genesis 6:9, etc.; it forms, consequently, an essential part of his work, without which it would have had a hiatus (rather with it, we may add). From the same author who concerned himself with the connected genealogies and chronologies, as being predominantly Elohistic, whilst the Jehovist took little notice of them, originated also the other genealogical tables and chronological series that are introduced in their order throughout the Pentateuch.” The section before us, in its entire contents, evidently presupposes Genesis 2, 3. There is special proof of this in verses 3, 24, and 29, as also in the constant refrain: and he died. 2. Genesis 5:1. The book of the generation of Adam.—The genealogies of Adam become permanent and continuous alone through Seth. 3. Genesis 5:2. In the likeness of God.—This is expressed here by α, not by λ, as in Genesis 1. It means, when He created him He made him in the likeness, etc.; that is, the divine ideal form was the model of his making,—or of the finishing of his human form in distinction from its creation. The name man (Adam) is ascribed here in common to both man and woman. The creation in the divine image is repeated, because the line of God’s sons is grounded on its divine origin (see Luke 3:38). 4. Genesis 5:3. Seth.—For the significance of the name in relation to the names of the Cainitic line, see the preceding section. Of Seth it is said, He begat him in his own likeness, after his image. That is, as his image, Seth was similar to him, indeed, but not identically like; he was distinguished from him individually, he was like him in his Adamic nature. And this is said, doubtless, with a consciousness of Adam’s fallen state, although in the ground ideas of this fifth chapter the nature of Adam as made in the divine image, and its pious direction, are still made prominent. Even if the names further on denote, in the average probability, the first-born of the genealogies (although this does not always hold good, as is shown by the examples of Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, etc.), yet it does not follow that Seth also is to be regarded here as a first-born; just as little as the three sons of Noah, taken together, can be thus regarded. Seth has become the spiritual first-born of the Adamitic house; he is the continuance of the line of Adam in its pious direction, and in its historical duration. 5. Genesis 5:4. The ages of the Patriarchs who lived before the flood are individually stated in the following manner: 1. Adam 930 years, 2. Seth 912 years, 3. Enosh 905 years, 4. Cainan 910 years, 5. Mahalaleel 895 years, 6. Jared 962 years, 7. Enoch 365 years, then translated, 8. Methuselah 969 years, 9. Lamech 777 years, 10. Noah, before the flood, 600 years (Genesis 7:6), in the whole 950 years (Genesis 9:29). In relation to the dates, the following things are to be remarked. Adam Isaiah 130 years old at the begetting of Seth, whom Cain and Abel naturally preceded. Seth begets Enosh when 105 years old. Enosh is presented to us as a father at the age of 90 years, Cainan 70 years, Mahalaleel 65 years, Jared 162 years, Enoch 65 years, Methuselah 187 years, Lamech 182 years, Noah even 500 years. Since, moreover, there is mentioned in each case the begetting if other sons and daughters, it becomes very questionable whether we are to understand all these genealogical heads as being first-born. The numbers, as given, do, indeed, indicate late marriages having proportion to the length of life. That, however, no ascetic idea is necessarily bound up in this, is shown by the case of Enoch, who with Mahalaleel had a son the earliest of all the patriarchs. Even between he repeated mention, moreover, that he walked with God, it is said that he begat sons and daughters. The age 65, as a year for begetting, is also worthy of note, as showing to be impossible every attempt to reduce these patriarchal years to shorter sections of time. This numbering of their years is of richest significance. It expresses clearly the blessing of longevity as emphatically exhibited through the Sethic piety; it is the history of the devout Macrobii, or long-livers of the primitive time. In Enoch the line reaches the highest point of its life-renovation; since in him the peculiar death-form falls away; he departs without dying, and by a divine translation. In Methuselah this grand march of life reaches its extreme longevity in this world. The line then sinks down in Lamech, as is indicated by his sighing over the labor and pain that comes from the curse-ladened earth. The whole line, in its apparent monotony, is a most lively expression of a powerful strife of life with death, of the blessing with the curse. They advance far in years, these pious sons of God; the numbers reach a high figure, but ever again there comes that tragic word εַ ?ιָּ ?ξֹ ?ϊ: and he died. Once, and only once, is there reached the silver glance of the life-renewing, and of that life-transformation without death, which comes up to the original form. This is in the life of Enoch, the seventh patriarch. It must be observed, in accordance with what is implied in the following chapter, that the line of Seth, in its development, suffers a gradual disturbance, which does not permit it to reach the ideal aim,—a fact which seems to be indicated by this name Methuselah, and the sighs of Lamech. When in respect to this long life-endurance, we add the consideration of the enormous breaking up that was suddenly occasioned by the flood, it must not be overlooked that Noah, although already six hundred years old when the flood took place, survived its storms three hundred and fifty years. Two main difficulties are objected to the foregoing statement: 1. the length of life; 2. the authenticity of the chronology. “The highest possible age,” says Valentine (“Compendium of Physiology,” 2. p. 894), “appears to be from about 150 to 160 years; and in fact, none of the highest ages which men are known to have reached attain the height of 200 years (Pritchard’s ‘Natural History of the Human Race’). It cannot be shown that men after the flood differed in any remarkable manner from those who lived before. In Genesis 11:10, moreover, the narrator represents some as attaining, even after the flood, to the age of 40 or 600 years.” Knobel. Special treatises on the preceding question are contained in the writing of De Lapasse: Essai sur la conservation de la vie, Paris, Masson, 1860. In general, there is no deciding this question by any appeal to strong constitutions, simple modes of life, uuweakened powers of life, &c. First of all, do both extremes of humanity need to be settled according to the Scriptures and the christological ideas; and, in fact, in correspondence with the middle point of humanity. The truth of Christ’s resurrection, not as a return out of death to the life of this world, but as a transition from the first form of human life into a second imperishable form, casts light as well upon the paradisaical beginning as upon the eschatological end of humanity. It testifies to an ideal capability for the preservation of life even to the point of a death-like, yet not deathly transformation into the incorruptible. To this testifies also, in symbolical form, the paradisaical tree of life, as well as, in its dogmatic acceptance, the words of Paul concerning the longing “to be clothed upon” (2 Corinthians 5:1-5) that lies in the depths of human nature (compare Lange’s Miscellaneous Writings, ii. p. 232). So also what he says of Christ as the life-giving spirit of man from heaven, and of the transformation that awaits those who live long at the world’s end (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Corinthians 15:51). The christological idea that lies at the foundation is this: As the historical death, the death of corruption, in its gradual course first breaks through from the spiritual sphere of sin into the province of the soul, and from the province of the soul into the corporeity, so also does the healing of the new life make its passage; first in renewing the spirit-life, then the life of the soul, and finally becoming visible in the restoration of a new corporeal capacity for transformation at the world’s end. Thus the decreasing longevity of the primitive time furnishes the contrast to the increasing longevity at the end of the world (see also Isaiah 65). But it was not only through the original power of a corporeity not yet wholly shattered that the death of the Sethites was retarded; it was also kept back through the progress of life in the Jehovah-faith of the Sethites, as it culminated in Enoch, and had, therefore, already, as its consequence, a typically prophetic pre-representation of the transformation and the resurrection in his mysterious taking. The difficulty which is found in the supposition of such long life in the Sethites, has given rise to various hypotheses. Some have supposed that along with the patriarchs named their races and peoples are meant to be included; Rosenmόller, Friedreich, and others, think that from these orally transmitted genealogies, many names had fallen out; Hensler holds that the expression ωָׁ ?πָ ?δ (year) denotes among the patriarchs lesser spaces of time, namely, three months, till the time of Abraham, thence to the time of Joseph eight months, and afterwards, for the first time, twelve. Raske: from Adam to Noah the year was equal to one month. See against this, Knobel, p. 68 ff. To the first supposition is opposed the definite characterizing of single persons; to the second the fact that in the same manner the son always follows the father; to the third the constant signification of the year as tropical, periodical. “No shorter year than the period of a year’s time have the Hebrews ever had. Against any shortening of the ωׁ ?πδ stands the fact that in that case some of the patriarchs must have begotten children at an age in which they were not capable.” Knobel. By him and many of the moderns it is explained as a mythical conception, with reference to the old representation that in the more happy primitive period, men lived longer, but were ever becoming weaker and of shorter life. “This representation (of the brevity of life) presents itself very clearly in the Old Testament. In the historical time a man among the Hebrews became 70 or 80 years old (Psalms 90:10); in the Mosaic and patriarchal time, when there meet us statements of 100, 120, 123, 133, 137, 147, 175, and 180 years, man reached an age between 100 and 200 years; for the time of Abraham, and thence up to Noah, the dates maintain themselves, with one exception, between 200 and 600 years (Genesis 11:10-32): whilst in the time from Noah to Adam (there too with one exception) they are between 700 and 1000 years. According to the Hebrew belief therefore, in respect to the duration of human life, it became worse with men in the course of the times. Thence the hope in a restoration of the old longevity in the Messianic time (Isaiah 65:20; Isaiah 25:8). So also the rest of antiquity assumed a greater length of life for the oldest time, and Josephus (Antiq. i. 3, 9) names Manetho, Berosus, Moschus, Hestiζus, Hieronymus, Hesiod, &c., as giving accounts similar to that of Genesis.” In the number ten of the patriarchs, there is, in truth, a symbolical significancy (the Chaldeans, too, according to Berosus, number ten antediluvian patriarchs), but a symbolical number is not on that account a mythical number, and under the mythical point of view Knobel does not know what to do with the unlike and uneven numbers. Concerning the chronological treatises that relate to our section, namely the assumed rectification of the Bible chronology through the Ζgyptian, compare Delitzsch, p. 220 ff. For the motives which lie at the ground of the chronological changes of our text in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, or their deviations (as well Genesis 11 as Genesis 5, compare Knobel, p. 70) the reader is referred to Keil, p. 76. According to our chronology, from the creation to the flood there were 1656 years, according to the Samaritan text 1307 years, and according to the Septuagint 2242 years. The time after the flood until Abraham was, according to the Hebrew text 365 years, according to the Samaritan 1015, according to the Septuagint 1245. “The translation of Enoch falls nearly in the middle point of years from Adam to the flood,—that is, in the year 987 after the creation of Adam. At that time Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Jared, were still living, as there was also living his son Methuselah, and his grandson Lamech, then 113 years old; Noah only was not yet born, and Adam of all the line was the only one dead.” Keil. We will remark in general, in relation to our treatment of the chronology in the Introduction, that the genealogical chronology throughout corresponds to the fundamental biblical ideas, or to that significance of personality which determines everything as actual fact. In their experience, however, of the way in which the blessing of piety advanced their length of life, the Macrobii must have found a special warning to number their days, and in the unsymbolical form of the numbers it was easier to admit misreckonings in single cases than any arbitrariness in respect to the whole. In consideration of the extraordinary impression which the year-period must have made upon the first men of our race, in consideration of its symbolical dying and living again with nature, as well in the change [in the length] of day and night, as in that of summer and winter, they could have had, in general, no occasion or inducement to learn the reckoning of numbers more vivid than that which was furnished by these annual vicissitudes. 6. Genesis 5:1. This is the book.—“ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψ means any finished writing, whether it consists of only one pair of leaves, or even of a single one; as, for example, the book (or bill) of divorce, Deuteronomy 24.” Delitzsch.—The generations of Adam.—The nearest bound to this book of the generations of Adam, is the genealogical register of Noah. In a wider sense, then, does this register of Adam go on in the genealogical register of Noah (Genesis 10) and in the genealogical register of Shem (Genesis 10), even to Abraham. After that it goes on through the whole Old Testament, until it becomes the genealogical register of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1). 7. Genesis 5:4. And Adam lived.—“The narrator reckons the years of each forefather unto the begetting of his first-born, who carries on the main line, then the remainder of his life, and after that he reckons both periods together, so as to give the whole length of his life and name.” Delitzsch.—Begat in his likeness.—Adam bore the image of God. Seth bore the image of Adam: 1. according to its disposition in respect to the image of God; 2. according to the measure of its deformity by sin; 3. according to the hereditary blessing of his piety. “In that primitive time the births did not rapidly follow each other—a fact which had not a physical, but only an ethical ground,” says Delitzsch. There is, however, a physical cause, since in exact correspondence with the increasing degeneracy and rankness of human life, is there, in a literal sense, the increase of a numerous and wretched offspring. 8. Genesis 5:5. And he died.—Baumgarten: “In its constant return does this expression εַ ?ιָּ ?ξֹ ?ϊ prove the dominion of death, from Adam onward, as an immutable law (Romans 5:14). Still, on this dark background of a conquering death shows still more clearly the power of life. For man dies when ne has already propagated anew the life, so that in the midst of the death of the individual members, the life of the race holds on, and the hope grows stronger and stronger in the seed that is to conquer the author of death.” The unceasing refrain, and he died, denotes here also the limit of the long and elevated line of life that seems to be ever mounting towards heaven, but ever breaks off in the end,—with the exception of Enoch. And so we get a clear view of the battle of life with death. 9. Genesis 5:22-27. And Enoch walked with God.—This expression, which occurs once more in respect to Noah, Genesis 6:9, is afterwards enlarged. It becomes (Genesis 17:1; Genesis 24:40), “to walk before the face of God,”—“to follow Jehovah,” Deuteronomy 13:5—and similarly, Malachi 2:6, it occurs in respect to the priest. It denotes the most intimate intercourse with God, or, so to speak, a permanent view of a present deity, a continual following after His guidance. The word occurs here twice. In its first usage it denotes the character of his life, and gives assurance of the perseverance and soundness of his piety; he walked with God three hundred years, he begat sons and daughters. In the second, it gives confirmation of the wonderful translation of Enoch. According to the Jewish tradition, Enoch had, in all probability, borne witness against the Cainitic antinomists of his day, and had announced to them the judgment which came with the flood. From this Jewish tradition the book of Enoch and the epistle of Jude took in common (Dillmann, Buch Henoch); for there is no necessity of referring the place in Jude to the apocryphal book, since the apostles, as is well known, have cited popular traditions in other places, although even Delitzsch seems to connect the epistle with apocryphal story. With this prediction, and in correspondence with fundamental biblical principles, does the epistle of Jude make him the type of the prophetic testimony against that anti-Christian Antinomianism of the New Testament day, which is comprehended in its unity as “the last time,” and also a typical prophet of the last day itself. The translation of Enoch has two sides. εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πּ ?εּ means, in the first place: he was no longer there, he had disappeared (Genesis 42:13; Genesis 42:36). Thereby is it indicated that his people had missed him, as the sons of the prophets missed Elijah when he was taken away (2 Kings 2:16, etc.). Luther has pictured in a most vivid manner this missing of Enoch, as reflecting itself in the case of Jesus in His death, and on Easter morning. According to Luther, they had some thought that he had perished, had probably been slain by the Cainites, and then received a special revelation concerning his taking away.—God took him.—This word μχη is also used in the taking up of Elijah (2 Kings 2:9-10; Psalms 73:24; Psalms 49:16). A death so early in a line of men for whom life was a blessing, could only be regarded, in this connection, as a punishment. It would seem to make Enoch of least worth among the patriarchs, whereas, on the contrary, he was the most eminent. It is clear, therefore, that there is narrated here a transition which did not go through the form of death. The Christian tradition (Hebrews 11:5), as well as the Jewish (Sir 44:15; Sir 49:16), hold fast the unmistakable sense of the text, in which here, in place of the ever-returning “and he died,” there comes in that other expression, “for God took him.” It is also confirmed by the analogous representations of the Bible (Elijah, Christ, the transformed, 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 15:51). But whither? and to what state was Enoch translated? Delitzsch: “To a closer nearness with God, with whom he had hitherto walked; not that he became a partaker of that glorification which awaits the justified in the resurrection; for in this glorification Christ is the first fruits.” On the contrary, Keil: “Not in the glorification is Christ the first fruits according to 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23, but in the resurrection.” By a transformation, of by a clothing upon, were Enoch and Elijah translated into everlasting life with God. We must distinguish, however, between the transformation and the glorification, between the heavenly region of the pious, that is, Paradise, and the perfect heaven of Christ. “His 365th year of life corresponds probably to our 33d,” remark Delitzsch and Knobel: “Enoch lived as many years as the year has days.” In respect to the legendary parallels in the extra biblical antiquity, comp. Knobel, p. 72; in which it is clear that we must distinguish the biblical tradition from the kindred stories. According to Knobel the motive for the translation was probably to rescue Enoch from the age in which he lived,—with relation to Genesis 4:10. Beyond a doubt, however, the main reason was the fact that he had become personally ripe for transformation, and that through his faith there might be introduced into this world the faith in a new life in the world beyond (Hebrews 11:5-6). If we would seek farther, we must compare the translations that follow in sacred history. Elijah is translated because his consistent legalism must become a judgment of fire, and a Last Day for the apostate Israel; Christ is translated, because His staying longer in this world must have come to a sudden conflict of life and death with the old world,—that is, must have had for its consequence the Last Day; the believers at the end of the world are translated, because now the Last Day has actually appeared. Judging from these analogies, we may conjecture that the translation of Enoch denoted a decided turning-point in the life of the old world. At all events, he had not in vain announced the day of judgment before his departure. At this time, it is probable, there was the beginning of the corrupt alliances between the Sethites and the Cainites. It is the probable middle time between Adam and the flood. The Jewish and Arabian fables, according to which Enoch is said to have discovered the art of writing and book-making, together with arithmetic and astronomy, must rest, for the most part, on his name, ηπικ, from ηπκ (to initiate, educate), and upon the astronomical significance of the number 365. 10. Genesis 5:27. Methuselah.—The highest age, 969 years. 11. Genesis 5:28. Lamech.—“At so great an age did these pious forefathers, who had renounced the self-created worldly lust, confess their experience of the burden and painfulness of life, in all its gravity and in all its extent; and it is easily explained how it is that the history of the Sethites closes with language of such a different sound from that of the Cainites. Lamech the Cainite is full of an evil drunken confidence. Lamech the Sethite, on the contrary, is filled with the most extreme dejection in respect to the present, and has no other joy than in the promise of the future.” Delitzsch. The name πֹ ?ηַ, which he gives to his son, is put in relation to πην, from which it does not follow that this relation is etymologically significant. The confident hope of the wearied is ever some bringer of rest. Without doubt does the life-labor and toil of the Sethites stand in relation to the pride of the Cainites, even as it forms a contrast to their confident and false security. It is this pride which has power to trouble their life more than the unfruitfulness of the earth. In respect to Lamech’s language in which he greets Noah as the bringer of rest, Luther remarks: Sicut Heva fallitur, ita quoque desiderio restitutionis mundi fallitur ctiam bonus Lamech. Still is he mistaken in supposing that Noah was to bring in the closing sabbath of humanity; that there came with him a great reckoning, and a preliminary new world, he correctly anticipated. 12. Genesis 5:32. And he begat Shem.—Ranke: “The naming of the three sons of Noah leads us to expect that whilst hitherto the line has moved on ever through only one member, in the farther course of time all three of Noah’s sons must simultaneously lay the foundations of a new beginning.” “The order of the ages of Noah’s sons is Shem, Japheth, Ham (see Genesis 10:21). In the enumeration, however, Japheth ever stands last, because his name of two syllables makes the best close in the collective arrangement.” Knobel. The series of the three sons, however, in regard to their age, makes a difficulty in relation to Genesis 10:21. (See Keil, p. 104.) According to the passage before us, Noah begat Shem first when he was 500 years old. According to Genesis 7:6, he was 600 years old when the flood came. According to Genesis 11:10, Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood. Either then must we here regard the 100 years of Shem as a round number, or the word βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, Genesis 10:21, must relate to Japheth, as Michaelis and others think. On the contrary, see the remarks of Knobel, p. 120, and of Keil, p. 104. Keil, however, would take δχθο as merely a comparative designation of Ham, Genesis 9:24 : the younger instead of the youngest; so that the series Shem, Ham, Japheth, would be the actual order of their ages. This consequence does not appear to be confirmed by the βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ of Genesis 10:21, since δχθο expressly refers to Noah in connection with αְּ ?πεֹ, a position that fails in respect to βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, in Genesis 10:21. Assuming it as not grounded on the analogue of the theocratic history, that the physical first-born must always be the spiritual first-born, it would remain doubtful whether, in the passage before us, Shem was not placed first on the ground of worth. [Note on the Translation of Enoch, and the earliest ideas of Death among the Primitive Men.—ιְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πּ ?εּ λִּ ?ιμָ ?χַ ?ηΰֹ ?ϊεֹ ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν. A right understanding of this remarkable language respecting Enoch, depends upon our getting the right standpoint from which to determine the earliest notion that man must have had of death. This could hardly have been the modern idea, either in its materializing, or in its more spiritual, aspect. That is, it was not, on the one hand, a cessation of being, nor was it, on the other, any distinctly formed thought of a separation of two things, soul and body, one of which no longer pertained to the man, or the selfhood, and the other passed off to a wholly separate and immaterial existence. God had not defined to them the nature of this fearful doom, and experience showed them nothing but the fact of an awful outward change on the once moving and active personality. It had not ceased to be, though now it was motionless and ghastly. They could not regard it as a fallen tree, or a slain animal, not from any metaphysical or physiological distinction, but from the strong feeling of social personality which they had ever connected with the living man, and which they could not get rid of. This was the germ, the God-implanted germ, we may say, of the idea of a continuous being, or a future life, as we find it in the earliest parts and throughout the Old Testament. To this they held on even against appearances, against the sense we may say, or any reasoning from sense, even as it is yet found among the rudest and simplest nations,—the very antagonisms it has had to encounter from the outer phenomenal world only showing the strength and the indestructibility of the sentiment. This one personality had not wholly vanished, though what had once appeared as a human form they now saw undergoing a rapid and fearful transformation. Death presented itself in contrast with that moving outward thing they called life, but it was not necessarily a breach of all continuity, or an utter extinction of all selfhood, with its rights and claims, as in the case of Abel’s complaining blood. The self, the man was there, but he was dead, or in the state of being they called death. Or he was still somewhere near, in what connection with the body, or with themselves, they could not imagine. They gazed in astonishment at this wonderful phenomenon, but they did not reason about it, or draw nice distinctions. They had no data from which to draw them. It was the dread penalty of which they had heard from their progenitors, and that was all they knew about it. Of its extent, or its consequences, or of any recovery from it, they had little or no conception. Death was not to them, as it has come to be regarded in our thinking, a single terminating event, but a state, a state of being, very strange indeed, but still real and actual. They did not separate it into death (the act of dying) and something after death. All earliest language is grounded on the idea of such after state as a going on, or linked identity; but they did not distinguish between it and its incipiency. Hence, among all ancient people, the great care for funeral rites, not merely in memory of, but as something due to a still continued being, and as essential to its quietude. It was not the idea of resurrection, as some have thought, that made this so ancient and so universal, but the ineradicable feeling of a personality, or selfhood, as somehow inhering in the poor remains, whether embalmed with costliest spices, or buried in the bosom of their mother earth, or purified and so preserved by fire. There is a selfhood in the body; Paul affirms it strongly of the sleeping Christian remains; there is something sacred in the human dust; it is not like other matter, though sown in corruption; we may thank God that the feeling still lingers in our souls, in spite of that contempt for the body which is sometimes manifested by a reckless science on the one hand, or a hyper-spiritual philosophy on the other. It is very important to bear in mind, that to the early view there could be no distinctions such as we now make. It was all death, whatever it might include, as opposed to acting, moving being; and when very early there arose the thought of a dwelling in the earth (as an underworld), of a Sheol or cavity, of a Hades or the Unseen—all arising from the act of burying or putting out of sight—this was not a state succeeding death, but the very world of the dead, the αֵּ ?ιϊςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, the House of Olam (Ecclesiastes 12:5), the House of Eternity, not as a figure for nonexistence, but as real continuous being, though in striking contrast with the busy, knowing (sense-knowing), remembering, loving, hating, upper life “beneath the sun” (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6). Superstition held that there was some mode of intercourse with these ωελπιςτψ, or dwellers in Sheol. There is little said about them in the Hebrew Scriptures, for there was little known that could be said; but there is an undercurrent of thought and feeling throughout the Old Testament which shows that they are never forgotten. They were dead, but still in being; they had not perished (per-iit, inter-iit, gone through, fallen out), become extinct, ceased to be. Hence they called them the ψְ ?τָ ?ΰִ ?ιν, the weak, the weary, the inactive, as the Homeric and the ante-Homeric Greek called them οἱκάμοντες, and ἀμενηνὰκάρηνα. In all this there was great logical inconsistency, bewilderment of conception, contradiction even of the sense, so far as the phenomenal body was concerned, but it was a holding fast of that idea of continuous being, in some way, which was from the beginning, and which the human mind never gave up until Christ came and poured light upon this dark Sheol, this gloomy Hades, or world of the unseen. The imagery everywhere was drawn, mainly from the last appearances in life, or from the associations of sepulchral acts, but the real underlying idea was never lost. Very early a better hope dawned upon the pious, or it came as a revelation from God, born in the travail of their earth-weary, rest-seeking souls, but it was mainly of a deliverance at some time from Sheol, or of blessedness therein as lying under the shadow of the divine protection. It was, however, still death, doom, μοῖρα, the great penalty, an idea expressed somehow in the most ancient tongues, Shemitic or Japhetic, with which we are acquainted. It was the great wrath for whose turning the pious dead are represented as waiting; as Job prays, “O that thou wouldst hide me in Sheol until thy wrath be past, ςַ ?γωׁ ?εּ ?αΰַ ?τֶּ ?κָ (until thy wrath turn), that thou wouldst appoint me a time and then remember me” (Job 14:13). From such a doom Enoch was spared. No grave received him. He disappeared from earth. He was not found, as the LXX. have rendered ΰιππε, and as it is given in Hebrews 11:5; that is, his body was not found, though men, doubtless, made long search for him, as they did afterwards for the body of Elijah (2 Kings 2:16-17). Enoch may be said to have shared in the great penalty in so far that for 365 years he bore a dying and corruptible body, and yet it is testified of him that he did not see death, Hebrews 11:5, that is, he did not enter into Hades, which is the real death, although the change that his body must have undergone in the translation was greater than that which passes upon the dissolving human frame. See the clear remarks of Dr. Murphy on ΰιππε, in his excellent Commentary on Genesis. Dr. Lange has well distinguished between this Old Testament belief of a future life, or rather of continuous being, and the ζωὴαἰώνιος, the eternal life, revealed by Christ. Great confusion arises from confounding the two, and the distinction becomes of great importance in refuting the reasoning of those who teach the annihilation of the wicked. The word μχη here, though a common one, is to be noted as used in a strikingly similar connection in the account of Elijah (2 Kings 2:9, ΰֶ ?μָּ ?χַ ?η), Psalms 49:15, “God shall redeem my soul from Sheol, for He shall take me,” ιִ ?χָּ ?ηֵ ?πִ ?ι, and Psalms 73:24 : “Thou wilt guide me by thy counsel, and afterwards take me (to) glory.” It is worthy of note, too, how exactly in Psalms 73:24 the Hebrew ΰַ ?ηַ ?ψ corresponds to the use of the cognate Arabic ΗΦΙ (Heb. ΰַ ?δֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊNumbers 23:10 et al.), the frequent Koranic and ante-Mohammedan word for the after or future life. In these two passages from the Psalms, μχη may not denote the hope of a translation, yet the similarity of context, which strongly seems to be suggested by the passage in Genesis, takes them clearly out of the Rationalist’s limitation to a mere worldly deliverance.—T. L.] AND ETHICAL1. Concerning the line of Seth, see the Exegetical annotations, No. 1. 2. Concerning the meaning of the image of Adam, see the Exegetical annotations, No. 3; as also for the significance of the names that here occur, No. 4. 3. Concerning the Macrobii, or the long-lived of the primitive time, see Exegetical annotations, No. 5. It ought to be considered that not only had death, as yet, failed to make his full breach upon them, but that, on the other hand, through their inward intercourse with God, their life-power had been wonderfully advanced in the opposite direction of the transformation form. Concerning the chronology, see No. 5. 4. For the meaning of Enoch, see No. 7, Exegetical annotations. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, is a very ancient witness: 1. For the degrees of piety; 2. for the truth of the mystical or the mysterious core of religion, communion with God; 3. for that assurance of eternal life that wells out of a life of faith and peace in God. In this is he, in a special sense, a type of the life of Christ: 1. His divine human walk; 2. his glorification and translation to heaven. Concerning the language of Lamech, see No. 8. 5. For the meaning of Noah, see the extracts from Starke below. According to Hebrews 11:7, Enoch is the mediator of the idea of a revelation of deliverance, or of salvation from judgment. 6. A main point of view of the Holy Scriptures and of the religion of revelation, is the significance of the personal life. This presents itself in the genealogies as they stand in their simple grandeur even to this day. It is like the granite of the earth in a highland landscape. 7. Enoch, Elijah, Christ, three stages in the unfolding of the facts of the world beyond, of the higher life of the world beyond, of its region of glory, and of the wonderful transition to it, as well as of the belief in those facts. In Christ the perfection of what is here prefigured. 8. Noah and his house a figure of the pious of the last time (Matthew 24:34). AND The race of Adam, according to the ground-features of its life: 1. Birth; 2. marriage and the family; 3. death.—The constant repetition, and he died, a powerful memento mori. [Through this constant refrain, and he died, the reading of this chapter is said to have awakened men to repentance.]—Adam, through Seth and Noah, the ancestor of the human race: 1. In the continuance of the divine vocation; 2. of sinfulness, pain, and labor upon the earth; 3. of strife with sin: Seth, Enoch, Lamech, Noah; 4. of the prospect of the future of the perfected Seth (meaning compensation and established), of the perfected Enoch (devoted), of the perfected Noah (rest-bringer).—The conflict of life with death in the line of the Sethites: 1. How it holds back death through the blessing of piety (the long-living); 2. how it ever opposes to death new generations (and he begat sons and daughters); 3. how it finds a way of life beyond death (Enoch).—Seth as the again-risen Abel.—The time of Enosh, that is, of the feeling of human weakness, as a time of the first glorifying of the divine power and covenant faithfulness.—The names of the Sethites (see above).—Enoch the mediator of the faith of a new life in the world beyond (Hebrews 11:5-6), on the ground of the experience of the divine complacency (justification in its first form), through faith, that is, in the unfolding of his communion with God, and in the bearing of his prophetic testimony against ungodliness (Jude).—Enoch’s walk with God and his blessing.—The long life of Enoch and the long life of Methuselah.—Enoch the wonderful height in the experience of the blessing, in the race of the blessing.—Enoch a turning-point in the primeval history, as Elijah in the history of Israel, and as the ascension to heaven of Christ in the history of the human race generally.—The history of Enoch the first germ of the doctrine of a heavenly inheritance.—Enoch as a type of Christ.—The Cainitic Lamech and the Sethitic Lamech.—Lamech’s word of confidence in respect to Noah, 1. a delusion, and yet, 2. no delusion.—The line of the Sethites and the line of the Cainites: 1. Worldliness; spirituality; 2. pride and confidence; sorrow and patience; 3. an end, with terror; a newer, fairer beginning of life.—Noah as a type of Christ.—Adam the ancestor of two lines: a pious and a godless.—Noah the ancestor of three lines: a line of faith and worship, a line of human culture, and a line of sensual barbarity. Starke: It is this genealogical record that has been preserved by God’s wonderful care, and is to be found, 1 Chronicles 1, Matthew 1, Luke 3.—Cramer: There has always been a church of God, and will remain even to the last day (Matthew 16:18). The evangelical religion is the oldest and the truest of all. Genesis 5:3. All men are by nature children of wrath, and stained with the hereditary sin (Ephesians 2:3).—Long life is also from God; well for him who seeks to apply it to his honor.—Osiander: We have lived long enough when we know how to learn Christ. Genesis 5:5. It is an old covenant: thou, O man, must die (Sir 14:18).—Cainan. He had (like Enoch) seen all the patriarchs.—The example of Enoch is a glorious proof that the marriage state can and ought to be holily maintained.—Whether now children and babes enjoy any such intimate intercourse with God, there are still degrees herein, so that husbands and fathers in Christ have thereby a much closer communion with God. Jewish, as well as some old patristic and papistical interpreters say, that he (Enoch) was carried into the earthly paradise, where he will remain to the end of the world, when he will come back and be slain by Antichrist, and thereupon rise again and be taken up into heaven. We may readily see, however, what a mere fable this is. Rather has he been taken up into this heavenly paradise (Luke 23:43).—Aim of Enoch’s translation: 1. Thereby was the doctrine that the good man was rewarded in a future life established as against the prevalent security of that day; 2. thereby, in the seventh from Adam, was there given a pattern which even to the time of the seventh trumpet should serve as an example to believers whom the day of Christ might find alive; 3. thereby Enoch was set before us as a type of Christ in his ascension. (Then follows a comparison of the translation of Enoch with the ascension of Christ.)—Methuselah. No one of the patriarchs reached a thousand years, for that number is a type of the perfection to which no man in this life can attain.—He died in the year 1656, and, therefore, in the year in which the flood broke in upon the world.—Noah (Luke 3:36; 1 Peter 3:20; Hebrews 11:7). Noah is a glorious type of Christ: 1. In respect to his name: Noah signifies rest and peace, or consolation and comforting; so is Christ, too, our Prince of peace, who makes for us peace and tranquillity (Isaiah 9:6; Romans 5:1; Jeremiah 6:16). 2. According to his threefold office: Noah was a prophet (2 Peter 2:5), and announced many years beforehand the destruction of the first world and its sons, which was to befall them (Matthew 24:25). Noah was a priest, for he offered sacrifice; Christ has offered himself (Hebrews 7:27). Noah prayed for the wicked world (Ezekiel 14:14); so also is Christ our advocate (Romans 8:34; 1 John 2:1; Hebrews 5:7). Noah blessed Shem and Japheth; so also Christ (Mark 10:16). Noah was a king, the head of his family and of the new world, the builder of an ark at God’s command: Christ was king and head of his threefold kingdom, the builder of the church (Psalms 2:6).—The sons of Noah. They are not born in the order in which they here stand, but Japheth was the first-born (Genesis 10:21), Shem the middle son (Genesis 11:10), and Ham the youngest (Genesis 9:24). Schrφder: Genealogies may be called the threads on which history, chronology, and everything else in the first book of Moses moves. The Adamitic genealogical table, Genesis 5, throws a bridge between the fall and the flood. In the plan of Genesis, the eye of Moses is firmly directed to Israel. The object of this constantly keeping the eye upon Israel, has for its ground the placing, in the most visible manner, before the eyes of the latest descendants, Jehovah’s covenant faithfulness in the outer as well as inner preservation and assistance of the woman’s seed. On this account the genealogies of the Old Testament, and of Genesis especially, form a part not to be overlooked in the great history of the divine assumptions of humanity before the incarnation of God in Christ. Genesis 5:1-2. According to Luke 3:38, man stands in a genealogical relation to God; his descent loses itself in the divine hand of the Creator (Acts 17:28). Genesis 5:3-5. The significance of the time depends upon the significance of the person who is born, lives, and dies in it. The meaning of the time is nothing else than that there appears in it the birth and life of the human personality. To the mere dead number the coming man first gives life and content, and so too he first makes history.—Abel is murdered, Cain is cursed; and now Seth enters, a first birth, as it were, into history.—Val. Herberger: Adam and Eve may have wept long for the death of the pious Abel, and the wickedness of that wretched son Cain; but now God makes them to rejoice again in a pious child whom he presents to their eyes. Such vicissitudes of joy and sorrow befall all pious people. Be not, therefore, proud when it goes with thee according to thy heart’s wish; be not cast down though it may rain and snow crosses. God will again rejoice thee with a cheerful sunshine in thy long, wearisome domestic trouble.—Whether the rest of the patriarchs who followed were all first-born sons, is made doubtful by the case of Seth.—“From Adam onward to the patriarch Jacob, hath the Holy Spirit signified to us in what year each named ancestor, who propagated that line out of which Christ was to spring, begat that son who in turn was to become a specially-named ancestor in the course of descent.” Roos.—Seth’s genealogical register is the line of “the sons of God,” that is, of the true church. “With reverence and awe do I draw nigh to thee, O holy people who dwell under his shadow and before his presence, O thou light of the world, thou salt of the earth! Thou wast a chosen race, a patriarchal priesthood, to make known the virtues of Him who called thee.” Herder.—Luther: Eve, too, it is probable, lived to the eight hundredth year, and so must have seen a numerous race. How much care must she have had, how much industry, and labor, in visiting, dressing, and teaching, her children and her children’s children! The first oral fountain of oral and written traditions that have come down to us, could in this way maintain itself through the possibility of a personal converse between Lamech and Shem, between Shem and Abraham. The original undying destiny of the human race comes powerfully before us in the numbers of this genealogical register. That sharp appendage, and he died, forms a standing refrain of sorrow to the joyful picture of life that precedes.—Roos: So should the thought arise in us: I too must die, and after a shorter pilgrimage than that of these fathers; I too must watch. Genesis 5:6-20. Arabian stories concerning Seth and Jared, p. 111. Jared: an enigmatical name, out of which, however, as out of most of the Sethic names, there evidently enough breathes a tone of sorrow and of pain. Sharp contrast with the namings of the Cainites, which express might and pride. Genesis 5:21-23. Whilst the Enoch of Gen 4:17 bears upon himself the Cainitic consecration, and gives to the earthly his consecration (say rather receives it from the earthly), the Enoch of our chapter shows the consecration of God (Sir 44:15; Hebrews 11:5). The subjective side of patriarchalism is its faith, the objective the divine acceptance.—Luther: From this we take it that there was in Enoch a peculiar consolation of the Holy Spirit and an excellent and noble courage, so that with the highest confidence and boldness he bore himself against the church of Satan and the Cainites, in the presence of the other patriarchs. For to walk reverentially with God means not to roam in a desert, or to hide oneself in a corner, but to come forth according to his calling, and to bear himself bravely against the unrighteousness of Satan and the world. (In this, however, the question still remains, whether we are to think of Enoch as having the contemplative Johannean, or the zealous Petrine form; we may rather suppose the first than the second.)—Roos: We never find this mode of speech, to walk with God, after the giving of the law, but rather the terms perfect, upright. In the New Testament pious men are called holy (saints), and beloved of God. In this way there shines clearly before the eyes the difference of the divine economies, namely: before the law, and under the law, and under the grace of the New Testament. In respect to the language, to walk with God, it expresses the patriarchal piety in a very becoming and lovely manner. There were, at that day, no literally expressed prescriptions as to what ought to be done or left undone. God himself stood in place of all such prescriptions.—Hengstenberg: The main thing was that each should become a partaker of the life of God. When this took place, then had he eternal life, and the assurance of it in his consciousness. In all the Holy Scripture this term (translation) is used only of three persons: of Enoch in the old world, of Elijah in the old covenant, and of Christ in the new. The first is a “type of the second, and both are Old Testament figures” of the last.—Herder: The seventh from Adam cannot be without God in a world which scorns him; God forgot him not, but made him immortal and an everlasting monument of this divine truth.—Hengstenberg: Everything arbitrary must be far removed from a religion whose God is the unchangeable Jehovah; what God does in the case of one is, at the same time, a prediction of what he will do to all who occupy with him a like stand-point.—Baumgarten: When we confine our looks to the bare catalogue, we find, indeed, life followed close by death, but this opens up to us a series in which we see no close. But that this series has an actual conclusion, namely, the victory of life over death, is for the first time assured to us through the translation of Enoch.—Luther: So shines out, in the midst of this narration of the dead, like a fair and lovely star, the pleasing light of immortality. The old doctors of the church say: Abel confessed another life after death, for his blood cries out and is heard; Cain acknowledged another life before death, for he was afraid to die, and his soul foreboded that something more awaited him than this world’s unhappiness; Enoch confesses another life without death, for, out of this world’s misery, and without the pain of dying, he goes straight to everlasting life. In the Koran and among the Mohammedans Enoch bears the name of Edris. So also the heathen legends mention him under the names of Annak, Cannak, Nannak (for the further treatment of these stories, p. 119). Methuselah means either man of the arrow-shooting, because, by standing on his defence and using his skill in weapons, in these last times of the first world, he was able to resist the robberlike, murderous Cainites; or his name means man of the shoot or germ, that is, of a great posterity; one rich in children and in children’s children.—Val. Herberger: God can prolong our life, as in the case of Hezekiah. While Methuselah lived the great distress came not upon the world, for he could pray from the heart and keep back the wrath of God; but as soon as Methuselah’s white snow dissolves, and his gray hair descends into the grave, then grows the weather foul, the rain comes down, out swells the flood, and all the world must drown.—At the speech of Lamech, Genesis 4:1, it was the wife whose mother-feelings sang joyfully together; in the passage before us (of the Sethic Lamech) we perceive the loud pulse of a father’s heart.—The advancing corruption of the time, and of his cotemporaries, give no doubtful coloring to his soul’s longing; on this dark background first falls that hard fate of eating bread in the sweat of the brow (Genesis 3:17).—In such a consolation of a pious son did the old pious fathers find their rest.—Roos: From such a man must the patriarchs have been greatly comforted, and gained new courage. (Similar examples in the Old Testament, Moses, Samuel, Elias; in the New Testament time, John the Baptist, the Apostles; in modern times, Huss, Luther, and others.) It all presupposes Christ the middle point.—Theodoret names him (Noah) the other or second Adam.—Drechsler: Here, in the mention of Noah, there is an extension to the whole chapter in contrast to the previous concise declarations.—(Comparison of the three sons of Adam and the three sons of Noah.) Shem the first-born, the most like to his father, who carries farther on the golden thread; he is the representative of the divine principle in humanity, p. 125. The opposite views of Luther and Calvin respecting the declaration that Noah was five hundred years old. Luther: He lived so long unmarried, because, in that corrupt time, it was better to have no children than evil, degenerate ones; but then he may have become married from the admonition of the patriarchs, or the command of an angel. Calvin: It is not said that he had hitherto been unmarried, nor in what year he began to be a father, but, on the occasion of noting the point of time when the future flood is announced to him, Moses adds that at this time he had already become the father of three sons [this explanation, however, is not in harmony with the allegations of a middle time which he cites as analogous to those in our chapter].—Herder: Remarkable history of humanity; the form it ever presents. These, under the curse are singing their song of jubilee; those others, under the blessing are full of sighs. These are building, singing, inventing; those live, bring up children, and walk with God. The number of the one class is ever growing more numerous, the gathering of the other grows ever less and less. It ends with one race, with one man, and the seven souls that are with him. So will it also be, says Christ, at the end of the days. Be not disheartened, little flock.—Luther: This chapter presents to us a form and image of the whole world. As, therefore, there may be seen in our chapter a fair form and image of the early world, so also is it God’s overwhelming wrath, and a most fearful ruin, that we behold in the fact that the whole race of these ten patriarchs perished, with the exception of only eight that survived.—The same: We ought not to think that these are common names of mean and common men, for, in fact, they are great heroes.—The same: Our world of to-day, the third, and still a world of mercy, how full of blasphemy and cruelty!—It must be punished with a flood of fire; for so prophesy the colors in the rainbow (then follows an interpretation of the three chief colors). Gerlach: God himself stands at the head of the genealogical table, not merely as creator, as he is of all other beings, but as the father of men, as appears Luke 3:38. Not without purpose is there mentioned the divine origin of the human race at the very apex of this series. It contains the patriarchs that remained true to the covenant of God, and who, on that very account, are called the Sons of God (Genesis 6:2). Genesis 5:5. “Who was like his image.” This expression contains no allusion to the fall, but there is rather indicated a continuance of the divine image according to the original position of man. As Adam was created in the divine image, so could he also beget a son who should be like to his own image. That the predominance of sin is inherited along with it, is taken for granted through the whole history (therefore is it here also indicated, although the author rightly saw that here, in the representation of the higher Sethic line, and in accordance with its connections, there should be a special emphasis given to the continuance of a side of light in humanity).—Enoch: Most worthy of note as a very ancient witnessing to the earliest human race of a blessed eternal life. Lisco: Enoch, that is, devoted. He is the seventh from Adam, wherein there may be some indication that after the six long world-times of sin and death, there should be introduced, in the seventh period of the world, through one, that is, Christ, a divine life, with freedom from death [“Calculus of the Biblical Chronology,” p. 23]. Calwer Handbuch: Seth. Eve looks upon him as a present from God; but thinks no more, as in the case of Cain, that she actually has the Lord. Still does her faith behold a new beginning for the promise, of the seed of the woman, bearing in itself the pledge of its sure ongoing, whilst she believingly receives this “other seed” from the hand of God. [Indication that in the birth of Cain she had ascribed to herself too great a share.]—Methuselah, the eighth from Adam, lives nearly one hundred years cotemporaneously with Adam, whilst Noah lives eighty-four years with Enoch, the grandson of Adam, and, in the other direction, was one hundred and twenty-eight years cotemporaneous with Terah the father of Abraham.—Abel died early a violent death; Adam was the first who died a natural death (?); fifty-seven years after him was Enosh translated. A threefold way. [Enoch. Under the name of Idris (learned man) he is said to have been the inventor of letters and writing, of arithmetic, and astronomy.]—Bunsen, on the word of Lamech, Genesis 5:29 : This indicates very hard times and great disturbing events of nature, in the last period of the old world. Men labor hard, but nothing thrives. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ FOURTH SECTIONThe Universal Corruption in consequence of the mingling of the two lines.—The anomism (or enormity) of sins before the flood.—Predominant unbelief.—Titanic pride.—After the flood prevailing superstition Genesis 6:1-81 And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men [looked upon them] that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose 3[after their sensual choice]. And the Lord said, my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that Hebrews 3 also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bare children to them; the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown. 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and 8the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. , AND , THE SONS OF GODThe question, what kind of beings are we to understand by the Sons of God, has been answered in different ways from the earliest times, and has lately, again, given occasion to lively theological discussions. We give here, in the first place, the statement of Kurtz, who has engaged in the question with peculiar earnestness (History of the Old Covenant, i. p. 30, 3d ed., 1864, and in a long Appendix to vol. i., under the title: Die Ehen der Sφhne Gottes mit den Tφchtern der Menschen, Berlin, 1857). “In respect to the Bne Elohim, we find three principal views: 1. they are filii magnatum puellas plebeias rapientes; 2. they are angels; 3. they are the pious, that is, the Sethites, in contrast with whom the “daughters of men” denote Cainitish women. The first view is found in the Samaritan, Jonathan (Targum), Onkelos (Targum), Symmachus, Aben Ezra, Rashi, Varenius, &c., and may now be regarded as exploded. The second view is most strongly represented in the old synagogue and church. It would seem to have its ground in the Septuagint. At least the manuscripts vary between υἱοὶτοῦθεοῦ and ἄγγελοιτοῦθεοῦ. Very decidedly, however, it is presented (and mythically improved upon) in two old Apocryphal books, namely, the Book of Enoch, and the so-called Minor Genesis, of which Dillman in Ewald’s Year Books has given a German translation derived from the Ethiopic. It is, moreover, recognized in the Epistle of Jude (Genesis 6:6-7 ?) and in the Second Epistle of Peter (Genesis 2:4-5 ?). It was also presented by Philo, Josephus, and most of the Rabbinical writers (Eisenmenger’s “Judaism Revealed,” i. p. 380), as well as by the oldest church fathers: Justin, Clemens Alex., Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius. Since then it fell gradually into disfavor; Chrysostom, Augustine, and Theodoret contended zealously against it; Philastrius denounced it as downright heresy, and our old church theologians turned from it almost with abhorrence. It found also in the synagogue vehement opposers Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai pronounced the ban against all who adhered to it. In more modern times it has been seized upon by all exegetes who regard the early history of Genesis as mythical, notwithstanding which a decided number of commentators who are believers in revelation have not allowed themselves to be deterred from deciding in its favor,—for example, Kφppen (“The Bible a Work of Divine Wisdom,” i. p. 104), Fr. von Meyer (Blδtter fόr hφhere Wahrheit, xi. p. 61 ff.), Twesten (“Dogmatics,” ii. 1, p. 332), Nitzsch (“System,” p. 234 f.) Dreschler (Einheit der Genesis, p. 91), Hofmann (“Prophecy and Fulfilment,” i. p. 85, and “Scripture Proof,” i. p. 374 ff.), Baumgarten (“Commentary on the Pentateuch,” ad h. l.), Delitzsch (Comment. ad h. l.), Stier (“Epistle of Jude,” p. 42 ff.), Dietlein (“Comment. on the Second Epistle of Peter,” p. 149 ff.), Luther (“Comment. on the Epistles of Peter and Jude,” pp. 204, 341). The third view is found in Chrysostom, Cyril Alex, Theodoret, (on the special ground that Seth, on account of his piety, acquired the name θεός, and that, therefore, his descendants were named υἱοὶτοῦθεοῦ). It was held by almost all the later church theologians. In modern times it has been defended with special zeal by Hengstenberg (“Contributions,” ii. p. 328 ff.), Hδvernik (“Introduction,” i. 2, p. 265), Dettinger (“Remarks on the Section, Genesis 4:1–Genesis 6:8,” in the Tόbingen Journal of Theology, 1835, No. 1), Keil (“Luther. Periodical,” 1851, ii. p. 239), and many others. The preceding statement has been made complete by Kurtz in his Book (“The Marriages of the Sons of God,”) Berlin, 1857, p. 12; as likewise by Keil (p. 80) by the citation of the treatise of Hengstenberg (“The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men,”) in the Evangelical Church Gazette, 1858, No. 29, and No. 35–37; in the exposition of Philippi (“Church Doctrine of the Faith,”) iii. p. 176 ff, and the controversial writings of Kurtz that have appeared against the treatises of Keil and Hengstenberg (“The Marriages of the Sons of God with the Daughters of Men),” Berlin 1857, and “The Sons of God,” in Genesis 6:1-4, and the “Sinning Angels,” in 2 Peter 2:4-5, and Jude, Genesis 6:6-7. Mitau, 1858. Engelhardt also takes the side of Kurtz (“Lutheran Periodical,” 1856, p. 404). Delitzsch appears as the latest defender of the angel hypothesis of any considerable note (“Comment.” 3d Ed., 1860, p. 230 ff.). Its latest opponent of note since Keerl (“Questions on the Apocrypha,” p. 206), is Keil (“Comment,” 1861, p. 80 ff.) It is shown by Keil (p. 80) that the relation of our passage to the Sethites had its defenders, both among Jews and Christians, before the time of Chrysostom; since Josephus knew of this interpretation, and the critical Julius Africanus maintained it in the first half of the third century. So also did Ephraim the Syrian, to which add, among the Apocryphal writings, the Clementine Recognitions, and the oriental Book of Adam. We take first into view the section as it lies before us, with its connection and the analogies of the Old Testament, then the relations to our passage of the New Testament, farther on, the exegetical traditions, and finally, the religious-philosophical, dogmatic, and practical significance of the question. The Place itself in question; its Connection, and the Analogies of the Old Testament. The Sons of God. Bne Elohim. According to the angel hypothesis, angels alone are here to be understood, not-withstanding that there is no mention of angels immediately before this, to stand as its antecedent, but only of the pious race of Sethites. Chap. 5 gives us an account of pious men, of chosen men, of a wonderfully glorified man of God; but of angels, on the contrary, there is not a word, even to this place, except the mysterious language respecting the cherubim, in which we cannot at all recognize any personal angel-forms. The single apparent ground for a supposition, at first view wild and abrupt, is found in the fact, that in the later books of the Old Testament, not the pious are called αְּ ?πֵ ?ιϊָ ?ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, but the angels. It is, however, simply incorrect to say that anywhere in the historical scriptures the angels are called sons of God without anything farther; only in a few poetical places, and in one nominally prophetic (Job 1:2; Job 38:7; Psalms 29:1; Psalms 89:7 : Daniel 3:25) are they so called; and then, too, beside the poetical language, there comes into view the elucidating context. In Job 1 they form the council of God represented as administering government (therefore not bne Elohim, as nomen natur� in distinction from Maleak, as nomen officii), and in fact in contrast to Satan. In the same way in chap. 2. In chap. Genesis 38:7, they hail the laying the foundation of the earth and the creation of man. Psalms 29:1, they are called upon to glorify the Lord in the thunder-storm, and in the restoration of his people. Psalms 89:7, are they thus denoted by way of contrasting their dependent state with the glory of the Lord. Daniel 3:25 hardly belongs here, but is, perhaps, to be interpreted according to chap. Genesis 7:13. In respect to this, Hengstenberg has already shown that the name bne Elohim belongs to the poetic diction. Whilst, therefore, in the pure historical pieces the angels are never styled sons of God, there does appear the indication of a filial relation, or of a sonship, in respect to the people of Israel, to the Old Testament kings, to the pious or dependent wards of God, and that, too, in various ways, even in the legal sphere. Delitzsch remarks, that the idea of a filial relation in the Old Testament had already begun to win for itself a universal ethical significance beyond the limitation to Israel (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1)—as though this filial relation of the children of Israel, under the law, were a real step in progress in respect to Abraham and the Sethites. But the case is exactly the other way. In the Epistle to the Galatians, the patriarchal standpoint of belief in promise is a higher one than that of the Mosaic legality (Galatians 3:16). It is to be specially remarked in regard to Kurtz, that he knew not how to distinguish the different economies of the Old Testament. When, for example, the Apostle Paul tells us, that the law was given through the mipistry of angels, he concludes that the angel of the Lord that appeared to Abraham must have been a creaturely angel (History of the Old Testament, p. 152). And yet Paul brings forward this character of the angelic mediation for the express purpose of showing that the revelation of the promise was a more essential, and, also, a higher form than that of the law-giving; it could not, therefore, have been in this sense (of Kurtz) that the law-giving is referred to the mediation of angels. The explanation consists in this, that the promise was a revelation for Abraham, and, generally, for the elect patriarchs, whilst the law-giving, on the other hand, was for a whole people mingled and coarse, or at all events, greatly needing an educating culture. But as the patriarchal economy, in respect to its relationship to the form of the Gospel, had a superiority to the form of the law-giving, and in so far appears like to the New Testament, so again had the economy of the Sethites a superiority to the Abrahamic. The specific distinction is the separation between the line of the pious, and the godless, curse-loaded line of Cain. Therefore it is that that peculiar designation of Enoch’s piety: “he walked with God,” never occurs again in the later law-times of the Old Testament. In a word, the Sethic economy is a ἅπαξλεγόμενον in the Old Testament, which has been fundamentally mistaken by the contenders for the angel hypothesis. It has a prefiguration of the New Testament state, and acknowledges, therefore, the θεοῦ, or sons of God, as is done in the New Testament in our Lord’s sermon on the mount. If the objection is made, that the redemption is not yet perfectly introduced, it is to be remarked, that the faith in redemption, in the time after Christ, is not to be measured, in its degrees, by the chronological advance; as is shown in the examples of Enoch and Abraham. Luther, moreover, knew better how to estimate the worth of this singularity in the economy of the long living so greatly exalted through the blessing of Seth, and who reflected in their life the end of time: “They are the greatest heroes that, next to Christ and John the Baptist, ever appeared in this world, and at the last day we shall behold their majesty.” Since, therefore, even the law-period, notwithstanding Israel’s servant-relation, did not exclude the idea of Israel’s sonship generally, or of the believing especially, (as the places Deuteronomy 32:5; Hosea 2:1 (therefore not poetical) and Psalms 73:15 show to us, how much more clearly must this idea have appeared, in its typical significance and beauty, among the pious descendants of Seth. In that case it has been said, they ought to have been called bne Jehovah (instead of bne Elohim); but this is not to keep clearly in view, that the Sethites represented the universal relation of humanity to God, and that they, like Melchizedek at a later time, disappeared from the stage. That the angels, however, in a physical sense, as opposed to an ethical sense, could be called sons of God,—that is, could be referred to some generation of a physical kind, is a view that has been rightly denounced by Keil (p. 11). And in this way, for the unprejudiced, the matter might seem tolerably well disposed of. But further on it occurs as a thing to be considered, that the sons of God woo the daughters of men. How, it is asked, when it is said in its general sense (Genesis 6:2) that men multiplied themselves, can we limit the expression daughters of men, Genesis 6:2, to the daughters of the Cainites? We cannot here rest upon the usual mode of stating this. There is no reason why the sons of God should have found a tempting beauty only among the daughters of the Cainites. The daughters of men may, in the first place, be women in general. In that case, however, the first contrast would consist in regarding the ethically defined sons of God as opposed to the physically defined daughters of men,—among whom the Cainitic women might be primarily understood, especially since the Sethite women too belong to the children of God. Their first transgression, however, would consist in this, that in the choice of wives they let themselves be determined by the mere charm of sensual beauty. From this follows the second transgression, that they took them wives of all whom they chose, that is, of all that pleased them. On the word ξִ ?λֹּ ?μ, therefore, rests the emphasis of the expression (out of all). Instead of looking at the spiritual kinsmanship, they had an eye only to the pleasure of sense. That was the first thing. Then there is nothing said here of any moral satisfaction in beauty. This appears from the fact that they took them wives of all that pleased them, of all that they desired. Instead of holding pure the Sethic line, they took wives indiscriminately (ξִ ?λֹּ ?μ), and that was the second and decisive transgression. By this was the dam torn down which stood between the Cainites and the Sethites,—that is, the dam which kept back the universal corruption, and which hitherto had protected the race of the blessing. Therefore is it, Genesis 6:3, that the corruption which now comes is charged upon men, and not at all upon the angels. If we look for a moment at the angel hypothesis, it is not easy to see how such amours with individual women could have had so decided an effect upon the destiny of the whole race, at a time, too, when more than now, men formed the deciding factor; and this may we say, without taking into view the fact, that in the historical style angels are never called bne Elohim, that angels do not seek nor are sought in marriage (Matthew 22:30), and that the expression: “take themselves wives,” denotes marriage-ties, not by way of unnatural amours, or romantic loves, as Kurtz pictures it in his first treatise (p. 99). But indeed, out of those demoniacal, fleshly amours, it is said, must have proceeded the πְ ?τִ ?μִ ?ιν and βִּ ?αֹּ ?ψִ ?ιν, and thus they would bring the whole matter to a decision. In the first place, however, must we remember, that the sentence of God respecting the desperate condition of the race (Genesis 6:3) precedes this mention of the Nephilim, and it is clear that the πְ ?τִ ?μִ ?ιν must already denote a special form of the evil, which, with its fleshly lust, stands at the same time in a position of reciprocity. According to almost all interpretations, and according to Numbers 13:33, “when the giant Anakim are reckoned among them,” the Nephilim were gigantic,—or, more accurately, the distinguished, the prominent or overpowering. According to such it is from πτμ, a near form to τμΰ; other derivations see below. In their bodily appearance the Nephilim were not exactly what are called giants in the mythical sense, but prominent and powerful forms of men. In strength, in courage, or pride, they were Gibborim, that is, mighty men, heroes; in deeds, they were men of renown; but their deeds were especially deeds of violence ηָ ?ξָ ?ν (Genesis 6:11; Genesis 6:13), unrighteousness, and oppression. The meaning is, that the fleshly nature of pride and cruelty ever associates itself with the fleshly disorder of lust. Lamech the Cainite and his song were now the general type of the human race. But as the tendency to violence came in cotemporaneously with the lust, and not as a generation for the first time descending from it, so were the Nephilim contemporaneous with these fleshly mesalliances, having been, in fact, from the days of Cain hitherto “men of renown.” The Hebrew is δָ ?ιεּ, not εַ ?ιִּ ?δְ ?ιεּ; there were Nephilim, it is said, αιξινδδν, in those same days, not there became or came to be, as Knobel translates it. Add to this the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, that is, of the grossly sensual marriages of the pious, and their mingling with the Cainitic race. Thus flow together two origins of the Gibborim. In respect to the first were they men of renown, or men of old, ξֵ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν—that is, the Cainites. Thus, too, in the easiest way does our section connect itself with both the preceding chapters. In the fourth chapter there is described the line of the Cainites as still divided from the line of Seth; in the fifth chapter we have the line of the Sethites in its devotedness and elevation; then, finally, in the section before us, the mingling of both lines, and the universality and flagitiousness of corruption, as, according to the programme of the Cainitic Lamech, it culminates in the two fundamental features of carnality and cruelty. Whoever reads Genesis, to the passage before us, without any prejudice derived from opinions alien to it, would never think of understanding by the bne Elohim anything else than the pious Sethites, and by their connection with the daughters of men anything else than a corruption of marriage and a mingling with the Cainites. This would especially appear from the fact, that in this section the sharp contrast between the two lines, which is so prominent in the previous chapter, wholly disappears. If we read further we find, too, that not the Cainites alone perished in the flood, but both lines together, with the exception of Noah and his house. Further on, Ishmael, who is a “wild man,” and whose “hand is against every man,” appears as the offspring of Abraham and “the maid,” a copy, as it were, giving us a clear idea of the Gibborim, and of the way in which they originated, although the connection of the patriarch was from a purer motive, and more excusable. Hence the traditional and legal abhorrence of untheocratic marriages in the theocratic race; as we find it in Genesis 24:3; Genesis 26:34-35; Genesis 27:46; Genesis 34:9; Deuteronomy 7:3; Joshua 23:12; Judges 3:6; 1 Kings 11:1; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 10:30. The falling away of the Israelites in the desert came not from any amour between angels and the daughters of men, but from an unlawful intercourse between the Israelites and the women of Midian (Numbers 25). So the apostasies of Israel in the time of the Judges were derived from the mingling of the Israelites with the daughters of the Canaanites (Judges 3:6). The fall of Solomon, and the falling away of the people that followed it, came from Solomon’s connection with foreign wives (1 Kings 11:1). So the ten tribes sunk into the worship of Baal in consequence of the connection of Ahab with the Sidonian Jezebel, whose horrible significance goes on even to the Apocalypse (1 Kings 16:31; Revelation 2:20); and so, too, Ezra and Nehemiah, after the great visitation, know no other way to secure their people against a new degeneracy, than by contending earnestly against foreign marriages. Thus again and again do the theocratic mesalliances of one section reflect themselves in the Israelitish history, without the angels playing any part therein. For the first time, in the apocryphal Tobit (Tob 6:15), does there meet us a demoniac interest in human females, and this is characteristic for the origin of the angel-hypothesis. Here, too, it must be remarked, that marriage with the heathen was not absolutely forbidden to the Israelites. When the principle was secured, that the believing party might make holy the unbelieving (1 Corinthians 7), such marriages appear sometimes even in a favorable light. It was only union with the Canaanites that was absolutely forbidden, since they, as well as the Cainites, were sunk in incurable corruption; and Hengstenberg has rightly supposed that our history here was given for the purpose of warning the Israelites against such marriages. 2. The relations of the New Testament to the passage before us. There is the passage of the Epistle of Jude, Genesis 6:6, which, in fact, we regard as the original in its relation to the kindred passage, 2 Peter 2:4. Here, too, Kurtz reasons from the mode of speaking, but not happily: “Both epistles designate the actors who are punished as simply ἄγγελοι. When we interrogate the biblical style of speech it shows us at once that this word is never thus nakedly used of spiritsἐνἀρχῇ who have fallen. These are ever called δαίμονες, and their head διάβολος or σατανᾶς.” We will give presently the simple solution of this objected difficulty. Wherever there is mention of the actual existence of Satan’s kingdom it is naturally and generally of Satan, of the demons, etc., although variations occur, as Ephesians 6:12, et al. Here, however, when the original fall itself of the demons is mentioned, they must be denoted according to their original state as angels. Otherwise it would mean that the devil had sinned, and thereby became a devil. In that case our catechisms would have to be corrected where they speak of fallen angels. When it is said, however, that there is here no special mention of Satan, or that the sins of the angels cannot be particularly described, or that the fall of Satan is nowhere designated as a leaving his habitation, all such assertions we must hold as having no significance at all. The Epistle of Jude is a prophetical word of warning against the beginning of antinomianism. Here the Israelites who fell in the wilderness are the first example. In respect to these it is confessed that they did not fall in the wilderness merely on account of sins of sensuality. Then are there named the angels who kept not their dominion (ἀρχή) but for-sook their own proper habitation—that is, their sphere of life. The contrast in the guilt of these angels is made clear by that which precedes. The Jews in the wilderness kept not their salvation, but gave themselves up to unbelief and fell. The angels kept not their dominion, but lost their station and fell. To this corresponds the third example: Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities are presented in a similar manner with these (τούτοις), that is, the angels and the Israelites, as an example of such as are exposed to the judgment of the eternal fire, and this on the special ground of their excessive sensuality, and their degenerate going after strange flesh. The words ὄμοιοντρόποντούτοις stand in relation to πρόκεινταιδεῖγμα, and the parenthetical ἐκπορνεύσασα has its special interpretation as referring to the Sodomites. The Israelites in the wilderness furnish an example of a lost condition, as μὴπιστεύσαντες, the angels as μὴτηρήσαντες, &c., Sodom and Gomorrah as ἐκπορνεύσασαι, &c. The forms of antinomianism are different, the judgment upon it is throughout the same. The distinction, however, in antinomianism is this, that the Israelites sinned through unbelief in the word of revelation; the angels sinned against the divine ordinance, assigning their position, and in striving, beyond their sphere, after a limitless dominion; the Sodomites sinned against the natural law of the sexual relations, established as a moral foundation of life itself. The antinomists, against whom Jude contended, resemble the before-named in this, that like the Sodomites they pollute the flesh; like the fallen angels they contemn authority; like the unbelieving Israelites they speak evil of δόξας, glories (rendered dignities—visible proofs of the revelation of God in Israel). So, too, in the second chapter of the second Epistle of Peter, the ground-idea is the inexorability of the divine judgment against an obdurate anomism, without giving the special form of that anomism. Of the angels it is merely said that they sinned. God spared them not although they were angels. And so he spared not the whole old world (Genesis 6), on whom there is here no other charge imputed than ἀσέβεια (impiety). So, too, Sodom and Gomorrah are here denoted as having incurred judgment solely under the same point of view. Clearly, however, has the second Epistle of Peter distinguished, in addition, the judgment of the fallen angels from the judgment upon the old world (Genesis 6). The judgment against the angels, the judgment against the old world, and the judgment upon Sodom, are three judgment periods. And these places, it is pretended, exactly confirm the angel-hypothesis! Compare also Fronmόller on the respective places, in the Bible-work. 3. The exegetical tradition. The first interpretation, in which the bne Elohim were sons of the magnates, or great ones, who wooed the daughters of the low-born, Keil denotes as the interpretation of orthodox Judaism. More correctly, however, may it be denoted as the interpretation of the Hebraistic or Palestinian Judaism, in its dry story-telling tendency as represented in the Talmud. The second interpretation Keil rightly describes as that of the ethnizing, cabbalistical Judaism; however zealous Kurtz may be on its behalf (Part i. p. 8). It is not without significance that the first trace of this interpretation appears in single codices of the Septuagint. It is sufficiently acknowledged that the Alexandrian Jews took pains in every way to throw a bridge between the Old Testament and the Greek tradition. Here now appears a fair probable occasion to introduce into the biblical text an analogous story of Sons of God and of divine begettings. Thereupon present themselves two apocryphal books as the first defenders of the angel-hypothesis: the Book of Enoch and the Lesser Genesis. Without doubt Philo found it already in existence, and it suited entirely well with his system; whilst it is acknowledged, too, by the more hebraistic Josephus. That Christian theologians of the Alexandrian school, like Clemens Alexandrinus, uncritical fathers like Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, should find the angel-hypothesis suited to their peculiar notions, is nothing to be wondered at. The fact that from the fourth even to the eighteenth century, with some isolated exceptions, the taste of the church discovered in the angel-hypothesis a suspicious theosophic savor, cannot be set aside. 4. The religious, philosophical, dogmatic, and practical significance of our question. In its relation to the philosophy of religion the angel-hypothesis would have the effect of confounding all the ground conceptions of revelation, and of obliterating its distinctions. It authenticates a fact which perfectly destroys all distinction between revelation and mythology, between a divine miracle and magic, between the biblical conception of nature, as conformity to law, and the wild apocryphal stories. “We stand here,” says Delitzsch, “at the fountain of heathen mythology with its legends, but this primitive golden age, to take it in the sense of heathenism, is divested of all its apotheosizing gaudiness.” Rather may it be said, if we take that view, that an evident myth was implanted in the garden of the primitive religious history; it is therefore not to be wondered at, that all theologians who maintain the mythical character of Genesis, like Knobel for example, should go in most earnestly for the angel-interpretation. “And no less,” adds Delitzsch, “do we stand here, at the fountain of a dark magic that carries us back, if not to a sexual, yet still to an unnatural intercourse with the demons.” We stand rather by the troubled waters of a paganistic apocryphal superstition, where the siren of an apparent theosophic profundity would allure us to plunge into the dark floods of “baseless paradox.” With what sort of superstition this angel-interpretation had already connected itself in early times we may learn from the twenty-second chapter of Tertullian’s Apologetic. When we regard it in its dogmatic relation we find the most wonderful things proceeding from the view in question when fully carried out. There would be a double fall into sin, one in the human, the other in the angelic, family. The effects of the second fall must be destroyed by a flood, whilst those of the first remain through and after it. The gnosticizing darkening of this place has for a consequence that there should be gradually drawn from it series after series of similar deductions, according to the tenor of its biblical dogmatic process of idealless, anecdotical inventiveness; for example, what is said on the passage (1 Peter 3:19-20) respecting Christ’s preaching to the spirits in prison. Instead of this, we hold that the derivation of the angel-interpretation from an ethnizing, apocryphal, gnostico-cabbalistical tendency in Judaism (as we find it shown in Keil) is the correct one. We hold, too, that Hengstenberg had grounds for the affirmation, when he said: The next thing is, that in the maintaining of this supposed remarkable fact, men are led into uncouth theories, which violate the limits that separate the church’s theology from the chimerical ideas of Jews and Mohammedans, and that one such distortion of a sound theological comprehension may possibly have for its consequence an extensive process of disorder. In like manner does the objection appear well grounded, that the angel-interpretation robs our narrative of all significance and practical applicability. The same practical significance which is exhibited in the history of the Israelites in the wilderness (Numbers 25), and in the time of the Judges in the history of Solomon, in the history also of Ahab, in the history of Herod Antipas—that same significance, though in a more powerful and original way, is presented in the history that lies before us. We may, therefore, with Cyril of Alexandria, reckon the angel-interpretation among the ἀτοπώτατα, things most strange and absurd. AND 1. Genesis 6:1-3. When men began.—The increase of men under a physical point of view; especially, too, an increase of daughters.—The Sons of God, that is, the Sethites especially, as sons of Elohim, not of Jehovah, because their relation to God was more universal than that of the later theocracy, and because the Sethic religion had no contrast of the Elohistic, as the later Abrahamic had, since the opposing Cainitic line was not Elohistically pious, but lived an utterly lawless life.—The daughters of men.—Usually taken as the daughters of the other race, that is, the Cainites. But they are the daughters of men wholly in the physical sense, and therefore, too, according to the conception of the natural man, in contrast with the sons of God in the ethical sense, only that the thought is mainly upon the Cainites, in proportion to their greater multiplication.—Saw that they were fair [Lange’s translation: They looked upon them, how fair they were].—We must not reduce the force of the expression by rendering: “they saw that they were fair.” The sensual beauty captivated them.—Took them wives of all.—The phrase μָ ?χַ ?ηΰִ ?ωָּׁ ?δ means, everywhere in the Old Testament, to take in marriage, but never occurs in the sense of mere scortatory intermarryings (from which also we must distinguish the sense, to take as concubines).—Which they chose.—The emphasis is on ξִ ?λֹּ ?μ (of all). From this it follows that the sons of God let themselves be determined by the charm of sense to form connections also with the Cainite women, and so to rend asunder the protecting limits which hitherto had guarded their race from the corruptive contagion. Moreover, the prevalence of polygamy is clearly presented in the expression.—My Spirit shall not always strive with man.—We cannot understand ψεּ ?ηַ here of the Spirit of God as the spirit of life, but of the Spirit of God in an ethical sense, as it belongs to its office to judge and to punish sinful men. Von Gerlach says, indeed: “the contrast of spirit and flesh in the moral understanding, as in the Epistles of Paul, does not occur in the Old Testament.” But, what is meant here by saying, my spirit shall not tarry in man as spirit of life, for he is flesh? The flesh as flesh does not hinder the life-spirit, but the flesh as corruption repels the Spirit of God (Psalms 139:7; Psalms 143:10). We take ιָ ?γεֹ ?ο here in its simplest and most obvious sense, not as the ruling of the life-spirit, nor as the continuance of the same in man (Septuagint), nor as its degradation or depression. In the sinner who is yet capable of salvation the Spirit of God exercises its judicial office. But, when man has become wholly obdurate, God withdraws from him his judging spirit, and thereby he falls into the condemnation of corruption. The circumstance is here incidentally introduced. This is shown by the addition, αְ ?ωַׁ ?βָּ ?ν, in their erring (which, without any necessity, is turned into a conjunction: αִּ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψβַּ ?ν, eo quod; Knobel and Delitzsch), and the emphatic expression: he is flesh, that is, the whole species, like one man, is sunk in its flesh. Still, there is the expression: “My spirit shall not always strive in him;” which means that there is yet a respite appointed for the race, and this is explained by, and explains, what follows: And his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. According to Philo, Josephus, and others, along with Knobel, it means that henceforth the period of human life shall be reduced to one hundred and twenty years. (See in Knobel a series of quotations from the views of the ancients respecting the life-endurance of man, p. 83). According to the Targums, Luther, and many others, as well as Delitzsch and Keil, God appoints a reprieve of grace for one hundred and twenty years, which is yet to be granted to men. Beyond a doubt this is the correct view; since the age of the first patriarchs after the flood extends much beyond one hundred and twenty years. Another reason is, that the supposed shortening of life would be no countervailing rule bearing a proportion to the obduracy of the race, whilst the time-reckoning agrees with the other hypothesis, if we assume that Noah received this revelation twenty years before the time given, Genesis 5:32, in order that he might announce it as a threatening of judgment to his contemporaries. [Note on the Spirit and the Flesh: Genesis 6:3.—The various interpretations of ψεּ ?ηִ ?ι here must be tested by their harmony with words in the context. “The life that I have given shall not always rule (or abide) in man.” This does not seem to suit well with μςεμν. Shall not long rule, &c., would have been consistent. The word forever makes it the same with the original sentence of death pronounced upon man: he shall not live forever—he shall die. “My spirit shall not strive with man” (morally) makes a good sense in itself, but has little congruity with the reason given: “because he is flesh,” or is inclined to the flesh, whether we take the old or the later interpretation of αωβν. That alone would seem to be a reason why it should continue to strive; since man had been flesh, or inclined to be flesh, ever since the fall. Unless we take it, as Pareus does, as denoting a feeling of hopelessness, ratio ab inutili:it is of no use; but this would be a form of the anthropopathism the least acceptable of all that are presented; unless it be that of some of the Jewish interpreters: “My own mind, or thought, shall no longer be occupied or troubled with him”—I will have no more care about him. There is another view that may be offered, and which would seem to harmonize these difficulties. Some of the Jewish interpreters approach it, but do not come fully up to it. “My spirit,” meaning man’s spirit (the spirit that I have given him), but in the higher sense of πνεῦμα as distinguished from ψυχή, according to the trichotomic view. The reason, wherein appears the image of God, the spirit in man as something higher than the animal nature, the φρόνημαπνεύματος as distinguished from the φρόνημασαρκός, may, with a high propriety, be called “my spirit,” as nearest to the divine, or, that in man through which, or in which, the Holy Spirit strives, or comes in connection with the human. It is not always easy, even in the New Testament, to determine whether πνεῦμα, in certain passages, means the rational spirit of man, or the Spirit of God, or both in one joint communion. Von Gerlach has no right to say that “the contrast of spirit and flesh in the moral understanding, as in the Epistles of Paul, does not occur in the Old Testament,” unless it can be shown that this is not a clear case of it. When ψεη is thus regarded as the spiritual, or rational, in man, in distinction from the carnal, the sentence becomes a prediction, instead of a declaration of judgment—a sorrowing prediction, we may say, if we keep in view the predominant aspect or feeling of the passage. The spirit, the reason, that which is most divine in man, will not always rule in him. It has, as yet, maintained a feeble power, and interposed a feeble resistance, but it is in danger of being wholly overpowered. It will not hold out forever; it will not always maintain its supremacy. And then the reason given suits exactly with such a prediction: He is becoming flesh, wholly carnal or animal. If allowed to continue he will become utterly dehumanized, or that worst of all creatures, an animal with a reason, but wholly fleshly in its ends and exercises, or with a reason which is but the servant of the flesh, making him worse than the most ferocious wild beast—a very demon—a brutal nature with a fiend’s subtlety only employed to gratify such brutality. Man has the supernatural, and this makes the awful peril of his state. By losing it, or rather by its becoming degraded to be a servant instead of a lord, he falls wholly into nature, where he cannot remain stationary, like the animal who does not “leave the habitation to which God first appointed him.” The higher being, thus utterly fallen, must sink into the demonic, where evil becomes his god, if not, as Milton says, his good. In this sense of the reason in man, or the φρόνημαπνεύματος, ruling over the flesh, there is a most appropriate significance in ιγεο, as denoting the judicial power of the conscience, or of the reason as the imperative, the commanding faculty. On these deeper aspects of humanity, consult that most profound psychologist, John Bunyan, in his Holy War, or his History of the Town of Mansoul, its revolt from King Shaddai, its surrender to Diabolus, and its recovery by Prince Immanuel. Bunyan was Bible-taught in these matters, and that is the reason why his knowledge of man goes so far beyond that of Locke, or Kant, or Cousin. The whole aspect of the passage gives the impression of something like an apprehension that a great change was coming over the race—something so awful and so irreparable, if not speedily remedied, that it would be better that it should be blotted out of earthly existence, all but a remnant in whom the spiritual, or the divine in man, might yet be preserved. Thus regarded, too, as a prediction, it is the ground of the judgment rather than a sentence of judgment itself. It is in mercy to prevent a greater catastrophe; like the language used in reference to the tree of life (see page 241, and note). Men, left to themselves, might have realized upon earth the irrecoverable state of lost spirits, or that combination of the brutal with an utterly degraded reason that makes the demon. In this view, too, the divine sorrow appears heightened in such a way that we can better understand what is meant by God’s “grieving,” and being “pained in heart.” A generation of men is to be removed to prevent the utter dehumanizing of the race. It was this necessity that made the intensity of the sorrow. Delitzsch has a similar view, but it is strange that he did not see how it is in conflict with his angel-hypothesis. According to that, the deangelizing, if we may use the term, and the consequent dehumanizing, was confined to these higher beings and some of the daughters of men. And yet they are not mentioned as having any part in the catastrophe, or in the immediate evil that occasioned it. Men alone are involved in it, and they because of an excessive sensuality that had made it inevitable. This, however, was purely human; it was man that was in danger of becoming wholly flesh, and it was man for whom God grieved with a divine sorrow. It was man who was in danger of descending into a lower grade of being, even as the ante-Adamic angels who kept not their first estate. The antediluvians were drowned for the salvation of a race, but for some of them, at least, 1 Peter 3:19-20, gives us the glimpse of a hope that their condition was not wholly irrecoverable.—T. L.] 2. Genesis 6:4. There were giants.—The πְ ?τִ ?μִ ?ιν, from πָ ?τִ ?ιμ, used only in the plural, Numbers 13:33. All the old interpretations take the word as denoting giants, γίγαντες. If we put out of view the monstrous popular representations, there are simply meant by it stately and powerful men. In this sense Tuch explains the word as mentioned before, namely, the distinguished. Keil understands by the word, invaders, according to Aquila (ἐπιπίπτοντες), Symmachus (βιαῖοι), Luther (tyrants). Delitzsch, nevertheless, together with Hofmann, prefers to explain it as the fallen, namely, from heaven, because begotten by heavenly beings. Here from to falt, would he make to fall from, and from this again, to fall from heaven; then this is made to mean begotten of heavenly beings! The sense, cadentes, defectores, apostat� (see Gesenius), would be more near the truth. “There were giants” (δָ ?ιεּ), not, there became giants, which would have required εַ ?ιִּ ?δְ ?ιεּ for its expression (see Keil). These giants, or powerful men, are already in near cotemporaneity with the transgression of these mesalliances (in those very same days), and this warrants the conclusion of Luther, that these powerful men were doers of violent deeds.—And also after that [Lange renders: and especially after that].—Keil shows that Kurtz makes trial of three mutually inconsistent explanations of this verse, all of which, too, offend against the law of language (p. 89, note). We take βַּ ?ν as denoting a climax to the fact already stated. “There were giants in those days, and moreover,” etc. Here it comes nearly to the same thing, whether we render ΰηψιΞλοΰωψ posteaquam (2 Samuel 24:10) or postea quum; the fact remains established that the Nephilim were already before the mesalliances.—Came in unto: an euphemistic phrase.—Mighty men [Lange renders it heroes].—A designation, not merely of offspring from the mismarriages, but referring also to the Nephilim who are earlier introduced, as it appears from the appended clause. The author reports things from his own standpoint, and so the expression: “they were of old, men of renown,” affirms their previous existence down to that time. Of these men of old, men of renown, Cain was the first. But now there are added to the Cainites the Cainitic degenerate off-spring of these sensual mesalliances. It was true then, as it has been in all other periods of the world’s history, the men of violent deeds were the men of renown, very much the same whether called famous or infamous. Knobel will have it that there are described here postdiluvian races of giants. 3. Genesis 6:5-8. And God saw [Lange correctly: And Jehovah saw].—This increase and universal predominance of evil through the mismarriages gives occasion now for a more decided sentence of Jehovah upon the incurably lost race. The wickedness of man in deeds had not only become great, but the thinkings of the purposes (the phantasies or imaged deeds) of his heart, were wholly evil all the day. Judging from the singular μִ ?αּ ?εֹ, we hold here, as intended, a concentration of the sentence against man. For this reason is it singular. [Note on the Doctrine of Total Depravity. Genesis 6:5.—Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart, λָּ ?μιֵ ?φֶ ?ψξַ ?ηְ ?ωְׁ ?αεֹ ?ϊμִ ?αּ ?εֹ. The Scriptures, it is said, were not given to teach us mental philosophy, nor do they affect a philosophical language, but here is certainly a psychological scala going down as deeply into the human soul as was ever done by any scholastic treatise. Here are the three stages of the great original evil: the fashioned purpose, the thought out of which it is born, the feeling, or deep mother heart, the state of soul, lying below all, and giving moral character to all. Or, to reverse the order of the statement, there Isaiah , 1. the tohu vabohu, the formless abyss of evil, 2. the thought (the ἔννοια, see Hebrews 4:12), by which this rises into generic form, 3. the imaged or specific purpose (ἐνθύμησις), through which, again, this thought makes itself manifest in the objective sphere of the active life. In other words, as the thought is the form of the feeling, so is the shaped purpose, or what is here called the imagination, the form of the evil thought. Our Saviour gives the same gradations, Matthew 15:19 : “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts” (διαλογισμοὶπονηροὶ, evil thinkings, reasonings, subjective, not yet shaped into outward intent), and then follows the awful brood of the later born, φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, κλοπαὶ, βλασφημίαι, “murders, adulteries, thefts, blasphemies.” They are all in the thought; they are all in the mother-heart, that deep seat of moral character that lies below the formative consciousness—that is, the conscious thought and still more conscious purpose. Take the worst one apparently of these hideous births; a man may not have formed the purpose of murder, fear may have kept him from this extreme stage; he may never have entertained the thought consciously, the habitual educating power of law, or other influences of a social or of a gracious kind, may have prevented even this objective form of evil from rising in his soul; but it may lie in his heart nevertheless, and even be active there, for this dark place is not a mere blank capacity, or receptacle, but has its processes, its choosings, its willings, and even its unconscious reasonings. Our Saviour declares neither more nor less than this when he makes it the procreative source of evil thoughts (διαλογισμοὶ), and so does the Apostle, 1 John 3:15 : “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” This idea of the unconscious heart, as underlying all moral character, is deeply grounded in the Hebrew language. Hence the peculiar expression ςμδςμμα, to ascend, come up, in the heart, or above the heart. See Jeremiah 3:16; 2 Samuel 11:20, with other places. One of the most striking is in Ezekiel 11:5 : “Thus shall ye say to the house of Israel, ξַ ?ςֲ ?μεֹ ?ϊψεּ ?δֲ ?λֶ ?νΰֲ ?πִ ?ιιְ ?γַ ?ςְ ?ϊִּ ?ιδָ, the upgoings of your spirit, I know every one of them,”—implying how deeply unknown they might be in their source, even to those who were the subjects of them. ψַ ?χψַ ?ςλָּ ?μδַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν: Only evil, nothing but evil, all the day—every day, and every moment of every day. If this is not total depravity, how can language express it? There is an intense aversion to the phrase in some minds. It is shared by many who would admit that human depravity is taught in the Bible, and that it is great. This term, however, of our older and more exact theologians, shocks them. The feeling comes, in some measure, from a misapprehension of its true meaning. It is a term of extensity, rather than of intensity. It is opposed to partial, to the idea that man is sinful in one moment, and innocent, or sinless, in another, or sinful in some acts and pure in others. It affirms that he is all wrong, in all things, and all the time. It does not mean that man is as bad as the devils, or that every man is as bad as every other, or that any man is as bad as he possibly may be, or may become. That is, there are degrees of intensity, but no limit to the universality or extent of the evil in the soul. So say the Scriptures, and so says the awakened conscience. There seems to be an allusion to the psychological division of Gen 6:5, in Hebrews 4:12. The extent and depth of human sinfulness are kept from the objective consciousness by the ignorance or denial of the threefold distinction here conveyed—the purposes, the thoughts, and the heart. According to the Apostle, it is the office of “the living word (ὁλόγόςζῶνκαὶἐνεργὴς, vivid and inworking), sharper than a two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing (the division line) of soul and spirit” (πνεῦμα and ψυχὴ) to make these distinctions, and bring them home to the human conscience. Hence it is called κριτικὸςἐνθυμήσεωνκαὶἐννοιῶνκαρδίας—“a critical discerner (and exposer) of the purposes and the thinkings of the heart.” In this language ἐνθύμησις corresponds locally to ιֵ ?φֶ ?ψ, and ἔννοιαι to ξַ ?ηְ ?ωְׁ ?αεֹ ?ϊ. The terms are no mere redundant tautology, any more than those used above for soul and spirit. The bare dichotomic view fails to explain the language of the Scripture, whether as given in its Greek or Hebrew terms. The Greek words, however, are less precise than the Hebrew, since both ἔννοια and ἐνθύμησις may be used for the purpose or the thought.—T. L.] And it repented the Lord.—Most truly, as Keil rightly remarks, is this sentence so pronounced on man alone, directly against the angel-interpretation. On that hypothesis the angels must have been the original authors of the corruption; and so in consistency with Genesis 3, where the serpent is first sentenced, ought the first doom here to have been pronounced upon the sinning angels.—It repented Jehovah.—A peculiarly strong anthropopathic expression, which, however, presents the truth that God, in consistency with his immutability, assumes a changed position in respect to changed man (Psalms 18:27), and that, as against the impenitent man who identifies himself with the sin, he must assume the appearance of hating the sinner in the sin, even as he hates the sin in the sinner. But that Jehovah, notwithstanding, did not begin to hate man, is shown in the touching anthropomorphism that follows, “and it grieved him in his heart.” The first kind of language is explained in the flood, the second in the revelation of Peter, 1 Peter 3:19-20, and Genesis 4:6. Against the corruption of man, though extending even to the depths of his heart, there is placed in contrast God’s deep “grieving in his heart.” But as the repentance of God does not take away his unchangeableness and his counsel, but rightly establishes them, so neither does God’s grieving detract from his immutability in blessedness, but shows, rather, God’s deep feeling of the distance between the blessedness to which man was appointed and his painful perdition. Delitzsch does indeed maintain it, as most real or actual truth, that God feels repentance, and he does not equate this position with the doctrine of God’s unchangeableness, unless it be with the mere remark that the pain and purpose of the divine wrath are only moments in an everlasting plan of redemption, which cannot become outward in its efficacy without a movement in the Godhead. And yet movement is not change.—I will destroy man.—To man in the wider sense pertains the human sphere of life; therefore it is said that the beasts too shall be destroyed. Of any corruption that had entered into the animal there is no mention (see Genesis 6:12). The perishing of the beasts, therefore, can only have meaning as a sharing in the atonement for human sins (Jeremiah 12:4; Jeremiah 14:5; Hosea 4:3; Joe 1:18; Zephaniah 1:3. Knobel). It is rather as a consequence of the dependence of the animal world upon man that it is joined with him in joy and sorrow. We are not to think of it as something personified together with man, but as the symbolic impersonal extension of his organism.—But Noah found grace.—“In these words there breaks forth from the dark cloud of wrath the mercy which gives security for the preservation and restoration of humanity.” Keil. [Note on the Divine Repenting, Genesis 6:6.—We do not gain much by attempts to explain philosophically such states or movements of the divine mind. They are strictly ά̓ῤῥητα—ineffable. So the Scripture itself represents them: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, saith the Lord; as the heavens are high above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts,”—that is, my thinking, my mode of thinking, above your thinking. And then these same Scriptures, so far transcending all philosophy in the abstract declaration of the ineffable difference, furnish us helps by means of finite conceptions, human representations, anthropopathisms, as we learnedly call them, condescensions, “accommodations.” Let us not vainly attempt to get above them, as though they were made for lower minds, whilst we, from some higher position, as it were, can look over them, or see through them, and are thus enabled to dispense with their aid. If they are accommodations, let us be accommodated by them; since here all human minds are very much on a par. Our right feeling is much more concerned in this than our right understanding. We cannot rise to God, and we should reverently adore the effort, if we may so call it, which he makes to come down to us, to enter into the sphere of the finite, to think our thinking, and thus to converse with us in our own language. Without this there can be no intercourse between the infinite and the finite mind. God’s putting himself in the place of man is the idea and the key of all revelation. In this sense, even nature itself has an anthropopathic language. We must put our feet upon the lower rounds of this ladder thus let down to us,—in other words, we must use these accommodations, use them reverently, honestly, thankfully, or have in the mind a total blank in respect to all those conceptions of God that most concern us as moral beings. Talk as we will of impassibility, we must think of God as having πάθη, affections, something connecting him with the human, and, therefore, human in some aspect or measure of agreement. We must either have in our thoughts a blank intellectuality making only an intellectual difference between good and evil (if that can be called any difference at all), or we are compelled to bring in something emotional, and that, too, with a measure of intensity corresponding to other differences by which the divine exceeds the human. Without this, the highest form of scientific or philosophic theism has no more of religion than the blankest atheism. We could as well worship a system of mathematics as such a theistic indifference. The emotional in view of the true and the right, the evil and the false, is a higher thing than the intellectual perception of them, even could we suppose such separable cognition. We do not rightly see the true, or truly see the right, unless we love it; we do not truly see the evil or the false, unless we have the opposite affection. It belongs to the very essence or being of the ideas. Such emotional is the highest thing in man, and is it rational to suppose that all this is a blank in the higher being of God? Reason may sometimes go safely in affirming what it cannot define, and reconcile with other and lower affirmations. Thus here, an intellectual and a moral necessity may compel us to say that the idea of the emotional in the divine has a veritable existence, though the conception utterly fails to reach it; just as reason truly affirms the infinite in mathematics, and with as clear a certainty as that of any finite ratio, though sense and imagination are both transcended by it. It may know that a thing is, that it must be, though not how it is. So here, a moral necessity compels us to hold that there is such a region of the divine emotional, most intensely real,—more real, if we may make degrees, than knowledge or intellectuality—the very ground, in fact, of the divine personal being. If we would carefully examine, too, our own feelings, we would find that it is not alone a supposed repugnance to reason that is the ground of the difficulty. We do not raise the objection of anthropopathism when love is ascribed to God, and yet it is as strictly anthropopathic as the divine indignation, or the divine sorrow. An unemotional love is utterly inconceivable. It is inseparable, too, from the other elements. Love for the good has no meaning except as involving displeasure at the evil; and sorrow, to speak humanly, is but the blending of the two emotions in view of the loss or marring of the lovely, and the predominance of the unloved. And in this we have the thought so fearful, whilst so attractive and sublime: the intensity of the one must be the measure of the intensity of the other. Depart in the least from the idea of indifferentism, and we have no limit but infinity. God either cares nothing about what we call good and evil—or, as the heaven of heavens is high above the earth, so far do his love for the good, and his hatred of evil, exceed, in their intensity, any corresponding human affection. The great business, therefore, of the interpreter of Scripture is to determine philologically the nature of the emotion expressed by these words, and then the theologian is to take them in their highest intensity, and in such a way as shall not be in contradiction with other divine attributes, whether given to us by clear reason, or revealed to us in the Scriptures. Thus it will be found that this word, πִ ?ηַ ?ν, rendered in Niphal to repent, has a dual relation, the first and primary to the feeling, the second to the purpose. The first connects itself with what may be called the onomatepic significance, to sigh, to draw the breath; hence ingemuit, doluit, as Gesenius gives it. Hence p�nituit eum, it repented him, in the sense of sorrow. The anthropopathism thus expressed is the more touching form, and the whole context shows that it is the one predominantly intended here. It is no change of purpose, no confession of mistake, but a most affecting representation of the divine pity and tenderness. The language following shows this: “and he was grieved at the heart,” when he saw how this fair world, which he had once pronounced “good, exceeding good,” had become marred and full of evil. In the course of its applications the word naturally gets also the other or more secondary, yet quite common sense of change of purpose. It is thus used, 1 Samuel 15:29 : “God will not lie, neither does he repent; he is not man that he should repent”—literally, “man to repent,”—that is, he does not repent like man with change of plan or purpose. The other, and more primary idea, comes also in this very passage relating to Saul, as appears Genesis 6:35; unless, contrary to all rules of criticism, we would bring the writer in immediate and palpable contradiction with himself. See also Psalms 110:4. The repenting of sorrow is the anthropopathism that is always to be supposed when the language is applied directly to Deity; as Psalms 106:45, ιַ ?ιְ ?πָ ?ηֵ ?νλּ ?ψֹ ?αδַ ?ρְ ?γּ ?ε, “and he repented according to the greatness of his mercy;” Psalms 90:13, “Return Jehovah—how long!—and let it repent thee concerning thy servants.” As an instance of the way in which words branch out into various meanings, till they sometimes get almost a reverse sense, it may be noted how this word, in this very conjugation, gets the meaning of revenging, or rather of avenging. It comes from the primary idea of breathing, finding relief from the letting out of pent-up indignation. When thus applied to Deity the anthropopathism is terrific, and yet the context always shows that no other term could so express the vehemency of the indignation; as in Isaiah 1:24ΰֶ ?βּ ?ηֵ ?νξִ ?φָּ ?ψַ ?ι, well rendered, to the letter, “I will ease me of mine adversaries;” yet even here there is something touching in the anthropopathism, from the greatness of the long-suffering that appears in the verses preceding. Compare Ezekiel 5:13; Ezekiel 31:16; Ezekiel 32:31. More nearly allied, however, both to the primary, and to the sense we have traced in Genesis 6 is the Piel idea of consolation. It is the sympathizing sorrow, as in Genesis 50:21, where Joseph comforts his brethren by palliating their guilt. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD PARTTHE GENESIS OF THE WORLD’s AND OF THE WORLD’s BY MEANS OF THE FLOOD. THE FLOOD AND THE DROWNED RACE. THE ARK AND THE SAVED . (THE ARK AS A TYPE OF THE PIOUS FAMILY, OF THE PIOUS STATE, AND OF THE CHURCH). (Genesis 6:9 to Genesis 8:19.)FIRST SECTIONThe Calling of Noah. The ArkGen_6:9 to Genesis 7:99 These are the generations [tholedoth] of Noah; Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations [in his times], and Noah walked with God. 10And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. 11The earth also was corrupt before God [in relation to God], and the earth was filled with violence [in relation to men]. 12And God looked upon the earth and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted3 his way [walk or conduct] upon the earth. 13And God said unto Noah, the end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through4 them [before them]; and behold I will destroy4 them with the earth. 14Make thee an ark of gopher-wood [cypress—a resinous wood]; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. 15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of; the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, 16the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window [a sky-light] shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above [downward—not above on the side, but from the top surface downwards through the different stories]; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second and third stories shalt thou make it. 17And behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherever is the breath of life under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die [expire-yield the breath]: 18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee. 19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee [for a store], and it shall be for food for thee and for them. 22Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him. See Genesis 7:1 ff for AND ETHICAL, AND , and AND .Footnotes: [Genesis 6:9.—φַ ?γִּ ?ιχ, primary sense, fidelity, truthfulness. ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, primary sense, soundness, integrity. That the terms are comparative is shown by the qualifying word that follows, αְּ ?γεֹ ?ψεϊָ ?ιε, in his generations. The language gives no countenance to the opinion of Knobel, that Noah is represented as a man of spotless innocence, and that the author of this account knew nothing of any fall. So the Jewish interpreters take it, some of whom, as Rashi and Maimonides both tell us, go so far as to say that he would not have been so called in comparison with Abraham. ΰֶ ?ϊδָ ?ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινδִ ?ϊְ ?δַ ?μֶּ ?κְ: see remarks on this phrase as used in the account of Enoch.—T. L.] [Genesis 6:11.—ιַ ?ϊִּ ?ωָּׁ ?ηֵ ?ϊ, primary sense, depression, sinking down. Hence, corruption, destruction.—T. L.]. [Genesis 6:12.—εַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?ΰ. “And God saw the earth”—looked at the earth, and lo. Some would render: “saw that the earth was;” but the other mode is the more literal, as well as the more expressive. It may be called anthropopathic, as expressing something like surprise, but it is all the more striking on that very account. “Had corrupted its way.” δִ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊΰֶ ?ϊγַּ ?ψְ ?λּ ?εֹ. This may be taken physically as well as morally. γַּ ?ψְ ?λּ ?εֹ, its way, its mode of life. Men were becoming monsters, sinking down into brutality—becoming dehumanized through lust and cruelty, λָּ ?μαָּ ?ωָׂ ?ψ, all flesh. Dr. Murphy well remarks, that “this, should teach us to beware of applying an inflexible literality to such terms as all when thus used; since the mention of the whole race “does not preclude the exception of Noah and his family.” Commentary on Gen. p. 210.—T. L.] [Genesis 6:13.—χֵ ?υλָּ ?μαָֹּ ?ωָׂ ?ψ. “The end of all flesh is come up, μְ ?τָ ?πַ ?ι, before me (to my face).” Or it may be rendered in the present, comes up before me, giving it more the sense of a prediction (or an event seen to be inevitable unless prevented soon) than of a threatened judgment. The language is remarkably graphic; as though the events of time, as it moves on, or the roll unfolds itself, come up before the immovable, unchanging God, and the last periods of a long series were drawing nigh in their development. In this view, λָּ ?μ of Genesis 6:13 would be taken in its universality. Through human wickedness and corruption there will be an end of man (of the whole human race without exception) unless means are taken for the preservation of a sound humanity, in the destruction of these who are becoming dehumanized. ξִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, another most graphic expression—filled with violence before the face of them. Wherever they spread, violence and corruption goes with them, and before them. Compare the description of Leviathan, Job 41:14, μְ ?τָ ?πָ ?ιεϊָּ ?γεּ ?υγְּ ?ΰָ ?αָ ?δ, “terror moves swiftly before him.” “Lo, I am destroying them (with) the earth” ξַ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊָ ?νΰֶ ?ϊΞδΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ. Another view takes ΰֶ ?ϊΞηַ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ as in apposition with the preceding pronoun, and as explanatory of it. It sounds harsh in rendering, but is somewhat favored grammatically by the fact that ΰֶ ?ϊ, where it is occasionally to be rendered with, always denotes the closest and most essential union, and, on this ground, it is that it comes to denote the nearest and most direct object of the verb—“will destroy them, the very earth,” as the means of their destruction. Other renderings are, upon the earth (ΰֶ ?ϊ for ςַ ?μ), with reference to 1 Kings 9:25; Psalms 67:2; and from the earth (ΰֶ ?ϊ for ξֵ ?ΰֵ ?ϊ), 2 Kings 23:35; but the examples cited for these fail to bear out the interpretation. See Rosenmόller. It may be offered as a conjecture entitled to some attention, that the Hiphil participle ξַ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊ may have the permissive sense which sometimes belongs to it (see Deuteronomy 2:28; Genesis 24:17; Genesis 25:30; Isaiah 63:15 et al.; Glassii Phil., p. 836), instead of the causative, and then it would be a case of double government: “And lo I am suffering them to corrupt the earth;” in which case ΰϊ would have its usual sense of the direct object, and there would be no need of the sudden change in ξωηιϊ from the sense of corrupting to that of destroying, although they are nearly allied; as though it were a reason for the interposition instead of a threatening of it. Lo I am letting them ruin the earth, if they are permitted thus to have their way. The interpretations generally are against this, but it may be grammatically supported, and has some grounds in the context as giving the merciful and remedial aspect of the passage the predominance over the retributive. It may at least be offered as a conjecture. The δωηιϊ of Genesis 6:12 seems to be against it, but even that may be rendered, “all flesh is letting its way become corrupt upon earth.”—T. L.] [Genesis 6:14.—ςֲ ?φֵ ?ιβֹ ?τֵ ?ψ, Rendered gopher-wood. The word occurs but once in the Scriptures. It is, however, etymologically the same with the Greek κυπάρισσος (cypress, the same radical consonants, g p r—k p r), and may also be regarded as related to the Latin juniperus (g (n) p r). It may denote any resinous wood which is at the same time light and firm.—T.L.]. [Genesis 6:17.—ηַ ?ξַּ ?αּ ?εּ ?μ: used only of the Great Deluge, except Psalms 29:10, where it comes in as a hyperbole in the description of a great storm and inundation. Lange, Gesenius, and others, derive it from ιָ ?αַ ?μ, to which they give the sense fluxit, though it occurs only in some noun derivatives, the Hiphil sense being remotely secondary. The sense of flowing, however, in ιαμ, if it has it at all, is quite different from the conception we have of the deluge. It is the flowing of streams, rivers, rivulets, as seen in the derivative ιָ ?αָ ?μ, flumen, rivus. Aben Ezra gives us the views of the older Jewish grammarians. One class of these make it from παμ, comparing it with Isaiah 24:4, ΰָ ?αְ ?μָ ?ηπָ ?αְ ?μָ ?δδָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, “in mourning and desolate is the earth,”—giving to παμ the sense of ruin and wasteness. This accounts for the dagesh in α. It is dagesh compensative, they say, for the swallowed π, or ξַ ?αּ ?εּ ?μ for ξַ ?πְ ?αּ ?εּ ?μ, just as ξַ ?αּ ?εςַ (from πας) for ξַ ?πְ ?αּ ?εּ ?ς. It is certainly much easier, etymologically, to account for it in this way, than by making it from ιαμ, which would rather give the form ξεֹ ?αָ ?μ. Others make it from αμμ confundit, and regard it as equal to ξַ ?αְ ?μεּ ?μ, the dagesh arising from the swallowing, as the Jewish grammarians call it, of the first ύμ following. They compare it, in its full form, to ξַ ?ρְ ?μεּ ?μ from ρμμ, Isaiah 35:8, or ωִׁ ?αְ ?μεּ ?μ, Psalms 58:9. Either of these conceptions of ruin, desolation, and confusion, suits better with the idea of the great catastrophe than simply that of flowing, especially regarded as the flowing of a river. And then, according to these acute authorities, we have a reason for the addition of ξַ ?ιִ ?ν, “the mabbul of waters,” which would be a mere tautology, and, in this case, a feeble tautology, if the word simply meant flowing. It was a wasteness, a ruin, a desolation, a confusion, or mingling together of all things (αμεμ), by means of waters. Hence the special descriptive term used only of this great event, and intended to show that it was sui generis, so that it comes to be used like a proper name.—T. L.] [Genesis 6:18.–αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ. Lange makes it from αψϊ, a root not found; and the metathesis from αϊψ is harsh and unexampled. The Jewish grammarians and lexicographers make it from αψΰ = αψδ, primary sense, to cut, referring to the severance of the victim in sacrifice on the making of a covenant. See Psalms 1:5, λֹּ ?ψְ ?ϊֵּ ?ιαְ ?ψιϊιςֲ ?μֵ ?ιζָ ?αַ ?η “who have made (cut) a covenant (with me) by sacrifice.” Further on this word and idea, see Exegetical and Notes.—T. L.] See Genesis 6:8 ff for the passage quote with footnotes. Genesis 7:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the earth. 4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from the face of the earth. 5And Noah did according to all that the Lord commanded him. 6And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood [from before, or from the face of the waters]. 8Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9There went in two and two [by pairs] unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God [Elohim] had commanded Noah. THE FLOOD. REMARKS1. The Literature.—See Com. on Matthew, p. 6. The present work, p. 119. Walch.: Bibl. Theol., iii. p. 100. Danz: “Universal Lexicon,” p. 918. Winer, Real Lexicon, article, Noah. Herzog, Real Encyclopedia, article, Noah. Kurtz: “History of the Old Testament,” i. p. 81. Knobel, p. 81.—[Article, Deluge, Kitto: “Bib. Encyc” vol. i. p. 542.—Article, Noah, Smith’s “Bib. Dict.” vol. ii., p. 562.—T. L.] The Hebrew name of the Great Flood (ξַ ?αּ ?εּ ?μ) Luther rendered by the word Sin-flut, or Sindflut. The latest edition of the German Bible contains still this designation. Through a misunderstanding of the expression it became afterwards Sόndflut. Pischon in the “Theological Studies and Criticisms,” 1834, III. Delitzsch, p. 628. In old German the word sin is found only at the beginning of compounds: it has the meaning ever, everywhere, complete. For example, sin-grόn means ever-green. 2. The Stories of the Flood. No fact of Sacred History reflects itself in a more universal and manifold manner throughout the heathen legendary world than the Noachic flood. Compare here the copious account of Lόcken: “The Traditions of the Human Race,” p. 170; also Knobel, p. 75; Delitzsch, p. 242. It is especially interesting to study how the different nations have heathenized, mythologized, in other words, nationalized or localized the sacred and universal tradition (since by the very nature of heathenism the patriarch of the flood belongs to particular nations who received the account from him, and who also regarded him as their national middle point), and how they have confounded it with the story of Paradise, or of the creative days. From this comes the varied deification of this flood-patriarch. Delitzsch distinguishes, 1. the West Asiatic stories of the flood. The Babylonian flood of Xisuthrus: “the last of the ten antediluvian chiefs, as given by Berosus and Abydenus, and the Phoenician story of the victory of Pontus over Demarus, the earth sphere, as given by Sanchoniathon.” With the Babylonian story of the flood he compares the narrative of the flood as given in the first of the Sibylline books, which, in its ground features, has some resemblance to the biblical. Next “the Phrygian story of King ’Αννακός or Ναννακός (that is, Enoch) in Iconium, who, when over three hundred years old, announced the flood, and prayed with lamentation for his people; with which are connected coins of Apamea of the times of Septimius Severus, Macrinus, and Philip, representing a floating ark and bearing the partial inscription, ΝΩ.” So also the Armenian, which, as might be expected, agrees in its locality with the biblical (Nicol. Damascen., Strabo). Then a Syrian legend of which Lucian makes mention (De Syra Dea, Genesis 13). 2. East Asiatic stories of the flood. The Persian, the Chinese; the Indian of Menu, to whom Vishnu, taking the form of a fish, announces the flood, and whose ship, drawn by this fish, lands upon Himarat. It presents itself to us in many forms. The oldest, yet the latest known to us, is the story in Ηatapatha-Brahmana (Weber, “Indian Studies,” 1850). Next to that is the story in Mahβbhβrata (Bopp, “Diluvium,” 1829), and in the Purβna; its latest form is presented in the Bhβgavata-Purana (ed. Bournout, 1827), which, according to Wilson, does not go back of the twelfth century after Christ. (In respect to all these forms of the story, see Felix Nave: La Tradition Indienne du Dιluge, Paris, 1851.) 3. Grecian stories of the flood. “In the first place the story of Ogyges (Plato, in the Tim�us,) and the more enlarged account of Deucalion and Pyrrha (first in Pindar, then by Apollodorus, brought nearer to the biblical account, also given by Plutarch, Lucian, and Ovid,—both, in their ground features, stories of one and the same flood, but wholly Hellenized.” 4. The stories of the people who were outside the commerce or intercourse of the Old World. The Celtic story of Dwyvan and Dwyvach, who, in the flood that arose from the outbreaking of the sea of Llion, and which swallowed up all men, made their escape in a bare boat (without sails), and again peopled Britain. More remote still, the flood-stories of the Mexicans, of the island inhabitants of Cuba, of the Peruvians, of the races on the upper Orinoco, of the Tahitians, and other insular peoples of the Society Islands Archipelago. To make an arrangement according to the facts narrated, we may distinguish, 1. Stories of the flood which identify it with the creative catastrophes, namely: the Germanic story of the blood of the slain Ymer, which deluged the earth, and destroyed the oldest giant race. The Persian story of the rain of Zistar, which flooded the earth, and caused the death of the beasts of Ahriman. The Chinese story of Riuhoa (Lόcken, p. 193; see on the other hand Bunsen, vol. ii. p. 61). 2. Stories of the flood in which the Bible flood is specifically and distinctly reflected, such as the Babylonian, the Phrygian, the Indian, the Chinese story of Jao, the Celtic stories (Lόcken, p. 204). 3. Stories of the flood which seem to connect or to confound it with the deluge accounts of later floods. The stories of the Egyptians and the Greeks (Lόcken, pp. 209, 196). In the submersion of the island Atlantis, as given in Plato’s Tim�us, there seems to be reflected likewise the tradition of the lost Paradise. In respect to the facts that lie at the foundation of the latter stories, compare the pamphlet of Unger, entitled “The Sunken Island of Atlantis.” Vienna, 1860. The fundamental view here indicates revolutions of the earth, upheavings and depressions of its surface, whose effect is also of importance in the history of the Bible deluge. 4. Stories of floods in which the Bible flood forms the central point, towards which all traditions and legends of early terrestrial catastrophes flow together, and in which the original tradition cannot always be separated from later modification through Christian and Mohammedan elements. Interior African and American, or insular flood stories. It is well worthy of remark, that the ethical interpretation of the flood, according to which it comes as a judgment upon a condemned human race, everywhere prominently appears in the stories of the deluge. The purest copy of our Bible history is given in the Chaldaic narrative of Berosus, the ancient priest of Bel, about 260 years before Christ. Xisuthrus, the last of the ten primitive kings, beheld in a dream the appearance of Cronos (in Greek the same as Bel or Baal), who announced to him, that on the 15th day of the month Dδsio, men would be destroyed by a flood. It was commanded him to write down all the sciences and inventions of mankind, and to conceal the writings in Syparis, the city of the Sun; thereupon he was to build a ship, and to embark on the same with all his companions, kindred, and nearest friends; he was to put in it provisions and drink, and to take with him the animals, the birds, as well as the quadrupeds. If any one should ask him whereto he was bound, he was to answer: To the gods; to implore good for men. He obeyed, and made an ark five stadia in length, and two in breadth, put together what was commanded, and embarked with wife, children, and kindred. As the flood subsided, Xisuthrus let fly a bird, which, when it neither found nourishment nor place to light, returned back into the ark. After some days he let fly another bird; this came back with slime upon its foot. The third bird sent forth never returned. Then Xisuthrus perceived that land was becoming visible, and after that he had broken an opening in the ship, he sees it driven upon a mountain, whence he descends with wife, daughter, and pilot, and when he had saluted the earth, built an altar, and offered sacrifice to the gods, he disappeared. Those who were left in the ship, when they saw that Xisuthrus did not return, went forth to seek him, and called him by name. Xisuthrus was seen no more, but a voice sounded from the air, bidding them to fear god, and telling them that on account of his piety he had been taken away to dwell with the gods; and that the same honor was given to his wife, daughter, and pilot. (This disappearance has relation to his deification, or probably to his translation among the stars, where the forms of the waterman, the young woman, and the carrier (the wagoner) still present themselves to us). They were commanded to return back to Babylon) where it was appointed to them to take the writings from Syparis, and impart the knowledge they contained to men. The country where they found themselves was Armenia. In respect to the ship, which had landed in Armenia, Berosus adds that there was still a portion of it on the mountains of Kordyδer (or the Kurdistan mountains) in Armenia, from which some persons cut off pieces, took them to their houses, and used them as amulets (according to Lόcken). Amid all the similarity which this story presents to the Bible history, there is no mistaking the mythological coloring; for example, in the huge size of the ark. Just as little do we fail to hear the echo of the history of Enoch. 3. The Fact of the Flood.—The narrative of the flood, like the history of Paradise, has in a special measure the character of all the Bible histories—that is, it is at the same time fact and symbol; and it is the symbolical significance of this history that has formed the significant expression of the fact. In regard to the fact itself, the view is rendered in a high degree difficult by reason of the mingling with it of the following representations, resting solely on the literal interpretation: 1. the supposition that the history narrates not merely the extermination of the first human race, and, therefore, the overflowing of the earth according to the geographical extension of that race, but an absolute universal submersion of the whole earth itself; 2. the idea that the terrestrial relations were the same at that time that they are now, that the mountain elevations were completed, and that the mountain Ararat was just as high as at the present time; 3. that the branching of the animal species had become as great at that day as it is now: add to these a 4th, the ignoring of every symbolical imprint in the representation. As to what concerns the first two points, it is argued by Ebrard, for example (“Belief in the Holy Scriptures,” p. 73), that Ararat was 16,000 feet high. The waters stand fifteen cubits above Ararat; consequently must the whole earth have been covered, though it may still remain a question whether single peaks, like the Dhawalagiri, might not have projected above the water-surface (in a literal construction of the text, however, such a doubt cannot remain), since a banking limitation of so high a flood would be inconceivable. This conclusion depends upon a supposition wholly uncertain, namely, that the peak of Ararat was in that day 16,000 feet high. In regard to the first point, the remark of Nδgelsbach (Art. “Noah,” Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedie) coincides wholly with the view of Delitzsch, namely, that the theological interest does not demand the universality of the flood in itself, but only the universality of the judgment that was executed by it. In respect to the second point, it is to be remarked, that the mountain formations of the earth had been, indeed, begun in the creative period, but were not yet fully completed. The history of the deluge is, without doubt, the history of a catastrophe in which the terrain of the earth experienced important modifications through the cooperation of fire. The deep sinking of the land in the neighborhood of the Armenian paradisaical region, which is denoted by the Caspian Sea, might alone have brought on a deluge catastrophe analogous to that which must have had a connection with the ruin of the legendary island of Atlantis. In respect to the third representation, the Darwin theory of the progressive origin of races, though in itself untenable, does nevertheless contain an indication of the truth that the countless unfolding of organic memberships in the animal life goes back to great individual anti-types, as science theoretically sets forth. For each species, perhaps, there may have been a ground type in the ark, out of which all varieties of the same have proceeded. In respect to the fourth false representation, which confounds the style of the Holy History with the notarial expression of a worldly pragmatism, we refer to the Introduction. On the side of the mythologizing of the deluge history there are similar untenable representations that call for remark. 1. The apprehension in respect to the possibility of building the ark. It is historically established that, at all times, a necessity fundamentally perceived, has, under the guidance of God, brought to discovery the helps required for the accomplishment. Necessity learns to pray, learns to build. 2. The difficulty of assembling such a multitude of beasts in the ark. In reply to this, allusion has been made to the instinct of animals, which, in a presentiment of natural catastrophe, seek an asylum, sometimes, almost in violation of their natural habits. Birds, in a storm, fly to the ships; wolves come into the villages, etc. 3. The difficulty of the animal provisioning. Answer: This would be of least weight in respect to animals like those of the marmot and badger species, whose winter torpor in the easiest manner keeps them through the wintry storm-period. But the deluge, in like manner, supposes, in the main, a slumbering, dead-like transition from the old existence into the new. Darkness, the roaring and rocking of the waters in so peculiar a manner, must bring on a benumbing torpor, and, in the case of many animals, a winter sleep, whereby the feeding would be rendered unnecessary. The ground ideas of the deluge history are as high above the popular representations on the right, as they are beyond the scholastic thinking on the left. They may be regarded as something like the following: 1. At the moment when the first human race, through the commingling of an angel like elevation of the Sethic line with the demonic corruption of the Cainitic, is ripe for judgment, there is a corresponding catastrophe, having its ground in the earth’s development, forming an echo to the creation catastrophes, and, at the same time, imposed by God as a judgment doom upon that human corruption. 2. The prophetic spirit of a pious patriarch, in whom there is concentrated the heart of the old world’s piety, takes into its belief not only the revelation of the impending judgment, but also the deliverance which out of that judgment is to go forth for this world itself as represented in his person, and in his family, whilst it denotes thereby the progress of faith in revelation, from the assurance of salvation in the other world (which Enoch already had), to the confidence of salvation in this. 3. The inspiring of necessity teaches him, under the divine guidance, to build an ark, which, in its commencement, is to be a preaching of repentance to the cotemporaries of the builder, but which, in its completion, is distinguished neither by oar nor helm, but only by its great spaciousness and water-tight construction. 4. In this use of the ark, as a common asylum, the instincts of the beasts act in harmony with the prophetic presentiment of chosen men, whilst the rest follows through God’s care and a peculiar success. 5. The history of the flood is an ἅπαξλεγόμενον in the world’s history, analogous to the creation of Adam, the birth and history of Christ, and the future history of the world’s end. Even Bunsen (ii. p. 63) affirms, in general, the historicalness of the biblical tradition. Therefore is this unparalleled fact in the highest degree symbolic or ideal, whilst it is, at the same time, a typical prophecy. 1. It is a prophecy of the deliverance of Israel as the people of God in the passage through the Red Sea; 2. a prophecy of the deliverance of the Christian church from the corruption of the world, through the washing of baptism (1 Peter 3:21); 3. a prophecy of the deliverance of the congregation of Christ, at the world’s end, out of the fire-flood of the world’s judgment. The ark is especially reflected in the ark of Moses, in the ark of the covenant which was carried through the Jordan, in the household of the church, and in the congregation of faith at the end of the world. Knobel thinks that in the narration before us there is to be recognized an Elohistic foundation which the Jehovist must have elaborated, not without a contradiction of its fundamental ground. Thus the description of the corruption, in Genesis 6:11-12, he says, does not agree with the Jehovist, who represents the wickedness in human life as having commenced at a much earlier day. As though the origin of evil and an incurable corruption were not two distinct grades! So, according to the Jehovist, it is (as Knobel would have it) that the human life-period after the flood sinks down to one hundred and twenty years—an idea that rests upon a false interpretation. Moreover, it would seem not to agree with the ground-scripture, that of many kinds of beasts Noah took more than a pair (Genesis 7:2-3; Genesis 7:8). Knobel supposes, therefore, that the special enlargement was a contradiction to the more general appointment. In regard to the fact itself, says Knobel: Unanswerable are the questions, how Noah came to expect the great flood, and was led to the building of the ark. So also would it be incapable of an answer, how at any time one could attain to a prophetic prevision. The question he regards as still more difficult to answer: “How he was enabled to produce such a structure,”—that is, such a great quadrangular box. Further: “How he got the beasts in his power?” Experience shows, that in extraordinary catastrophes of nature, the wildest animals take refuge with men. Lastly: “How could they all, together with the necessary provisioning for a whole year, find room in the ark?” This point carries us back to a primitive time, when, as yet, the species were comparatively less divided, and to a stormy death of nature, which intensified to its most extreme degree the phenomenon of the winter’s sleep; to say nothing of the point, that to the symbolical expression there is needed only the general fact of the saving of the animal world, along with man, by means of the ark. When Ebrard admits that possibly the highest mountain-peaks may have projected above the surface of the waters of the deluge, it would allow the consequence of an Alpine fauna existing outside of the ark. The point mainly in view is the destruction of the human race, and the saving of the Noachian family, in the deluge. Notwithstanding his objections, Knobel supposes an actual ground of fact in the narration, even as an after-piece to the great earth revolutions of the creative period (p. 78). This last point of view carries us beyond the supposition of mere partial historical inundations. A concussion of the earth permits the conclusion that a displacement occurred in its continental relations, whence there might have arisen a deluge of a very wide character, without our having to assume a corresponding inundation of the whole earth’s surface. Stormy deluges do not obey the law of standing waters. Such a deluge might have passed over the whole inhabited part of the earth, without making a like height of water as standing over the whole sphere. “The grounds,” remarks Delitzsch, “on which the Thora (the Pentateuch) dwells so emphatically upon the flood, consist in their significancy for the history of God’s kingdom in general, and the history of the Old Testament theocracy in particular. The flood is an act of deepest significance, whether regarded as one of judgment or of salvation. It is a common judgment, making an incision in history so deep and so wide, of such force and universality, that nothing can be compared with it but the final judgment at the extreme limit of this world’s history. But the act of judgment is, at the same time, an act of salvation. The sin-deluge is, at the same time, a grace-deluge, and so far a type of holy baptism (1 Peter 3:21), and of life rising out of death; therefore it is, that old ecclesiastical art was so fond of distinguishing chapels of burial by a representation of it. The destruction has in view the preservation, the drowning has in view the purification, the death of the human race has in view the new birth; the old corrupted earth is buried in the flood of water, that out of this grave there may emerge a new world. In this way Ararat points to Sinai. The covenant of Elohim, which God then made with the saved holy seed, and with the universal nature, points to the covenant of Jehovah.” 4. The Geological Effects of the Deluge.—In earlier times, the traces of earth revolutions that took place in the creative days (for example, the mountain formations, the shells on the highest hills, and similar phenomena) were brought forth as proofs of the flood. Such a mode of reasoning must now be laid aside by those who would reconcile revelation with science. Neither can the assumption be proved, that it rained for the first time in the flood, and that, with the change in the atmosphere, human life suddenly sunk in its duration, nor the supposition that at that time a sudden transformation took place in the animal world, or that new animals were originated. The following suppositions, however, may be regarded as more or less safely entertained: 1. As the great flood denoted an epoch in the life of humanity, so also must it have done in the life of the earth; and through this epoch the giant-like in the human natural powers seems to have been moderated, whilst, on the contrary, the development in the earth’s life becomes more conformable to law. 2. The historical indications and signs of great changes in the earth’s surface, such as volcanic mountain formations, surface transformations (Caspian Sea, and island Atlantis, for example), may be connected, in some special measure, with the catastrophe of the flood. 3. The flood in itself may, perhaps, have been partial (see F. Pfaff, “The Creative History,” p. 646), but the earth-crisis, on which it was conditioned, must have been universal. With the opening of the fountains of the deep stands the opening of the windows of heaven in polar contrast. An extraordinary rain-storm and fall of water over the Noachian earth-circle, was probably conditioned by an extraordinary evaporation in other regions of the globe. This must have been followed by an extraordinary congelation on the same side. Does the “ice-period,” the period of the wandering boulders, stand in any relation to this? As an earth-crisis, the flood was probably universal. AND 1. Noah and his House, in contrast with the Contemporaries of Noah (Genesis 6:9-11). The history that follows is distinguished by the name Tholedoth, or Generations of Noah. For Noah is not only the last of the Sethic patriarchs, as the end of the antediluvian period; he is, moreover, the first of the new, through the patriarchal line that goes on in Shem, and, in this representation, is he also a type of the future Christ, the finisher of the old, the author of the new, world. In a typical sense, Noah is the second ancestor of the human race, as Christ, the Man from Heaven, is such in a real sense (1 Corinthians 15). As a continuer of the old time, Noah is virtually a repetition of Adam; as a beginner of the new time, he is a type of Christ. He was a righteous man. According to Knobel, the author (of this account of the flood) knew nothing of any fall of Adam. One might deduce a like conclusion from Luke in his account of Zacharias and Elisabeth (Genesis 1:6). But evidently the righteousness here meant is that which represents him as justified in view of the judgment of the flood, by reason of his faith (Hebrews 11:7). Therefore was the explanation added: he was ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, guiltless, perfect, blameless among his cotemporaries who perished in the judgment. The ground of this was: he walked with God as Enoch did. That he begat three eons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, is here again related, as in Genesis 5:32, because in them the continuance of a new race is secured; with Noah, therefore, must his family also be saved. But, moreover, to Noah, and his house, there is formed a contrast in the race of his time, and in the old form of the earth that had been corrupted by it. Genesis 7:5. To represent the wickedness of man, our text goes further, and expresses the incurable perdition of the old earth itself, as having been produced by it. It was utterly corrupt, in that it was filled with wickedness, acts of violence, and pride. But it was corrupt before the eye of God in its most manifest form, so that its judgment was imperatively demanded.—And God looked upon the earth, and lo.—Delitzsch correctly points out the contrast of these words to Genesis 1:31. “Everything stood in sharpest contradiction with that good state which God the creator had established.” God’s looking (or seeing) denotes a final sentence. The earth was incurably corrupt because all flesh had corrupted its way, that is, its normal way of life, upon the corrupted earth. Herein lies the indication, that as men grew wild and savage, the animal world also threatened to become wild. If, however, we suppose, with Delitzsch, an universal corruption of the animal world, whence could Noah have taken the good specimens for his ark? Moreover, it cannot be concluded, from Genesis 9:4, that men, in their greediness for flesh, cut out pieces from the yet living animal. According to Knobel, the text denotes the beasts, inasmuch as they originally lived upon vegetables, but now had partly degenerated into flesh-eaters. This, however, would be all the same as introducing a representation into the text, just as Delitzsch maintains, that the eating of flesh had not yet been permitted. Keil understands the words in question as referring generally to men only. Thereby, however, there is loosened that organic connection of man, beast, and earth, on which the text lays stress. More correct is the emphasis he lays on the words “all flesh:” humanity had become flesh (Genesis 7:3). 2. The Announcement of the Judgment, and the Direction for the Building of the Ark (Genesis 7:13-22).—And God said to Noah.—The revelation of the divine displeasure with the human race, which appears first, Genesis 7:3, as a conditional and veiled threatening of judgment with the granting of a space for repentance, and which, in its second utterance, has already become a resolution to destroy the human race (Genesis 7:7), becomes here an absolute announcement of approaching doom. There had, perhaps, been previous revelations, in the form of a preaching of repentance, made by other patriarchs (such as Methuselah and Lamech), as they, one after the other, left the world. These had been gradually extended in time; but now are they all concentrated in the one revelation made to Noah. With this there was, at the same time, connected the promise that Noah and his family should be saved. As God’s acts of deliverance are connected in time with his acts of judgment (since his judgments are ever separations of the godly from the ungodly, and, in this sense, salvations and deliverances), so also are the revelations of judgment at the same time revelations of deliverance, and the faith of the elect which corresponds to them is, at the same time, both a faith in judgment and a faith in salvation.—The end of all flesh.—An expression which strongly conveys the idea, that the positive judgment of God is indicated through a judgment immanent in the corruption of men. The self-abandonment in this corruption, the clearly visible end of the same, is so fearfully depicted, that the positive end which God is about to impose takes the appearance, not of a judgment merely, but of redress. Still is the first conception the predominant one, as appears from the expression which tells us that God saw the end, the extreme end of the world’s corruption (Keil).—Is filled with violence through them (Lange renders more correctly, from their faces, or, before them. Vulg., a facie eorum). As it is said, in immediate connection, “before the face of God,” we hold it unsatisfactory here to render ξτπιδν from them, or through them. The flood of wickedness that comes up before God’s face goes out from their face; that is, it is a wickedness openly perpetrated; the moral judgment, the conscience, goes utterly out in the direct beholding and approbation of evil.—I will destroy them with the earth.—Destruction as set against corruption (1 Corinthians 5:5). The earth as such can, indeed, suffer no penal destruction. As one with man, the destruction becomes to it a total destruction, which comes upon men along with their earth. And so in the renewal of humanity must the earth also receive a renovation of its form.—Make thee an ark.—An indication of the mode of salvation, in which he himself must co-operate. Baumgarten: “He must be not only the preserved, but also the preserver.” ϊֵּ ?αָ ?δ, according to Delitzsch, probably (if the word is Shemitic), from ΰεּ ?α = ϊּ ?εּ ?α, to be hollow. Chaldaic, ϊֵּ ?ιαεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, Sept. κιβωτός, Vulg. arca (other meanings see in Delitzsch). Keil and Rφdiger conjecture that the word is of Egyptian origin. So Knobel: “In Egyptian, boat is called tept.” It is likewise used of the small ark in which Moses was saved (but which in the Septuagint is rendered θίβις or θίβη.—Of gopher-wood [Lange, resinous wood]. Hieronymus: ligna bituminata. “Probably, cypress-wood.” Keil (βֹּ ?τֶ ?ψ, cognate to λֹּ ?τֶ ?ψ and κυπάρισσος).—Rooms shalt thou make [Lange, cells].—Properly in cells, as cells (literally, nests—little cabins), or cell-containing.—With pitch.—Sept. ἀσφαλτός, Vulg. bitumen.—And this is which (what) thou shalt make it.—“The most probable supposition is, that the ark was built, not in the form of a ship, but after the manner of a box, without keel, with a flat deck, more like a four-sided moving house than a ship, since it was destined not for sailing, but only for floating upon the water. Thus regarded, the measures 300 cubits long, 50 cubits broad, and 30 cubits high, give a ground-surface of 15,000 cubits square, and a cubical content of 450,000 cubits solid, taking the usual measure of the cubit (Deuteronomy 3:11), as the length from the elbow to the end of the middle finger, or about 18 inches.” Keil. Knobel remarks: “The building surpasses in magnitude the greatest ships-of-the-line. Its arrangement, however, according to experiments made in Holland, would be found in harmony with its design.” In the year 1609, at Hoorn, in Holland, the Netherlandish Mennonite, P. Jansen, produced the model of a vessel after the pattern of the ark, only in smaller proportions, whereby he proved, that although it was not appropriate for a ship-model, it was well adapted for floating, and would carry a cargo greater by one third than any other form of like cubical content. See Delitzsch, p. 250.—A window shalt thou make in the ark.—φֹ ?δַ ?ψ, not in the roof (Rosenmόller and others), but a light-opening (φָ ?δֳ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν, dual, a double light); see Genesis 8:6. Baumgarten supposes that it must be regarded as a light-opening of a cubit’s breadth, extending above the whole upper length of the ark; Knobel and Keil, on the contrary, suppose that the window was fixed on the side, to the extent of a cubit, under the ridge of the roof. Then, indeed, according to Tuch, would only one cabin have received light, perhaps that of Noah; at all events, only the highest story would have had a dim twilight. We suppose, therefore, with Baumgarten, that it must be regarded as a light-opening in the deck, which was continued through the different stories. Against the rain and the water dashing, must this opening have been closed in some way by means of some transparent substance; for which purpose a trellis, or lattice-work, would not have been sufficient. The expression “to a cubit,” denotes also precaution. In this view of the case, moreover, it is not easy to take φδψ collectively, as is done by Gesenius and the Syriac, and to fancy a number of light apertures, although it might be that one light-opening in the deck could be divided into a number of light-openings for the interior.—The door of the ark.—Here can only be meant an entrance which was afterwards closed, and only opened again at the end of the flood. And since there were three stories of the ark, the word is to be understood, perhaps, of three entrances capable of being closed, and to which there would have been constructed a way of access from the outside on the outside. “Is it held that so colossal a structure as the ark would have been impracticable in this very early time; the objection may be met with the answer, that some of the most gigantic structures belong to an immemorial antiquity.” Baumgarten (compare also Keil, p. 93; Delitzsch, p. 250).—And behold I, even I, am bringing.—Noah must make the ark, for He, Jehovah, is about to bring a flood upon the earth, but at the same time to make a covenant of salvation with Noah. ξַ ?αּ ?εּ ?μ from ιָ ?αַ ?μ or αεּ ?μ, to undulate, to swell—an antique word, used expressly for the waters of Noah (Isaiah 54:9), and which, out of Genesis, occurs only in Psalms 29:10.” Keil. Therefore Keil and Delitzsch take for its explanation the words that follow: “waters upon the earth,” regarding it as in apposition. Knobel, again, explains it as meaning the flood of water, whilst Michaelis and others have changed ξַ ?ιִ ?ν into ξִ ?ιָּ ?ν (from the sea) without any ground, although in this conformation of all collections of water to make the flood, the co-operation of the sea comes into account. The divine destination of the flood: to destroy every living thing under the heaven. In a more particular sense: whatever is upon the earth. The sea-animals cannot be destroyed by water. In respect to them, moreover, the symbolical relation in which the beasts stand to men, does not come specially into consideration.—But with thee will I establish my covenant.—αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, Sept. διαθήκη, Vulg. f�dus, in the New Testament, testamentum (Romans 9:4). The religious covenant-idea here presents itself for the first in literal expression; although the establishment of God’s covenant with Noah presupposes a previous covenant relation with Adam (Genesis 2:15; Genesis 3:15; Sir 17:10). In the repeated establishment of the covenant with Noah (Genesis 6:18; Genesis 8:21; Genesis 9:9; Genesis 7:11; Genesis 7:16; Sir 44:11), with Abraham, Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:9-14; Genesis 22:15; Psalms 105:8-10; Sir 44:24; Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8), with Isaac (Genesis 24:25), with Jacob (Genesis 28:13-14), with Israel (Exodus 19:6; Exodus 24:7; Exodus 34:10; Deuteronomy 5:3), there are unfolded the different covenants, or covenant forms, which bring into revelation the ground-idea of the covenant between God and humanity in Adam, whilst they are, at the same time, anticipatory representations of that true covenant-making which is realized in the new covenant of God with believing humanity through Christ (Jeremiah 31:32-33; ZaGen Genesis 9:11; Matthew 26:28; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 6:17-18), and which finds in the perfected kingdom of God its last and conclusive development (Revelation 21). The covenant of God with Noah, and that with Abraham, form a parallel; the first is the covenant of compassion and forbearance made with the new humanity and earth in general; the last is the covenant of grace and salvation made with Abraham and his believing seed, as a more definite covenant-making on the ground of the Noachian- covenant. The patriarchal covenant which, in its specialty, embraced Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6) as the covenant of promise, takes the form of a law-covenant for Israel; this latter is the old typical covenant in the form of an anticipatory representation of the new covenant, and which, therefore, as the older and more imperfect, must give place to the new; whereas the covenant with Noah and that with Abraham, as beginnings of the covenant of faith, become one, finally, with the new covenant of Christ, which, in its stricter sense, embraces the children of faith as partakers of salvation, but, in its wider sense, the children of men as called to salvation. But the covenant of Christ carries on the foundation covenant made with Adam to its perfect realization in the eternal covenant-life of the new world (Revelation 21). The revelation and recognition of the divine covenant rests on the revelation and recognition of the fact that God, as the absolute personality, places himself in a personal, ethically free, covenant-relation of love and truth to man as personal, and to the human race. That the covenant of God has its root in the personal relation is evident from the fact that in its different forms such covenant ever goes out from a person, as from Noah, Abraham, etc. Therefore it is, that ever within the universal covenant relations, as they widen from the centre out, there are the making of special covenants, such as that with Moses, with Phineas (Numbers 25:13), with David. It is a consequence of the ethical significance of God’s covenant as forming the personal foundation of the chosen kingdom, that the assaults of the kingdom of darkness are in like manner comprehended as covenants or conspiracies against God (the troop of Korah, Psalms 2; Psalms 83:6; Luke 23:12; Acts 4:27). The word αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ from αψϊ, to cut, divide, is derived from the sacrifices of animals that are cut in twain in the formation of a covenant; and in this is the peculiar explanation of the word, Genesis 15:10; Genesis 15:17.—And thou shalt come into the ark.—God makes his covenant personally with Noah, but there is included also his house, which he represents as paterfamilias, and with it the new humanity mediately, as also, in a remoter sense, the animal world that is to be preserved. “The narrator supposes that the beasts of themselves (as is held by Jarchi and Aben Ezra), or at the instigation of God (according to Kimchi, Piscat.), would come into the ark.” Knobel. Rather was it through an instinctive presentiment of catastrophe, which was, at the same time, God’s ordering and an impulse of nature. The collection of the provisioning is distinguished from the gathering of the beasts, so that the ark represents a perfect economy of the Noachian household. Noah’s obedience in faith makes the conclusion of the section (see Hebrews 11:17). 3. The approach of the Flood, and the Divine Direction to Noah for entering into the Ark (Genesis 7:1-9). And the Lord said unto Noah.—Here Elohim appears as the covenant-God; therefore is he named Jehovah.—Come thou into the ark.—The signal of the approaching judgment. Enter, my people, into thy chamber (Isaiah 26:20) for thee have I seen righteous! In the divine forum of the judgment of the deluge, Noah is justified before God by means of the righteousness of faith through the word of the promise; therefore is he saved, together with his whole family, because his faith is imputed for their good.—Before me (Heb. before my face) denotes the divine sentence of justification.—In his generation, denotes the opposite sentence of God against that generation.—Of every clean beast—by sevens.—This appointment is a special carrying out of the more universal one, Genesis 6:20; it is, therefore, wholly in correspondence with the advancing prophecy, and not in contradiction of it, as Knobel thinks. Of the unclean beasts it says, “by two, a male and a female;” according to the analogy of this expression, the number seven (as used of the clean beasts) would denote also the number of individuals (Calvin, Delitzsch, Keil, and others), not seven pair (Vulgate, Aben Ezra, Michaelis, De Wette, Knobel). The prescription, therefore, is three pair and one over. This one was probably destined for a thank-offering. “The distinction between clean and unclean beasts is not first made by Moses, but only becomes fixed in the law as corresponding to it, though existing long before. Its beginnings reach back to the primitive time, and ground themselves on an immediate conscious feeling of the human spirit not yet clouded by any unnatural and ungodly culture, under the influence of which feeling it sees in many beasts pictures of sin and corruption which fill it with aversion and abhorrence.” Keil. But such a distinction, so grounded, might make an analogous division a permanent law for Christendom. The contrast of clean and unclean cannot, surely, have here the Levitical significance. More to the purpose would be the contrast of beasts tame and wild,—of beasts that are utterly excluded from the society of men, and roam about independent of them, although this contrast is limited by the physiological conception of cleanness and uncleanness (see Delitzsch, p. 256). The interchange of the divine names Jehovah and Elohim in our section makes trouble, as might well be inferred, for the documentary hypothesis (see Keil, p. 94, and the opposing view of Delitzsch, p. 256).—For yet seven days.—After seven days must the flood break out; there is appointed, therefore, a week for the marching into the ark.—Rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights.—This is more widely expressed, Genesis 7:11, where the phenomenon of the deluge is referred back to its original cause, the breaking up of the fountains of the deep.—And Noah was six hundred years old.—According to Genesis 5:32, he was five hundred years old at the beginning of his married life. The 120 years, therefore, of Genesis 6:3, go back beyond this.—And Noah went into the ark.—That the members of his household went in with him, denotes their connection with him in obedience, and in their fitness to be saved; with which the behavior of Lot’s sons in-law, and of his wife, forms a contrast. That the beasts follow him into the ark, shows a wonderful docility proceeding from their instinctive presentiment of the catastrophe. [Note on the Bible Idea of Covenant.—It is a most important remark of Dr. Lange (p. 299), that “The revelation and recognition of the Divine Covenant rests on the revelation and recognition of the fact that God, as the absolute personality, places himself in a personal, ethically free, covenant-relation of love and truth to man as personal, and to the human race.” It is strange, indeed, that our philosophy should have so overlooked the glory of this covenant-idea, whilst our more ordinary worldly literature has so often treated it as a narrow dogmatic of an almost obsolete theology. God raised man above the animal by endowing him with moral, rational, and religious faculties. This lifts him above the plane of nature, and prepares him for a still higher relation. His Creator makes a covenant with him as being, though finite, a supernatural personality. He is placed upon higher ground than that of natural law, or natural right, as deduced from man’s relation to the universe, or what might be called the universal nature of things. He is taken out of this, and raised to a higher spiritual glory. No longer an animal, however richly endowed, yet bound in the chain of cause and effect, but under the free law of the promise,—living not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the Lord. Child of dust as he is physically, God makes a covenant with him, and thus gives him more than a natural right,—a legal or forensic right—making him a son, an heir of glory and immortality. Man has an understanding with his Maker; he is elevated to a platform on which the finite and infinite personality, the finite and infinite intelligence, converse together, and become parties in the same voluntary, spiritual transaction. True it is, that in the Bible even natural law is sometimes called a covenant, as in Jeremiah 33:20; Jeremiah 33:25, but in such cases the language is evidently figurative, and derived, by way of analogy, from the higher idea. With man it is a real covenant, a convening, or coming together, of the Divine and human mind. The transaction belongs to a higher world. It brings in a higher class of ideas. In nature, and natural relations, there are forces, gravities, attractions, affinities, or, as we approach its department of life and sentiency (though still nature), there are appetites, instincts, susceptibilities, having some appearance of freedom, yet still bound fast under the fatality of cause and effect; in the covenant, on the other hand, there are parties, promises, agreements, oaths, conditions, imperatives, fulfilments, forfeitures, penalties, rewards. In the tendency of our modern ethics to become converted into a system of physics—making all duty to consist in the study and observance of natural law—we lose sight of this higher glory of positive law, covenant, or promise; we fail to see how it is the very dignity of the human soul, that, unlike the animal, it can, through faith, be in this forensic or covenant relation to the universal Lawgiver. The opposite of this is the tendency, now so common, to place the relations between God and man on the general basis of “the nature of things,” and to determine the human place therein as made out by science or philosophy, in distinction from, if not in opposition to, that express revelation which is itself a carrying out of the covenant-idea. When carefully examined, the former process will be found to be a tracing of man’s obligation to the universe, rather than to God the free, personal, sovereign lawgiver of the universe. The word covenant is not in the first three chapters of Genesis, but the spirit of the word is there, and the term itself is expressly predicated of the transactions there recorded when referred to in other parts of the Old Testament; see Hosea 6:7. Immediately after the inspiration that made the human creation, we find this language of con-vening, of mutual intelligence, showing that God is now speaking to a supernatural being, and in a style different from that which had been used in the commands to nature. The expression δֲ ?χִ ?ξεֹ ?ϊִ ?ιΰֶ ?ϊαְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊִ ?ιGenesis 6:18, “I will establishmycovenant, ΰϊָּ ?κְ withthee” (literally, I will make it stand), evidently implies something preceding that had been impaired—the raising up of something that had fallen down. It was the αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊςεֹ ?μָ ?ν of Isaiah 24:5, or covenant of eternity, originally made with man as an immortal being, and itself an evidence of his designed immortality; or, as it may be rendered, world-covenant, intended to last through the world or ζon of humanity; or it may have that still higher sense of the covenant made “before the foundations of the world” with him who was to be the second Adam, and whose delight, during the ζons of creation (see Proverbs 8:31), was “with the sons of men” who were to crown it all. The remarks of that profound critic and philosopher, Maimonides, on this expression, are very noteworthy. He regards αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, as from its very form, in the construct state (like ψֵ ?ΰωִׁ ?ιϊ), and where there is no other expressed, the word with which it is in regimen is ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν or ςֹ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν, being thus equivalent to αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊςֹ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν, the covenant of eternities, “because, before we were, he commanded that it should stand, ωϊχεν, and be forever with the righteous.” The word αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ has been derived from the sense of cutting in αψΰ, as Lange explains it, but there is mother verb of cutting (λψϊ) usually joined with it, making the common phrase exactly like the Homeric ὅρκιατάμνειν, derived, doubtless, from the same idea of dividing the victim by whose death the covenant was made. It is better, therefore, to derive it, as Maimonides seems to do, from the creative sense of αψΰ. It is making a new thing in the moral and spiritual world, as the physical creations were in the world of matter; and so, says this Jewish commentator, αψιϊιλξεαψιΰϊι, “my covenant, as it were, my creating.” There is no religion without this idea of a personal covenant with a personal God, and, therefore, all such views as those of Comte, Mill, and Spencer are, for all moral or religious purposes, wholly atheistical. They acknowledge no personality in God; they cannot use the personal pronouns in speaking of him or to him. It may, in truth, be said that all religion is covenant, even when religion appears in its most perverted form. It has some appearance of being in the very etymology of the Latin word. Cicero makes it from relego—religiosi ex relegendo—but a better derivation would seem to be from religo, to bind, bind back,—religio is a positive bond (higher than nature) between straying, fallen man, and his Maker. We find traces of this idea of covenant even in the heathen religions, as in αַּ ?ςַ ?μαְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ Baal berith, mentioned Judges 8:33, whom the children of Israel, in their apostasy, took instead of their covenant Jehovah. It seems to characterize certain peculiar epithets which the Greeks attached to Ζεύς, their supreme God. It was the mode they took to intimate more of a personal relation between the deity and the worshipper than was afforded by the general or merely natural view. Or it denoted a greater nearness of the divine in certain peculiarly sacred relations which men held to each other, as though imparting to them a more religious sanction. Thus Ζεὺςξένιος, who calls specially to account for the violation of hospitality. More closely still suggesting the idea of the Hebrew covenant God, or that of the Ph�nician Baal berith, is the Greek epithet Ζεὺςὅρκιος, Zeus, the God of the oath, as the special punisher of perjury, or violation of covenant, whether as against himself, or as a breach of covenants men make with each other, as though there were a special guilt in it, greater than that of any natural injustice, or ordinary impiety. The very essential idea of the oath itself is that of covenant, and it is, therefore, that part of religion to which our politico-naturalists exhibit the most deadly opposition. The same idea may be traced in other epithets, such as Ζεὺςἐταιρεῖος, the God who avenges treachery to friendship, as though the obligation of fidelity were grounded on a special and mutual relation to something higher and more positive than mere human likings. Similar to this Ζεὺςἐφέστιος, the protector of the hearth. So also Ζεὺςἑρκεῖος (Jupiter Hercλus), the God of the family enclosure, or of the sacred domestic relations, as founded on positive institution, transcending any mere natural or individualizing rights that may be claimed against it. These precious ideas are akin to that of covenant as the everlasting ground of the church. The divine covenant, the αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, was confirmed with Noah, to be transmitted by him as the root of all that is most sacred in the relations of man to God, or to his fellow-men.—T. L.] AND ETHICAL1. The flood makes a division between the Adamic antiquity and the primitive time—between the first (throughout symbolical) and the second symbolical-traditional primitive religion, as well as between the anomistic and the nomistic or superstitious forms of heathenism. In like manner is there a division between the old (antediluvian) antiquity and the postdiluvian or the Noachian human race. It is a type of the historical incisions, epochs, and periods that follow. 2. The flood was indeed a sin-flood (Sόndflut), or rather, a flood of judgment, and as the first world-historical-judgment, it was a type of all following judgments, especially of the world’s last judgment. 3. The flood is a synthesis of judgment and deliverance, forming a type for every following synthesis of judgment and deliverance, especially for the double effect (of judgment and deliverance) of the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt—for the middle point of the world’s history, the cross of Christ, and for the final deliverance brought out by the final judgment at the world’s end. To the judgment by water corresponds the judgment by fire as the higher potency of judgment; to the baptism by water corresponds the baptism by fire as the second potency, or the power of baptism for salvation. Thus the judgments are deliverances, inasmuch as they separate the salvable from the lost, or incurable; and so the salvations are judgments, inasmuch as they are ever connected with some separation of this kind. 4. The universal tradition, among men, of the great flood, and its ethical significance, stands in connection with the universal expectation of humanity that at the world’s end there will be a world-judgment. 5. The flood at the same time fact and symbol. See the previous remarks, No. 3. 6. The meaning of the name Noah. See the Exegetical annotations, No. 1. 7. The announcement of the flood, or the wholesome destruction, as a means of salvation from the incurable corruption. “The end of all flesh,” not so much a judgment of condemnation as a remedy against it (see 1 Peter 3:19; Genesis 4:6). Thereby does the expression: “the end of all flesh,” denote the fact that the immanent judgment of natural corruption has for its consequence the positive judgment. “Wherever the carcass, there are the eagles gathered together.” 8. The right belief in the judgment is, at the same time, a belief in the deliverance. A presentiment of the flood and a preparation of the ark went together. 9. The plan of the ark was imparted to Noah by God. The Spirit of God is the author of all ideal or pattern forms of the kingdom of God. So, for example, the tabernacle, or ark of the testimony.—The building of the ark was not merely a means of salvation for Noah and his race, but also a sermon of repentance for his cotemporaries. 10. The ark was not a ship (in form), but yet it was the primitive ship of humanity; God’s teaching men navigation, his word of blessing upon it, and a symbol of deliverance in all perils of the deep. 11. Noah was not only saved, but also the savior or the mediator of the divine salvation for his house. He was a type of Christ, the absolute mediator. 12. Noah was comprehended with his household in the one baptism of the flood. Already in Noah’s history there conspicuously appears the theocratic significance of the household (Matthew 10). 13. The religion of revelation is alone the religion of covenant. It alone has the idea of the covenant. On this grand and peculiar feature, compare Bόchner’s “ Concordance,” art. Bund. But it is a covenant religion because it is the religion of a personal God, and of his relation to personal men (see the Exegetical annotations, No. 2). Here we are reminded of the covenant-theory of Cocceius. The divine covenant is truly a divine instituting, not merely a contract (πָ ?ϊַ ?οαְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ he gave a covenant); but this instituting is also a covenanting. We obliterate the personal ethical relation between the personal God and personal man, when we obliterate the covenant idea. This has special force in respect to the sacraments of the covenant. Through them man receives the promises of God, which he appropriates along with the obligations of the faith. This applies to the tree of life given to Adam, to the rainbow of Noah, to the stars of heaven as shown to Abraham, and to circumcision, to the passover of Moses, as well as to the Christian sacraments. When we leave out of view the obligations of the covenant, as, for example, that of the initiation of children in baptism, we profane the covenant (compare Baumgarten, p. 109). 14. The difference between the clean and the unclean animals (see the Exeget. annot.). The contrast between the cattle and the wild beasts is not the only thing determined, but, at the same time, the contrast between an animally pure, and an animally impure, physiologically-physical, disposition (see Lange’s Leben Jesu, , vol. ii. p. 662). Correctly does Keil remark (p. 252), that the reception by pairs of “all flesh” into the ark, may be reduced to a certain relativity. The measure, however, of this relativity cannot be particularly determined: for the supposition of Ebrard (p. 85), that the beasts of the field that were upon the earth after the flood did not come out of the ark, but were originated anew by God, has no support in our history. AND See the Exegetical notes, and the Fundamental Theological Ideas. The great flood as a miraculous sign of God: 1. In nature, as pointing back to the creation, and forward to the end and renovation of the world. 2. In the world of man; pointing backward to the fall, forward to the last apostasy. 3. In the sphere of the divine righteous government; a copying of the first judgment of death, a prefiguration of the end of the world. 4. In the kingdom of grace; pointing backward to the first deliverance in the first judgment, forward to the completed salvation in the complete and final judgment.—The world of that day an object of displeasure in the eyes of God.—Noah’s righteousness of faith.—Noah, standing alone in the generation of his day.—In the time of greatest corruption, there are the chosen of God—Noah comprehended with his house.—A witness for the significance of the family in the kingdom of God and in the Church.—The covenant of God with Noah in its significance, and the unfolding of this covenant.—The covenant of God with Noah a covenant of salvation for himself and his house, and for the preservation of the human race. The direction for building the ark, or the sacred archetypes of the kingdom of God.—The ark in its figurative significance: 1. An image of a house consecrated to God, 2. of the Church of Christ, 3. of the Christian state.—As the ark floats on in the great flood, so does the ship of the Church sail on amid the storm-judgments of the world’s history.—As the ark never goes under, so never sinks the Church.—The ark a sermon: 1. In its own time, 2. for all times, 3. for the last times, and especially, 4. for our times. Ham, too, was in the ark, so also the unclean beasts (in opposition to the Donatist extravagances).—In the one person, Noah, were both his house and his future race delivered; therefore is Noah a type of Christ (s. v. 18): “Go thou into the ark,” thou and thine house, that is, thy sons. Noah as the middle member of the line between Enoch and Abraham (with reference to Hebrews 11).—The distinction between the pure and the impure animals, or, that which is proper for an offering to God is also proper for the enjoyment of men.—How the instinct of safety brings together man and beast into the asylum of deliverance.—Through death to life.—The judgment of God on the first world in its still enduring efficacy: 1. as a sign of light for the understanding of the course of the world; 2. as an everlasting sign of warning; 3. as a sign of salvation full of the blessing of salvation. The humanity baptized to humaneness. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONThe Flood and the Judgment Genesis 7:10-2410 And it came to pass after seven days [literally, seven of days] that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 11In the sixth hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12And the rain [βων, heavy rain, imber, cloud-bursting] was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark. 14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh wherein is the breath of life. 16And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him; and the Lord shut him in. 17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; 18and the waters increased and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went 19[drove here and there] upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land. 23And every living thing was destroyed [Lange reads ιִ ?ξַ ?η in Kal, and renders, he destroyed] which was Upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; an Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days. AND 1. The Time of the Flood.—The beginning of the flood is first determined in reference to the age of Noah. It was in the sixth hundredth year of Noah’s life, that is, in the year when the six hundredth year of his life would be completed. The number 600 appears here to have a symbolical meaning, as also the week for his going into the ark. Six is the number of toil and labor. Next there is fixed the date of the beginning: on the seventeenth day of the second month. According to Knobel, must this date be reckoned from the first day of the six hundredth year of Noah’s life. For this there appears no ground here, if we assume that the narrator had in view a known and determined numbering of the months. The question is this—whether the months are to be determined according to the theocratic year, which the Jews kept after the Exodus from Egypt, and which began with Nisan in April (so that the beginning of the flood would have fallen in the month Ijar, or May), or whether it was after the �conomic years’ reckoning, according to which Tisri (September and October) made the end of the year (Exodus 23:16; Exodus 34:32). Rabbi Joshua, Lepsius, and others, are for the theocratic time-reckoning. According to this, the flood began in the month that followed Nisan. Keil and Knobel, on the contrary, are for the �conomic reckoning, according to which the second month would have fallen in our October or November. “Josephus (Antiq. i. 3, 3) has in mind the month named by the Hebrews Marhezvan, which follows after Tisri; so the Targum of Jonathan, as well as Jarchi and Kimchi. The continuous increase, then, or swelling of the waters from the 17th of the second month, to the 17th of the seventh month, a period of five months, or 150 days, would fall in the winter months.” Knobel. Instead of this, we hold that in a cosmical catastrophe, such as the flood appears to have been, the regard paid to the season of the year becomes fallacious; and then we are not here to think of any usual climatic events, such as took place in the case of the Egyptian plagues, though miraculously effected. It appears, therefore, to us, to have no bearing on the case, that the Euphrates and the Tigris fall towards the end of May, and in August and November reach their lowest point, or the consideration that, for the ancients, the winter season was a mournful time of desolation, etc. Knobel. It would seem from Genesis 8:22, that the flood broke through all the ordinary constitution of nature. In the first place must we endeavor to set ourselves right with respect to the connection in the dates as given in our narration. On the 17th day of the second month, then, came the flood, and it rained, from that time on, forty days and forty nights. The consequence was the height of water in the flood which continued for 150 days (Genesis 7:24). Then began the waters to fall, and, on the 17th day of the seventh month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. Thus far five months have passed. On the first day of the 10th month, that is, after about eight months, the tops of the mountains appeared. Finally, in the six hundred and first year of Noah’s age, in the first day of the first month, the ground was becoming dry, and on the seven-and-twentieth day of the next month, it had become wholly dry (Genesis 8:14). From the statement that this ensued in the six hundred and first year of Noah’s age, it cannot follow that his birthday fell on New Year, but only that about one year had elapsed. The extreme end of the flood, however, was ten days after the full year which the flood had continued. Knobel conjectures that the flood was originally reckoned according to the solar year of 365 days, but that the Hebrew narrator, reckoning by lunar years, transposes the account to one year and eleven days (p. 81). That would make the solar year to have been before the lunar year, which seems to us impossible. It would seem to aid, to some extent, in getting a right view of the times of the year, to bear in mind that the dove which Noah let fly the second time brought back a fresh olive-leaf in its mouth (Genesis 8:11). That was probably forty days, and fourteen days, after the first day of the tenth month, and therefore, at all events, towards the end of the eleventh month. If we must regard this fresh olive-leaf as belonging to the spring season, then the beginning of the flood may have well fallen eleven months before, or in the time of May. But this conclusion is insecure, because the olive-leaf, in its budding, is not confined to the spring. For the opposite view, Delitzsch (p. 257) presents something that is specially worthy of notice, namely, that the observation of the earlier �conomic reckoning of time continued among the Jews after the introduction of the theocratic computation. If, however, the flood began with the autumnal rainy season, it must have ceased exactly as the rainy season of the next year commenced. In regard to the reckoning of the year, Knobel remarks that the Hebrews reckoned it according to lunar months, 354 days, other nations by solar months, making 365 days,—for example, the Egyptians and the Persians, and also, in astronomical matters, the Chaldζans. In regard to the world-year of the flood, the citations of Delitzsch (p. 244) are worthy of attention. The mythologically enlarged numbering of the Babylonians, Delitzsch and others, reduce to the 2500th year before Christ. In respect to the day when the flood commenced, the Babylonian legend gives the 15th of Dasio. This statement favors the Bible reckoning of the year from Nisan (that is, according to the theocratic reckoning), not from Tisri. For a table of the different monthly suns, see Delitzsch, p. 246. 2. Genesis 7:10-16. The opening of the Flood the shutting up of the Ark.—All the fountains of the great deep were broken up.—The Niphal or passive form of αχς is to be noticed. It denotes violent changes in the depths of the sea, or in the action of the earth,—at all events, in the atmosphere (see the preceding Section). ϊδεν, the deep of the sea, whose fountains (Job 38:16; Proverbs 8:28) or origins are conditioned by the heights and depths of the earth itself. This fact is placed first. The rain appears to be mentioned as a consequence. “Similar views of water in the interior of the earth found place among the Greeks and Romans; from this, too, many sought to explain the ebb and flow of the tides.” Knobel. Only, here there is expressed no distinct view respecting the fountains of the sea-deep. The expression, too, “the windows of heaven,” is not to be too literally pressed.—In the selfsame day entered Noah, etc.—That is, by the time of the breaking out of the flood was the difficult embarkation accomplished—happily accomplished. ηַ ?ιָּ ?δ denotes here the wild beast. All birds, all winged creatures, Knobel takes as synonymous. But since the kind is named before, there would seem to be intended a subdivision of the kind, and that what is said relates to birds in a narrower and in a wider sense.—As God had commanded him, and the Lord shut him in.—Here most distinctly presents itself the contrasting relation of these two names. Elohim gives him the prescription in relation to the pairs of animals for the preservation of the animal world, but Jehovah, the covenant God, shuts him in, that is, makes sure the closing of the ark for the whole voyage, and for the salvation of his people. This inclusion was, at the same time, an exclusion of the race devoted to death. 3. Genesis 7:17-24.—The full Development of the Flood and its Effect, the Destruction of every Living Thing. And the flood was forty days upon the earth.—The first forty days denote the full development of the flood, which lifted up the ark and set it in motion. The advance of the flood is measured by reference to the ark. It is lifted up; it is driven on. With the waves she sails, and over the high hills. The last is said in a general acceptation, as a measurement of the height of the flood by the height of the hills. The estimate that seems to be expressed by saying, “fifteen cubits did the waters prevail over the high hills,” would neither give sense if taken literally, since the high hills have very different heights, nor could it mean that the flood was fifteen cubits above the highest mountain on the earth. But since now Noah could hardly have sailed directly over the highest mountain of the earth, much less have known the fact, we must suppose that this exact estimate was imparted to himself, or to some later writer, through direct revelation—an idea which is little in harmony with the true character of a divine revelation. We must, therefore, suppose that the epic-symbolical view according to which the flood rose high over all the mountains of the earth, became connected with the tradition that Noah found out the measure denoted, by some kind of reference to the mountain on which the ark settled. Knobel: “The representation may amount to this: since the ark drew about fifteen cubits water, its first settling on Ararat in the falling of the flood would give that measure. The 150 days, within which the destruction was accomplished, include the forty days of storm at the beginning. According to Genesis 8:2, the rain continued all through these 150 days. Still must we distinguish its more moderated continuance from the first storm of rain in the forty days.” In respect to the universality of the flood, see Keil, whose judgment about it is similar to that of Ebrard, whereas Delitzsch is unwilling to insist upon it as an article of faith, especially the geographical universality (p. 260). Compare the preceding Section. AND ETHICAL1. The threatenings of God are as certain as his promises; for God’s word is certain. As sure, however, as is the word of God, so sure is faith in its holy fear, its holy confidence and joy. 2. As God has provided help and deliverance for men by means of exposed infants, or abandoned orphans, so also through old men, as in the case of Abraham, Moses, Noah. The like wonders happen in all times. 3. When the necessity is greatest, then is the help at the nearest, and the highest. When sin (and the flood) become most powerful, then grace, and the miracles of grace, become most mighty for deliverance. 4. The safe embarkation of a little world in the ark before the breaking out of the flood. A wonderful instinct, a still more wonderful procession, a wonderful peace as the consequence of a wonderful terror. 5. The animal-world in the ark, type and symbol of the animal-world in general: the mention of man and woman, man and wife, presents prominently the fact that the ark was to become the point of departure for new generations. 6. Jehovah shut him in.—The innermost motive for the salvation of every living thing is God’s covenant with his own. Christ is here the head and star of history. 7. The ark, with its souls, in the waters of the great flood (sintflut), which was at the same time a sin-flood (sόndflut), a destroying flood of wrath and judgment; in like manner Moses in the ark upon the Nile, and Christ on the cross and in the grave.—There are moments in which the kingdom of God seems lost, or in the most fearful peril, and yet is it all the more securely hidden and protected in the truthfulness of God himself, in the everlasting love he has for his people. 8. The terror of judgment in the flood immensely great, and yet not equal to the terror of the last judgment-day (1 Peter 3:4). 9. The waters of the flood as a symbol of the judgment of redemption, of the baptism at the world’s end, and generally, of the passage of believers with Christ through death to life (Psalms 69:77), is to be distinguished from the waters of the sea as the symbol of peoples and nations, their births and revolutions, as compared with the kingdom of God (Psalms 93; Daniel 7; Revelation 13:1). 10. The most fearful sorrows are measured by comparing them with the height of water in the flood, and the hardest days of sorrow are reckoned as the days of the deluge. 11. The symbolic of the forty days. Four is the number of the world, ten the number of the completed development. It therefore denotes the fulness of the world-times, and of the world’s judgment. 12. God’s dominion as great as God himself. AND See the preceding.—The embarkation into the ark.—Jehovah’s shutting in.—The measured deeps of terror, the numbered days of trouble.—The ark as the cradle of the new human race rocked by the billows: 1. a frail chest, an infinitely precious content; 2. fearfully threatened, securely protected; trembling in the deep abyss of waters, lifted high on the wave of consecration.—The help of God in the floods of distress.—The watery grave: 1. deep for the human eye; not too deep for the eye of God.—The sea, too, shall give up her dead.—Noah’s faith; its grandeur: as in contrast, 1. to the universal apostasy, 2. to the impending judgment, 3. to its once great task and labor, 4. to the sport of the world, 5. to the terrors of the flood, 6. to the terrors of the animal world inclosed with him—the ark a lion’s den.—Noah in the floating ark, and Moses. Both, though seeming lost, preserved for the greatest things. Starke: As God suffered the waters to increase gradually, so had the ungodly time for repentance; a thing which may, perhaps, have happened in the case of many, so that the soul was saved in the destruction of the flesh. According to this, it would be false what the Jews say of the men who perished in the flood, that they have neither part in the eternal life, nor in the resurrection of the dead,—a conclusion which they draw from an improper interpretation of Gen 6:3. It may be easily believed that the fish in great part died, not because the waters were seething hot, as the Rabbins say, but because, with the fresh water, there mingled itself the salt, which is contrary to the nature of many kinds of fish. Lisco: God shut Noah in; so was the pressure into the ark prevented as against the godless, whilst Noah was made safe. Gerlach: The clean beasts. Before their use as food they were offered in sacrifice, devoted to God; partly because in each enjoyment thanks should be offered to God, and partly because thereby even the enjoyment itself becomes sanctified. Calwer, Handbuch: The first judgment of the world through water, the last through fire (2 Peter 8:6).—So sinks the old world in its grave. Jehovah, the trusted, shuts him in. So, too, watches over us the shepherd of Israel, who slumbers not nor sleepeth.—Schrφder: There seest thou that all the words of God have the power of an oath (Val. Herberger).—A night of death reigns over a world abandoned to its doom. Because the earth was corrupt, morally, the Lord destroys it—(that is, gives it up to physical corruption). So Luther. To say the fountains were broken up, and the flood-gates were opened, is a biblical mode of speech whereby is expressed the fact, that the waters were not suffered to flow in their wonted manner (Calvin).—The Lord preserved the ark and Noah therein as a treasure (Verleb. Bibel). Footnotes: [Genesis 7:11.—πִ ?αְ ?χְ ?ςεּ, a very strong word. Sudden cleaving; used of the earthquake or earth-cleaving, Numbers 16:31; ZaGen Genesis 14:4. Hence the noun αִּ ?χְ ?ςָ ?δ, a valley, as though the Hebrews had some notion of valleys having their origin in fissures or violent separations of the earth. Comp. Habakkuk 3:9, πְ ?δָ ?ψεֹ ?ϊϊְּ ?αַ ?χַּ ?φΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, “Thou didst cleave the earth with rivers”—or floods.—T. L.] [Genesis 7:11.—ΰֲ ?ψֻ ?αֹּ ?ϊ windows, openings—general sense very clear from parallel passages, such as Isaiah 60:5 and Ecclesiastes 12:3, though in the latter passage it is used metaphorically of the eyes as the windows of the body. LXX., κ́αταῤῥάκται, Syriac, ܒ ?ܿ ?ܣ ?ܒ ?̈ ?ܐ ?, or pourers.—T. L.] [Genesis 7:12.—βֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?ν, the very great rain, that which comes down in a body, as it were. ξָ ?θָ ?ψ denotes the common rain, except when this word is joined with it, as in Job 37:6, ξְ ?θַ ?ψβֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ν, and in ZaGen Genesis 10:1,—when it is intensified. In the Arabic, ΜΤγ is never used for the rain, but it keeps the primary sense of magnitude, weight, density, pinguis, crassus.—T. L.] [Genesis 7:13.—αְּ ?φֶ ?φֶ ?νδַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν, in ipso die, in that very day. It denotes a statistical particularity, which takes this account entirely out of the legendary or mythical view. It is most exactly true, or it is the boldest of forgeries in every unit and decimal employed in its reckonings.—T. L.] [Genesis 7:14.—εְ ?λָ ?μηַ ?ηַ ?ιָּ ?δ—εְ ?λָ ?μδָ ?ψֶ ?ξֶ ?ωׂ. It need only be remarked that all the alls, here and elsewhere, in this account, are to be taken as unlimited, or as specific, according to the view we are compelled, from other considerations, to form of the universality or partiality of the flood itself. Elsewhere only the αְּ ?δֵ ?ξָ ?δ are mentioned, as is noticed by Dr. Murphy, p. 212, and there is good reason to regard it here as specifically limiting the more general word ηιδ before it. Their coming to the ark by pairs was evidently supernatural, but this in no respect affects the other question.—T. L.] [Genesis 7:23.—ςַ ?μτְּ ?πֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰֲ ?γָ ?ξָ ?δ. Rendered in our Version, “on the face of the ground.” Rather, “on the face of the Adamah,” the word, in the chapters before, used for the inhabited territory in distinction from ΰψυ, as in Genesis 4:14;—ΰψυ, in that connection, being used for the wide, unknown earth, into which Cain feared he should be driven, as a wanderer and a vagabond. The use of ΰֲ ?ψָ ?ξָ ?δ here certainly seems to imply some territorial limitation. Even when ΰψυ occurs, it may be better rendered land, indefinitely, than with that idea of totality which our modern knowledge makes us attach to it. See further on this in the Excursus, at the end of the account.—T. L.] [Dasios was the eighth month of the Babylonian and Macedonian year. See the Table of Delitzsch, p. 246.—T. L.] “The great deep,” ϊּ ?δεֹ ?νψַ ?αָּ ?δ, Genesis 7:21. Comp. Genesis 1:2; Proverbs 8:27-28; Job 38:16; Psalms 104:6; Jonah 2:6; Isaiah 51:10, and other places. Sometimes tehom is joined with ιν, and seems to be used as synonymous with the great sea, as in Psalms 104:6; Jonah 2:5; but for the primary idea we must look to Genesis 1:2. In creation, it was all water, or fluid (so conceived). Afterwards the land (the solid) is commanded to appear, and the waters are gathered to one place, ξָ ?χεֹ ?νΰֶ ?ηָ ?ψ, whether it means the surface sea, or the supposed great abyss beneath. In the poetical parts of the Bible, the conception is that of the earth (the land or ground) as built upon the waters lying below. It was the contrast to the heavens or skies above, as in Proverbs 8:28, αְּ ?ΰַ ?ξְּ ?φεֹ ωְׁ ?ηָ ?χִ ?ινξִ ?ξָּ ?ςַ ?μαַּ ?ςַ ?ζεֹ ?ζςֵ ?ιπεֹ ?ϊϊִּ ?δεֹ ?ν. In regard to all this, it may be said, that the Bible is responsible neither for Neptunian nor Plutonian theories. Facts are given, but they are presented according to the conceptions of the day. Water gushed from the earth, and the writer describes it by saying that the fountains of the tehom rabba, the great deep, were broken up. Aside from the traditional creative account, nothing could have been more natural than the idea that the interior earth, or the space under the earth (whatever notions might have been had of the earth’s shape or support), was a region of water. It was a direct deduction (true or false) from the phenomena of springs and wells,—and that, by a process strictly Baconian. Afterwards, but very early, the sight of volcanoes (see Psalms 104:32) must have given also the idea of interior fire. We know, even yet, hardly any thing about it. Researches on the surface, or shell, of the globe, have given us much curious knowledge as to its progressive surface-formation, and the great periods which it indicates; but beyond this, our knowledge of the vast interior is about as great as that which one who had pierced half through the shell of an egg, would, by such means alone, have obtained of that most curious structure. He might conjecture that there was heat and fluid there, but that would be all. Perhaps it is well that we have so little means of penetrating this vast unknown. We could not rest very securely if we knew all that was going on inside the earth, or had even a glimpse of the surging, boiling, or burning, that may be taking place ten miles, or even ten furlongs, right beneath our feet. There is a tehom rabba there, filled with something that might make a rapid ruin of our earth, if we had nothing to trust to but the unknown nature, and no other insurance against it but our much-lauded science. Our only secure trust is in One in whom we believe, as having a higher than a physical purpose in the continuance of the earth,—one who “binds the floods from overflowing,” and the fires from yet bursting forth. This conception of the tehom rabba is most graphically presented Genesis 49:25. It is there called δַּ ?ηַ ?ϊϊְּ ?δεֹ ?νψֹ ?αֶ ?φֶ ?ϊ, “the abyss couchant below,” like a wild beast crouching down and ready to spring upon his prey, just as in Genesis 4:7 sin is described as ψֹ ?πֵ ?υ, ready to spring upon a man at any moment.—In the Arabian tradition the waters are represented as coming out of an oven (the vaulted interior earth), and as being boiling hot. See Koran, Surat 11:41, Εِ ?δَ ? ΗΜَ ?ΒΑΓεْ ?μ ُ ?Πَ ?άΗζَ ? Πَ ?άΗΡَ ? ΓαΚΠٌ ?άζ �, “when our command went forth, then boiled the furnace.” This came from the idea of Geysers, or hot springs, and may have had some truth in it, since it does not detract from Scripture to suppose that there may have been other minor facts respecting the flood, preserved in other and independent accounts. Sale says that the Arabians got this from the Jews; and so also Reckendorf states in the Introduction to his Hebrew translation of the Koran, citing from the Talmud (Sanhedrin), but this does not bear them out, since the word ψεϊη, there used, means simply the effervescence or tumultuous boiling motion which Maimonides says came from the violence of the eruption, and not from heat. It is by him, and the Talmud, compared with the violent fermentations and eruptions of sensuality that brought on such an outbursting flood as a fitting judgment; and so says Rabbi Hasada, in the passage quoted from the Sanhedrin: “They corrupted everything (αψεϊηιο), in the boiling sensuality of their transgression, and by the boilings of an all-destroying water wore they judged.” Such a mode of interpretation is peculiarly Rabbinical, but the fact of hot eruptions (like those of the Icelandic geysers) may well have been, or of boiling water, as the Arabian account states it.—T.L.] THIRD SECTIONThe Ark, and the Saved and Renewed Humanity Genesis 8:1-191 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth and the waters assuaged. 2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. 3And the waters returned from off the earth continually [to go and return, ημεκεωεα]; and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. 4And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. 5And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. 6And it came to pass at the end of forty days that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made. 7And he sent forth a raven which went to and fro until the waters were dried up from off the earth. 8Also he sent forth a dove from him to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground [δχμε, had become light or shallow, not had disappeared, as Lange says]. 9But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth; then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. 10And he stayed (εַ ?ιָּ ?ηֶ ?μ) yet other seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11And the dove came in to him in the evening; and lo, in her mouth was an olive-leaf plucked off; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. 12And he stayed [ιְ ?ιָּ ?ηֶ ?μ Niphal] yet other seven days and sent forth the dove; which returned not again to him any more. 13And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14And in the second 15month, on the seven-and-twentieth day of the month was the earth dried. And God 16[Elohim] spake unto Noah, saying, Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee. 17Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl and of cattle, and of every creeping thing, that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth. 18And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him. 19Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark. AND 1. Stages of the Flood as taken in their Order. a. To its highest point: 1. Seven days, the going in to the ark; 2. forty days of the flood-storm; 3. one hundred and ten days, thereupon, of steady rain, and of the steady rising of the flood—so in general one hundred and fifty days. Threefold grade of advance: 1. The ark is lifted up from the ground; 2. the ark’s going upon the face of the waters; 3. its rising fifteen cubits high above the mountains, b. To the disappearance of the waters: In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, that is, after five months, or one hundred and fifty days, just as the waters begin to fall, the ark rests on Ararat. On the first day of the tenth month, that is, after two months and about twelve days (Knobel: seventy-two days after the settling of the ark), the mountain-peaks project above the surface of the water. After forty days Noah opens the window and lets fly the raven. Next goes forth the dove. It is not directly said how long after the flight of the raven was the first flight of the dove. The second flight of the dove, however, was seven other days after the first, and therefore it is inferred that there were seven days between the flight of the raven and that of the dove; the third flight, again, was seven days after the second. We must either reckon in here an unnamed portion of time, or the time between the flight of the raven and the flight of the first dove must have been longer than seven days. Hereupon follows the last section of time, from the first day of the first month to the seven-and-twentieth day of the following, or the period of the full drying of the earth. In the six hundred and first year, etc. Luther, following the Septuagint, and by way of explanation, adds, “of Noah’s age.” 2. Genesis 8:1-4. The first Decrease of the Flood to the Resting of the Ark upon Ararat. And God remembered Noah and every living thing.—God’s remembering must be understood in an emphatic sense. God has always remembered Noah; but now he remembers him in a special sense—that he may accomplish his deliverance. There comes a turn in the flood, and the ground of it lay in the government of God. To the rule of judgment upon the human world, succeeds the rule of compassion for the deliverance of Noah and humanity, as also of the animal-world. It is his compassion, not simply his grace. For God remembered also the beasts. Thus did he remember them all, as Elohim, in his most universal relation to the earth. Had there been a longer continuance of the flood, there would not only have been want in the ark, but the ark itself would have been destroyed. A wind must blow to disperse and dry up the flood, whilst, on the other side, the fountains of the flood were closed. With the shutting of the fountains of the deep, or with the restoring of the continental tranquillity of the earth, and of the equilibrium of the atmosphere, there ceases also the extraordinary rain; and besides, the windows of heaven were closed. It is an inexactness of the narration, but which gives it an unmistakable historic character, that the time of the flood’s advance is given as one hundred and fifty days, and that the point of time when the ark settles, and when, therefore, the actual sinking of the waters must have commenced, falls in like manner at the end of the one hundred and fifty days. For Noah, indeed, the first turning-point in the sinking of the waters, which had commenced already before the running out of the one hundred and fifty days, could not have been a matter of observation. For him, the first sure sign of the sinking of the waters was the grounding of the ark.—And the waters returned.—Here is the whole process preliminarily described—how the waters, in their undulations here and there, kept steadily settling more and more. Then follows the indication of the first decrease.—Upon the mountains of Ararat.—“ΰֵ ?ψָ ?ψָ ?θ is the name of a territory (2 Kings 19:37) which is mentioned Jeremiah 51:27, as a kingdom near to Minni (Armenia),—probably the middle province of the Armenian territory, which Moses of Chorene calls Arairad, Araratia. The mountains of Ararat are, doubtless, the mountain-group which rises from the plain of the Araxes in two high peaks, the Great Ararat, 16,254 feet, and the Lesser, about 12,000 feet, above the level of the sea. This landing-place of the ark is of the highest significance for the development of humanity, as it is to be renewed after the flood. Armenia, the fountain-land of the Paradise rivers, a ‘cool, airy, well-watered, insular mountain-tract,’ as it has been called, lies in the middle of the old continent. And so, in a special manner, does the mountain of Ararat lie nearly in the middle, not only of the Great African-Asiatic desert tract, but also of the inland or Mediterranean waters, extending from Gibraltar to the sea of Baikal,—at the same time occupying the middle point in the longest line of extension of the Caucasian race, and of the Indo-Germanic lines of language and mythology, whilst it is also the middle point of the greatest reach of land in the old world as measured from the Cape of Good Hope to Behring’s Straits—in fact, the most peculiar point on the globe, from whose heights the lines and tribes of people, as they went forth from the sons of Noah, might spread themselves to all the regions of the earth (compare Von Raumer, ‘Palestine’).” Keil. See also Delitzsch, p. 266. The Koran has wrongly placed the landing-place of Noah on the hill Judhi in the Kurd mountain-tract; the Samaritan version locates it on the mountains of Ceylon; the Sybillme books in Phrygia, in the native district of Marsyas. The Hindoo story of the flood names the Himalaya, the Greek Parnassus, as the landing-place of the delivered ancestor.” Knobel. Delitzsch and Keil agree in the supposition of the Armenian highlands. 3. Genesis 8:5-12. The time of the Signs of Deliverance, and of the increasing Hope, from the first Decrease until the Disappearance of the Flood. The first sign of deliverance was the resting of the ark upon Ararat. Now it continues still until the first day of the tenth month (Tammuz), or from seventy to seventy-three days, when there appears the second sign: the peaks of the Armenian highlands become visible; at all events, the ark, on their summit, had become free from the influence of the water. Noah, however, is not satisfied, until after forty days more, that the flood will not return; and then he opens the window (ηַ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ο) of the sky-light (φֹ ?δַ ?ψ). Fresh light and air awaken, or rather gradually reanimate, the torpid animal-world, and Noah’s longing desire sends forth the raven through the opened window. (It is to be remarked that the ark had only one male raven, because from the unclean animals there was taken but one pair. From the staying out or returning of the raven Noah might, at all events, draw inferences; but this bird is noted for his appetite, that which makes all life in the ark strive for freedom. The raven, therefore, may be first ventured on this craving flight, since he can find food from the dead bodies left by the flood upon the mountains. “In the ancient world, the raven was regarded as a prophetic bird, and was therefore held sacred to Apollo. Something of this appears (1 Kings 17:4; 1 Kings 17:6) in his connection with the prophet Elias. He was thus esteemed among the Arabians, who assumed to understand the voice and flight of the birds. Especially was he regarded as a prophet of the weather, as inferred from his flight and cry. Pliny describes him as a wild and forgetful bird, who forgets to come back to his nest. And so he came not back to the ark; but Noah could know from this that the earth was no longer wholly covered with water.” Knobel. We may refer here to the two ravens on the shoulders of Odin. Without returning into the ark, he flew here and there between the ark (to which he was bound by fear and sympathy, the attraction of his mate perhaps, and on the outside of which he could rest) and the emerging mountain-tops, where he found food and freedom.—And he sent forth the dove.—The raven lights everywhere; therefore his remaining out furnishes no proof of the drying of the lower places. But the dove lights upon the plains, and not in the slime and marsh; therefore does its flying abroad give information whether or no the plains are dry. The Septuagint translates ξֵ ?ΰִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ by ὀπίσωαὐτοῦ, the Vulgate, post eum, Luther correctly, from himself. (So the English translation, from him.) It is perhaps indicated that he had to drive it from him. The time of sending away is reckoned by Baumgarten, Knobel, and others (after Aben Ezra and Kimchi), as being seven days after the sending of the raven; because it is said, Genesis 8:10, he waited other seven days. The delicate dove finds no place fit for her lighting, because all the lower lands are yet covered, and so she turns back. And Noah drew her back again into the ark. The question may be asked: Since the top of Ararat was free from water, why did not Noah go out with the beasts? It is, however, a truthful characteristic that he did no such thing; since a hasty disturbance of the beasts might have yet brought the whole in danger of destruction. But the second sending forth of the dove, after seven other days, brings to him the fourth and fairest sign of deliverance: the dove returns with a fresh olive-leaf in its mouth. “εַ ?ιָּ ?ηֶ ?μ fut. Hiphil from ηιμ, to be in trouble, to wait painfully and longingly.” Delitzsch. “The olive-tree has green leaves all the year through, and appears to endure the water, since Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. 48, and Pliny, Hist. Nat. 13, 50, give an account of olive trees in the Red Sea. It comes early in Armenia (Strabo), though not on the heights of Ararat, but lower down, below the walnut, mulberry, and apricot tree, in the valleys on the south side (Ritter, “Geography,” 10. p. 920). The dove must, therefore, have made a wide flight in search of the plains, and on this account have just returned at evening time. This olive-leaf,—which was not something picked up on a mountain-peak, where it might have been floated by the water, but (θψσ) something torn off, and, therefore, fresh plucked from the tree,—taught Noah what was the state of things in the earth below. It was the more fitting here, since the olive-branch was an emblem of peace (2Ma 14:4; Dion., Halic., Virg., Liv.), and yet in the text it is not an olive-branch (Symm, Vulg.), but only an olive-leaf.” Knobel.—The sign gave intelligence that at least the lower olive-trees, in the lower ground, were above the water; the olive-loaf, moreover, in the mouth of the dove, was a fair sign of promise.—Yet seven other days.—This time the dove returns no more. The attraction of freedom and the new life outweighs the desire to return; in which it is presupposed that it is an attraction which the others will follow. “The dove is found also in the classical myths. According to Plutarch (De Solert. Animal. 13), Deucalion had a dove in the ark, which indicated bad weather by its return, and good weather by its onward flight.” Knobel. It was, in like manner, a prophetic bird at Dodona, according to Herodotus and others; and the ancients were also acquainted with its use as a letter-carrier, according to Ζlian and Pliny. On the significance of the dove in the New Testament, see the account of the baptism of Jesus.—In the six hundred and first year.—This reckoning completes the old life of Noah. His seventh hundred is the beginning of his sabbath-time.—In the first month, in the first day, etc.—This date looks back to the beginning of the flood, in the second month of the previous year, on the seventeenth day. Now Noah removes the covering of the ark, and takes a free look around and upon the new earth. The waters, no longer flowing back, were evaporating from the earth, and the ground was in the process of becoming dry. Yet still he waited a month and twenty-seven days, that he might not too hastily expose to injury the living seminarium of the ark, the precious seed of the new life that had been entrusted to his care. But he waited only for the clear direction.—And Noah removed the covering of the ark.—ξִ ?λְ ?ρֶ ?δ. Because this word is used elsewhere only of a covering made of leather and skins with which they covered the holy vessels on the march (Numbers 4:8; Numbers 4:12), and of the third and fourth covering of the ark of the testimony (Exodus 26:14, etc.), it does not follow, as Knobel supposes, that the author had in view a similar covering. The deck of an ark on which the rain-storms spent their force, must surely have been of as great stability as the ark itself.—And God (Elohim) spake to Noah.—It is Elohim, because this revelation belongs to the universal relation of God to the earth. “The time of the flood, according to verse 14, amounted to twelve months and eleven days, that is, three hundred and sixty-five days, or a full solar year; consequently in the course of one full circuit of the natural change or period (ωָׁ ?πָ ?δ), does the earth become destroyed and renewed. In the fact that Noah might not leave the ark from his own free, arbitrary will, there is expressed his preservation of the seal of the divine counsel, and of the divine work.” Baumgarten. New blessings upon the creatures, similar to those which were pronounced at the creation, are connected with his going forth at the divine command; it is the beginning of a new world. “As in creation the beasts were blessed before man, so is it here.” Baumgarten. In the beasts going out of the ark in pairs there is given to us a clear idea of the stability of the new order in nature, and of the security for its continuance. [Note on the Week, and on the Seventh Day Observance in the Ark.—“And he waited seven days,” Genesis 8:10. “And he waited seven other days.” Dr. Lange gives little attention to the important question connected with this language, as he passes over, with a very few remarks, the whole question of the sabbath in Genesis 1. There is certainly indicated here a sevenfold division of days, as already recognized, whatever may be its reasons. Of these, no one seems more easy and natural than that which refers it to the traditionary remembrance of the creation, and its seventh day of rest, although some of those who claim to be “the higher school of criticism” reject it. Had such a reference to a sevenfold division been found in some ancient Hindoo or Persian book, and along with it, or in a similar writing closely connected with it, an account of a hexameral creation with its succeeding day of rest, they would doubtless have discovered a connection between the ideas. But here they do not hesitate to violate their own famous canon, that “the Bible is to be interpreted like any other ancient writings.” Now it may be regarded as well settled that such a division of time existed universally among the Shemitic and other Oriental peoples. (See this clearly shown in the article Week, in Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible.”) It is a fact, too, well established, that a similar division existed among the Egyptians, as is particularly stated, with the names given to the days of the week, by Dion. Cassius (Hist. Rom. xxxvii. 18). They are the names of the seven celestial bodies, and yet there are no astronomical phenomena that could of themselves have given rise to it. It is evidently an after-thought. The things named must have been known before, and when the original reason of the division was lost, the planetary series was adapted to it, although it had to be taken in an irregular and disproportioned manner. This was to give it mystery and interest, and to accommodate it to the astrological superstition, which early came in, of lucky and unlucky days. The same names came into the Roman (ecclesiastical) and Saxon calendars. They could not so readily have found place, had there not been some previous ground in the Occidental heathen ideas (Roman and Scandinavian), although they do not appear in classical literature. But how shall such a division be explained? The reference to the lunar phases seems plausible, but will not bear close examination. It is true that a lunation (about twenty-nine and one-half days) is approximately divisible into four parts, of nearly seven days each, but the beginnings and endings, especially of the second and fourth quarters, are so obscure, and incapable of easy determination, that it could never have been adjusted with the required practical precision to any settled weekly reckoning of definite days. Besides, in that case, the week would have had its series commence and end with the divisions of the lunation. But we find nowhere any such reckoning. The week has no reference to the month. Such a day, of such a month, is in all calendars, but first or second week, of such a month, is nowhere found. Again, there were adjustments of the months to the solar year by admitted inequalities and intercalations, but there is no trace anywhere of any such attempts to regulate the days of the week with reference to the month. A seventh portion of time computed from an ever-shifting beginning would have been of no use, or would only have introduced confusion. The week, therefore, must have had, and did have, its reckoning from some point entirely independent of any annual, monthly, or even astronomical calculus. It must, too, have been from some remote period, fixed in itself (or supposed to be so fixed), just as we reckon our weeks from the day of Christ’s resurrection, in a series continuing steadily on, though there has been, since then, repeated rectifications of the month (or moons), and even a change of style in respect to the year. The weekly series has been unbroken. The Jewish reckoning of the seven days, and of the sabbath, we know, was thus independent. In Exodus 16:23, we find the particular sabbath there mentioned as coming on the sixteenth day of the second month (the day after they came to the Wilderness of Sin), and on the twenty-third following, as reckoned without reference to any monthly or annual beginning. It comes on such a day, but computed by itself, and seems to have been thus known as something dating from some ancient, remote period, and kept in remembrance even during the ignorance and debasement of a servile bondage. It must have come by tradition from their patriarchal ancestors, and was probably the same seventh day which was recognized by the Egyptians (their day of Saturn, Remphan, Hebrew λִּ ?ιּ ?εּ ?ο, Arabic ίَ ?νْ ?ζَ ? Ηδ see Amos 5:26, Septuagint version, and Acts 7:43), although with them the observance may have lost its original idea and reason, and become wholly idolatrous or superstitious. Therefore does Moses tell the Jews to remember, and keep it holy, calling back their minds to the primitive ground of its institution. So Kimchi and Aben Ezra, in their comment on Amos 5:26, say “that λִּ ?ιּ ?εּ ?ο (Kiyun) is the same with ωַׁ ?αַּ ?ϊַּ ?ι, Shabbatai (Saturn, or the sabbath-god), for they made tohim an image, whilst another interpretation makes it to be λεֹ ?λַ ?αωַׁ ?αַּ ?ϊַּ ?ι, the star of Saturn, and so is he called λιεΰο, Khivan, in the tongue of the Arabians and the Persians.” In the earliest Egyptian mythology, as in the most ancient Greek derived from it, the dynasty of Saturn (Κρόνος = χρόνος, time), or the old creative, generative power, was before that of Ζεύς, the light, or the Sun; that is, his day (dies Saturni) was before the dies Solis, or, sun-day, the primitive dies Jovis. So does the darkened mirror of heathenism give to all these early things both a pantheistic and a polytheistic hue. The Hebrew revelation alone preserves them truthful, pure, and holy. The silence of the Scriptures in respect to the patriarchal observance of the sabbath, religiously or otherwise (unless this that is said of Noah be an exception), furnishes no answer to the strong inference to be derived from Exodus 16, 20. See remarks on this in Note on the Sabbath, page 197. The more we examine these acts of Noah, the more it will strike us that they must have been of a religious nature. He did not take such observations, and so send out the birds, as mere arbitrary acts, prompted simply by his curiosity or his impatience. God had “shut him in,” and as a man of faith and prayer he looks for the divine directions in determining the times of waiting. Every opening, therefore, of the ark, and every sending forth of the birds, may be regarded as having been accompanied. or preceded by a divine consultation. He “inquired of the Lord,” as the Scripture records other holy men as having done. What more likely, then, than that such inquiry should have its basis in solemn religious exercises, not arbitrarily entered into, but on days held sacred for prayer and religious rest. When this was done, then the other, or more human means of inquiry that were in accordance with it, would be resorted to. In this point of view, the sending forth of the raven and the dove may be reverently regarded as divine auspications. (See remarks in marginal note, p. 310.) They immediately followed such stated religious exercises, and hence his periods of waiting would, in the most natural and appropriate manner, be regulated by them. On any other view, his proceedings would seem wholly reasonless and arbitrary. The idea gives an interest to the life of this lonely, “righteous man,” during his long sojourn in the ark. He did not forget God, nor God’s ancient hallowing of a certain day in seven, and, therefore, is there the stronger emphasis in what is said Genesis 8:1, that “the Lord remembered Noah.” See Lange’s most striking and beautiful remarks on this expression, p. 309. There must be reasons for such a seven-days’ waiting, and what more natural and consistent ones could there be than those here stated? It amounts to nothing to say that seven is a sacred or mystic number. How came it to be such? Though afterwards thus used in Scripture, there could have been nothing of this sacredness at that early day, unless it had come from the still earlier account of the creation. It must have been founded on some great fact; for, of all the elementary numbers, seven may be said to have the least of any mathematical or merely numerical interest, such as gave rise to peculiar speculations in the earliest thinking. There was a mystery about the number one, as the fountain of the infinite numerical series, or as representing a point, the principium of all magnitude. Two had an interest as representing the line, and as the root of that most regular of all series, the binary powers. Three was the binding of unity and duality, and represented the triangle, the simplest or most elementary plane figure in space. Four (the tetractys of Pythagoras) represented the tetraedron, or the most elementary solid. Five was the number of the fingers on the hand, and thus became the origin of the universal decimal notation. Six was the double triad, and so on. But it is not easy to find any such mathematical or numerical peculiarity in seven that could have drawn special attention to it, as having, in itself, anything mystical or occult. It is not a square, nor a power of any kind; it is not what is called an oblong number, or one that can be divided into factors. It represents no figure that, like the hexagon or pentagon, can be geometrically produced. Its sacredness, or mystery, therefore, could only have arisen from some great historical truth, or institution, supposed to have been connected with it; and if we “interpret the Hebrew books like other ancient writings,” this origin could have been no other than a belief in the great events mentioned Genesis 1, as laying the foundation for all subsequent veneration of the hebdomadal number and period.—T. L.] AND ETHICAL1. The great turning. As the first half of the flood pictures especially the judgment of death, so the second half presents the redemption from judgment, as it goes forth in its gradual development, with its redemptive and anticipatory signs. 2. God remembered Noah. Everything (every affliction of the pious) endures its time; the goodness of God endureth forever. God’s remembering in a special sense. His righteousness makes a special knowledge, and a special beholding, inside of his general omniscience and omnipotence; so his mercy and his compassion make a special remembrance within his consciousness, wherein there are known to him all his works from the beginning. That is, God is a living, personal God, showing himself to be such in his government, and in his revelation which makes joyful again the believers in his grace, after they had been exposed to temptation. Each deliverance, each help, especially each experience of salvation, rests upon a remembrance of God. God’s remembrance of man and man’s remembrance of God meet each other, as eye meets eye, in the actual manifestation of saving acts. The compassion of God embraced also the animal-world, but conditions itself through the grace that embraces believing men. 3. As the spirit of God moved over the waters at the beginning of creation, so goes forth here, over the floods of the deluge, the wind that saved, as an emblem of the same divine spirit. It was a wind of life—a vernal wind—for the new earth. 4. As the fountains of the deep were broken up before the windows of heaven were opened, so also were they closed before them. In order that the rain might cease at Ararat, it was necessary that before this the evaporation in the opposite regions of the earth should have come to an end. 5. Ararat. The home of Adam, the home of Noah. Our first home the heights of Paradise, our second home the salvation hills of Ararat, our third home Golgotha, our everlasting home the highest heavens. 6. The salvation is unfolded gradually, and announced in a gradual series of saving signs: 1. The resting of the ark; 2. the appearance of the mountain-tops; 3. the flying forth of the raven; 4. the olive-leaf of the dove; 5. the dove’s not returning. Thus it is that the time of deliverance is a time of patience, and of alternate desire and hope. “Blessed in hope” (Romans 8). 7. The raven and the dove. The sympathy and the co-operation of the beasts in the kingdom of God. The unity of the raven and the dove, and at the same time their contrast, denotes the community of creaturely interests, as well as the contrast between the interests of the creature generally, and the kingdom of God in particular; for the raven is a figure of the universal life, the dove an emblem of the church. 8. The signs of hope increase from seven to seven days—an indication of the idea of the Sabbath and of Sunday. 9. “The fresh leaf from the olive-tree is the first sign of life from the buried earth. A significant sign: for the oil, as a gentle yet penetrating substance, is the symbol of the anointing of the Holy Spirit. This is brought by that purest bird of the heavens, which even among the heathen is held sacred (see Herod. 2. 55). The green olive-leaf in the mouth of the dove is a sign that the earth is not merely laid waste (we may rather say purified), but also consecrated by the waters.” Baumgarten. And yet we must distinguish between the symbolic significance of the oil, of the olive-tree, and of the olive-leaf. The oil denotes the spirit, the olive-tree (11–14; Revelation 11:3-4) denotes spiritual men, the holy Israel; and in correspondence with this the olive-branch denotes the partakers of the spirit (Romans 11), the blossoms of the spirit, the signs of love and peace. 10. “If we take the human race and the earth as a totality, the flood is the dividing of the old from the new. The old earth, with the humanity that had become flesh, the ἀρχαῖ ?oςκόσμος, is destroyed, but even this destruction is the preservation of the righteous man, of Noah, in that he is delivered from the corruptive community of the flesh. On this account is it said, 1 Peter 3:20, ‘eight souls were saved by water,’ and even there (Genesis 8:21), the flood is named a type of baptism. The water of the flood is, therefore, the baptismal water of the earth, which drowns the old whilst it preserves and quickens the new. This view of the flood, moreover, has passed over into the consciousness of the Church. In the prayer for the consecration of the baptismal water in the Sacramentarium Gregorianum it is said: Deus qui nocentis mundi crimina per aquas abluens, etc.” Baumgarten. 11. As baptism makes a distinction between the old and the new man, so did the flood make a distinction between the old and the new humanity, which were, therefore, types on both sides. So did the Red Sea divide the children of Israel from the Egyptians, who were drowned in the same (1 Corinthians 10:2). 12. As Noah went into the ark at the command of God, so also must he, at the same command, go out. That be was in no perturbation, did not wilfully and hastily go forth from the ark, is a sign that we must not anticipate the hour of God’s help, nor throw ourselves hastily out of the ark of the church in sectarian impatience, but wait the Lord’s time in which to go out of the ark into a new world. 13. The renewal of the blessing of propagation upon the creature is a confirmation of the first blessing (Genesis 1), a repeated expression of God’s goodness, and of his complacency in life. Contrast as against dualism and a sickly asceticism. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical. The figures of the coming salvation. 1. The resting of the ark, the firmly grounded church; 2. the emerging of the mountain-tops, the mountains of God as the sign of heaven; 3. the flight of the dove, “the longing of the creature;” 4. the dove with the olive-leaf, the spirit of life, with the announcement of peace; 5. the remaining out of the dove and the opening of the ark, the free intercourse between the church and the consecrated world; 6. the going forth from the ark, the passing over of the church into the new world. Starke: It is certain that God had not forgotten Noah; but the Scripture is wont to speak after the manner of men, namely, as man, sometimes, represents to himself God as speaking. According to this, God’s remembrance denotes the revelation of his gracious will and pleasure, according to which he reveals to the wretched that help which before was hidden (Hieronymus). A life of faith is the most difficult of all,—such a life as Noah and his sons must have lived, who could only cling to the hope of aid from heaven, since the earth was covered with water, so as to give them no ground of trust. It was, therefore, no vain word when the Holy Spirit says that “God remembered Noah.” For it shows that from the day in which he first went into the ark, God had not spoken to him, nor made to him any revelation. He could see no ray of the divine mercy, but must sustain himself alone upon the promise he had received, whilst, in the meantime, the waters of death are raging all around him, as though God had indeed forgotten him (Luther). The leaf represents the gospel, for oil denotes compassion and peace, of which the gospel teaches.—Bibl. Wirt: “O, my Christian friend, hast thou been a long time confined in a wearisome ark, whether it be of some difficult calling, or some painful state; ask not counsel of the charmer, but wait with patience until God, through righteous means, shall bring thee help therefrom.” Gerlach: God does, indeed, remember all his works, in all times, and in every way, but the prayer “remember me” (Psalms 25:7; Luke 23:42) goes forth from the image of God in man; and by reason of this we have no rest until we can rejoice in all the attributes of God through an inward, personal communion with him. The word here denotes the trials of Noah, when God hid himself, and the enjoyment of his gracious favor, when he again reveals himself. Calwer Handbuch: The olive-leaf has been ever held as a symbol of peace. Schrφder: God had exercised Noah’s faith and patience (Calvin). What is said of the raven, Luther makes to correspond, allegorically, with the office of the law. [“In the blackness of the raven is a sign of sorrow, and its voice is unlovely. So, therefore, are all preachers of the law who teach the righteousness of works; they are ministers of death and sin, as Paul names the ministry of the law (2 Corinthians 3:6; Romans 7:10). Nevertheless, Moses was sent out with this doctrine even as Noah sent forth the raven. And yet such teachers are nothing else than ravens that fly round the ark, bringing no certain sign that God is reconciled. But what Moses says of the dove is a very lovely figure of the gospel.”] [Excursus on the partial extent of the Flood, as deduced from the very face of the Hebrew text.—This account of the flood furnishes a happy illustration of what may be called the subjective truthfulness of the Scripture narratives. There is meant by this that the language is a perfect representation of an actual, conceptual, and emotional state in the mind of the author. By the author is meant the one in whose soul such emotions and conceptions were first present, from whatever cause, outward or inward, they may have been derived. Whether this was ecstatic vision, or a conviction in the mind supposed to come from a divine influence, or an actual eye-witnessing, it is all faithfully told, just as it was conceived in vision, impressed upon the thought, or seen by the sense. The words are in true correspondence with such a state of soul, an honest imprint of it, according to the influences felt, and the degree of knowledge by which those influences might be affected, or the choice of language controlled. In either case, too, may the term inspiration be applied to it, if we admit the idea of a divine purpose as specially concerned in the communication. It is a special series of divine acts in the physical world, and in the souls of men, that makes revelation strictly, or in that higher sense to which the term is limited in connection with the scriptural narrations. It is this extraordinary doing, whether in nature or above nature, commencing with creation and continued in a series through the whole history of the Church, which constitutes the real manifestation of the divine in the human, of the infinite in the finite, in distinction from that ordinary course in nature and history which cannot thus reveal God personally, because it is merged in the totality, or the one general movement, of the universe. This common movement may be called a revelation, but it is addressed to the universal reason, and reveals only a general intelligence having nothing special for man, either as a race or as individuals. The other is a special epistle to humanity and to individual men, having our name throughout, attested by chosen witnesses taken from a chosen people who are the spiritual first-born, or representatives of the race. But still it is this extraordinary doing which is the revelation properly, whilst the biblical writings are only the human record of it, sharing in the finity of the medium, or more or less imperfect according to the necessary imperfections of knowledge, conception, and language, in those to whom such recording is given. Had writing never been invented, it might have been a purely oral or traditional account, and then it would have been still more imperfect, but the actual revelation would have remained the same, to be ascertained in the best way we could amidst the deficiences and obscurities of such oral or monumental modes of transmission. Surely the absence of writing could no more have prevented God’s having his witness in this world, than the absence, for so many centuries, of the art of printing; and the want, neither of types nor of alphabets, could have been an absolute bar to that witnessing being in the human, and through the human, as well as to the human. Now in such record of revelation the great thing required for the satisfaction of our faith is a conviction of this perfect subjective truthfulness on the part of the human media. It is a far higher thing, a much more precious thing, than any scientific correctness, or any outward verbal accuracy, which, even if it could be secured through human language and human conceptions, could only be by a mechanical, automaton-like process, or with the loss of all that is truly human in the transmission. It would not be a revelation, or the history of a revelation, given to men through men, and so it would not be truly God speaking in humanity. The element of most value, through which we most truly draw nigh unto God, and He unto us, would be lacking in the process. With this distinction between the revelation strictly, and the record of such revelation, we are the better prepared to understand the import of that third term which is so often confounded with them. Inspiration has respect to the manner and means by which such human conceptions are called out and employed, whilst still remaining strictly human. This may be in various ways, and we may apply the terms higher and lower to them, but with danger of error, if in so doing we make any one of them to be less a true inspiration than the other. All the faculties of man may be used for this purpose. God may employ the imagination (the ecstatic imagination, for that is still human, and in another state may be ordinary and normal), the mental convictions impressed by a divine power, or, when no other means are required, the sense and memory of holy, truthful men, whose holiness and truthfulness, in such case, are as much an effect of divine inspiration as any afflatus more immediately affecting what are called the higher or deeper faculties of the soul. Thus may we believe that all the Scripture is inspired, that it everywhere has this subjective truthfulness, whether it appears in holy visions of the past and future, or in rapt devotional exercises, or in the sublime doctrinal insight of souls drawn heavenward, or in the pictures it gives us of musing, soliloquizing minds, presenting now their exulting faith, and then again their fears and sad despondencies in view of the dark problems of life. It shows itself in its plain, unpretending, unsuspicious narratives of events, whether it be the supernatural, the great natural, or that filling in of the ancient home-life which, though so far from us, we recognize as so true and so consistent, calling out the feeling that it is indeed a reality that lies before us, and that these words represent actual scenes and actual emotions as true and vivid as any that now occupy our own minds. Thus may we believe all Scripture to be an honest record from beginning to end, from the most astoundingly marvellous to its minutest historical, geographical, biographical, and genealogical details. This view, although admitting human imperfections of language and conceiving, is very different from that theory of partial inspiration that assumes to choose what portions it shall accept, rejecting others as fabricated, false, and legendary. It is all faithful, all θεοπνεύστος, all given to us for our “instruction in righteousness,” constituting in its totality the plenary word of God, the honest human record of that great series of divine doings in the world, in nature, in history, and in the souls of men, to which we give the special name of a divine revelation. Thus received and firmly held in its truthful human aspect, the belief in a great objective truth corresponding to it is irresistible for all sober, thoughtful, truly rational souls. The human in the Bible compels the acceptance of the divine; the ordinary and the natural in its life-like narratives demands the supernatural as its complement. We are forced thus to believe or to admit that the very existence in the world of such a record so kept, so attested through the ages, so lying in the very heart of human history, is as great a marvel for the reason, as any supernatural or miraculous which it contains for the sense. It is this subjective truthfulness of the Scriptures that furnishes the matter of interpretation. The great end is to get at the conceptual and emotional states which the words originally represented in the minds of the first narrators. The objective truth they represent in the natural or supernatural belongs to the theological reasoning as guided in its inferences by the general truths of the Scriptures, or other knowledge we may have of nature and of God. The one interpretation is to be according to the laws of rhetoric and language in their widest sense, the other according to “the analogy of faith,” in all by which God makes himself known to the human mind.Thus should we aim at interpreting the Scripture narrative of the flood. We have, as an outward ground, the world-wide tradition of such an event far greater than any inundation of waters, or change in nature, recorded in any later or more partial history. The classical story, the Indian, the Persian, etc., are well known; but it is found everywhere. In the remotest and most isolated region to which the traveller penetrates, there meets him this tradition of a great catastrophe by water, and of a “righteous man” who was saved in an ark. It is told with the same general features, and often with a surprising similarity of detail, whether it be in the wilds of Siberia, by the rivers of southern Africa, or in the isles of the Pacific. No other event ever made such an impression on the ethnological memory; and hence it has survived through wastes of historical silence in which other facts, however great their local or tribal interest, have utterly perished. One of two conclusions is inevitable: either the catastrophe was of vast extent, reaching almost every portion of the globe as now known, or it took place in the earliest times of the human existence, when men were confined to a comparatively small part of the earth, whence each wandering people carried it, localizing it afterwards in their own history, their own geography, and ascribing the deliverance, each one, to the ancestral head of their own race. There is a ground of truth in all these stories. No rational mind can doubt it. The most sceptical of the German critics have felt themselves compelled to admit its substantial verity. Now let any one compare them all with this sublime scriptural narrative, and then let his reason, his rhetorical taste, his judgment of the truthful in style, the subjectively real in conception, and the life-like in narration, determine which is the original, severely simple in its chasteness and grandeur, and which are the legendary copies,—which is the editio princeps, preserved (by some strong influence in opposition to the ordinary human tendency) from grotesque exaggeration, from mythical indistinctness and confusion, from false embellishment, from interpolated deformities, from all that characterizes the story-telling, wonder-making style—and which are the spurious addenda, betraying, by all these marks of their secondary character, that they are the far-off, dimly-seen, and monstrously disproportioned impressions of what, to the scriptural narrator, was an actual scene full of a soul-awing and fancy-restraining emotion. The Bible story has nothing of the wonder-making about it. It is too full of the overpowering real to allow of such a secondary excitement of the mind and the imagination. The emotion is too high to admit of any play of fancy. It is contemplation in its most exalted state, having no room for anything but the great spectacle before it, and that as seen in its grandest features. Hence so calm and yet so full of animation, so severely chaste yet so sublime. It is a telling from the eye, and it speaks to the soul’s eye of the thoughtful reader, giving the impression of an actual spectacle. The style throughout is adapted to produce such impression. It is a truthful effect, or the narrative is to be regarded as a most skilful fiction, a most ingenious forgery, exhibiting a life-like power of painting and invention utterly inconsistent with any antiquity to which it can be ascribed. The writer or relator is one who stands in mediis rebus. The awful spectacle is present to his absorbed sense or to his vivid memory. He is startled by it to abruptness of description. Though long expected, the catastrophe is sudden in its coming. Torrents descend from the heavens like bursting clouds; chasms are seen in the opening earth, and floods issuing from their subterranean reservoirs. A writer less interested, less awed by the actual scene, would have used comparisons here, or indulged in redundancy of language. The Scripture historian gives it all in one brief verse: “The fountains of the great abyss (the tehom rabba) were broken (πִ ?αχְ ?ςεּ, were cloven), the windows of heaven were opened.” The attempt to reconcile this with any scientific correctness is worse than trifling. To resolve it into a poetical metaphor, or any rhetorical artifice of language, takes away all its emotional power. He speaks according to his conception as grounded on the state of his knowledge. He evidently had the old idea of waters above the firmamentum, now descending through the parted barrier. How ill-judging the interpretation that, for any fancied reconciliation with present knowledge, would obliterate the marks of this precious subjective truthfulness, so full of evidence for the great antiquity of the account, and the actuality of the scene as conceived and described. One all-absorbing image of power is before him. The deluge from above and the eruptions from the earth, whatever may have been their cause, have an awful rapidity of effect; and with what graphic touches is this set forth in the vivid Hebrew idioms! The ark is lifted clear from the earth (ξֵ ?ςַ ?μδָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ), and goes forth (ϊֵּ ?μֵ ?κְ walks forth), ςַ ?μְ ?Ξτְּ ?πֵ ?ιδַ ?ξָּ ?ιִ ?ν, on the face of the waters. εַ ?ιּ ?βְ ?αְּ ?ψεּ δַ ?ξַּ ?ιִ ?ν, the floods prevail exceedingly, ξְ ?ΰֹ ?γξְ ?ΰֹ ?γ, stronger, stronger—higher, higher—δָ ?μεֹ ?κְ εְ ?βָ ?γֵ ?μ, “go and increase” constantly waxing, gradual but irresistible, steadily visible in their rise as measured by the submerged plains, the disappearing hills, until to the remotest extent of the visible horizon, ϊַּ ?ηַ ?ϊλָּ ?μδַ ?ωָּׁ ?ξַ ?ιִ ?ν, “under the whole heavens,” it is water everywhere as far as eye can see, one vast sky-bounded waste, shoreless and illimitable as it appeared to the absorbed and wondering gaze of the one from whose sense and memory this story has come down to us. This is what he saw, and this is all that the interpreter can get from his language. What he may have thought, we know not. He may have supposed the flood to be universal. Probably he did so; but then his universality must have been a very different thing (in conception) from the notion that our modern knowledge would connect with the term. He knew of no land that was not covered by water; he had been told that God meant to destroy the human race, and so far as the extent of the flood was necessary for that purpose, he doubtless supposed the judgment executed. But we have only to do, as interpreters, with what he actually saw, the language in which he has recorded it, the necessary conceptions which it suggests, and by which it was itself suggested. We have no right to force upon him, and upon the scene so vividly described, our modern notions, or our modern knowledge of the earth with its Alps and Himmalayas, its round figure, its extent and diversities, so much beyond any knowledge he could have possessed or any conception he could have formed. It may be said that such idea of terrestrial universality is included in his words, such as ΰψυ earth,—“under the whole heavens,” ϊηϊλμδωξιν,—“all the high mountains under the whole heavens;” but then the question arises, On what scale of knowledge are they to be interpreted? If we say the modern, calling it the absolute sense (on the supposition that such absolute scale has even yet been reached), then we make him a mere mechanical utterer of sounds whose intended meaning lay not in his understanding, or a writer of words representing, in their truthfulness, neither the emotions felt, nor the spectacle that lay before his eye. A very slight change in our English translation, and that a very justifiable one, greatly affects this impression of universality. Read land for earth wherever the word occurs, as, for example, the whole land, or the face of the whole land, and the scale, to our imagination, is at once reduced. Thus we actually have, in one place, Genesis 7:23, ΰγξδ instead of ΰψυ, and yet nothing is more evident than that in the previous chapters the first word is used of the Eden-territory and the region adjacent. In like manner is this word ΰγξδ used in the account of the general corruption of the race by the intermarriages of the Sethites and the Cainites, Genesis 6:1 : “When men began to multiply upon the face of the adamah,” ςַ ?μτְּ ?πֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰֲ ?γְ ?ξָ ?δ. It is not only without any warrant from Scripture, but in the face of the fair inferences to be drawn from its artless language, that some have regarded the antediluvian human race as spread over the wide surface of the earth according to our present knowledge. Equally, too, against the impression to be fairly derived from the account, is the idea of a vast population as in any way to be compared with that which has since existed and now exists. We know nothing of any physical or moral reasons that may have accelerated or retarded it. The Scripture simply says, in its introduction to the account of the flood, that men began to multiply, δֵ ?δֵ ?μμָ ?ψֹ ?α, evidently implying that they had not been very numerous before in either line, and that the mixture and the multiplication were, at the same time, cause and effect of the corruption. The fair inference, therefore, is, that it took place, together with the judgment that followed, whilst they were yet confined to this tract, whatever may have been its extent. It was the open, easily cultivated part of the earth (though it had already become sterile in the days of the Sethite Lamech), to which the early men in their gregarious habits yet adhered. There had not come the roving, migrating, pioneering impulse which was first given after the flood, and for the very purpose of breaking up the gregarious tendency which again manifested itself in the plain of Shinar. This reluctance to leave the adamah, or the old homeland of the race near Eden, shows itself in Cain’s language, Genesis 4:14 : “Behold thou art driving me forth this day, ξֵ ?ςַ ?μτְּ ?πֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰֲ ?γָ ?ξָ ?δ, from the face of the adamah, that I may become a wanderer αָּ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ in the (wide) earth,” as distinguished from the fatherland where the protecting divine presence (τָ ?πֶ ?ικָ) was supposed still to dwell. Cain, bold and evil as he was, felt this. The thought, even though coming from his own vengeance-haunted imagination, was a terror to him, and we may rationally suppose that the feeling was still more strongly shared by his descendants, whom the account represents as still living near the Sethites and corrupting them by their vicinity. All great movements in the world have come from a superhuman impulse, breaking up previous habits, and strangely changing those fixed conditions of human society into which races, when left to themselves, are ever tending; sometimes even when their talk is loudest of progress and change as ever coming from themselves. The course of history is marked by such new movements, unaccountable in their beginning from anything in the previous human (which may probably have been tending strongly in the opposite direction), yet afterwards, from the very fact of sequence, seeming to fall inductively into the natural flow of events. At all events, if we take the Scripture text for our guide, there is no reason to believe that any of the antediluvians (with the exception, perhaps, of a few solitary rovers), had ever crossed the deserts, or ventured upon the seas, or scaled the mountains, or penetrated far into the dense wildernesses that separated the primitive adamah from the vast unknown of earth around them. We may fairly suppose, too, that it was one of the designs of the deluge-judgment to prevent a race which had so dehumanized themselves, or, in the language of Scripture, “corrupted its way,” from spreading over the surface of the globe. But how different was it when the movement came which is recorded Genesis 11:8, whether we regard the “confounding of languages” there mentioned as the cause or the effect of the dispersion. It was, in either view, equally supernatural, or, if the term is preferred, an extraordinary divine intervention, deflecting the course of the human movement from what it would have been had it been left solely to the antecedent human tendency. They were settling down into the old adamah gregariousness, to be followed by the same impieties, not only (for that could be borne with), but by the dehumanizing vices that demanded extinction. “Wherefore the Lord scattered them from thence over the face of all the earth.” The Hebrew verb is a very strong one, εְ ?ιָ ?τֶ ?υΰֹ ?ϊָ ?ν, “He drove them asunder”—He sent them far and wide—He broke them up. Compare Deuteronomy 32:8, Acts 17:26. Their reluctance to leave the old home-land, like that of Cain in the earlier time, is shown by the same word, and that strong particle το so expressive of caution and alarm; Genesis 11:4, τֶּ ?οπָ ?τεּ ?υςַ ?μτְּ ?πֵ ?ιλְּ ?πֵ ?ιλָּ ?μδָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, “lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth,”—the wide earth, the unknown, unbounded earth. We must take the language according to the feeling and knowledge of the day. It was der unabsehbare Bann, as Lange expresses it, No. 15, p. 264, the illimitable exile in space which had something of the terror des endlosen Bannes, of the endless exile in time. But though the pioneering effort needs something extraneous to start it, it is afterwards carried on by its love of novelty, which, when once excited, ever feeds the impulse, overcoming the sense of insecurity until it becomes a passion instead of a dread. Thus, as the terror of the unknown gives way, the new impetus soon acquires a rapidity more strange even than the former reluctance, as is attested by other and more modern examples in the world’s history. In the long stagnation of the middle ages geographical knowledge, at least among the Europeans, had actually receded. Less was known of the world in the days of Bede and Alcuin than in those of Ptolemy. But how soon after the start given to Di Gama and Columbus, and by these to others, was the state of things, in this respect, wholly changed! The orbis terrarum immediately began to expand, and so rapidly was the horizon extended, that less than half a century added more to the knowledge and civilized occupation of the earth than a thousand years had done before. In less than thirty years after Columbus had seen the light upon the shore of the first West India isle, Magellan had advanced to the southern extremity of the American continent and accomplished the circumnavigation of the globe. It was not because the men of the tenth and twelfth centuries lacked vigor of body or mind, but because God’s time had not yet come. So was it when the first great dispersion of mankind commenced. Before the flood, there is no evidence that even Egypt was known or inhabited—we mean scriptural evidence; and notwithstanding the assertions of Bunsen and others, we think it can be shown (in its proper place) that there is no reliable evidence of any other kind. Dwelling as they did, mainly, in the region between the Euphrates and the Indus, the antediluvians had never ventured upon the wide desert that intervened, nor attempted the long way up the rivers and by the mountains of the North. But now the tribes of Ham are streaming down the Persian Gulf, following the Gihon as it winds round Southern Arabia, until they reach the narrow part of the Red Sea. The new impulse soon carries them over into upper Egypt or the ancient Ζthiopia, whence they find their way down into Mitzraim (the Narrows), the country of the lower Nile, whilst others start off again for the vast regions of Central Africa. One branch of the sons of Japheth direct their course to the dense Northern wilds, and thence dividing, begin their long march through Middle and Northern Europe in the one direction, or through Middle Asia and towards the American continent in the other. Another branch of the same family roam through Asia Minor, one part crossing at the Bosporus (βοοςπορος, as the Greeks afterwards translated the old name, in accordance with one of their fables), the ancient Ox-ford, or cattle-passage, whence they proceed into the Thracian and Danubian forests; whilst another host of pioneers make the Ζgean isles their stepping places to Greece, Italy, and Spain. The bold sons of Canaan have ventured upon ships, and are making their way to the extremities of the Mediterranean and even to the Atlantic. In the mean time the descendants of Shem keep nearer to the old homeland, barely diverging into Elam (Persia) and Assyria, moving mainly up the Euphrates to Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and thence to Northern Arabia. There is every reason to believe that under this mighty impulse that drove them from Shinar, more was done in two or three centuries towards settling the earth than had been accomplished in the 1,600 or 2,000 years of the antediluvian period; and this fact alone, when taken in connection with its divine causality, is a sufficient answer to those who think that the Hebrew chronology does not give time enough for the great historical beginnings that so soon made their appearance. The world has ever moved by starts, and races, like individuals, oftentimes do more, and live more, in very short periods than they do in others comparatively long. This is dwelt upon here as having a bearing upon the position of the human race, and the spread of its population, before the flood. The emphasis with which the new movement is announced in the 11th chapter, and more fully described in the 10th (see especially Genesis 8:32), furnishes the strongest reason for believing that nothing of the kind, or on such a scale, had ever taken place upon the earth before. “From these (ξֵ ?ΰֵ ?μֵּ ?δ) were parted (were divided, πִ ?τְ ?ψְ ?γεּ, isolated), the nations in the earth after the flood.” In the antediluvian period there seems to have been a distinction between ΰψυ and ΰγξδ, but the former word had not acquired the greater definiteness of after usage. In fact, it must have been utterly indefinite. This is safely inferred from the views we are compelled to form of the primitive territorial notions of mankind. In the earliest times the conception of the earth must have been that of unlimited extent, and of an undivided wild or waste. Nothing to the contrary had been made known, either by experience or by revelation. It was simply the contrast of the sky above and the ground beneath, like the conception presented in the earliest Greek antithesis of οὐρανὸς and χθών. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ FOURTH PARTTHE GENESIS OF THE NEW, WORLD-, HUMAN RACE; OF THE BETWEEN THE FORM OF SIN THAT NOW COMES IN, AND OF THE NEW FORM OF PIETY; OF THE BETWEEN THE OF SHEM AND THE OF JAPHETH ; OF TEE BETWEEN THE OF THE NATIONS, AND THE OF THE NATIONS; BETWEEN THE , OR THE , AND THE FAITH IN GOD OF THE , THE FIRST TYPICAL . Genesis 8:20 to Genesis 11:32FIRST SECTIONThe First Typical Covenant. The Primitive Precepts (Noachian Laws). The Symbol of the Rainbow Genesis 8:20 to Genesis 9:1720 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21And the Lord smelled a sweet savour, and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake: for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth [here, excusing]; neither will I again smite any more everything living as I have done. 22While the earth remaineth [all the days of the earth] seedtime and harvest [the order of nature], and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease. Genesis 9:1 And God [Elohim] blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth. 2And the fear of you and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green 4herb have I given you all things. But flesh which is the life thereof [its soul, its animation], which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5And surely your blood of your lives [of each single life] will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it [take vengeance for it], and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of Man 1:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by Man 1:2 shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he Man 1:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth 8abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. And God [Elohim] spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying [μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ], 9And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth [that shall proceed from them in the future]. 11And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off anymore by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12And God [Elohim] said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more 16become a flood to destroy all flesh. And my bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every 17living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God [Elohim] said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. AND 1. Genesis 8:20-22. The offering of Noah and the acceptance and promise of Jehovah. The offering of Noah is not, as has been maintained, to be referred back from the later time of the law, to the primitive history. It reflects itself, moreover, in the mythological stories of the flood (Delitzsch, p. 268). An altar to the Lord. The altar is called ξִ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?δַ, place of slaying the victim, from ζָ ?αַ ?η, as θυσιαστήριον from θύειν. That the sons of Adam offered without an altar is a mere supposition. According to Keil there was no need of an altar, because God was still present in paradise to men. In the judgment of the flood was paradise destroyed; the place of his presence was withdrawn, and he had taken his throne in the heaven, that from thence, hereafter he might reveal himself to men. (Comp. Genesis 2:5; Genesis 2:7). “Towards heaven must now the hearts of the pious lift up themselves; their offerings and their prayers must go up on high, if they would reach God’s throne. In order to give the offerings this upward direction, elevated places were fixed upon, from which they might ascend heavenwards in fire. Hence the offerings derived their name of ςֹ ?μεֹ ?ϊ, from ςֹ ?μָ ?δ, the ascending, not so much because the animal offered was laid upon the altar, or made to ascend the altar, but rather because of the ascending (of the flame and smoke) from the altar towards heaven. (Comp. Judges 20:40; Jeremiah 48:15; Amos 4:10). In like manner Delitzsch in relation to Psalms 29:10; (according to Hofmann: “Prophecy and Fulfilment,” pp. 80, 88). If by this is meant that the religious consciousness, which once received God as present in paradise, must now, through its darkness by sin, revere him as the Holy One, far off, dwelling on high, and only occasionally revealing himself from heaven, there would be nothing to say against it; but if it is meant as a literal transfer of the place of the divine dwelling and of the divine throne, it becomes a mythologizing darkening of the divine idea (see Psalms 139). Christ was greater than the paradisaical Adam; notwithstanding, in prayer, he lifted up his eyes to heaven (John 11:41); and already is it intimated, Genesis 1:1, that from the beginning, the heaven, as the symbolical sign of God’s exceeding highness, had precedence of the earth. That, however, the word ςεֹ ?μָ ?δ may have some relation, at least, to the ascendency of the victim upon the altar is shown by the expression δςμδ in the Hiphil. The altar was erected to Jehovah, whose worship had already, at an earlier period, commenced (Genesis 4:4). Everywhere when Elohim had revealed himself in his first announcements, and had thus given assurance of himself as the trusted and the constant, there is Jehovah, the God amen, in ever fuller distinctness. As Jehovah must he especially appear to the saved Noah, as the one to whom he had fulfilled his word of promise in the wonderful relation he bore to him.—Of every clean beast.—According to Rosenmuller and others, we must regard this as referring to the five kinds of offerings under the law, namely, bullock, sheep, goats, doves, turtle doves. This, however, is doing violence to the text; there appears rather to have been appointed for offering the seventh surplus example which he had taken, over and above the three pairs, in each case, of clean beasts.—And offered it as a burnt offering.—We are not to think here of the classification of offerings as determined in the levitical law. The burnt offering forms the middle point, and the root of the different offerings (comp. Genesis 22:13); and the undivided unity is here to be kept in view. There is, at all events, contained here the idea of the thank offering, although there is nothing said of any participation, or eating, of the victim offered. The extreme left side of the offering here, as an offering for sin and guilt, was the Herem or pollution of the carcases exposed in the flood (like the lamb of the sacrifice of Moses as compared with the slain first-born of the Egyptians); the extreme right side lay in that consecrated partaking of flesh by Noah which now commenced.—And the Lord (Jehovah) smelled a sweet savor.—The savor of satisfaction. An anthropomorphic expression for the satisfied acceptance of the offering presented, as a true offering of the spirit of the one presenting it.—And said in his heart.—Not merely he said to himself or he thought with himself; it means rather, he took counsel with, his heart and executed a purpose proceeding from, the emotion of his divine love.—I will not again curse.—In words had he done this, Genesis 3:17, but actually and in a higher measure, in the decree of destruction Genesis 6:7; Genesis 6:13. With the last, therefore, is the first curse retracted, in as far as the first preliminary lustration of the earth is admitted to be a baptism of the earth. According to Knobel, the pleasing fragrance of the offering is not the moving ground, but merely the occasion for this gracious resolve, But what does the occasion mean here? In so far as the saving grace of God was the first moving ground for Noah’s thank offering, was this latter also a second moving ground (symbolically, causa meritoria) for the purpose of God as afterwards determined.—For the imaginations of man’s heart.—The ground here given for God’s forbearance and compassion seems remarkable. Calvin: “Hic inconstanti� 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.” Between this passage, however, and the one Genesis 6:6, there is a twofold difference. In the latter there precedes the sentence: Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth; in connection with this corruption of actual sin, the evil imagining of the human heart itself, is reckoned for evil, as being its fountain. Here, however, the burnt offering of Noah goes before. In connection with tills sacrificial service, expressing the feeling of guilt and the want of forgiveness, the evil imagination of the human heart appears as a sufferer of temptation. The innate sinfulness is not disease merely, but as it stands in organic connection with the actual sin, is also guilt. It is, however, disease too; and precisely in its connection with the disposition for pardon, and the better desire of man, is it regarded as disease by God, and as being, therefore, an object of his compassion. Moreover it is called here simply ιֵ ?φֶ ?ψμֵ ?α, the involuntary unconscious sense and imagination, but there (Genesis 6:6), it was “the imagination of the thoughts (the purposes) of his heart,” and, therefore, a matter of consciousness; here it is wickedness from his youth up, there, it is only wickedness, nothing else but wickedness, wickedness throughout and continually. In the effect of the flood, and in the light of the sacrificial offering, which Noah offers not only in his own name, but in that of his family and race, the guilt of the innate sinfulness of the human race appears typically weakened in the same way as in the evangelical church-doctrine, the condemnation of hereditary sin is taken away by baptism, of which the flood is a type. Knobel lays stress on the fact that it is said from his youth up, not from his mother’s womb; but the word evidently means that just as soon as the heart comes to its peculiar imagining, or the sensual imagining that is appropriate to it, then immediately appears the innate sinfulness.—Whilst the earth remaineth.—“The three first pairs of words do not denote, as the Jewish interpreters (see Raschi) explain it, six times of the year reckoned by two months each (a division found in the Vedas and the Avesta), but they divide the year into two halves each, as the old Greeks did into θέρος and χειμών (in Hesiod it is ἄμητος and ἀροτος), namely the summer (including the autumn), beginning with the early rising of the Pleiades, and the winter (including the spring, see Job 29:4) beginning with the early setting (Ideler, Chron. 1, p. 241).” Delitzsch. And yet the antitheses are not tautological. Seed-time and harvest denote the year according to its most obvious significance for man. Cold and heat are according to the equilibrium of the year, lying at the ground of seed-time and harvest, and conditioned by the regular change of temperature. Summer and winter present the constant appearance of this change, the order of which is imaged in the small and ordinary changes of day and night that belong to the general course of nature. Delitzsch supposes that this new course of nature, consisting in interchanges of temperature, is opposed to a “serene or uninterrupted warmth that prevailed before the flood.” That the earth in the primitive period had an even temperature may be regarded as very probable; but not that the flood, in this respect, made any sudden turning point, although such an epoch in the earth’s life must, at the same time, denote the beginning of a change. At all events, the new order of nature is not denoted as a mere imperfect earth, for this purified earth will God never again cover with a flood. Delitzsch admirably remarks: “they are God’s thoughts of peace which he gives to Noah’s inner perception as an answer to his offering; as even now every one who prays in faith gets from the heart of God an inward perception that his prayer is answered.” The doubled form, μֹ ?ΰΰֹ ?ρִ ?σ, has as in Isaiah 54:9, the power of an oath. As an establishment of the new order of nature, this promise corresponds to the creative words Genesis 1. 2. The blessing of God on the new humanity, its dominion, its freedom and its laws (Genesis 9:1-7). The benediction of Noah and his sons, Genesis 9:1, corresponds to the blessing of Adam and Eve, Genesis 1:28. In like manner, the grant of dominion over the animal world corresponds to the appointment there expressed. The distinct license here given for the slaying of the beasts corresponds to Genesis 1:29, and Genesis 2:16. The prohibition of eating blood corresponds to the prohibition of the tree of knowledge. Finally, the command against murder has relation, without doubt, to the murder committed by Cain (Genesis 4). Delitzsch: “After that the general relations of nature, in view of such a ruin as has happened in the flood, are made secure by promise, there are given to men new physical, ethical, and legal foundations.”—And the fear of you.—Your fear, as the effect, ξεֹ ?ψָ ?ΰ. The exciting of fear and terror are to be the means of man’s dominion over the animals. Delitzsch remarks: “It is because the original harmony that once existed between man and nature has been taken away by the fall and its consequences. According to the will of God, man is still the lord of nature, but of nature now as an unwilling servant, to be restrained by effort, to be subjugated by force.” Not throughout, however, is nature thus antagonistic to man; it is not the case with a portion of the animal world, namely, the domestic animals. It is true, there has come in a breach of the original harmony, but it is not now for the first time, and the most peculiar striving of the creature is against its doom of perishability (Romans 8:20). Moreover, it is certainly the case, that, the influence of the fear of man upon the animals is fundamentally a normal paradisaical relation. But a severer intensity of this is indicated by the word dread. Knobel explains it from the fact, that hence-forth the animal is threatened in its life, and is now exposed to be slain. Since the loss of the harmonic relation between man and the animals (in which the human majesty had a magical power over the beast), the contrast between the tame and the wild, between the friendly innocence and the hostile dread of the wilder species, had increased more and more, unto the time of the flood. Now is it formally and legally presented in the language we are considering. Man is henceforth legally authorized to exercise a forcible dominion over the beasts, since he can no longer rule them through the sympathy of a spiritual power. Also the eating of flesh, which had doubtless existed before, is now formally legalized; by which fact it is, at the same time, commended. A limitation of the pure kinds is not yet expressed. When, however, there is added, by way of appendix, all that liveth (that is, is alive), the dead carcase, or that which hath died of itself, is excluded, and with it all that is offensive generally. There is, however, a distinct restriction upon this flesh-eating, in the prohibition of the blood: But flesh with the life thereof.—Delitzsch explains it as meaning, “that there was forbidden the eating of the flesh when the animal was yet alive, unslain, and whose blood had not been poured out,—namely, pieces cut out, according to a cruel custom of antiquity, and still existing in Abyssynia. Accordingly there was forbidden, generally, the eating of flesh in which the blood still remained.” It is, however, more to the purpose to explain this text according to Leviticus 17:11; Leviticus 17:14, than by the savage practices of a later barbarous heathenism, or by Rabbinical tradition. “With its life,” therefore, means with its soul, or animating principle, and this is explained by its blood, according to the passage cited (Deuteronomy 12:23); since the blood is the basis, the element of the nerve-life, and in this sense, the soul. The blood is the fluid-nerve, the nerve is the constructed blood. The prohibition of blood-eating, the first of the so-called Noachian commands (see below), is, indeed, connected with the moral reprobation of cruelty to animals, as it may proceed to the mutilation of the living; it is, therefore, also connected with the avoidance of raw flesh (αָּ ?ωָׂ ?ψηַ ?ι, or living flesh, 1 Samuel 2:15. Knobel). “The blood is regarded as the seat of the soul, or the life, and is even denoted as πֶ ?τֶ ?ωׁ, or the soul itself (Leviticus 1:5), as the anima purpurea of Virgil, Ζn. ix. 348; even as here πַ ?τωׁ ?εֹ is explained by the apposition γָּ ?ξεֹ. But the life belongs to God, the Lord of all life, and must, therefore, be brought to him, upon his altar (Deuteronomy 12:27), and not be consumed by man.” Knobel. This is, therefore, the second idea in the prohibition of the blood. As life, must the life of the beast go back to God its creator; or, as life in the victim offered in sacrifice, it must become a symbol that the soul of man belongs to God, though man may partake of the animal materiality, that is, the flesh. Still stronger is the restriction that follows: And surely your blood of your lives.—“The soul of the beast, in the blood of the beast, is to be avoided, and the soul of man, in the blood of man, is not to be violated.” Delitzsch. At the ground of this contrast, however, lies the more general one, that the slaying of the beast is allowed whilst the slaying of man is forbidden.–Will I require; that is, the corresponding, proportionate expiation or punishment will I impose upon the slayer. The expression μְ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωֹׁ ?ϊֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, Knobel explains as meaning “for your souls,” for the best of your life (comp. Leviticus 26:45; Deuteronomy 4:15; Job 13:7). According to Delitzsch and Keil μְ expresses the regard had for the individual. And this appears to be near the truth. The blood of man is individually reckoned and valued, according to the individual souls.—At the hand of every beast.—The more particular legal regulation is found in Exodus 21:28. Here, then, is first given a legal ground for the pursuit and destruction of human murderous and hurtful beasts. Still there is expressed, moreover, the slaying of the single beast that hath killed a man. “In the enactments of Solon and Draco, and even in Plato, there is a similar provision.” Delitzsch.—And at the hand of man. “ΰִ ?ιωׁ ΰָ ?η, brother man, that is, kinsman; comp. Genesis 13:5; so, ΰִ ?ιωׁ λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο, a priest-man, etc. By the words ΰִ ?ιωׁ ΰָ ?ηִ ?ιε is not to be understood the next of kin to the murdered man, whose duty it was to execute the blood-vengeance (Von Bohlen, Tuch, Baumgarten), as the one from whom God required the blood that was shed, but the murderer himself. In order to indicate the unnaturalness of murder, and its deep desert of penalty, God denotes him (the murderer) as in a special sense the brother of the murdered.” Knobel. Besides this, moreover, there is formed from ΰִ ?ιω the expression every man (Delitzsch, Keil). Every man, brother man.—The life of man.—Man is emphasized. Therefore follows, emphatically, the formula: Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, and at the close again there is once more man (δָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν) prominently presented.—By man shall his blood be shed: “namely, by the next of kin to the murdered, whose right and duty both it was to pursue the murderer, and to slay him. He is called βֹּ ?ΰֵ ?μδַ ?γָּ ?ν, the demander of the blood, or the blood-avenger. The Hebrew law imposed the penalty of death upon the homicide (Exodus 21:12; Leviticus 24:17), which the blood avenger carried out (Numbers 35:19; Numbers 35:21); to him was the murderer delivered up by the congregation to be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:12). Among the old Hebrews, the blood-vengeance was the usual mode of punishing murder, and was also practised by many other nations.” Delitzsch and Keil dispute the relation of this passage to the blood-vengeance. It is not to be misapprehended, 1. that here, in a wider sense, humanity itself, seeing it is always next of kin to the murdered, is appointed to be the avenger; and 2. that the appointment extends beyond the blood-vengeance, and becomes the root of the magisterial right of punishment. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in the patriarchal relations of the olden time it was a fundamental principle that the next of kin were not only justified in the execution of the law of blood, but on account of the want of a legal tribunal, were under obligation to perform the office. This primitive, divinely-sanctioned custom, became, in its ideal and theocratic direction, the law of punishment as magisterially regulated in the Mosaic institutions (but which still kept in mind the blood-vengeance), whereas, in the direction of crude heathenism, which avenged the murder even upon the relations of the murderer, it became itself a murderous impulse. Delitzsch remarks, that God has now laid in the hands of men the penal force that belonged to him alone, because he has withdrawn his visible presence from the earth,—according to the view, before cited, of his transfer of the divine throne to the heavens.—For in the image of God made he man.—This is the reason for the command against murder. In man there is assailed the image of God, the personality, that which constitutes the very aim of his existence, although the image itself, as such, is inviolable. In murder the crime is against the spirit, in which the divine kinsmanship reveals itself, and so is it a crime against the very appearing of God in the world in its most universal form, or as a prelude to that murder which was committed against the perfect form of man (or image of God in man), Zechariah 12:10; John 3:10; John 3:15).—But be ye fruitful.—The contrast to the preceding. The value of human life forbids its being wasted, and commands its orderly increase.—Bring forth abundantly in the earth—In the spreading of men over, the earth, and out of its supplies of food (by which, as it were, the life of the earth is transformed into the life of man) are found the conditions for the multiplication of the human race. Thus regarded, there is only an apparent tautology in the verse, not an actual one. 3. Genesis 9:8-17. The covenant of God with Noah, with his race, and with the whole earth.—To Noah and to his sons with him.—Solemn covenanting form. The sons are addressed together with Noah; for the covenant avails expressly for the whole human race.—And I, behold I establish.—The words, and I, (εֹ ?ΰπι) form a contrast to the claims of God on the new humanity as an introduction to the promise. According to Knobel, God had established no covenant with the antediluvians. Not, indeed, in the literal expressions here employed; since it was after men had had the experience of a destroying judgment. According to the same (Knobel), the Jehovist, in Genesis 8:21 presented the matter in a way different from that of the Elohist here. Clearly, however, does the offering of Noah there mentioned, furnish the occasion for the entire transaction that follows in this place. The making of a covenant with Noah is already introduced, and announced Genesis 6:13; it stands in a development conditioned on the preservation of Noah’s faith, just as a similar development is still more evident in the life of Abraham (see James 2:20-23). Keil remarks that “ηֵ ?χִ ?ιναְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ is not equivalent to λָּ ?ψַ ?ϊαְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊּ, that is, it does not denote the formal concluding, but the establishing, confirming, of a covenant,—in other words, the realization of the covenanting promise” (comp. Genesis 22 with Genesis 17, 15). Delitzsch: “There begins now the era of the divine ἀνοχή(Romans 3:26) of which Paul preached in Lystria (Acts 14:15).” In its most special sense, this era begins with the origin of heathenism, that is, from the Babylonian dispersion. With a right fulness is the animal world also included in this covenant, for it is elohistic,—universalistic; it keeps wholly predominant the characteristic of compassion for the creaturely life upon the earth, although man forms its ethical middle point, with which the animal world and the kosmos are connected. The covenant with the beasts subsists not for itself, and, in respect to its nature, is only to be taken symbolically.—Shall not be cut off any more.—This is the divine covenant promise—no new destruction,—no end of the world again produced by a flood.—My bow in the cloud, it shall be for a token.—In every divine covenant there is a divine sign of the covenant; in this covenant it is said: my bow do I set. According to Knobel the rainbow is called God’s bow, because it belongs to the heaven, God’s dwelling place. It is a more correct interpretation to say, it is because God has made it to appear in the heaven, as the sign of his covenant. According to the same, the author of the account must have entertained the supposition that there had never been a rainbow before the time of the flood. Delitzsch is of the same opinion. It is, indeed, a phenomenon of refraction, which may be supposed of a fall of water, and sometimes, also, of a dew-distilling mist. But the far visible and overarching rainbow supposes the rain-cloud as its natural conditioning cause. We have already remarked that from the appointment of the rainbow, as the sign of the covenant, it by no means follows that it had not before existed as a phenomenon of nature (Genesis 2). The starry night, too, is made the sign of a promise for Abraham (Genesis 15). Keil is not willing to infer that hitherto it had not rained, but only presents the conjecture that at an earlier period the constitution of the atmosphere may have been different.—And I will look upon it that I may remember.—An anthropomorphising form of expression, but which like every other expression of the kind, ever gives us the tenor of the divine thought in a symbolical human form. Here it is the expression of the self-obligating, or of the conscious covenant truthfulness, as manifested in the constant sign. “In his presence, too, have they power and most essential significance.” (Von Gerlach). [Note on the Appointment of the Rainbow as the Sign of the Covenant.—In regard to this it may be well to give the views of some of the older Jewish commentators, if for no other purpose, to show that what is really the most easy and the most natural interpretation comes from no outside pressure of science, but is fairly deducible from the very letter of the passage. Thus reasons Maimonides respecting it: “For the words are in past time, ΰֵ ?ϊχַ ?ωְׁ ?ϊִּ ?ιπָ ?ϊַ ?ϊִּ ?ι, my bow have I set (or did set) in the cloud, not, I am now setting, or about to set, which would be expressed by ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιπεֹ ?ϊִ ?ο, according as he had said just before, δַ ?αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰֲ ?πִ ?ιπֹ ?ϊֵ ?ο, the covenant which I am now establishing. Moreover the form of the word χַ ?ωְׁ ?ϊִּ ?ι my bow, shows that there was something to him so called from the beginning. And so the Scripture must be interpreted: the bow which I put (πϊϊι) in the cloud in the day of creation, shall be, from this day, and henceforth, for a sign of the covenant between me and you, so that every time that it appears, I will look upon it and remember my covenant of peace. If it is asked then, what is meant by the bow’s being a sign, I answer that it is like what is said Genesis 31:48, in the covenant between Jacob and Laban, δִ ?πֵּ ?δδַ ?βַּ ?μδַ ?ζֶּ ?δςֵ ?γ, lo, this heap is a witness, etc., or Genesis 31:52, ςֵ ?γָ ?δδַ ?ξַּ ?φֵּ ?αָ ?δ, and this pillar shall be a witness, etc. And so also Genesis 21:30, ΰֶ ?ϊωֶׁ ?αַ ?ςλְּ ?αָ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ϊϊִּ ?χַּ ?ηξִ ?ιָּ ?γִ ?ι, seven lambs shalt thou take from my hand, μְ ?ςֵ ?γָ ?δ for a witness. In like manner everything that appears as thus put before two, to cause them to remember something promised or covenanted, is called ΰεֹ ?ϊ. And so of the circumcision; God says, it shall be a sign of the covenant, μְ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊαְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, between me and you. Thus the bow that is now visible, and the bow that was in nature (αθλς) from the beginning, or from of old (ξςεֹ ?μν) are one in this, that the sign which is in them is one.” He then proceeds to say that there are other and mystic interpretations made by some of the Rabbins, but this great critic is satisfied with the one that he has given. Aben Ezra says that the most celebrated of the Jewish Rabbins held the same opinion as Maimonides, namely, that the rainbow was in nature from the beginning, though he himself seems to dissent. “And I will look upon it to remember the αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, the covenant of eternity.” Let us not be troubled about the anthropopathism, but receive the precious thought in all its inexpressible tenderness. Lange most beautifully characterizes such mutual remembrance as eye meeting eye. We all know that God’s memory takes in the total universe of space at every moment of time: but there are some things which he remembers as standing out from the great totality. He remembers the act of faith, and the sign of faith, as he remembers no other human act, no other finite phenomenon. May we not believe that there is the same mutual remembrance in the Eucharist? The “remember me” implies “I will remember thee.” The eye of the Redeemer looking into the eye of the believer, or both meeting in the same memorial: this is certainly a “real presence,” whatever else there may be of depth and mystery in that most fundamental Christian rite—the evangelical ΰεֹ ?ϊαְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, or sign of the everlasting covenant. The Hebrew ΰεֹ ?ϊ is not used of miraculous signs, properly, given as proofs of mission or doctrine. It is not a counteraction of natural law, or the bringing a new thing into nature. Any fixed object may be used for a sign, and here the very covenant itself, or a most important part of it, being the stability of nature, there is a most striking consistency in the fact that the sign of such covenant is taken from nature itself. The rainbow, ever appearing in the “sunshine after rain,” is the very symbol of constancy. It is selected from all others, not only for its splendor and beauty, but for the regularity with which it cheers us, when we look out for it after the storm. Noah needed no witness of the supernatural. The great in nature, in that early age when all was wonderful, was regarded as manifesting God equally with the supernatural. Besides, in the flood itself there was a sufficient witness to the extraordinary. There was wanted, then, not a miracle strictly as an attestation of a message, or as a sign of belief, like the miracles in the New Testament (when there was a necessity for breaking up the lethargy of naturalism), but a vivid memorial for the conservation rather than the creation of faith. The Hebrew word for miracle is more properly τֶּ ?μֶ ?ΰ, though it may be used simply for prodigy, like the Greek τέρας, in distinction from the New Testament σημεῖον, which is properly a proof or attestation of a miraculous kind. Τέρας simply means anything wonderful, whether in nature or not. Superstition converts such appearances into portents, or signs of something impending, but in the Bible God’s people are expressly told “not to be dismayed at the signs of the heavens as the heathen are.” Jeremiah 10:1. The word there used is this same ΰεֹ ?ϊεִֹ ?ϊ in the plural, but accommodated to the heathen perversion. To the believing Israelites the signs of the heavens, even though strange and unusual, were to be regarded as tokens of their covenant God above nature yet ruling in nature, and ever regulating the order of its phenomena. There is a passage sometimes quoted from Homer, Il. xi. 27, Genesis 28 : ̔ ?́ΙρισσινἐοικότεςἅστεΚρονίων’ΕννέφεϊστήριξεΤΕΡΑΣμερόπωνἀνθρώπων.“Like the rainbows which Zeus fixed in the cloud a sign to men of many tongues.” But τέρας there has the sense of prodigy, or it may denote a wonderful and beautiful object. We cannot, therefore, certainly infer from this any traditional recognition of the great sign-appointing in Genesis. So Plato quotes from Hesiod the genealogy of Iris (the rainbow), as the daughter of Θαύμας or Wonder, as a sort of poetical argument that Wonder is the parent of philosophy, as though the rainbow were placed in the heavens to stimulate men in the pursuit of curious knowledge. But it is the religious use that is prominent in this as in all the Bible appeals to the observation of nature. It is for the support of faith in the God of nature, “that we may look upon it and remember;” and this is admirably expressed in a Rabbinical doxology to be found in the Talmudic Kidduschin, fol. 8, and which was to be recited at every appearance of the rainbow, αψεκΰϊδιδεδΰμδιπεεβε, “Blessed be thou Jehovah our God, King of eternity (or of the world), ever mindful of thy covenant, faithful in thy covenant, firm in thy word,” comp. Psalms 119:89, Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. The Targum of Oukelos translates Genesis 9:13 : “And it shall be a sign, αιοξιξψιεαιοΰψςΰ, between my word and the earth.” It is not unreasonable to suppose some reference to this place in that difficult passage Habakkuk 3:9, ςֶ ?ψְ ?ιָ ?δϊֵּ ?ςεֹ ?ψχַ ?ωְׁ ?ϊֶּ ?κָ, most obscurely rendered in our English version, “thy bow was made quite naked—the oaths of the tribes—the word.” Kimchi translates it revealed, made manifest. It is commonly thought that all that is said in that sublime chapter has reference to events that took place during the exodus, but there is good ground for giving it a wider range, so as to take in other divine wonders, in creation and in the patriarchal history.—T. L.] AND ETHICAL1. There are the most distinct indications that the flood, as the greatest epoch of the primitive time, made a turning point, not only in the spiritual life of humanity, but also in its physical relations,—yea, in the very life of the earth itself. Only we may not, in the first place, regard this turning point as a sudden change of all relations; just as little as the fall (Genesis 3) suddenly brought in death, or as the confusion of tongues produced immediately the wide-spread diversities of language. And, in the second place, again, it must not be regarded as a change of all relations for the worse. There is supposed to have been a change of the atmosphere (concerning the rain and the rainbow, see above). At all events, the paradisaical harmony of the earth had departed at an earlier day. But, on the other hand, there comes in now a more constant order of the atmospherical relations (Genesis 8:22). Again, some have called it a sudden change in the duration of human life. But to this is opposed the fact that the aged Noah lived 350 years after the flood. It is evident, however, that during the period of Noah’s life the breaking through of death from the inner to the outer life had made a great advance. And to this the fear which the flood brought upon the children and grandchildren of Noah (not upon himself) may have well contributed. As far as relates to the increasing ferocity of the wild beasts towards men, the ground of their greater estrangement and savageness cannot be found in their deliverance in the ark. Already had the mysterious paradisaical peace between man and beast departed with the fall. Moreover, the words: “all flesh had corrupted its way,” (Genesis 6:12) indicate that together with men’s increasing wickedness the animal world had grown more ferocious. But if the mode of life as developed among men made the eating of flesh (and drinking of wine) a greater necessity for them than before, then along with the sanctioning of this new order of life, must there have been sanctioned also the chase. And so out of this there must have arisen a state of war between man and the animal world, which would have for its consequence an increased measure of customary fear among the animals that were peculiarly exposed to it. 2. Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar to Jehovah, his covenant God, who had saved him. The living worship (cultus) was his first work, the culture of the vineyard was his second. The altar, in like manner, was the sign of the ancestral faith, as it had come down from paradise and had been transmitted through the ark. This faith was the seed-corn as well as sign of the future theocracy and the future church. It was an altar of faith, an altar of prayer, an altar of thanksgiving, for it was erected to Jehovah. But it was also an altar of confession, an acknowledgment that sin had not died in the flood, that Noah and his house was yet sinful and needed the symbolic sanctification. In this case, too, was the offering of an animal itself an expression of the greater alacrity in the sacrifice since Noah had preserved only a few specimens of the clean animals. This readiness in the offering was in that case an expression of his faith in salvation, wherein, along with his prayer for grace and compassion, there was inlaid a supplication for his house, for the new humanity, for the new world. His offering was a burnt-offering, a whole burnt-offering (Kalil) or an ascending in the flame (Olah), as an expression that he, Noah, did thereby devote himself with his whole house, his whole race, and with the whole new earth, to the service of God. The single kinds of offering were all included in this central offering. It was this sense of his offering which made the strong burnt odor of the burning flesh, a “sweet savor” for Jehovah in a metaphorical sense. The attestation of Jehovah makes it evident in what sense Noah offered it. It expresses 1. an averting of the curse from the ground, 2. the fact that the hereditary sinfulness of man was to be an object of the divine compassion. The sinful tendency in its connection with the act of sin is guilt, but in its connection with the need of salvation and salvation itself, it is an evil, the sorest of diseases and suffering (see above); 3. the promise that Jehovah would not again destroy every living thing; 4. the establishment of a constant order of nature; such as the prosperity of the new human race demanded. On this promise of sparing compassion for sinful men, and which God as Jehovah pronounces, there is grounded the renewed relation into which, as Elohim, he enters with all humanity, and the creature world connected with it. This relation is denoted by grants made by God to man, and demands which he makes of man, whereupon follows the establishment of the Elohistic covenant with Noah and all living. The Grants of God: 1. the repetition of the blessing upon Noah and upon all his house, as before upon the animals; 2. the renewed grant of dominion over the beasts; the sanction given to the eating of flesh. In contrast with these grants that guarantee the existence and well-being of the human race, stand the demands or claims made in respect to human conduct. The first is the avoidance of the eating of flesh with the blood, whereby there is together established the sanctification of the enjoyment, the avoidance of savageness as against nature, and of cruelty as against the beast. The second not only forbids the shedding of human blood, but commands also the punishment of murder; it ordains the magistracy with the sword of retribution. But it expresses, at the same time, that the humane civil organization of men must have a moral basis, namely the acknowledgment that all men are brothers (ΰִ ?ιωׁ ΰָ ?ηִ ?ιε every man, his brother man), and with this again, a religious basis, or the faith in a personal God, and that inviolability of the human personality which rests in its imaged kinsmanship with God. On this follows the establishment of the covenant. Still it is not made altogether dependent on the establishment of the preceding claims. It is a covenant of promise for the sparing of all living that reaches beyond this, because it is made not for individuals but for all, not merely for the morally accountable but for infants, not merely for men but also for the animal world. Notwithstanding, however, this transcending universality of the divine covenant, it is, in truth, made on the supposition that faith in the grace and compassion of Jehovah, piety in respect to the blessing, the name and the image of Elohim, shall correspond to the divine faithfulness, and that men shall find consolation and composure in the sign of the rainbow, only in as far as they preserve faith in God’s word of promise. 3. In the preceding Section we must distinguish between what God says in his heart, and what Elohim says to Noah and his sons. The first word, which doubtless was primarily comprehensible to Noah only, is the foundation of the second. For God’s grace is the central source of his goodness to a sinful world, as on the side of men the believing are the central ground for the preservation of the world, as they point to Christ the absolute centre, She world’s redeemer, having, however, his preserving life in those who are his own, as his word testifies: Ye are the salt of the earth. We must, then, again distinguish between the word of blessing, which embraced Noah and his sons, and with them humanity in general, and the word of the covenant which embraced all living (Genesis 9:10). 4. The institutions of the new humanity: 1. At the head stands the altar with its burnt-offering as the middle point and commencing point of every offering, an expression of feeling that the life which God gave, which he graciously spares, which he wonderfully preserves, shall be consecrated to him, and consumed in his service. 2. The order of nature, and, what is very remarkable, as the ordinance of Jehovah, made dependent on the foregoing order of his kingdom of grace. 3. The institution of the marriage blessing, of the consecration of marriage, of the family, of the dispersion of men. 4. The dominion of man over the animal world, as it embraces the keeping of cattle, the chase, manifold use of the beasts. 5. The holding as sacred the blood—the blood of the animal for the altar of God, the blood of man for the priestly service of God; the institution of the humanitat, of the humane culture and order, especially of the magistracy, of the penal and judicial office (including personal self-defence and defensive war). 6. The grounding of this humanitat on the religious acknowledgment of the spiritual personality, of the relation of kinsman that man bears to God, of the fraternal relation of men to each other, and, consequently, the grounding of the state on the basis of religion. 7. The appointment of the humanization of the earth (Genesis 9:7) in the command to men to multiply on the earth—properly, upon it, and by means of it. As men must become divine through the image of God, so the earth must be humanized. 8. The appointment of the covenant of forbearance, which together with the security of the creature-world against a second physical flood, expresses also the security of the moral world against perishing in a deluge of anarchy, or in the floods of popular commotion (Psalms 93). 9. The appointment of the sign of the covenant, or of the rainbow as God’s bow of peace, whereby there is at the same time expressed, in the first place, the elevation of men above the deification of the creature (since the rainbow is not a divinity, but a sign of God, an appointment which even the idolatrous nations appear not to have wholly forgotten, when they denote it God’s bridge, or God’s messenger); in the second place, their introduction to the symbolic comprehension and interpretation of natural phenomena, even to the symbolizing of forms and colors; thirdly, that God’s compassion remembers men in their dangers, as indicated by the fact, that in the sign of the rainbow his eye meets their eye; fourthly, the setting up a sign of light and fire, which, along with its assurance that the earth will never again be drowned in water, indicates at the same time its future transformation and glorification through light and fire. 5. In the rainbow covenant all men, in their dealings with each other, and, at the same time, with all animals, have a common interest, namely, in the preservation of life, a common promise, or the assurance of the divine care for life, and a common duty in the sparing of life. 6. The offering as acceptable to God, and its prophetic significance. 7. The disputes concerning original sin have variously originated from not distinguishing its two opposing relations. These are, its relation to actual sin, Romans 5:12, and to the desire for deliverance, Romans 7:23-25. 8. The magical or direct power of man over the beasts is not taken away, but flawed, and thereupon repaired through his mediate power, derived from that superiority which he exercises as huntsman, fisher, fowler, etc. In regard to the first, compare Lange’s “Miscellaneous Writings,” vol. iv. p. 189. 9. The ordinance of the punishment of death for murder, involves, at the same time, the ordinance of the magistracy, of the judicial sentence, and of the penal infliction. But in the historical development of humanity, the death-penalty has been executed with fearful excess and false application (for example, to the crime of theft); since in this way, generally, all humane savageness and cruelty has mingled in the punitive office. From this is explained the prejudice of the modern humanitarianism against capital punishment. It is analogous to the prejudice against the excommunication, and similar institutes, which human ignorance and furious human zeal have so fearfully abused. Yet still, a divine ordinance may not be set aside by our prejudices. It needs only to be rightly understood according to its own limitation and idea. The fundamental principle for all time is this, that the murderer, through his own act and deed, has forfeited his right in human society, and incurred the doom of death. In Cain this principle was first realized, in that, by the curse of God, he was excommunicated, and driven, in self-banishment, to the land of Nod. This is a proof, that in the Christian humanitarian development, the principle may be realized in another form than through the literal, corporeal shedding of blood (see Lange’s treatise Gesetsliche Kirche als Sinnbild, p. 72). It must not, indeed, he overlooked, that the mention is not merely of putting to death, but also of blood-shedding, and that the latter is a terrific mode of speech, whose warnings the popular life widely needed, and, in many respects, still needs. Luther: “There is the first command for the employment of the secular sword. In the words there is appointed the secular magistracy, and the right as derived from God, which puts the sword in its hands.” Every act of murder, according to the Noachian law, appears as a fratricide, and, at the same time as malice against God. 10. To this passage: “for in the image of God made he man,” as also to the passage, James 3:9, has the appeal been made, to show that even after the fall there is no mention of any loss of the divine image, but only of a darkening and disorder of the same. Others, again, have cited the apparently opposing language, Coloss. Genesis 3:10, and similar passages. But in this there has not always been kept in mind the distinction of the older dogmatics between the conception of the image in its wider sense (the spiritual nature of man) and the more restricted sense (the spiritual constitution of man). In like manner should there be made a further distinction between the disposition of Adam as conformed to the image (made in, or after the image) and the image itself as freely developed in Christ (the express image, Hebrews 13.), as also finally between the natural man considered in the abstract, in the consequences of his fall, and the natural man in the concrete, as he appears in the operation of the gratia pr�veniens. This perfect developed image Adam could not have lost, for he had not attained to it. Neither can men lose the ontological image as grounded in the spiritual nature, because it constitutes its being; but it may darken and distort it. The image of God, however, in the ethical sense, the divine mind (φρόνημαπνεύματος), this he actually lost to the point where the gratia pr�veniens laid hold on him, and made a point of opposition between his gradual restoration and the fall in abstracto. But to what degree this image of God in fallen man had become lost, is shown in this very law against murder, which expresses the inalienable, personal worth, that is, the worth that consists in the image as still belonging to man, and thus, in contrast with grace, must man become conscious of the full consequences of his sinful corruption according to the word: what would I have been without thee? what would I become without thee? 11. With this chapter has the Rabbinical tradition connected their doctrine of the seven Noachic precepts. (Buxtorf: Lexicon Talmudicum, article, Ger, βֵ ?ψ). They are: 1. De judiciis; 2. de benedictione Dei; 3. de idolatria fugienda; 4. de scortatione; 5. de effusione sanguinis; 6. de rapina; 7. de membro de animali vivo sc. non tollendo. The earlier supposition, that the Apostolical decree (Acts 15) had relation to this, and that, accordingly, in its appointments, it denominated the heathen Christians as proselytes of the gate (on whom the so-called Noachian laws were imposed) is disputed by Meyer, in his “Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles” (p. 278), though not on satisfactory grounds. The matter of chief interest is the recognition, that in the Israelitish consciousness there was a clear distinction between revealed patriarchal precepts and the Mosaic law. Such a distinction is also expressed by Christ, John 7:22-23. So, too, did the Levitical law make a distinction between such precepts as were binding upon aliens (proselytes of the gate) and such as were binding upon the Jews (Leviticus 17:14; see Bibelwerk, Acts of the Apostles, p. 215). It lies in the very nature of the case, that in Acts 15 the seventh precept of the tradition, according to its wider appointment, was divided into two (namely, abstinence from blood and from things strangled), and that, moreover, only those points came into the general view, in respect to which heathen Christians, as freer Christians, might be liable to fail. It was, in fact, a monotheistic patriarchal custom, which, as the expression of the patriarchal piety and humaneness, became the basis of the Mosaic law, and on this basis must the heathen Christians have come together in ethical association, if, in their freedom from the dogmas of the Mosaic law, they would not endanger even the churchly and social communion of the Jewish Christians (see Lange: Geschichte des Apostolischen Zeitalters, ii. p. 187). The prohibition of blood-eating has here no longer any dogmatic significance, but only an ethical. The Greek Church mistook this in its maintenance of the prohibition (Trullanic Council, 692), whereas, the Western Church, in the changed relations, let the temporary appointment become obsolete. 12. On the symbolical significance of the rainbow, see Delitzsch, p. 277, and Lange’s “Miscellaneous Writings,” i. p. 277, from which Delitzsch gives the following passage: “The rainbow is the colored glance of the sun as it breaks forth from the night of clouds; it is its triumph over the floods—a solar beam, a glance of light burnt into the rain-cloud in sign of its submission, in sign of the protection of all living through the might of the sun, or rather the compassion of God.” To this adds Delitzsch: “As it lights up the dark ground that just before was discharging itself in flashes of lightning, it gives us an idea of the victory of God’s love over the black and fiery wrath; originating as it does from the effects of the sun upon the sable vault, it represents to the senses the readiness of the heavenly light to penetrate the earthly obscurity; spanned between heaven and earth, it announces peace between God and man; arching the horizon, it proclaims the all-embracing universality of the covenant of grace.” He then cites some of the mythical designations of the rainbow. It is called by the Hindoos, the weapon of Indras; by the Greeks, Iris, the messenger of the gods; by the Germans, Bifrφst (living way), and Asen-brόcke, “bridge of Asen;” by the Samoeids, the seam or “border of God’s robe.” There are, besides, many significant popular sayings connected with its appearance. Knobel: “The old Hebrews looked upon it as a great band joining heaven and earth, and binding them both together; as the Greek ἶρις comes from εἴρω, to tie or bind, they made it, therefore, the sign of a covenant, or of a relation of peace between God in heaven, and the creatures upon the earth. In a similar manner the heavenly ladder, Genesis 28:12.” On this, nevertheless, it must be remarked, that the Hebrews were conscious of the symbolic sense of the designation; not so, however, the Greeks, who were taken with the fable merely. In like manner, too, did the Hebrew view rest upon a divine revelation. How far the mere human interpretation may be wide of the truth, is shown by the fact, that classical antiquity regarded the rainbow as for the most part announcing “rain, the wintry storm, and war.” [Note on the Ancient, the Universal, and the Unchanging Law of Homicide.—The divine statute, recorded Genesis 9:6, is commonly assailed on grounds that are no less an abuse of language, than they are a perversion of reason and Scripture. The taking the life of the murderer is called revenge—no distinction being made between this word, which ever denotes something angry and personal, and vengeance, which is the requital of justice, holy, invisible, and free from passion. On this false ground there is an attempt to set the Old Testament in opposition to the New, notwithstanding the express words of Christ to the contrary. This perverse misnomer, and the argument grounded upon it, apply equally to all punishment, strictly such—to all retributive justice, or to any assertion of law that is not resolvable into the merest expediency, excluding altogether the idea of desert, and reducing the notion of crime simply to that of mischief, or inconvenience. It thus becomes itself revenge in the lowest and most personal sense of the term. Discarding the higher or abstract justice, giving it no place in human law, severing the earthly government wholly from the divine, the proceeding called punishment, or justice, is nothing more nor less than the setting the mere personal convenience of the majority, called society, against that of the smaller numbers whom such society calls criminals. This has all the personality of revenge, whether with passion, or without; whereas, the abstract justice, with its moral ground, and its idea of intrinsic desert, alone escapes the charge. Intimately connected with this is the question respecting the true idea and sanction of human government,—whether it truly has a moral ground, or whether it is nothing higher than human wills, and human convenience, by whatever low and ever falling standard it may be estimated. If the murderer is punished with death simply because he deserves it, because God has commanded it, and the magistrate and the executioner are but carrying out that command, then all the opposite reasoning adverted to falls immediately to the ground. It has neither force nor relevancy. The same, too, may be said in respect to much of the reasoning in favor of capital punishment, so far as it is grounded on mere expediency, and is not used as a collateral aid to that higher principle by which alone even a true expediency can be sustained. Should it even be conceded that this higher principle is, in itself, and for its own sake, above the range of human government, still must it be acknowledged in jurisprudence as something necessary to hold up that lower department of power and motive which is universally admitted to fall within it. Reformation and prevention will never be effected under a judicial system which studiously, and even hostilely (for there can be no neutrality here) shuts out all moral ideas. There may be a seeming reform in such case; but it has no ground in the conscience, because it is accompanied by no conviction of desert, to which such influences must be wholly alien. The deterring power, on the other hand, must constantly lose its vigor, as the terror of the invisible justice fades away in the ignoring of the law, and there takes its place in the community that idea of punishment which is but the warring of opposite conveniences, and the collision of stronger with weaker human wills. Men are not merely permitted to take the life of the murderer, if the good of society require it, but they are commanded to do so unconditionally. In no other way can the community itself escape the awful responsibility. Blood rests upon it. Impunity makes the whole land guilty. A voice cries to heaven. Murder unavenged is a pollution. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONThe Revelation of Sin and of Piety in Noah’s Family—The Curse and the Blessing of Noah—The twofold Blessing, and the Blessing in the Curse itself. Genesis 9:18-2918 And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19These are the three sons of Noah; and of them was the whole earth overspread. 20And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard; 21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. 24And Noah awoke from his wine [his sleep of intoxication], and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem [Jehovah, God of the name, or who preserves the name]; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27God shall enlarge Japheth [one who spreads abroad], and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died. AND 1. The Significance of this Jehovistic Section. This second event in the life of Noah after the flood is evidently of the highest meaning; as was the first, namely, Noah’s offering and God’s blessing and covenant. In the first transaction there are delineated the ground-features of the new constitution of the earth, as secured by the covenant of God with the pious Noah. In the present Section we learn the advance of culture, but we recognize also the continuance of sin in the new human race; still, along with the earlier contrast between piety and perverseness, there comes in now the new contrast of a blessed life of culture as compared with the religious life of a divine cultus, or worship. In what Noah says of his sons, we read the ground-forms of the new state, and of the world-historical partition of mankind. In Knobel’s representation of it, this higher significance of the Section is wholly effaced. In the curse upon Canaan (according to this view), and in his appointment to servitude, the Jehovist would give an explanation of the fact, that the Canaanites were subjugated by the Hebrews, and that Phζnician settlers among the Japhethites appear to have had a similar fate. But that the curse was pronounced upon Canaan, and not upon Ham, was because other Hamitic nations, such as the Egyptians, etc., were not in the same evil case. Still, it is not Canaan, but Ham himself, who is set forth as the shameless author of the guilt, (?) because the writer would refer certain shameless usages of the Hamitic nations to their first ancestor. Now, on the simple supposition of the truth of the prediction, and of the connection between the guilt of the ancestor, and the corruption of his descendants, this construction must fall to the ground. Knobel cites it as “an ancient view,” that the cursings of those who are distinguished as men of God, have power and effect as well as their blessings. 2. Genesis 9:19. By them was the whole earth overspread.—A main point of our narration. “The second event in the life of Noah after the flood shows us the germs for the future development of the human race in a threefold direction, which is prefigured in the character of his three sons.” To this end the repetition of their names. The mention of Canaan introduces the mention of the land in the following verse, as used for the inhabitants of the land; as in Genesis 10:25; Genesis 11:1, and other passages in which cities and lands are frequently named instead of their population.” Keil. 3. Genesis 9:20-21. Noah’s Work, his Indulgence and his Error. The translation: “and Noah began to be a husbandman” is rightly set aside by Delitzsch and Keil. The word for husbandman has the article, and is, therefore, in apposition with Noah. Noah, as husbandman, began to plant a vineyard. The agriculture that had been interrupted by the flood, he again carries on, and makes it more complete by means of the new culture of the vine. Armenia, where he landed with the ark, is an anciently known vine-land. “The ten thousand (Xen., Anab. 4, 4, 9) found in Armenia old and well flavored wines: even at this day the vine grows there, producing wine of great excellence, even at the height of four thousand feet above the level of the sea (Ritter: Geography, x. p. 554). That the culture of the vine came from Asia is well known. The Greek myth ascribes it to Dyonysus or Bacchus, representing it, sometimes, as derived from the Indians, and again, as belonging to the Phrygians, who were related to the Armenians (Diod. Sic. 362; Strabo, 10).” Knobel. The story designates a hill on the northwest, adjacent to the Great Ararat, and furnishing the means of its ascent, as the region where Noah set out his vine-plants. The village of Arguri (Agorri), which in 1840 was destroyed in an eruption of Ararat, stood upon the place referred to. Frequent projections of stones, and outpouring streams of lava and mud, have, in the course of time, destroyed all the fertile soil of Ararat (K. Koch, in “Piper’s Year Book,” 1852, p. 28).” Delitzsch. The wine-garden of Noah is a mild reflex of paradise in the world of the fallen human race; and this enjoyment, in its excessively sinful use, to which Noah led the way, although he was not aware of its effect, has become a reflex of Adam’s enjoyment of the tree of knowledge; with this difference, however, that Noah erred in ignorance, and not in the form of conscious transgression. Intoxication by wine makes men lax in respect to sexual sin; and this connection is gently indicated in the fact that Noah, as he lay unguarded in his tent, exposed himself contrary to the law of modesty. In the error of the father there reveals itself the character of the sons. 4. Genesis 9:22-23. The Behavior of the Sons. Ham’s conduct was, at first, a sin of omission. He saw the nakedness (the shame) of his father, and neither turned away his eyes nor covered him; then he told it to his brethren without, and this was his sin of commission. His behavior had the character not merely of lustful feeling, but of utter shamelessness; whereas the act of the two brothers presents a beautifully vivid image of delicacy, being at the same time an act of modesty and of piety. Reverence, piety, and chastity, are, in children, the three foundations of a higher life; whereas in impiety and sensual associations, a lower tendency reveals itself. Out of the virtues and the vices of the family come the virtues and the vices of nations, and of the world. At the same time, the manner in which the two sons treat the case, presents a charming image of prudence and quick decision. They seize the first best robe that comes to hand, and that was the ωִׁ ?ξְ ?μָ ?δ, spread it out, and as they go backward with averted faces, lay it upon the nakedness of their father. 5. Genesis 9:24-29. Noah’s Curse and Blessing. His end.—And Noah awoke from his wine; that is, the intoxication from wine (see 1 Samuel 1:14; 1 Samuel 25:37).—And knew.—This seems to suppose that his sons had told him, which, however, may have been occasioned by his asking about the robe that covered him. The whole proceeding, however, must have come to light, and that, too, to his own humiliation.—His younger son (literally, his son, the little, or the less; see Genesis 5:32).—The effect upon him of the account is an elevated prophetic state of soul, in which the language of the seer takes the form of poetry.—Cursed be Canaan.—The fact that he did not curse the evil-doer himself, but his son, is explained away, according to Origen, in a Hebrew Midrash, which says that the young Canaan had first seen his grandfather in this condition, and told it to his father—clearly an arbitrary exegesis. According to Hδvernik and Keil, all the sons of Ham were included in the curse, but the curse of Ham was concentrated on Canaan. Keil and Hengstenberg find, moreover, a motive in the name λְּ ?πַ ?ςַ ?ο, which does not mean, originally, a low country, but the servile. “Ham gave to his son the name of obedience, a thing which he himself did not practise.” Hengstenberg supposes that Canaan was already following his father’s footsteps in impiety and wickedness. According to Hofmann and Delitzsch, Canaan had the curse imposed upon him because he was the youngest son of Ham (Genesis 10:6), as Ham was the youngest son of Noah. “The great sorrow of heart which Ham had occasioned to his father was to be punished in the suffering of a similar experience from his own youngest son.” Rightly does Keil reject this. The exposition of Knobel we have already cited; according to it the later condition of the Canaanites was only antedated in the prophecy of Noah. Before all things must we hold fast to this, that the language of Noah is an actual prophecy; and not merely an expression of personal feeling. That the question has nothing to do with personal feeling is evident from the fact, that Ham was not personally cursed. According to the natural relations, the youngest grandchildren would be, in a special manner, favorites with the grandfather. If now, notwithstanding this, Noah cursed his grandchild, Canaan, it can only he explained on the ground that in the prophetic spirit he saw into the future, and that the vision had for its point of departure the then present natural state of Canaan. We may also say, that Ham’s future was contained in the future of Canaan; the future of the remaining Hamites he left undecided, without curse and without blessing, although the want of blessing was a significant omen. Had, however, Noah laid the curse on Ham, all the sons of Ham would have been denoted in like manner with himself; even as now it is commonly assumed that they were, though without sufficient ground (see Delitzsch, p. 281). There is no play upon the name Canaan, as upon the name Japheth—a thing which is to be noted. But that in the behavior of Canaan Noah had a point of departure for his prophecy, we may well assume with Hengstenberg.—A servant of servants; that is, the lowest of servants. If the language had had in view already the later extermination of the Canaanites, it must have had a different style. The form of the expression, therefore, testifies to the age of the prophecy. We must also bear in mind, that the relation of servant in this case denotes no absolute relation in the curse, or any developed slave relation, any more than the relation of service which was imposed upon Esau in respect to Jacob. There even lies in it a hidden blessing. The common natures must, of themselves, take a position of inferiority; through subordination to the nobler character are they saved, in the discipline and cultivation of the Spirit.—Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem.—The blessing upon Shem has the form of a doxology to Jehovah, whereby, as Luther has remarked, it is distinguished as a most abundant blessing, which finally reaches its highest point in the promised seed. “If Jehovah is the God of Shem, then is Shem the recipient and the heir of all the blessings of salvation which God, as Jehovah, procures for humanity.” Keil.—And Canaan shall be his servant.—The word μָ ?ξεֹ (regularly μָ ?δֶ ?ν) is taken by Gesenius as a poetical expression for μεֹ; Delitzsch refers it, as plural, to both brothers—Keil and Knobel to their descendants. The descendants, however, are represented in the ancestor, and, therefore, the explanation of Gesenius gives the only clear idea.—God shall enlarge Japheth, [or, as Lange renders it], God give enlargement to the one who spreads abroad.—In the translation we retain the play upon the word, and the explanation of the name Japheth. Keil explains the word (meaning literally, to make room, to give space for outspreading) as metaphorical. To make room is equivalent to the bestowment of happiness and prosperity. It must be observed, however, that the name Shem, and the blessing of Shem, denotes the highest concentration; whilst in opposition to this the name Japheth and the blessing of Japheth, denotes the highest expansion, not only geographically, but also in regard to the spread of civilization through the earth, and its conquest both outwardly and intellectually. This is the spiritual mission of Japhethism to this day—namely, the mental conquest of the world. The culture life of Japheth, as humanitarian, scientific, stands in harmonious contrast with the cultus, or religionism, of Shem. Therefore, too, must Japheth’s blessing come from Elohim.—And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.—The words, he shall dwell, are by some (Onkel, Dathe, Baumgarten) referred to Elohim. But this had already been expressed in the blessing of Shem, and had therefore nothing to do with the blessing of Japheth. What is said relates to Japheth; and that, too, neither in the sense that the Japhethites shall settle among the Shemites, or that they shall conquer them in their homes (Clericus, Von Bohlen, and others), but that Japheth’s dwelling in the tents of Shem shall be in the end his uniting with him in religious communion (Targum Jonathan, Hieronymus, Calvin, and others). The opposite interpretation (Michaelis, Gesenius, De Wette, Knobel, and others), which explains Shem here (ων) as meaning literally name, or fame (dwell in the tents of renown), appears to have proceeded from a misapprehension of the prophetic significance of the language. To dwell in the tents of any one, Knobel holds, cannot mean religious communion. That would be true, if the one referred to had not immediately before been denoted as an observer of the true religion. That the Japhethites, that is, the Greeks, early dwelt in the tents of renown, is, in this respect, a matter by itself, which had already been set forth in Japheth’s own blessing, as implied in what is said of his expansion. As the brothers, whatever contrast there might have been in their characters, had been one in their piety towards their father, so must their posterity become one in this, that they shall finally exchange with each other their respective blessings—in other words, that Japheth shall bring into the tents of Shem what he has won from the world, and, in return for it, share in the blessing of the Name—the name Jehovah, or the true religion.—And Noah lived.—In the Armenian legend, Arnojoten, in the plain of the Araxes, has the name of his place of burial. With the death of Noah, the tenth member of the Genealogical table, ch. v., finds its conclusion. [Note on the Curse of Canaan—the supposed Curse of Ham—the Blessing op Shem and Japheth. Genesis 9:24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. εַ ?ιִּ ?ιχֶ ?υ, LXX. ἐξένηψε, became fully conscious of his condition. Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:24. εַ ?ιֵּ ?γַ ?ς, knew, became sensible of. It is not the word that would have been employed had he learned it from the information of others. It denotes intelligence—by the eye, as Isaiah 6:9,—by the touch, Genesis 19:33,—experience by any sense, Deuteronomy 11:2,—or by the exercise of the mind as following such experience, Judges 13:21. Had done unto him, ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δμε. This is, something more than an omission or a neglect. The word is a very positive one. Something unmistakable, something very shameful had been done unto the old man in his unconscious state, either the stripping off his robe, or some act of abuse or mockery of such a nature that it becomes manifest to him immediately on his recovery. It may be remarked, too, that ΰֵ ?ϊΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ may more properly be rendered, indefinitely, a thing which, or something which, his youngest son had done unto him. But who was the culprit? Of this, too, the patriarch appears to have been immediately sensible, or to have immediately inferred it from something he must have known of the supposed perpetrator. He seems to have had no doubt. Now Ham had done nothing to his father. On discovery of his state he hastens to his brothers, it may be with the same filial intentions that they more promptly carried out. The sight appears to have been accidental and involuntary. The word is εַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?ΰ, he saw, not εַ ?ιַּ ?αֵּ ?θ, he looked at, spectavit, ἐθεάσατο, gazed at, implying interest, emotion. There is in the account no intimation of any of that scoffing demeanor that some commentators have so gratuitously charged upon him. He saw and told his brothers. At all events, his fault, if there was one, was simply an omission, which seems to fall altogether short of the force of the words ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δμεֹ, had done unto him, regarded, too, as something obvious or immediately discoverable by the one who had suffered the indignity. There seems to be a careful avoidance of particularity. The language has an euphemistic look, as though intimating something too vile and atrocious to be openly expressed. Thus regarded, everything seems to point to some wanton act done by the very one who is immediately named in the severe malediction that follows: “Cursed be Canaan.” He was the youngest son of Ham, as he was also the youngest son of Noah according to the well-established Shemitic peculiarity by which all the descendants are alike called sons. Beside the general designations, sons of Israel, απιιωψΰμ, sons of Judah, etc., see such particular cases as Genesis 29:5, where Laban is called the son of Nahor; Ezra 5:1, where the prophet Zachariah is called the son of Iddo; whereas, as appears from ZaGen Genesis 1:1, he was his grandson. αְּ ?πεֹ δַ ?χָּ ?θָ ?ο is rendered in our English version, his younger son, to make it applicable to Ham, on the supposition that he was the middle son, younger than Shem. But this will not do. It would be a vague way of designating him at any rate, even if the language would allow it. But the term χθο can only denote the younger (minor) when used of one of two, and standing in contrast with βγεμ. Standing alone, as it does here, or in connection with three or more, it can only be rendered minimus, the little one distinctively, the least or youngest of all. The terms are derived from the early family state with its disparity of appearance in size, though afterwards retained or transferred to express simply juniority, as the Latin major and minor in like cases. The primitive association, however, is not wholly lost, and this makes the term such a favorite to express the very youngest in the family, who is regarded as the little one long after he has grown up to maturity of age and size. So Benjamin, even when he was twenty-three years of age, was still δַ ?χָּ ?θָ ?ο, the little one. The term, it is true, denotes comparative juniority, yet still it derives its etymological emphasis from the fact that he was ιֶ ?μֶ ?γζְ ?χֻ ?πּ ?ιν, τηλυγέτος, the late-born, the child of old age, and so still thought of as the little one of the family. To the father, especially, or to the grandfather, an epithet of this kind retains all its force. Such, most likely, was the relation between Noah and the young Canaan, until his vile abuse of it called out the greater severity of malediction. So David, too, was specially named after he had arrived at robust manhood. The other sons of Jesse are called collectively βְ ?γֹ ?μִ ?ιν, and are named, moreover, first, “second, third, etc., but of David it is said δεּ ?ΰδַ ?χָּ ?θָ ?ο, he was the little one, minimus, youngest of all. See also Genesis 29:18, where, from a similar association of ideas, Rachel is called αִּ ?ϊְּ ?κָ δַ ?χְּ ?θַ ?πָּ ?δ, thy little daughter, though in that, case there were but two of them. Everything points to Canaan as the youngest son, at that time, of all the Noachic family. He was the direct object of the curse, which, instead of ascending to the father, contrary to everything else of the kind in the Bible, was so fully accomplished in Canaan’s own direct descendants. So clear is this, that some of the best commentators, including most of the Jewish, although still keeping Ham as the main figure, in consequence of the old prepossession, represent Canaan as playing an active part in the business. It is the current Jewish tradition, that he first saw the exposure and told it to his father. Others ascribe to him a shameful act of mutilation, from whence it is thought came the old fable of Saturn. “It was Canaan that did it,” says Aben Ezra, “although the Scripture does not in words reveal what it was.” Rashi also gives the story of mutilation, ιωΰεֹ ?ξψινρψρε, and he refers to the Sanhedrin of the Talmud. That most acute critic, Scaliger, not only ascribes the act to Canaan, whether it was a positive exposure or anything else, but acquits Ham of all positive blame: “Quid Cham fecit patri suo? Nihil; tantum fratribus de patris probro nuncius fuit.” Scalig., Elench., p. 54. Ham might have been called the younger son in respect to Shem, as he was the elder in respect to Japheth, but this would neither answer to αοχθο here, nor suit the evidently intended distinctiveness of the designation. On the other hand, he was in no sense minimus or youngest, unless there is wholly disregarded the order in which the names occur at every mention of the three: Shem, Ham, Japheth. See Genesis 5:32; Genesis 6:10; Genesis 7:13; Genesis 9:18; Genesis 10:1. This would make him the middle one, at all events, whether Shem or Japheth were regarded as the eldest. The determination of the latter question would depend upon the interpretation of Gen 5:32; Genesis 10:21. “Noah was five hundred years old and begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” It is not at all credible that the births of these sons should have been so near together that they all took place at, or even about, the time when Noah was five hundred years old. It appears from Genesis 11:10, that Shem was born about this time, making him about one hundred years old at the beginning of the year after the flood. Now, if we render Genesis 5:32 : “Noah was five hundred years old, and had begotten,” or, when he had begotten, etc., making the series end at that time, which is perfectly consistent with the Hebrew idiom, then the first-named would probably have been the youngest, as last begotten, and marking the date. If they were all born afterwards, the inference would, for the same reason, have been just the other way. In favor of the first view, which would make Japheth the elder, there is the rendering which our English version gives to Genesis 10:21 : Shem, the brother of Japheth the elder, instead of, the elder brother of Japheth. Some commentators have favored this on the ground that Shem must have been born after Noah was five hundred years old, because his own age is stated as being one hundred years, two years (ωְׁ ?πָ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν or the second year, or, as the dual form more strongly implies, between one and two years) after the flood. But besides the minute trifling of such an interpretation, there is a grammatical difficulty in the way which is insuperable. In the expression δַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μΰֲ ?ηִ ?ιιֶ ?τֶ ?ϊ, the two first ords being in regimen, the epithet δַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ must belong to the whole as a compound: Japheth’s brother, the elder; otherwise it would be like making the adjective in English agree with the possessive case. Compare Judges 2:7, λָּ ?μξַ ?ςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?διְ ?δεָֹ ?δδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, every great work of the Lord;1 Samuel 17:28, ΰֱ ?μִ ?ιΰָ ?αΰָ ?ηִ ?ιεδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, Eliab his elder brother, where the pronoun corresponds to the noun in regimen, and, especially, such cases as Judges 1:13; Judges 3:9, which are precisely like this, logically and grammatically: ΰֲ ?ηִ ?ιλָ ?μֵ ?αδַ ?χָּ ?θֹ ?ο, Caleb’s younger brother, not, the brother of Caleb the younger. So far the sense may be said to be fixed grammatically, but the fair inference from the context, and the fact that appears in it that there were three brothers, would seem to give it not only a comparative, but a superlative sense: the brother of Japheth, the elder one,—implying that there were two brothers older than Japheth, and that Shem was the oldest of them. If we look at the whole context (Ham and his genealogy having been just disposed of), we shall see that there was more reason for the narrator’s saying this than for merely mentioning that Shem was older than Japheth. These considerations would seem to fix the position of Ham as the middle son; although, without them, it might have been reasonably argued that Ham himself was the oldest, from the fact that his descendants, with the exception of Canaan (unless we may reckon the Ph�nicians among them), so get the start, in history and civilization, of both Shem and Japheth. A very strong argument against the hypothesis that Ham was cursed here instead of Canaan, arises from the want of allusion, in all other parts of the Scripture, to any such sweeping malediction as involving all Ham’s descendants. The accomplishment of the curse upon Canaan is mentioned often, and the frequent allusion to them as “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” is only an emphatic repetition of Noah’s words, ςֶ ?αֶ ?γςֲ ?αָ ?γִ ?ιν, servant of servants—not slave of slaves, as some would take it, but an intensive Hebrew idiom to denote the most complete subjugation, such as the Canaanites were reduced to in the days of Joshua and Solomon. How utterly strange would such language have sounded, had it been applied, at any time during the national existence of the Jews, to the lordly descendants of Cush, Mitzraim, and Nimrod! “Shall be servant to them,” μָ ?ξεֹ, a collective term for the descendants of Shem, who had just been blessed. So is it taken by all the Jewish expositors, who regard the antecedent in Genesis 9:26 as being Shem alone, no other being mentioned or implied, and in Genesis 9:27, as being Shem and the God of Shem who should dwell in his tents. See also Gesenius, Lehrgeb., p. 221. Instead of having ever been servant to Shem, either in the political or commercial sense, Mitzraim held the Israelites for centuries in bondage; Cush (the Ζthiopians and the Lubims) conquered them (see 2 Chronicles 12:3; 2 Chronicles 16:8); the nation that Nimrod founded sacked their cities and brought their land under tribute. Instead of being servants to Japheth, the descendants of Ham were founding empires, building immense and populous cities, whilst the sons of the younger brother, with the exception of the Mediterranean or Javanic line, were roaming the dense wilds of Middle and Northern Europe, or the steppes of Central Asia, ever sinking lower and lower into barbarism, as each wave of migration was driven farther on by those that followed. The more abject race, as some would hold them, were the pioneers of the world’s civilization, advancing rapidly in agriculture and the arts, organizing governments admirable for their order though despotic in form, digging canals and lakes to fertilize the desert, everywhere turning the arid earth into a luxuriant garden, whilst the early Gomerites, and those who followed them in their wilderness march to the extreme west of Europe, were falling from iron to copper, from copper to stone, from the implements of Lamech, and of the ark and tower-builders, to the rude flint axes and bone knives that some have regarded as remains of pre-adamite men. The Hamites go down to Egypt, or ascend the Euphrates, and how soon uprise the pyramids, the immense structures of Thebes, the palaces of Babylon and Nineveh, whilst the other wretched wanderers of the wild woods and marshes were building rude huts on piles, over lakes and fens, to protect themselves from the wild beasts, or herding in caves with the animals whose bones are now found mingling with their own. Such was their progress until there met them again that primitive central light, which had been preserved, especially in the Shemitic, and had never gone wholly out in the Hamitic and Javanic lines. Even this Greek or Javanic branch of the Japhethan family, though ever preserving a position so much higher than that of their Northern consanguinii (this coming from their Mediterranean route furnishing greater facilities of intercourse, and keeping up an accessible proximity between the different pioneering waves and the source whence they came) derived, nevertheless, their earliest culture, from the Egyptians and Ph�nicians, as, in still later times, they received their highest cultus from a Shemitic source. The wisest among the Greeks ever traced their best thinking to the East, that is, to a Shemitic or Hamitic origin. They were ever kept in connection with the primitive light and primitive spiritual vigor, and this was the chief respect in which they differed from our Japhethan ancestors who were so early lost in the woods, and who had no fresh emanations from this central life until long after, when it had been renewed to more than its primitive power by the coming of Christ and Christianity. The application of this curse to Ham was early made by commentators, but its enormous extension to the whole continent of Africa belongs to quite modern times. The first, though having so little support in the letter of the Scripture, had some plausible ground in the unfavorable contrast that Ham’s neglect, or carelessness, presents to the pious earnestness of his two brethren; and this may give the reason why he is, personally, neither cursed nor blessed. It derived countenance, also, from the subsequent wickedness of the great Hamitic nations, and that constant antagonism between them and Israel which appears throughout the Bible. The second feeling seems almost wholly due to certain historic phenomena that have presented themselves since the discovery of America. What has favored this tendency has not been alone, or mainly, the defence of slavery, as some would allege; since men have supported it, like Dr. Lange and others, who abhorred the idea of human bondage in all its forms. It has been, rather, the desire to give a worldly, political importance to the Scriptural predictions, especially the early ones, thus magnifying the Scriptures, as they suppose, and furnishing remarkable evidences of the truth of revelation. Very modern changes in the relative position of continents are seized upon for this purpose, to the ignoring or obscuring the true dignity of the Divine Word. It is safest to regard prophecy as ever being in the direct line of the church, and to judge of the relative importance of world-historical changes solely by this standard. Except as standing in visible relation to the chosen people, the chosen church, or to that extraordinary divine doing in the world which is styled revelation, the greatest earthly revolutions have no more super-earthly value than have to us the dissensions of African chiefs, or the wars of the Heptarchy. To the divine eye, or to the mind that guided the Biblical inspiration, human politics, whether of monarchies or republics, and all human political changes, in themselves considered, or out of this visible relation, must be very insignificant things. Judged by such a rule, Trojan wars, Peloponnesian wars, or the wars of Bonaparte, fall in importance below the wars of Canaan, or Hiram’s sending cedarrafts to Joppa to aid Solomon in the construction of the temple. It is this feeling which has also affected the interpretation of Noah’s blessing of Shem and Japheth, Genesis 9:26-27, especially the words εְ ?ιִ ?ωְׁ ?λֹּ ?οαְּ ?ΰָ ?ηֳ ?μֵ ?ιωֵׁ ?ν, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. It is somewhat remarkable that the Jewish authorities should have given what seems the more spiritual, and even evangelical, interpretation here, whilst so many Christian commentators have been fond of what may be called the political or secular aspect of the prophecy, referring it, as many of them do, to the mere predominance of European power and culture among the Asiatic nations in these latter days. To support this there is carelessly assumed an ethnological view untenable in the wide extent given to it. Europe is Japheth, Shem Asia, Ham Africa. At all events, the prophecy is supposed to set forth three types, embracing all mankind. It is thought to be greatly to the honor of Scripture that it should display such a philosophy of history bearing upon the remote, latter ages, as though this were a greater thing than that fixed spirituality of view which is the same for all ages, and for less or greater territory in space. It is easy to find events which are regarded as supposed fulfilments. The English in India, the French in Tonquin, Opium wars in China, Russia forcing its way into Central Asia; it is all Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem; it is the fulfilling of the Scriptures. There is a bad moral influence in this. An interest in the prediction, or in its supposed interpretation, blinds the moral sense to the enormity of some of the acts by which it is thought to be verified. Much of it, moreover, is false ethnology. The British subjugation of the Hindoos, instead of being Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem, is nothing more than Japheth dwelling in the tents of Japheth. This political mode of interpretation has affected other prophecies of the Bible, and there is reason to believe that it has been especially blinding in the study of the Apocalypse. It proceeds, often, upon the idea that events which seem very large to us, greatly magnified as they are by nearness or other perspective influences, must have the same relative rank in the divine estimation. Now, the Scriptures teach us, that it is ofttimes directly the reverse; see Luke 16:15, what is said about “things highest in the sight of men,” τὸἐνἀνθρώποιςὑψηλόν. Great as they may seem to us, they may have comparatively little bearing upon that which is the special object of the divine care in human history; whilst their over-estimate favors the false idea, that the church is for the world, and not the world for the church. They may even have much less to do, than is generally imagined, with the highest secular progress of mankind. One political eruption may be the mere filling up of a vacuum produced by another, leaving unaffected the general historical evenness, or making even less deflection from the general course of things than other events of seemingly much less show and magnitude. Now, in distinction from the political, there is what may be called the spiritual interpretation of this very ancient prophecy, as given by some of the best Christian commentators (see the references to them in Pole’s “Synopsis,” and the Philologica Sacra of Glassius, p. 1998), and held, with few exceptions, by the Jewish authorities. The Targum of Onkelos interprets the Hebrew by making ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν the subject of ιִ ?ωְׁ ?λֹּ ?ο and renders it araphrastically, εְ ?ιַ ?ωְּׁ ?ψֵ ?ιωְׁ ?λִ ?πְ ?ϊֵּ ?δּ αְּ ?ξַ ?ωְׁ ?λְּ ?πֵ ?δּ γְּ ?ωֵׁ ?ν, His Shekinah shall dwell in the dwelling of Shem (or of the Name). Maimonides, Rashi, and Aben Ezra, all follow this, though they also allude to a secondary sense: that Japheth should learn in the schools of Shem, which is also expressed in the Targum of Jonathan. This, however, is founded on the former idea of the divine indwelling light, in the blessing of which all nations are ultimately to share. So the Judaico-Arabic translation of Arabs Erpenianus: His Light shall dwell in the tents of Shem; the words light and Shekinah being interposed to avoid the seeming anthropomorphism. The rendering, the Shekinah, is suggested to them, moreover, by the etymological connection between ωׁ ?λο (Shakan), the verb here for dwelling, and ωְׁ ?λִ ?ιπָ ?δ, the Shekinah: as though such language as we have Deuteronomy 12:11, μְ ?ωַׁ ?λֵּ ?οωְׁ ?ξεֹ ωָׁ ?ν, and Psalms 85:10, μִ ?ωְׁ ?λֹּ ?ολָּ ?αεֹ ?γִ αְּ ?ΰַ ?ψְ ?φֵ ?πεּ, came directly from this passage. Some Christian commentators carry this still farther, recognizing the same etymology in the Greek ἐσκήνωσε (root, s k n) of John 1:14. Surely the fact has been so. God has specially dwelt in the tents of Shem; “He hath put his glory there.” The Shemite family alone preserved the pure monotheism as against the Eastern pantheism and the Western polytheism lying on each side of it. Even the Arabians and the Syrians kept the holy Name. A chosen branch had the Shekinah, the visible, divine presence, the temple, the promise, and the type of the Messiah. There is, finally, the presence and dwelling of the Messiah with the spiritual Israel down to this day. The interpretation, too, must have been very ancient, antecedent to Targums and Talmuds, as it seems to have colored everywhere the poetry and language of the Old Testament. Hence that frequent imagery of God’s dwelling with his people, or the converse in expression, though essentially the same in thought, His being his people’s “dwelling-place in all generations.” See 1 Kings 6:13; 1 Kings 8:29; Exodus 25:8; Psalms 90:1; Ezekiel 43:9; ZeGen Genesis 8:3. Such was Shem’s blessing here literally expressed, though clearly implied in the previous verse: blessed be the Lord God of Shem (the name), which was the highest mode of saying, blessed be Shem himself, the people whose God is Jehovah. Psalms 33:12; Psalms 144:15. But besides its Scriptural and evangelical fitness, this interpretation has the strongest grammatical reasons. Two verbs in Hebrew, like ιτϊ and ιωλο, joined by the conjunction, whether taken copulatively or disjunctively (that is, whether rendered and or but), must have the same grammatical subject, unless a new one clearly intervenes, or the context necessarily implies it. Neither of these exceptions exist here, and, without them, it is irregular to make the object of the first verb the subject of the second. He (God) will enlarge Japheth, but he will dwell in the tents of Shem. The contrast is between the two acts of Deity, the enlarging—the indwelling—an antithesis that seems demanded by the parallelism, but is wholly lost in the other version. If it is the same subject (the blesser), then there are two objects; and two distinct blessings stand in striking contrast. It is outer growth and inner sacredness. Two states, moreover, and two dispositions are described: Japheth, the foreign rover, Shem, the home devotee, abiding mainly in the old father-land, preserving the Sacra Dei, sanctosque patres. Japheth is to have enlargement of territory, and, ultimately, worldly power; Shem, though small, is to have the special divine presence and indwelling. He is the divine inheritance (see Deuteronomy 32:9) among the nations. The more secular interpretation has, indeed, some strong points of seeming fulfilment, which may affect the sense and the imagination; but for the reason, as well as for faith, how much greater is the idea of such divine indwelling than that of any outward changes, whether of power or culture, in the relations of mankind! Our estimate of causes, as great or small, even in their earthly aspect, is much affected by an after-knowledge of the effects with which they are seen to be connected. As we look back they appear greatly magnified through the medium of such sequence. It is like the mind correcting the perspective errors of the sight in respect to size and distance. What Philosophy of History, written three hundred years before Christ, even though it had been more acute than any modern production of the kind, could have given the true place of the Jewish people of that day, or would even have taken any notice of them, or regarded them as having any rank among the potent causalities of the world! How small, how secluded, how unrecognized their earthly position at that time! Nothing short of prophetic insight could discover what then lay concealed from all the learning and wisdom of the age,—the divine Name and the divine presence, unfigured on Egyptian monuments, unknown in Athenian temples (see Acts 17:23), but dwelling, as a reserve power, in the sequestered tents of Shem.—T. L.] AND ETHICAL1. See the preceding Annotations. 2. Noah the enlarger and the ennobler of human culture. The dangers of progress in civilization. Men become intoxicated with the success of their worldly efforts—especially in the beginning. After the waters of the flood the gift of wine. Under the sacrament of the rainbow, Noah as husbandman and vineyard-keeper, prepares the elements of the New Testament sacrament, bread and wine. 3. The vine is a mild reflex of the tree of knowledge; how Noah’s sin becomes a mitigated figure of the sin of Adam. 4. Noah, whom all the waters of the flood did not harm, received hurt through his unguarded indulgence in a small measure of wine. The history of Adam teaches us the sacredness of limitation, the history of Noah teaches us a holy carefulness in respect to measure or degree. Moderation was a fundamental law of the ancient Chinese, as the piety that preserved Shem and Japheth. 5. The intimate connection between intoxication by wine and sexual unguardedness, or sensual indulgence in the sins of voluptuousness (see the history of Lot). 6. The three sons of Noah. The simple contrast: Cain and Abel, or godless culture and a holy cultus, develops itself in a more manifold contrast: Shem and Japheth, Shem and Ham, Japheth and Ham. For the interpretation of these contrasts, see just above. It is evident, however, that many Christians even now recognize only the contrast of Cain and Abel; that is, they do not recognize that the line of Japheth had likewise its blessing from God, although he can only reach the blessing of Shem after great wanderings. In the heart of the prophecy, Japheth has already taken up his abode in the tents of Shem, when, on the contrary, Shem himself, in the unbelieving Jews, has been given up to a long-lasting alienation. 7. Shem and Japheth are very different, but are, in their piety, the root of every ideal and humane tendency. The people and kingdom of China are a striking example of the immense power that lies in the blessing of (filial) piety; but at the same time a proof that filial piety, without being grounded in something deeper, cannot preserve even the greatest of peoples from falling into decay, like an old house, before their history ends. 8. The blessing of Shem, or the faith in salvation, shall avail for the good of Japheth, even as the blessing of Japheth, humanitarian culture, shall in the end avail for Shem. These two blessings are reciprocal, and it is one of the deepest signs of some disease in our times, that these two are in so many ways estranged from each other, even to the extent of open hostility. What God has joined together, let not man put asunder. 9. It is a fearful abuse of God’s word, when men refer to the curse of Canaan in defence of American slave-traffic, and slave-holding—as is done in the southern portions of the United States. For in the first place, Canaan is not the same as Ham; in the second place, the conception of a servant in the days of Noah is not that of a slave in modern times; in the third place, Canaan’s servitude is the service of Shem, therefore of the Prince of Shem, that is, he becomes the servant of Christ, and in Christ is free; fourthly, as servant of Shem, and servant of Japheth, he becomes a domestic partner in the religion of Shem, as well as in the civilization of Japheth. On the other side, however, it is a misapprehension of the curse as exhibited in history, when the essential equality of all men before God is regarded as a direct abstract equality of men in their political relations. This comes from not taking rightly into account the divine judgments in history, and the gradualness of the world’s redemption (see Romans 10:12). The reader is referred to Michel’s “History of the Cursed Races of France and Spain” (Paris, 1847), as also the “History of the Cursed Villages” (Delessert, Paris). But such histories do not weigh merely on Canaan, or even generally on Ham. They are always economic, that is, temporary, not perpetual dooms. They are districts in which human compassion shall yet appear as a prophet announcing the turning away of the divine wrath, or as a priest interceding against it. 10. The sons of Noah do not appear to clear up the facts in respect to the race-formations. It is quite evident, however, that Ham (the hot, the dark, the southern) forms a special race, and that with the Ζthiopian type the Malayan stands in close relation. On this side there becomes evident the whole power of the life from nature, as the spiritual life becomes subservient to it. Whilst, therefore, it is partly an imperfect distinction when we regard the Shemitic and the Japhethic race (the people of renown, as consisting in the name of God, the δόξατοῦθεοῦ, and the people of the outward and bold dispersion over the earth) as having become blended in the Caucasian, it is also in part a proof of the fact that community in the higher spiritual tendency may cause very great contrasts to lose themselves in almost imperceptible distinctions. It is, however, quite consistent with the nature of the “outspreading,” that is, of Japheth, that whilst, on the one side, he may become one with Shem in the Caucasian, he may, on the other, represent the Mongolian, and in the American, even make a near approach to the race of Ham. On the question of races, see Lange’s “Posit. Dogmatic,” p. 324. On the theocratic significance of Shem, Ham, Japheth, compare Delitzsch, p. 282. 11. The fact that Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood, is a proof that the cosmical change which was brought on by the flood is not to be regarded as sudden in all respects—not, at least, in its relation to human life. 12. The poetical form of Noah’s blessing shows that he spake in a highly rapt state of soul, in which he was as much elevated above any passionate, inhuman wrath against Canaan, as above any weak human sympathy for him. The form of curse and blessing, where both are divinely grounded, indicate a prophetic beholding of the curse and blessing, but not a creating, much less any arbitrary or magical production of the same. 13. The tenor of the Noachian blessing in its Messianic significance, cannot be mistaken. It connects itself with the name Shem. The Protevangel announced a future salvation in the seed of the woman; the language here connects the same with the name of God which was to be entrusted to Shem. Shem is to be the preserver of the name of God, of Jehovah—the preserver of his religion, of his revelation. With this office is he, as the thoughtful, the contemplative one, to dwell in tents, whilst, in some way, God is to be glorified in him, a fact which Noah can only express in the form of a doxology. In this way Shem has it as his task: 1. to rule over Canaan, and to educate him as the master the servant; 2. to receive Japheth as a paternal guest who returns after a long wandering, and to exchange with him good for good—the goods of cultus and the goods of culture. 14. The number of Noah’s sons is three, the number of the Spirit. The Spirit will get the victory in the post-diluvian humanity that has been baptized in the flood. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical. The form of life in Noah: 1. Wherein similar to that of Adam? 2. wherein similar to that of Christ? 3. wherein it possesses something peculiar, that lies between them both. Noah’s wine-culture—the sign of a new step in progress in the life of humanity.—The vine in its significance: 1. In its perilous import; 2. in its higher significance.—God hath provided not merely for our necessity, but also for our refreshment and festive exhilaration. The more refined his gifts, so much the more ought they to draw us, and make us feel the obligation of a more refined life. Noah’s weakness; its connection with his freedom, his struggle and inquiry. The watchfulness and discipline of the Spirit is the only thing that can protect us against the intoxication of the sense.—How one sensual excess is connected with another.—How the sins of the old have for their consequence the sins of the young. Impiety (irreverence, want of a pious fear), a root of every evil, especially those of an impure tendency.—Piety a root of everything noble. It has two branches: 1. devoutness; 2. moral cultivation. The harmony of Shem and Japheth. O, that it were so in our times. How they should mutually feel the obligation to cover their father’s nakedness; that is, in this case, the harm of the earlier time and tradition. What glorious effects would come from the harmony of Christendom and civilization? Shem, Ham, and Japheth: 1. All three distinct characters and types; 2. regarded as two parts, they are two sons of blessing, one child of the curse; 3. as one group. Canaan the servant of Shem and Japheth. Japheth the guest and the domestic inmate of Shem.—The blessing of Noah: 1. Its most universal significance; 2. its Messianic significance.—Noah’s joy, sorrow, and consolation after the flood: 1. The expanding race; 2. the new development of evil; 3. the pre-signal of the patriarchal faith. Starke: Inebriatus est, non quod vitiosus esset, sed quod inexpertus mensur� assumend�. Basil.—Noah ad unius hor� ebrietatem nudavit femoralia sua, qu� per sexcentos annos contexerat. Hieron.—Quem tant� moles aquarum non vicerant, a modico vino victus est. Ephraem (Natalis Alexander i. p. Genesis 228: Ebrietas h�c non solum innoxia sed et mystica fuit. Hieronymus interprets the planting of the vine of the planting of the Church; Noah exposed, he interprets of Christ on the cross; Ham, of the Jews, and so on. In a similar manner Augustine). (As it happens to people in sleep, when they become warm; they uncover themselves unconsciously to get air; and so it happened to Noah.) The sin of excess cannot be excused by the example of Noah. This transgression did not, however, cast him out of the grace of God; for we see that in the prophetic spirit he announces the future destiny of his sons, which certainly could never have happened if the Spirit of God had departed from him. But none the less holds true in this respect what Luther says, namely, that they who go too far in excusing the patriarch throw away the consolation which the Holy Spirit has deemed it necessary to give the Church in the fact that the greatest saints do sometimes stumble and fall (Psalms 34:9).—The nobler the gift, the worse the abuse (1 Corinthians 9:7; Sirach 31:35; 1 Timothy 5:23).—Ham: Sic in sacro Dei asylo inter tam paucos diabolus unus servatus est. Calvin.—Hedinger: The spreading of sin is just as much an evil as the perpetration of sin.—Lange: The curse went not forth properly, against the spiritual in men, as though beforehand they had been declared to have forfeited eternal life, but properly against the corporeal only. So it was, that among the Canaanites there were some who were actually blest (there are cited as examples the cases of Melchisedek and the Gibeonites). Even at this day, it is true that Japheth dwells in the tents of Shem, since the promised land has come into the hands of the Turk instead of the Egyptian sultan. This appears also in a more spiritual manner, since in the New Testament heathen and Jews have become one in their conversion to Christ. (Noah’s long life after the flood is represented as designed to instruct his posterity in the knowledge of God.) Gerlach: It is worthy of remark, that the father of Prometheus in the Grecian fable, and who was a giant, bears the name of Japetus.—Bunsen: Genesis 9:18 is the introduction to an old family tradition concerning the irreverence and dissoluteness in the family of Ham, with special reference to Canaan. Calwer Handbuch: Noah’s human sin regarded as excusable, gives occasion to Ham’s inexcusable sin. The curse comes mainly upon Canaan, since it was just in his race that the most shameless and unnatural abominations prevailed. At the present day the last trace of this people, together with their name, has disappeared from the earth. The highest distinction is that which God hath appointed for Shem. It is the propagation of the kingdom of God by means of his descendants (John 10:16). Luther: And so there was a real scandal in the case, in that when Ham stumbled upon his father’s drunkenness, he judged him wrongly, and even took satisfaction in his sin. Schrφder: Valer. Herberger: Here will the reviler say, this is the text for me: Noah behaved himself in a sottish and unseemly way, and therefore may I do the same. Hold, brother. Noah’s example serves not at all your turn. Only once in his life had Noah overshot the mark; but how oft hast thou already done as much? Noah did not do it purposely or wittingly. The lesson thou art to learn from Noah is not drunkenness, but to guard thyself from drunkenness, that thou mayest not, through his example, come to mischief, and cause a scandal. Wouldst thou be joyful, so let it joy remain. Pleasant drink, and wholesome food God grudges not to thee. Drink and eat, only forget not God and thine hour of death. Neither forget the death of Christ; on this account it was, that formerly the image of the cross was made in the bottom of the tankard. Let a man come to the table as to an altar, says Bernhard. In the weakness of Noah there is enkindled the wickedness of Ham. “Then saw Ham.” Love covers; he (Ham), instead of veiling his father’s nakedness, only the more openly exposes what he had left uncovered. As a son he transgresses against his father; so, as a brother, would he become the seducer of his brother.—Calvin: His age did not excuse him. He was no merely mischievous boy, who, in his inconsiderate sport betrayed his own thoughtlessness, for he had already gone beyond his hundredth year. Luther; Whilst, in other cases, the servant has only one master, Canaan here is the servant of two lords, therefore doubly a servant. (In this way, indeed, it is, that by Shem he is drawn to piety, whilst by Japheth he is educated to a human civilization.)—The sins of Ham, as the deep stain of the Hamitic race in general. Farther on the writer speaks of the corruption of Canaan, and the evil reputation of the Ph�nicians and Carthaginians. Calvin: Shem holds the highest grade of honor. Therefore it is that Noah, in blessing him, expresses, himself in praise of God, and dwells not upon the person. Whenever the declaration relates to some unusual and important pre-eminency, the Hebrews thus ever ascend to the praise of God (Luke 1:68).—Japheth: God gives enlargement to the enlarged.—Luther: Since Abraham, in his fiftieth year, had so good and excellent a teacher in Noah, he must have had quite a growth in doctrine and religion.—Herberger: Fear not the cross, since here thou hast before thee one who bore it for nine hundred and fifty years. Footnotes: [Genesis 9:20.—εַ ?ιָּ ?ηֶ ?μπֹ ?ηַ ΰִ ?ιωׁ δָ ?ΰֲ ?γָ ?ξָ ?δ, rendered “and Noah began to be a husbandman,”—man of the adamah, or man of the soil—γεωργός—agricola. It cannot mean that this was the first time he had practised husbandry, but the beginning of it after the flood, when he and his sons had descended into the low country.—T. L.] [Genesis 9:25.—ςֶ ?αֶ ?γςֲ ?αָ ?γִ ?ιν, “a servant of servants,”—a Hebraism to denote the intensity or degradation of Canaan’s servitude—the lowest and vilest of servants, or, as they are afterwards characterized, “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” in distinction from the ordinary subjugation of a conquered people. For remarks on αְּ ?πεֹ δַ ?χָּ ?θָ ?ο, “his younger son,” or little son, and its reference to Canaan alone, see appended Note, p. 337, on Noah’s curse and blessings.—T. L.] [Genesis 9:27.—ιַ ?τְ ?ϊְּ ?—μְ ?ιֶ ?τֶ ?ϊ, “shall enlarge Japheth.” Europe (εὐρώπη), wide-faced, extensive, spacious. This supposed residence, as it mainly was, of the sons of Japheth, had this name very early. From its unknown extent it was probably so called in comparison with the better known parts of contiguous Asia. The Greeks may have simply translated the early tradition of the prophecy into the name εὐρώπη, and afterward perverted it, according to their usual course by one of their absurd fables.—T. L.] [Genesis 9:27.—ιְ ?ιִ ?ωְׁ ?λֹּ ?ο, “and he shall dwell,” etc. Who shall dwell? The Jewish authorities, with few exceptions, say it is God, the subject of the verb just preceding, and this is, doubtless, according to grammatical regularity. See Aben Ezra, Rashi, and others. Sometimes, to avoid the seeming anthropopathism, they substitute for God the word ΰεֹ ?ψεֹ, his light, or ωְׁ ?λִ ?ιπָ ?δ (Shekinah), deriving it from this very verb ιωλο. Thus, the Targum of Onkelos, εְ ?ιַ ?ωְׁ ?ψֵ ?ιωְׁ ?λִ ?πְ ?ϊּ ?δּ αְּ ?ξַ ?ωְׁ ?λּ ?πֵ ?δּ γִּ ?ωֵׁ ?ν, “His Shekinah [or indwelling) shall abide in the dwelling (mashkeneh) of Shem.” So the Arabic, both of the Polyglott and of Arabs Erpenianus, ζνΣΗَ ?άδΠάζΡΙέζΗΜΘνΗμΛμγ, “His Light shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” See further, appended note, p. 337. on the blessing of Noah.—T. L.] [The Ph�nicians, as distinguished from the Canaanites and Sidonians, were probably Shemites, as they spake the Shemitic language, and thus made it the language of the whole district. This corresponds to what is said by Herodotus and Strabo, that they came from the Persian Gulf—the land of Shinar, the old home-land.—T. L. [The fact that, of all the descendants of Ham, Canaan was the nearest object of interest to the Jews, and so historically of most importance to them, gives the reason of the somewhat peculiar designation, Genesis 9:18, where a kind of note is affixed to Ham’s name, stating that he was the father of Canaan, or rather that this was another name specially given to him by the Israelites, as being beet known to them, or called to mind to them, through his son; ιְ ?ηָ ?νδεּ ?ΰΰֲ ?αִ ?ιλְ ?πַ ?ςַ ?ο, “Ham, that is, the father of Canaan,” or Ham, that is, ’Abi-Canaan,—according to a method of naming that has ever prevailed among the Arabians, down to this day, as Abu-Beker, Abulwalid, or, as in this case, Abu-Canaan, where the son is better known, or an object of nearer interest than the father who is thus named after him.—T. L.] THIRD SECTIONThe Ethnological Table. Genesis 10:1-321 Now these are the generations [genealogies] of the sons of Noah; [they were] Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. 1. The Japhethites (Genesis 10:2-5). 2The Sons of Japheth; Gomer [the Cimmerians, in the Taurian Chersonesus; Crimea], and Magog [Scythians], and Madai [Medes], and Javan [Ionians], and Tubal [Tibereni], and Meschech 3[Moschi], and Tiras [Thracians]. And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz1 [Germans, Asen], and Riphath [Celts, Paphlagonians], and Togarmah [Armenians]. 4And the sons of Javan; Elishah2 [Elis, Ζolians], and Tarshish [Tartessus; Knobel: Etruscans], Kittim [Cyprians, Carians], and Dodanim [Dardanians]. 5By these Were the isles [dwellers on the islands and the coasts] of the Gentiles [the heathen] divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 2. The Hamites (Genesis 10:6-20). 6And the sons of Ham; Cush [Ζthiopians], and Mizraim [Egyptians], and Phut 7[Lybians], and Canaan [Canaanites, Lowlanders]. And the sons of Cush; Seba [Meroe], and Havilah [Abyssinians], and Sabtah [Ζthiopians in Sabotha], and Raamah [Eastern Arabians], and Sabtecha [Ζthiopian Caramanians]: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba and Dedan 8[Sabζan and Dadanic Cushites, on the Persian Gulf]. And Cush begat Nimrod [we will rebel]: Hebrews 9 began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was [he became] a mighty hunter before the Lord; wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod [is he] the mighty hunter before the Lord. 10And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel [Babylon, see ch. xi. 9], and Erech [Orchoe], and Accad, and Calneh [Ktesiphon], in the land of Shinar [Babylonia]. 11Out of that land went forth Asshur [Assyrians], and builded Nineveh [city of Ninus], and the city Rehoboth 12[city markets], and Calah [Kelach and Chalach; completion], And Resen [bridle] between Nineveh and Calah; the same is a great city. 13And Mizraim begat Ludim [Berbers? Mauritanian races], and Anamim [inhabitants of the Delta], and Lehabim [Libyans of Egypt], and Naphtuhim 14[middle or lower Egyptians], And Pathrusim [upper Egyptians], and Casluhim [Cholcians], out of whom came Philistim [emigrants, new comers], and Caphtorim [Cappadocians? Cretans?]. 15And Canaan begat Sidon [Sidonians, fishers?] his firstborn, and Heth [Hittites, terror], 16And the Jebusite [Jebus, Jerusalem, threshing-floor], and the Amorite [inhabitants of the hills], and the Girgasite [clay, or marshy soil], 17And the Hivite [paganus?], and the Arkite [inhabitants of Arka, at the foot of Lebanon], and the Sinite [in Sinna, upon Lebanon], 18And the Arvadite Arabians on the island Arados, north of Tripolis], and the Zemarite [inhabitants of Simyra, on the western foot of Lebanon], and the Hamathite [Hamath, on the northern border of Palestine]: and afterwards were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. 19And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon as thou comest to Gerar [city of the Philistines], unto Gaza [city of Philistines, stronghold]; as thou goest unto Sodom [city of burning], and Gomorrah [city of the wood], and Admah [in the territory of Sodom, Adamah?], and Zeboim [city of gazelles or hyenas], even unto Lasha [on the east of the Dead Sea, earth cleft]. 20These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations. 3. The Shemites (Genesis 10:21-31). 21Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber [on the other side], the brother of Japheth the elder [Lange, more correctly, translates, elder brother of Japheth], even to him were children born. 22The children of Shem; Elam [Elymζans, Persians], and Asshur [Assyrians], and Arphaxad [Arrapachitis, in Northern Assyria, fortress, or territory of the Chaldζans], and Lud 23[Lydians in Asia Minor], and Aram [Aramζans in Syria, highlanders]. And the children o Aram; Uz [Aisites? native country of Job], and Hul [Celo-Syria], and Gether [Arabians], and Mash 24[Mesheg, Syrians]. And Arphaxad begat Salah [sent forth]; and Salah begat Eber [from the other side, emigrant, pilgrim]. 25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg [division]; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan [diminished; by the Arabians called Kachtan, ancestor of all the Arabian tribes]. 26And Joktan begat Almodad [measured], and Sheleph [Salapenians, old Arabian tribe of Yemen, drawers of the sword], and Hazarmaveth [Hadramath, in S. E. Arabia, court of death], and Jerah [worshipper of the moon, on 27 the Red Sea], and Hadoram [Atramites, on the south coast of Arabia], and Uzal [Sanζ, a city in Yemen], 28and Diklah [a district in Arabia, place of palm-trees], And Obal [in Arabia, stripped of leaves], and Abimael [in Arabia, father of Mael, the Minζans?], and Sheba [Sabζans, with their capital city, Saba], 29And Ophir [in Arabia, probably on the Persian Gulf], and Havilah [probably Chaulan, a district between Sanζ and Mecca, or the Chaulotζ, on the border of stony Arabia], and Jobab: all these were sons of Joktan. 30And their dwelling was from Mesha [according to Gesenius, Mesene, on the Persian Gulf], as thou goest unto Sephar [Himyaric royal city in the Indian Sea, Zhafar], a mount of the east. 31These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. 32These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations [genealogies], in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE TABLE, OR THE TREE OF THE NATIONS 1. The Literature.—See Matthew, p. 19; the present work, p. 119; Kurtz: “History of the Old Testament,” p. 88; Knobel, p. 107; Keil, p. 108; a full and well-arranged survey see in Delitzsch, p. 287; also the notes in Delitzsch, p. 629. See also the articles, Babel, Babylon, Nineveh, and Mesopotamia, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedia. Layard’s account of “Excavations at Nineveh,” together with the “Description of a Visit to the Chaldζan Christians in Kurdistan, and to the Jezidi or Worshippers of Satan.” German of Meissner, Leipsic, 1852. Here belong also the “Ethnographical Works, or the National Characteristics,” etc: Lazarus and Steinthal. “Journal of Popular Psychology.” Berlin: Dumler, 1859. Berghaus, Friedrich von Raumer, Vorlander, and others. 2. The basis of the genealogical table. According to Hδvernik and Keil, this document was grounded on very old tradition, and had its origin in the time of Abraham. According to Knobel, the knowledge of the nations that is represented in it, had its origin, in great part, in the connection of the Hebrews with the Ph�nician Canaanites. Delitzsch assigns its composition to the days of Joshua. The signs of a high antiquity for this table present themselves unmistakably in its ground features. There belong here: 1. The small development of the Japhethan line; on which it may be remarked, that they were the people with whom the Ph�nicians maintained the most special intercourse; 2. the position of the Ζthiopians at the head of the Hamites, the historical notices of Nimrod, as also the supposition that Sodom and Gomorrah were then existing; 3. the discontinuance of the Jewish line with Peleg, as well as the accurate familiarity with the branching of the Arabian Joktanites, who have as much space assigned to them alone as to all the Japhethites, when for the commercial Ph�nicians they would be of least significance. The table indicates various circles of tradition—more universal and more special. The Japhethan groups appear least developed. Besides the seven sons, the grandchildren of Japheth are given only in the descendants of Gomer and Javan, in the people of anterior Asia, and in the inhabitants of the coasts and islands of the Mediterranean Sea. Magog, Madai, Thubal, Meshech, and Tiras are carried no farther. The table certifies a very copious tradition of the Hamites. First, there are mentioned the four sons of Ham, then five sons of his firstborn, Cush, then the two sons of Raamah, the fourth son of Cush. These two are, therefore, great-grandchildren of Ham. Nimrod is next presented as a specially prominent son of Cush. Then follows the second son of Ham, Mizraim, with six sons. The sixth, Casluhim, is again presented in the mention of the Philistim and Caphtorim, who are, therefore, also great-grandchildren of Ham. Phut, the fourth son of Ham, is the only one who is carried no farther. The fifth, Canaan, appears with eleven sons; namely, Sidon, the ancestor of the Ph�nicians, and the heads of the other Canaanitish tribes. Shem, finally, has five sons, of whom, again, Elam, Asshur, and Lud, are no farther developed. The line of his son, Aram, appears in four sons, grandchildren of Shem. Of the sons of Shem, Arphaxad is treated as most important. The line goes from Shem through Arphaxad and Salah, even to the great-grandchild, Eber. Eber forms the most important point of connection in the Shemitic line. With his son Peleg the earth is divided; that is, there is formed the strong monotheistic, Abrahamic line, in contrast with the line of his brother Joktan and the Arabian Joktanites. Joktan is developed in thirteen sons, great-grandchildren of Shem. From this survey it appears: 1. That the table has a clear and full view of the three ground-types or points of departure of the Noachian humanity—Shem, Ham, Japheth. It however, inverts the order of the names, because Shem, as the ancestor of the people of the promise, is the peculiar point of aim in the representation. Japheth, however, comes first, because, since the history of Israel stands in nearest reciprocal connection with that of the Hamites, the Japhethites in this respect take the background. 2. The table has, in like manner, a clear view of the nearest descendants of the three sons of Noah, of the seven sons of Japheth, of the four sons of Ham, and the five sons of Shem. It presents us, therefore, the sixteen ground-forms of commencing national formations. 3. In the case of five sons of Japheth, one son of Ham, and three sons of Shem, the genealogy is not carried beyond the grandchildren. 4. In respect to the Japhethites, it does not, generally, go beyond the grandchildren; among the Hamites it passes through the grandchild, Raamah, to the great-grandchildren; so, likewise, through the grandchildren, the Casluhim; among the Shemites, through Arphaxad, it proceeds to the great-great-grandchildren, and these, through the great-great-grandchild, Joktan, are carried one step farther. 5. The table occupies itself least with the Japhethans; beyond the Medes, the people of Middle Asia and the eastern nations generally come no farther into the account. It appears, however, to have little familiarity with the Ph�nicians proper, since it only makes mention of Sidon, whilst it exhibits a full acquaintance with the Egyptians, with the inhabitants of Canaan, and with the Arabian tribes. In this peculiar form of the table lies the mark of its very high antiquity. 6. It contains three fundamental geographical outlines, one political, and besides this, an important theocratic-ethnographic notice. Geographical: 1. The mention of the spreading of the Javanites (Ionians) over the isles and coasts of the Mediterranean; 2. the spreading of the Canaanites in Canaan; 3. the extension of the Joktanites in Arabia. Political: The first founding of cities (or states) by Nimrod. Theocratic: The division of the world in the time of Peleg, the ancestor of Abraham. Kurtz recommends the following as fundamental positions in deciding on the names in the ethnological table: 1. The names denote, for the most part, groups of people, whose name is carried back to the ancestor; the race, together with the ancestor, forming one united conception. 2. Moreover, the one designation for a land and its inhabitants, must not be misapprehended; for example, the names Canaan, Aram, etc., pass over from the land to the people, and then from the people to the ancestor. 3. In general, the table proceeds from the status in quo of the present, solving the problem of national origin formally in the way of evolution (unity for multiplicity), but materially in the way of reduction, in that it carries back to unity the nations that lie within the horizon of the conceiving beholder. The last position, however, hardly holds of the sons of Noah himself; just as little can it be applied to the genealogies of the Shemitic branching. In regard, then, to the sources of the table, Kurtz also remarks: “together with Hengstenberg and Delitzsch, we regard the sources of this ethnological table to have been the patriarchal traditions, enriched by the knowledge of the nations that had reached the Israelites through the Egyptians. Hengstenberg had already begun to make available, in proof of this origin, the knowledge of the peoples that was expressed on the Egyptian monuments. In assigning its composition (as a constituent element of Genesis) to about the year 1000 b. c., Knobel must naturally regard the ethnological knowledge of the Ph�nicians as its true source.” On the significance of the table, the same writer (Kurtz) remarks: “Now that the sacred history is about to leave the nations to go their own way, the preservation of their names indicates, that notwithstanding this, they are not wholly lost to it, and that they are not forgotten in the counsel of everlasting love. Its interest for the Old Testament history consists particularly in this, that it presents so completely the genealogical position which Israel holds among the nations of the earth. It is, moreover, like the primitive history everywhere, in direct contrast with the philosophemes and myths of the heathen.” In relation to the idea, that henceforth the nations are to be suffered to go their own way, Keil reminds us of Act 14:16; in relation to the prospect of their restoration, he describes the ethnological table as a preparation for the promise of the blessing which is to go forth from the promised race over all the races of the earth (Genesis 12:23). For the historicalness of the ethnological table, Keil presents the following arguments: 1. That there is no trace of any superiority claimed for the Shemites; 2. no trace of any design to fill up any historical gaps by conjecture or poetic invention. This is seen in the great differences in the narration as respects the individual sons of Noah; in one case, there is mention made only to the second; then again to the third and fourth member; of many the ancestors are particularly mentioned; whilst in other cases the national distinctions alone are specified; so that in respect to many names we are unable to decide whether it is the people or the ancestor that is meant to be denoted; and this is especially so because, by reason generally of the scantiness and unreliability of ancient accounts that have come down to us from other sources concerning the origin and commencements of the nations, many names cannot be satisfactorily determined as to what people they really belong. Against the certainty of this ethnological table, there have been made to bear the facts of linguistic affinity. The Ph�nicians and the Canaanites are assigned to Ham, but their language is Shemitic. Tuch ascribes this position of the people aforesaid among the Hamites to the Jewish national hatred, and would regard it as false. But on the contrary, it must be remembered that the Jews, notwithstanding their national hatred, never denied their kinsmanship with the Edomites and others. Knobel solves the philological problem by the supposition that the Canaanites who migrated to that country might have received the Shemitic language from Shemites who had previously settled there. Add to this that the affinity of the Ph�nicians and Canaanites with the Hamitic nations of the south seems to be established (Kurtz, p. 90; Kaulen, p. 235). As to what concerns the Elamites on the Persian Gulf, we must distinguish them from the eastern Japhethic Persians. Besides these philological difficulties, there has been set in opposition to the ethnological table the hypothesis of autochthonic human races. We have already spoken of this. And again, say some, how, in the space of four hundred years, from Noah till the Patriarchal time, could such a formation of races have been completed? On that we would remark, in the first place, that the American and Malayan races have only been known since the time of modern voyages of discovery. The Mongolian race, too, does not come into the account in the patriarchal age. There is, therefore, only the contrast between the Caucasian and the Ζthiopic. For the clearing up of this difficulty, it is sufficient to note: 1. The extraordinary difference, which, in the history of Noah, immediately ensued between Shem and Japheth on the one side, and Ham on the other; 2. the progressive specializing of the Hamitic type in connection with the Hamitic spiritual tendency towards its passional and the sensual; 3. the change that took place in the Hamitic type in its original yielding conformity to the effect of a southern climate. The Hamitic type had, moreover, its universal sphere as the Ζthiopic race; this constituted its developed ground-form, whilst single branches, on the other hand, through a progress of ennobling, might make an approach to the Caucasian cultivation. That Shem and Japheth, however, in their nobler tendency, should unite in one Caucasian form, is not to be wondered at. The great difference between the Shemitic type and the Japhethan, as existing within the Caucasian, is, notwithstanding, fully acknowledged. Since, however, the Shemitic type in its nobler branches, may make transitions to the Caucasian; so also may separations from the Japhethic and Shemitic form, perhaps, the Mongolian and the American races, in consequence of a common tendency (see Kurtz, p. 80. “The Direction of the Noachidζ.”) There have also been objected to the table chronological difficulties; in so far as it forms a middle point for the assumption of Jewish and Christian chronology. According to Bunsen, the time before Christ must be reckoned at 20,000 years,—namely, to the flood, 10,000, and from the flood to Abraham, 7,000 (see, on the contrary, Delitzsch, p. 291). Taking these 20,000 years, the ante-Christian humanity loses itself in a Thohu Vabohu running through many thousand years of an unhistorical, beastly existence, wherein the human spirit fails to find any recognition of its nobility. Delitzsch, in his admirable section on the ethnological table, remarks, p. Genesis 286: “The line of the promise with its chosen race, must be distinguished from the confusion of the Gentiles; such is the aim of this great genealogical chart, and in accordance with which it is constructed. It is a fundamental characteristic of Israel, that it is to embrace all nations as partakers of a like salvation in a participation of hope and love,—an idea unheard of in all antiquity beside. The whole ancient world has nothing to show of like universality with this table. The earth-describing sections of the Epic poems of the Hindoos, and some of the Puranas, go greatly astray, even in respect to India, whilst the nearest lands are lost in the wild and monstrous account that is given of them. Their system of the seven world islands (dvξpas) that lay around the Meru, seems occupied with the worlds of gods and genii rather than with the world of man. (Lassen, in the “Journal of Oriental Knowledge,” i. p. 341; Wilson, The Vishnu Purana). Nowhere is there to be found so unique a derivation of the national masses, or so universal a survey of the national connections. A tinge of hopeful green winds through the arid desert of this ethnological register. It presents in perspective the prospect that these far-sundered ways of the nations shall, at the last, come together at the goal which Jehovah has marked. Therefore does Baumgarten complete the saying of Johannes von Mόller, “that history has its beginning in this ethnological table,” with a second equally true, “that in it also, as its closing limit, shall history find its end.” We may undervalue this table if we overlook the fact that, in its actual historical and ethnological ground-features it presents, symbolically, a universal image of the one humanity in its genealogical divisions. We may overvalue it, or rather, set a false value upon it, when we attempt to trace back to it, with full confidence, all the known nations now upon the earth. Even the number 70, as the universal symbol of national existences, can only be deduced from it by an artificial method; as, for example, in Delitzsch, p. 289. It is only in the symbolical sense that the catalogue may be regarded as amounting to this number. Neither can we derive this subdividing the nations to such a multiplicity of national life, from the confusion of languages at Babel. The natural subdivision of the people has something of an ideal aspect; the increased impulse given to it at Babel had its origin in sin. We regard it, therefore, as a strong proof of the canonical intuition that this ethnological table precedes instead of following the history of the tower-building. Kurtz treats the history of Babel as earlier than that of the register; and Keil, too, would seem inclined to identify the diversity of the nations with the confusion of tongues (p. 107). After these general remarks, we will confine ourselves to the most necessary particulars. AND 1. Genesis 10:2-5.—The Japhethites.—Gomer.—The Cimbri, as well as the Cumry or Cymry in Wales, and in Bretagne, are to be regarded as in relation with the Cimmerians; They represent the north-western portion of the Japhethan territory.—Magog appears to represent the whole northeast, as the Scythians, in the most general way, denote the cycle of the northeastern nations. “The Sarmatians, for the most part, lie to the west. The chief people in the army of Gog, Ezekiel 38:2-3; Ezekiel 39:1, is ψֹ ?ΰωׁ, that is the Rossi, or Russians.” Knobel.—Madai; the Medes, who inhabit the south and Southwest.—Javan, belonging to the south, the Grζco-Italian family of nations.—Thubal and Meshech as well as Thogarma, inhabiting the middle tracts: Iberians, or Georgians, Armenians, Pontus, the districts of Asia Minor generally.—Gomer’s Sons: Ashkenaz is referred to the Germans, by others to Asia Minor, the Asiones. Ashkenaz is explained by Knobel as denoting the race of Asen. The oldest son of the Germanic Mannus was called Iskus, equivalent to Ask, Ascanios.—Riphat is referred by Knobel to the Celts, by Josephus to the Paphlagonians; in which there is no contradiction, since the Celts also (the Gauls) had a home in Asia (Galatia).—Thogarma.—The Armenians to this day call themselves the House of Thorgom or Thorkomatsi.—Sons of Javan: Elisa is referred to Elis and to the Ζolians, Tarshish to Tartessus, and also to the Etruscans, whom, nevertheless, Delitzsch holds to have been Shemites; Kittim is referred to the Cyprians and the Carians; Dodanim to the Dardanians. 2. Genesis 10:6-20.—The Hamites. The three first sons of Ham settled in Northern Africa. 1. The Ζthiopians of the upper Nile; 2. the Egyptians of the lower Nile; 3. the Libyans, west of the Egyptians, in the east of Northern Africa. The Cushites appear to have removed from the high northeast (Cossζ), passing over India, Babylonia, and Arabia, in their course towards the south; for “in these lands the ancients recognized a dark-colored people, who were designated by them as Ζthiopians, and who have since, in part, perished, whilst a few have kept their place to this day.” Knobel.—Mizraim.—The name denotes narrowing, enclosing; its dual form denotes the double Egypt (upper and lower Egypt); Αἴγυπτος is probably from Kah-ptah, land of Ptah. The old Egyptian name is Kemi, Chemi, (with reference to Ham).—Canaan.—Between the Mediterranean Sea and the western shore of Jordan.—The name P�ni (Puni), allied to φόνος, blood, and φοινος, blood-red, denotes the Ph�nicians in their original Hamitic color.—Sons of Cush. Seba.—Meroλ, which, at one time, according to Josephus, was called Seba.—Chavila.—In the Septuagint, Εὐϊλα. The Macrobians (or long living), Ζthiopians of the modern Abyssinia.—Sabta.—Sabbata, a capital city in Southern Arabia. “To this day there is in Yemen and Hadramaut a dark race of men who are distinct from the light-colored Arabians. So it is also in Oman on the Persian Gulf.” Knobel.—Raamah.—Septuagint: ‘Ρεγμα, in Southeastern Arabia—Oman. There, too, there are obscure indications of Raamah’s sons Sheba and Dedan.—Sabtecha.—Dark-colored men on the east side of the Persian Gulf, in Caramania.—Aside from these, Nimrod is also made prominent as a son of Cush, Genesis 10:8-12. Knobel regards this section as a Jehovistic interpolation, and so does Delitzsch. The name Jehovah, however, as occurring here, is no proof of such a fact; it comes naturally out of the accompanying thoughts. The only thing remarkable is, that Nimrod is not named in immediate connection with the other sons of Cush, but that the two sons of Raamah go before him. It is, however, easy enough to be understood, that the narrator wished first to dispose of this lesser reference. Interruptions similar to it are of repeated occurrence in the table, as is the case also in other genealogies (1 Chronicles 2:7; 1 Chronicles 23:4; 1 Chronicles 23:22).—He was a mighty hunter.—“The author presents Nimrod as the son of Cush, putting him far back before the time of Abraham, and assigns him to the Ζthiopian race. In fact, the classical writers recognize Ζthiopians in Babylonia in the earliest times. They speak, especially, of an Ζthiopian king, Cepheus, who belongs to the mythical time, and there is mention of a trace of the Cephenians as existing to the north of Babylon.” Knobel. In the expression, “he began to be a hero, or a mighty one upon the earth,” there is no occasion for calling him a “postdiluvian Lamech” (Delitzsch). He began the unfolding of an extraordinary power of will and deed, in the fact mentioned, that he became a mighty hunter in the presence of Jehovah. The hunting of ravenous beasts was in the early time a beneficent act for the human race. Powerful huntsmen appear as the pioneers of civilization; a fact which clearly proclaims itself in the myth of Hercules. And so the expression, “Nimrod was a mighty hunter before Jehovah,” may mean, that he was one who broke the way for the future institutions of worship and culture which Jehovah intended in the midst of a wild and uncultivated nature. There is another interpretation: he was so mighty a hunter, that even by Jehovah, to whom, in other respects, nothing is distinguished, he was recognized as such (Knobel; Delitzsch); but this seems to us to have little or no meaning. Keil holds fast to the traditional interpretation: in defiance of Jehovah, and, at the same time, takes the literal sense of animal-hunting in connection with the tropical sense of hunting men, so that he explains it, with Herder, as meaning an ensnarer of men by fraud and force. Neither the expression itself, nor the proverb: “like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord,” justifies this view. By such a proverb, there may be denoted a praiseworthy, Herculean pioneer of culture, as well as a blameworthy and violent despot. In truth, the chase of the animals was, for Nimrod, a preparatory exercise for the subjugation of men. “For him and his companions, the chase was a training for war, as we are told by Xenophon (Kunegete, C. i.), the old heroes were pupils of Chiron, and so, μαθηταὶκυνηγεσίων, disciples of the chase.” Delitzsch.—And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel.—Knobel: “His first kingdom in contrast with his second.” This, however, is not necessarily involved in the expression, “the beginning.” It denotes rather the basis. In thus playing the hero, Nimrod established, in the first place, a kingdom that embraced Babel, that is, Babylon, Erech, or Orech, in the southwest of Babylonia, Akkad (in respect to situation ’Ακκήτη), in a northern direction, and in the Northeast, Calneh, in respect to territory corresponding to Chalonitis, or Ktisiphon, on the east shore of the Tigris. This establishment of an empire transforming the patriarchal clan-governments into one monarchy is not to be thought of as happening without force. The hunter becomes a subjugator of men, in other words, a conqueror.—Out of that land went forth Asshur. [Lange translates: Out of that land went he forth towards Asshur.]—The Septuagint, Vulgate, and many interpreters (Luther, Calvin) regard Asshur as the grammatical subject, and give it the sense: Asshur went forth from Shinar. On the contrary, the Targum of Onkelos, Targum of Jonathan, and many other authorities, (Baumgarten, Delitzsch, Knobel) have rightly recognized Nimrod as the subject. Still, it does not seem clear, when Knobel supposes that Nimrod had left his first kingdom for the sake of founding a second. Moreover, it is not to be supposed that he barely extended his rule over an uninhabited territory for the purpose of colonizing it. It was rather characteristic of Nimrod, that he should seek still more strongly to appropriate to himself the occupied district of Assyria by the establishment of cities. The first city was Nineveh (at this day the ruin-district called Nimrud), above the place where the Lycus flows into the Tigris; the second was Rehoboth, probably east of Nineveh; the third Calah, northward in the district of Kalachan, in which there is found the place of ruins called Khorsabad; the fourth was Resen, between Nineveh and Calah.—The same is a great city.—The first suggested sense would seem to denote Resen as the great city, or as the greater city in relation to the others named with it. On the contrary, remarks Knobel: Resen is nowhere else mentioned as known to antiquity, and could not possibly have been so distinguished, as to be called in this short way the great city. Rather does the expression denote the four cities taken together, as making Nineveh in the wider sense, and which, both by Hebrews and Assyrians, was thus briefly called the great city.” According to Ktesias, it had a circumference of four hundred and eighty stadia (twenty-four leagues), with which there well agrees the three days’ journey of Jon 3:3; it embraced the quarter founded by Nimrod, out of which it grew in the times that followed Nimrod, when the Assyrian kings gradually combined the four places into one whole; thus the whole city was named Nineveh after its most southern part. The ancient assertions respecting the circuit of the city are confirmed by the excavations. “These four cities correspond, probably, to the extensive ruins on the east of the Tigris, that have lately been made known by Layard and Botta, namely, Nebi-Junus and Kujundschik, opposite Mosul, Khorsabad, five leagues north, and Nimrud, eight leagues north of Mosul.” Keil. See also the note (p. 112) on the agreement of Rawlinson, Grote, Niebuhr, and others, as opposed by the conjectures of Hitzig and Bunsen.—The sons of Mizraim: 1. Ludim. As distinguished from the Shemitic Ludim, Genesis 10:22; Movers regards it as the old Berber race of Levatah that settled by the Syrtis,—so called after the manner of other collective names of the Mauritanian races. According to Knobel it was the Shemitic Ludim, who, after the Egyptian invasion, were called Hyksos. This is in the face of the text. 2. Anamim. This is referred by Knobel to the Egyptian Delta. 3. Lehabim. Ζgyptian Libyans, not to be confounded with τּ ?εּ ?θ, the Libyans proper. 4. Naphtuhim. According to Knobel, the people of Phthah, the god of Memphis, in Middle Egypt; according to Bochart, it agrees with Νέφθυς, that connects with the northern coast-line of Egypt. 5. Pathrusim. Inhabitants of Pathros, Meridian land, equivalent to Upper Egypt, or Thebais. 6. Casluhim. The Colchians, “who, according to Herod., ii. c. 105, had their descent from the Egyptians.” This may probably be held of one branch of Mizraim; whereas the origin of the Cushites themselves would seem to point back to Colchis (see Genesis 2.).—Out of whom came Philistim.—The name is explained as meaning emigrants, from the Ζthiopian word fallasa. According to Amos 9:7; Jeremiah 47:4, the Philistines went forth from Caphtor. We may reconcile both these declarations, by supposing that the beginning of the settlement of the Philistines on the coast-line of Canaan, had been a Casluhian colony, but that this was afterwards strengthened by an immigration from Caphtor, and then their territory enlarged by the dispossession of the Avim, Deuteronomy 2:23.—And Caphtorim.—By old Jewish interpreters these are described as Cappadocians; they are regarded by Ewald as Cretans. Both suppositions may agree in denoting the course of migration taken by the Caphtorim.—The sons of Canaan:—“Notwithstanding the Shemitic language, the Ph�nician Canaanites are here reckoned among the Hamitic nations, and must, therefore, have had their origin from the South. In fact, ancient writers affirm that they came from the Erythrζan Sea, that is, from the Persian Gulf, to the Mediterranean. And with this agrees the mythology which makes the Ph�nician ancestors, Agenor and Ph�nix, akin, partly to Belus in Babylonia, and partly with Egyptus (Danaus the Ζthiopian).” Knobel. 1. Zidon. Although originally the name of a person, this does not exclude its relation to the famous city so called, φεγ, primarily, to lay nets; it appears, however, to denote fishing as well as hunting proper. Sidon was the oldest city of the Ph�nicians. 2. Heth. This also stands as the name of a person, whereas the designations of the Canaanites that follow have the form of national appellations. In this position of Heth, together with Sidon the first-born, they would appear to be denoted as the peculiar point of departure of the Canaanitish life. The Hittites (Hethites) on the hill-land of Judah, and especially in the neighborhood of Hebron, were only a branch of the great original Hittite family (1 Kings 10:29; 2 Kings 7:6). The Kittim also, and the Tyrians, are, according to Knobel, comprehended in this name. 3. The Jebusites. Distinguished as the inhabitants of the old Jebus, Jerusalem. 4. The Amorites. On the hill-land of Judah, and on the other side of Jordan, the mightiest family of the Canaanites; therefore may their name embrace all Canaanites (chs. Genesis 15:16; Genesis 48:22) 5. The Girgasites. (Genesis 15:21; Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 24:11); their relation to the Gergesenes (Matthew 8:28) is very uncertain. 6. Hivites (or Hevites) in Sichem (Genesis 34:2), at Gibeon (Joshua 9:7), and at the foot of Hermon (Joshua 11:3). “The five last sons of Canaan dwelt northward in Ph�nicia.” Knobel. The Arkites. Denoted from the city Arka, north of Sidon. The Sinites, named from the city Sina, mentioned by Hieronymus, still farther north. More northern still the Zemarites, named from the city Simyra (Sωmrah, by the moderns). Farthest north the Arvadites (also on the island Aradus); on the northeast, the Hamathites, name from the city Hamath, still existing.—And afterwards were spread abroad.—This spreading extends from the Ph�nician district along the coast. The Kenites, mentioned Genesis 15:19-21, the Kenezites, and the Kadmonites, are regarded by Delitzsch as people of Hamitic descent. So also the Rephaim, besides whom there are still farther named the Perezites. The same thing may probably be said of the Geshurim, mentioned 1 Samuel 27:8. The Susim and Emim, Genesis 14, he (Delitzsch) holds to be not Canaanites, but a people of a later introduction (p. 300). An immigration of Shemites must, in truth, have preceded that of the Hamites into Canaan.—The sons of Shem (Genesis 10:21-31). The father (ancestor) of all the children of Eber.—This declaration calls attention beforehand to the fact, that in the sons of Eber the Shemitic line of the descendants of Abraham separates again in Peleg, namely, from Joktan or his Arabian descendants. 1. Elam. Elamites, the most easterly Shemites who dwelt from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea; at a later day they are lost, together with their language, in the Persians. 2. Asshur. Assyrians to the east of the Tigris, from thence extending towards Syria and Asia Minor. Their mother-country was a plain; hence the name (from ΰָ ?ωַׁ ?ψ). Their Shemitic language also underwent a change, and became foreign to the Hebrew. 3. Arphaxad. Their dwelling-place was in Arrapachitis, on the east side of the Tigris, from which they spread out; by Ewald and Knobel it is interpreted as referring to the Chaldζans, which Keil, however, regards as uncertain. 4. Lud. The Lydians of Asia Minor, related to the Assyrians (see Keil, p. 114; by Knobel they are referred to the Canaanite and Arabian races). 5. Aram. Aramζans, in Syria and Mesopotamia.—The sons of Aram: Uz and Gether, probably Arabians; Hul and Mash, probably Syrians.—The sons of Arphaxad:—The names Salah and Eber (sending forth and passing over) denote the already commencing emigration of the Abrahamic race. The two sons of Eber are called Peleg (division) and Joktan (diminished, small). With them there is a division of the Abrahamic and the Arabian lines. Peleg is the ancestor of the first. This is the explanation: in this manner was it that “in his day the earth was divided.” Fabri interprets this expression of a catastrophe that took place in the body of the earth, whose form was then violently divided into the later continental relations (in his treatise on the “Origin of Heathenism,” 1859). Delitzsch interprets it as referring, in general, to the division of the earlier population; Keil explains it of the division that took place in consequence of the building of the tower of Babel. Knobel refers the language of the separa of the two brothers, Peleg and Joktan, in which Joktan and his sons took their way to the south. We find here indicated the germ of the facts by which the earth, that is, the population of the earth, became divided into Judaism and Heathenism. For the separation of Abraham is no immediate or sudden event. The interrupted emigration of Terah had been previously prepared in Salah and Eber; fully so in Peleg. Therefore is Peleg’s son called ψְ ?ςεּ, friend of God. In contrast with Salah (the sent), Eber (the passing over), and Peleg (the separating, division), Serug denotes again the complicated or entangled, Nahor, the panting, possibly the ineffectual striving, and, finally, Terah, the loitering, the one who tarries on the way. Then comes Abram, the high father, with whom the race of the promise decidedly begins. We have no hesitation in taking these names as at the same time historical and symbolical.—The sons of Joktan: In their multiplicity they present a remarkably clear figure of the Arabian tribes. “Thirteen names, some of which can still be pointed out in places and districts of Arabia, whilst others have not, as yet, been discovered, or have been wholly extinguished.” Knobel. Concerning their strife, and perhaps, too, their merging in the Hamites, who were in Arabia before them, compare Knobel, p. 123—The beni Kahtan, sons of Joktan, or Joktanidζ, form their leading point of view in Northern Yeman. 1. Almodad. The name El Mohdad is found among the princes of the Djorhomites, first in Yemen, and then in Hedjez. 2. Sheleph, the same as Salif, the Salapenians in a district of Yemen. 3. Hazarmaveth, the same as Hadramaut (court of death), in Southeastern Arabia, by the Indian Ocean; so named because of the unhealthy climate. 4. Jereh. Sons of the moon, worshippers of the moon; south from Chaulan. 5. Hadoram. The Adramites, on the south coast of Arabia. 6. Uzal. One with Sanaa, a city of Yemen. 7. Diklah, meaning the palm; probably cultivator of the palm-tree; they may be placed conjecturally in the Wady Nadjran, abounding in dates. 8. Obal. Placed by Knobel with Gebal and the Gebanites. 9. Abimael. Father of Mael; undetermined. 10. Sheba. The Sabζans, a trading people whose capital city is Marĭ ?aba. 11. Ophir. Placed by Knobel to the southwest of Arabia, the land of the Himyarites. Lassen, Ritter, and Delitzsch, remove Ophir to the mouths of the Indus. For the different views, see Gesenius. It would appear, however, that the point of departure for Ophir must still be sought in Arabia. 12. Havilah. District of Chaulan, in Northern Yemen; probably also colonized in India (see Delitzsch, p. 308). 13. Jobab.—And their dwelling was from Mesha.—Concerning these undetermined bounding districts of Mesha and Sephar, compare Keil.—And by these were the nations divided.—A preparation for what follows, see the next chapter. AND ETHICALSee the Exegetical. 1. The religious significance of the ethnological table: 1. Personal characters form the basis of the human world; the relation of God to humanity is conditioned by the personal relation of God to personal being. The revelation of salvation, therefore, tends also to take upon itself a genealogical form. The ethnological table is the extended ground-outline of the relation between God and humanity, and of those that men bear to one another. The genealogies are trees of human life that God has planted. 2. In the christological point of view, the genealogical table is the prefiguration of the universality of the gospel, corresponding to the universality of the divine love, grace and compassion. 3. It gives us a clear idea of the regular gravitation of humanity to its centre in Shem, Eber, Abraham, Christ; that is, the genealogy of Christ. 4. As the branching of the three principal races places them in contrast, so, in a special manner, is this the case with the branching of the Hamitic race into the better lines, and in the Canaanites; and so also the branching of the Shemites, or that of the sons of Eber in the line of the descendants of Joktan, and in the line of the promise. 5. The signs of preparation for the later calling of Abraham are already contained in the names of his ancestors from Salah and Eber onward. 2. On the names Babel and Nineveh, compare the Theological dictionaries; on the history of Babel and Nineveh, see the historical works. We must be careful here, not to confound the beginning of this very old city, including in it the Babylonian tower, with its later world-historical development, and its falling into ruin. Nevertheless, even the ruins of that city are still a speaking witness, not only for the fulfilling of the divine predictions and threatenings, by the prophets, but also of the historical consistency and truthfulness of these very narrations in Genesis. Concerning the geographical relations, especially the situation of Babylon on the Euphrates, and of Nineveh on the Tigris, compare the maps of the old world in the Bible-atlas of Welland and Ackerman; the Historico-Geographical Atlas of the Old World, by Kiepert; the Atlas of Kutscheit, and others. Already, in Xenophon’s time, Nineveh lay in ruins; according to Strabo, it perished with the Assyrian Empire (see in Herzog’s “Real-Encyclopedia” the article on the Ruins of Nineveh). Babylon was much broken by the Persian kings, especially by Xerxes; Alexander the Great would have restored it, but contributed only the more to its destruction; the founding of Seleucia laid it in ruins. As Seleucia lies opposite to the ruins of Babylon, so does Mosul to those of Nineveh. 3. Starke: In this chapter we see the origin of many nations in all parts of the world, and therefore, the power of the blessing which God, after the flood, had renewed to men in respect to their multiplying and propagation; and so, finally, we learn the fathers from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. Neither Noah nor his sons begat any offspring during the time of the flood. The same may be conjectured to be true of the animals which were shut up with him in a dark dungeon, and as it were in the midst of death.—Lange: Many readers, when they come to this tenth chapter, are wont to regard it as of little value; some really think it to be superfluous, or of little use, on account of so many unknown names. But, in truth, we ought to regard it as a right noble gem in the crown of Holy Writ, the like of which has never been, or can be shown, from any writings of the old heathenism that yet remain to us.—Gerlach: There is no account of antiquity which gives us so full and so general a survey of the ancient nations, as this ethnological table; as appears from the fact, that the exactness and truth of the national divisions as presented in the same, are ever more and more confirmed. The heathen had no other relations to people who were foreign to them, than those of war and trade, with the addition, perhaps, of a certain community of religious legends, knowledge, and culture; irrespective of this, however, each nation remained shut up within itself. In the history of revelation, on the other hand, before the narrative of the dispersion of the nations stands the promise that Japheth shall find a home in the tents of Shem.—Bunsen: So much is now clear, that the races of Shem are the Shemites of philology. This is not clear at all; just as little, in fact, as that the Gallic Franks must be of Romanic origin. Compare in other places the learned explanation of the ethnological table by Bunsen. Says the same authority (vol. i. part 2, p. 63): “The ethnological table is the most learned among all the ancient documents, and the most ancient among the learned. For tradition predominates far above research, though the latter is not wanting. In its core it must be regarded as earlier than the time of Abraham; but this by no means excludes the idea that Moses may have made investigations respecting it.” So says Schrφder: “From this chapter must the whole universal history of the world take its beginning.” To the same effect Joh. von Mόller. Citation of the historical catalogues of Heathen nations, as they are found in the palace of Karnak, a ruin of the old city Thebes, in Bendidad, and on the monuments of Persepolis. These have throughout a national character. Nimrod’s chase of the beasts was the bridge of transition to the hunting of men (Jeremiah 16:16; Lamentations 3:52; Lamentations 4:18; Matthew 4:19; Luke 5:10). 4. On the numbering of the seventy nations, which the Rabbins make out of this table, as Delitzsch farther constructs it, see Keil, p. 116. Delitzsch traces a relation between the seventy peoples, and the seventy disciples, Luke 10:1, and designates the number as that of the divinely-ordained multiplicity of the human. Probably, also, the name of the Septuagint has reference to the heathen nations for whom the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament was designed. Keil objects, that the numbering can only come out clean and round when we assign the name of nations to Salah and Eber. But Salah might have actually had more sons. And, besides, it is not necessary that the symbolical numbers should always literally correspond to the historical. This frequent appearance of the number seventy resolves itself into some early symbolizing. Seven is the number of God’s work, including his holy day of rest; ten is the number of the perfect human development; the seventy nations were, therefore, the entire outspreading of God’s host, under his rule. 5. Nimrod’s despotic power, at least if we judge from the name, was denoted as a rebellion, as a revolution. It partook of both forms of revolution against the divine ordinance: 1. From above downwards; 2. from below upwards; of which the first seems, in truth, to have been the oldest. AND In the homiletical treatment of the ethnological table, we must, of all things, avoid giving way to uncertain and etymological and historical conjectures. It contains, however, enough points of certainty to make it a page of Holy Writ rich in life and instruction. Thereto belongs the threefold division of the nations according to the names Japheth, Ham, and Shem, the wide, wide, world-wandering of Japheth, in which the grandchildren and great-great-grand-children disappear from the horizon of the theocratic consciousness; the early ripe, yet most ancient development of the Hamitic culture, with its corruptions, in which the ungodly Cainitic culture once more mirrors itself; the reciprocal intercourse of the Shemites and the Hamites in the early time; finally, the gradual, yet authentically historical preparation for the calling of Abraham, and for the Messianic theocracy in the line of Shem. If the sermon is designed with reference to the ethnological table, the best ground will be furnished by taking directly Genesis 10:1, or Deuteronomy 32:8; or better still, some New Testament text most appropriate for the purpose, as Matthew 28:19; John 10:16; Acts 14:16-17; Acts 15:18; Acts 17:26; Romans 11:32; Ephesians 3:6; 1 Peter 4:6; Revelation 21:24.—The baptism of the flood a forerunning emblematic baptism of the whole human race. As God knows the name of the stars (that is, their most interior being, Isaiah 40), so does he likewise know the name of all men and of all races (Matthew 22:32). The theocratic, believing consciousness hath ever proved itself to be also a humanitarian consciousness, or one that embraces all humanity.—The higher significance of historical tradition.—The commendation of the world’s history in the history of God’s kingdom.—The relation between the history of God’s kingdom and the world-history: 1. The contrast; 2. the connection; 3. the unity (in its wider sense is the whole world’s history a history of the kingdom of God).—Shem’s history, the last in the world, the first in the kingdom of God.—The elect and their appointment to be salvation for all.—The distinction: 1. Among the sons of Noah; 2. of Japheth; 3. of Ham; 4. of Shem.—Nimrod’s threefold position: 1. As the pioneer of civilization; 2. as oppressor of the patriarchal liberties; 3. as the instrument of God for the development of the world.—Peleg, or the dividing and the uniting again of humanity. Schrφder: All these sons, the white posterity of Japheth, the yellow and dark sons of Ham, however they may live in temporal separation, are all still God’s children, and brothers to one another. [Excursus on the Hebrew Chronology—the state of the Primitive Men—the Rapid Beginnings of History. The brief Hebrew chronology is urged as an objection to the Scriptures. Hence the tendency, even among believers, to prefer the numbers given in the Septuagint. There is hardly time enough, it is thought, for the great historical commencements, and the scale on which they appear, so soon after the flood. Others, like Lepsius and Bunsen, would go very far beyond the LXX., carrying up the human chronology, and that of the Egyptian monarchy along with it, twenty thousand years before the time of Christ, and twelve or fifteen thousand years before the flood. The main ground of this theory is not so much the monuments, though Bunsen has much to say about them, as an assumption respecting the earliest condition and slow progress of the human race. With regard to the monuments, on which so much reliance is placed, there is not space, nor occasion, to say much here. Those who refer to them with most confidence have to admit that there is great difficulty in determining their meaning as well as their historical authority, even if rightly interpreted. It is made a question, too, whether, in many cases, they represent successive or cotemporaneous dynasties. Their barrenness in respect to almost everything else but names, detracts also from their chronological testimony. Like the Chaldean, Hindoo, and Chinese statements, they are hardly anything else but numbers. There is little or no filling up of these blank statistical spaces with anything like a veritable life-like history. Had much that is on these monuments been found in the early Scriptures, it would have made them the scoff of the infidel and the rationalist. There is, however, one concise argument, which, if rightly considered, ought to dispose of the whole matter. Egypt was visited, two thousand three hundred years ago, by a most intelligent Greek, whose valuable history has come down to us entire. In faithful narrative of what he saw, as he saw it, and of what he heard, as he heard it, Herodotus is excelled by no writer, ancient or modern. His pains and fidelity are attested by those immense journeys, whose extent would be deemed a wonder, even with all the facilities of modern travel. Now this most credible witness saw these monuments in their freshness, and when they were as intelligible to the Egyptian priests, as would be to us the contents of a modern census. They decipher for him these hieroglyphics, now so puzzling, and give him, as deduced therefrom, what they understand to be the Egyptian history. It is contained in his second book. Can we ever expect a better interpretation than the one made under such circumstances, and under the direction of such competent guides? They had every motive to present their nation in its most antique and imposing aspect, knowing, as they doubtless did, that the inquirer was collecting materials for a history of the world, as then known. If they erred at all, it would most likely have been on the side of an excessive antiquity. And yet, the chronology of Herodotus may, without any great difficulty, be made to agree with that of the Bible—certainly with that of the Septuagint. In regard to the monuments, such a view should be deemed conclusive. Herodotus is, after all, the great historical authority in respect to the antiquity of the Egyptian monarchy; and he is likely to remain so, since we have no reason to expect any interpretation of these hieroglyphics that escaped his eager search, or the intelligence of his well-informed and zealous instructors. The other ground, that is, the necessity of a very long time to bring about such results in the slow progress of mankind, is a sheer assumption, that may at once be met by arguments drawn from the intrinsic aspects of the case. It all depends upon the hypothesis with which we start in respect to the condition of the primitive men; and this involves, first of all, an inquiry as to the primitive man, or the primus homo, or whether there ever really was such a distinct individual, the head of a distinct race, having a supernatural beginning at a distinct moment of time. Some, who favor the view of the low primitive condition of man, from which he struggled slowly up into language and a distinct human consciousness, making his appearance in history only after he had been many ages upon the earth, may still hold to something like a creation of the species; but logically it is very difficult to separate such a doctrine from that eternal-development theory, which, in opposition to the axiom de nihilo nihil, or, what is equivalent to it, that more cannot come out of less, would bring the highest life out of the lowest forms of matter, and make God himself (supposing it to acknowledge something under that name) the end instead of the beginning of nature. On the contrary, the admission of a creation, in any intelligible sense of the word, is the admission of a distinct time, a distinct moment of time, when the thing created began to be, which a moment before was not. This, however, does not demand the idea of an instantaneous coming from nothing, or even de novo, of everything belonging to, or connected with the new existence, but only the new and distinct, beginnning of that which especially makes it what it is, a new, peculiar entity, separate from everything else. To apply this to man, the origin of his physical, his earthly, may have been as remote as any geological theory of life-periods, or any biblical interpretation supposed to be in accordance with it, may allow. If we admit the idea of growth, or succession in creation, as perfectly consistent with supernatural starts regarded as intervening and originating its successive processes, then man may have been long coming from the earth, from the deepest parts of the earth, as is said Psalms 139:15. The formation of the human physical may have begun in the earliest stages of the κτίσις, or world-building. The words ξοςτψ, “from the dust,” may denote a process comparatively quick or slow. The essential faith is satisfied either way; since it only demands two things—a dual derivation of the completed humanity, and an order, that is, a succession, whether in nature or in time (or in both), rather than any precise duration. Even the common notion of an outward plastic formation of the body implies the use of a previous nature in a previous material or materials—that is, a use of them according to such natures. There is essentially the same idea in the employment of previous growths and processes, as in that of previous material, although with the conception of such successions there necessarily comes that of time, longer or shorter. How many steps there were we cannot know; but in thus bringing up the human physical through lower structural forms, there may have been outwardly approximations to the human, long before there was reached that humanity proper in Which nature and spirit unite. Without scientific comparison and deduction, the simplest inspection of nature is sufficient to suggest the thought that man is built upon types from below him, even as he is formed in the image of that which is above him. If then such a view of successive evolutions from the dust, instead of an immediate outward plastic formation of the human earthly, be not inconsistent with the comprehensive language of Scripture, we should not be startled at the thought of there having been anthropoidal forms of various degrees of approximation, some of them, perhaps, larger than any now found upon earth, and which may have perished, like some of the larger or mammoth species of mammalia. If the explorations of science have brought to light any such remains, our faith need not be disturbed by the question of their pre-historicalness. The interpreter of Scripture is little concerned, either in affirming or denying such discoveries. Whatever be their date, we have not yet come to the humanity proper, the Adamic humanity, that humanity which Christ assumed and raises to a still higher sphere. The animal world is not yet surpassed. But there is a moment when the human race now upon the earth had its distinct beginning, and that, too, in a primus homo,—the “first Adam”—even as there is a “new man,” a new humanity, that is to have its finish or completion in a second Adam, or last Adam (ἔσχατοςΑδὰμ), as the apostle calls him. This beginning of humanity upon earth was not a physical act merely, or the mere completion of a physical progress. It took place in the spiritual sphere. The true creation of man was not merely a formation, or an animation, but an inspiration, a direct, divine inspiration (Genesis 2:7); and now there is what before was not, a αψιΰδ, a new thing upon earth, not simply something higher physically (though even that would require a divine intervention), but an entity distinct as connected with a higher or supernatural world. This Adamic man, thus divinely raised out of nature, and lifted above the pure animality, is the one of whom the Bible gives us so particular an account. He was the one who first awoke to a true rational human consciousness. Thus man “became a living soul.” The emphasis is in the manner of the inbreathing; but to distinguish it wholly from the animation of other kinds who are also called πτωηιδ, the wondrous event is described in other language as a sealing, a forming into a higher type, pattern, idea, or image,—not physically, but spiritually. The all-important article of faith is the dual succession, whether regarded as an order in time, or as an order of constitution without reference to time: “first the natural (τὸψυχικὸν, the animal), afterwards that which is spiritual” (τὸπνευματικόν). First that which comes from nature (τὸἐκγῆςχοϊκόν), “from the earth, earthy,” second, that “which bore the image of the heavenly,” or of “the Lord from heaven.” Corresponding to this is the specific designation by which man is distinguished among the created orders. The animals and plants are made each μְ ?ξִ ?ιπֵ ?δεּ, after its ξִ ?ιο, εἶδος, species, form, denoting difference in organic structure, and therefore something ultimately outward as exhibited in its last analysis, however hidden it may seem to the primary observation of the sense. It is not to be thought that the Scripture writers, in their simplicity, intended to speak scientifically or philosophically, but a deeper term was wanted in the case of man, and we have it in a remarkable change of language. Man is nowhere said to be μְ ?ξִ ?ιπֵ ?δεּ, juxta genus suum, or secundum speciem suam, but when this new entity is to be brought into the kosmos, God is represented as saying to himself, or as though addressing some higher associate than nature, “Let us make man αְּ ?φַ ?μְ ?ξֵ ?πεּ in our image.” The φֶֹ ?μֶ ?ν, therefore, in the case of humanity, may be said to make the ξִ ?ιο, or to come in place of it. In other words, it is the spiritual image here, and not the physical organization, that makes the species; and most important is the distinction in all our reasonings about the essential oneness of humanity, and what most truly constitutes it. From this primus homo, thus inspired, thus sealed, comes all of human kind that ever has been, or is now upon the earth. To apply what has been said to the more direct subject of this note, there is here the decisive answer to that view which would represent man as commencing in the savage state regarded as barely and imperceptibly rising above the animal. This inspiration is a great and glorious beginning. It is a new divine force in the earth. The fall does not at once destroy it, though giving a tendency to spiritual death, and spiritual degeneracy, carrying with it a physical decline. Even with this, however, the primitive divine impulse in the first man, and in the first men, makes them something very different from what is now called the savage state, and which is everywhere found to be the dregs of a once higher condition, the setting instead of the rising sun, the dying embers fast going out, instead of the kindling and growing flame. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ FOURTH SECTIONThe Tower of Babel, the Confusion of Languages, and the Dispersion of the Nations Genesis 11:1-91 And the whole earth was of one language [lip], and of one speech. 2And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. 3And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly [literally, to a burning]. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar [cement]. 4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name [a signal, sign of renown], lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men had builded. 6And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language [on the very spot], that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city. 9Therefore is the name of it called Babel [for αַּ ?μְ ?αֶ ?μ, division of speech, confusion; other explanations: αָּ ?ααֵּ ?μ, gate of Belus, αַּ ?ψΞαֵּ ?μ, castle of Belus], because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. GENERAL 1. The literature: Bibelwerk, Matthew, p. 19. The present work, p. 119, where the title of Niebuhr’s work should be more correctly given: “History of Assur and Babel.” Berlin, 1858. Kurtz: “History of the Old Testament.” Haug, on the “Writing and Language of the Second Kind of Cuneiform Inscriptions.” Gottingen, 1855. J. Brandis, on the “Historical Results from the Deciphering of the Assyrian Inscriptions.” Berlin, 1856. Fabri: “The Origin of Heathendom and the Problem of its Mission.” Barmen, 1859. The latest: Kaulen: “The Confusion of Languages at Babel.” Mainz, 1861. Explorers of the ruins of Babylon, especially Rich, Ker-Porter, Layard, Rawlinson, Oppert. 2. The history of the building the tower at Babel forms the limit to the history of the primitive time. It may be regarded as the genesis of the history of the human striving after a false outward unity, of the doom of confusion that God therefore imposed upon it, of the dispersion of the nations into all the world, and of the formation of heathendom as directly connected therewith. In the proper treatment of this there comes into consideration: 1. the relation of the historical fact-consistency of the representation to its universal symbolical significance for the history of the world, and to its special symbolical significance for the kingdom of God; 2. the relation of the fact itself to the common historical knowledge, as well as to the history of the kingdom of God; 3. the relation of the confounding, therein represented, to the original unity of the human race in its language, as well as to the multiplicity that originally lay in human speech; 4. the historical and archζological testimonies; 5. the reflection of the historical fact in the mythical stories. 3. Kurtz correctly maintains (History of the Old Testament, p. 95) against H. A. Hahn, that this place forms the boundary between the history of the primitive time and the history of the Old Testament. Evidently is the history of primeval religion distinguished from the general history of the Old Testament by definite monuments, namely, by the characteristic feature of the faith in promise, as presented in the genealogies, through which faith Abraham, as the type of the patriarchal religion, stands in contrast with Melchidezek, the type of the primitive religion,—even as the morning twilight of the new time stands in contrast with the evening twilight of the old. And so, too, according to Galatians 3 and Romans 4, it is not Moses who is the beginning of the covenant religion, but Abraham. Moreover, in the history of the tower-building there is brought out not only the ground form for the historical configuration the world is to assume, but also the contrast between heathenism and the beginnings of the theocracy. For the sake of this contrast, according to our view, the section may still be regarded as belonging to the first period from the beginnings of the Shemitic patriarchalism; although when regarded in itself alone, and under the historical form of view of the Old Testament, it appears as an introduction to the history of Abraham. 4. The genesis of the human striving after a false outward unity, or uniformity and conformity. As in the history of Cain, the first beginnings of culture in the building of cities, in the discoveries and inventions of the means of living, of art, and of weapons of defence, were buried in their own corruption (since the germs of culture, however lawful in themselves, are overwhelmed in their ungodly worthlessness), and as in the history of Nimrod the post-diluvian beginnings of civilization, and of outward political institutions, were darkened by the indications of despotic violence, so also, in the history of the tower-building, must we distinguish the natural striving of the human race after an essential unity, from their aberration in a bold and violent effort to obtain an outward consistency, an outward uniformity (or conformity rather) to be established at the cost of the inward unity. Delitzsch says correctly (p. 310): “the unity which had hitherto bound together the human family was the community of one God, and of one divine worship. This unity did not satisfy them; inwardly they had already lost it; and therefore it was that they strove for another. There is, therefore, an ungodly unity, which they sought to reach through such self-invented, sensual, outward means, whilst the very thing they feared they predicted as their punishment. In its essence, therefore, it was a Titanic heaven-defying undertaking.” The inward unity of faith ought to have been the centre of gravity, the rule and the measure of their outward unity. The historical form of their true unity was the religion of Shem; its concrete middle point was Shem himself. It sounds, therefore, like a derisive allusion to the despised blessing of Shem, when they say: Go to, let us build a tower for us, and make unto ourselves a name (a Shem). When, therefore, the tower-building, the false outward idea of unity is frustrated, then it is that Abraham must appear upon the stage as the effective middle point of humanity, and the preparer of the way for the unity that was to come. Abraham forms the theocratic contrast to the heathen tower-building. Since that time, however, the striving of human nature has ever taken the other direction, namely, to establish by force the outward unity of humanity at the expense of the inward, and in contradiction to it; this has appeared as well in the history of the world monarchies as in that of the hierarchies. The history of Babel had its presignal in the city of Cain, its symbol in the building of the tower, its beginning in the Babylonian world-monarchy; but its end, according to Revelation 16:17, falls in the “last time.” The contrast to this history of an outward force-unity is formed by Shem, Abraham, Zion, Christ, the Church of believers, the bride of Christ, according to Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:9. 5. The genesis of the confounding to which it was doomed by God. The germinal multiplicity, as contained in the unity of the human race, is to be regarded as the natural basis of the event. We cannot, as has been attempted by Origen and others, derive an organic division of the nations in their manifold contrasts (and just as little the varied multiplicity of life in the world) from the fall merely, or from human corruption. To this effect it is well observed by Delitzsch, that “even without that divine and miraculous interposition, the one original language, by virtue of the abundance of gifts and powers that belong to humanity, would have run through an advancing process of enrichment, spiritualization, and diversity.” This germinal multiplicity forms, therefore, the other side, or the higher, spiritual side, in the confusion of languages; but this, too, we must distinguish in its genesis and in its world-historical consequences. Since the Babylonian tower-building denotes the genesis of the national separations as the genesis of heathendom (but not the monstrous development of heathendom which goes on through the ages), so, in like manner, does it denote the genesis of the speech-confounding, but not its great development in the course of time. This genesis, however, is to be considered in reference to the following points: 1. With the violent striving after an outward unity there is connected the crushing of the diversity. 2. This violent suppression calls out, by way of reaction, the effort and intensity of the diversifying tendency, or the conflict of spirits. 3. With this conflict of spirits there develops itself, also, the contrast of varying views and modes of expression. 4. The disordered and broken unity becomes dissolved into partial unities, which form themselves around the middle points of tribal affinity, and so form their watchwords. Thus far goes on the process of dissolution, in the sin and guilt of the strife after an outward unity. But here comes in the divine judgment in its miraculous imposition: the spirits, the modes of conception, the modes of expression, the tongues themselves, are all so confounded, that there becomes a perfect breach of unity, and more than this, a hostile springing apart of unfettered elements that had been bound up in a forced unity. So did the divine doom establish a genesis in the confusion of languages—a genesis which afterwards, in the course of time, came to its full development. 6. The genesis of the dispersion of the peoples in all the world, and of the formation of heathendom that from thence began. In opposition to the centripetal force of humanity, impaired by its own supertension and the outward alienating tendency, comes now the reaction of the morbid centrifugal power set free by the sentence of God. So commence the national emigrations of antiquity, setting away from the centre of community, forming in this a contrast to the migrations of the Christian time, which maintain their connection with the centre of humanity, the host of the Christian church. In greater and smaller waves of migration do the nations scatter abroad, and grow widely diverse in their separate lands, and in the midst of the views which they awaken; and this to such a degree that everywhere they lose themselves in a peculiarly paganistic autochthonic consciousness, or, as it may be generally styled, a servile life of nature. The line of Shem is least affected by the drawing of this centrifugal power. It extends itself slowly from Babylon, in a small degree to the east, and in great part to the southwest. The main stream of the Hamites takes a southwestern direction towards Canaan and Africa; another stream appears to have turned itself eastwardly over Persia and towards India. The great stream of the Japhethites goes first northward, in order to divide itself into a western and an eastern current; a part, however, in all probability, taking a still more northern direction, until, through upper Asia, it reaches the New World. The most evident division of the Shemites is into three parts, which still reflect themselves in the three main Shemitic languages. The fundamental separation has gone on into wider separations; for example, into the division of the Indian and the Persian Arians. These divisions are, again, in a great degree, effaced by combinations which proceeded from the contrast between earlier and later migrations in the same direction. So, for example, in eastern Asia, the Japhethites appear to have supervened upon the Hamites, in Asia Minor and Persia upon the Shemites; and so, in many ways, have the earlier Japhethite features been overlaid and set aside by the later. In Canaan, on the other hand, the Hamites appear to have supervened upon the original Shemitic inhabitants; and then, again, at a later date, the Israelites supervened upon the Hamitic Canaanites. The most direct consequence of this dispersion of the nations was the formation of races, in which different factors coφperated: 1. The family type; 2. the spiritual direction; 3. the climate in its strong effect upon the physical ground-forms which were yet in their state of childlike flexibility. A further consequence was the formation of ethnographical contrasts in civilization. In reference to this there must be distinguished: 1) The contrast between the savage nations who had become utterly unhistorical, or perfectly separated from the central humanity, and the historical nations. 2) The contrast of barbarian nations who for a long time preserved a state of negative indifference as compared with the nations that were within the community of culture. 3) The contrast presented by the nations and tribes of isolated culture, as compared with the centralized culture, or that of the world monarchies as it appeared in its latest form, the Grζco-Roman-humanitarian sphere of culture. 4) The contrast presented by the nations of this centralized culture, or as it finally appeared in the Grζco-Roman-humanitarian culture, as compared with the central theocratic people of cultus or religion. The last contrasts reveal, as the second consequence, a double counterworking against the paganistic isolization; the first is a tendency to the outer unity (world-monarchy), the other a tendency to the inner unity (theocracy). A third consequence was the war between them. 7. The relation of the historical fact-consistency of the Biblical representation to its symbolical significance for the universal history of the world. It is difficult to determine the chronological order of the tower-building in the Biblical history; it is still more difficult to fix its place in the universal secular history. It is, however, more easy to do this when we assume that the history of the tower-building was that of a gradually elapsing event, which is here all comprehended in its germinal transition-point (as the commencing turning-point), conformably to the representation of the religious historico-symbolical historiography. Following the indications of the Bible itself, we must distinguish two periods: first, the founding of Babel, in consequence of an ungodly centralization fancy of the first human race, and the catastrophe of the commencing dissolution that thereby came in; secondly, the despotic founding of the kingdom of Babel by Nimrod, as connected with it. Add to this a third, which is in like manner attested by the Bible, namely, the further development of Babel as it continued on in spite of the dispersion, and to whose greatness the stories of Ninus and Semiramis, as well as the world-historical ruins of Babylon bear testimony. It is in perfect accordance with the theocratic historiography, that events which occupy periods are comprehended in the germinal points of their peculiar epochs. As this is the case with the tower-building, so does it also hold true of the confusion of languages, and the dispersion of the nations. In regard now to this germinal point especially, it has been wrongly placed in the days of Peleg, in supposed accordance with what was said, Genesis 10:25, concerning the meaning of the name Peleg. Keil computes that Peleg was born one hundred years after the flood, and draws from thence the wider conclusion, that “in the course of one hundred and fifty to one hundred and eighty years, and in the rapid succession of births, the descendants of the three sons of Noah, who were already married and a hundred years old at the time of the flood, must have already so greatly multiplied as to render credible their proceeding to build such a tower” (p. 120). In respect to the third designated period of the tower-building, Delitzsch thus remarks in relation to the Biblical interpretation of the name Babel (for Balbel, a pilpel form in which the first Lamed has fallen out): “The name Babel denotes the world city where men became dispersed into nations, as the name Jerusalem denotes the city of God, where they are again brought together as one family. As the name Jerusalem obtains this sense in the light of prophecy, so is the name given to Babel, no matter whether with or without the design of the first namer, a significant hiero-glyph of that judgment of God which was interwoven in the very origin of this world-city, and of that tendency to an ungodly unity which it has ever manifested. That the name, in the sense of the world-city itself, may denote something else, is not opposed to this. The Etymologicum Magnum derives it ἀπὸτοῦβήλου, and so, according to Masudi, do the learned Persians and Nabatζans. It has, accordingly, been explained as the gate or the house, or, according to Knobel, the castle of Belus (αָּ equal to αָּ ?α or αֵּ ?ιϊ, or αּ ?ψ for αִּ ?ιψַ ?ϊ). Schelling’s remark that bab in the sense of gate is peculiar to the Arabian dialect, is without ground; it is just as much Aramaic as Arabic. The verb αָּ ?α, intrare, like αָּ ?ν ascendere, is a very old derivative from αּ ?ΰ, inire. But Rawlinson and Oppert have shown, on the authority of the inscriptions, that the name of the god is not αֵּ ?μ, but ΰֵ ?μ (the Babylonian Ph�nician Kronos), and αָּ ?αֶ ?μ, therefore, denotes the gate of El.” If the development of heathenism, in a religious sense, and, therefore, the development of idolatry, is regarded as a gradual process, the heathenish tendency at the time of Nimrod could not have been far advanced. Its more distant beginning is probably to be placed in the very time of the catastrophe; for the confusion of fundamental religious views may, in general, furnish of itself an essential factor in the confusion of languages. On the situation of the land of Shinar and Babylon this side of the Euphrates, compare the Manuals for the old geography by Forbiger and others. Concerning the ruins of the old Babel, and Babel itself, compare Winer’s “Real Lexicon,” the “Dictionary for Christian People,” and Herzog’s “Real Encyclopedia,” under the article “Babel.” In like manner Delitzsch, p. 212; Knobel, p. 127, and the catalogue of literature there given. 8. The special symbolic significance of Babel for the kingdom of God. Here there are to be distinguished the following stages: 1. The significance of the tower-building; 2. the Babel of Nimrod, or the despotic form of empire, and its tendency to conquest; 3. the significance of the world-monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar; 4. the Old Testament symbolic interpretation of Babel (Psalms 137; Isaiah 14; Jeremiah 50; Daniel 2:37; Daniel 7:4; Habakuk); 5. The New-Testament apocalyptic Babylon (Revelation 14, 16, 17). Throughout Holy Scripture, Babel forms a world-historical antithesis to Zion. 9. The relation of the confounding, as presented, to the original unity of the human race, as also to the original multiplicity as lying at the foundation of human speech. The two poles by which the catastrophe of the speech-confounding are limited, are the following: In the first place, even after the confusion of languages, there exists a fundamental unity; there is the logical unity of the ground-forms of language (verb, substantive, etc.), the rhetorical unity of figurative modes of expression, the lexical unity of kindred fundamental sounds, the grammatical unity of kindred linguistic families, such as the Shemitic, the Indo-Germanic, and the historical unity in the blending of different idioms; as, for example, in the κοινή, or common dialect, there are blended the most diverse dialects of the Greek; so in the New-Testament Greek, to a certain extent, the Hebrew and old Greek; in the Roman languages, Latin, German, and Celtic dialects; so, also, in the English; in the Lutheran High German, too, there are different dialects of Germany. Science takes for its reconciling medium an ideal unity from the beginning of the separations; faith supposes a real unity, and so, finally, Christendom and the Bible. In the second place, however, it must be acknowledged that in the original manifoldness of human power and views there was already indicated a manifoldness of different modes of expression. “Indeed,” says Delitzsch, “even if this wonderful divine interposition had not taken place, the one primitive speech would not have remained in stagnant immobility. By reason of the richness of the gifts that are stored in humanity, it would have run through a process of progressive self-enrichment, spiritualization, development, and manifold diversity; but now, when the linguistic unity of humanity was lost, together with its unity in God, and with it, also, the unity of an all-defining consciousness, there came, in the place of this multiplicity in unity, a breaking up, a cleaving asunder, where all connection seems lost, but which, nevertheless, through a thousand indices, points back to the fact of an original oneness. For, as Schelling says, confusion of language only originates wherever discordant elements which cannot attain to unity can just as little come from one another. In every developing speech the original unity works on, even as the affinity partially shows; a taking away of all unity would be the taking away of language itself; and, thereby, of everything human,—a limit to which, according to Schelling’s judgment, the South American Indians are approaching, as tribes that can never become nations, and which are yet a living witness of a complete and inevitable disorganization” (Delitzsch, p. 114, 115). In accordance with the religious character of Holy Scripture, we must, before all things, regard the confusion of languages as a confusion of the religious understanding. Languages expressive mainly of the subjective, languages of the objective, those of an ingenuous directness, and those of acute or ingenious accommodation, must very soon present great contrasts. In regard to the original language, which preceded the confusion, and formed its ground, the learned men of the Jewish Synagogue, and after them, the church fathers, as well as many orthodox theologians (among the modems with some limitation, Pareau, Havernik, Von Gerlach, Baumgarten), have expressed the opinion that the Hebrew was the language of the primitive time and of Paradise, and that it was propagated after the flood by the race of Eber. On the contrary, however, it is observed that Abraham himself did not originally speak Hebrew, but Aramaic. “On this account,” says Delitzsch, “we must regard as better grounded the position of the Syriac, Aramaic, and Persian writers, that the Syriac, or the Nabatζan, was the primitive speech, and that in the confusion of tongues it was still retained as the language of Babylon. But, moreover, the Shemitic in its general acceptation,” he continues, “cannot lay claim to that perfection which must have belonged to the primitive speech. We find nothing to urge against the supposition that the original language, as such, may have become lost in those that are historically known” (Delitzsch, p. 316; Keil, p. 119). Nevertheless, we do not believe that this supposition receives any strength from what is a mere prejudice, namely, that in respect to its structure the paradise language must have been a very perfect one. The speech of holy innocence has no need to prove its claims through forms developed with great exactness. As the Shemitic verbal forms lie in the middle between the monosyllabic character of the Chinese and the polysyllabic character of the Indo-Germanic; as they carry with themselves, also, in a high degree, that impression of immediateness, of the onomatopic, of the sensible presentation of the spiritual, of the spiritualizing of the sensible, so, without doubt, do they lie specially near to the ground-form of different national tongues. In respect to the relation of the different languages, there may be compared the following writings as specially belonging to the subject, namely: Delitzsch: “Jeschurun;” Fόrst: “Concordance;” “Treatises of Kunic,” Ernest Renan; see Delitzsch, p. 632. Besides these, Kaulen, p. 70 (The Hebrew in its peculiar character stands nearest to the conception of the primitive speech). Zahn, in his treatise (“The Kingdom of God,” p. 90), presents a clear idea of the similarity of different languages. “The great ‘Language Atlas’ of Balbi is designed on the most carefully considered principles (Paris, 1826). After a keenly investigated division of language and dialect, he designates eight hundred and sixty languages as spoken on the earth, namely, fifty-three in Europe, one hundred and fifty-three in Asia, one hundred and fifteen in Africa, four hundred and twenty-two in America, one hundred and seventeen in the fifth portion of the world; and yet at this day must the whole sum be taken at a greater number, especially in consequence of researches in Africa.” Kaulen. Linguistic investigations that belong here are connected with the names of Herder, Adelung, Vater, Klaproth, Balbi, Remόsat, W. Von Humboldt, Schleicher, Heyse, Bopp, Steinthall, Pott, Schott, Ewald, Fόrst, Bunsen, Max Mόller, Jones, Oppert, Haug, and others. In favor of the original unity of languages, as against Pott and others who call it in question, see Kaulen, p. 26; “Treatises on the Origin of Languages,” by the same author, p. 106. 10. The historical and arch�ological testimonies for the fact of the confusion of languages. Bunsen: “Comparative Philology would have been compelled to set forth as a postulate the supposition of some such division of languages in Asia, especially on the ground of the relation of the Egyptian language to the Shemitic, even if the Bible had not assured us of the truth of this great historical event. It is truly wonderful, it is matter of astonishment, [it is more than a mere astounding fact,] that something so purely historical [and yet divinely fixed], something so conformable to reason, [and yet not to be conceived of as a mere natural development], is here related to us out of the oldest primeval period, and which now, for the first time, through the new science of philology, has become capable of being historically and philosophically explained.” Between this history and the previous chapter must lie the primitive history of the eastern Asiatics, namely, the time of the formation of the Chinese language, that primitive speech that has no formative words, that is, no inflecting forms. The Chinese can hardly take rank as a radical language, but only as a very ancient and strikingly one-sided ramification. To the linguistic testimonies there may be added the fact that Babylon became the oldest world-monarchy; there is also its very ancient fame, and the fact that the influence which went out from Babylon has in the most varied forms pervaded the whole history of the world, to say nothing of its giant ruins and the desolation which has so long rested as a judgment upon them.” 11. The mirroring of the confusion of languages as found in the mythical stories. See Delitzsch, p. 313; Lόcken, p. 278; Eusebius, Pr�paratio, ix. 14. Abydenus: “Some say that the men who first came forth from the earth, being confident in their greatness and strength, and despising the gods in their fancied, estimation of their own powers, undertook to build a high tower in the place where Babylon now is. They would already have made a near approach to the Heavens, had not the winds come to the help of the gods and overturned their tower. Its ruins have received the name of Babylon. Men had hitherto spoken but one language, but now, in the purpose of the gods, their speech became diverse; to this belongs the war that broke out between Kronos and Titan. AND 1. Genesis 11:1-2. The settling in the land of Shinar.—The whole earth, that is, the whole human race.—One language and one speech (Lange more literally, one lip and one kind of words). The form and the material of language were the same for all.—From the East (Lange renders, towards the East. Our margin, Eastward).—From the land of Ararat, southeast (ξχγν as one word: the land of, or from the East).—A plane.—For them, as they came from the highlands, the plane was the low country, a valley plane (αχςδ).—Shinar, the same as Babylonia, though extending farther northward.—And they dwelt there.—The preference for the hill country does not appear to have belonged to the young humanity. Under the most obvious points of view, convenience, fertility, and easier capability of cultivation, seem to have given to these children of nature a preference for the plain. Even at this day do the uncultivated inhabitants of the hills sometimes manifest the same choice. In this respect Babylon had for them the charm of extraordinary fruitfulness. Zahn (“Kingdom of God,” p. 86) gives extracts from Hippocrates and Herodotus in proof of the singular productiveness of this land of the palm, where the grain yields from two hundred to three hundred fold. Thence came luxury, which was followed by the cultivation of the paradisaical gardens (Gardens of Semiramis) and a life of sensuality, together with a sensual religious worship. 2. Genesis 11:3-4. The building of the tower.—They said one to another, Go to.—Expressive of an animated, decided undertaking.—Let us make brick.—The plain was deficient in stones, whereas, on the contrary, it abounded in a clayey soil which would serve for making bricks, and asphaltum, which was good for mortar. They burnt them to stone instead of merely hardening them in the sun, which otherwise was the more obvious practice.—And they said (again) Go to.—Their success in preparing bricks for their dwellings encouraged them to go farther. They resolved upon the building of a city, and a tower whose top may reach, etc. At the ground of this there evidently lies the impression of immensity as derived from the Babylonian plane, which actually, in its great extent, as some travellers have described it, gives the conception of the sublime. The visible middle point of the same must have been the tower, standing up as a sign of unity for the whole human race. According to the representation, therefore, the words, “even to the heaven,” would mean that the heaven was regarded as something that could be reached; although at a later period such language occurs in a hyperbolical sense.—And let us make us a name.—The expression ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δμεֹ ωֵׁ ?ν denotes the appointing or establishing for one’s self a signal of renown (Isaiah 63:12; Isaiah 63:14; Jeremiah 32:20). The sign of security shall be for them, at the same time, a sign of their fame, and thus, doubtless, would they give themselves a name as a people.—Lest we be scattered abroad.—Not only as a visible signal, but by the glory of its fame shall the tower hold them together. This is the expression of the political and popular feeling of antiquity; in the pride of the national spirit the individual is lost with his strength and his conscience. Such is the characteristic feature of Babel everywhere, whether upon the Euphrates, the Tiber, or the Seine. The individual with his convictions, his freedom, his personality, must be wholly sacrificed to the name of uniformity, whether it be worldly or ecclesiastical. What is said here relates not merely to an ungodly, arbitrary, ambitious, individually titanic undertaking, but to the first introduction of that atheistical and antichristian principle which would not merely promote the prosperity and authority of the whole in connection with the well-being and the freedom of the individual person, but also make the individual an involuntary sacrifice to a unity, which becomes, in that way, a false unity, as well as a false idol placed on the throne of the living God,—and this whether it be called Babel, Rome, the Church, or “la grande nation.” Gφethe: “Be it truth, or be it fable, That in thousand books is shown, All is but a tower of Babel, Unless love shall make them one.” Or we may adopt as a various reading, When love of glory makes them one. The question here relates to the destruction, in their very principles, of the Shemitic call to religion, and the Japhethic tendency to civilization, by a Hamitic confounding of religion and culture, to the obstruction of the true progress of the world and of the state, by resolving the constitution of human history into an immovable Hamitic naturalism. According to Knobel, the whole significance of the fact becomes resolved into one view. “This view (he says) the author imputes to them after the event, since Babylon, that most splendid city, as the Greeks regarded it (Herod. i. 178), did, indeed, redound to the fame of its builders, but, at the same time, would thereby furnish a proof of their impious pride.” And yet, even in Knobel, the world-historical substratum in the representation very clearly appears, when he says, that “according to Berosus and Eupolemus, there were stories among the Chaldζans that those who were saved in the flood, when they came to Babylonia, again restored the place, and especially built there a high tower. For that purpose there met together in Babylonia diverse masses of people, etc.” He proceeds to say, moreover, that Babylon in later times became the central point of the nations, that it was, besides, a very ancient city, that two thousand years before Semiramis it was built for the son of Belus, and that, by reason of its huge magnitude, its temple of Belus, its high tower, and its dissolute morals giving it the appearance of the very home of sin (Curtius, v. 1, 36), as well as on account of its name, it had a peculiar fitness for the Scriptural author’s narration. The symbolical significance, however, of the appearance of Babylon, as matter of fact, is, in this way, wholly effaced. 3. Genesis 11:5-8. The intervention of Jehovah, his counsel and his act. Without the thought of any Jehovistic document, it would be readily conceived that the frustration of such an undertaking must proceed from God as Jehovah, the founder and protector of the divine kingdom. The coming down of Jehovah forms a grand contrast to the rebellious uprising of the Babylonians with their tower. The higher they build, so much deeper, to speak anthropopathically, must he descend that he may rightly look into the matter. Moreover, the expression go to, as used by God, forms an ironical contrast to the two-fold go to (δָ ?αָ ?δ, come on, give way now), as used by the Babylonians. The one nullifies the other and turns it against them.—This they begin to do, and now nothing will be restrained from them.—This reminds us of the declaration: Adam is become like one of us. Under the form of apprehension there lies an ironical expression of the conscious certainty of the divine rule.—And the Lord came down.—Delitzsch here again reminds us that (according to Hoffman) Jehovah, after the judgment of the flood, had transferred his throne to the heaven. Keil, however, correctly finds, at least in this place, only the anthropopathic expression of the divine interposition.—Behold, the people is one.—ςַ ?ν, connection, community. The people, as a community, physically self-unfolding, is called βּ ?εֹ ?ι (from βεδ, probably in the sense of mound-like, extending, swelling); the people, as an ethical community, a State, as constituted by an idea, is called ςָ ?ν, from ςξν (to bind together, to associate).—They begin to do.—An indication of the future Babel in the world’s history:—And now nothing will be restrained from them.—In truth, if God interpose not, the prospect is opened, that the pride and confidence of men will advance with extreme rapidity towards the destruction of freedom, of the personal life, of the divine seed and kingdom.—Let us go down and there confound their language.—Upon the descent of Jehovah in his beholding, there follows his descent in his counsel.—Let us.—And here, again, according to Delitzsch, does Jehovah include with himself his angels, the executors of his penal justice. Here, as elsewhere, an inappropriate idea.—Let us confound.—Knobel would understand by αμμ to separate, and accordingly translates Babel as meaning separation. But thereby is the conception of the act carried into the unmeaning. What is said does not refer properly to a separation merely of human speech. The manner in which it is confounded is not described. According to Koppen, the miracle must have consisted wholly in an inward process, that is, a taking away of the old associations of ideas connected with words, and an immediate implanting of new and diverse modes of expression. According to Lilienthal, Hoffman (A. Feldhoff and others) it must have been wholly an outward process, a confusion of the lips, of pronunciation, of dialects; whilst Scaliger holds that differing meanings were connected with like words or sounds. The historical symbolical expression, however, may mean, perhaps, that the process of inward alienation and variation, the ground of which lay in the manifoldness of dispositions, and the reciprocity of spiritual tendencies, became fixed in diverse forms of speech and modes of expression, by reason of a sudden catastrophe brought upon them by God. The heathenish Babylonian tendency reflects itself still in the enigmatical, capriciously varying dialects of the same people, which is sometimes to be remarked in different quarters of the same city, or in the different peasantry of the same community, but which must have especially had place in the earlier times, when isolization became predominant. The first germ of the speech confounding must, accordingly, have shown itself as a diseased action which the fall introduced into the original innate germ of speech development. For a long time it remained naturally latent in the family of Noah, but manifested its full power in the time of the tower-building; and then the effect of that epoch prolongs itself through the whole history of the world. In like manner, however, was there a counter influence, too, from the days of Abraham onward. According to Kaulen (p. 220), the miracle consists in this, “that at that time, and in that region, there was introduced a linguistic change which, although it would have naturally come in in the course of things, would nevertheless have required for its full development other conditions of space and time than those presented.” If there is meant by this only a wonderful acceleration of a natural development, the view does not satisfy. Rightly says Fabri (p. 31): “A confounding of languages presupposes a confusion of the consciousness, a separation of the original speech into many, a disorder and a breach in the original common consciousness in respect to God and the world.—The history of the tower-building is the history of the origin of heathenism.”—So the Lord scattered them abroad.—Out of their purpose comes its direct opposite.—And they left off to build.—That is, as a community of the human race with that distinct tendency. The idea, however, is not excluded, that the Babylonians who remained behind kept on building Babel. The success of the enterprise was frustrated, but not analogous and limited undertakings of the same tendency; it appears, for example, in the great world monarchies. This first disappointment, however, was a type of all others, as they successively become apparent in the catastrophes of these world monarchies, and the last fulfilling will be found in the fall of Babylon, as mentioned in the Apocalypse. “That the structure itself was laid in ruins by an exercise of divine power which afterwards took place, is told us, indeed, by the sibyl, but not by the Scripture.” Delitzsch. 4. Wherefore is the name of it called Babel.—In deriving the name from bab, gate, gate of Bel, or El, the authority of the religious interpretation is not excluded, as Keil supposes in his second note, p. 119. “Only we must distinguish between the frustration of the tower-building and the destruction of the later Babel that was still built on, and which, probably, for the first after the dispersion of the nations, came to be the seat of a heathenish worship.” Concerning the significance and the building material of Babylon, the classical writers agree with the Old Testament,—for example: Herod. i. Genesis 178; Strabo, 16; Diodorus, ii. 7; Arrian, Alex. vii. 17; Curt. Alex. 5, 1, 25; Eustath. ad Dyonys. Perieg. 1005. According to them the huge walls of Babylon were made of burnt brick, as were also the magnificent structure of the temple of Belus, and the hanging gardens. According to one, the circumference of the city amounted to 480 stadia, or 60,000 paces; according to others, 385 or 360 stadia (furlongs), making, therefore, a journey of from 18 to 24 hours. The building of most importance was the quadrangular temple of Belus, each side of which was two furlongs in length; out of this there arose, by eight terraces, a strong, massive tower, which, according to Herodotus, was one furlong in length and breadth, and, according to Strabo, one stadium (that Isaiah 600 feet) high. The accounts of modern travellers amount to a confirmation of the ancient statements. The remains of the temple of Belus that was overthrown by Xerxes, and now called Birs Nimrod, form a huge mound of ruins, consisting of burnt and unburnt bricks, cemented partly with lime and partly with bitumen. The whole plain of Babylon is covered with mounds of rubbish from the same materials (see Ker-Porter: “Travels,” vol. ii. p. 301; Buckingham: “Travels in Mesopotamia,” p. 472; Layard: “Nineveh and Babylon,” p. 374; and Ritter’s “Geography,” xi. p. 876). “The ancients, for the most part, ascribe the building of Babylon to Semiramis, but this can only be true of its extension and fortification. According to the ancient inscriptions, the city was older than this (Knobel on the Genealogical Table, p. 346), and, according to Genesis 10:10, it must have been already in existence at the time of Nimrod.” Knobel. In respect to the city, see also Herzog’sReal-Encyclop�die, article “Babel.” On the ruins of Babylon, see Delitzsch, p. 312, with reference to the account of the traveller, James Rich. The Arabians regard the ruins of Birs Nimrod as the Babylonian tower that was destroyed by fire from heaven. Delitzsch, who at first regarded Birs Nimrod as the temple of Belus (as Rawlinson, too, supposes), remarks now, on the contrary, that the temple of Belus stood in the middle of the city, but that Birs Nimrod was situated in the suburb Borsippa, two miles south. But now, according to Oppert’s supposition, Borsippa means tower of languages, and, therefore, the opinion has much in its favor that the Birs Nimrod had been already in the very ancient time, the observatory of the Chaldζan astrologers, with which the tower of the speech-confounding stands in historical connection. It seems difficult to suppose that the tower, which was to denote the centre of the earth, should be placed at a mile’s distance outside of the city which was distinctly regarded as the capital of the earth. Moreover, this tower might, at a later day, have become the tower of Belus. Bunsen, nevertheless, decides for Birs Nimrod (with reference to Rawlinson), and the name supports the conclusion that the tradition speaks for this place. Of special importance, besides, is the inscription of Borsippa, as given by Oppert, which introduces Nebuchadnezzar as speaking, and according to which the first building of Birs Nimrod is carried back, in its antiquity, 42 generations. See Fabri, p. 49. AND ETHICAL1. See the preliminary discussion. Analogous to this gigantic undertaking of the young humanity are the later monumental buildings of the Egyptians, of the Indians, of Greece, and of other lands. Like the mythological systems of the civilized nations of antiquity, they present an historical contradiction of a favorite modern view, according to which the whole human race had only gradually worked itself out of an animal or beastly state. 2. The character and the teleology of heathenism. The essence of heathenism is strikingly characterized in our narration as a diseased oscillation between the attraction of humanity to unity, on the one hand, and to multiplicity and unrestrained dismemberment on the other. From the Babylonish striving after an outward unity proceeds the first dispersion of the nations. This afterwards takes the form of a dismemberment of the same in a peculiar sense; it becomes, in other words, a heathenish, national, or local consciousness, an idolatrous, antochthonic consciousness, growing wild with the notions of a national earth and a national heavens, whilst, in its utter disorder, it sinks down to the mere prejudice which regards every stranger as an enemy (hostis), and proceeds, at last, to that absolute exclusiveness which causes the inhabitant of the island to put to death any one from abroad, and the Bushman to threaten every new comer with his poisoned arrows. In the same manner, from a religious striving after a pantheistic world-view, there originates the first declining of the spirit into polytheism. And then, too, the different world-monarchies furnish a proof that the diseased centripetal drawing in the world ever works in interchange with that centrifugal tendency. Upon the downfall of any such world-monarchy, there follows again, in various ways, a dissolution and a dispersion of elements. Even in the history of the Church do we find a shadowy outline of the same process; and yet it is just the task and the daily work of the essential Church to mediate more and more the true development and appearance, both of unity and variety, among the nations; though in truth it does this through the light and law of the Gospel as it goes out from the spiritual Zion, or that true kingdom of God which has its organization in the Church. The true reciprocity between unity and division constitutes the life of humanity. The false, feverish, exaggerated reciprocity, which tends to the overstraining, and, at the same time, the division and dissolution of both these influences, is its disease and its death. The striving of the world-monarchies breaks down against the power of the national individualities. Again, the national isolations are interrupted and broken up by the world-monarchies. But dispersion has the special effect to distribute the evil, to dismember, to send one people as a judgment upon another, until there is awakened in all a feeling of the need of deliverance and unity. Here belong the ethnographic and the mythologic systems. In respect to the first, compare Lange’s “Miscellaneous Writings,” i. p. 74. On the last, see Lange’s treatise entitled, Die Gesetzlich-Catholische Kirche als Sinnbild. 3. As the myth of the Titans reflects itself in the creative periods, so does it also in the Babylonish tower-building. 4. Fabri, p. Genesis 44 : “In a manner more or less distinctly marked, since the time of Babel, has every nation, and every group of nations, had spread over it its peculiar veil (Isaiah 25:7) which has impregnated and penetrated the whole national consciousness. Even in the present age of the world does this remain, not yet broken through, morally and spiritually, by whole nations, but only by individuals out of every nation, who in Christ have attained to the participation of a new and divine birth,—these, however, being the very core and heart of such nations, and forming with one another a people in a people. For in Christ alone does man awake to a universal theanthropic consciousness.” [True indeed, but Christ, according to Matthew 13, works after the manner of leaven; and in fact, as a principle of new life for the whole humanity (Romans 5:12), and the veils of the nations are gradually lifted up before they are wholly removed or torn away. It is not the individuals and the nations that form the contrast in the present course of the world, but the grain (the elect) and the chaff in the nations,—in other words, the contrast between the believing and the unbelieving—between people and people.] 5. The ironical element in the rule of the divine righteousness (see Genesis 3:22) appears again in the history of the tower-building, after its grandest display in the primitive time. It is just from the false striving after the idol of an outward national unity, that God suffers to go forth the dispersing of the nations. Without doubt, too, is there an ironical force in the words: “and now nothing will be restrained from them” (Genesis 11:7). 6. In this demonical effort of the Babylonians to build a tower that should reach to heaven, there still remains an element of good. By means of it, in later times, they appeared as the oldest explorers of the stars, who discovered the zodiac and many other astronomical phenomena,—as astronomers, in fact, with their searching gaze raised to heaven, although their science was covered under an astrological veil. The unfinished tower was transformed into an observatory; and how vast the benefit that from thence has come to man! 7. The heathenish yet Titanic energy of the Babylonian spirit proves itself in the fact, that whilst in the one direction their worship went to the extreme of offering human sacrifices, it became, on the other, a service of revolting licentiousness. 8. “Let us build us a tower and make us a name.” The antithetic relation which this watchword of theirs bore to Shem (the name), and the destination that God had given to him that he should be the potential central point of humanity, may also be indicated by the name Nimrod (πִ ?ξְ ?ψֹ ?γ, come on, now let us rebel). And so, according to the view of Roos, may the race of Ham have become engaged with special zeal in this tower-building, for the very purpose of weakening the prophecy. But, then, that would lead to the conclusion of a variance with the Shemites, and an overpowering of them, whereas our history represents it as a universal understanding. Moreover, in Genesis 10:10, Nimrod appears, not as the builder of Babel, but as the founder of the kingdom of that name; whereas Genesis 11 relates to the building of the city itself. We must, therefore, suppose that in the understanding mentioned, Genesis 11, the Shemites were either infatuated, or that they were silenced. The text, however, supposes an understanding of the races. We may, perhaps, assume that, in the designation of the tower, Shem’s priority was symbolically indicated, and that on this account his race would be satisfied. There would result, then, a distinct consequence. Upon this free federal cooperation of the patriarchal races, there followed the despotic exaltation of Nimrod, which contributed, moreover, to hasten the Babylonic dissolution. We make more difficult the view we take of the transaction when we measure the greatness of the tower before the dispersion by the later magnitude of the tower of Belus, or of the Bris Nimrod. “Mesopotamia,” says Bunsen, “is covered from north to south with ruins and localities with which the name of Nimrod is everywhere connected; as in Babylonia so also in Nineveh, lying farther of and eastward from upper Mesopotamia; even the country of the Riphζan mountains, at the source of the Tigris, and so the part of Armenia which lies north from Nineveh, and west of the lake Van, has its Mount Nimrod.” AND The tower of Babel in its historical and figurative significance: a gigantic undertaking, an apparent success, a frustrated purpose, an eternal sign of warning. 2. The repeating of the same history in the political and ecclesiastical spheres.—The spiritual history of Babylon to its latest fulfilling according to the Apocalypse. The confusion of languages at Babel, and the scene of the Pentecost at Jerusalem.—Babel and Zion.—Babel, confusion; Jerusalem, peace. Christianity, God’s descent to earth, to unite again the discordant languages. Christianity, in what way it makes the languages one: 1. In that from all spirits it makes one spirit of life; 2. from all peoples one people; 3. from all witnessings, one confession of faith, one doxology, one salutation of love. Starke: Supposition, that first after the flood men drew from Armenia towards Persia, then eastward towards Babylon. Hedinger: Pride aims ever at the highest. Avarice and ambition have no bounds (Jeremiah 23:23; Luke 1:51). Lisco: The design of the tower-building is threefold: 1. To gratify the passion for glory which would make itself a name; 2. defiance of God, reaching even to the heaven, his seat of habitation; 3. that the tower might be a point of union and of rendezvous for the whole human race. Selfishness ever separates; so was it here; love and humility alone constitute the true and enduring bond; but this is found only in the kingdom of God, never in the kingdom of the world. As here, so evermore, is Babel the name of pride, of show, of vain glory, of national subjugation, of fraud and tyranny upon the earth. As in this place, so is it always the emblem of insolence towards God, of soaring to heaven, of “making its throne among the stars,” and, at the same time, of confusion, of desolation, of God’s derisive irony in view of the giant projects of men (comp. Isaiah 14; Revelation 18).—Gerlach: There are now formed the sharply separated families of the nations, each confined to itself alone, and standing to others in an essentially hostile relation; each must now use and develop its own peculiar power. The whole heathen world knows no more any unity of the human race, until finally, through the Gospel, men again recognize the fact that they are all of one blood, that they have all one great common want, and have for their father one God,—until, in short, the languages which the pride of Babel separated become again united in the love and humility of Zion. Calwer Handbuch: It is worthy of remark that the modern researches into language have recognized the original affinity of most known languages to one common original speech. The sundering and parting of the nations is God’s own work. As labor was the penalty for the sin of paradise, so is separation the punishment for this sin of pride. In both cases, however, was the punishment at the same time a blessing. Schrφder: It is the spirit of Nimrod that inflates humanity in the plane of Babylon. The tower, as historical fact, is to form the apotheosis of humanity. Luther: They have no concern that God’s name be hallowed, but all their care and planning turns to this, that their own name may become great and celebrated on the earth. This city and tower of men is fundamentally nothing else than an outward artificial substitute for the inner union before God, and in God.—Roos: It is credible that Ham and his son Canaan should have been especially zealous to hinder this counsel of God, according to which a hard destiny was to befall them—that is, that there should be a separation of the nations, so that Canaan should become the servant of Shem and Japheth.—Luther: God comes down, that is, he gives special heed to them, he ceases to be forbearing. His coming down denotes his revelation of himself, his appearing in a new and great act, whether taken in the sense of mildness or severity. “O that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down” (Isaiah 64). Genesis 11:7. The salvation of men is a matter of deep concern to our Lord; the boundary he would set to them is the barrier of grace and compassion.—G. D. Krummacher: Human plans are confounded that the divine order may proceed from them. Such is the course of the world’s history. Footnotes: [Genesis 11:1.—ωָׂ ?τָ ?δΰֶ ?ηָ ?ϊζּ ?γְ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ινΰֲ ?ηָ ?γִ ?ιν, one lip and one words, as near as our English can come to it. LXX., χεῖλοςἓικαὶφωνὴμίαπᾶσι; Vulg., labii unius et sermonum eorumdem; the Syriac, ܠ ?ܝ ?ܐ ?ܐ ? ܚ ?ܙ ?̣ ? ܘ ?ܘ ?ܠ ?ܘ ?ܠ ?ܠ ? ܚ ?ܙ ?̣ ?, one tongue and one speech; and so the Targum of Onkelos, μִ ?ιωַׁ ?οηַ ?γεּ ?ξַ ?ξְ ?μַ ?μηַ ?γ. So Greek writers describe those who speak the same language a ὁμόγλωττοι and ὁμόφωνοι. Rashi interprets γαψιν as referring to the thoughts and counsels rather than to language, regarding that as expressed by ωτδ: “They came to an understanding,” or “into one counsel,” αΰεςφδΰηϊ; in which Vitringa agrees with him. Kaulen makes a labored distinction between ωτֹ ?δ and γαψֹ ?ιν, the first of which he refers to the subjective element in speech, producing the grammatical form, the other to the objective, or the words as the matter of language. In proof, he cites such passages as Psalms 12:3, ωτϊημχεϊ, lip of flatteries; Exodus 6:12, uncircumcised lip; Proverbs 12:19, lips of truth, etc.; Isaiah 33:19, ςξχιωτδ, deep of lipּ But these examples only show that, when there is no contrast intended, ωτδ, lip, may be taken generally for language (like lingua, the tongue; see Genesis 11:9, below), including not only words and pronunciation, but all of thought and expression that belongs to it. To show that γαψιν and ωτδ are not tautological here, he quotes Psalms 59:13, γְּ ?αַ ?ψωְׂ ?τָ ?ϊֵ ?ξεֹ, the word of their lips. But this is needless. It is clear that they are not tautological. They express two distinct ideas; and yet we may doubt whether there is intended such a philosophical antithesis as Kaulen would bring out, though most true in itself, and most important to be considered in the science of language. The first thought would be the other way, namely, that γαψ (λόγος) denoted the subjective, and ωτδ lip, the outward or objective in language; since the first is used of a thought, thing, subject, that which is expressed, as well as the word or expression. The terms here are neither tautological, nor antithetical, but supplemental and intensive. It is the unity of language described in the most comprehensive manner: one lip, that is, one pronunciation, and the same words (γαψινΰηγιν, every one of them (the plural taken distributively), that is, one name for each thing, and one way of speaking it. When they are put in direct contrast, then ωτδ, instead of the subjective element, as Kaulen maintains, would denote mere sound in distinction from sense, as in the phrase γְּ ?αַ ?ψωְׂ ?τָ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν, Isaiah 36:5; 2 Kings 18:20; Proverbs 14:23—speech of the lips, that is, mere empty boasting, sound without sense.—T. L.] [Genesis 11:2.—αְּ ?πָ ?ρְ ?ςָ ?ν, literally, in their pulling up. It is used of the taking up the stakes of a tent (see it in its primary sense, Isaiah 38:12), and is thus pictorially descriptive of a nomadic life, like the Arabic ΡΝα. It is used of the marching in the wilderness, and suggests here the idea of an encampment. The descendants of Noah had hitherto kept together in their rovings.—T. L.] ξִ ?χֶ ?γֶ ?ν—rendered from the East. Armenia, the supposed landing-place of the ark, was northwest of Shinar. This has led some to suppose, that the early human race made a detour through Persia, and so were travelling east when they came to Shinar. Others have regarded the ark-mountain as situated to the east, a view which can only be maintained by supposing the naming of the Armenian Ararat to belong to a later period, as a transfer from an older and more easterly region (see text, note p. 308). The original Scripture does not, of itself, determine the location as either east or west; so that the Samaritan version, that makes it Serendib (in Ceylon) is not to be rejected, as in itself false or absurd, any more than the Vulgate location in Armenia, or the Targum and Syriac mountains of Kardu, or the Arabian Mount Judi wherever that may have been. Rashi seems thus to have regarded it when he interprets ξִ ?χֶּ ?γֶ ?ν as a journeying from δַ ?ψχֶ ?γֶ ?ν (mountain of the East), mentioned just above, ch.Genesis 10:30. Others would render ξִ ?χֶּ ?γֶ ?ν eastward, or to the east, referring to such passages as Genesis 13:11; Numbers 34:11; Joshua 7:2; Judges 8:11, etc., in all of which, except the first, the term denotes position instead of moving direction, and may, therefore, be regarded as determined from the standpoint, real or assumed, of the narrator or describer. Bochart regards χֶ ?γֶ ?ν as a name given to all the country beyond the Euphrates and Tigris, independent of the position of some parts of it in respect to other parts or to regions on the other side. This would seem the best way, if we must render ξִ ?χֶּ ?γֶ ?ν from the east. But there is an older sense to the root, which may well be regarded as intended here. This primary sense is ante, before, or in front of. Hence its application to time as well as to space. The old country is afterwards called the East, and so χִ ?γְ ?ξָ ?δ becomes a word of local direction. This primary sense of anteriority gives the idea here demanded, which is not so much any particular direction (the geography not being the thing chiefly in view), as it is the general idea of progress. As they journeyed onward, ξχγν, right ahead, in their nomadic roving—from one before to another, or from the place before them to one still farther on—they found a αִּ ?χְ ?ςָ ?δ, or plain country. Genesis 13:12 seems to be like this, and may be rendered in the same way: Abraham and Lot parted; the former settled (ιָ ?ωַׁ ?α) in the land where they were; or Abraham stopped, as we say in familiar English, but Lot journeyed on, ιַ ?ιִּ ?ρּ ?ςξִ ?χֶּ ?γֶ ?ν. Compare Genesis 11:2, εַ ?ιֵּ ?ωְׁ ?αεּ ωָׁ ?ν, and they stopped there (in Shinar), where εַ ?ιֵּ ?ωֵׁ ?α is in a similar contrast to the nomadic word εַ ?ιִּ ?ρָּ ?ς. Or it may be taken as a word of position: he pitched his tent eastward. In this place the Targum of Onkelos has αְּ ?χַ ?γְ ?ξֵ ?ιϊΰ, in the East, regarding it as denoting position. So also the Arabic έζΗαΘΛμή. The LXX., the Vulgate; and the Syriac render it from the East.—T. L.] [Genesis 11:9.—χָ ?ψָ ?ΰωְׁ ?ξָ ?δּ αָּ ?αֶ ?μ called its name Babel, λִ ?ιωָׁ ?ναָּ ?μַ ?μ, because there he confounded (balel = balbel) the language, etc. There is difficulty, sometimes, in the etymologies given in the Hebrew Bible, but this seems to be a remarkably clear and consistent one. It seems strange that Dr. Lange should show himself inclined to the other far-fetched derivation, which would make it mean either the “gate of Bel,” or “ the gate of El.” Naming cities from the gate is not the most early way, though it came in afterwards, from the gate becoming the important place of commercial, judicial, and political procedure. Schelling is right in saying that αΰα, ΟάΗΘ, for gate, is confined alone to the Arabic, of all the Shemitic tongues. It is entirely unknown to the Hebrew, and if it is ever found in any very late Syriac, it comes from the comparatively modern Arabic use. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ FIFTH SECTIONThe race of Shem. The Commenced and Interrupted Migration of Terah to Canaan. The Genesis of the Contrast between Heathendom and the germinal Patriarchalism Genesis 11:10-321. Genealogy of Shem—to Terah. 10These are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old and begat 11Arphaxad [Knobel: probably, highland of Chaldζa] two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah [sending]: 13And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14And Salah lived thirty years and begat Eber [one from the other side, pilgrim, emigrant]. 15And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 16And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg [division]: 17And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 18And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu [friendship, friend]: 19And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. 20And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug [vine-branch]: 21And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters. 22And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor [Gesenius: panting]: 23And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 24And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah [turning, tarrying]: 25And Nahor lived after he begat Terah a hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. 26And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram [High father], Nahor [see Genesis 11:2], and Haran [Gcsenius: Montanus]. 2. Terah, his Race and Emigration (Genesis 11:27-32). 27Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah bagat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot [veil, concealed]. 28And Haran died before [the face of] his father Terah, in the lend of his nativity, in Ur [light; flame] of the Chaldees (λωγιν). 29And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai [princess]; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah [Queen], the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah [spier, seeress]. 30But Sarai was barren; she had no child. 31And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees to go unto the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran and dwelt there. 32And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. THE OF THE TABLE OF THE This genealogy of the Shemites is really an appendage to that of the Sethites, Genesis 5, and in this way forms a genealogical series extending from Adam to Abraham. It is continued on the line of Nahor (Genesis 22:20-24), on that of Keturah (Genesis 25:1-4), of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12, etc.), of Esau (Genesis 36:1, etc.), on the line of Jacob (Genesis 46:8-27), etc. (See the article: “Genealogical Register,” in Herzog’s Real Encyclop�die.) According to Knobel this table has the character of an element of fundamental Scripture (p. 129); we are satisfied to designate it as elohistic universalistic, since it embraces not only Abraham’s race, but also the nearest branches of it that at a later period became heathen. The table of the Shemites embraces ten generations, as does the table of the Sethites. The first (conformably to the number ten) denotes a perfect development, which runs out in Abraham, the “father of the faithful,” representing, as he does, a numberless race of the believing out of all humanity. Abraham must be reckoned here with the tenth, as Noah in Genesis 5. It is clear, too, that this table is designed to indicate the growth, or establishment of the patriarchal faith, together with its previous history. Most distinctly is this expressed in the migrations of Terah,—and in the individual names of the patriarchs. In the son of Arphaxad, Salah, there is announced a sending, or mission, in Eber the emigration, in Peleg the division of the theocratic line from the untheocratic, in Reu the divine friendship, in Serug the entangling or the restraint of the development, in Nahor a conflict or a striving, in Terah a setting out from the heathen world which in his tarrying comes to a stop. And so is the way prepared for Abraham’s departure. We cannot maintain, with Knobel, that these Shemitic patriarchs must have been all of them first-born. They are, throughout, the first-born only in the sense of the promise. Bunsen interprets the name Eber as one who comes over the Tigris. But in a wider sense Eber may also mean pilgrim. The names Reu and Serug he interprets of Odessa and Osroλne. As coming, however, in the midst of personal names, these also must have been expressed as personal names, from which, indeed, the names of countries may have been derived. On the interpolation of Cainan in the Septuagint, and which is followed by Luke (Genesis 3:36), compare Knobel, as also on the varying dates of the ages, as given in the Samaritan text and in the Septuagint. The numbers we have here are 600, 438, 433, 464, 239, 239, 230, 148, 205, and 175 years. Here, too, as in the case of the Sethites, we can get no symbolical significance from the respective numbers, although Knobel is unwilling to recognize their historical character. In connection, however, with the general gradual diminution of the power of life, there is clearly reflected the individual difference; Eber lives to a greater age than both his forefathers, Arphaxad and Salah. Nahor, the panting (the impetuous), dies earliest. According to Knobel, the genealogical table advances from the mythical to the legendary period; at least we have no sufficient grounds, he thinks, to deny to Abraham and his brothers an historical existence. The same must hold true, also, of his fathers, whose names, with their theocratic characteristics, must have belonged, without doubt, to the most lasting theocratic reminiscences. The table before us is distinguished from the Sethitic by being less full, in that it divides the life-time of each ancestor into two parts, by the date of the theocratic first-born, whilst it leaves the summing up of both numbers to the reader. “In Genesis 11:26 this genealogy, just like the one in Genesis 5:32, concludes with the naming of three sons of Terah, since all these have a significance for the history to come: namely, Abram as the ancestor of the elect race, Nahor as the grandfather of Rebecca (comp. Genesis 11:29 with Genesis 22:20-23), and Haran as the father of Lot (Genesis 11:27).” Keil. The table in Delitzsch gives us a good view of the series of Shemitic families (p. 324). According to Bertheau the Septuagint is right in its interpolation of Cainan. Delitzsch disputes this; comp. p. 322. “The Alexandrian translators inserted this name because the Oriental traditions have so much to say of him as the founder of astronomical science; and, therefore, they were unwilling to leave out so famous a name. There may have been a brother of Salah, through whom the main line was not propagated.” Lisco. Delitzsch gives a reason for its not being called the tholedoth, or generations of Abraham, from the fact that the author makes the history of Abraham himself a large and principal part. That, however, would not have prevented the setting forth of Abraham’s genealogical history. But in such a representation there might have been, perhaps, an obscuring of the idea that the seed of Abraham in the natural sense goes through the whole Old Testament, whilst, in a spiritual sense, it pervades the New (see Romans 4 cf. Genesis 15). AND 1. Genesis 11:10-26.—Shem was a hundred years old.—See the computations of Knobel and Keil.—Two years after the flood.—This must be understood of the beginning of the flood.—And begat sons and daughters.—See the ethnological table; also, Genesis 11:17. “For the sake of tracing the line of the Joktanides the author had already given, in Genesis 10:21-25, the patriarchal series from Shem to Peleg; he repeats it here, where he would lay down fully the line from Shem to Abraham, with the addition of the ages.”—Arphaxad.—Arrapachitis, “in northern Assyria, the original seat of the collective Chaldζan family.” Knobel. “It was the home of the Χαλδαῖοι and Καρδοῦχοι mentioned by Xenophon and Strabo, as well as of the modern Kurds.” The same writer refers the names that follow to cities or territories, to which we attach no special importance, since in any case the districts here would be themselves derived from the names of persons. 2. Genesis 11:27-32. The family line of Terah. According to Keil, this superscription must embrace the history of Abraham, so that the tholedoth of Ishmael, Genesis 25:12, and of Isaac, Genesis 25:19, correspond with it. But then, in the spiritual relation, Abraham would be subordinate to Terah, which cannot be supposed.—And Haran begat.—“According to the constant plan of Genesis, it is here related of Haran, the youngest son of Terah, that he begat Lot, because Lot went with Abraham to Canaan (ch, Genesis 12:4), and Haran died before his father Terah, whereby the band which would have retained Lot in his father-land was loosed.” Keil.—Before his father Terah.—Properly, in his presence, so that he must have seen it; it does not, therefore, mean simply in his life-time. The first case of a natural death of a son before the death of his father, is a new sign of increasing mortality.—Ur of the Chaldees.—This must either be sought in the name Ur, which Ammianus calls Persicum Castellum, between Patra and Nisibis, not far from Arrapachitis, or in Orhoi (Armenian, Urrhai), the old name of Edessa, now called Urfa (see Kiepert and Weissenborn: ‘Nineveh and its Territory,’ p. 7).” Keil. Delitzsch, correctly perhaps, decides for the castle Ur mentioned by Ammianus, although, doubtless, the Ur in our text has a more general, territorial, and, at the same time, symbolical meaning. “The old Jewish and ecclesiastical interpretation reads ‘out of ΰεψ’ (fire), meaning that Abraham, as an acknowledger of the one God, and a denier of the gods of Nimrod, was cast into the fire, but was miraculously preserved by God.” Delitzsch. The same writer finds therein the idea that Abraham was plucked as a brand from the fire of heathendom, or from its heathenish fury. We would rather suppose, on the contrary, that by Ur is meant a region in Chaldζa, where the ancient monotheistic symbolical view of the heavenly lights and flames had passed over into a mythical heathenish worship of the stars, as a worship of Light and Fire; wherefore it is that the starry heaven was shown to Abraham as a symbol of his believing progeny (Genesis 15), whilst, for the heathen Chaldζans, it was a region of divine (or deified) forces. Knobel explains the word as meaning Mount of the Chald�ans. Rawlinson holds to the reading ΰεּ ?ψ as equivalent to ςִ ?ιψ (city). The interpreting it of light and fire is both etymologically and actually the more correct. “The family of Terah had its home to the north of Nimrod’s kingdom (in northeastern Mesopotamia), and worshipped strange gods; as is clear from Joshua 24:2.” Delitzsch.—Iskah.—By Josephus, the Talmud, the Targum of Jonathan, and others, this name is held to be one with Sarah. On the other hand, Knobel properly remarks that according to Genesis 20:12, Sarah was the daughter of Terah, and, according to Genesis 17:17, only ten years younger than Abraham; she could not, therefore, have been a daughter of Abraham’s younger brother. It is probably the case that the Jews, in deference to their later law, sought by means of this hypothesis to weaken as much as possible Abraham’s kinsmanship to Sarah. Delitzsch assumes the possibility that Haran was a much older half-brother of Abraham, and that Abraham, as also Nahor, had married one of his daughters. According to a conjecture of Ewald, Iscah is mentioned because she became Lot’s wife. But it may be that Iscah was thought worthy to be incorporated in the theocratic tradition because she was a woman of eminence, a seeress like Miriam, according to the signification of her name. Knobel alludes to the fact that Abraham bad his sister to wife, without calling to mind that she was a half-sister (Genesis 20:12), or might even have been his adopted sister. So also he says that Nahor married his niece, and that in like manner Isaac and Jacob did not marry strangers, but their own kindred. He accounts for this on the ground of a peculiar family affection in the house of Terah (Genesis 24:3-4; Genesis 26:35; Genesis 27:46; Genesis 28:1); just as at the present day many Arabian families ever marry in their own, and do not permit one to take a wife from any other (Seetzen: “Travels,” iii. p. 22). The ground, however, of such kindred marriage in the house of Terah and Abraham, is a theocratic one, and thus far are the children of Abraham placed in a condition similar to that of the children of Adam. As for the latter, there were, in general, no “daughters of men,” out of their own immediate kindred, so for the sons of the theocracy there were no spiritual daughters of like birth with themselves, that is, of monotheistic or theocratic faith, out of the circle of nearest natural affinity. In this respect, however, they did not venture to tread in the foot-steps of the Sethites (Genesis 6); for it was theirs to propagate a believing race through consecrated marriage.—But Sarah Was barren.—A prelude to the history that follows.—And Terah took Abram his son.—Without doubt has this removal a religious theocratic importance. At all events, this divinely accomplished withdrawal from Ur of the Chaldees must mean more than a mere providential guidance, as Keil supposes.—And they went forth with them.—The word ΰִ ?ϊָּ ?ν (rendered, with them) makes a difficulty. It may be easiest understood as meaning with one another. On the other hand, Delitzsch reminds us that the suffix may have a reflex sense, instead of a reciprocal (Genesis 22:3). This is the very question, as otherwise the sentence would be indefinite; the expression, therefore, must mean not only with one another, but by themselves; that is, they withdrew as one united, exclusive community. Besides this, there are two modes of taking it. Keil understands only Lot and Sarah as the subject of the verb, and, therefore, refers ΰִ ?ϊָּ ?ν to Terah and Abraham. There are three things in the way of this: 1. The withdrawing (or going forth) would be separated from the previous introductory expression: Terah took Abraham, etc., which will not do; 2. it would be a withdrawing from that which leads, and the accompanying would become the principal persons; 3. Abraham would have to be regarded as a co-leader, which is contrary to what is said: Terah took Abraham. Moreover, Abraham, regarded as an independent leader, would have been bound in duty to go further on when Terah broke off from his pilgrimage in Mesopotamia. Delitzsch, on the other hand, together with Jarchi, Rosenmuller, and others, refers the words they went forth to the members of the family who are not named, namely, they went forth with those named; but this is clearly against the context. By the expression with them, it would be more correct to understand, with those, namely, with the first-named (Terah, etc.), went forth those just previously mentioned, or named immediately after them. Later, is Haran denoted as the city of Nahor (Genesis 24:10 as compared with Genesis 27:43; Genesis 29:4; Genesis 31:53). For other interpretations see Knobel.—And they came unto Haran.—Terah intended to go from Ur to Canaan, but he stops in Haran, wherefore he also retains his people there. According to Knobel, the mention of Canaan is an anticipation of the history that follows.—Haran.—Carra, Charran, lay in northwestern Mesopotamia (Padan Aram, xxv. 20), ten leagues southeast from Edessa, in a fertile region, though not abounding in water. The city now lies in ruins. It was the capital of the Gabians, who had here a temple of the Moon goddess, which they referred back to the time of Abraham. In its neighborhood Crassus was slain by the Parthians. More fully on the subject, see in Schrφder, p. 520; also in Knobel and Delitzsch.—And Terah died in Haran.—Terah was two hundred and five years old. If Abraham, therefore, was seventy-five years old when he migrated from Mesopotamia, and Terah was seventy years old at his birth, then must Abraham have set forth sixty years before the death of Terah. And this is very important. The emigration had a religious motive which would not allow him to wait till the death of his father. As Delitzsch remarks, the manner of representation in Genesis disposes of the history of the less important personages, before relating the main history. The Samaritan text has set the age of Terah at one hundred and forty-five, under the idea that Abraham did not set out on his migration until after the death of Haran. The representation of Stephen, Acts 7:4, connects itself with the general course of the narration. AND ETHICALSee above: The significance of the genealogical table of the Shemites. 1. The decrease in the extent of human life. In the manifold weakenings of the highest life-endurance, in the genealogy of Shem, there are, nevertheless, distinctly observable a number of abrupt breaks: 1. From Shem to Arphaxad, or from 600 years to 438; 2. from Eber to Peleg, or from 464 years to 239; 3. from Serug to Nahor, or from 230 years to 148; beyond which last, again, there extend the lives of Terah with his 205, and of Abraham with his 175 years. Farther on we have Isaac with 180 years, Jacob 147, and Joseph 110. So gradually does the human term of life approach the limit set by the Psalmist, Psalms 90:10. Moses reached the age of 120 years. The deadly efficacy goes on still in the bodily sphere, although the counter-working of salvation has commenced in the spiritual. Keil, with others, finds the causes of this decrease in the catastrophe of the flood, and in the separation of humanity into various nations. 2. Chald�a and the Chald�ans.—See the Theological Real Lexicons, especially Herzog’s Encyclop�die, The Fragments of the Chaldζan Author, Berosus, as found in the Chronicon of Eusebius, and the Chronographia of Syncellus. This people seem to have been early, and, in an especial sense, a wandering tribe. The priestly castes of Chaldζans in Babylonia must have come out of Egypt. Strabo and others transfer the land of the Chaldζans to a region in lower Babylonia, in the marshy district of the Euphrates near the Persian Gulf; the same author, however, finds also, as others have done, the seat of the Chaldζans in the Chaldζan Mountains, very near to Armenia and the Black Sea. The proper home of the Chaldζans was, therefore, at the head waters of the Tigris. 3. Ur in Chaldζa. See above. 4. On the indication of a great yet gradual provision for the variance that was to take place between the race of Eber and the heathen, see the Exegetical and Critical. The later Biblical accounts of Terah and the forefathers of Abraham appear, in general, to owe their form to the reciprocal influence of Israelitish tradition and the Israelitish exegesis of the passage before us. According to the language of Stephen, Acts 7:2, Abraham was already called at Ur in Chaldζa. We must, therefore, regard him as the proper author of the migration of his father, Terah. The passage, Joshua 24:2, according to which Abraham’s forefathers, and Terah especially, dwelt beyond the river (the Euphrates), and served other gods, has special relation to this fact of Terah’s suffering himself to be detained in Haran.—This, then, is to be so understood, that in consequence of the universal infection, idolatry began to take up its abode very near to the adoration of the one God, as still maintained in Terah’s family (see Genesis 29:32-33; Genesis 29:35; Genesis 30:24; Genesis 30:27; and to this belongs what is said, Genesis 31:34, about the teraphim of Laban). We may well suppose that Joshua, from his stern, legal stand-point, judged and condemned that mingling of worships, or that image worship, as strongly as Moses did the setting up of the golden calf. The little group of wanderers, Genesis 11:31, appears to have originated from a similarity of feeling which, after long conflicts in the line of Eber, was finally to tear itself away from this conjectural capital of the Light and Fire worship in Chaldζa, and, in that way, from heathenism altogether. Their aim was Canaan, because there, partly from their decidedly foreign state, partly by reason of their antagonism to the Hamitic race, they would be protected from the contagion. But Terah cannot get beyond Haran, and to this not only does Joshua refer, but also the later Jewish tradition respecting Terah. To this place, where he settles down, Terah seems to have given the name of his dead son, in loving remembrance, and it may have been this name, as well as the fair land and apparent security, that bound him there. The circumstance that Abraham, according to Genesis 11:32, does not appear to have departed before the death of Terah (with which, however, the history otherwise does not agree), has been interpreted by Syncellus and others as implying that Terah was spiritually dead. A like untenable Jewish hypothesis, which Hieronymus gives us, assumes that the 75 years which are ascribed to Abraham, Genesis 12:4, are not to be dated from his natural birth, but from the time of his deliverance from the furnace of fire, which was like a new birth. But that Abraham tore himself away before his father’s death has, at all events, the important meaning that, in the strife between filial piety and the call of faith, he obeyed the higher voice. The family group in Haran, however, is thus distinctly denoted, because it now forms the provisional earthly homestead of the wandering patriarchs, and because, also, as the later history informs us, it was to furnish wives of like theocratic birth for their sons. 5. Legends concerning the migration of Abraham. See Rahmer, “The Hebrew Traditions” (Breslau, 1861, p. 24). According to a Hebrew Midrash (Rabba 38, in Hieronymus), Abraham, at Ur, was cast into a furnace of fire, because he would not adore the fire which the Chaldζans worshipped, but was miraculously preserved by God. His brother Haran, on the contrary, was consumed, because he was unresolved whether to adore the fire or not. It was Nimrod who had him cast into the furnace. Here belongs, also, the Treatise of Beer, entitled “The Life of Abraham, according to the Jewish traditions.” Leip., 1859. AND As Abraham’s life of faith develops itself in his posterity, so did it have its root in the life of his forefathers.—How the life of all great men of God rests upon a previous hidden history.—Comparison of the two lines of faith, that of Seth to Noah, and from Shem to Abraham: 1. outwardly, ever less (at last reduced to one point); 2. inwardly, ever stronger (attaining at last to the one who makes the transition). [Thus Noah passed through the corrupted race and through the flood; thus Abraham made the transition through heathenism.]—Terah’s migration to Canaan: 1. its spirited beginning; 2. its failure to go on.—Abraham and his kinsmen: 1. He was probably the author of their movement; 2. they, probably, the cause of his tarrying in Haran.—The death of children before the eyes of their parents (Genesis 11:28).—Sarah’s barrenness, the long and silent trial in the life of Abraham. Starke: The Sethites, among whom the true church is preserved.—God’s remembrance of the righteous abides in his blessing.—Osiander: A Christian when he is called, must, for the sake of God, leave joyfully his fatherland; he must forsake all that he loves, all that is pleasing to him in the world; he must follow God obediently, and only where He leads. [Excursus on the Confusion of Languages.—That there was here a supernatural intervention the language of Scripture will not permit us to doubt. We need not, however, trouble ourselves with the question how far each variety of human speech is connected with it, or regard, as essentially affecting the argument, the greatness or smallness of the number of languages now spoken upon the earth. There is, doubtless, many a local jargon, the result of isolation, or of unnatural mixtures, that has but little, if anything, to do with an inquiry in respect to this most ancient and world-historical event. It is so difficult to determine what is a language in distinction from a dialect, or mere local variety of idiom and pronunciation, that such lists as those of Balbi and others can have but little philological value. For all essential purposes of such inquiry, therefore, there is no need to extend our view beyond that district of earth in which languages now existing, either as spoken or in their literature, can be historically or philologically traced to peoples connected with the earliest known appearances of the human race. We give this a very wide sweep when we include in it Southern and Middle Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. Here philological science, though yet very imperfect, has found great encouragement in its inquiries, and within this district has it begun to make out, with some clearness, what must have been the earliest divisions of language. The result thus far, as stated by some of the latest and best writers, has been the recognition of three general families or groups. In giving names to these, there has also been recognized, to some extent, the ethnological division supposed to be made from the sons of Noah; and hence some have been inclined to call them the Japhethic, Shemitic, and Hamitic (Bunsen, Khamism and Semism). It was early perceived, however, that the ethnologic and linguistic lines do not exactly correspond even in the Shemitic; and there is still more of aberration and intersection within the supposed limits of the two others. The first group has therefore been called the Indo-Germanic, and of late the Arian. In the third the term Hamitic has been generally dropped for that of Turanian. The general correspondence, however, gives much countenance to the first ethnological naming. But whatever method be adopted, it does not affect the main characteristics belonging to each of the three. These may be thus stated. The Shemitic is the smallest, the most unique, both in its matter and its form, the most enduring, the most easily recognized, and having the least diversity in its several branches. The group termed Arian, Indo-Germanic, or Japhethan, is less marked in all these characteristics, though retaining enough of them to make clear the family relationship in all the best-known branches. The third is so different from both these, it seems so utterly broken up, that Pritchard, and other philologists, have given it, as a whole, the name Allophylian, using it simply as a convenience of nomenclature. There exist, however, marks of affinity that show it to be something more than a mere arbitrarily separated mass (see Max Mόller “Languages of the Seat of War,” pp. 88, 90, and Rawlinson: “Herodotus,” vol. i. 524). To make use of geological analogies, as Bunsen has done, the Shemitic may be likened to the primitive rocks, the Arian to the stratified formations, broken, yet presenting much clearness of outline and direction, the Turanian to confused volcanic masses projected from some force unknown, or solitary boulders scattered here and there in ways inexplicable, yet showing marks of the localities from whence they came, and evidence of some original correspondence in the very irregularities of their fracture. Or we may compare them, the first, to a temple still entire in its structural form, though presenting tokens of catastrophes by which it has been affected; the second, to wide-spread ruins, where whole architectural rows and avenues still show a clear coherence, whilst even the broken arches, fallen columns, displaced capitals, give evidence by which we are enabled to make out the original plan; the third, to scattered mounds of rubbish, in which shattered slabs, obscurely stamped bricks, and faint marks of some joining cement, alone testify to a structure having once a local unity at least, though now exhibiting little of inward plan and harmony. To drop all such figures, it may be said that the Shemitic has preserved what was most enduring of the original form, the Arian what was most permanent of the original matter, whilst in the Turanian has fallen all that was most frangible in the one, or most easily deformed or defaced in the other. Now to account for such a condition of things in language, especially in its earliest appearance, is equally difficult, whether we hypothesize the primitive movement as a tendency to gregariousness and to a consequent unity of speech, or as a tendency in the opposite direction, or as being both combined in an attractive and repulsive polarity. The phenomena in each and all are at war with every such induction. There is in the one family a strangely preserved unity. There is in another a totally different peculiarity of form stamped upon it from times that precede all historical memory; it is full where the first seems to be scant, free where the other is tense; sometimes just the reverse, having as a whole a look so exceedingly foreign as never to be mistaken, yet with an equally unmistakable familiarity, or family likeness, of its own, within which the many dissimilitudes among its different branches never efface the strong and seemingly ineradicable affinities. There is a third so marked by an almost total dissolution that its very looseness would seem to make its only classifying feature, were it not that certain indices found in every branch (such as the numerals and some pronominal forms), point to a community of origin, whilst appearances of correspondence, even in its fractures, suggest a common disorganizing catastrophe. Viewing these three families in their relations to each other, we find that there is not only separation, and that of long standing, but great diversity of separation. The original cleaving dates from a most ancient period, before which nothing is known, and in its general aspect remains unaffected by time. The Hamitic, or Turanian, seems to have been confused and tumultuous from the beginning. Such is said to be its appearance on the early trilingual inscriptions made to accommodate the incongruous peoples in the Assyrian empire who had, in some way, been here and there wedged between the Arian and Shemitic portions. See Rawlinson’s “Herodotus,” i. 527. Again, the Shemitic, though oftentimes in close contiguity, has put on none of the essential features of the Arian, nor the Arian of the Shemitic. The German and Arabic are as distinct in modern times, as anciently the Greek and Hebrew. The minor specific divisions in each family have varied more or less, but the great generic differences have remained the same from age to age, still showing no signs of blending, or of mutual development into some common comprehending genus, according to the process which Bunsen supposes to have produced such changes in the antehistorical times. What has stamped them with features so ancient and so diverse? Nothing of any known natural development, either of one from the other, or of all from a common antecedent stock, can account for it. If Sinism, or Chinesian (the name given to this hypothetical beginning of human speech), developed Khamism, and Khamism Semism, and Semism Arianism, how is it that we find nothing like it as actual fact in historical times, and no marks of any transition-period in the ages before? Surely, if Bunsen’s favorite comparisons be good for anything, we ought to find in language, as geologists do in the rocks, the visible marks of the process, or if we are compelled to adopt a theory of sudden or eruptive breakings in the one case (whether we call them supernatural or extraordinary matters but little to the argument) why should a similar idea be regarded as irrational in the other. Thus there are no linguistic marks in Greek and Hebrew (regarded as early representatives of two great families), or in Syriac and Sanscrit, showing that at any time they were a common language, or any beginning of mutual divergency as traced downwards, or any evidences of convergency as we follow them up the stream of time. In fact, they stand in most direct contrast in their earliest stages; even as the fresh geological rupture must present, doubtless, a more distinct breakage than is shown after ages of wear and abrasion. When history opens, these languages stand abruptly facing each other. This may be said with some degree of confidence, for our knowledge here is not scanty. We have the Shemitic all along from the very dawn of history to our latest times. The Arabic of the present day, copious as it has become in its derivative vocabulary, is as rigid in its Shemitic features as the oldest known Hebrew. There is some reason for regarding it as retaining even still more of the primitive type. The Greek was in its perfection in the days of Homer, and as Homer found it. It has never been surpassed since in all that makes the glory of language as a spiritual structure, in its classifications of outward things, in its still higher classification of ideas, in its precision and richness of epithet, in the profound presentation of moral and ζsthetic distinctions,—in this respect ever in advance of the people who used it—in the elements it contained for the expression of philosophic thought whenever its stores should be required for that purpose, and, withall, in the melodiousness, the flexibility, and the exuberance of its vocal forms. The Thucydidian Greek falls below it in all these respects. Certainly it had not risen above it. It is the tendency of language, when left to itself, to decline in the attributes mentioned. The assertion may be hazarded that the evidence of this fact is exhibited in most modern tongues. More copious are they doubtless, better adapted to a quick political, social, or commercial intercourse, or to certain forms of civilization in which a greater community of action, or of understood conventional proceedings, makes up for the want of pictorial and dialectical clearness as inherent in the words themselves—but everywhere, in their old worn state, presenting a lack of that vividness, that exquisite shading of ideas, that power of emotion, which astonishes us in the early languages just mentioned. The tendency, in fact, is towards Sinism, or a language of loose arbitrary symbols, not away from it. As savagism is the dregs of a former higher civilization, so Sinism is the remains of language, bearing evidence of attrition and fracture; and this, however copious it may be, or however adapted it may be to a mere worldly civilization, such as that in which the Chinese have long been stationary, or slowly falling, and to which a godless culture, with all its science, is ever tending. There is in language accretion, addition, looseness, decay; but we rarely find, if we ever find, in any speech that has long been used, what may be truly called growth in the sense of organic vigor, or inward structural harmony. That young and vigorous constitution which is discovered in the earliest Arian and Shemitic speech, they must have received in some way for which it is very difficult to account on any natural or ordinary grounds. Convention will not explain it, as Plato saw long ago in the very dawn of philological inquiry; onomatopic theories fail altogether to account for the first words, to say nothing of grammatical forms; development is found to be mere cant, giving no real insight into the mystery. If the originating processes fall wholly within the sphere of the human, then must we suppose some instinctive logic, some sure intelligence working below consciousness, and somehow belonging to the race, or races, rather than to the individual. If this is difficult to conceive, or to understand, then there remains for us that which hardly surpasses it in wonder, whilst it falls short of it in mystery, namely, the idea of some ab extra supernatural power once operating on the human soul in its early youth—whether in the first creation, or in some subsequent early stages of remarkable development,—and now comparatively unknown.When we study language on the map, the difficulty of any mere development theory bringing one of these families from the other, or from a common original stock, is greatly increased. Whilst the Arian and Shemitic present, in the main, certain geographical allotments tolerably distinct, this Hamitic or Turanian conglomerate is found dispersed in the most irregular manner. It is everywhere in spots throughout the regions occupied by the more organic families; sometimes in sporadic clusters, as in parts of Western Asia, sometimes driven far off to the confines as is the case with the Finnic and Lap language, or, again, wedged into corners, like the Basque language in Spain, lying between two branches of the Arian, the Roman and the Celtic. Had we found rocks lying in such strange ways, it would at once have been said: no slow depositing, no long attrition, no gradual elevation or depression, has done all this. They may have exerted a modifying influence; but they are not alone sufficient to account for what appears. Here has been some eruptive or explosive force, some ab extra power, whether from above or beneath, sudden and extraordinary in its effect, however generated in its causality, and however we may style that causality, whether natural or supernatural, simply inexplicable, or divine. Such eruptive forces are not confined to rocks and strata, or to sudden changes in material organization. They have place also in the spiritual world, in the movements of history, in the souls of men, in remarkable changes and formations of language. There are spiritual phenomena, if the term may be used, for which we cannot otherwise easily account. The evidence here of any such intervening power may be less striking, because less startling to the sense, but to the calm and reverent reason they may be even more marked than anything analagous to them in the outer world of matter. Great confusion has arisen in our theological reasoning from confining this word miraculous solely to some supposed breakage or deflection in the natural sphere. To say the least, therefore, it is not irrational to carry this view into the history of man regarded as under the influence of supernatural, as well as natural, agencies. And thus here, as we contemplate the remarkable position of the early languages of the world, and especially of the three great families, some force from without, sudden, eruptive, breaking up a previous movement, extraordinary to say the least, would be the causal idea suggested, even if the Scripture had said nothing about it. A primitive formation has been left comparatively but little affected; all around it, east and west, are linguistic appearances presenting the most striking contrasts to the first, and yet the most remarkable family likenesses to each other; elsewhere, as a third class of elements show, the eruptive or flooding force has broken everything into fragments, and scattered them far and wide. Philology cannot account for it; but when we study the tenth and eleventh of Genesis in what they fairly imply as well as clearly express, we have revealed to us an ancient causation adequate, alone adequate, we may say, to the singular effect produced. The language of the account is general, as in other parts of Scripture where a mighty change is to be described, universal in its direct and collateral historical effect, without requiring us to maintain an absolute universality in the incipient movement. From some such general terms in the commencement of chapter 11 it might seem, indeed, as though every man of the human race was in this plane of Shinar, and directly engaged in the impious undertaking described. Taking, however, the two chapters together—and it is too much to say, as most commentators do, in the very face of the arrangement, that the eleventh chapter is wholly prior to the tenth—we must conclude that one line, at least, of the sons of Shem, that of Arphaxad, the ancestor of the Chaldζans, and of Eber, the more direct progenitor of the Hebrews, remained in the upper country of the Euphrates. It is fairly to be inferred, too, that the Joktan migration to Arabia had commenced, carrying with it the Shemitic element of speech to modify or transform the Cushite, whether introduced before or after it. Some of the sons of Japheth may have already set off, west and east, in their long wanderings (to Greece and India perhaps), whilst Sidon, a descendant of Ham, had even at this early day, founded a maritime settlement, and ventured upon the seas. It is not easy to understand why the narration of the tenth chapter should have had its place before that of the eleventh, unless a portion, at least, of the movements there recorded, had been antecedent in time. It is commonly said that the tenth is anticipatory in respect to what follows, but this is not altogether satisfactory. As the story of the greater scattering comes after the ethnological divisions in the order of narration, it may be consistently maintained that it was subsequent to some of them, at least, in the order of time, whilst the seeming universality of the language may be explained on the ground of the magnitude of the later event, and its world-wide effect in the human history. A close examination, however, shows that, even in the diction, this universality is not so strict as some interpretations would make it. After these earlier departures, as we may supply from chapter 10, it proceeds to say, “the whole earth (land country) was (yet) of one language and one speech.” It had not been broken up, though it may have begun to be affected by causes which would naturally produce changes of dialect. “And in their journeying,” or “as they journeyed onward (ξִ ?χֶ ?γֶ ?ν), they found a plain in the land of Shinar.” “As they journeyed,” that is, as men journeyed onward, or migrated more and more. Who or how many they were is not said, and these indefinite pronouns give us no right to say that every man of the human race, all of Noachian kind, were in this plain of Shinar. There is the strongest proof to the contrary. We cannot believe that Noah was there, although he lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood, or that Shem was there, who lived one hundred and fifty years later, and even in the days of Abraham. The idea is abhorrent that one so highly blessed of God, and in “whose tents” God had promised “to dwell”—Shem, the Name, the preserver of the holy speech, and the direct antithesis of that false “name” which these bold rebels sought to make unto themselves—should have had any participation, even by his presence, in so unholy a proceeding. As little can we believe it of any of the line from which came Abraham, or even of their not remote consanguinθi, the Joktanite Arabians. The same feeling arises when we think of the pious fathers of Melchizedek, king of Salem, king of righteousness, and who had consecrated him a priest to El Elion, that Most High God of the Heavens (see Genesis 14:18), who is here so blasphemously defied. Who were they, then, that composed this strange assemblage on the plain of Shinar? A vast multitude doubtless, a majority of Noah’s descendants perhaps, yet still, as is most likely, a colluvies gentium, a gathering of the bad, the bold, the adventurous, from every family, but with the Hamitic character decidedly predominant. Nimrodian, perhaps, might they be called with more propriety, if we take the constant Jewish tradition that Nimrod was their leader in rebellion. The nobler sons of Ham are to be distinguished from these Babylonian Hamites. The founder of the Egyptian monarchy, and, perhaps, the Arabian Cushites, had in all probability gone to their respective settlements. The very name, Nimrod, shows a difference between them. It is not the name of a country, or of a family of descendants, like the others mentioned Genesis 10:8; a fact of which Maimonides takes notice (see marg. note, p. 349) when he calls attention to the manner in which Nimrod is mentioned irregularly, as it were, or out of the line, after the other sons of Cush had been disposed of. He was not, like them, a “father of a people,” a patriarch, or ancestor, but a bold adventurer, a “mighty hunter of men before the Lord,” or in defiance of the Lord, who gathered together, out of every people, those who were like himself, not to settle the world, but to prevent its peaceful settlement by engaging in bold and reckless enterprises of an opposite nature. He may be said to have represented the empire-founding, instead of the planting or colonizing, tendency. He was the postdiluvian Cain, and there would seem to be a significance not to be disregarded in the fact that here there is given to this rebellious multitude that same name, αְּ ?πֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, “sons of men,” which, in its feminine form, is used Genesis 6:4 (αְּ ?πεֹ ?ϊδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν) to denote the godless in distinction from the more pious. The line here indicated, between the sons of God and the “sons of men,” was less distinct, perhaps, than that which was drawn between the Sethites and the Cainites, yet it still existed to some extent, making a division between the better branches of the Shemites, with some from both the other lines, and this vast rabble of the sensual and ungodly. The grammatical form of the name Nimrod (which is very unusual for such a purpose) shows that it had a popular, instead of a family, origin. It is the first person plural future jussive, πִ ?ξְ ?ψֹ ?γ, “come let us rebel.” It was the watchword of the impious leader, afterwards given to him as a title by his applauding followers: “Let us break Jehovah’s bands, let us cast his cords from us,” let us build a tower that shall reach Him in the Heavens.On this impious host of Nimrod, predominantly, although not solely, Hamitic, fell especially the scattering and confounding blow, like the bolts from heaven aimed at the rebellious Titans; and hence this rabble of tongues called Hamitic or Turanian, or these allophylic conglomerates which philologists find so remarkable as compared with the enduring unity of the Shemitic, and the diversified, yet unmistakable Arian relationship. These two were, doubtless, affected by the shock; one of them may have had much of its subsequent modification, if not its origin, from it; but on the Hamitic host fell the stone that ground them to powder. “For there Jehovah confounded the language of all the earth” (land or country). This Nimrodian Babel of tongues wrought more or less of confusion everywhere, making the universality in the effect rather than in the immediate causality—a view perfectly consistent with the soberest interpretation of the artless language of Holy Scripture. The causative influence, we may believe, was primarily a spiritual one. It was a confounding not only of their purposes (ξַ ?ηְ ?ωְׁ ?αεֹ ?ϊμֵ ?α, Genesis 6:5)—thus introducing confusion, madness, and discord, into their camp—but also of their ordinary thinkings and conceivings, τῶνἐνθυμήσεωνκαὶἐννοιῶνκαρδίας, Hebrews 4:12, “reaching to the dividing line of soul and spirit,” ψυχῆςτεκαὶπνεύματος, holding back the divine gift of reason, and thus introducing disorder into the sense and the utterance through a prior confusion in the spirit. It deranged their word-formations by a previous derangement of their thoughts. The difficulty attending the mere outer view, here, arises from a fundamental error which may be found, even in acute treatises of philology. Words do not represent things, as outer existences merely, according to the common notion, but rather what we think about things. They are in truth symbols of our own inner world as affected by the outer world of things around us. They translate to us our own thoughts as well as help us to make them known to others. The animal has no such inner world, and therefore it is that he cannot use speech to represent it to himself or to other animals. This would be readily admitted in respect to words representative of thought alone; but it is true also of that large class that seem to stand directly for outward sensible things per se. Here, too, the word called the name represents only remotely the thing named, but nearly and primarily, some thinking, conceiving, or emotion, in our souls, connected with the thing, and giving rise to its name. As proper names are last of all, so these names of outward objects must have come after words denoting action or quality, and from which their own naming, unless supposed to be purely arbitrary, could alone have been derived. Originally they must have been all descriptive, that is, they had a meaning beyond their mere sign significance. In proportion as such primary meanings have faded out in modern languages, have words lost vividness and emotive power, though still remaining as a convenient classifying notation. Thus in early speech the names of animals, for example, were all descriptive. We find it so even now, as far as we can trace them in the significance of their roots. They invariably denote something which the animal does, or suffers, or is, or is supposed to do, to suffer, or to be—thus ever implying some judgment of the human mind respecting it; and tins corresponds to what is said in the Scripture of the animals being brought before Adam to see (μψΰεϊ for Adam to see, judge, decide) what name should be given to each one. This name is ever taken from something more general, and the name of that from something more general still, and so back from the concrete to the more and more abstract, until we are lost in the mystery, and compelled to admit that there is something in ourselves, and in language, which it is not easy to understand. We may be sure, however, that in all these primary names of animals there was something descriptive, though in many it may have been long lost. In some cases it still shines dimly through the wear of time and usage, enabling us to infer it universally. Thus bird, we may be certain, means something more than bird, and dog than dog, even as fowl, fugel, vogel, still carries with it some faint image of flying, and chien, hund, κύων, canis (cano, canorus, χִ ?ιπָ ?δ), suggests the clear, ringing, houndlike sound that denoted the animal in the earliest Arian speech. Connected with this there is another thought that has importance here. The first impression is that nouns, or the names of things, must be older in language than verbs. Examination, however, shows just the contrary as a fact, and then we see that it must be so, if names are not arbitrary, but ever imply some action or quality of the thing, and so an antecedent naming of that action or passion. But not to pursue this farther, it is enough to show that the spring of language is in the thought, the conceiving, the affection, as the source of names for things, and for the relations of things. Confusion here is confusion throughout, and this would be much more operative in a multitude thus affected than in an individual. Break up the community of thought and the community of language is broken up, or begins to break up along with it. It affects not only the matter but the form, the soul, the grammatical structure. Going still deeper, it changes the mode of lexical derivation, or the process through which secondary senses (as they exist in almost all abstract words) come from the primary—the inward etymologies, as they may be called, which are of more importance in determining the affinities of languages than the outward phonetic etymologies on which some philologists almost exclusively insist, and which are so easily lost—all the more easily and rapidly when the more spiritual bonds are loosed. So, on the other hand, the maintaining secure against mutation the higher ideas that dwell in a language, especially its religious ideas, is most conservative both of its matter and form. Thus may we account, in some degree, for the way in which the Shemitic endured the shock that left all around it those masses of fragments which philologists call the Hamitic or Turanian. The great name of God was in it in fulfilment of the promise. Those other remarkable appellations of Deity, El, Allah, Eloah, Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, El Elion, El Olam, παντοκράτωρ, ὕψιστος, ἀιώνιος, have been to it like a rock of ages, giving security to its other religious ideas, whilst these again have entered extensively into its proper names, its common nouns and verbs, conserving it against the corruption and degeneracy of those who spoke it, and giving even to its Arabic and Syriac branches a holy and religious aspect beyond anything presented in any ancient or modern tongue. Well and worthily have the Jewish Rabbis called it μωεοδχεγω, the holy tongue. Truly it is so, whether we regard it as the original Noachian speech, or something later preserved entire from the wreck of the Babel confusion.How this extraordinary breaking up of language took place we may not easily know, though maintaining its possibility, and its strong probability, as a fact, aside from the express Scriptural declaration. There is no department of human inquiry in which we so soon come to the mysterious and inexplicable as in that of language. Some have maintained its onomatopic origin, as has been lately done in a very clear and able treatise by Prof. Whitney. If this, however, is confined to vocal resemblances in the names of sounds themselves, it accounts for only an exceedingly small number of words; if carried farther, to supposed analogies between the names of certain acts, or efforts, and the effort of the organs in pronouncing them, it takes in a very few more; beyond this it would be that idea of some inherent fitness in sounds which has been already considered in the note, p. 377, and to which the name onomatopic may be given in its widest sense; though then, instead of being the easiest, it would be the least explicable of all. So the philologist may endeavor to find the beginning of speech, especially in the names of animals, in the imitation of animal sounds; or he may absurdly trace it to a conventional naming, overlooking the truth that for the initiation of such a proceeding language itself is required—or he may deduce it from accident, or, give him time enough—and a past eternity is very long—he may fancy it coming out of inarticulate or merely interjectional sounds, making its random “natural selections,” until, after ages of chaos, a light inexplicable begins to gleam, an intelligence somehow enters into the process, and thus, at last, language comes into form, as a vehicle of rational, that is, of logical thought. But for human minds, λόγος, speech, and logos, reason, are one; and the serious thinker, who cannot separate them, takes but a few steps in this mysterious search before he is forced, either to acknowledge something superhuman, or to admit that in the birth and growth of language, the instrument of all reasoning, there must be some strange generic intelligence, if such a thing can be conceived, that we utterly fail to discover in the individual logic. In other words, men as a race, or races, do what the individual singly never does, something of which he is wholly unconscious, and which he cannot understand. The thought of divine intervention is the less strange; it presents the less difficulty, and is, therefore, the more rational. We are not to be unnecessarily introducing a divine agency into the world’s drama, but here, surely, it is a nodus vindice dignus, a knot which a divine intelligence can alone unbind. There is not in all nature anything like that spiritual mystery which meets us on the very threshold of an inquiry into the origin and development of human speech. Leaving these more abstruse regions, and descending again to the clearer field of inductive observation, there still meet us those geographical difficulties to which some attention has already been given as inexplicable on any theory of gradual or mutual development. Allusion was before made to the appearances presented by those broken allophylic tongues to which has been given the common name Turanian—showing themselves among the other families, sometimes in contiguous beds, and then again as lying far away and far apart in space, even as they indicate a remote location in time. In such cases everything indicates the sudden projection of an early people, and of an early speech, entire. Succeeding waves of migration have pressed upon their shores, but changed no feature of their language. That seems to have had its form fixed in the beginning, and to defy mutation. Its isolated state, though surrounded by hostile elements, has only rendered it more unyielding in this respect. It will perish rather than change into anything else. There may be pointed out another geographical anomaly on a larger scale, and only explicable, too, on the ground of some early intervention to change the course of what might otherwise have been the ordinary historical development. A little less than a century ago, the learned began to perceive a striking resemblance between the Greek and the ancient language of India; a resemblance both in matter and form. They are both of the Arian or Indo-Germanic family, and yet we have no right to say that one has been derived from the other. From a period transcending all history they have been widely parted, territorially, from each other. They stood in the days of Alexander as distinctly separate as at any time before or after. In all the antecedent period there is no record or tradition of any colonizing on either side, of any military expedition, of any commercial or literary intercourse, that could have produced any assimilating effect. All this time, and for long after, there lay directly between them a territory and a people, or peoples, having nothing, socially or politically, in common with either, and speaking a language, of all others, the most directly foreign to both, or to any common language of which they both could be considered as branches. From Southern Arabia to Northern Syria, or the head waters of the Euphrates nearly, there was the continuous strip of the Shemitic, unbroken and unaffected during all that time. This, as has before been remarked, was, and is, the most tenacious and enduring of all linguistic families. It is still a wide living speech, although Greek and Sanscrit have both died, and been embalmed in their common and Sacred literature, and although this parting language, until comparatively modern times, had no literature except the scanty and most secluded Biblical writings. A branch of the Shemitic, if we may not rather call it the Shemitic itself, continuous and unchanged, is still living, strong and copious. Notwithstanding the addition of many new words, and many new senses that have attached themselves to the old, the Bedouin still talks in a manner that would have been recognized as familiar in the days of Abraham. Could we suppose the patriarch now listening to it, he would hear some strange words mingled with the great body of its earliest roots, and some few later forms, but in its pronouns, its prepositions, its tenses, its conjugations, its logical and rhetorical particles, in the nerves and sinews as well as in the bones of the language, it would strike him as substantially the same kind of talk that had passed between him and his sons Isaac and Ishmael. This most enduring ancient speech has suffered nothing that could be called development from anything on either side of it; and there has been no development across it from one parted shore to the other. Such theories as that of Bunsen, by which he gets Khamism out of Sinism, and Semism out of Khamism, and so on, would never explain this. The difficulty clears up somewhat if we bring in the extraordinary, and suppose some early supernatural cleaving and transformation, leaving one primitive type standing in its place, another, greatly changed, to be carried east and west by one people suddenly parted, and meeting again historically after ages of separation, whilst another type, broken into fragments, is dispersed far and wide to remote portions of the earth. This may be called cutting or breaking the knot, rather than untying, but even if the Bible had been silent, it is better than any hypothesis called natural, yet found to be wholly inadequate to explain the extraordinary phenomena to which it is applied. It is true, give a theorist time enough, and hypothetical conditions enough, and he may seem to develop almost anything out of anything else. Grant him enough of “natural selections,” and he may show us how to make worlds and languages by producing, at last, seeming congruities, falling into place after infinite incongruities. But then, such a method of proceeding, supposed to be inherent in the nature of things, cannot stop (if it goes right on without cycles) until it has abolished all things seemingly incongruous or extraordinary, and introduced a perfect level of congruity everywhere, in the physical, social, and philological world. Only take time enough, or rather suppose, as some do, a past eternity of such working, and the only conceivable result is a perfect sameness; all disorders must long since have been gone, all species must have become one, and that the highest or the lowest, all languages must have become one, and that the best or the poorest—something rising in its linguistic architecture far above the Greek and Sanscrit, or sinking in its looseness below anything called Turanian or Sinitic. The extraordinary, now and then, would be not only the easier conception, but an actual relief from the weariness of such a physical monotony. But we have a more sure word of testimony. The great Bible-fact for the believer is, that, in order to prevent a very evil development of humanity, at a very early day, God interfered with men and confounded their language. There is nothing irrational in this if we believe in a God at all. The manner of doing it is not told us. What is said in Genesis 11 may not wholly explain the linguistic phenomena so early presented, and even now so remarkable; but it may be safely affirmed that far greater difficulties oppose themselves to any other solution that has been, or may yet be offered.—T. L.] Footnotes: [Genesis 11:1.—ΰַ ?ψְ ?τַּ ?λְ ?ωָׁ ?γ. Arphaxad,—pronunciation derived from the LXX., Αρφαξαδ; according to the Hebrew pointing, Arpakshad. It is a compound, evidently, of which the principal part is λωγ, from which the later λωγιν, Chaldζans. It would appear, on these accounts, to be the name of a people transferred to their ancestor, as in many other cases. Among the early nations names were not fixed, as they are with us in modern times. The birth name was changed for something else—some deed the man had done, or some land he had settled, and that becomes his appellation in history. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND PERIODThe Genesis of the patriarchal faith in the promise and of the covenant religion; of the antagonistic relation, between the faith in the promise and heathenism; of the harmonious oppositions between the patriarchs and the human civilization of the heathen world. Patriarchal religion and patriarchal customs.—Genesis 12:1 to Genesis 36:43—————— , THE FRIEND OF GOD, AND HIS ACTS OF FAITH. Genesis 12:1 to Genesis 25:10FIRST SECTIONThe call of Abram. The emigration to Canaan. The first promise of God. His companionship with Lot. The first manifestation of God in Canaan, and the first homeless alienage in the land of promise. Abram in Egypt and Pharaoh Genesis 12:1-201 Now the Lord had said [rather, said] to Abram, Get thee [for thyself, μְ ?κָ ?] out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee [through a revelation]. 2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed [not bless themselves, which is expressed by the use of the Hithpael, Genesis 22:18]. 4So Abram departed [went forth] as the Lord had spoken unto him, and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. 5And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance [gains] that they had gathered, and the souls [all the living] that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan, and into the land of Canaan they came. 6And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem [shoulder, ridge or water-shed] unto the plain [grove] of Moreh [teacher, owner]. And [Although] the Canaanite was then [already] in the land. 7And the Lord appeared unto Abram and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land; and there builded he an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him. 8And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel [house of God] and pitched his tent, having Bethel [now Beitin] on the west [seawards], and Hai [heaps] on the east; and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord. 9And Abram journeyed, going on still [gradually further and further] toward the south. 10And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. 11And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon [or of fair appearance]: 12Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee. 14And it came to pass, that when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh [Fόrst, τֶ ?ψַ ?ς]: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. 16And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep [small cattle] and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses and camels. 17And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house because of Sarai, Abram’s wife. 18And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife; now, therefore, behold thy wife, take her and go thy way. 20And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had. GENERAL 1. The age and state of the world at the patriarchal period. A multitude of nations who were to share in the salvation, through the faith of Abram, were not yet born into the world, especially the Roman and English people. The Germanic tribes lay still in the bosom of the Scythian nomadic life. A thousand years must roll away before the development of the Greek life, and a much longer period before the historical appearance of Rome. The foundation of the patriarchal family, out of whose fuller development into the twelve tribes the Jewish people sprang, begins with Abram. Patriarchalism appears still as the fundamental form under which the popular life exists and works. But out of this constitution a multitude of small kingdoms have grown up in Canaan and Syria. The first feeble attempt at founding a grand world-monarchy was made by Nimrod at Babel and Nineveh. In Egypt the kingdom of the Pharaohs already existed. The formation of national divisions began with the migrations of the people, and to these we may probably trace the rise of castes. The mechanical resemblance of the kingdom of heaven in the dynasty Hia in China appears to have been complete in its outline and characteristic features, before the definite foundation of the organic and living kingdom of heaven was begun in Abram. 2. The Biblework will treat more fully of the land of Canaan in the division, “Book of Joshua.” We refer in passing to the Bible-dictionaries, the geographies, and journals of travellers. See also Zahn: “The Kingdom of God,” i. p. 105. In this section we notice especially Sichem, Bethel, Ai, and the central part of Palestine; the South, especially the vicinity of Hebron and Sichem (now Nablous) lying between Gerizim and Ebal, about eighteen hours from Jerusalem and sixteen from Nazareth, marks the northern principal residence of the patriarchs. Hebron (also Kirjath-Arba, from the giant Arba, now El Kalil, i. e., friend, beloved, in honor of Abram), southerly about eight hours from Jerusalem, a very old city, the city of Abram and David, lying in a blooming and beautiful region, was their principal dwelling-place in the south. Their central residence is the region of Bethel (the name is here anticipated—originally Luz, Genesis 28:19, now the ruins of Beitin), and Ai (the old Canaanitish royal city, Joshua 7:2, two hours easterly from Beitin, northerly from Jerusalem, now Medineh), an elevated rich pasture-ground. 3. The nomadic life forms the natural basis of the patriarchal society. The Greek term nomad (νομάς from νομός pasture-ground) designates the herdsman in a specific sense, as one who roams with his herds over uncultivated tracts, which as commons are in one aspect wastes, in another pasture-grounds. The nomads are thus pastoral tribes and nations which have no fixed dwelling-place. According to the Conversations-lexicon, “they stand higher in the scale of human society than the tribes who live by hunting and fishing, and lower than those who follow agriculture and trade, and belong essentially to the grade of barbarians.” But as an original form of human life, and indeed as the form of the most quiet and retired life, the nomadic state is the basis upon which both the highest human culture and the most extreme savage wildness rest. Original thoughtful minds grew up to be the spiritual princes of humanity in the quietude of the nomadic life; mere common natures grew wild and savage under the same influences. The nomadic state still covers large portions of the race. “In Europe we find only weak nomadic tribes on the great steppes skirting the Black sea, and in the high uncultivated northern latitudes, there Tartar and Turkish, here Finnish tribes. Asia and Africa are the congenial homes of the nomadic life. Nearly all the Finnish, Mongolian, and Turkish tribes, and the mixed tribes which have sprung from them, in the steppes and wastes in the northern, central, and border Asia are nomads; so also the Kurds and Bedouin Arabs of border Asia and North Africa, and nearly all the tribes of Southern Africa, Caffres, Betschuanas, Koranas, and the Hottentots. In South America the Gauchos, and in many respects some Indian tribes, are to be regarded as nomads.” For the nomadic tribes of the East see Schrφder, p. 273, Kohlrausch, a description of the Caravan March, p. 282. For the shepherd, headsman, wilderness, tents, see the articles in Winer [Kitto, Smith, Bible dictionaries.—A. G.] 4. The Period of the Patriarchal Religion, and Form of Religion. “In the New Testament the term πατριάρχης is applied to Abraham, Hebrews 7:4, to the twelve sons of Jacob, Acts 7:8 f., and to David, Acts 2:29. Generally it designates the sacred ancestors of the early periods of the Israelites (Tob. 6:21, Vulgate) whom Paul, Romans 9:5; Romans 11:28, calls οἱπατέρες. Hence it has become customary even in historical language to call all the fathers of the early human races, and especially of the Israelitish people (including the twelve sons of Jacob), who are referred to and distinguished in biblical history, Patriarchs (German Erzvater). Its history, from the old theological point of view, is given by J. H. Heidegger, exercitat. select. de historia sacra patriarchar. (Amsterdam, 1667–8, Zόrich, 1729), and is, perhaps, more critically treated by J. Jak. Hess: “History of the Patriarchs” (Zόrich, 1776). Winer. The patriarch is the beginner or founder of a race or family (the word is formed from ἄρχω and πατριά). The Hebrew designation ψֹ ?ΰωׁ ΰָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ, which the Septuagint translates ἄρχοντεςτῶνπατριῶν (1 Chronicles 9:9; 1 Chronicles 24:31), but in 1 Chronicles 27:22, where the Hebrew term is ωָׂ ?ψֵ ?ιωִׁ ?αְ ?θֵ ?ιιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ, and 2 Chronicles 19:8, ὁπατριάρχης, does not refer to our patriarchs (which Bretschneider labors in his lexicon to authorize), but to the heads of individual branches of the tribes of Israel. Even in the New Testament, as is clear from Acts 2:29, the word has a more comprehensive meaning. In Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedia, article Patriarchs, there is a threefold distinction drawn between the biblical and theological, the Jewish usage as to the synagogue officers, and the churchly and official idea of the word. The Jews, e. g., even after the destruction of Jerusalem, call the presidents of the two schools at Tiberias and Babylon, patriarchs. In the Christian Church all bishops were originally termed patriarchs, but the council of Chalcedon limited the name to those renowned bishops who had raised themselves above bishops, and metropolitans. Here we are dealing only with the biblical and theological meaning of the term. In this relation we must distinguish the general, the narrower, and the most restricted idea of the word. In the general and widest sense, all the theocratic ancestors are included in the term, since the patriarchal faith, as the faith of salvation, forms the highest unity running through the Old and New Testaments. In the wider, earlier usual acceptation, the patriarchal period is viewed as including the pious ancestors of biblical history, from Adam to the twelve sons of Jacob, or to the Mosaic era. See Winer, the article in question, the work of Heidegger above referred to, and Hase’s Hutterus redivivus (Religio patriarchalis antediluviana et postdiluviana). Still, Hess, in his history of the patriarchs, has correctly placed the patriarchs before Abram in an introductory history, and begins the history itself with Abram. The earlier division of the Old Testament revelation into patriarchal, Mosaic, and prophetic religion (i. e., form of religion) is not now at all satisfactory. This division must be completed in one direction through the period of the national Israelitish piety or religiousness (from Malachi to Christ), and in the other through the period of the symbolic original monotheism from Adam to Abram, which may be again divided into the two halves of the antediluvian and postdiluvian primitive history. The symbolic monotheism is distinguished from the patriarchal period both as to form and essence. As to the form of the revelation, the symbol has there the first place, the explanatory word the second (paradise and the paradisaic word, the rainbow and the covenant with Noah); but in the history of the patriarchs the word of revelation holds the first rank, and the signs of the theophany enter in a second line, as its confirmation. Thus also the patriarchal religion stands in a relation of opposition and coherence with the Mosaic system. “The Mosaic system is a remoulding of the patriarchal religion so far as Israel, grown into a people in Egypt, may require a preparatory, and thus a legal and symbolic instruction as to the nature of the faith of Abram and to receive that faith; it is a lower form of that religion so far as the religious life, which already in the patriarchs began to be viewed as an inward life, is here set before the people, who are strangers to it, as an external law; but is also a higher form of that religion so far as the ideas of the religion of promise are unfolded in the law, and in this explicit form are introduced into the life of the people. The law, however, is not the fundamental type of the Old Testament, but the faith of Abram. In the patriarchal religion the word of God is prominent, the symbol is subordinate; the Mosaic system, as also the primitive religion, brings the symbol into prominence (although the symbol as an institution). In Abram the divine promise occupies the foreground, the divine command rests upon it; in the legal period, as to the outward appearance the relation is just the reverse. Evidently the patriarchal religion, as also the prophetic period succeeding to the Mosaic system, regarded in a narrower sense, bears a marked resemblance to Protestantism, while the Mosaic system appears as the primitive type of the Mediζval Catholic Church.” (See Herzog’s Encyclopedia, article Patriarchs.) As to its nature, the faith of Abram is distinguished from the faith of the pious ancestors in this, that he obtains and holds the promise of salvation, not only for himself, but for his family; and from the Mosaic system, by the fact that it expressly holds the promised blessing, in the seed of Abram, as a blessing for all people. In reference to the first, there were earlier lines of the promise: the line of Seth in contrast to that of Cain, the line of Shem in opposition to those of Japheth and Ham. But the line of Seth, through its corruption, is gradually lost in the line of Cain, and the line of Shem forms no well-defined opposition to the one all-prevailing heathenism. It is gradually infected with the taint of heathenism, while on the other hand pious believing lives appear in the descendants of Japheth and Ham. Melchisedec, with his eminent piety, belongs to the Canaanitish people, and thus to the family of Ham. During the whole period of the symbolic primitive religion, the theocratic and heathen elements are mingled together. The dark aspect of this religion is a mythological, ever-growing heathenism; its light side the symbolical, ever-waning, primeval monotheism. Heathenism gathers gradually, as a general twilight, through which glimmer the men of God, as individual stars. Thus Melchisedec stands in the surrounding heathenism. In a religious point of view he is ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος. And he is so far greater than Abram, as he stands as the last shining representative in the Old Testament of the primitive religion looking backwards to the lost paradise (which, however, did not entirely cease in the whole Old Testament period, and is not absolutely extinguished even in later periods of the world); while Abram stands as the first representative of the decided religion of the future, who, as such, has already the promise, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, who is neither ἀγενεαλόγητος nor ἀπάτωρ, since the beginning of his calling appears already in his father, Terah. But the old religion develops itself more definitely into the religion of the future at every step, when the corruption for the time has reached such a degree, that faith, looking out beyond the present and the judgment resting upon it, must fix in its eye a new beginning of salvation. Thus it was in Noah, thus also later in the Messianic prophets. But while Noah out of the flood of waters saved a new race of men, Abram has, through the overflowing flood of heathenism, to found a new particular people of faith, who should be a blessing for all. The blessing is already a very advanced idea of the salvation. For Eve the salvation assumes the idea of victory, for Lamech, rest, for Noah, the preservation of the divine name and the human race; for Abram, it forms the opposition to the curse. For as the curse is the endless, mysterious, progressive destruction of life, so the blessing is the endless, mysterious, progressive enriching and conservation of life. As the condition, indeed, Abram must go out from the heathen world. It is only as in opposition to it, that he can introduce the blessing which is promised in his seed. The pious forefathers had indeed already taken the first step of faith (Hebrews 11). They have, by faith in the creation of the world, uttered the denial of the independence of matter, the fundamental dogma of heathenism (Hebrews 11:3). Abel has taken the second step of faith; he has introduced the sacrifice of faith into the world, and on account of it sacrificed his own life. Enoch has taken the third; he sealed the faith in the new life and rewards beyond the present. Noah carried faith on to the salvation of God in the divine judgments. Abram, through the required renunciation of the world, introduced the Israelitish faith of the future, the hope for the eternal inheritance of God, and its introduction through the inheritance of his blessing. It was the legitimate result of his renunciation of the world that he sealed it through the sacrifice of Isaac. The succeeding patriarchs have developed this faith more fully, each in his own way. Isaac learned to prefer the first-born of the spirit before the first-born of blood; Jacob pointed out Judah as the central line of blessing within the blessings of his sons; Joseph proved his fidelity to the promise until his death. Thus was prepared the renunciation and the calling of Moses. (Taken from Lange’s article in Herzog’s Encyclopedia.) With the introduction of the Abrahamic religion (see the foregoing section) correspond its mild nature and form, and its rich development. As to the first, it must be observed that Abram, notwithstanding the decisive character of his separation from heathenism, still opposes himself to the heathen without any fanaticism. Hence it is said indeed, “Get thee out!” but the second word follows immediately: “thou shalt be a blessing, and in thee shall be blessed, or shall bless themselves, all the families of the earth.” Hence the patriarchs stand upon a friendly footing with the princes of Canaan. In the point of marriage alone, warned by the history of the Sethites, they dreaded theocratic misalliances (Genesis 24:3; Genesis 27:46). In the fourth generation the first historical characteristic type of fanaticism appears in the deed of Simeon and Levi (Genesis 34). The judicial and solemn disapproval of this deed by Jacob (Genesis 49:5) marks the true spirit of the Israelitish religion; the bold commendation of this deed in the book Judith (Genesis 9:2) reveals the later pharisaic Judaism. Even the mixed marriage is legal except in the case of the proscribed Canaanites; and to the questionable and unhappy connections, e. g. of Esau, there are opposed the blessed connections of Joseph and Moses. The only matter of question is whether there is such a certainty of faith that the believing party may raise the unbelieving into the sphere of faith. This was precisely that which modified the crime of Thamar; her fanatical attachment to the house of Jacob, or the tribe of Judah. Mild as was this patriarchal spirit of separation (because it was actually spirit) it was just as strict in the other aspect. Hence there are relative distinctions of the elect from those who are less strictly the chosen, running down through the family of Abram, first in the opposition between Isaac and Ishmael, then in that between Jacob and Esau, finally in the sharp distinctions in the blessings of Jacob. (From the same article.) As to the development of faith in the patriarchal period, it proceeds from the acts of faith in the life of Abram, through the endurance (or patience) of faith in the life of Isaac, to the conflicts of faith in the life of Jacob; but in the life of Joseph the opposition between the sufferings and the glory on account of faith, comes into clear and distinct relief. The promise also unfolds itself more and more widely. The blessing of the descendants of Abram, who should inherit Palestine, divides itself already in the blessing of Isaac upon Jacob, into a blessing of the heavens and the earth, and Jacob’s authority to rule announces more definitely the theocratic kingdom. But in the blessing of Jacob upon Judah, the Shiloh is designated, as the prince of war and peace, to whom the people should be gathered (a further extract from the article in question, p. 199). For the periods of the history of the covenant, see Kurtz, p. 135. For the nature of the patriarchal history, Delitzsch, p. 241–249; [also Baumgarten, Commentary, p. 165–168: Keil, p. 123–125.—A. G.] [Kurtz arranges the history of the covenant under the following periods or stages: the period of the family, including the triad of patriarchs with the twelve sons of Jacob; the period of the people, having its starting point in the twelve sons of Jacob, and running through the Judges; the period of the kingdom; the period of the exile and restoration; the period of expectancy; and the period of the fulfilment.—A. G.] [Delitzsch holds, as we may abridge and condense his views, that the patriarchal history is introductory to the history of Israel, and is completed in three parts—the histories of the three patriarchs. The personal history of the patriarchs revolves around the promise as to Israel, and Canaan its inheritance. The characteristic trait of the patriarchs is faith. This faith shows itself in the whole mighty fulness of its particular elements in Abram; ceaselessly struggling, resolutely patient and enduring, overcoming the world. He is the type of the conflicts, obedience, and victory of faith—πατὴρπάντωντῶνπιστευόντων. His loving endurance repeats itself in Isaac, his hopeful wrestlings in Jacob. ’Επ’ ἐλπίδιπαρ’ ἐλπίδα is their motto. The promise and faith are the two correlated factors of the people of God. Renouncing the present, and in the midst of trials, its life passes in hope. Hope is its true life, impulse, and affection. Desire is Israel’s element. Viewing the patriarchal history from the central point of that history, the incarnation of God in the fulness of time, its position in the history of salvation may be thus defined. There are seven stages in this history: 1. The antediluvian time, both paradisaic and after paradise, during which God was personally and visibly present with men, closing with the flood, when he retires into the heavens and from thence exercises his judicial and sovereign providence. The goal of history is thenceforward the restoration of this dwelling of God with men. The history has ever tended towards this goal. 2. The patriarchal time during which God manifested himself personally and even visibly upon the earth, but only at times and only to a few holy men, the patriarchs, at important points in the history of salvation; and even these revelations cease from Jacob to Moses. The revelation of God in the name ιδεδ, i. e. as the one coming down into history, and revealing himself in it, belongs to this time of the completed creation, of the opening redemption of Israel, His peculiar people. 3. The Israelitish period prior to the exile, during which God did not reveal himself personally and visibly as in the patriarchal period to a few, and to these only at times, but to a whole people and permanently, but still only to a people and not to mankind. There are two distinguishable epochs in this period. In the first Israel is led by the Angel of Jehovah in the pillar of cloud and fire—the glorious and gracious presence of God, visible for the whole people. The second is that of the presence of God in the temple and in the word; in the temple for Israel, but only through the mediation of priests, in the word, but only through the mediation of prophets. But even this lower, less accessible temple-presence ceases when Israel filled up the measure of its iniquities. The glory of Jehovah departed from the temple. As God at first withdrew his manifested presence from the race and destroyed it with the flood, so now from the Jewish people, and abandons Jerusalem to destruction. As the first stage of the history closes with a judgment from the ascended God, and the second in the long profound silence from Jacob to Moses, so the third again ends like the first. 4. The time succeeding the exile, at its commencement not essentially different from the close of the third period. God was present in the word, but the ark of the covenant, the covering, the cherubim, the Urim and Thummim, and, more than all, the Shechinah, the visible symbol of the presence of Jehovah, were wanting in the temple. But prophecy itself grew speechless with Malachi and Daniel. The people complain, We see not our signs, there is no more any prophet (Psalms 74:9). They named Simon the brother of the Maccabeean Jonathan the ἡγούμενοςκαὶἀρχιερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα, but it was ἕωςτοῦἀναστῆναιπροφήτηνπιστόν. Thus forsaken of God, and conscious of its forsaken state, the true Israel passed through this fourth stage of the history, a school of desire for believers waiting and longing for the new unveiling of the divine countenance. Then at last the dawn broke, Jehovah visited his people, and in the mystery now unveiling itself θεὸςἐφανερώθηἐνσαρκί completes in far-surpassing glory the antitype of Paradise. 5. The time of the life of Christ in the flesh. It is now true in the most literal and real sense, ἐσκήνωσενἐνἡμῖν. But at first Israel alone saw him. The rays of his glorious grace reach the heathen only as an exception. But his own received him not. They nailed the manifested in the flesh to the cross. But he who ἐξἀσθενείας died, rose, ἐκδυνάμεωςθεοῦ, and ascended into heaven. He withdrew himself from the people who had despised him. But as Jehovah, after he had seated himself upon his heavenly throne, sent down at the close of the first stage the judgment of the flood, at the close of the third works the destruction of Jerusalem, so now the God-man ascended into heaven abandons Jerusalem to destruction and Judah to an exile which still endures. For Israel he will come again, but in the fire of judgment; and for believers he will also come again, but not visibly nor in the fire of judgment, but in the fire of the Spirit. 6. The stillenduring present, the time of the spiritual presence of the incarnate God in his church. This presence is both more than the visible presence of Christ in the days of his flesh, and less than the visible presence of the exalted one in which it reaches its enlargement and completion. We must not forget that the Spirit sent upon us from the glorified Son of Man is so far the παράκλητος as he comforts us on account of his absence; that all the desire of the Christian is to be at home with Christ; and that the hope of the whole church is embraced in the hope for the revelation of Christ. Without sharing in the exaggerated estimate of the miraculous gifts by the Irvingites, it cannot be denied that our time resembles the second part of the post-exile period, and that the church now, as believers then, desires the return of the wonderful intensity and gracious fulness of the spiritual presence in the primitive church. This desire will receive its fulfilment in the glorious time of the church upon the earth. 7. But the seventh stage of the history of salvation, which endures through the Ζons of Ζons, will first give full satisfaction to all the desires of all believers, and bring that glorious, transcendent restoration of the paradisaical communion with God in the incarnation, to its final perfection. The new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:8) is the antitype of Paradise. The communion of God with the first man to be redeemed, has now become his communion with the finally redeemed humanity. His presence is no longer a transitory alternating, now appearing then vanishing, but enduring, ever the same, and endless; not limited to individuals nor bound to localities, but to all, and all-pervading; not merely divine, but divine and human; not invisible, but visible; not in the form of a servant, but in unveiled glory. God ascends no more, for sin is for ever judged and the earth has become as heaven. He descends no more, for the work of redemption is complete, the whole creation keeps its solemn sabbath, God rests in it, and it rests in God; Jehovah has finished his work, and Elohim is now all in all, πάνταἐνπᾶσιν. See Delitzsch, p. 239–249.—A. G.] 5. The fundamental form of divine revelation, particularly of the revelation of the old covenant, and still more particularly of the patriarchal period (see p. 48, Introd.). The historically-completed fundamental form of the divine revelation of salvation, is the revelation of God in Christ, the God-man, i. e. in one distinct, unique life, wherein the divine self-communication and revelation, and the human intuition of God, are perfectly united in one, while yet as elements of life they are clearly distinguished from each other. The progressive revelation must correspond in its outline and characteristic features to this goal to which it tends. In its objective aspect it must be through theophanies, in its subjective the vision of the revelation of God, in its plan, tendency, and development, Christophanies; the chief points in the interchange between God manifesting himself personally and the receptive human spirits in the pre-figurations of the future advent of Christ. The individual phases in the development of this form of revelation are these: (1) The revelation of God through the symbolism of heaven and earth; visibly for the paradisaic spiritual and natural clear-sighted vision; and coming out in particular words and representations of God, addressed to the ear and eye, promptly, according to the necessities of human development, and according to the energy of the Spirit of God, who translates the signs into words. The form of the primitive religion. (2) The self-revelation of God in the form of an angelic appearance, distinct from his being; the pre-announcement of the future Christ, or the Angel of Jehovah in reciprocal relation and action with the unconscious seeing, as in vision, resting upon the unconscious ecstasies of believers, manifesting himself first through the miraculous report or voice, then through miraculous vision, i. e. first through the word, then through the figurative appearance. The form of the patriarchal religion. (3) The revelation of God, distinguishing his face, i. e. his gradual incarnation, from his being, or nature, or the angel of his presence in reciprocal relation and action, with the conscious visions, based upon unconscious ecstasies. The Angel of his face, or the face. The fundamental form of the Mosaic system. (4) The appearance of Jehovah himself in his glory, in the brightness of his glory, surrounded by angelic forms, in reciprocal relation with the conscious visions, resting upon the conscious ecstasy of the prophets, or Jehovah appearing in his divine Archangel and with his angel-bands over against the prophets overwhelmed and trembling, drawing gradually nearer to the incarnate angel of the covenant (Malachi 3:1). The fundamental form of the prophetic period. (5) The hidden preparation for the advent of the angel of the covenant, in the period of national religiousness; his work in the depths of human nature. (6) Christ the Angel of the Covenant, the unity of the divine revelation and the human intuition of God, and therefore also upon the divine side the unity of God and his Angel, and upon the human side the unity of the spiritual intuitions and the natural vision of Christ. We have already, in what we have thus said, as indeed elsewhere (Leben Jesu, p. 46; Dogmatik, p. 586; Herzog, “Encyclopedia,” The Patriarchs of the Old Testament), stated our view of the Angel of the Lord; but we must here repeat that in our conviction the exegetical prejudice, ever coming into greater prominence, that the Angel of the Lord is a creature-angel, as also the prejudice in reference to the supposed angels (Genesis 6), burdens, obscures, and confuses in a fatal way, Old Testament theology, and leaves no room for a clear psychology of the faith of revelation, an intuitive Christology, or an organic unity of biblical theology. In regard to this point, Kurtz has undertaken with great zeal the defence of the erroneous interpretation, although he had earlier defended the true one, “History of the Old Covenant,” p. 144, 2d ed. We introduce here his reference to the state of the question before we enter upon its discussion. “The views of interpreters, as to the nature and being of the Angel of the Lord (ξַ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, also called ξַ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ δָ ?ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν) who appears first in the patriarchal history, have been divided into two classes. The one sees in him a representation of the deity, entering perceptibly the world of sense, in a human form, and thus is to be regarded as the prefiguration of the incarnation of God in Christ; the other sees in him an angel, like other angels, but who, because he appears in name and mission as a representative of Jehovah, is even introduced and spoken of as Jehovah; indeed, himself speaks and acts as Jehovah. The first view has already made a beaten path for itself in the oldest theology of the synagogue, and in the theological doctrine of the Metatron, of that, from God emanating, godlike revealer of the divine nature, has assumed a definite shape and form, although embracing foreign elements (comp. Hengstenberg: ‘Christology,’ iii. 2. pp. 31–86). It was adhered to by most of the Fathers (Hengstenberg, as above), and with these must be counted the old churchly Protestant theologians. In recent times it has been defended most decidedly and fully by Hengstenberg (i. pp. 125–142, 2d ed.; and iii. 2. pp. 31–86), who, with the Fathers and the old Protestant theologians, recognizes in the angel of the Lord the manifested God, the logos of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and holds this view to be so widely developed in the history of the Old Testament revelation, that it lays the foundation for the doctrine of the logos in the Gospel by John (compare his ‘Commentary on the book of Revelation,’ i. p. 613). Sack (Comment. theol., Bonn, 1821), had already discussed the question, and reached the conclusion, that the angel of the Lord is identical with Jehovah, but that the term does not designate a person distinct from him, but merely a form of manifestation, on which account he prefers to render ξַ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ ‘the commission’ rather than ‘the sent’ (comp. his Apologetik, 2d ed. p. 172). In the footsteps of these two last-named persons, the writer of this [Kurtz] sought to prove, in Tholuck’s Anzeiger, 1846, No. 11–14, that the Maleach Jehovah is God, as presented in the authors of the Old Testament; appearing, revealed, entering into the limitations of space and time, as perceptible by the senses, distinguished from the invisible God, in his exalted and therefore imperceptible existence, above the world of sense, and removed from all the limitations of space and time; still without bringing it to a full, distinct consciousness, whether this distinction was merely ideal or essential, whether it was to be regarded as supposed for the moment, or grounded in the very nature of God. The most important parts of this essay were included in the first edition of this work. Delitzsch: ‘Biblical and Prophetical Theology,’ p. 289; Nitzsch: ‘System;’ T. Beck: ‘Christian Science of Doctrine;’ Keil: ‘Book of Joshua,’ p. 87; Hδvernick: ‘Old Testament Theology,’ p. 73; Ebrard: ‘Christian Dogmatics,’ vol. i.; J. P. Lange: ‘Positive Dogmatics,’ p. 586; Stier: ‘Isaiah, not Pseudo Isaiah,’ p. 758, and others, all agree in the same exhibition of this theological question. “The other view has found a defender in Augustin: De Trinitate, 11. 3, and meets the approval of the Catholic theologians under the influence of their view of the adoration of angels; and of the Socinians, Arminians, and Rationalists, from their opposition to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity. In more recent times, however, some eminent persons, who are entirely free from these interested motives, have adopted this view, viz., Steudel, in his Pfingstprogramme for 1830, and in his ‘Old Testament Theology,’ p. 252 ff.; Hofmann: Weissagung und Erfόllung, i. p. 127, and Schriftbeweis, pp. 154–159 and 321–340; Baumgarten: ‘Com.’ p. 195; Tholuck: ‘Gospel by John,’ 6th ed. p. 52; Pelt: ‘Theological Encyclopedia,’ p. 241; and still more recently, Delitzsch, renouncing his earlier view, and adopting that of Hofmann: ‘Com. on Genesis,’ p. 249. Between Steudel and Hofmann there is, however, this difference, that the former sees in the Maleach Jehovah an angel especially commissioned by God for each particular case—it being left undetermined whether it is one and the same or not, while, in Hofmann’s view, it is one and the same angel-prince, who here, as the Maleach Jehovah, later as the captain of the hosts of the Lord (Joshua 5:14), as the angel of his face (Isaiah 63:9), under the personal name of Michael (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1), as the representative of Jehovah, controls the commonwealth and history of Israel (Weissagung und Erfόllung, pp. 131, 132). In his later work, however, Hofmann has modified his view so far, that the angel who performs this or that work is ever a definite angel, but the same one is not destined for all time, while it is still true that Israel has his prince, his special angel, who is named Michael (Schriftbeweis, p. 157). “Barth has in a most peculiar way attempted to unite the views of Hengstenberg and Hofmann: ‘The Angel of the Covenant. A Contribution to Christology. A Letter to Schelling.’ Leipzig, 1845. He holds, with Hengstenberg, the divine personality, and with Hofmann, the angelic created nature of the Maleach Jehovah, and unites the two views through the assertion of a past assumption of the angelic nature of the logos, analogous to his later incarnation. We leave this view unexamined, as utterly baseless.” Kurtz closes his reference (in the 2d ed.) with the explanation, that he finds himself in the same position as Delitzsch, constrained by his conviction to adopt the view of Hofmann. According to the view of the old ecclesiastical theology, the (First) argument in favor of the self-revelation of God, in the Angel of the Lord, is the personal and real identity in which this Angel-name always appears. If Maleach Jehovah, Maleach Elohim, may designate, some one angel of the Lord, in a peculiar appearance, still it must be kept in view here, that from Genesis 16 onwards this name, with slight and easily explained modifications, is a standing, permanent figure. Hofmann replies: Maleach Hamelech is not the king himself, but the king’s messenger. So also Maleach Jehovah is not Jehovah himself. Certainly! so also the king’s son is not the king himself. According to Hofmann’s view, therefore, it must follow that the Son of God is not God. The nature of God in his self-distinction is exalted far above that of earthly kings. Secondly. The Angel of Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah. He ascribes to himself divine honors, divine determinations (Genesis 16:10-11; Genesis 18:10; Genesis 18:13-14; Genesis 18:20; Genesis 22:12; Genesis 22:15-16 , etc., etc.). Some one objects: The prophets also identify themselves in a similar way with Jehovah. This is simply an incorrect assertion. There is no authentic passage in which the prophet, in the immediate announcement of the word of God, does not in some way make a clear distinction between his person and the person of Jehovah. The examples which Delitzsch quotes, that ambassadors have identified themselves with their kings, rest upon the political rights and style of ambassadors, and are as little applicable to the style of a creature-angel as to that of apostles and prophets. Thirdly. The writers of the history, and the biblical persons, use promiscuously the names Angel of Jehovah, and Jehovah, and render to this angel divine honor, in worship and sacrifice (Genesis 16:13; Genesis 18:1-2; Genesis 21:17-19; Genesis 22:14; Genesis 48:15-16, etc.). Our opponents answer: It is not high treason when an officer, in the name and commission of the king, as the representative of the person of the king, receives the homage of the subjects. It is not his own person, but the person of the king, whom in this case he represents, which comes into strong relief. With this halting, limping comparison, they seek to justify the conduct of the men of faith in the Old Testament, who, in their view, rendered freely and without reproof divine honor to a creature-angel, and did this constantly, whenever this angel appears, notwithstanding the Old Testament abhors and condemns the deifying of the creature, and that here the express divine watchword is: “My glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8). The following reasons are urged in favor of the supposition of a creature-angel: a. The name angel designates, throughout, a certain class of spiritual beings. Kurtz formerly replied to this that the name angel is not one of nature but of office (Malachi 2:7; Haggai 1:13). Although the name angel now indeed points in many cases to a certain class of spiritual beings, still the fact that there are symbolic angel-forms is a sufficient proof that the Angel of the Lord need not necessarily be regarded as a being of that class of spirits. b. Hofmann urges that since the advent of Christ the New Testament speaks of the ἄγγελοςκυρίον (Matthew 1:20; Luke 2:9; Acts 12:7). Kurtz has answered that in the places quoted the expression designates a different person from the Maleach Jehovah of the Old Testament, or even of the speech of Stephen (Acts 7:30). He recalls this reply, however, with the remark that if Matthew and Luke had even had a suspicion that the ἄγγελοςκυρίου in the Old Testament always designated the Son of God, who has since become man in Christ, they would never have used this expression even once in reference to a creature-angel. With this conception of angelic appearances the transition to Hofmann’s view was surely possible and easy. To his objection (p. 120) we reply, that the incarnate Christ at Bethlehem could just as well be made by God to assume an angelic form, near at hand and remote, as the Logos of God in the preparatory steps to his incarnation. To Kurtz this wonderful manifestation of the “ubiquity” of Christ is only a “pure idea” or fancy. But just as (Genesis 18:19) the two angels who went to Sodom are distinguished from the Angel of Jehovah before whom Abraham stood with his intercessory prayer, and as Paul (Galatians 3:19) suggests the distinction between the angel giving the law at Sinai and the Angel of his face, who was the Christ of the Old Testament (1 Corinthians 10:4), so we can distinguish in the New Testament between the two men or the two angels at the grave of the risen one (Luke 24:4; John 20:12), or the two men upon the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:10) on the one side, and the angel who announces the birth of Christ on the other. Only Matthew, in his solemn and festive expression, has embraced these two angels in one symbolic form of the Angel of the Lord, and this indeed upon good grounds, since in the resurrection or the second birth of Christ the Logos was active, as in his birth at Bethlehem. c. Baumgarten urges: Why should the Angel of the Lord first appear to the Egyptian bondwoman, Genesis 16? Kurtz and Delitzsch have, in their earlier works, given various replies to this question. We answer with another question: Why should the risen Christ first appear to Mary Magdalene, and not to his mother or John? We think, according to the simple law, that the Lord reveals himself first to the poorest, most distressed and receptive hearts. It is, besides, a mere supposition that the Angel of the Lord has first appeared here, where he is first named with this name, as we shall see further below. d. Kurtz urges again: It lies against the idea of a continuous development of the knowledge of the historical salvation, in the Holy Scriptures, if there is actually in the very beginning of the Old-Testament history so clear a consciousness of the distinction between the unrevealed and revealed God, and this consciousness is ever becoming more obscure in the progress of the Old Testament, but has vanished entirely and forever in the New Testament. But this is all as manifestly a pure supposition as when Hofmann thinks the Old Testament cannot speak of the self-distinction of God because in that case it would anticipate the doctrine of the Trinity. That indeed is the organic development of revelation from the Old to the New Testament, that the revelation of the Trinity in the divine being was introduced through the revelation of the duality. But when the form of the Angel of the Lord in Genesis, passes to the Angel of his face, or the personified face of Jehovah himself in Exodus, then to the prince over the armies of God in Joshua, and finally to the Archangel, the Angel of the Covenant of the later prophets, the organic development of the doctrine in question is manifest. e. Kurtz remarks again the fact that in the New Testament the law is said to be ordained by angels or spoken by the angel (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2), as in favor of the doctrine of the created angel. Here he plainly refutes himself. For Paul (Galatians 3:19) clearly refers to this feature of the law, that it was ordained by the angel, in order to show that the law was subordinate to the promise given to Abram. But if the mediation through angels is a mark of the imperfection of the law, it follows that Abram could not have received the promise through such a mediation of a created angel. To this end he presses especially the appeal to (Hebrews 2:2) “the great superiority of the promise to the law is derived from this, that the law was announced δι’ ἀγγέλων but the gospel διὰτοῦκυρίου.” For the answer see Romans 4 where the promise to which the law is subordinated appears as the yet undeveloped gospel of the old covenant. f. Hebrews 13:2 refers to the three men who appeared to Abram in the plains of Mamre (Genesis 18). But why not to the two angels whom Lot received (Genesis 19)? The words can refer only to a peculiar kind of hospitality, Abram knew, however, that the men who were his guests were of a higher order, while Lot appears not to have known it at the beginning. g. The angel-prince Michael (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1) has the same position which the Maleach Jehovah has in the historical books. But that Michael cannot be the Logos is clear, since he is not the only ωׂ ?ψβγεμ. Gabriel appears as a second archangel (Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21), (Tob 12:15), adds Raphael and (4 Ezra 4:1) still further Uriel. When I now, from the identity of Gabriel or Michael with the appearing figure in Revelation 1, draw the conclusion,—Gabriel or Michael are symbolical manifested images of Christ (as the old Jewish theology saw in Michael the manifested image of Jehovah), and thus the one symbolical angel-form of the Angel of the Lord or angel-prince has branched itself into the seven archangel forms of the coming Christ. Kurtz finds in these forms “pure ideas” or fancies. But I call them the veiled angelic modes of the revelation and energy of Christ, in the foundation, limits, and life of humanity and history. But Michael had need of help (Daniel 11:1). Indeed! that can in no case be said of the Logos (Luke 22:43). h. Zechariah 1:12, the Angel of the Lord was subordinated to Jehovah. The Angel of Jehovah as the intercessor for Israel prays to Jehovah of hosts (compare the high-priestly prayer John 17). i. Malachi 3:1, the Messiah was named the Angel of the Covenant. “But,” Kurtz argues, “if Malachi had intended by the Angel of the Covenant the Angel of Jehovah, he would certainly so have named him.” Then Moses could not have meant the Angel of the Lord when he speaks of the Angel of his face. Certainly it is true that in the Angel of the Covenant the union of the divine form of the Angel of Jehovah and of the human Son of David, as the divine-human founder of the New Testament, is prophetically consummated. k. The Angel of his face (Exodus 23:20), of whom Jehovah says, My name is in him (Exodus 32:34; Exodus 33:15; Isaiah 63:9), is according to Kurtz the same with the Angel of Jehovah in Genesis. But now (Exodus 32:34) Jehovah appears so to distinguish this angel from himself that we cannot think of him as one with Jehovah. We cannot indeed freely use the ingenious answer to this difficulty by Hengstenberg, which Kurtz contests (see p. 154). But the opposition here is not this, that either a created angel goes with Israel, or the Logos-angel, but this, that he would not longer himself be present in the camp of Israel (Exodus 33:5), but beyond it (Genesis 12:7), that thus a stricter distinction and separation should be made between the impure people and his sanctuary. l. In the history of the three angels who visit Abram in the plains (the oaks) of Mamre (Genesis 18:19), not only the one angel who remains with Abram enters as Jehovah, but the two others, so soon as they were recognized by Lot in their super-earthly being, were addressed by him with the names of God, Adonai, etc. Kurtz, overlooks here the change of persons which appears in the narrative (Genesis 19:17-19). The peculiar work of the two angels continues until Genesis 12:16. They lead Lot out of the city and set him without (before) the city. The angels now retire to the background, and Jehovah comes into view and says, “Escape for thy life.” That Jehovah had gone up from Abram into heaven, and here again stands before Lot, can only be a source of error to the literal conception, which attributes to Jehovah a gross corporeal form, and in the same measure the local changes in space. We do not wonder now that Lot clings to the vanishing angel-forms with the cry, Adonai. Now the one unique appearance presents itself clearly before him (Genesis 19:21). Then (Genesis 19:24) Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven. Without a perception of the change of different voices and visions, and the corresponding change of different revelations, any one will have great difficulty in finding his way through this statement of the struggles of Lot. We now bring into view the gradual development of the specific revelation of God, which begins with the call of Abram. Hofmann asks: Ought we not to expect that the manifestations of God, so far as they form a preparation for the coming of Christ, should from the very beginning of the history of salvation, and not first from Abram, be described as manifestations of the Maleach Jehovah? The whole distinction between the primitive and patriarchal religion is thus overlooked. The faith of salvation first takes on the form of a definite religion of the future and becomes a more definite preparation for the incarnation of Christ, in the faith of Abram. Hofmann himself, as he in other places admits that the Maleach Jehovah is the one only form of theophany in the history of the old covenant, notwithstanding the numerous changes in the designation of the revelation: e. g. “Jehovah appeared,” etc., deprives the implied objection in the above question of any force. Indeed, the appearance of the Maleach Jehovah is announced with the patriarchal revelation. It is recorded (Genesis 12:1), And Jehovah said to Abram. Starke holds, agreeing with the older theologians, that the Angel of the Lord (see Galatians 3:16) is the Son of God himself. But Stephen (Acts 7:2) says the God of glory (δόξα) appeared to our father Abram when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran. The question meets us here therefore: In what relation does the Maleach Jehovah stand to the δόξα or λָּ ?αεֹ ?γύ of Jehovah? In Luke 2:9 there is a very significant parallelism—ἄγγελοςκυρίουἐπέστηαὐτοῖς, καὶδόξακυρίουπεριέλαμψεναὐτούς, i. e. both ideas are bound together in the closest manner and by an inward tie. In Exodus 24:16, Exodus 40:34, the δόξα of Jehovah is in the same way intimately connected with Jehovah. But in Genesis 33 the δόξα of Jehovah, Genesis 12:18, is fully identified with the face of Jehovah, Genesis 12:20. According to Genesis 12:14 (compared with Genesis 12:2 and Isaiah 63:9), the face of Jehovah is identical with the Angel of his face. The Angel of Jehovah is thus the manifested figure of Jehovah, in the same way as his δοξα. The glory fills the holy of holies, and Jehovah appears in the holy of holies (Exodus 40:34 and other passages). According to Isaiah 6:3 the revelation of the δόξα of Jehovah shall fill the whole earth (compare Ezekiel 1:28; Ezekiel 3:12, etc.). In Titus 2:13 Christ who comes to judgment is described as the δόξα (glorious) appearing of the great God, and in Hebrews 1:3 he is styled ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξηςθεοῦ. It is certain that the word δόξα has a manifold signification, and that when used to designate the theophany it points rather to the manifested splendor of the Spirit, than to the spirit of this glorious appearance. (Hence it is closely connected with the pillar of cloud and of fire.) But so much is clearly proved, that the δόξα of Jehovah can properly be personally united with Jehovah himself, with Christ, but not with any creature-angel. It is now in accordance with the course of development, as it is with the character of the patriarchal theophany, that it should begin with the miraculous report or voice, the word (Genesis 12:1), and advance to the miraculous vision or manifestation (Genesis 12:7). For the word of Jehovah is in the first place the primary form of revelation in the time of the patriarchs, and in regard to the vision, it is the more interior (subjective) event, which appears already in a lower stage or grade of the development in the line of visions. After the separation of Abram from Lot (Genesis 13:14) he receives again the word of Jehovah, which blesses him for his generous course, and in a way corresponding with it. So also after his expedition (Genesis 15:1). The blessings in both cases correspond to his well-doing: to his renunciation of the better portions of the land, the promise of the whole land is given, and to the pious man of war, God gives himself as a shield and reward. In the important act of the justification of Abram (Genesis 15), the miraculous appearance enters with the word of Jehovah. The word of the Lord came to him in vision. If now the Angel of the Lord first appears under this name in the history of Hagar (Genesis 16:9), we have the reason clearly given. Hagar had learned faith in the house of Abram, and its power to behold as an organ of vision was developed in accordance with her necessities. But the Angel of Jehovah, as the Christ who was to come through Isaac, had a peculiar reason for assisting Hagar, since she for the sake of the future Christ is involved in this sorrow. Besides, there is no increase of the divine revelation in this appearance; Abram saw Jehovah himself in the Angel of Jehovah, and Sarah also in the manifestation of Jehovah sees above all the Angel. Between Abram’s connection with Hagar and the next manifestation of Jehovah there are full thirteen years. But then his faith is strengthened again, and Jehovah appears to him (Genesis 17:1). The most prominent and important theophany in the life of Abram is the appearance of the three men (Genesis 18). But this appearance wears its prevailing angelic form, because it is a collective appearance for Abram and Lot, and at the same time refers to the judgment upon Sodom. Hence the two angels are related to their central point as sun-images to the sun itself, and this central point for Abram is Jehovah himself in his manifestation, but not a commissioned Angel of the Lord. Thus also this Angel visits Sarah (Genesis 21:1; compare Genesis 18:10). But the Angel appears in the history of Hagar a second time (Genesis 21:17), and this time as the Angel of God (Maleach Elohim), not as the Maleach Jehovah, for the question is not now about a return to Abram’s house, but about the independent settlement with Ishmael in the wilderness. The person who tempts Abram (Genesis 22:1) is Elohim—God as he manifests himself to the nations and their general ideas or notions, and the revelation is effected purely through the word. Now also, in the most critical moment for Abram, the Angel of the Lord comes forward, calling down to him from heaven since there was need of a prompt message of relief. In the rest of the narrative this Angel identifies himself throughout with Jehovah (Genesis 12:12; Genesis 12:16). To Isaac also Jehovah appears (Genesis 26:2), and the second time in the night (Genesis 19:24). He appears to Jacob in the night in a dream (Genesis 28:12-13). Thus also he appears to him as the Angel of God in a dream (Genesis 31:11), but throughout identified with Jehovah (Genesis 12:13). Jehovah commands him to return home through the word (Genesis 31:3). Laban receives the word of God in a dream (Genesis 31:24). The greatest event of revelation in the life of Jacob is the grand theophany, in the night, through the vision, but the man who wrestles with him calls himself God and man (men) at the same time. According to the theory of a created angel, Jacob is not a wrestler with God (Israel), but merely a wrestler with the Angel. It is a more purely external circumstance which God uses to warn Jacob through the word to remove from Shechem (Genesis 35:1). In the second peculiar manifestation of God to Jacob after his return from Mesopotamia (Genesis 35:9), we have a clear and distinct reflection of the first (Genesis 32:24). In the night-visions of Joseph, which already appear in the life of Isaac, and occur more frequently with Jacob, the form of revelation during the patriarchal period comes less distinctly into view. But then it enters again, and with new energy, in the life of Moses. The Angel of Jehovah (Exodus 3:2) is connected with the earlier revelation, and here also is identified with Jehovah and Elohim (Genesis 12:4). But he assumes a move definite form and title, as the Angel of his face, since with the Mosaic system the rejection of any deifying of the creature comes into greater prominence, and since it is impossible that the face of God should be esteemed a creature. The reasons which are urged for the old ecclesiastical view of the Angel of the Lord, are recapitulated by Kurtz in the following order: 1. The Maleach Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah. 2. Those to whom he appears recognize, name, and worship him as the true God. 3. He receives sacrifice and worship without any protest. 4. The biblical writers constantly speak of him as Jehovah. We add the following reasons: 1. The theory of our opponents opens a wide door in the Old Testament for the deifying of the creature, which the Old Testament everywhere condemns; and the Romish worship of angels finds in it a complete justification. 2. The Socinians also gain an important argument for their rejection of the Trinity, if, instead of the self-revelation of God, and of the self-distinction included in it in the Old Testament, there is merely a pure revelation through angels. As the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the Old Testament, so no one can remove from the Old Testament the beginnings of that doctrine, the self-distinction of God, without removing the very substructure on which the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity rests, and without obscuring the Old Testament theology in its very centre and glory. 3. It would break the band of the organic unity between the Old and New Testaments, if it could be proved that the central point in the Old Testament revelation is a creature-angel, and that the New Testament revelation passes at one bound from this form to that of the God-man. The theory of the creature-angel in its continuation through a colossal adoration of angels, points downwards to the Rabbinic and Mohammedan doctrine of angels which has established itself in opposition to the New Testament Christology, and is bound together with that exaggerated doctrine of angels in more recent times, which ever corresponds with a veiled and obscure Christology. On the other hand, it removes from the New Testament Christology its Old Testament foundation and preparation, which consists in this, that the interchange between God and men is in full operation, and must therefore prefigure itself in the images of the future God-Man 1:4. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONAbram as a witness for God in Canaan, and his self-denying separation from Lot. The New Promise of God. His altar in Hain (oaks) Mamre Genesis 13:1-181 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south [of Canaan]. 2And Abram was very rich, in cattle [possessions], in silver, and in gold. 3And he went on his journeys [nomadic departures, stations] from the south, even to Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai; 4Unto the place of the altar which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called upon the name of the Lord. 5And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks [small cattle], and herds [large cattle], and tents. 6And the land was not able to bear [support] them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. 7And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle, and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then [as owners, settlers, ιωֵׁ ?λ] in the land. 8And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren [men, brethren]. 9Is not the whole land before thee [open to thy choice]? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. If thou wilt take the left hand [land], then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left. 10And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain [literally, circle] of Jordan [the down-flowing, descending = Rhein], that it was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom [burning] and Gomorrah [submersion], even as the garden of the Lord [paradise, in Eden with its stream], like the land of Egypt, as [until] thou comest to Zoar [smallness, the little one]. 11Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east [ξִ ?χֶּ ?γֶ ?ν, from the east, Septuagint and Vulgate incorrect]: and they separated themselves the one from the other. 12Abram dwelled in the land [province] of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain [the circle], and pitched his tent toward Sodom [until it stood at Sodom]. 13But the men [people] of Sodom were wicked, and sinners before the Lord exceedingly. 14And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes and look [out] from the place where thou art northward [to Lebanon], and southward [the desert], and eastward [to Perea], and westwards [the sea]. 15For all the land which thou [thus] seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever [to eternity]. 16And I will make [have determined] thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. 17Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee. 18Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre [fatness, strength: name of the owner], which is in Hebron [connection, confederacy], and built there an altar unto the Lord. AND 1. The Return of Abram from Egypt, and the introduction of the Separation from Lot (Genesis 13:1-9). Into the south.—Abram returned with Lot, whose migration with him to Egypt is thus presupposed, to Canaan, not as in Luther’s version, to the south, but northwards to the southern part of Palestine, to the region of Hebron and Bethlehem, from which he had gone to Egypt. The πֶ ?βֶ ?λ is a term which had obviously attained geographically a fixed usage among the Israelites, and points out the southern region of Palestine. But the pasture-ground in this region seems to have been insufficient for Lot and himself at the same time. Besides his treasures in gold and silver he had grown rich in the possession of herds, especially through the large presents of Pharaoh. Hence he removes further, by slow and easy stages, to the earlier pasture-grounds between Bethel and Hai. Here, where he had earlier built an altar, he again sets up the worship of Jehovah with his family. This worship is itself also a preaching of Jehovah for the heathen. But even here the pasture-land was not broad enough, since Lot also was rich in herds, and the Canaanite and Perizzite then held the greater part of that region in their possession. These Perizzites are referred to, because they were those with whom Abram and Lot came most frequently into contact, and were their rivals. “The Perizzites, who do not appear in the genealogical lists of the Canaanitish tribes, but only in the geographical enumeration of the inhabitants of the land (Genesis 15:20; Exodus 3:8; Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 11:3), and whom we find in different parts of Canaan, are inhabitants of the lowlands, who devote themselves to agriculture and grazing (Ezekiel 38:11; ZeGen Genesis 2:4; Deuteronomy 3:5; 1 Samuel 6:18). The Perizzites, as the author intimates, were in possession of the best pastures; those only remained to Lot and Abram, which they had despised.” Hengstenberg. Schrφder conjectures that the Canaanites here designate the inhabitants of the cities in contrast with the Perizzites who dwelt in the open country. But the name designates, beyond question, not only a mode of life, but a peculiar people, and they are brought into notice here, because they were thickly crowded in the region of Bethel, with Abram. Gerlach: “Perizzites, probably dwellers in perazoth, open courts, or villages, inhabitants of the country, in distinction from those who dwelt in cities.” But then the greater portion of the Canaanites would have been Perizzites, from whom still Gerlach distinguishes the Canaanites. They appear to have been nomads. In Genesis 34:30, they appear in Sichem; in Joshua 11:3, between the Jebusites and Hittites, upon the mountains. Against the interpretation, inhabitants of the open country, see Keil, p. 137, who distinguishes the form δַ ?τְּ ?ψִ ?ζִ ?ι and δַ ?τְּ ?ψָ ?ζִ ?ι (Deuteronomy 3:5), inhabitants of the low or flatlands.—Let there be no strife between me and thee.—The strife between the herdsmen, would soon issue in a strife between their masters, if these should quietly or willingly permit the disorder. It is possible that Lot’s restless, uneasy temper, had already betrayed itself in the open strife of his servants. The position of the words of Abram, between me and thee, standing before the allusion to the herdsmen, would seem to intimate something of this kind.—We are brethren (brother men). The law controversies, which, although sometimes allowable between strangers, are yet in all ways to be avoided, ought not to have place between brethren. Here kindred, piety, and affection, should make the utmost concessions easy. In his humility Abram places himself on an equality with Lot, calls him brother, although he was his nephew, and owed to him the duty of a son. Indeed, he so far takes the subordinate place, that he yields to him the choice of the best portions of the land.—If thou wilt take the left hand.—The word of Abram has passed into a proverbial watchword of the peace-loving and yielding temper, in all such cases when a distinction and separation in the circumstances becomes necessary. 2. Lot’s Choice, and the Separation(Genesis 13:10-13). The bold, unblushing, self-seeking features in Lot’s character come clearly into view here. He raises his eyes, and with unrestrained greediness chooses what seems to him the best. The circuit of the Jordan, i. e. the region of the Jordan (named simply δַ ?λִּ ?λָּ ?ψ), includes the deep valley of the Jordan (the Ghor), from the Sea of Tiberias to the Dead Sea. The whole valley, until we reach the Red Sea, is the Arabah, which takes its name from the region here mentioned. It is the vale of Siddim (Genesis 14:3), the present region of the Dead Sea, which is here intended. That the lower valley of the Jordan was peculiarly well-watered, and a rich pasture-region, is expressed by a twofold comparison; it was as Paradise, and as the land of Egypt. The lower plain of the Jordan was glorious as the vanished glory of Paradise, or as the rich plains of the Nile in Egypt, which were still fresh in the memory of Lot. For the Jordan and its valley, compare the Bible Dictionories, geographical works, and books of travels.—As thou comest to Zoar.—At the southeast of the Dead Sea (Ghor el Szaphia).—And they separated themselves, the one (a brother) from the other.—The separation was brotherly in a good and evil sense; good in the mind and thought of Abram, and as to its peaceful form, but evil in so far as the nephew acts as a privileged brother, and chooses the best of the land.—And Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan.—The opposition here is not, as Knobel thinks, between Canaan and the lower valley of the Jordan, but between the land of Canaan in which Abram remained, and the plain rich in cities—(ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υ must be emphasized in opposition to ςָ ?ψֵ ?ι). This also forms a distinct feature in Lot’s character. Abram remained in the retirement of his oaks, from which Lot removed further and further toward the cities of the valley, and indeed to those most renowned; he soon has his pastures in the neighborhood of Sodom, and his dwelling in Sodom itself. In Sodom, even, we find him in the most frequented place—at the gate. While there is no doubt that he left Mesopotamia in the characteristic faith of Abram, yet the prominence of the worldly thought and inclination is revealed in him, through these facts, although he on the whole preserves in the very heart of his disposition and thought, the essential features of faith and reverence for God. “Sodom must have lain at the southwesterly end of the Dead Sea. The allusion to the pillar of salt points to this location (Genesis 19:26), and its name is still preserved there in the present Usdum. The near vicinity of Zoar (Genesis 19:20), which must be sought in the Ghor el Szaphia (see Genesis 19:22) and the general nature of the southern part of the Dead Sea, are in favor of this location.” Knobel. It is true, that the kindred of the Israelitish tribes left Palestine (Genesis 21:14; Genesis 25:6; Genesis 25:18; Genesis 36:6), but it by no means follows, as Knobel holds, that the writer brings this into prominence from special and interested motives, for the same writer records also the journeyings of the Israelites into Egypt.—But the men of Sodom.—We shall learn more fully the wickedness of the Sodomites in the 19th ch. It is referred to here, in order to show that Lot had chosen foolishly when he thought that he was choosing the best portion, and in order to make way for the history of the punishment which came upon Sodom, in which Lot also must suffer for his folly.3. The Renewal and Enlargement of the Promise of the Land of Canaan, with which Abram’s new act of self-denial was rewarded, and his settlement in the groves (oaks) of Mamre, in Hebron(Genesis 13:14-18).—Lift up now thine eyes and look.—After the departure of Lot, Jehovah commanded Abram now also to lift up his eyes, in pious faith, as Lot had raised his eyes in impious and shameless self-seeking. Since Bethel was about central in the land, and lay high upon a mountain (Genesis 12:8; Genesis 35:1, etc.), this direction is evidently historical; probably Abram could look far and wide over the land in all directions from this place.—Northwards (towards the midnight), etc.—The designation of the four-quarters of the heavens (com. Genesis 28:14).—And I will make thy seed. As the land should be great for the people, thy posterity, so thy people shall be numerous, or innumerable for the land. The seed of Abram are compared with the dust of the earth, with reference to its being innumerable. At a later point, the one hyperbole falls into two: “as the stars of heaven, and as the sand upon the sea-shore” (Genesis 15:5; Genesis 22:17).—Arise, etc. “The free passage through the land, should serve to animate his faith, and be a sign for his descendants of the symbolic seizure and possession of the land. The command is not to be understood as a literal direction; Abram could view the land promised to him, at his pleasure.”—Then Abram removed his tent. “The oak-grove of Mamre lay in Hebron, and is often mentioned as the residence of the patriarchs (Genesis 14:13; Genesis 14:18; Genesis 35:27). It had its name from the Amorite Mamre, a confederate with Abram (Genesis 14:13; Genesis 14:24), as the valley northerly from Hebron holds its name, Eschol, from a brother of Mamre” (Numbers 13:23). Knobel. According to Knobel, the later custom of sacrificing to Jehovah at Hebron (2 Samuel 15:7), is dated back to the times in Genesis. Still, he can neither deny the migrations, nor the piety of Abram. As to the circumstance that, according to Joshua 15:13, Hebron at an earlier date was called Kirjath-arba, see the Introduction. For the founding of Hebron, see Numbers 13:23. Bunsen: “This remarkable narrative bears upon its face every evidence of historical truth, and is most fitly assigned to a time soon after 2900 years before Christ.” AND ETHICAL1. In the history of Abram we must distinguish throughout the providence of God, and the conduct of the patriarch. In the previous chapter the providence of God preserves in safety the promise to Abram, since it preserves Sarah inviolate. In this a new confirmation of the promise appears in the separation from Lot. The conduct of Abram is in both cases marked by a renunciation of self, grounded in faith. As the previous chapter portrays the self-renunciation of Abram in reference to his country, and his father’s house, in regard to a fixed settlement in Canaan, and to his connubial blessedness, so here we meet a like renunciation as to the relative position of Lot, and as to the best parts of Palestine itself. For this new act of self-denial is twofold. With the separation of Lot, leaving out of view now the society and assistance which Abram might have had in him, and which was renounced, his former patriarchal dependence upon Abram ceases, and with the residence of Lot and his family in the best of the land, there might arise a serious prejudice to the claims of the descendants of Abram to the land. But in regard to this also he trusts God, and in this case, without any exaggerated or over-hasty confidence, such as appeared in the exposure of Sarah.2. Abram returns to the place of his altar in Bethel. In like manner Christian settlements, towns, and villages, cluster around their churches. 3. The wealth of Abram is referred to by the early writers as an example that even rich people may be pious, and also that the pious may be rich. And indeed, without any contradiction to the word of Christ (Matthew 19:24), for Christ himself explains that word more fully in the 26th verse, by the thought, that through the grace of God, one could be freed from the influence of his wealth, and enabled in humility to use it as a moral good for the glory of God. The writing of Clemens Alex., Τίςὁσωζόμενοςπλούσιος, is in place here. Moreover, the danger of riches appears prominently here, in the very first case in which riches, as such, are mentioned. His riches were, in some measure, a tax to Abram, since he could not find room for his herds, and his possessions threatened to involve him in hostility with his nephew. It is here also, as always, tainted with a want; the want in this case of sufficient pasturage, and the necessity for the separation of Abram and Lot. But for Lot, indeed, his wealth becomes a temptation, which he does not resist in any creditable way. 4. The germinal divisions of masters ofttimes reveal themselves clearly in the strifes of their servants and dependents. Even the wives are often in open hostility while their husbands are still at peace. Abram teaches us how to observe these symptoms in the right way. His proposal to separate arises from his love of peace, not from any selfish regard to his own interests.5. A law-suit is always doubtful or hazardous, although often necessary. Law-suits between brethren are to be avoided with double care and earnestness. How beautiful it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psalms 133:1); but a peaceful separation is also beautiful, if it prevents a dwelling together in strife and hatred. This holds true also in spiritual things. Abram must avoid with special watchfulness giving an offence to the Canaanites.6. “Wilt thou to the left hand,” etc. An eternal shining example, and a watchword of the peace-loving, magnanimous, self-denying character which is the fruit of faith.7. The character of Lot. Its light side must not be overlooked. He had left Mesopotamia and his father’s house, cleaving to Abram and his faith, and up to this time had remained true to him in all his march through the land, to Egypt and back. Still, the return from the rich land of Egypt may have awakened in him thoughts similar to those which wrought with many of the Israelites, who murmured against Moses. At all events, the lower valley of the Jordan appears to him specially desirable, because it bears such a resemblance to Egypt. And in the way and manner, violating both modesty and piety, in which he chose this province, and regardless of religious prudence, yielded himself to the attractions of Sodom; the shaded and darker features of his character, the want of sincerity, delicacy, and that freedom from the world which became a pilgrim, are clearly seen. He is still, however, a man who can perceive the angels, and protect them as his guests. In comparison with the Sodomites he is righteous. 8. Lot makes the worst choice, while he thinks that he has chosen well. For his worldly-mindedness, the sin in his choice, he was first punished through the plundering of his house, and his captivity in the war of the kings, which followed soon after his choice, and then through his fearful flight from Sodom, and the losses, misfortunes and crimes which were connected with it. Thus, the want of regard to true piety, the selfishness, the carelessness as to the snares of the world, must ever be punished. And indeed, it is just when one thinks, that in his own wilful and sinful ways, he has attained his highest wishes, he finds himself ensnared in the retributions of divine righteousness, which rules over him and works with solemn irony. 9. We must distinguish clearly the times of the revelation and manifestation of Jehovah in the life of Abram, from the times in which he conceals himself from view, which may be regarded as the times of the elevation and sinking of the faith of Abram. He enjoys the first manifestation of God after the first proof of his faith, his migration to Canaan. On the contrary, there is no intimation of any revelation of God on his return from Egypt. But after Abram’s noble act of faith towards Lot, he again receives a new promise in a new word of the Lord. Then again, after his march for the rescue of Lot (Genesis 15:1). From his connection with Hagar, thirteen years elapse without any mention of a divine revelation, and the revelation which then follows (Genesis 17:1 ff.) wears the form of a renewal of the covenant (Genesis 15). But now, after Abram had obeyed the command as to circumcision, he enjoys the fullest manifestation of God, with the most express and definite promise (Genesis 18:1 ff.). Thus after his intercessory prayer for Sodom, he is rewarded by the appearance of the angels for Lot, and Lot’s salvation (Genesis 19:29). After the events at Gerar, and his deportment there (Genesis 20), the quiet and ordinary course of life is only broken by the birth of Isaac, and then follows the great trial of his faith, which he heroically endured, and receives the seal of his faith. From this introductory completion of his life, it unfolds itself in the calm coming and going of the evening of his days. But the promises of God always correspond to the acts and conduct of faith which Abram had shown. 10. Lift up thine eyes and look (Genesis 13:14). A glorious antithesis to the word: And Lot lifted up his eyes. The selfish choice brings disgrace and destruction, the choice according to the counsel and wisdom of God secures blessing and salvation.11. “This is the third theocratic promise, including both the first (Genesis 12:1-3) and the second (Genesis 12:7).” Knobel. But it has also, like the preceding, its own specific character. The first promise relates to the person of Abram; in him and in his name are embraced all promised blessings. In the second a seed was more definitely promised to Abram, and also the land of Canaan for the seed. But here, in opposition to the narrow limits in which he is with his herds, and to the pre-occupation of the best parts of the land by Lot, there is promised to him the whole land in its extension towards the four quarters of heaven, and to the boundless territory, an innumerable seed. It should be observed that the whole fulness of the divine promise, is first unreservedly declared to Abram, after the separation from Lot. Lot has taken beforehand his part of the good things. His choice appears as a mild or partial example of the choice of Esau (the choice of the lentile-pottage). 12. The Holy land: an allegory of Paradise, a symbol of heaven, a type (germ) of the sanctified and glorified earth. 13. For the primitive, consecrated Hebron, and the oak-grove Mamre, see the dictionaries, geographical hand-books, and books of travels, and also the Bible-work, Book of Joshua. 14. Starke (the Freiberg Bible): “This is the first time that silver and gold are mentioned since the flood, and we may infer, therefore, that mining for these metals must have been practised.” (Reflections upon Tubal-Cain). 15. The declaration that the Canaanites and Perizzites were then in the land, like the allusion to the Canaanites, Genesis 12:6, furnishes no ground for the inference, according to Spinoza, that the passages were first written when there were no longer any Canaanites and Perizzites in the land. For the first passage says plainly, that it was on account of the Canaanites that Abram felt it necessary to go through the land to Sichem; and here again, that owing to their presence, he and Lot found themselves straitened for pasture-ground, and were compelled to separate. AND See Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs. The happy exodus of Abram from Egypt, a prophecy or type of the glorious Exodus of the children of Israel.—Abram’s return to the altar in Bethel.—The house of God the consecration of the home.—Abram and Lot.—The love of peace characteristic of the believer.—The scandal of kindred and family strifes.—The eager watchfulness of servants.—The true separation for the sake of peace.—The watchword of Abram in its typical significance.—The blessing of a spirit of concession.—The character of Lot in its lighter and darker aspects.—Lot’s choice: 1. In its fair promise; 2. in its evil results.—The third promise of God to Abram.—The peril of the worldly life, and the blessing of retirement: Lot in the gate of Sodom, Abram in the oak-grove of Mamre.—How quickly the paradise of Lot’s choice lay in the terrible depths of the Dead Sea.—How firm the promise of the eternal possession of the Holy land to Abram’s seed: 1. The conditional character of the promise with reference to his natural descendants (the Arabians in Palestine are still his natural sons); 2. its unconditional character for his believing children (Matthew 5:5). Starke: Abram and Lot feared God; they were related, and fellow-travellers. Poverty, hunger, and toilsome journeys to and fro, could not bring about any strifes, but the abundance of temporal possessions had nearly accomplished it, when Abram saw and marked the cunning of the devil. If this could happen to holy men like these, we may easily, see how far Satan may carry those whose hearts cling to this world’s goods.—Lange, Genesis 13:2 : It is one thing to be rich, and quite another to desire riches, and bend all one’s energies and efforts to that end. It is not the former, but the latter, which is in opposition to true faith, and the divine blessing (Sir 31:1). Genesis 13:7. The devil is wont to sow tares, misunderstandings, and divisions, even between pious men and believers (Psalms 133:1). Genesis 13:8-9. What a beautiful example of humility and the love of peace! The elder yields to the younger.—Whoever will be a son of Abram, must strive to win his neighbor by love, but never seek to prevail by violence. Genesis 13:13. It is commonly (often) true, that the people are more depraved in those parts of the land which are more rich and fruitful (Psalms 106:24-29).—A good land seldom bears pious people, and we cannot endure prosperous days with safety (Ezekiel 16:49).—Osiander, upon Genesis 13:18 : Religious worship at the first and last.—Lisco: In this history, the principal thing is the grace of God towards the chosen race, the divine providence, through which circumstances are so arranged as to separate from this race one who was not a constituent portion of it. Under this providence Lot freely concedes all his claims to the land of promise, to which the plain of Jordan no longer belonged (certainly not the plain of Sodom, after its submersion). This interpretation is manifestly correct from the account Genesis 13:14-15, that the new promise of the land of Canaan was given to Abram after the departure of Lot. Genesis 13:16. Includes not barely the natural but also the spiritual descendants—the children of Abram by faith (Jeremiah 33:22).Genesis 13:17. This journey should be a type of the possession which took place much later under Joshua.—Gerlach upon Genesis 13:2. The outward earthly blessing was, to this man of faith, a pledge of the spiritual and invisible.—Passavant: 1 John 2:15; Matthew 5:5; Matthew 5:9; Matthew 6:33.—Indeed, if we only assert our just right and possessions, harshly and firmly, there is no praise nor reward from God, no promise—no pleasant bow of peace; we have our reward, blessing and peace therein.—Schrφder: From all these notices in reference to Canaan, it is clear that everything in this chapter bears upon the land of promise.—Calvin: If no Canaanites surround us, we still live in the midst of enemies, while we live in this world.—Luther: To the service of God, and the preaching of religion, and faith towards God (Genesis 13:4), there is added now a most beautiful and glorious example of love to our neighbor, and of patience.—Abram’s generous and magnanimous spirit comes out all the more clearly, through the directly opposite conduct of Lot (Genesis 13:10).—Because Lot had in eye only the beauty of the land, he had no eye for the far higher, inward beauty of Abram’s character.—Schwenke: In his faith, Abram had placed a low estimate upon the world and its good things, and found a much richer blessing.—Heuser: Abram in his disturbed relation with Lot: 1. The disturbance; 2. the way in which Abram removed it; 3. the thought which gave him strength for his work. Footnotes: [Genesis 13:5. To Lot also there were flocks. The blessing upon Abram overran and flowed over upon Lot. Jacobus, p. 237.—A. G.] [Keil adds, as of still greater force, the use of the name, now with the Canaanites, and now with the other tribes of Canaan, who obviously derive their names from their ancestors, or the head of their tribe.—A. G.] [Stanley: “Sinai and Palestine;” Jacobus: “Notes.”—A. G.] [This is one of the numerous passages which prove the unity of Genesis.—A. G.] [Stanley describes the hill as the highest of a succession of eminences, from which Abram and Lot could take the wide survey of the land on the right hand and on the left, such as can be enjoyed from no other point in the neighborhood.—A. G.] [“The promise of the land for a possession is ςַ ?γςεֹ ?μָ ?ν. The divine promise is unchangeable. As the seed of Abram should have an eternal existence before God, so also Canaan is the eternal possession of this seed. But this does not avail for the natural descendants of Abram as such, or his seed according to the flesh, but for the true spiritual seed, who receive the promise by faith, and hold it in believing hearts. This promise, therefore, neither prevents the exclusion of the unbelieving seed from the land of Canaan, nor secures to the Jews a return to the earthly Palestine, after their conversion. Through Christ the promise is raised from its temporal form to its real nature; through him the whole earth becomes a Canaan.” Keil.—“Quum terrain sζculum, promittitur, non simpliciter notatur perpetuitas; sed quζ finem accepit Christi adventu.” Calvin.—A G.] [“Dwelt, settled down, made it the central point of his subsequent abode in Canaan.” Wordsworth.—A. G.] [“Its earliest name was Hebron, but it was later called Kirjath-arba by the sons of Anak. When the Israelites came into the possession of the land, they restored the original patriarchal name.” Baumgarten, p. 178. Also, Hengstenberg’s Beitrδge, ii. p. 187 ff.; and Kurtz: “History of the Old Covenant,” p. 169.—A. G.] [“Abram went up out of Egypt. In the history of Abram, the father of Isaac, the type and pattern of the true Israelites, we see prophetic glimpses of the history of his posterity. Abram went out of Egypt very rich in cattle, silver, and gold. Abram had his Exodus from Egypt into Canaan, and it was a prefiguration of theirs, Exodus 12:35; Exodus 12:38, which in time prefigures the pilgrimage of the church through the world to the heavenly Canaan. Is not the life of Abram, as presented in the Pentateuch, so wonderfully preadjusted to the circumstances and necessities of all the Israel of God, a silent proof of its genuineness and inspiration?” Wordsworth.—A. G.] [The heavenly principle of forbearance evidently holds the supremacy in Abram’s breast. He walks in the moral atmosphere of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:28-34). Murphy.—A. G.] [“The practical nature of Abram’s religion was most strikingly developed here. His conduct was marked by humility, condescension, and generosity.” Bush: the natural fruits of his faith.—A. G.] [The presence of those powerful tribes is mentioned to show why Abram and Lot were so straitened as to pasturage, to signalize the impropriety and danger of their quarrelling among themselves, and to show that Abram felt that the eyes of these idolaters were upon him, and that any misstep on his part, as the representative of Jehovah, would be an occasion of stumbling to them.—A. G.] [“Abram could have claimed the exclusive possession on the higher ground of the Divine promise and plan. But this exclusiveness is not the spirit of our holy religion.” Jacobus, p. 239.—A. G.] [Murphy suggests that he was a single man when he parted from Abram, and therefore that he married a woman of Sodom, and thus involved himself in the sin of the Antediluvians, Genesis 6:1-7.—A. G.] [“Thus he who sought this world lost it; and he who was willing to give up anything for the honor of God and religion, found it.” Fuller; see Bush, p. 219.—A. G.] [“Abram has now obtained a permanent resting-place in the land, but not a foot-breadth belongs to him. His household is smaller in number than at first. He is old and childless, and yet his seed shall be as the dust of the earth. All around him is his, and he is only one among the thousands—but ἐπ’ ἐλπίδιπαρ’ ἐλπίδα.” Delitzsch.—A. G.] [See also in confirmation the Epistle to the Hebrews, Genesis 11:10; Genesis 11:16, where the apostle points to the true and highest sense of the land promised. The spiritual seed require a heavenly inheritance, and the heavenly inheritance implies a spiritual seed.—A. G.] [The whole chapter remarkable, as it presents to us the workings of faith in the domestic and ordinary life, in the common transactions between man and man, and affords us an opportunity of observing how far his daily life was in unison with that higher character with which the inspired writers have invested him. Bush, 210.—A G.] THIRD SECTIONAbram and his War with the Heathen robber-bands for the rescue of Lot. The victorious Champion of Faith and his greeting to Melchizedec, the prince of peace. His conduct towards the King of Sodom, and his associates in the War Genesis 14:1-241 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel [Gesenius: it seems to be Sanscrit Amrapβla, keeper of the gods; Maurer: perhaps, robbers; Fόrst: = Arphaxad] king of Shinar [region of Babylon], Arioch [Gesenius, after Bohlen, Sanscrit Arjaka, venerated; Fόrst: the Arian, embracing Persian, Median, and Assyrian] king of Ellasar, [Symmachus and Vulgate: Pontus; Gesenius: probably the region between Babylon and Elymais], Chedorlaomer [Maurer: band of the sheaf; Fόrst: probably from the ancient Persian] king of Elam [Elymais], and Tidal [Gesenius: fear, veneration] king of nations [Clericus: Galilean heathen]; 2That these made war with Bera [Gesenius = αֶּ ?οΞψַ ?ς] king of Sodom, and with Birsha [Gesenius = αֶּ ?οΞψֶ ?ωַׁ ?ς] king of Gomorrah, Shinab [Gesenius: father’s tooth] king of Admah [Fόrst: fruit region, city in the district of Sodom, farm-city], and Shemeber [Gesenius: soaring aloft; glory of the eagle?] king of Zeboiim [Gesenius: place of hyenas] and the king of Bela [devoured, destroyed], which is Zoar [the small]. 3All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim [Aquila? valley of fields; Gesenius: depressed land, Wady; Fόrst: plain], which is [now] the salt sea 4[sea of asphalt, Dead sea]. Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer [as vassals], and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims [giants; Ewald: long-drawn, tall] in Ashteroth Karnaim [horned Astarte; from Astarte-worship, city in Batanζa, Deuteronomy 1:4; Joshua 13:12], and the Zuzims [Susδer; Gesenius: from the fertility of the country; Septuagint and others: ἔθνηἴσχυρά] in Ham [treasures; probably an Ammonite region], and the Emims [terrors; Emδer, originally in the land of Moab] in Shaveh [plain] Kiriathaim [twin cities in the tribe of Reuben, Numbers 32:37; later in Moab, Jeremiah 48:1]. 6And the Horites [dwellers in caves] in their Mount Seir [rugged; Gesenius: wooded; Fόrst: hairy], unto El-[oak, terebinth] Paran [probably, cave-region], which is by the wilderness. 7And they returned, and came to En-mishpat [well of Judgment], which is Kadesh [sanctuary], and smote all the country [fields] of the Amalekites [between Palestine, Idumea, and Egypt], and also the Amorites [mountaineers?] that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar [palm-pruning, a city in the wilderness of Judea; later, Engedi, fountain of the kid]. 8And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim; 9With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; [which] four kings with five. 10And the vale of Siddim was full of slime-pits [pits upon pits]; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there [the warriors]; and they that remained fled to the 11mountain. And they [the victors] took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. 12And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who [for he] dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. 13And there came one that had escaped [fugitives], and told Abram the Hebrew [immigrant]; for he [who] dwelt in the plain [oak-grove] of Mamre [richness, strength] the Amorite, brother of Eschol [vine-branch], and brother of Aner [i.e. πַ ?ςַ ?ψ, ἀνήρ?]: and these were confederate with Abram. 14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed [led out to war] his trained servants [initiated, tried], born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. 15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah [hiding-place], which is on the left hand [northerly] of Damascus [restless activity]. 16And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. 17And the king of Sodom went out to meet him (after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him [confederates]), at the valley of 18Shaveh [the plain northward of Jerusalem, 2 Samuel 18:18], which is the king’s dale. And [But] Melchizedec [king of righteousness] king of Salem [schalem = ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν] brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God [of El-Eljon]. 19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he [septuagint: ’Αβράμ; compare Hebrews 7:4] gave him tithes of all. 21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons [souls], and take [retain] the goods to thyself. 22And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I [the form of an oath: if I] will not take from a thread even to a shoe-latchet [the least], and 23that I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: 24Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eschol, and Mamre: let them take their portion. GENERAL REMARKS1. The Modern Criticism.—Knobel (p. 143) assigns the Section (with Genesis 15) to the Jehovistic enlargement, since the Elohistic author narrates the founding of the theocratic covenant elsewhere (Genesis 17). We must carefully distinguish, in a theological point of view, between the permanent covenant of faith (Genesis 15) and the special and temporary covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17), which rests upon it (see Romans 4). The idea that the character of Abram and the narrative of Melchizedec are drawn traditionally from interested motives of the Hebrews, is without foundation.2. For special literature upon Genesis 14 see Knobel, p. 134. 3. The War-making Powers.—According to Knobel, who here agrees with Joseph., Antiq. i. 9, the Assyrian must be viewed as the ruling power, which leads all the individual attacking kings, as subject princes or monarchs; for there is no trace of evidence in history, that the elsewhere unimportant Elymais (Susiane) has ever exercised a sort of world-dominion. Josephus calls the Assyrian the leading power, Syncellus the Syrian, which in this case is just equivalent; but according to Ktesias and others, the Assyrians were the first to establish a world-dominion (see p. 142, ff.). Keil, on the other hand, holds that the kingdom of Amraphel of Shinar which Nimrod founded, had now sunken to a mere dominion over Shinar, and that Elam now exercised the hegemony in inner Asia. The beginning of the Assyrian power falls in a later period, and Berosus speaks of an earlier Median dominion in Babylon, which reached down to the times of the patriarchs. (He refers to Niebuhr’s “History of Assyria,” p. 271). There is clearly a middle view. At the date, Genesis 14:1, Amraphel, king of Shinar, stands at the head of the alliance of Eastern princes; but the war was waged especially in the interest of Chedorlaomer of Elam. Amraphel appears as the nominal leader; Chedorlaomer the victorious champion of an Eastern kingdom, involved to some extent in decay. The Palestinian kings, or kings of Siddim, opposed to them, are described as previously vassals of Chedorlaomer, because the narrative here treats of the history of Siddim, pre-eminently of the history of Sodom and Lot; but this does not exclude the supposition, that the princes or tribes named in Genesis 14:5-6, were also at least partly dependents of Chedorlaomer. For in order to subject the lower Jordan valley, he must have somewhere forced a passage for himself into the land. Keil: “It seems significant that at that time the Asiatic world-power had advanced to Canaan, and brought the valley of the Jordan into subjection, with the purpose, doubtless, to hold, with the valley of the Jordan, the way to Egypt. We have, in this history, an example of the later pressure of the world-power against the kingdom of God established in Canaan; and the significance of these events with reference to the historical salvation, lies in the fact, that the kings of the Jordan valley and surrounding region are subject to the world-power. Abram, on the contrary, with his home-born servants, slays the victor and takes away his spoil—a prophetic sign, that in its contests with the world-power, the seed of Abram shall not only not be brought into subjection, but be able to rescue those seeking its help. 4. Ancient Damascus, also, first appears here in the dim distance. AND 1. The Kings at War.—(Genesis 14:1-3). “The kings named here never appear again.” Keil.—Shinar and Elam (see Genesis 10). Ellasar, probably Artemita, which is called also Chalasar, lying in Southern Assyria. (Goiim) Nations is here of special significance (see translation of the text, also upon Genesis 14:2; compare Joshua 10:3; Joshua 10:5; Joshua 10:23).—All these; namely, the last-named five kings.—In the vale of Siddim (see the text). “The five named cities described (Wis 10:6) as a πεντάπολις, appear to have formed a confederacy. The four first (connected together; also Genesis 10:19) perished afterwards (Deuteronomy 29:22; comp. Hosea 11:8). On the contrary, Bela, i.e., Zoar, was not overtaken in the ruin. The most important are Sodom and Gomorrah, which are elsewhere exclusively named, even here, Genesis 14:10-11.” Knobel. There is no ground for his conjecture that they were not Canaanites, drawn from a misunderstanding of Gen 12:12, that this region did not belong to the land of Canaan. Keil: “That there were five kings of the five cities, is in accordance with the custom of the Canaanites, among whom, still later, every city had its king.”2. The War (Genesis 14:4-12). a. Its cause(Genesis 14:4). b. The course of the Eastern Kings in their March.—“They came, doubtless, in the usual way, through the region of the Euphrates to Syria (Strabo, xvi.); from here, as they afterwards directed their return march to this region, advancing southwards, they attacked those who had revolted; at first, namely, the Rephaim in Bashan, i.e. the northerly part of the country, east of the Jordan (Numbers 32:39), then the Zuzims, dwelling farther to the south, and afterwards the still more southern Emims.” Knobel.—The Rephaim.—“A tribe of giants of great stature, spread throughout Perζa; also found westward from Jerusalem, upon Mount Ephraim, and in Philistia. They were gradually exterminated through the Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Israelites.” Keil holds that they were of Semitic origin (p. 140). Ashteroth Karnaim, or simply Ashteroth, a chief city of Bashan, the residence of Og, the king (Deuteronomy 1:4). The details may be found in Keil and Knobel.—Zuzims (an Ammonitish province), probably the same with Zamsummims (Deuteronomy 2:20.)—Ham. Identified (Deuteronomy 3:11) with Rabbah of the Ammonites (ruins of Ammon).—Emims, terrors. The older inhabitants of the country of Moab, like the Zuzims, included with the Rephaim.—Kirjathaim. Incorrectly located by Eusebius and Jerome; the ruins el Teym, or el Tueme.—The Horites. The original inhabitants of the country of the Edomites. They drove the Horites to Elath, upon the east side of the wilderness of Paran. The mount Seir between the Red and Dead seas.Genesis 14:8. They now turned from the south to the north (see Keil, p. 141). The victory of the Amalekites was gained in what was later the southern territory of the Hebrews. Keil and Hengstenberg hold that it is not the Amalekites themselves, but the inhabitants of the land which later belonged to the Amalekites. It says, indeed, the country of the Amalekites, and (Genesis 36:12; Genesis 36:16) Amalek descended from Esau. But then we should expect some account of that original people. And the Amalekitish descendants of Esau may have mingled with the earlier constituent portions of the people, as the Ishmaelites with the earlier inhabitants of Arabia. Lastly, even the Amorites, upon the west side of the Dead Sea, were involved in the slaughter. Knobel denies that Hazezon-tamar can be identified with Engedi, for which, however, 2 Chronicles 20:2, bears its testimony. A rapid march made it possible that these tribes should be attacked and overcome one by one. It is not said that they had all been tributary. Meanwhile, however, the five kings in the vale of Siddim had time to arm themselves. c. The Battle in the vale of Siddim. The five feeble kings of the pentapolis could not resist the four mightier kings.—And they fell there. The valley, we are told, was full of pits of bitumen, or asphalt. This account is confirmed by the mass of asphalt in the Dead Sea. For these masses of asphalt, see the condensed notices in Knobel, p. 136. This remark, however, does not explain why the five kings were defeated, but why they found the flight through that region so destructive. They fell here, partly hindered by the pits, partly plunging into them; only a few escaped into the mountains of Moab. The obvious sense appears to be, that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah were themselves slain. Knobel thinks the troops or forces are intended, and holds it as certain that the king of Sodom escaped (Genesis 14:17). But it may be his successor in the government who is here mentioned. Whatever of spoil, in goods or men; was found by the conquerors in the city, was taken away; and, what is the main thing in the narrative, Lot with them. It is most significant: for he dwelt in Sodom.3. Abram’s March and Victory (Genesis 14:13-16).—One that had escaped. The article marks the race or lineage. A fugitive who sought Abram in Hebron, must doubtless have stood in close relations with Lot.—Abram the Hebrew, the immigrant. Abram, as Lot also, was viewed by the escaped, who was born in the land, as an immigrant, and because Lot the Hebrew was a captive, he sought Abram the Hebrew. The Amorite Mamre, and his two brothers, were named as confederates with Abram, because they assisted him now in the war (Genesis 14:24). Their confederation shows his overwhelming influence.—Abram heard that his brother was a captive. The expression is significant. Instantly he arms his trained, i.e., his hired servants, and practised in the use of arms; especially those born in his own house. “That the patriarchs carried weapons is clear from chs. Genesis 34:25; Genesis 49:5.” Knobel.—Unto Dan. Keil shows that the Dan alluded to cannot be the (Laish) Dan (Judges 18:29) situated in the midst of the sources of the Jordan, since it does not lie upon either of the ways leading from the valley of the Jordan to Damascus; but Dan in Gilead (Deuteronomy 34:1; 2 Samuel 24:6). In Dan, Abram divides his little army into bands, and falls upon the enemy from different quarters by night, and pursues him unto Hobah, “probably preserved in the village Hoba, which Troilo found a quarter of a mile northerly from Damascus.” Keil. The Hebrews defined the quarters of the heavens with their faces to the East; hence the left hand is northward. Victorious, he brought back the whole spoil of the enemy, both in men and goods.—And also Lot his brother. 4. Abram’s Triumphant Return (Genesis 14:17-24). The kings who welcome him.—At the valley of Shaveh, i.e. the (later) king’s dale. The valley probably takes its name from this event. Absalom erected his pillar here, 2 Samuel 18:18 (afterwards remodelled in the Greek style). According to Josephus, Antiq. vii. 10, 3, it lay about two stadia from Jerusalem. Melchizedec went northwards to meet him, thus in the upper valley of the Kidron (see Dictionaries). Melchizedec appears to have anticipated the king of Sodom; at all events he has the precedence. Under his royal city, Salem, we must understand Jerusalem (Psalms 76:3), and not the distant Salim in whose vicinity John baptized (John 3:23). Comp. Keil, p. 143. In favor of Jerusalem (ιְ ?ψεּ ?ι = ιְ ?ψεּ, founding, or ιְ ?ψεּ ?ωׁ, possession; the name ιְ ?ψεּ ?ωָׁ ?μֵ ?ν is either the founding or the possession of peace; the first is preferable,) are Josephus: Antiq. i. 10, 2; the Targums, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, etc., Knobel, Delitzsch, and Keil; Krahmer, Ewald: “History of Israel, ii. p. 410,” are in favor of the Salim of Jerome. That at the time of Jerome, the palace of Melchizedec was usually pointed out in the ruins of Salumias, lying about eight Roman miles from Scythopolis, of which Robinson and Smith found no trace, proves nothing. Salumias lay too far to the north, for the statement in the narrative. Melchizedec (king of righteousness—the language of the Canaanites was Hebraic) is described as a priest of El Eljon. According to Sanchϋniaton (Eusebius: Pr�p. i. 10), the Ph�nicians called God ’Ελιοῦν, and Hanno the Carthaginian, in Plautus P�nulus, names the gods and goddesses Elonim or Elonoth; but the term here used is different, and its signification is monotheistic, “not God as the highest among many, but in a monotheistic sense, the one most high God.” (Delitzsch). He brings from his city bread and wine to refresh Abram and his followers. “The papists explain it with reference to the sacrifice of the mass, but the reference is fatal to their own case, since Melchizedec gave the wine also. He brought forth, not he brought before God.” Schrφder. Melchizedec’s prayer for prosperity and blessing is translated by Delitzsch rhythmically as a double blessing. The term χֹ ?πֵ ?δ denotes the ruler, but may also be used to denote the creator and possessor.—And he gave him tithes. As Melchizedec was a priest of the true God, the gift of the tithe of the spoil was a sanctification of the war and victory, as in the later history of Israel the tithe belonged to the priest (Leviticus 27:30), and the payment of the gift of consecration, out of the spoils of war, to the priestly tribe, was secured by law (Numbers 31:28 ff.; 2 Samuel 8:11; 1 Chronicles 26:27). Compare Hebrews 7:4.—The king of Sodom does not speak in a formal, solemn way, but with obvious prudence, encouraged by the generosity of Abram, to whom, by the laws of war, the captives belonged as slaves.—Give me the persons (souls). Then follows the noble declaration of Abram, which is both a recognition of the God of Melchizedec, or of the community of faith, between Abram and Melchizedec, since it joins together the names Jehovah and El Eljon, and at the same time a noble expression of his unselfishness. He would not retain anything from a thread to a shoe-latchet, i.e., not the least thing, so that the king of Sodom could never say, I have made Abram rich. As he declares his intimate communion with Melchizedec, and introduces it into the very forms of expression of his religion, so he utterly refuses any community of goods with theking of Sodom. He reserves only what his servants had already consumed in the necessities of war, and that part of the spoil which fell to his three confederates, Aner, Eschol, and Mamre (Numbers 31:26; 1 Samuel 30:26). AND ETHICAL1. The first well-defined appearance of war in its different aspects. A war of the world against the world—the kings—the alliances—the conquests—the rulers and their revolted vassals—the prominent leader (Chedorlaomer)—the attack—the victory and defeat—the plunder, and service of captives—of the hard destiny of those who dwelt quietly in the land (Lot)—of the wide-spread terror, and the rebuke of that terror, before the true heroism with which the true hero of faith opposes a defensive and necessary war, to the attacks of the confident and haughty prince. The children of God find themselves unexpectedly involved in the wars of the world, as the history of Abram, Lot, and Melchizedec proves. The destructive nature of war, so far as it is the fruit of human passions, and the providential overruling of it unto salvation. 2. The fearful overthrow of the Sodomite pentapolis in the vale of Siddim, and the wonderful rescue by Abram the man of faith, wrought no repentance in the people of that valley, although they were already weakened and enervated by their luxury, nor even any gratitude towards Lot, for whose sake they were rescued (Genesis 19:9). Hence the lost battle, and the terrors of war in the vale of Siddim, became a portent and sign of their later overthrow. 3. In the misfortunes which came upon him, Lot must suffer the retribution for his misdeeds towards Abram. But Abram rewards his ingratitude with self-sacrificing magnanimity. 4. The terrors of war in its desolating and paralyzing power. How it may be interrupted, and is usually checked and brought to an end, through the heroic faith and courage of some single hero, or it may be, band of heroes. 5. Abram, the man of peace of the previous chapter, the yielding child of peace, is instantly changed into a lion when the report comes to him, that Lot, his brother, is a captive. One citizen of the kingdom of God is of so great importance in his esteem, that he will attack a whole victorious army with his little band, and venture his own life, and the lives of his servants upon the issue. Thus enter in opposition to the gloomy heroism of the earth in Chedorlaomer and his followers, the light and cheerful heroism of heaven, to the war for oppression and bondage in its dark form, the light form and aspect of the war of salvation and liberty, to the power of godlessness, inhumanity, and desperation, in union with demoniac powers, the power of faith, and love, and hope, in covenant with Jehovah. 6. It did not enter the thought of Abram, that the princes against whom he went out to war were for the most part descendants of Shem, and indeed the people of his former home, and that those whom he rescued, and with whom he connects himself, are the descendants of Ham. The motive for the war was to save Lot, and the alliance for the right, against the alliance for wrong, was decisive for him. The love to his brother, the Hebrew, has special power. Brotherly love. Every Hebrew, in the best and highest sense, must help others as his brethren. But in “the Hebrew” here the important thing is, that he “comes from across the river,” not as Delitzsch holds, that he is descended from Heber. 7. Abram has not only, in his faith, a heroism and self-sacrifice which overcomes the world, he has also the heroic strength and spirit. His servants are men trained to arms. He knew that, in an evil world, one needs defence and weapons, and must be armed. In his war with the world, he does not despise an honorable alliance with those who, in a religious point of view, may have different ways of thinking from himself. Indeed, he acts throughout in the true hero-spirit. The rapid, instantaneous onset, the well-ordered and irresistible charge, the outmarching and flanking of the enemy, the falling upon him by night, the fierce pursuit to the very utmost, to the completed result, these are the original, fundamental laws of all intelligent warfare. And it does not admit of question, that Cromwell learned these fundamental principles of warfare from Abram and other Old Testament heroes, and it is probable that Napoleon, in these, as in many other points, was an imitator of Cromwell; as it is certain that Gneisenau and Blόcher have learned from the method of Napoleon. In the spirit of prayer Cromwell, the invincible, was greatly in advance of him (Napoleon); the heroes of the times when freedom triumphs place victoriously the joyful longing for deliverance of the people over against the demoniac lust of conquest of the murderers of the people. 8. Abram is assured of the good-will and help of Jehovah through the Spirit of God inspiring him with believing and sacrificing courage; and therefore joins his might, in the feeling of his individual weakness, with omnipotence, and makes himself and his forces, to whom he communicates his own spirit, invincible against the hosts of the enemy, whose power, as demoniac and magical, cannot stand before the terrors of God, but passes at once from haughty confidence to trembling and despair. The germ-like oriental world-power surges and breaks itself upon the heroic heart of the father of the faithful, as all the succeeding forms of the world-power, must break into pieces upon the believing power of the kingdom of God; and for this reason, because, in the very centre of the world’s history, all the powers of the world and of hell broke and went to pieces against the divine stability of the heart of Christ. 9. In warfare, as in all the forms of civilization and life, in political government, in poetry, the Hebrew principle is dynamic, living, while the principle of the world, especially of the Greek and Romish civilization, is lifeless, formal, or technical. Here the living fountain of original, direct divine inspiration is prominent, while the ordinary cosmical forming principles are throughout kept in the back ground. But the dynamic principle is also the principle of regeneration for the technical and artistic system—even for science itself. Thus, in our history also, the technical is sufficiently apparent. “It is remarkable, moreover, that corresponding to this original mode of warfare, the almost exclusive order of battle in later times, is the division of the army into three parts, that the enemy may be attacked in the centre and upon both flanks at the same time (Judges 7:16; 1 Samuel 11:11; 1Ma 5:33)” Schrφder. 10. Melchizedec as priest and king in one person, without genealogy in his priesthood, which he executed for his people by virtue of a sovereign individual call, is a type of the Messiah, and is represented as such, Psalms 110:4, but especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Genesis 5:6; Genesis 7:17). From the circumstance that Melchizedec was not a worshipper of the Canaanitish Baal, but was a monotheist, or as Knobel thinks, a worshipper of the Semitic principal deity, El, Knobel concludes that he belonged to the Semitic tribe, Lud, to which also the tribes at war belonged. The supposition of a Semitic chief deity is in an erroneous manner transferred from the relations of a later time, to the times of the primitive religion. It is the characteristic of the primitive religion, that in it throughout Heathenism and Monotheism cleave together and go asunder. Melchizedec might, therefore, well belong to the Hamitic race. He is not a Christ of the heavenly world, as perhaps the Gnostics would make him, nor Shem, nor Enoch, as the Rabbins and the Church fathers have thought; he is a type of Christ, because he is king and priest at the same time, because his priesthood rests upon his individual personality (ἀπάτωρ), etc., Hebrews 7:3), and because Abram, the ancestor of the Levitical priesthood, gave tithes to him. He is not “perhaps the last witness and confessor of the primitive revelation out of the night of heathenism,” for that is the splendor of an evening sky which reaches through all time; but he is the last representative of the period of the primitive religion, and therefore he blesses Abram in a similar sense to that in which the Baptist must baptize Christ the Lord, in Jordan. He, in his way, stands as the last of the first world-period; Abram is one who belongs to the future, and therefore he blesses Abram, and Abram does him homage. That he is Melchizedec, is in the first place significant (“it may be concluded from Joshua 10:1; Joshua 10:3, where a later king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek, i.e., lord of righteousness, is mentioned, that this was a standing name of the old kings of Salem.” Keil); then, the name of his residence, Salem; further, that he is priest and king at the same time (“in the old Ph�nician custom.” Delitzsch); finally, that he represents no legal and genealogical priesthood, but shines singly and alone as a clear, bright star, in the night of Canaan: all these constitute him a mysterious, renowned type of Christ (see Delitzsch, p. 363; Keil, p. 144; Auberlen upon “Melchizedec,” in the Studien und Kritiken, 1857, p. 153). As he is the priest of El Eljon, that can only mean, that he intercedes for his people before the most high God with prayer and sacrifice, that he sought either to lead back the Jebusites at Salem to a living monotheism, or to preserve them in it. 11. It is in the highest degree significant that Abram honors Melchizedec with the tithes, and that he introduces El Eljon, in the oath, or the religious expression of it, while he will not take from the king of Sodom anything from a thread to a shoelatchet. (Knobel: “Abraham is perhaps sensitive,” etc.) This is the position of the religion of faith to the world both in its godly and ungodly aspects, the whole connection and concern of faith in the forms of its higher culture, the entire strength of its repelling attitude and tendency towards its ungodly nature. 12. “If it is certain that the repetition by Melchizedec of the familiar title of God which he uses was intended, then the name Jehovah, which Abram adds to this title, and which, indeed, he places in the greatest prominence, is not without a purpose. It must serve the purpose to announce that Abram, in the common foundation on which they stand, has still more than Melchizedec. Melchizedec, in the most high God, recognizes the Lord of heaven and earth, but not Jehovah.” Hengstenberg. This agrees with the idea that Jehovah is the God of the covenant. In the measure of this faith, a new period of religion begins with Abram. God, as the Most High, does not designate the Highest in distinction from lower gods, but in his exaltation above all the symbols of his being, which the heathen began to reverence as gods; thus it stands in opposition to polytheism, and also to pantheism and dualism, the true expression of the primitive religion. Hofmann finds here again an intimation of the ascension of God from the earth before the flood. We have alluded to this in the previous part of this work. 13. The oath of Abram is the first example of an oath with the uplifted hand, in solemn appeal to God. But Abram swears in his own method, and at the same time in the devout, customary mode of Melchizedec. For other examples, see chaps. Genesis 21:23; Genesis 26:28, etc. 14. In the elevated character of Abram, it is worthy of particular notice and praise, that with his entire renunciation of any advantage to himself, he preserves the rights of his confederates, Mamre, etc., according to both usage and equity. 15. It is remarkable, that this one chapter shows us how the father of believers enters into these varied forms of life, of war, of union with those who differed from himself in their modes of thought, of tithes, and of the oath, as his intercourse with the world demanded. He uses the oath with the king of Sodom, a man of the world, who appears to have doubted his unselfishness and magnanimity. 16. We have here, also, the first stratagem, the first celebration of victory, and the first priest. 17. The first conflict of the hosts of faith with the first appearance of the world-power. The historical example of the Maccabees, Waldenses, etc. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical portions.—Texts for sermons on war, victory, deliverances, public calls, and demands to duty, and upon the oath, etc. War in a threefold form: 1. War of violence; 2. war of a faint-hearted defence; 3. the rescuing war of divine inspiration.—Alliances in a threefold form: 1. Alliance for robbery; 2. the faint-hearted alliance for defence; 3. alliance for life and death.—Abram as a warlike prince.—Love of our brother as a motive in war.—Abram’s war and victory.—Celebration of Abram’s victory.—Melchizedec as a type of Christ.—Christ also does not enter into worldly wars, but he refreshes pious heroes with bread and wine.—Bread and wine the refreshment of the king of peace, for those who contend for God.—To every one his own, particularly to faithful confederates. Starke: This the first war which the Scripture commemorates, and its cause was the lust of dominion. (Let it be granted that Chedorlaomer had subjugated the cities mentioned in Genesis 14:2, in an unrighteous way, still they were in the wrong, since they began to rebel, and in this way would regain their freedom, etc.—How can Abram help these rebels?)—God used the four kings as rods to punish others. Wurtemb. Bible: War and rebellion are evils above all other evils; indeed, a condensed epitome, as it were, of all calamities and sorrows.—Osiander: If the saints dwell with the godless, they must often be brought down and punished with them.—(Query: Whether Abram, with a good conscience, could enter into a covenant with the Canaanites? He might make different excuses; e.g., it is not proven that they were heathen; finally, he could say correctly, one must discern and distinguish the times.—Citation of Jewish fables: “In Abram’s contest, all the dust (every staff?) became swords, and every straw an arrow.”) Genesis 14:15. An instance of stratagem, Joshua 8:2; Judges 20:29; 1 Samuel 15:5.—Cramer: God remembers even the poor captive.—Covenants, even with persons not of our religion and faith, if made in a correct way, and with a right purpose, are not wrong; still, we must not rely upon them (Deuteronomy 20:1).—Legitimate war.—Against rash undertakings.—Osiander: No external power, but faith in God, gives the victory. Genesis 14:18. Here, for the first time, a priest is spoken of.—Cramer: Honor is the reward of virtue.—The tithes of Abram.—Osiander: A Christian must even make his possessions of service to the officers of the Church.—Kings and princes, if God grants them victory over their enemies, must not only give him public thanks, but present to him of the spoil they have taken.—Teachers and princes must proffer assistance to each other, and exchange temporal goods for spiritual (1 Corinthians 9:11.—Finally, upon the legitimate oath; renunciation of his own rights, the competency, the equitable wages or rewards of war. Lisco: Abram’s magnanimity overlooks all the unbecoming deportment of Lot towards him; he ventures his life for him.—The central point in this narrative is the grace of God towards his chosen, through which he places him in a condition to wage victorious war with kings, and after the assured victory, the same grace brings kings to meet him, the one in a thoughtful recognition, the other fawns in subjection and begs.—Abram’s freedom from selfishness.—Calwer, Handbuch: The humble man of faith, a victorious warrior and hero.—The strength of the Lord is mighty in the weak.—Schrφder: No greeting of blessing, no word of God falls from the lips of this king of Sodom; he is only thinking of the earthly.—(Calvin): It is worthy of praise, that he is thankful to men if he is not ungrateful to God. It is possible, of course, that this poor man, stript of his goods, through a servile, hypocritical pretence of modesty, might obtain from Abram, at least, the captives and the free city for himself. (Calvin saw, correctly, that Abram, as possessor of the people of Sodom, and the conqueror of the rulers of Sodom, won for himself essentially a legitimate dominion over Sodom, over which the king of Sodom would pass as lightly as possible).—Abram bows himself before Melchizedec, but before the king of Sodom he lifts his hand.—Thus Abram recognizes and acknowledges Melchizedec, while he penetrates to its depth the nature of the king of Sodom. As he is clearly conscious of his own high position, he condescends to the lower standpoint of the Sodomites (out of which condescension the oath which he swears proceeds), in order thereby to recognize and own the higher religious standpoint of Melchizedec. The oath an act of worship. He testifies, thereby, that he had not undertaken the war from any lust of gain, and cuts off the roots of all the solicitation to covetousness (even all suspicion of the same) through the name of God.—Passavant: Psalms 91; Romans 8:31.—Covenants for mutual defence against such expeditions for plunder and life were necessary, and God permitted his servants among the Canaanites, to use such means of help and defence.—There is something greater than bread and wine, mightier than victory and the power of the victor, stronger than death, and it overcomes, indeed, it inherits the world. What is it? Every child of Abram can tell.—Taube: We see in Abram’s victory and blessing, the victory and blessing of every one who is a soldier for God.—The sacred history transplants us at once into the midst of the turmoil of worldly affairs; from the quiet, peaceful tents of Abram, we are transferred to the tumults of war of heathen nations.—Heuser: The meeting of Melchizedec, the royal priest, with Abram: a. The historical event itself; b. the typical elements in it; c. their realization; d. the importance of these truths. [This history must be placed in its New Testament light (Hebrews 7) if we would see its meaning and importance.—A. G.] Footnotes: [Genesis 14:1.—Lange renders this first clause as independent. “And it came to pass after days, or, in the lapse of days.”—A. G.] [Genesis 14:1.—Wordsworth and Murphy, lionine, or lion-like.—A. G.] [Genesis 14:1.—“Some identify it with Telassar; others more probably regard it as Larsa, now Simkarah, about fifteen miles southeast of Warka. Rawlinson. Wordsworth, p. 69.—A. G.] [Genesis 14:1—“Rawlinson compares it with Kudur-Mapula, or Maluk, whose name is found on the bricks of Chaldea, and whose title is Apda Martu, Ravager of the West.”—Murphy, p. 278.—A. G.] [Temporary, however, only as to its external form, and the sign or seal of the covenant. The covenant itself Is one and permanent.—A. G.] [The connection of this chapter with what precedes and follows is close and natural. It shows that Lot’s choice, while apparently wise, was attended with bitter fruits; it lays the ground, in Abram’s conduct, for the promise and transactions of the 15th chapter. There would be a serious break in the history were this wanting.—A. G.] [Chedorlaomer. Upon the bricks recently found in Chaldea there occurs the name of a king—Kudurmapula—which Rawlinson thinks may be the same, especially since he is further distinguished as the Ravager of the West. Jacobus, p. 247.—A. G.] [Delitzsch suggests perhaps an earlier name for “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Comp. Joshua 12:23; Judges 4:2; and Isaiah 8:23.—A. G.] [Which is the Salt sea, i.e., into which this valley was changed in the overthrow of the cities (Genesis 19:24). Keil, p. 139.—A. G.] [The five kings belonged probably to the family of Ham, which had pushed its way northward, but had been here checked and held under the sway of the Shemitic king for twelve years, but had now revolted. Wordsworth, p. 69.—A. G.] [Ritter finds it in the Tell Ashareh. J. G. Wetstein identifies it with Bosra, for which he urges the central position of this city in Perζa, and the similarity of the names Bostra and αִּ ?ςֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊְּ ?ψָ ?δ. “Porter suggests ’Afineh, eight miles from Bosra, as the Samaritan version, has ’Aphinet for ’Ashtaroth.”—A. G.] [El Param, terebinth, or rather wood of Paran, is without doubt the later Elath, at the head of the Ailanitic gulf; the present Akaba. Keil, p. 141.—A. G.] [Kadesh, probably at Ain-el Waibeh; though Keil and Wordsworth favor the location at Ain Kades, in the east of the highest part of Jebel Halal, about five hours E.S.E. from Morlβkhi.—A. G.] [Also Robinson’s “Researches,” vol. ii. pp. 228–230.—A. G.] [The passage is so constructed in the Hebrew as to bring out this significance. And they took Lot, and his goods, Abram’s brother’s son, and departed; and (for) he was dwelling in Sodom.—A. G.] [The one from the other side, who has come across the river. But Murphy urges in favor of taking Hebrew as a patronymic; “that every other tribe in the country had originally migrated across the Euphrates, and that the word here distinguishes Abram as the Hebrew, just as his confederate, Mamre, is distinguished as the Amorite.”—A. G.] [These tried, proved, thus trained servants, were born in his house, Proverbs 22:6. “Abram had trained them in spiritual things in the service of God, as well as in fidelity to himself; see chap. Genesis 18:19, and Genesis 24:12-49.” Wordsworth, p. 71.—A. G.] “Gebenedeit sei Abram Gott, dem Allerhabenen, Dem Erschaffer Himmels und der Erde Und gebenedeit sei Gott, der Allerhabene Der geliefert deine Drδnger in deine Hand.” [Keil also refers to the poetical forms φָ ?ψֶ ?ικָ and ξִ ?βֵּ ?ο.—A. G.] [“But his march and victory have another and a higher reference in the object of the history. Even here it is not to glorify Abram, but rather the wonderful providence of God over his chosen, through which all here enters in immediate connection with the divine plan. Abram is the designated possessor of the land; it is his concern, therefore, to guard the land from all assaults, and to avenge its injuries; it is the part of God, who has designated him to this end, to give him the victory.” Kurtz: “History of the Old Covenant,” p. 171.—A. G.] [His title to the land involves him in the war. He must defend that which has been given to him. “He is no sooner confirmed in his title, than the land is invaded by a confederacy of hostile kings. Thus the kingdom of God is no sooner set up anywhere, than there is a rallying of the world kingdoms against it.” Jacobus, p. 247.—A. G.] [“The things of chief importance here are Abram’s faith and the help of God; but we should not overlook, that his force may have reached a thousand men, including his confederates, and further, the effect of the security of the hostile forces, the sudden terror, the darkness of the night, their confusion among themselves, and the strategic skill of Abram.” Kurtz, p. 170.—A. G.] [The name, however, is Semitic. It is probable that he was a Semitic chieftain, having his royal seat at Jerusalem. The locality, as everything else in connection with this person, so briefly referred to here, and then dismissed, is important. This is clear from the use which is made of this history in the Epistle to the Hebrews. He was a personal type of Christ: 1. As he was both priest and king; 2. as king of righteousness and peace; 3. as he was constructively, so far as the history goes, without father and without mother; 4. as he held his priesthood probably by a special divine warrant. He acts as a priest: 1. In bringing the bread and wine, here probably connected with a sacrifice and sacramental, refreshing this wearied warrior of the faith, and welcoming him to the communion of saints; 2. in blessing Abram—which is here the solemn, priestly benediction; 3. in receiving tithes from Abram—through which Abram recognizes his typical superiority—and in which the whole Levitical priesthood, yet in the loins of Abram, recognizes the superiority of that Priesthood of which he was the type. It thus becomes evident, as the Apostle shows, that the Levitical priesthood, and the whole Mosaic institution, were intermediate and temporary, and pointed to the higher Priest to come—who is both Priest and King, and who holds his priesthood not by descent, but by the express appointment and oath of God.—A. G.] German, Ein Werdender. [See also Kurtz: “History of the Old Covenant,” pp. 173–176, whose remarks here are very suggestive, and Jacobus: “Notes,” pp. 256–260.—A. G.] [“Melchizedec brought forth bread and wine as the priest of the most high God. There seems to be an intimation that this was a priestly act, and accordingly the crowning part of a sacred feast. It was probably connected with the offering of a sacrifice. This view of his acts is confirmed by the blessing which he pronounces as the priest of the most high God.” Murphy, p. 288, 289.—A. G.] [Melchizedec stands as the personal type of Christ, and at the same time in his acts and relations here, seems to typify what Christ, as our Priest, is ever doing for his people.—A. G.] “The bringing of the tithes was an actual recognition of the priestly dignity of Melchizedec. For, in general usage, the tenth is the sacred portion, which belongs to God, and to his representatives.” Baumgarten, p. 182; Bahr: Symbolik i. p. 179.—A. G. [“Abram, the blessed of Jehovah, and the mediator of blessings for all the people, allows himself to be blessed by this royal priest, who stands beyond the line and circle of the promise. Abram, the ancestor of Israel, of Aaron, and Levi, of the people and the priesthood of the law, allows himself to be blessed by this royal priest, who shows no title through descent or the law. And not only so; Abram, in whom was the priestly race which should receive the tithes, gave to this royal priest the tithes of all the spoil. There is, therefore, an extra-legal, royal priesthood, and priestly kingdom, which this history typically prophesies, to whom even Abram and his seed should bow, to whom even the Levitical priesthood should render homage; for, just where Abram stands in incomparably the most striking typical character, there Melchizedec enters and towers above him. Melchizedec is the setting sun of the primitive revelation, which sheds its last rays upon the patriarchs, from whom the true light of the world is to arise. The sun sets, that when the preparatory time of the patriarchs, the preparatory time of Israel, have passed away, it may rise again in Jesus Christ, the antitype.” Delitzsch.—A. G.] [“There is here no indistinct allusion to the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ mentioned in the opening of the book of God. This is a manifest identification of the God of Melchizedec with the one creator and upholder of all things.” Murphy, p. 289.—A. G.] [It is not said in the narrative that they were wrong; and it is by no means clear that they were. Rebellion may be right. It is so, if the government is unjust and oppressive, and there is good reason to believe that success will attend their efforts to shake off the yoke of bondage.—A. G.] FOURTH SECTIONAbram the approved Warrior of Faith, and God his Shield and his Reward. His longing for an Heir, and his thought of Adoption anticipating any exigency in the case. The great Promise of God. Abram’s Faith under the Starry Heavens. The Symbol of the Starry Heavens. The righteousness of Faith. The Covenant of Faith, and the repeated Promise Genesis 15:1-211 After these things [events of the war] the word of the Lord came [renewed itself] unto Abram in vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield [in war even], and thy exceeding great reward [reward of the champion]. 2And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go [continually] childless, and the steward [the future possessor] of my house is this Eliezer [the help of God, God is my help] of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold to me thou hast given no seed [bodily heir]: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir 4[on the way to become my heir]. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels 5[thine own nature] shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad [open air], and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them. And he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. 8And he said, Lord God, whereby [by what sign] shall I know that I shall inherit it? 9And he said unto him, Take me [bring = sacrifice to me] 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. 10And he took unto him [sacrificed] all these, and divided them [the animal sacrifice] in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. 11And when the fowls came down upon the carcasses [not carrion], Abram drove them away. 12And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep [ϊַּ ?ψְ ?γֵּ ?ξָ ?δ, Genesis 2:21; Job 4:13] fell upon Abram; and, lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs [thy descendants], and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full [to the measure of judgment]. 17And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp [flame of fire] that passed 18between those pieces [of the sacrifice]. In that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given [now in covenant] this land, from the river 19of Egypt [Wady el Arisch] unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The [land of] Kenites [workers in iron, Judges 4:11; Judges 4:17], and the Kenizzites [huntsmen], and the Kadmonites [of the East], 20And the Hittites [fear, terror, in Hebron], and the Perizzites [rustics], and the Rephaim [giants], 21And the Amorites [mountaineers, uplanders], and the Canaanites, [lowlanders], and the Girgashites [dwellers upon the clayey soil], and the Jebusites [ιְ ?αεּ ?ν, a place trodden as a threshing-floor]. GENERAL REMARKS1. The connection of this Section with the preceding events must be carefully observed. The two chapters form essentially one history. Abram had in faith waged war against a fearful and superior power; hence the announcement to him: I (Jehovah) am thy shield. He had renounced all claims upon the spoil of war; therefore he has the promise: I am thy exceeding great reward, i.e., reward to the warrior. He had, through the fresh, living, healthy interchange between his faith and the world, which was wanting in the hermit-like Melchizedec, kept himself as a man of faith, to whom it belongs, to beget a race of believers, who should stand in the midst of the world, against the world and for the world. 2. The form of the present revelation of God to Abram gives trouble to interpreters. Knobel thinks that the communication, Genesis 15:12-16, belongs to a night-vision; on the other hand, the next succeeding utterances to the waking moments. According to Keil, the word of Jehovah comes to him in visible forms, neither through internal, immediate converse, nor through dreams, but in an ecstacy through an inward, spiritual beholding, and indeed, in the day, and not in a night-vision, as Genesis 46:2. “The αַּֽ ?ξַּֽ ?ηֲ ?ζֶ ?δ, Genesis 15:1, rules the whole chapter.” Against the first, it may be said, that the narrative speaks of a vision from the very beginning; against the last, that Abram is led out to number the stars; against both, that they do not involve and bring out any recognition of the psychological form of the past revelation. To us, it appears entirely in accordance with the course of development of preceding revelations, that Abram should first have received the word of Jehovah, and then should have seen a manifestation of Jehovah, and that it is now said, the word of Jehovah comes to him in vision. Abram, truly, at this time, could not have received the revelation from God without a disposition for visions; but in the case before us, which treats of a revelation of Jehovah by night, the visionary fitness of Abram comes into special prominence. This disposition for the vision, and the prominence in which it appears, does not exclude the reality of the following acts, which, also, Keil regards as only inward occurrences. But as to the phrase: “He spake to him in visions;” he accompanies the word in question with the corresponding image: Abram saw the divine shield and the divine treasures (Keil, p. 145). AND 1. The promise of Jehovah, the starry heavens and the righteousness of faith (Genesis 15:1-6).—Fear not. The coward fears before the danger, heroic spirits after. Abram had now an experience of the world in its wicked violence, as he had victoriously resisted its defiant challenge, and the beaten kings might easily visit him with vengeance. Therefore he receives the consoling promise, that Jehovah himself would be his shield, his defence in all conflicts (Psalms 3:3; Psalms 18:2).—Thy exceeding great reward. Not, perhaps, for thy general piety, but the reward for thy heroic conflict.—Abram received the promise of God with the same feeling of weariness of his natural life, with which Moses at eighty years received the divine call to go to Egypt and free the people. He wished to establish his family. Is Jehovah his exceeding great reward, then there naturally follows some one application of the promise to his personal relations; but he sees no other application, than that God himself would be his exclusive reward, that thus, as to this world, this Eliezer of Damascus, his steward (Genesis 24:2), must be his heir. The thought is painful to him, but he acquiesces in the purpose of God, and desires only light as to the meaning of the promise, whether it is to be understood only of an heir by adoption, in which case this Eliezer appears to him the most worthy. He desires most of all a decisive sentence, therefore his proposition of the thing by anticipation. Upon this allusion depends the marvellous tradition that Abram had been king of Damascus (Joseph., Antiq. i. 7, 2; Justin., xxxvi. 2).—To me thou hast given no seed. The pious complaint of human weakness before God must be distinguished from the impious murmurs against God (Exodus 5:22; Exodus 33:12-15; Numbers 11:11; Numbers 11:21; Joshua 7:7; Job; the prophets).—One born in my house (son of my house). It is not synonymous with house-born. It has a deeper meaning; it designates the most esteemed servant of his house.—Eliezer, he says, is already upon the way to become my heir. It is a complaining thought, which forms itself into a resigned proposition, but a proposition which veils a question. Upon this follows the divine decision (Genesis 15:4). Jehovah leads him out of his tent, under the heavens as seen by night. His disposition, preparedness for the vision, does not exclude the reality of these events. He had promised him at first one natural heir. But now the countless stars which he sees, should both represent the innumerable seed which should spring from this one heir, and at the same time be the warrant for his faith. Jehovah shows him the image of his descendants, in the stars of heaven. We recognize here the orientalist from Ur of the Chaldees, for whom the lights of heaven have a religious significance, but at the same time the free monotheist, who no longer seeks in the stars his gods, but the image of his children. That God who speaks to him, can give to him a seed, countless as the stars in heaven, is truly presupposed; the representation of the countlessness of his descendants is the main thought, to which cleave the thoughts of their shining glory and their heavenly character (see Genesis 22:17; Genesis 26:4; Exodus 32:13).—And he believed in the Lord. This cannot be either an element of a dream, or the frame of mind prepared peculiarly for visions, for it is an act of faith on the part of Abram, which was counted to him for righteousness by Jehovah. Knobel remarks: “Abram did not laugh, incredulously, as in the Elohistic section, Genesis 17:17, ” as if a believer, in the long delay of the promise, could never fall into doubt, (although there is no mention of any incredulity in the passage referred to). Keil asks: “How did Moses know that Abram believed? and that Jehovah counted it to him for righteousness?” He answers: “He proves his faith, because, according to the following directions, he brought the sacrifices, and because what Jehovah did with the animals was a real declaration on his part, that he counted to Abram his faith for righteousness.” We must distinguish, however, the inward events from these sacramental signs, in which they are visibly manifested and sealed. The faith of Abram in the promise of a bodily heir was the central point in the development of his faith; with this faith he enjoyed the consciousness that Jehovah counted it to him for righteousness. Justification by faith, as an experience of the inner life, manifests itself in the peace of God; and Abram could have given testimony as to this to his children, if nothing had occurred as to the sacrificial animals and their consumption by fire. The explanation of Knobel, “a right disposition of heart is of just as much avail to him as integrity in acts,” is both tame and shallow. [This is confessedly an important passage. We have here, and in the promise (Genesis 15:1), the germ of the great doctrine of the Lord our righteousness. We may not attach to the words here used the ideas in all their definiteness, which have been derived from the use which the Apostle makes of them in his discussion of the question, how a sinner can be justified (Romans 4:4-5; Romans 4:10; Romans 4:18-25); but neither may we overlook his inspired exposition, and strive to interpret the words, as if they stood entirely by themselves. Leaving this out of view, however, it is clear “that Abram had no righteousness of his own, that righteousness was imputed to him, that it was faith in Jehovah in him which was counted for righteousness;” and further, that this faith is viewed here, not merely as the root of all true obedience to the will of God, and thus the sum of righteousness or personal holiness, but as embracing and steadfastly resting upon (as the word rendered believed, here means) God, as the God of grace and salvation. It is the act by which he goes out from himself, and relies upon God, for righteousness and grace. The history clearly shows that there was this entire removal from the natural ground upon which he had stood, and this entire, hearty, steadfast resting upon Jehovah, “who is just and having salvation. The promise which Abram’s faith embraced was the promise of salvation through the covenant seed, and he so regarded it. His faith, therefore, was essentially the same with that specific faith in Christ which is said to justify (see Romans 4:13). The Notes of Kurtz, Baumgarten, Murphy, are suggestive and valuable; and the exposition of Calvin is admirable,—ηωα, to think, desire, purpose; then to esteem, reckon, impute, set to one’s account, 2 Samuel 19:19; Psalms 32:2; Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 17:2; Numbers 18:27.—A. G.] 2. The Covenant Sacrifice and the Covenant in reference to Canaan (Genesis 15:7-17). Jehovah gave to Abram the starry heavens as a sign of the promise of an heir. Now he promises to Abram the land of Canaan for his possession (Genesis 15:7). Abram asks a sign for this. Jehovah appoints the covenant which he would conclude with him over his sacrifices, for a sign. He determines, also, at first, the sacrifice which Abram should bring. The animals named here, are the sacrificial animals of the Levitical cultus. The future possession of Canaan was represented beforehand in the sacrifices of Canaan. The sacrificial animals were all divided (hence λψϊαψιϊ, to hew, cut a covenant), except the birds, and the dissevered parts laid over against each other. “The ceremonial of the covenant of old consisted in the contracting parties passing between the dead animals, with the imprecation, that in case of a breach in the covenant, it might be done to them as to these animals.” Against which Keil (who, however, without sufficient ground, denies that this act had the peculiar nature of a sacrifice), remarks: “This interpretation of ancient usage is not supported by Jeremiah 34:18.” “The interpretation which the prophet here gives to the symbolic usage, can only be a fuller explanation, which does not exclude another original idea of the symbol. The division of the sacrificial animals probably only typified the twofold character of the covenant; and the passage of the two contracting parties between the parts of the one sacrifice, typified their reconciliation to a unity.” This would be in accordance with the analogy of the symbol of the ancients, the tessera hospitalis, which was also divided into two parts in order to represent the alliance or union of the two possessors of the divided little table. Jehovah himself does not, indeed, appear as sharing in the offering of the sacrifice, but as a sharer in the sacrificial feast, which was signalized in the later thank-offering, in the show-bread, and essentially in all sacrifices. If the man who presents the sacrifice gives himself away to God, so Jehovah gives himself into communion with that man; forms a covenant with him. The individual specimens of the collective sacrificial animals, designate, in Calvin’s view, all Israel in all its parts, as one sacrifice. In the three years age, Theodoret finds an intimation of the three generations of bondage in Egypt; which Keil approves, with a reference to Judges 6:25 (seven years’ bondage, a seven year old bullock). The further intimations of numbers in the passage, to wit, a number seven, five, and eight, Keil rejects.—And when the fowls came down. The pieces lay for some time, unconsumed by the fire, and attracted the birds of prey, which would have polluted and preyed upon them, had not Abram driven them away. These are the heathen, the enemies of Israel, who would corrupt and destroy it, like the birds of prey (the sacrifice), which were held as unclean by the Jews. The hawk was sacred to the Egyptians, but the later Jews represented the opposition between Jews and heathen, through the dove and sparrow-hawk (see Knobel). But Abram, in his faith, remained the guardian-spirit of Israel, who secured its sacred destination (Psalms 105:42). Genesis 15:12. And when the sun was going down. From this reference to the time, we may judge what was the marvellous attention and watchfulness of Abram. The great scene of the revelation began on the previous night; he had stood under the starry heavens as holding a solemnity; the victims were slain, and the pieces distributed, and then the watch over them was held until the setting of the sun. His physical strength sinks with it, a deep sleep (ϊψγξδ) overcomes him. But the disposition for visions preserves itself in the sleep, and so much the more, since it is even the deep, prophetic sleep. Abram sees himself overtaken by a great horror of darkness, which the word of Jehovah explains to him. It was the anticipation of the terror of darkness, which, with the Egyptian bondage, should rest upon the people. This bondage itself is pointed out to him, under three or four circumstances: 1. They would be oppressed and tormented in this service; 2. it would endure four hundred years; 3. the oppressing people should be judged; 4. they should come out of the bondage with great substance. It is to be distinctly observed, that the name of this people, and the land of this servitude, is concealed. Moreover, there are further disclosures which concern the relation of the patriarch to this sorrow of his descendants. He himself should go to his fathers in peace in a good, that is, great age. But his people should reach Canaan in the fourth generation after its oppression, from which we may infer that a hundred years are reckoned as a generation.—For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. The Amorites, as the most powerful tribe of the Canaanites, stand here for the whole people (Joshua 24:15). Israel’s inheritance of Canaan is limited by the judgment upon the Canaanites; but this judgment itself is limited and conditioned by righteousness, according to which the measure of iniquity must first be full. Genesis 15:17. Behold a smoking furnace. This new manifestation must not be regarded as belonging to the dream vision, but as the intuition of the waking consciousness, under the form of a vision. For the divine acceptance of the sacrifice cannot be fulfilled in a dream, any more than the faith of Abram, than his sacrifice, or the making of the covenant itself.—The smoking furnace is analogous to the burning bush, and pillar of fire of Moses. That it here designates the anger of God (Keil) is not supported by Psalms 18:9. The fire-symbols are not always symbols of the consuming anger of God (as perhaps the seraphim), but also signs of purifying and saving judgments, as the pillar of fire, and pre-eminently the fire upon the altar of burnt-offering. And beyond doubt, in the sense of this passage, Jehovah goes with the sacrificial fire between the pieces of the animals. That the pieces were not laid upon the altar, arises from the mode of forming a covenant, according to which the contracting parties must pass between them. Abram had gone between them long before the evening. Now Jehovah goes through in the sacrificial flame. The image of the sacrifice signifies that the sacrificial fire should never be extinguished in Israel; this is visibly represented, moreover, under the flame of the altar. We must recognize clearly, that it is incredible that the flame should pass between the pieces of the sacrifice without consuming them. But the flame cannot designate the judgments of God upon the oppressors of Israel (Keil), since the pieces indeed designate Israel. But neither the judgments upon Israel, since the pieces which signify Israel were already divided, i.e., offered and dedicated to God. The sacrificial fire, as an efficient element of change, changes the flesh into a sweet savor for Jehovah, and the judgment of an earthly dissolution into an act of deliverance, into a new, heavenly existence. 3. The founding of the Covenant and its significance (Genesis 15:17-21).—Unto thy seed have I given this land. The covenant which Jehovah makes with Abram relates especially to the grant of the land of Canaan to his descendants. Hence, also, it is sealed with the offering of the sacrificial animals usual in the land.—From the river of Egypt. Keil holds that it is the Nile, because it is πϊψ, not πημ (Numbers 34:5). Knobel, on the other hand, remarks correctly: “The Nile cannot be intended, since the Euphrates would not have been described as the great river in opposition to it.” It is thus the Wady el Arisch, brook of Egypt, otherwise called Rhinocolura, lying at the southern limits of Israel (Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:4; Isaiah 27:12); not the Nile, because an oratorical hyperbole would not agree with the exact bounding of the land. [Hengstenberg, Beitrδge, vol. iii. p. 265, urges in favor of the Nile not only the term which is used, πָ ?ηָ ?ψ, and which is not interchangeable with the term for a small stream or brook, πημ, but also that the passage is rhetorical, as is clear from the fact that the tribes which the Israelites were to dispossess were purely Canaanitish, and no more extended to the Euphrates than to the Nile. Kurtz adds, that these two streams are here used as representative of the two great world-powers between which Israel should dwell. It is thus a prediction that the descendants of Abram should have an independent existence by the side of these two great empires, and that no nation should have any permanent sway between them and these two empires. So that their dominion may be said to reach from the Euphrates to the Nile.—These two rivers are, moreover, constantly referred to in the later Scriptures, as the extreme boundaries of Israel. See Isaiah 27:12; Jeremiah 2:18. In its best days too, the Israelitish dominion reached, to all intents, to Egypt, since all, or nearly all the intervening powers were subject to David and Solomon. Wilkinson holds that the word ιΰψ, river, a form of which is here used, is the Hebrew form of the Egyptian word Jaro, river, applied to the Nile; see Bush, Notes, p. 255.—A. G.] The Israelitish dominion should reach to the Euphrates, and did actually “in its best days” reach to it, but there is no record of its extension to the Nile. We are not dealing here with a prophetic and spiritual word, but with the definite bounds of the land, for the race of Abram, as is clear also from the following enumeration “Ten tribes are enumerated going from the southern border to the north, in order to fix and deepen the impression of universality and completeness, of which the number ten is the symbol—no tribes are excepted or spared (Delitzsch). In other passages, sometimes seven (Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 3:10), six (Exodus 3:8; Exodus 3:17; Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 20:17), five (Exodus 13:5), or even two (Genesis 13:7), are named; or finally, all are embraced under the common name, Canaanites.” Keil. The number ten is not, however, the number of completeness (that is twelve), but the number of a completed development; here of the completed development of the Canaanites for judgment. The Hivites (Genesis 10:17) are here omitted. The Hivites at Hermon, in the region of Lebanon, were afterwards driven out, but the Hivites at Gibeon were graciously spared (Judges 3:3; Joshua 11:19). “The Kenites were an Amalekitish—originally Arabian tribe, southerly from Canaan (Numbers 24:21; 1 Samuel 15:6; 1 Samuel 27:10; 1 Samuel 30:29), of whom a part afterwards removed to Canaan (Judges 1:16; Judges 4:11; Judges 4:17).” Knobel.—The Kenizzites. There is a reference to Kenaz, an Edomite (chap, Genesis 36:15; Genesis 36:42), with which Knobel joins the passage before us, but Keil objects, because he correctly assumes that Kenaz must have descended from Edom, without bringing into account the mingling of the Edomites with the original inhabitants of the land. The Kadmonites, also, are never anywhere more clearly determined. AND ETHICAL1. For the vision, see the Exegetical remarks. The vision of a shield and of a vast treasure, brings to remembrance the numerous revelations of God through images in the prophets, especially in Jeremiah and Zechariah. We must distinguish here the threefold form of the one revelation made through visions: 1. Revelation through images; 2. through the word; 3. through the vision in deep sleep, upon which there follows still a revelation to the waking consciousness through the word. The prophetic frame of mind on the part of Abram is very extraordinary, since it continued through a whole night and day, and into the following night. 2. The stages of the promise which Abram received, viewed, as to its genealogical sequence, may be regarded in this order: 1. Thou shalt be a man of blessing, and shalt become a great people (Genesis 12:1); 2. to thy seed will I give this land (Genesis 12:7); 3. to thy seed the land, to thy land thy seed (Genesis 13:14). Here (Genesis 15:18), the promise of the seed and the land was sealed in the form of a covenant. 4. The promise of a seed advances in the form of a covenant to the assurance that God would be the God of his seed (Genesis 17:7). 5. The promise is more definite, that not Ishmael but the son of Sarah should be his heir (Genesis 17:15 ff.). 6. The heir was promised in the next year (Genesis 18:10). 7. The whole promise in its richest fulness was sealed by the oath of Jehovah (Genesis 22). 3. The grand thought: God is our shield, or defence against all evil; God himself is our greatest reward or highest good; is the introductory completion of all religious desires and hopes. But man can remain upon this high standpoint only with the greatest difficulty. This is manifest from the application to practical uses and gains which Abram makes: Lord, what wilt thou give me? Although this application to his own advantage, carried out in a childlike spirit, is perfectly consistent with his faith. 4. Abram under the starry heavens, and his righteousness of faith. The peculiar determination of the character of the patriarchal religion. Here first, the full importance of faith comes into view. Here also, first, the reckoning of righteousness corresponding therewith. From this point onward, both fundamental thoughts run through the holy scripture (see Romans 4; James 2). The future of the Evangelical church was prepared on that night. It was the one peculiar blooming hour of all salvation by faith. But we must not, therefore, so weaken and lower the idea of righteousness, that we should explain it as equivalent with integrity, or in similar ways. Righteousness is the guiltless position or standing in the forum of right, of justice. The forum in which Abram stands here, is the forum of the inward life before God. In this he was, on the ground of his faith, declared righteous, through the word and the Spirit of God. Hence we read here, also, first of his peace, Genesis 15:15. 5. The difference between the four hundred years, Genesis 15:13, and Acts 7:6, and the four hundred and thirty years, Exodus 12:40, is explained, not only by the use of round, prophetic numbers here, but also from the fact, that we must distinguish between the time when the Israelites generally dwelt in Egypt, and the period when they became enslaved and oppressed. Paul counts (Galatians 3:17) the time between the promise and the law, as four hundred and thirty years, in the thought that the closing date of the time of the promise was the death of Jacob (Genesis 49.). See the Introduction; and for the difference in question, Delitzsch, p. 371. [Note upon the four hundred years Affliction and Servitude of Israel.—It is confessedly a matter of dispute how these four hundred years are to be computed. Some fix the birth of Isaac as the starting-point, others the entrance of Jacob into Egypt. The difficulty does not lie in reconciling the different statements of the Scripture, but in bringing any conclusion formed upon these statements, into harmony with a general system of Chronology. Baumgarten says: The principal thing in the threatening, the first word in the description of the sorrow, is an announcement of their condition as strangers, βֵ ?ψιִ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δζַ ?ψְ ?ςֲ ?κְ. The description, therefore, in his view, covers the period of their sojourn in Canaan, during which they were strangers. He urges, in favor of this, the words of the Apostle (Galatians 3:17), and the fact that the Israelites were to come out in the fourth generation; a generation obviously falling far short of a hundred years. They were to be there but three generations. The genealogical table, Exodus 6:16 ff. favors a much shorter residence than four hundred years; since the combined ages of the persons there mentioned, Levi, Kohath, Amram, including the years of Moses at the time of the exodus, amount to only four hundred and eighty-four years, from which we must take, of course, the age of Levi, at the entrance of Jacob into Egypt, and the ages of the different fathers at the birth of their sons. It is better, therefore, with Wordsworth, Murphy, Jacobus, and many of the earlier commentators, to make the four hundred years begin with the birth of Isaac, and the four hundred and thirty of the apostle to date from the call of Abram.—A. G.] 6. The demand for a sign relates to the promise of the land, not the promise of a seed. The starry heavens was the sign of the latter promise to him. Compare the similar demand of Gideon (Judges 6:17), and of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:8). The pious and believing desire for a sign points to a divine assurance, the impious to an unsanctified knowledge, or, indeed, a doubt. The constant form of the pious desire for a sign, is the believing enjoyment of the sacraments. 7. The sacrificial animals. See Leviticus. 8. The birds of prey. Compare Matthew 13:18-19. 9. The profound sleep. Compare Genesis 2:21; Biblework, p. 209. Thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace. With faith in the grace of God, the future is not only made clear and glorified (John 8:56), but he present also is illuminated. 10. The iniquities of the Amorites. See Exodus 34:11; Exodus 34:14; Leviticus 18:24; Leviticus 20:23; Numbers 33:52; Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:12.—No people is destroyed whose iniquity is not full.11. Both Delitzsch (p. 373) and Keil (p. 151), assert that there is no account here of a peculiar sacrifice of a covenant, nor of a peculiar covenant. Against the sacrifice of the covenant, it is said that Abram did not pass between the pieces of the sacrifice; but this is a pure supposition. Against the idea of a covenant, that there is no account of a pactio, but simply of a sponsio, a solemn promise of God to men. Let it be observed, however, that upon this interpretation the moral force in the doctrine of the covenant relation of God to the believer is fatally ignored, and that this interpretation also threatens to change the covenant blessing of the Christian sacraments from a moral to a magical blessing. The subject of the promise, Delitzsch remarks, excludes the idea of reciprocity. “In the covenant,” says Keil, “which God concludes with man, the man does not stand as upon mutual and equal terms with God, but God grounds the relation of communion, through his promise, and his gracious condescension, to man, whereby he is first prepared to receive, and then, through the reception of the gifts of grace, is prepared to discharge the duties flowing out of the covenant, and thus made obligatory upon him.” Although the covenant of God with believing humanity, is not a contract between equals, but God founds the covenant, it does not follow, that his founding it is a simple promise, although, even a simple promise, without some moral motive giving rise to it, would be absurd. But now, according to Romans 4. the foundation of the gracious covenant of God with Abram, was not laid in the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17.), but in the covenant of faith (Genesis 15). Hence the Jewish Targums, and after them, Christian theologians, have found in this chapter the forming of a covenant according to the explicit declaration, Genesis 15:17. Delitzsch himself, upon Genesis 17, says first: “God sealed his covenant with Abram,” but then further, “God founded his covenant with Abram.” But Keil, p. 155, remarks: “Long before, at least, long years before, God had established his covenant with Abram.” We make the following distinction: in Genesis 15, the eternal, valid covenant of faith was concluded; in Genesis 17 the specific, old covenant of circumcision, the provisional sealing of the covenant of faith, of which, under the New Testament, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the seals. If we recall, that the relation between the Lord and his church is that of the bridegroom and the bride, we shall truly dismiss the assumption of a magical working and efficacy of the covenant, and return to the high estimate of moral relations in the kingdom of personal life, in which also the passive position, which the Formula Conc. recognizes and holds in conversion is to be conceived as a moral state—in which the soul is held in the attitude of waiting, and does not grasp beforehand—produced in the strength of the gratia pr�veniens, and not as a pure creaturely and unconcerned yielding of one’s self to the pleasure of another. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs.—The great thought: God himself is our God: 1. Our shield; 2. our great reward (comp. Romans 8.).—It is allowed the saints, to ask: Lord, Lord, what wilt thou give me?—We learn from Abram to consult with God—as to our affairs;—to deliberate with Jehovah as to our future. Genesis 15:4. If the lesser is denied us, that itself intimates a grant of the higher.—In submission we are near the highest promises and gifts.—Abram, the childless, shall become the father of nations.—Abram in the starry night.—The word of God in the starry night.—The faith of Abram: 1. Abram a believer; 2. a father of believers (Romans 4.); 3. a father of all believers, especially of believers from the circumcision.—Abram’s righteousness of faith.—The key-note of his righteousness of faith: 1. The blessing has overcome the curse in his heart and life; 2. he will overcome it in the world through his seed; his children shall be as the stars of heaven.—The high antiquity of Evangelical faith.—The covenant of God with Abram.—Abram’s prophetic sleep.—The holy land: 1. In the literal sense; 2. as a type of the promised fatherland of believers.—The certainty of the promises of God.—The first mention of the grave cheerful and friendly.—The grave already illuminated and glorified with the glimpse of the life beyond. Starke: Lange: Fear and discouragement may sometimes assail the strongest heroes of faith; it is well, however, when they are not allowed to reign (Psalms 84:12; Romans 8:17; Psalms 73:25-26; Psalms 142:6)—[When some astronomers have attempted to specify the number of stars, and one asserts that there are 1392, another 1109, and still another, 7000, these are pure conjectures, upon which they cannot agree among themselves. Then, too, there are the thousands of stars, so remote in space, that they are not visible through the best telescopes. It would have been a small consolation to Abram, if his seed should only equal the small number of stars specified.]—Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23. Genesis 15:3. What a great thing, is it not, to be near a prudent householder!—Cramer: If we will be counsellors of God, we will do it to our injury.—God places before the reason, incomprehensible (and incredible) things; for, what we can comprehend, there is no necessity that we should believe.—God foreknows all things. Genesis 15:15. This is a pleasant description of death.—In what a good age consists.—The burial of the dead is a primitive custom, of which this is the first notice. We never find, in the Holy Scriptures, any mention of the burning of the dead, customary among the heathen; or of any other way than of burial (Judges 2:9).—God exercises a constant foresight, even over the seed of believers. Lisco: The war with the kings, although victoriously ended, might provoke retaliation afterwards; thus the present state of Abram’s mind is connected with his previous state. Genesis 15:2. God is here for the first time called Adonai. Genesis 15:6. Abram is under he trial or test.—Although Abram possessed so many beautiful and noble qualities of heart, and in his walk manifests so many virtues, yet he is not, through all these, righteous before God, not in the possession of the divine favor, for there is also sin in him, etc. This defect his faith, his living confidence in God (more precisely, the word of God which he grasps in his faith), supplies.—The justification of the sinner by faith, is the only way of righteousness, before, during or after the giving of the law. Genesis 15:15. Go to thy fathers. They must then still live upon the other side of death, in another state and life; the continued existence after death is here evident, and, indeed, as the word in peace, intimates, a blessed existence for the pious. Genesis 15:16. All nations hold their land, likewise, in fee from God, and will be deprived of it when their rebellion against the Lord their God has reached its full height. Thus the Amorites, and thus the Israelites at the exile, and the second destruction of Jerusalem. Genesis 15:17. The flame of fire is the sign of the gracious presence of God, and of his pleasure in the sacrifice (Leviticus 9:24).—Gerlach: Abram confesses his pain and grief.—Without the least apparent human probability, he trusts unconditionally upon the divine and gracious promise. The word “believed” is here exact, or precise; he cleaves to the Lord (precisely: he stays, supports, rests himself upon the Lord).—The three years old animals, because fully grown; faultless animals must be chosen for sacrifice. Genesis 15:15. To go to his fathers(Genesis 25:8; Genesis 35:29; Genesis 49:29; Genesis 49:33; Deuteronomy 32:50; 2 Kings 22:20). The beautiful expression for the life after death, testifies that even in the highest antiquity, the outlook into the life on the other side of the grave, was neither dark nor gloomy.—(Genesis 15:17. Description of the oriental furnace; a great, cylindrical-shaped fire-pot).—Calwer, Handbuch: Abram’s doubt, and newly strengthened faith. He believed without the sight.—Bunsen: [a marvellous translation: The Son of Mesek, possession, is my house, Eliezer a Damascene].—Schrφder: The present and future of Abram—God anticipates, prevents (with the Eliezer). Ch. 16 states another project, springing out of the weakness of his faith. Abram sees not, he believes.—Here appears for the first time the word, whose nature and strength we have recognized from the first promise onward, and especially in the previous history of Abram.—Hess: Genesis 15:13. To prevent Egypt’s becoming hateful to him, the land was not named (this concealment is rather a trait which attests and authenticates the genuine prophecy).—The flame of fire is typical of the divine presence and majesty.—Schwenke: Genesis 15:6. We agree with Luther, this is the great word in this book.—Taube: The temptation of the believer: 1. What is the highest necessity? 2. the highest consolation? 3. How can one pass out from the highest necessity into the greatest consolation?—Hofmann: It was the review of faith which fitted Abram to look out into the future. He looked onward to the blessed rest of the people of God, but he could not do this, except as he recognized in God, the restorer of that life of man—his own life, the life of his seed, and of the race—perverted and fallen by sin, and burdened with the curse. Dark and troubled it may well be, were the thoughts of the father of the faithful, but the experience of his heart and life were sure. Footnotes: [The word of the Lord came or was. “This is the first place in the Bible where this phrase occurs, and it introduces a prophetic vision and promise of Abram’s posterity in Christ—the incarnate word.” Wordsworth.—A. G.] [The ΰָ ?πֹ ?λִ ?ι is emphatic.—A. G.] [The rendering “thy reward is exceeding great,” although consistent with the original, and yielding a good sense, fails to bring out clearly the prominent thought in the promise. It is not the great things which Jehovah would give, but Jehovah himself, to which the mind of Abram is turned as his reward.—A. G.] [There is an obvious paranomasia here—ben-meshek—Dammesek. Wordsworth, after Lightfoot and others, calls attention to the fact, that the name Eliezer is the same as Lazarus in our Lord’s parable (Luke 16:20), and to the analogy between that parable and this history. These “silent analogies between the Old and New Testaments” are striking and important.—A. G.] [Baumgarten suggests that Eliezer was born at Damascus; then the αֶ ?οαֵּ ?ιϊִ ?ι is not Eliezer, but his son, p. 185.—A. G.] [Heb. Son of my house is inheriting me; so also in the 4th verso, there shall not inherit thee this one.—A. G.] [There is no impassable cleft or abyss between the Spheres of vision and of sense, or between the supersensible and the sensible.—A. G.] [Not, however, as expressing any doubt, but as the natural working and fruit of his faith.—A. G.] [Genesis 15:7.—I am the Lord that brought thee, etc. See the “Preface to the Ten Commandments,” Jacobus, p. 268.—A. G.] [Baumgarten says that as this sacrifice was a covenant sacrifice, and lay at the foundation of all the sacrifices of the covenant, all the animals used in those sacrifices were here required.—A. G.] [Heb., was about to go down.—A. G.] [Genesis 15:13. Know of a surety. Know, know thou. Know certainly. This responds to Abram’s question, Whereby shall I know? Genesis 15:8. Murphy, p. 218.—A. G.] [Kurtz regards this as the first appearance of the Schechinah, and says: “It is the symbol of the gracious presence of God: the splendor of his glory, the consuming fire of his holiness, which no mere human eye can bear, before which no sinful child of man can stand, is veiled beneath his grace,” p. 180.—A G.] [They seem to have been the more eastern, and to have held the other extreme boundary of the promised land, towards the Euphrates. Murphy p. 300.—A. G.] [Righteousness must he had, or there is no salvation. Men have lost righteousness, and the power to gain it. How can it be secured? It is by faith. It is counted to believers; see for illustration Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 17:4; 2 Samuel 19:19, and Romans 4.—A. G.] [Jacobus, Notes, p. 267. 1. Abram had no righteousness for justification. 2. Faith is not imputed to him as a work, as a meritorious ground of justification, but only as instrumental, laying hold on a perfect righteousness. 3. The law could not claim any other than a perfect righteousness—his own or another’s imputed to him—set to his account. And this is the gospel plan of salvation—to reckon the perfect righteousness received by faith, as our righteousness for justification.—A. G.] [Kurtz: He is righteous who, through the freedom of his will, conforms to the divine idea and end of his being. Wordsworth is better: Righteousness is that state in which man’s will Is conformed to God’s will—that state in which Adam was created, but from which he fell by sin, p. 74.—A. G. [The Lord administers the affairs of nations on the principle of moral rectitude. Murphy, p. 299. Wordsworth calls attention to this sentence in its relation to the destruction of the Canaanites by Israel, p. 76.—A. G.] [Kurtz holds that Abram did not now pass between the pieces; that this is but one side of the covenant, in which God, but not Abram, brings himself under covenant obligation; and that the covenant is completed and ratified by Abram in the transactions. Ch. 17 p. 179.—A. G.] [This obviously needs modification.—A. G.] FIFTH SECTIONAbram’s Concession to Sarai’s Impatience. Abram and Hagar. Hagar’s Flight. The Angel of the Lord. Hagar’s Return, and Ishmael’s Birth Genesis 16:1-161 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife [in the face of the previous promise], bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar [flight, fugitive]. 2And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing; I pay thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain [be builded], children by hen And 3Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. 4And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee. 6But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee [is good in thine eyes]. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. 7And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur [rocky. Josephus: Pelusium. Gesenius: Suez. Keil: Dschοfar]. 8And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence earnest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress, Sarai. 9And the angel of the Lord said unto her. Return to thy mistress, and submit [bow] thyself under her hands. 10And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be [cannot be] numbered for multitude. 11And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael 12[God will hear]; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction [distress]. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren—[far and wide in a free country]. 13And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me [of true seeing]: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that [peculiarly] seeth me? 14Wherefore the well was called, Beer-lahai-roi [well of the life of seeing, or vision]; behold, it is between Kadesh [consecrated] and Bered [hail, gravel-like hail?]. 15And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. 16And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram. REMARKFor the difficulties growing out of the sexual relations in the history of the Patriarchs, see the Introduction, p. 80. AND 1. According to Knobel, this section is a Jehovistic enlargement of a brief Elohistic original narrative. But the narrative bears upon its face a complete and living unity. 2. Sarai’s Fanatical Self-denial (Genesis 16:1-4). Bare him no children. Not even yet, although he had already received (Genesis 15) the solemn assurance of the great promise. She was barren in Genesis 11:30, and remained so after Genesis 15:2. The childless state of Abram’s house was its great sorrow, and the more so, since it was in perpetual opposition to the calling, destination, and faith of Abram, and was a constant trial of his faith. Sarai herself, moreover, the consort of Abram, came gradually more and more to appear as a hindrance to the fulfilment of the divine promise, and as Abram, according to Genesis 15, had fixed his eye upon his head servant, Eliezer of Damascus, so now, Sarai fixes her eye upon her head maiden, Hagar the Egyptian. Hagar was probably added to the household of Abram during his residence in Egypt (Genesis 12:10). She manifestly possessed a prominent place in his household, and appears to have brought to that position, not only mental gifts, but also an inward participation in the faith of the household.—The Lord hath restrained me from bearing. (The mother’s womb closed—a figurative description of the appointed barrenness). The barrenness, also, is traced back to the highest causality, the purpose of Jehovah (Genesis 29:31; Genesis 30:32; Psalms 127:3; Isaiah 66:9). The sexual relations, and the declarations in regard to them, are sanctified by their ultimate end, their spiritual reference. The dejection, at least, the sorrow, breaks out in the words of Sarai, also, as they had in the utterance of Abram, Genesis 15:3.—Go in unto. Euphemistic explanation of the sexual connection.—It may be that I may obtain (be builded) by her. As to the connection between αιϊ ,αο ,απδ, see the lexicons. To be built, is to become a house; to become a house, is to obtain children, a family. Hagar should enlarge Sarai: Hagar’s child should be her child (see Genesis 30:3). The concubine, viewed in the light of this reason, for which she is chosen, is not so much the concubine of the husband, as supplementary concubine of the wife. The moral idea of monogamy shines clearly through this obscurity in its manifestation, and so far this, “possession of concubines” (as Knobel expresses it) must be distinguished from the later polygamy, which appeared among the Jews. Sarai practises an act of heroic self-denial, but still, in her womanly and fanatical excitement, anticipates her destiny as Eve had done, and carries even the patriarch away with her alluring hope. The writer intimates how nobly generous she was in her error. This greatness clouded even the clear-sightedness of Abram. The narrator brings also into prominence the extenuating fact, that they had been already ten years in Canaan, waiting in vain for the heir of Canaan.—When she saw that she had conceived. “The unfruitful Hannah received the like treatment with Sarai, from the second wife of her husband (1 Samuel 1:6). It is still thus, to-day, in eastern lands (see Lane: ‘Manners and Customs,’ i. p. 198). The Hebrew regards barrenness as a great evil and a divine punishment (Genesis 19:31; Genesis 30:1; Genesis 30:23; Leviticus 20:20), and fruitfulness as a great good and a divine blessing (Genesis 21:6; Genesis 24:60; Exodus 23:26; Deuteronomy 7:14). The orientals regard these things in the same light still (see Volney: ‘Travels,’ ii. p. 359; Malcolm’s ‘History of Persia;’ and Winer: Real-wφrterbuch, art. Kinder).” Knobel. Hagar, however, had not the position of a second wife, and erred, when in her disposition she assumed this position, instead of recognizing her subordination to her mistress. This subordination was assumed by Abram, and therefore he does not seem to have noticed her haughtiness and pride.3. Sarai’s Displeasure and Hagar’s Flight (Genesis 16:5-6).—My wrong be upon thee. Precisely, wrong in an objective sense, wrong which I suffer. Sarai, in her indignation against the pride and insolence of Hagar, believed that Abram looked with approbation upon it, and therefore expresses herself as if offended. The overbent bow flies back with violence. This is the back-stroke of her own eager, overstrained course. Still, her words are against Abram; the consequences of her wrong should fall upon him; she would leave his conduct to the judgment of Jehovah, more as an appeal to his con-science, than as a decided condemnation.—Behold thy maid is in thy hand. Abram adheres firmly to the original standpoint. He regards Hagar still as the servant, and the one who fulfils the part of Sarai, and so far justifies himself against Sarai. But this justification is turned now into the severe censure and affliction of Hagar, and this is the result of the wrong position into which he has allowed himself to be drawn.—Sarai dealt hardly with her. How, precisely, we are not told. Doubtless, through the harsh thrusting her back into the mere position and service of a slave. Hagar believed that she had grown above such a position, and flees. The proud, unyielding passion of the Ishmaelite for freedom, shows its characteristic feature in their ancestress. Some have ventured so far, as to suppose that Abram must have hastened after her, and brought her back, full of honor. 4. The intervention on the part of the Angel of Jehovah, and Hagar’s return (Genesis 16:7-14).—The Angel of Jehovah. See the preliminary remarks to Genesis 12. [The expression ξַ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ appears here for the first time. While the Angel of Jehovah is Jehovah himself, it is remarkable, that in the very meaning of the name, as messenger, or one who is sent, there is implied a distinction of persons in the Godhead. There must be one who sends, whose message he bears.—A. G.] That this Angel is identical with Jehovah, is placed beyond question in Genesis 16:13-14. The disposition of Hagar, helpless, forsaken, with all her pride, still believing in God, warned by her own conscience, makes it altogether fitting that the Angel of Jehovah should appear to her, i.e., Jehovah himself, in his condescension—manifesting himself as the Angel.—She had found rest, by a fountain in the wilderness; and here, in her helplessness, self-reflection, and repentance, she gains the disposition or fitness for the vision. It was by the fountain in the way to Shur. “Shur, now Dschοfar, is the northwestern part of the desert of Arabia, bordering upon Egypt (comp. Exodus 15:22; and Tuch: in der deutschen morgenlδnd. Zeitschrift, i. p. 175).” Keil. (Genesis 25:18; 1 Samuel 15:7; 1 Samuel 27:8). A waste stretch of land, of five or six days’ journey, lying between Palestine and Egypt (see Knobel, p. 158). Her location was thus upon the old, worn path, leading from Hebron by Beersheba to Egypt. The respect which she enjoyed agrees with her personal, inward worth, as to her character and faith, but at the same time tends to the proper estimate of Ishmael, who, as the child of Abram, could not be left undistinguishable among the heathen. The Angel of the incarnation, even, could not permit that Hagar, in an erroneous zeal to become his future mother, should go on his own account into helpless sorrow. His first address sounds as the voice of her own awakened conscience: Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? Truly, out of a wilfully sundered relation of duty and piety, and out of the house of blessing. [The angel brings her to a sense of her true relation: Sarai’s maid, not Abram’s wife.—A. G.]—And whither goest thou? indeed, wilfully into guilt, disgrace, and sorrow. Her answer testifies to the oppression which she had experienced, but also to the voice of her own conscience.—From the face of my mistress, Sarai.—Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself. [Submit, humble thyself; the same word as that by which Sarai’s harsh-dealing is described.—A. G.] The command to return to duty comes first, then the promise. It carries the joyous sound of an innumerable progeny—the tribes of Ishmael.—Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard. Misery sighs; the sighs ascend to God; hence misery itself, if not sent as a curse, is a voiceless prayer to God. But this is true especially of the misery of Hagar, who had learned to pray in the house of Abram. “According to the later writers, it was the custom that the mother should name the child (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 4:25; Genesis 19:37 ff; Genesis 29:32 ff; Genesis 30:6 ff; Genesis 38:3 ff.).; but the Elohist allows the child to be named only by the father (Genesis 5:3; Genesis 16:15; Genesis 17:19; Genesis 21:3; comp. Genesis 15:18).” Knobel. This distinction is obviously far-fetched. It is only on special occasions that the mother is referred to as giving the name to the child. In Genesis 38:3-4, the father and mother are alternately concerned in giving the name. Abram himself afterwards appropriates the maternal naming of Ishmael.—And he will be a wild man (wild-ass man). The limitation of the promise is connected with the promise itself. Hagar must be cured of the proud delusion, that she is destined to become the mother of the believing people of Abram, and that therefore the hope of Abram depends upon her personal self-destination; a supposition which doubtless had taken firm possession of her mind, through the presupposition of Sarai herself. The image of the wild ass is not chosen in a contemptuous sense. “The figure of the τֶּ ?ψֶ ?ΰ, onager, in the desert, free, wild-roving and untamable animal, poetically described in Job 39:5-8, designates, in a striking manner, the Bedouin Arabs with their unrestrained love of freedom, as upon camel (Delϋl) or horse, with spear in hand, they ride over the desert, noisy, hardy, frugal, delighting in the varied beauties of nature, and despising life in towns and cities:” and the words, his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him, describe the ceaseless feuds among themselves and with their neighbors, in which the Ishmaelites live.” Keil. Compare the characteristics of Esau, Genesis 27:40. For the description of the Arabs in the books of travels, see Knobel, p. 158. Knobel thinks that here also the prophetic image is drawn after the descendants (the free sons of the desert), and finds besides that the promises (Genesis 17:20; Genesis 21:20,) “have a more favorable sound.” If this were true, it would be only the other side of the same figure. Hagar must know, above all other things, that Ishmael could not appropriate to himself the inheritance of blessing. This is intimated in the words, In the presence of all his brethren. He will thus have brethren, but shall dwell in the presence of all, a free man. Keil remarks, that ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι signifies primarily, eastward, according to Genesis 25:9, but that there is more in the terms than a mere geographical notice, to wit, that Ishmael shall dwell independently, in the presence of all the descendants of Abram. But history has abundantly confirmed this promise. “Until to-day the Ishmaelites are in unimpaired, free possession of the great peninsula lying between the Euphrates, the isthmus of Suez, and the Red Sea, from whence they have spread over wide districts in North Africa and Southern Asia” (comp. Delitzsch, p. 377 ff.)—And she called the name of the Lord (Jehovah). The naming f God by Hagar (ΰֵ ?μΞψֳ ?ΰִ ?ι) has been variously interpreted. Hengstenberg, with Tuch, finds the explanation in the farther named well, “well of the life of seeing,” or “vision,” i.e. where a person has seen the face of God, and remains alive. Delitzsch holds this to be a verbal impossibility. We add, that the supposition as to the reality in this explanation, which appears also in Keil, is incorrect. We must distinguish between the patriarchal and legal periods. Of the legal period it is said: thou canst not see my face, for no man shall see me and live (Exodus 33:20); that was true of Moses, so far as he was the mediator of his sinful people (see Exodus 33:13). The prejudice in Israel, that no one could see the revelation of God and live (Judges 13:22), took its origin from these words. But the sense of the words was, that the manifestation of God in the midst of the sinful people of Israel, and even for Moses, so far as he was the representative of the people, would be fatal. Hence the regulation requiring darkness in the holy of holies. But of Moses, viewed in and for himself, it is said: The Lord spake with him face to face (Exodus 33:11). Moses, in and for himself, stood upon the patriarchal ground, but as the mediator of the people, he stood upon the ground of the law, and must first, through the sight of the grace of the Lord, be prepared for the sight of his glory (Exodus 33:19). It is an error to confuse the two economies, patriarchal and legal. Here the Angel of the Lord reveals himself, there the law is ordained through the Angel. Here, those wearied of life, go in peace to their fathers, there death is the wages of sin. Here one sees God in the reality of true vision, there God retires into the darkness of the Holy of Holies. It is still a question, however, whether ψֳ ?ΰִ ?ι should mean, the one seeing my person (the participle from ψΰδ with the suffix of the first person) as Hofmann, Baumgarten, and Delitzsch explain after the Chaldee: “thou art a God of sight, whose all-seeing eye will not overlook the helpless and forsaken, even in the most remote corner of the desert.” The meaning of the name Moriah (Genesis 22:2; Genesis 22:8; Genesis 22:14) appears to be in favor of this reference of the seeing, to God. But here, also, the seeing of Jehovah, was perceived from the appearance of Jehovah, i.e. from his becoming seen (or visible). Keil quotes against the interpretation of Hofmann the expression ψֹ ?ΰֵ ?πεּ (Isaiah 29:15) and ψֹ ?ΰָ ?πִ ?ι (Isaiah 47:10), as a designation of the one seeing—who sees me. Thus: ψֳ ?ΰִ ?ι in pauseψֹ ?ΰִ ?ι is a substantive, and designates the sight, the vision. Gesenius, Keil, and others: “God has manifested himself to her as a God of vision, who can be seen of the actual, most perfect sight, in his angel.”—For she said, Have I also looked after him. Do I see him still. This is not said in the sense of the popular judgment of the legal period: Am I actually still seeing, i.e. in the land of the living, after I have seen Jehovah? (Kiel, Knobel, etc.); but, what I now see in this wretched desert, is that still to be regarded as seeing, after I have seen the Angel of the Lord? (= the glory of the Lord?) This is a true, and in the highest degree, real characterizing of the glorious seeing in the condition of the vision (“I have seen thy throne, O Lord, from afar”). It is at the same time, in the highest degree natural, as Hagar expresses the contrast between the two conditions, that of the ordinary seeing and that of the highest seeing (vision).—Wherefore the well was called. Thus not the well of the life of seeing or life of vision (Hengstenberg, Keil), but where the life = the life-giver—quickener, manifests himself, who grants the vision.—Between Kadesh and Bered. “Although Bered is not mentioned elsewhere, Rowland has still, with great probability, pointed out the well of Hagar, mentioned again (Genesis 24:62; Genesis 25, 11), in the fountain Ain Kadesh, lying in the camping-ground of the caravans moving from Syria to Sinai southward from Beersheba, Moyle, or Moilchi, Muweilch (Robinson: Palestine), which the Arabians call Moilahhi (or Mai-lahhi) Hadjar; who show there also a rocky dwelling, Beit-Hadjar (see Rowland, in Ritter’sErdkunde, xiv. p. 1086). Bered must lie to the west of this.” Keil. 5. Hagar’s Return (Genesis 16:15-16). There are two points which must still be noticed here. First, that Abram receives the name Ishmael, with which, of course, the re-reception of Hagar is expressed; and secondly, the age of Abram, which is of importance in view of the next recurring revelation of Jehovah, as showing the lapse of time between them. AND ETHICALSee the Exegetical paragraphs. 1. Sarai’s character: noble generosity, self-denial, the female friend still more than the sister or wife of Abram, but woman-like, and in a fanatical way anticipating the patience of faith (see 1 Peter 3:6). 2. The moral motive or impulse of seeking the heir of blessing, made availing to an erroneous and selfish degree, is here torn away from its connection with the love impulse or motive, and exalted above it in importance (see the Introduction, p. 81). 3. This substitution of the maid for the mistress must, however, be distinguished from polygamy in its peculiar sense. Hagar, on the contrary, regards herself—in the sense of polygamy, as standing with Sarai, and as the favored, fruitful wife, exalts herself above her. The shadow of polygamy resting upon patriarchal monogamy. Isaac’s marriage free from this. It has the purest New Testament form. Rebecca appears, indeed, to have exercised a certain predominant influence, as the wife often does this in the Christian marriage of modern times. 4. Abram’s wrong position between Sarai and Hagar—the result of his yielding to the fanaticism of Sarai.5. The Angel of the Lord (Genesis 12). The voice of the Angel and the voice of the awakened conscience one, and yet distinct. 6. The words of the Angel leading to conversion: 1. Clear description: Hagar, Sarai’s maid; 2. Whence earnest thou? 3. Whither wilt thou go? The beginning of conversion itself: simple, pure, clear knowledge. 7. Obligation and promises are not to be separated in the kingdom of God, for it is throughout a moral region. But the form changes according to the circumstances—now the higher (evangelical) promises and obligations, now the lower (preparatory) obligations and promises. Genesis 16:10. Gerlach: A blessing in its external form greater even than that promised to Abram, Genesis 15:5. Still, even in the feebler splendor, we should recognize the great promised blessing of the father of believers. “Arabia, whose population consists to a large extent of Ishmaelites, is a living fountain of men whose streams for thousands of years have poured themselves far and wide to the east and west. Before Mohammed, its tribes were found in all border-Asia, in the East Indies as early as the middle ages; and in all Northern Africa it is the cradle of all the wandering hordes. Along the whole Indian Ocean, down to Molucca, they had their settlements in the middle ages; they spread along the coast to Mozambique; their caravans crossed India to China; and in Europe they peopled Southern Spain, and ruled it for seven hundred years.” Ritter. 8. Hagar’s satisfaction with the future of her son, a sign of her humiliation. The picture of Ishmael here the image of a scion of Abram and the maid (Goethe: “From my father comes the bodily stature, the bearing of the higher life; from my mother the joyful disposition and love of pleasure.” See Lange: Vermischte Schriften, i. p. 156.) The relation between ancestors and their descendants. The law of life which lies at the ground of the contrast between the son of the maid and the son of the free (John 1:13). The discord in the offspring of misalliances. Ed. Pφpping: “Travels in Chili, Peru, etc.” p. 139. On the color. These mixed progenies reward the dark mother with contempt, the white father, with aversion. “A large part of the Bedouins still lead a robber-life. They justify themselves in it, upon the ground of the hard treatment of Ishmael, their father, who, driven out of his paternal inheritance, received the desert for his possession, with the permission to take wherever he could find.” Gerlach. “The Arabian’s land, according to their assumed right, reaches as far as they are free to go.” Ritter. 9. The importance of the Arabs in history. Ishmael. God hears. The strong, world-historical “wild-ass,” springs out of the mercy of God towards the misery of Hagar. His hand against every man: this is true of the spiritual Ishmael, Mohammedanism, in its relation to other religions. It stands in a fanatical polemic relation.—The Arabians have never been overcome by any of the great world-conquerors, while they have made great and world-wide conquests. 10. Hagar’s expression in regard to her vision. The divine vision a look into the eternal world. Actual sight in the world of sense is no more sight, when compared with this. 11. The living God is a God of human vision, because he is a God of divine revelation. 12. The well of the living God, in which he makes men to see (the true seeing) a symbol of the gospel of the kingdom of God, of the Church in the desert of the world. 13. Hagar’s return laid the foundation for the world-historical dignity and honor of her son Ishmael.—Ishmael, also, must return to Abram’s house. AND Gen_16:1-4. The fanatical anticipation of men, grasping after their destination, and its results, a judgment in favor of the more patient waiting and expectation: 1. In the history of Sarai; 2. the history of Eve; 3. in the history of the Church (the mediζval anticipation of the kingdom of glory).—The perils of the husband in his relations to the wife: 1. Her fanaticism (Sarai); 2. her sensuality (Hagar).—Sarai’s indignation: the reaction from fanatical, over-strained zeal. Genesis 16:4. Hagar’s pride: the exaltation which we experience, is easily destroyed if we are so disposed, through self-glorying.—The wrong position of Abram the result of his conduct not originating in himself. Genesis 16:7. The Angel of the Lord; or the most wretched in the kingdom of God, enjoy the highest revelations of his mercy.—The Angel of the Lord as an angel of conversion: 1. His address; 2. his question, Whence; 3. his question, Whither; 4. his instruction; 5. his promises; 6. the extent and order in his promises.—Hagar’s experience, that sight, is no more sight after the vision.—Man beholds by faith, because God looks upon him in grace.—At the wells in the desert.—Hagar’s return.—The perpetuation of the experience of Hagar, in the name Ishmael.—Abram eighty-six years old.—Age no security against folly.—God turns the follies of believers to their good.—Ishmael’s importance in history (field for missions in the East). Starke: Genesis 16:2. That was an abuse of the ruling power over her maid, and of the power of marriage which Sarai had over the body of her husband (1 Corinthians 7:3). Sarai, as well as Abram, was concerned in the sin, hence the defenders of concubinage and polygamy have no ground upon which to stand here.—(Foreign, and especially unbelieving servants of strange religions, may often work great injury to a master or a government).—We must not do evil that good may come (Romans 3:8).—Although a man may counsel with his wife, and follow her counsel, it must not be done to go into evil.—Lange: See, fellow-christian, what one’s own will and choice will do for a man! It enjoins often a greater denial than God requires of him.—Cramer: Genesis 16:4. It is a common fault, that the morals of many are changed by their elevation to honor, and that prosperity brings pride (Proverbs 30:21-23).—Kindness is quite generally rewarded by ingratitude. Genesis 16:7. A proof that the Angel of the Lord was the Son of God. Genesis 16:5. It is a common course with men to roll their guilt upon others.—Lange: Nothing is more injurious to the quiet comfort of marriage, and of the whole household, and to the training of children, than polygamy: it is impossible, therefore, that it should be in accordance with the law of nature.—The Same: Ishmael is the first of those, to whom God has assigned their name before their birth. After him there are five others: Isaac (Genesis 17:19), Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:9), Josiah (1 Kings 13:2), Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1)? and John (Luke 1:13). Lastly, Jesus, the Saviour, is the seventh (Matthew 1:21).—Luther: The positions in life are very unlike. Therefore we should remember and hold to this consolation, which the Angel shows: lo, thou art a servant, a maid, poor, etc. Let this be for thy comfort, that thy God looks alike upon masters and servants, rich and poor, sinners and saints.—Cramer: It is according to the ordinance of God, that one should be lord, another servant, etc. (1 Corinthians 7:10).—Bibl. Tub.: Thou hast sinned, humble thyself, take cheerfully the chastisement; nothing is more wholesome than that which will bow our proud spirits into humility (2 Samuel 24:10; 2 Samuel 24:14). Genesis 16:14. He who not only holds Hagar in life, but is also the life itself (John 11:25; Deuteronomy 32:46), the living God (Deuteronomy 5:26; Psalms 42:3, etc.).—In this God we shall find the true living springs of all good and mercy (Psalms 36:9; Jeremiah 2:13; Jeremiah 17:13; Isaiah 55:1). Lisco: Sinful helping of ourselves.—Man must not only leave the end to God, but also the means (Romans 11:36). Genesis 16:7. The (not one) Angel of the Lord, the uncreated Angel of the Covenant (Malachi 3:1). Genesis 16:13. These words designate the reality of that revelation made to her and for her good.—The breach of the divine ordinance soon avenges itself, for the unnatural relation in which the slave had been placed by her mistress herself, prepared for the mistress the most vexatious grief.—Gerlach: The Angel of the Lord, is the divine revealer of God, the leader of the patriarchs (Genesis 48:16); the one who calls and animates Moses (Exodus 3:2); the leader of the people through the wilderness (Exodus 14:19, etc.; Isaiah 63:9); the champion of the Israelites in Canaan (Joshua 5:13); and still farther, the leader and ruler of the covenant-people (Judges 2:1 ff; Judges 6:11; Judges 13:13); then he who in Isaiah is the Angel of his face or presence (Isaiah 63:9); in Daniel, Michael (and by whom Gabriel was sent to the prophet, Daniel 10:13 ?) in Zechariah, measures the new building of Jerusalem (Genesis 2:1); and in Malachi is the Angel of the Covenant (Genesis 3:1).—Calwer, Handbuch: Mohammed is a son of Ishmael, and Abram’ is thus, according to the flesh, the ancestor of Islam.—The Arabian, even now, grounds upon this passage, in his pride and delusion, a claim that the rights of primogeniture belong to Ishmael instead of Isaac, and asserts his own right to lands and goods, so far as it pleases him.—Vengeance for blood rules in him, and in many cases, also, the work of the robber is seen all along his path. Genesis 16:12. In the presence of all his brethren: the Israelites, Midianites, Edomites, and the Moabites and Ammonites, who were descended from Lot.—Schrφder: Genesis 16:7. The Angel of the Lord finds Hagar; that presupposes he had sought her (Deuteronomy 32:10).—God meets thee in thy desert; he comes to thee in thy conscience; he kindles in thee the sparks into a flame, and comes to thy help in his grace (Berleb. Bibel).—Islamism occupies incontestably the place of a middle link between revelation and heathenism; as even the Koran calls the Ishmaelites, an intermediate nation (Ziegler: it names it thus in another sense, however).—God tries us in such changes: comfort follows sorrow; hope succeeds to despondency; and life to death. (Portraiture of the Arabian, of the wild-ass. The Arabian = son of the morning—Judges 6:3; Judges 6:33; Judges 8:10). Genesis 16:16. Moses records the age of Abram, that we might know how long he had to wait for Isaac the promised son, whom Sarai should bear (Calvin).—Passavant: Impatience. Genesis 16:1-6. Ah, should God grant us our own way, permit us to order our present, to arrange our future, to adorn our houses, without consulting with him, it would be no good and joyful thing to us. Whoever has, as to his way, separated himself from him, and sought afar from him, without his wisdom, happiness, salvation, life, acts unwisely, wickedly. His light is obscure, his step uncertain, the ground trembles beneath him, and his lights (lamps) are soon extinguished in darkness.—The woman has learned, in Abram’s house, to recognize the God over all gods.—Schwenke: Genesis 16:7. She believes that her departure from the house of Abram would determine him to hasten after her and bring her back, etc. She sits down by the fountain, vainly waiting, until Abram should come to lead her home. Her pride is broken.—The call of the Angel.—That was the call of the good shepherd, who would bring back the wandering sheep. Thus even now the two peoples who received the promise, the descendants of Ishmael and Israel, stand as the monument of the divine veracity, as peculiar and even singular instances; guarding with the greatest care their nationality, practising their old customs and usages, and preserving, in their exclusiveness, their spiritual strength (destination?)  Footnotes: [Here, of course, her slave, bond-woman.—A. G.] [Heb., shut me up.—A. G.] [Abram yields to the suggestion of Sarai without opposition, because, as the prophet Malachi says, ii.15, he sought the seed promised by God. Keil, p. 152.—A. G.] [And it was this apparent indifference which probably was the source of Sarai’s sense of injury. She was led from it to suspect that the affections of her husband were transferred.—A. G.] [She felt that Abram ought to have redressed her wrong—ought to have seen and rebuked the insolence of the bond-woman.—A. G.] [The appeal is hasty and passionate—springing from a mind smarting under the sense of injury—and not calm and reverential.—A. G.] [The phraseology indicates to us a certain inherent plurality within the essence of the one only God, of which we have had previous indications, Genesis 1:1; Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22. Jacobus, p. 277. [All the modern travellers speak of these same qualities as still existing among the Arabs.—A. G.] [Kalisch remarks in substance: “Every addition to our knowledge of Arabia and its inhabitants, confirms more strongly the biblical statements. While they have carried their arms beyond their native tracts, and ascended more than a hundred thrones, they were never subjected to the Persian Empire. The Assyrian and Babylonian kings had only transitory power over small portions of their tribes. Here the ambition of Alexander the Great and his successors received an insuperable check, and a Roman expedition, in the time of Augustus, totally failed. The Bedouins have remained essentially unaltered since the time of the Hebrews and the Greeks.”—A. G.] [Amidst the variety of versions of these phrases, the general sense is obvious. There is a recognition of the gracious and quickening presence of God revealed to her, and a devout wonder that she should have been favored with such a vision. If we render the name which Hagar gives to Jehovah, as the Hebrew seems to demand, “Thou art a God of vision, or visibility,” i.e. who hast revealed thyself, then the reason for this name is given in the fact, that she had enjoyed this vision. This would be true, whether the surprise she expresses was because she survived the sight (vision), or because she here enjoyed such a vision at all. This fact also gives the name to the well—not the well of the living one seeing me, but of the living—and of course, life-giving, who here revealed himself.—It is true, that the Heb. ψΰι takes a different pointing in the 14th verse, from that which it bears in the phrase rendered, “Thou God seest me;” but the sense given above seems, on the whole, most consistent, and is one which the words will bear.—A.G.] [A thousand volumes written against polygamy, would not lead to a clearer, fuller conviction, of the evils of that practice, than the story under review, Bush, Notes, p. 259.—A. G.] [This appears, too, in the answer which she makes to the question of the angel: Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress, Sarai.—A. G.] SIXTH SECTIONAbram and the repeated Promise of God. The name Abram changed to Abraham. The personal Covenant of Faith, now a Covenant Institution for him, his Household and his Seed. Circumcision. The name Sarai changed to Sarah. The new Names. The promised one not Ishmael, but IsaacGen_17:1-271 And when [after the lapse of a long period] Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him. I am the Almighty God [El Shaddai]; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3And Abram fell on his face: and God 4[Elohim] talked with him, saying, As for me [in the covenant promise], behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many [multitude of] nations. 5Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram [high father], but thy name shall be Abraham [father of a multitude of nations; of a people of peoples]; for a father of many nations [a people of peoples] have I made thee. 6And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God [Elohim] unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger [thou hast settled], all the 9land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God [Elohim]. 9And God [God Elohim, as Elohim] said to Abraham [first after his new name], Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token [sign] of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised [δִ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?μιִ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?μ]: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised [who will not suffer himself to be circumcised, o avoids circumcision], that [same] soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 15And God [Elohim] said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai[heroine], but Sarah [princess] shall her name be. 16And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people [ςַ ?ξִּ ?ιν] shall be of her. 17Then Abraham fell upon his face and laughed, and, said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is one hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? 18And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might [even yet] live before thee. 19And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac [he or one will laugh]: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20And as for Ishmael [God hears], I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly [evermore]; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22And he left off talking with him, and God [Elohim] went up from Abraham. 23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s, house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God [Elohim] had said 24unto him. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised and Ishmael his son; 27And all the men of his house, born in his house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him. GENERAL REMARKS1. This Section is described by the pseudocritical exegesis as Elohistic (Knobel, p. 161). But here, also, the internal reasons for the use of the name Elohim, are obvious. The sealing or ratifying of the covenant of God with Abram, whose foundation (not something holding a mere connection with it, its side-piece) we recognize in Genesis 15, embraces not only the immediate bearer and mediator of the covenant, in the narrower sense, Isaac and his seed, but all those who, in a wider sense, are sharers in the covenant, Ishmael and his descendants. If we do not distinguish these two conceptions of the covenant in this chapter, we shall not thread our way through the apparent confusion, to a correct understanding of it. It is entirely incorrect when Keil (p. 157), says, Ishmael was excluded from the salvation of the covenant, the grace of the covenant was promised only to Isaac. Upon this supposition what does the circumcision of Ishmael mean? We must distinguish the relations of the different parties to the covenant as stated above; and since here the covenant embraces all who share in it, God appears and acts as Elohim, although under a new title: El Shaddai. 2. That thirteen years should have rolled away between the birth of Ishmael and this new revelation, appears to us very important. Abram had anticipated the purpose of God in his connection with Hagar, and must now, therefore, pass through a long time of discipline, of expectation, and of temptation. [“That which could not be reached by nature was to be secured by promise, in the miraculous seed, thus pointing forward to Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore the time has come when, after having first allowed the unbelieving spirit to make proof of human expedients (1 Corinthians 1:20), God will show Himself again, and place the fulfilment on the basis of the promise alone (Galatians 3:18). The covenant, therefore, must now be solemnly and formally sealed.” Jacobus: “Notes,” vol. i. p. 281.—A. G.] Thus, indeed, Moses must wait fifty long years after his premature attempt to reach his destination. The divine decree over Adam and Eve mirrors itself in these facts. They anticipated their destination, to be as God; and therefore a waiting time of thousands of years was decreed for the people, until the Messiah, the image of God, should appear. 3. The new Names. The ground upon which the new names are given to Abram and Sarai, lies in the fact, that God reveals himself to Abram under a new name, El Shaddai. For he is El Shaddai as the omnipotent God, i.e., God of power to do wonders, to create new things in the old world, and the very centre of his wondrous deeds is the new birth, in which man receives a new name, and of which circumcision is here set apart to be the typical sign. The titles, El Shaddai, Abraham, Sarah, and circumcision, are connected by the closest inward tie; they lie upon one line of thought. The name El Shaddai may have been known to Abram before, as the name Jehovah, and even circumcision; but now it became to him the specific name of the Covenant God, for the patriarchal history, as circumcision was now consecrated to be the sacred sign of the covenant, and as later in the history, Jehovah was made the specific designation of the God of covenant truth, (Exodus 6:3). The names Elohim and El Eljon (Genesis 14:18) have not lost their meaning and value under the new economy of El Shaddai, and thus also the name El Shaddai preserves its meaning and value under the economy of Jehovah, which is modified in the prophetic times into the economy of Jehovah-Zebaoth. The wonders of El Shaddai run through the whole kingdom of grace; but the great wonder lying at the foundation of all that follow, is the birth of Isaac, in the near future from his dead parents (dead in this respect, Romans 4:18-21 : Hebrews 11:11-19), in connection with the marvellous faith corresponding with it, and with circumcision the seal of the covenant, the type of the great, eternal, central miracle of the kingdom of God, the new birth of Christ from heaven, and that new birth of Christians which is grounded and confirmed in his. AND . The Covenant of God with Abram in the wider sense. The sharers in the Covenant(Genesis 17:1-14). 1. The Covenant in the wider sense on the part of God (Genesis 17:1-8). When Abram was ninety years old and nine. [Lit., a son of ninety and nine years.—A. G.] The long interval between this age and that given Genesis 16:16, must be closely observed. It marks a great delay of the promise, a tarrying on the part of God, but which indeed corresponds with the over-haste of Abram (see 2 Peter 3:9).—I am God the Almighty [El Shaddai; Genesis 28:3; Genesis 35:11; Genesis 43:14; Genesis 48:3; Exodus 6:3]. “ωַּׁ ?γַּ ?ι formed from ωָׁ ?γַ ?γ, to be strong, to practise violence, with the nominal termination ι—as ηַ ?βַּ ?ι festive, ιְ ?ωִׁ ?ιωַׁ ?ι the old, ρִ ?ιπַ ?ι thorn-covered, and other nouns are formed.” Keil. The idea of omnipotence is inwoven through the whole Scripture, with the idea of his miraculous works, the creation of the new, or the new creation (Psalms 33:9; Romans 4:17; Numbers 16:30; Isaiah 42:9; Isaiah 62:6; Jeremiah 31:22; the new covenant; the new man; the new child; Revelation 21:1; Revelation 21:3). Delitzsch has raised this idea to a supposition of violence done to nature, which corresponds well with the idea of a miracle held in the seventeenth century (“that which is contrary to nature.”) “Elohim is the God who makes nature, causes it to be, and preserves it—causes it to endure; El Shaddai the God who constrains nature, so that it does what is against itself, and subdues it, so that it bows and yields itself to the service of grace. [“It designates Jehovah the Covenant God, as one who has the power to fulfil his promises although the order of nature may appear against them. It is a pledge to Abram that notwithstanding ‘his own body already dead, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb’ (Romans 4:19), the numerous seed promised could and would be given to him.” Keil.—A. G.] Jehovah is the God who, in the midst of nature, causes grace to penetrate and break through the forces of nature, and at last, in the place of nature, establishes an entirely new creation of grace” (p. 381). A sad dualistic conception of nature and grace lies at the bottom of this supposition. The creature is against its will subject to vanity (Romans 8:20); on the contrary, it sighs after the liberty of the children of God. We can only speak of an element of opposition to nature, in the miracle, so far as the lower nature is penetrated by the higher, and must of course give way to it. The play upon the letter δ by Delitzsch (p. 382), appears to us cabalistic, and the more so, since the names Abraham and Sarah, into which the δ enters, are not grounded in the name Jehovah with its δ, but upon El Shaddai.—Walk before me (see Genesis 5:22; Genesis 24:40; Genesis 48:15; Isaiah 38:3). The great elements of Abram’s faith must be permanent; he must walk continually before the eye of the Almighty, in the consciousness of his presence who is mighty to work miracles. He was still wanting in the development of this wonderworking faith, and therefore, also, was not blameless.—And be thou perfect—free from blame or guiltless. This is not, indeed, a new command, but the result of the command: walk before me. He will be guiltless, free from blame, if he remains in the presence of the God who works wonders; that, indeed, will make him guiltless, free, purify his consciousness.—And I will make my covenant.—The πָ ?ϊַ ?οαְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ must be understood here after the analogy of Gen 9:12, where the previously formed covenant (Genesis 6:18) with Noah, was presupposed, as here the covenant with Abram (Genesis 15) is presupposed. “It does not signify to conclude a covenant (= λָּ ?ψַ ?ϊα), but to give, settle, arrange,” etc. Keil. [“At the former period (Genesis 15) God formally entered into covenant with Abram, here he takes the first step in the fulfilment of the covenant, seals it with a token and a perpetual ordinance.” Murphy, p. 307.—A. G.] It thus denotes the establishing of the covenant, or the giving it a traditional force for his seed, the arrangement of a permanent order or institution of the covenant (comp. Numbers 25:12).—And Abram fell on his face. An expression of deep humility and trustful confidence, and indeed also of the joy which overpowered him; hence he repeats (Genesis 17:17) the same act in the most emphatic way.—And God talked with him.—We must notice here the expression Elohim, and the γַ ?αֵּ ?ψ. God, as the God of the universe, begins a conversation with Abram, when he should become Abraham the father of a multitude of nations.—As for me. I for my part. The ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι evidently emphasizes the opposition of the two parties in the covenant (what concerns me or my part). It answers to εΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ of Genesis 17:9. Just as in the ninth chapter the εַ ?ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιδִ ?πְ ?πִ ?ι of Genesis 17:9 stands in opposition to the εְ ?ΰֵ ?κְ ΰַ ?κְ of verses 4 and 5 (comp. Exodus 19; Genesis 24).—And thou shalt be a father. The ε announces the subjects of the covenant. For it is not simply the individual covenant of faith of Abram, but the entire general covenant of blessing in him which is here spoken of. Knobel thinks that the name Abraham was first formed after Abraham had become the father of many nations. This is the well-known denial of the prophetic element. His own quotation, however, refutes him. “The Hebrews connected the giving of names with circumcision (Genesis 21:3 ff.; Luke 1:59; Luke 2:21). The Persians likewise, according to Tavernier: ‘Travels,’ i. p. 270, and Chardin: ‘Voyages,’ x. p. 76.” The connection of the giving of names, and circumcision, effects a mutual explanation. The name announces a definite human character, the new name a new character (the new name, Revelation 2:17, the perfect stamp of individual character), circumcision, a new or renewed, and more noble nature. “Moreover,” Knobel remarks: “we hear only in the Elohist the promise of a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:16; Genesis 17:20; Genesis 35:11; Genesis 48:4); the Jehovist uses only the singular (Genesis 12:2; Genesis 18:18; Genesis 46:3). So likewise the promise of kings and princes among the successors of the patriarch is peculiar to the Elohist (ver.20; Genesis 25:16; Genesis 35:11; Genesis 36:31).” This distinction corresponds entirely with the fact, that Jehovah, out of the (Goim) nations, which he rules as Elohim, forms one peculiar people (ςַ ?ν) of faith, as he at first changed the natural Israel to a spiritual. As to this promise of blessing from God, the name Abraham, father of a mass, noise, tumult of nations, embraces the whole promise in its widest circumference 1. People and kings [“Kings. David, Solomon, Christ, whose royal genealogy is given Matthew 1:1-16.” Wordsworth, p. 79. Especially in Christ and the spiritual seed of Abraham, who are kings and priests unto God, Revelation 1:6. Jacobus: “Notes.”—A. G.]; even rich kings should come from him; 2. the covenant of blessing from God with him and his seed should be eternal; 3. the whole land of Canaan should belong to his seed for an eternal possession. It should be observed here, that Canaan has fallen in the very same measure to the Arabians as descendants of Abraham (Galatians 4:25), in which it has actually been rent from the people of Israel for indefinitely long periods of time; it has thus remained permanently in the possession of the descendants of Abraham in the wider sense; 4. Jehovah will remain (be) the God (Elohim) of the seed of Abraham. This promise, also, notwithstanding all the transient obscurations, has been fulfilled in the patriarchal monotheism in Palestine and Arabia. The stipulated, imprescriptible, peculiar right of the peeple of Israel to Canaan is included in this general promise. [Literally to the lineal seed and the earthly Canaan, but the everlasting covenant and the everlasting possession, show that the covenant and the promised inheritance included the spiritual seed, and the heavenly Canaan.—A. G.] “In this new name, God gave to him a real pledge for the establishment of his covenant, since the name which God gave to him, could not be, or remain an empty sound, but must be viewed as the expression of the reality it conveys.” Keil. “A numerous posterity was regarded by the Hebrews as a divine blessing, which was the portion of those well-pleasing to him (Genesis 24:60; Genesis 48:16; Genesis 48:19; Psalms 128; Ecclesiastes 6:3).” Knobel. 2. The covenant of Abraham (on his part) with God, in the wider sense (Genesis 17:9-14). And God (Elohim) said unto Abraham. The covenant of circumcision in the wider sense is a covenant of Elohim. In his new destination Abraham was called to introduce this sign of the covenant for himself and his seed. He came under obligation at the first for himself with his seed to keep the covenant with Elohim. But circumcision is the characteristic sign and seal of this covenant, as a statute and a type, i.e., with the included idea of its spiritual import. In this sense it is said: This is my covenant,… shall be circumcised. Upon circumcision compare Winer: Real-Wφrterbuch, and similar works. 1. The act of circumcision: the removal of the foreskin; 2. the destination: the sign of the covenant; 3. the time: eight days after the birth (see Genesis 21:4; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59; Luke 2:21; John 7:22; Philippians 3:5; Joseph.: “Antiq.” i. 12, 2); 4. the extent of its efficacy: not only the children, but slaves born in the house [and those also bought with his money.—A. G.] were, to be circumcised; 5. its inviolability: those who were not circumcised should be cut off, uprooted.—Circumcision, as a sign of the patriarchal covenant, appears to presuppose its earlier existence as a religious rite. According to Herodotus, circumcision was practised among the Colchi, Egyptians. [It has been urged, however, against the idea that the Egyptians practised this rite generally; 1. That Abraham circumcised all his male servants—among them probably those who were presented by Pharaoh; 2. that Pharaoh’s daughter knew that Moses was a Hebrew child—(Heb., and behold a male-child);—3. Ezekiel 31:18; see Bush: “Notes,” p. 273.—A. G.] and Ethiopians; and the Syrians of Palestine and Ph�nicians might have learned it from the Egyptians. In Ewald’s view, its original home was the valley of the Nile; and it still exists as a national usage among the Ethiopian Christians, and among the Congos. With regard to the circumcision of the Egyytians, we remark, that while Herodotus and Philo regard it as a general custom, Origen ascribes it simply to the priests. [Wordsworth, p. 81, urges in favor of this view, that circumcision was not practised by the other sons of Ham; that Ishmael, the son of an Egyptian mother, was not circumcised until after this institution of the covenant; and that Joshua is said to have rolled away the reproach of Egypt when he circumcised the Israelites at Gilgal.—A. G.] According to Ezekiel 31:18; Ezekiel 32:19, the Egyptians seem to be included among the uncircumcised. We need not, however, insist too strictly upon a prophetic word, which may possibly have a higher symbolical sense (comp. Romans 2:28). And Origen informs us of a later time, in which the Coptic element was mingled with Hellenic elements in Egypt. Some have viewed Egyptian circumcision as an idolizing of the generative power. The bloody act points rather to purification. Delitzsch remarks: that circumcision, as some think, has been found in America, upon the South Sea Islands, e.g. in a mode resembling that in use among the Jews, in the Feegee Islands, and among the southeastern Negro tribes, e.g. among the Damaras in tropical South Africa. And here we cannot assume any connection with the Abrahamic, nor with the Egyptian circumcision. But the customs prevailing in the valley of the Nile, might spread themselves widely over Africa, as those of the Ph�nicians over the ocean. The Epistle of Barnabas, in a passage which has not been sufficiently regarded (Genesis 9), brings into prominence the idea, that we must distinguish circumcision, as an original custom of different nations, from that which receives the patriarchal and theocratic sanction. “The heathen circumcision,” as Delitzsch remarks, “leaving out of view the Ishmaelites, Arabians, and the tribes connected with them both by blood and in history, is thus very analogous to the heathen sacrifice. As the sacrifice sprang from the feeling of the necessity for an atonement, so circumcision from the consciousness of the impurity of human nature.” But that the spread of circumcision among the ancient nations is analogous to the general prevalence of sacrifice, has not yet been proved. It remains to be investigated, whether the national origin of circumcision stands rather in some relation to religious sacrifice; whether it may possibly form an opposition to the custom of human sacrifices (for it is just as absurd to view it with some, as a remnant of human sacrifice, as to regard it with others, as a modification of eunuchism); whether it may have prevailed from sanitary motives, the obligation of bodily purity and soundness, (see Winer, i. p. 159); or whether it has not rather from the first had its ground and source in the idea of the consecration of the generative nature, and of the propagation of the race (Delitzsch, p. 385). At all events, circumcision did not come to Abraham as a custom of his ancestors; he was circumcised when ninety-nine years of age. This bears with decisive weight against the generalizing of the custom by Delitzsch. As to the destination of circumcision to be the sign of the covenant, its patriarchal origin is beyond question. [As the rainbow was chosen to be the sign of the covenant with Noah, so the prior existence of circumcision does not render it less fit to be the sign of the covenant with Abraham, nor less significant. “It was the fit symbol of that removal of the old man, and that renewal of nature which qualified Abraham to be the parent of the holy seed.” Murphy. See also Kurtz and Baumgarten.—A. G.] (See John 7:22). Still it was placed upon a new legal basis by Moses (Exodus 4:24-25; Leviticus 12:3), and was brought into regular observance by Joshua (Joshua 5:2). That it should be the symbol of the new birth, i.e., of the sanctification of human nature, from its very source and origin, is shown both by the passages which speak of the circumcision of the heart (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:25; Ezekiel 44:7), and from the manner of speech in use among the Israelites, in which Jewish proselytes were described as new-born. As to the terminus of eight days, which was so strictly observed, that even the law of the Sabbath was held subordinate to the law of Circumcision, Delitzsch explains the prescription of this period, from the fact that the child was not separated and purified from the sustenance of its embryonic state until this period. It is better to regard the week of birth as a terminus for the close of the first throes and labor, and at the same time, as the term fixed for the outward purification. Keil explains: “because this day was viewed as the beginning of the independent life, as we may infer from the analogous prescription as to the age of the young animals used in sacrifice (Leviticus 22:27; Exodus 22:30). He remarks also, “that the Arabians circumcise at a late period, usually between five and thirteen years, often during the thirteenth year, because Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised.” For more detailed observations, see Knobel, p. 164.—The threatening that the uncircumcised should be cut off—uprooted, can refer only to the conscious, wicked contempt of the command, as the same threatening must be understood in regard to other offences. Clericus and others explain the “cutting-off” as a removal from the people and its privileges. But the theocratic death-penalty (which was indeed the form of a final, complete excommunication from the people) can alone be understood here, as it naturally could alone meet the case of the despiser of the covenant-sign, and of the covenant itself. [But it is the covenant between Jehovah and the seed of Abraham which is here before us, and exclusion from the people of the covenant would be, as Baumgarten urges, exclusion from all blessings and salvation. That this was connected with the death-penalty in other passages (as Exodus 31:14), would seem to show that the phrase itself did not necessarily imply such a penalty.—A. G.] (see Knobel, p. 163). The reference by Delitzsch, to an immediate divine judgment, or to the premature, childless death of the uncircumcised, who had reached full age, implies an extraordinary introduction or enlargement of the theocratic regulation, which belongs to the Israelitish tradition. Keil strives to unite both views (p. 156). But here also we must distinguish the legal and typical elements. In the typical sense, the “cutting-off” denotes the endless destruction, the total ruin of the man who despises the covenant of God. [And it is worthy of observation, that to despise and reject the sign, was to despise and reject the covenant itself. He who neglects or refuses the sign, hath broken my covenant.—A. G.] B.—3. The establishment of the covenant in a narrower sense with Isaac—the more direct bearer and mediator of the covenant (Genesis 17:15-22). And God (Elohim) said. God establishes the covenant in this form also as Elohim, not as Jehovah, since not only Israel, but Edom, should spring from Isaac, the son of Sarah.—Sarah thy wife. “As the ancestress of nations and kings, she should be called ωׂ ?ψָ ?δ (princess), not ωָׂ ?ψַ ?ι (heroine).” Knobel. Delitzsch explains ωָׂ ?ψַ ?ι the princely, but this does not distinguish sufficiently the old name from the new. (Jerome distinguishes: my princess, my dominion and princess generally). Even in this case the name declares the subject of the following promise, and its security. Now it was definitely promised to Abraham, that he should have a son from Sarah; and it was also intimated that the descendants from this son should branch themselves into (Goim) nations.—Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed. The explanation of Knobel is absurd: “Abraham doubted the possibility, since he was an hundred, and Sarah was ninety years old, and laughs, therefore, but falls upon his face, lest God should notice it” (!). “In the other writer, the patriarch, as the man of God, believes (Genesis 15:6), and only the less eminent wife, doubts and laughs (Genesis 18:12). But here as there, the laughter, in the name of the promised seed (ιִ ?φְ ?ηָ ?χ), passes into the history of Abraham.” That the interpreter, from this standpoint, knows nothing of a laugh of astonishment, in connection with full faith, indeed, in the immediate experience of the promise (Psalms 126:1-2), is evident. Delitzsch: The promise was so very great, that he sank reverently upon the ground, and so very paradoxical, that he involuntarily laughs (see also the quotation from Calvin, by Keil, p. 151). [“The laughter of Abraham was the exultation of joy, not the smile of unbelief.” Aug.: de Civ. Dei. xvi. 26. Wordsworth, who also urges that this interpretation is sustained by our Lord, John 8:56.—A. G.] We may confidently infer from the different judgments of Abraham’s laughter here, and that of Sarah, which is recorded afterward, that there was an important distinction in the states of mind from which they sprang. The characteristic feature in the narration here is, that Abraham fell upon his face, as at first, after the promise, Genesis 17:2.—Shall there be born unto him that is an hundred years old? The apparent impossibility is twofold (see the quotations, Romans 4 and Hebrews 11).—O that Ishmael might (still) live. The sense of the prayer is ambiguous. “Abraham,” says Knobel, “turns aside, and only wishes that the son he already had should live and prosper.” Calvin, and others, also interpret the prayer in the sense, that Abraham would be contented if Ishmael should prosper. Keil, on the contrary, regards the prayer of Abraham as arising out of his anxiety, lest Ishmael should not have any part in the blessings of the covenant. The fact, that the answer of God contains no denial of the prayer of Abraham, is in favor of this interpretation. But in the prayer, Abraham expresses his anticipation of an indefinite neglect of Ishmael, which was painful to his parental heart. He asks for him, therefore, a life from God in the highest sense. Since Abraham, according to Genesis 16, actually fell into the erroneous expectation, that the promise of God to him would be fulfilled in Ishmael, and since there is no record of any divine correction of his error in the mean time, the new revelation from God could only so be introduced when he begins to be in trouble about Ishmael (see Genesis 21:9), and to doubt, as to the truth and certainty of his self-formed expectation, both because Jehovah had left him for a long time without a new revelation, and because Hagar had communicated to him the revelation granted to her, as to the character of her son—a prophecy which did not agree with the heir of the promise. In this state of uncertainty and doubt [Calvin, however, holds, that Abraham was, all this time, contented with the supposition, that Ishmael was the child of promise, and that the new revelation startled him from his error.—A. G.] the promise of the heir of blessing was renewed to him. But then he receives the new revelation from God, that Sarah shall bear to him the true heir. It puts an end to the old, sad doubt, in regard to Ishmael, since it starts a new and transient doubt in reference to the promise of Isaac; therefore there is mingling with his faith, not yet perfect on account of the joy (Luke 24:41), a beautiful paternal feeling for the still beloved Ishmael, and his future of faith. Hence the intercession for Ishmael, the characteristic feature of which is, a question of love, whether the son of the long-delayed hope, should also hold his share of the blessing. ΰֲ ?αָ ?μ may, indeed, include so far the granting of the prayer of Abram; it may mean, still, nevertheless. [Better, as Jacobus, indeed, as addressed to the transient doubt as to Isaac, which may lie in Abraham’s prayer for Ishmael. Indeed, on the contrary, Sarah is bearing thee a son.—A. G.] But the nineteenth verse distinctly declares that the son of Sarah should be the chief heir, the peculiar bearer of the covenant. Closer and more definite distinctions are drawn in Genesis 17:20.—Twelve princes shall he beget (see Genesis 25:12-16).—At this set time. The promise is now clearly revealed even in regard to time; and with this the revelation of God for this time ceases. 4. The compliance with the prescribed rite of circumcision (Genesis 17:23-27). The prompt obedience of Abraham [This prompt obedience of Abraham reveals his faith in the promise, and that this laughter was joyful and not unbelieving.—A. G.] is seen in his circumcising himself and his household, i.e. the male members of his household, as he was commanded, in the same day. According to the expression of the text, Abraham appears to have performed the rite upon himself with his own hands. AND ETHICAL1. See the General Remarks, and the Critical Notes upon the double circle of the covenant, and circumcision. 2. El Shaddai. We do not comprehend the whole of this name, if we identify it with Elohim. We make it too comprehensive if we represent it as including the idea of all the divine attributes, or as an expression of the majesty of God. It is the name of the Almighty, and stands here at the very beginning of the announcement of theocratic miracles, for the same reason, that in the Apostles Creed, it designates the nature of God the Father, for the Christian faith. The Almighty God (παντοκράτωρ) is the God of the Theocracy, and of all the miracles. He makes the highest revelation of his miraculous power in the resurrection of Christ (Ephesians 1:19 ff.). 3. Before my face. The anthropomorphisms of the Scripture. The soul, head, eyes, arm of God, are mentioned in the Bible. The Concordances give all the information any one needs. It is not difficult to ascertain the meaning of the particular descriptions. His face is his presence in the definiteness and certainty of the personal consciousness (Psalms 139). 4. Keil brings the narrower circle of the covenant into conflict with the wider, as was above remarked. [Keil puts his argument in this form: Since the grace of the covenant was promised alone to Isaac, and Abraham was to become the father of a mass of nations by Sarah (Genesis 17:16), we cannot include the Ishmaelites nor the sons of Keturah in this mass of nations. Since, further, Esau had no part in the promise of the covenant, the promised descendants must come alone through Jacob. But the sons of Jacob formed only one people or nation; Abraham is thus only the father of one people. It follows, necessarily, that the mass of nations must embrace the spiritual descendants of Abraham, all who are ἐκπίστεως ’Αβραάμ (comp. Romans 4:11; Romans 4:16). He urges also, in favor of this view, the fact, that the seal of the covenant was applied to those who were not natural descendants of Abraham, to those born in his house and bought with his money. He holds, also, that the promise of the land of Canaan to this seed for a possession is not exhausted by the fact, that this land was given to the literal Israel, but that as the ’Ισραὴλκατὰσάρκα are enlarged to the ’Ισραὴλκατὰπνεῦμα, so the idea and limits of the earthly Canaan must be enlarged to the limits of the spiritual Canaan, that in truth, Abraham has received the promise κληρονόμοναὐτὸνεἶναικόσμου, Romans 4:13, p. 138.—A. G.] Under the seed promised to Abraham of a “multitude of nations,” the descendants of Esau should not be understood; on the contrary, the spiritual descendants of Abraham must have been intended, and reckoned with the people of Israel, which constitutes, indeed, but one nation. But still, we must always clearly distinguish between the promise, “in thee shall be blessed all the families of the earth,” and the promise, “from thee shall spring a mass of nations,” through Ishmael and Isaac, and these shall all be embraced in the covenant of circumcision, the one as bearer of the covenant, the others as associates and sharers in the covenant. Otherwise, indeed, even the spiritual seed of Abraham must be circumcised. But as circumcision is the type of the new birth, so the mass of nations which should spring from Abraham, is the type of his spiritual descendants, and in the typical sense, truly, he is here the father of all believers. In the typical sense, also, the promise of Canaan, and the promise of the eternity of the covenant, have a higher meaning and importance. The remarks of Keil, as to the estimation of this spiritual significance of the Abrahamic promise, against Auberlen and others, who sink the reference of the promise to the spiritual Israel to a “mere application,” are well founded [and are most important and suggestive.—A. G.] 5. Circumcision (as also baptism still more effectually, Romans 6), as the type of the renewing through natural suffering, evidently forms an opposition between the old and sinful human nature, and the new life. It is therefore a testimony to human corruption on the one hand, and to the calling of men through divine grace to a new life, on the other. [The ground of the choice of circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant may be thus stated. It lies in the nature of the blessing promised, i.e. a seed of blessing. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but the promised seed were to be holy, and thus channels of blessing. The seed of Abraham were thus to be distinguished from other races. As corruption descended by ordinary generation, the seed of grace were to be marked and symbolically purified from that corruption. It thus denoted the purifying of that by which the promise was to be secured.—A. G.] But as a sign placed upon the foreskin, it designates still more definitely on the one side, that the corruption is one which has especially fallen upon or centres in the propagation of the race, and has an essential source of support in it, as on the other side, it is a sign and seal, that man is called to a new life, and also, that for this new life the conception and procreation should be consecrated and sanctified (see John 1:13-14). The male portion of the people only, were subjected to this ordinance. This rests first of all upon natural causes. Luther finds a compensation in the birth-throes and exposure to death on the part of the females. The pains of birth were truly translated to the male sex through circumcision. But then this one-sidedness of the sacrament of circumcision declares the complete dependence of the wife upon her husband under the old covenant. [Kurtz: The dependent position of the woman, by virtue of which, not without the man, but in and with the man, not as woman, but as the bride, and mother, she has her importance in the people and life of the covenant, does not allow her to come into the same prominence here as the man, p. 188. Jacobus says: “Under the Old Covenant, as everything pointed forward to Christ the God-Man—Son of Man—so every offering was to be a male, and every covenant rite was properly enough confined to the males. The females were regarded as acting in them, and represented by them. Under the New Testament this distinction is not appropriate. It is not male and female, Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11. That the rite was applied so expressly to those born in the house, and those bought with his money—the son of the stranger—was intended to point to the universal aspect of the covenant, the extension of its blessings to all nations.—A. G.] But it was enlarged, or completed, in fact, through the law of purification, to which the mother was subjected. Its spiritual significance is finally, that it is not birth itself, but the sexual generation, as such, which is the tradux peccati. In the New Covenant, the wife has an equally direct share in baptism as the husband. And this was typified in the Old Covenant through the giving of the name. Sarah possesses a new name as well as Abraham. 6. It scarcely follows from Exodus 4:25, as Delitzsch thinks, that circumcision proclaimed to the circumcised man, that he had Jehovah for a bridegroom; although Jews, Ishmaelites, and Moslems generally name the day of circumcision the wedding-feast of circumcision. The Scripture constitutes a bridal relation between Christ and his Church, viewed in its totality. 7. If Delitzsch in this, as in other passages, gives to circumcision too great an importance, he does not esteem sufficiently its importance when he remarks, that it is no peculiar rite of initiation, like baptism. “It is not circumcision which makes the Israelites what they are as such, i.e., members of the Israelitish church. It is through its birth [While it is true that the Israelite by his birth was so far a member of the congregation or church, that he had a title to its rites and ordinances, it is true that circumcision was the recognition of that membership, and that if he neglected it, he was exscinded from the people.—A. G.]; for people and church are coterminous in the Old Testament.” This is totally incorrect, just as incorrect as if one should say, Christendom and the Church are coterminous. [It lies, too, in the face of the whole New Testament, which places circumcision and baptism in the closest relations to each other, and makes the one to come in the place of the other. The differences between them upon which Delitzsch dwells are just those which we should expect under the two economies.—A G.] As one must distinguish between Jacob and Israel, so one must distinguish between Israel as the naturally increased (βεֹ ?ι) and Israel as the called people of God (ςַ ?ν). Israel is, in a qualified sense, the people of God; viz., as it, through circumcision, purification, and sacrifice, was consecrated a congregation of God (χδμ). And thus we must distinguish circumcision as to its old national, its patriarchal, and its theocratic and legal power and efficacy. In the last meaning alone, it belonged to the people of Israel as the Church of God, and was so far an initiatory rite, that by means of it an Edomite or Moabite could be incorporated into the people of God, while genuine Jews, even the sons of Aaron, might be exscinded, if it were neglected. The Old Testament people of God, has thus definitely the characteristic traits of the spiritual New Testament Israel, a people of God, gathered from all the nations of the earth: It was precisely the fault of the Edomite Jews, that they failed to distinguish between circumcision in this higher sense, as it passed over into baptism, and circumcision as a national custom. And this is the fallacy of the Baptists, through which they, to this day, commonly attempt to rend away from the defenders of infant baptism the argument which they draw from circumcision. They say, “circumcision was no sacrament of the Jews; it was a mere national custom.” But it was just as truly a sacrament of the Jews, as the passover, from which we must distinguish likewise, the eating of a roasted lamb in the feasts of the ancients. We refer again to the well-known distinction in the Epistle of Barnabas (Genesis 9). 8. The moral nature of the divine covenant appears in this chapter, as in the earlier formation of the covenant; and here still more definitely through the opposition: I on my part (Genesis 17:4), but thou on thy part (Genesis 17:9). Circumcision, according to this antithesis, must be regarded by Abraham especially as a duty, which declares comprehensively all his duties in the rendering of obedience, in the self-denying, subduing; and sanctifying of his nature; while the giving of the name is the act of God, which is comprehensive of all his promises. There is no conflict between this first and nearest significance of circumcision, and the fact, that it is a gift, a sign and seal, and type of the truth of the covenant of God. The application to the passover-meal, and indeed to the Christian sacraments, will be obvious. [“As a sign, circumcision was intended to set forth such truths as these: of repentance and flesh-mortifying, and sanctification and devotement to God; and also the higher truth of the seed of promise which Israel was to become, and the miraculous seed, which was Christ, As a seal, it was to authenticate God’s signature, and confirm his word and covenant promise, and execute the covenant on God’s part, making a conveyance of the blessings to those who set their hand to this seal by faith. Under the New Testament economy of the same covenant of grace, after “the seed” had come, the seal is adapted to the more spiritual dispensation, though it is of the same general import. Jacobus, “Notes,” vol. i. p. 286.—A. G.] 9. The first laughter mentioned in the Bible is that of Abraham, Genesis 17:17. A proof that there is nothing evil in the laugh itself. The first weeping which is mentioned is the weeping of Hagar in the desert (Genesis 21:16). Both expressions of human feeling thus appear at first, in a consecrated and pious form. 10. The Jews declare that the law of circumcision is as great as the whole law. The idea is, that circumcision is the kernel, and therefore, also, that which comprehends the whole law: a. as a separation from an impure world; b. as a consecration to God. When they say, it is only on account of circumcision that God hears prayer, and no circumcised man can sink to hell, it is just as true, and just as false, as the extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according as it is inwardly or outwardly understood. 11. We have here the first allusion to slaves who were bought with money (Genesis 17:27). Starke: “Thus it seems, alas! true, that at this time slavery prevailed, which, indeed, to all appearance, must have begun from the Nimrodic dominion. For when men have begun to treat their fellow-men as wild beasts, after the manner of hunters, they will easily enslave those who are thus overcome; and this custom, though against the rights of nature, soon became general. When, now, Abraham found this custom in existence before his time, he used the same for the good of many of these wretched people; he bought them, but brought them to the knowledge of the true God, etc. To buy and sell men for evil is sin, and opposed both to the natural and divine law (Exodus 21:2); but to buy in order to bring them to the knowledge of the true God is permitted (Leviticus 25:44-45).”—To buy them in order to give them bodily and spiritual freedom is Christ-like. 12. Starke: “The question arises here, whether a foreign servant could be constrained to be circumcised. Some (Clericus, e.g.) favor, and others oppose this opinion. The Rabbins say: If any one should buy a grown servant of the Cuthites, and he refused to be circumcised, he should sell him again.” Maimonides. 13. As in the ark of Noah, so in the fact that Abraham should circumcise all the male members of his household, the full biblical significance and importance of the household appears in a striking way; of the household in its spiritual unity, which the theory of the Baptists in its abstract individuality, dissolves. 14. The promise of blessing which Abraham receives, repeats itself relatively to every believer. His life will be rich in fruits of blessing, reaching on into eternity. In the abstract sense this avails only of Christ (Isaiah 53:10), but therefore in some measure of every believer (Mark 10:30). 15. The word Genesis 17:14 in a typical expression contains a fearful and solemn warning against the contempt of the sacraments. The signs and seals of communion with the Lord and his people are not exposed to the arbitrary treatment of individuals. With the proud contempt of the signs of communion, the heart and life are separated from the communion itself, and its blessings and salvation. 16. The New Testament fulfilment of circumcision (Romans 2:29). If circumcision is the type of the new birth, its essential fulfilment lies in the birth of Christ. The, sanctification of birth has reached its personal goal in his birth, which is a new birth. But Christ must be appropriated by humanity through his sufferings. Therefore he was made subject to the legal circumcision (Galatians 4:4), and the perfect result of this communion with his brethren, was his death upon the cross (Romans 6:6; Colossians 2:11-12). In the communion with this death, into which Christians enter with baptism, they become the people of the real circumcision, over against which bodily circumcision, in a religious sense, becomes a cruel mangling of the body (Philippians 3:3). 17. We must distinguish the typical significance of our chapter from its historical basis, and bind both sides together without confounding them. This avails of the twofold circle of the covenant; of the name Abraham; of the blessing for his seed; of the eternity of the covenant; of his sojourn in Canaan, and the gift of the land to him for an eternal possession; of circumcision, and of the threatening of excision. In all these points we distinguish the historical greatness and spiritual glory of the covenant of promise. AND See the Doctrinal paragraphs.—The visitation of Abraham after his long trial and waiting.—God’s delay no actual delay (2 Peter 2:9).—The establishment of the covenant between God and Abraham: 1. The precondition of the establishment of the covenant (see Genesis 15–ch. Genesis 17:1); 2. the contents of the covenant of promise: the name Abraham; a. in the natural sense; b. in the typical sense; 3. the covenant in the wider and narrower sense: 4. the covenant-sign.—The new covenant of God in his name (El-Shaddai, God of wonders), the basis of the new name of believers.—Faith in the miracle is faith in that which is divinely new.—The renewed call of Abraham: 1. As a confirmation of his calling; 2. as the enlargement and strengthening of it.—The contents of the call: Walk before me and be perfect, i.e., walk before me (in the faith and vision of my presence, in grace and miraculous power), 1. so art thou blameless (pious, righteous, perfect); 2. so wilt thou be blameless; 3. so prove it through thy pious conduct.—The particular promises of God, which are contained in the name Abraham: 1. According to its natural greatness; 2. according to its typical glory.—The promises of God conditioned through the covenant of God.—The two sides in the covenant of God.—In the covenant of circumcision.—Circumcision as a type: 1. Of the new birth; 2. of baptism; 3. of infant baptism.—Abraham’s laughter.—Abraham’s intercession for Ishmael.—For missions among the Mohammedans.—He will laugh.—Isaac’s name henceforth a name of promise.—The significance of this name for the children of God (Psalms 126:2; Luke 6:21).—Abraham’s obedience the spiritual side of circumcision. Starke: [derivations of El-Shaddai. More particularly upon the biblical anthropomorphisms]. The change of names. There is here a glorious proof that even the heathen shall come to Christ, and become the children of Abraham.—Upon Genesis 17:6. But above all, the King of kings, Christ, is to descend from him (Luke 1:32; Romans 9:5).—Upon Genesis 17:7. As to the earthly prosperity which God promised to the natural seed of Abraham, namely, the possession of the land of Canaan, the word Eternal is here used to denote a very long time, which, however, has still an end (Genesis 17:8; Genesis 17:13; Genesis 17:19; Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 15:17; Jeremiah 18:16). But as to the spiritual good which he promised to the spiritual seed of Abraham, to all true believers, namely, the grace of God, forgiveness of sins, protection and blessing in this life, and heavenly glory in the life to come, it is surely an eternal, perpetual covenant. [Thus also Wordsworth, essentially, and Murphy: “The phrase, perpetual possession, has here two elements of meaning—first, that the possession in its coming form of a certain land, shall last as long as the co-existing relations of things are continued; and secondly, that the said possession in all the variety of its ever grander phases, will last absolutely forever, p. 309.”—A. G.].—Cramer: The covenant of grace of God is eternal, and one with the new covenant in Christ (Jeremiah 31:33; Isaiah 54:10).—Osiander: Even the children of Christian parents, born dead, or taken away before the reception of baptism, are not to be esteemed lost, but blessed.—He introduces a sacrament which, viewed in itself alone, might be regarded as involving disgrace. But on this very account it typifies, 1. the deep depravity of men, in which they are involved from the corruption of original sin, since not only some of the members, but the whole man, is poisoned, and the member here affected in particular as the chief instrument in the propagation of the human race. 2. For the same reason, it confirms the promise of the increase of the race of Abraham.—3. Through this sign God intends to distinguish the people of his possession from all other nations. 4. He represents in it, the spiritual circumcision of the heart—the new birth.—Upon Genesis 17:14. Cramer: Whoever despises the word of God and the sacraments, will not be left unpunished by God (Isaiah 7:12; Luke 7:30; 1 Corinthians 11:30.—Musculus: Sarah, although appointed to be the royal mother of nations and kings, does not bear them to herself, but to Abraham, her own husband; thus the Church of Christ, espoused to Christ, although the true royal mother of nations and kings, i.e., of all believers, bears them not to herself, but to Christ.—Cramer: Although women in the Old Testament had no sacrament of circumcision, they share in its virtue, through the reception of the names, by which they voluntarily subscribe to the covenant of God (Isaiah 44:5).—God is an Almighty God, who is not bound to nature. Genesis 17:23. As to the readiness with which all the servants of Abraham suffer themselves to be circumcised, we see at once that they must have had already, through the instruction of Abraham, some correct knowledge of God, since otherwise they could not have understood an act which, to mere reason, appears so preposterous, foolish, and disgraceful.—Osiander: Believing householders, who yield themselves in obedience to the divine will, shall have also, through the divine blessing, yielding and docile domestics.—Cramer As circumcision was applied to all the members of Abraham’s household, so all, great and small, should be baptized (Mark 10:14; John 3:5-6; Acts 16:15; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16.—As Abraham used no delay in the sacrament of circumcision, even so we also should not long defer the baptism of infants. Lisco: The essential element of the covenant on the part of God is grace; on man’s part, faith (still, the grace here receives a concrete expression in a definite, gracious promise, and faith likewise in obedience, and in a definite, significant rendering of obedience).—Gerlach: Genesis 17:19. Isaac (“he laughs,” or “one laughs”), the child of joyful surprise is now announced as soon to appear. Genesis 17:8. The eternal possession stands in striking contrast to the transient, ever-changing place of sojourn, which Canaan was, at that time, for Abraham. This land, however, which God promises to Abraham and his seed for an inheritance, is still at the same time a visible pledge, the enclosing shell of the still delicate seed or kernel, therefore the prophetic type of the new-world, which belongs to the Church of the Lord; therefore it is pre-eminently an eternal possession. This is true, also, of all divine ordinances, as circumcision, the passover, the priesthood, etc., which, established in the Old Testament as eternal, are, as to the literal sense, abolished in the New Testament, but are in the truest sense spiritually fulfilled.—Calwer (Handbuch) upon Genesis 17:1 : Walk before me, etc. The law and the gospel, faith and works, are brought together in this one brief word or sentence. Genesis 17:7. Eternal covenant. Truly, in so far as the spiritual seed of Abraham take the place of the natural Israel, and the earthly Canaan is the type of the heavenly, which remains the eternal possession of all believers.—The female sex, without any external sign of the covenant, were yet included in the covenant, and shared its grace, so far as through descent or marriage they belonged to the covenant people (Genesis 34:14 ff.; Exodus 12:3; Joe 2:15-16).—Schrφder: Genesis 17:1. This manifestation was given to Abraham, when he had now grown old and gray in faith, for the hope of the fulfilment of the divine promise. How he rebukes and shames us who are so easily stumbled and offended, if we do not see at once the fulfilment of the divine promises! (Rambach).—Upon the name Elohim. The same epoch which (Genesis 17) introduces the particular view of that economy (Romans 4:11-12), opens also its universal tendencies and features. What profound divine wisdom and counsel shine in these paradoxes! (The foundation, however, of this opposition is laid already in Genesis 12:1, and first appears in its decisive, complete form in the Mosaic institution of the law). Genesis 17:1. We need to mark more carefully the “I am” of Genesis 17:1, because, so many false gods present themselves to our hearts, and steal away our love (Berleb. Bibel).—Before Abraham was commanded to circumcise himself, the righteousness of faith was counted to him, through which he was already righteous (Luther).—Although he utters no word, his silence speaks louder than if he had cried in the clearest and loudest tones, that he would surely obey the word of God (Calvin).—The significance and importance of names, among the Hebrews, especially in Genesis. Genesis 17:5. Abraham is not called the father of many nations, because his seed should be separated into different nations, but rather because the different nations should be united in him (Romans 4; Calvin). Genesis 17:8. The land wherein thou art a stranger. The foreigner shall become the possessor.—Upon Genesis 17:14. The connection shows that the reference is to the conscious contempt of the sacraments, not to those children who, through the guilt of their parents, were not circumcised upon the eighth day (Exodus 4:24, ff.) Genesis 17:17. Abraham laughed. In the region of unbelief the doubt is of no moment. It has its importance in the life of believers, where it presupposes faith, and leads as a transition step to a firmer faith. (There is, however, a twofold kind of doubt, without considering what is still a question, whether there is any reference to doubt in the text). Luther thinks that Christ points to this text (in John 8:56). Then the laughing also is an intimation of the overflowing joy which filled his heart, and belongs to his spiritual experiences. Genesis 17:19. Isaac. The name teaches that those who tread in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith, will at times find cause for laughter in the unexpected, sudden, and great blessings they receive. There is reason in God, both for weeping and laughter (Roos). Genesis 17:23. We see how well his house was ordered, since even those who were bought with money cheerfully submitted to circumcision (Calvin).—Passavant: (Abraham). The Almighty God, the God who can do all, sees all, knows all, he was, is, and will be all, to his servants. Footnotes: [“Not sincere merely, unless in the primitive sense of duty, but complete, upright, holy; not only in walk, but in heart.” Murphy, p. 308.—A. G.] [Calvin and Keil recognize in this prostration of the patriarch his appropriation and reception of the promise, and his recognition of the command.—A. G.] [“For the significance of names, and the change of names, see Hengstenberg’s Beitrδge ii. p. 270 ff.;” Kurtz.—A. G.] [A son of eight days. It was after a week’s round, when a new period was begun, and thus it was indicative of starting anew upon a new life. The seventh day was a sacred day. And this period of seven days was a sacred period, so that with the eighth day a new cycle was commenced Jacobus, p. 287.—A. G.] [“These questions are not addressed to God; they merely agitate the breast of the astonished patriarch.” Murphy, p. 311. “Can this be? This that was only too good to be thought of, and too blessed a consummation of all his ancient hopes, to be now, at this late day, so distinctly assured to him by God himself.” Jacobus, p. 289.—A. G.] SEVENTH SECTIONAbraham in the Oak-Grove of Mamre, and the three Heavenly Men. Hospitality of Abraham. The definite announcement of the birth of a Son. Sarah’s Doubt. The announcement of the judgment upon Sodom connected with the Promise of the Heir of blessing. The Angel of the Lord, or the Friend of Abraham and the two angels of deliverance for Sodom. Abraham’s intercession for Sodom. The destruction of Sodom. Lot’s rescue. Lot and his Daughters. Moab and AmmonChs. 18 and 191And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre; and he sat in the tent-door in the heat of the day; 2And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent-door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3And said, My Lord [ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι not ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πִ ?ε], if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: 4Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree 5[enjoy the noonday rest]: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort [stay, strengthen] ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye [even] come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. 6And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready [hasten] quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. 7And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man [a servant]; and he hasted 8to dress it. And Hebrews 2 took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed [caused to be dressed], and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat. 9And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. 10And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life [return when this time of the next year shall be reached]; and lo, Sarah thy wife shall [then] have a son. And Sarah heard [was hearing] it in [behind] the tent-door, which [door] was behind him [Jehovah]. 11Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old [gray] also? 13And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am [and I am] old? 14Is any thing too hard [an exception] for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life [this time in the next year], and Sarah shall have a son. 15Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh. 16And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. 17And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do [will do]; 18Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19For I know [have chosen] him, that he will [shall] command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. 20And the Lord said, Because the cry [of the sins, Genesis 4:10] of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done [until a decision] altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 22And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. 23And Abraham drew near [bowing, praying], and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city [concealed in the mass]: wilt thou also destroy, and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? 25That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked [that it is all one both to the righteous and the wicked], that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 26And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. 27And Abraham answered and said, Behold now [once] I have taken upon me to speak [to say] unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes. 28Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, if I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. 29And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there [if one should search for them]. And he Said, I will not do [will leave off to do] it for forty’s sake. 30And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak; Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it if I find thirty there. 31And he said, Behold now I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake. 32And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure there shall be ten found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake. 33And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place. Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat [was sitting] in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast [literally, a banquet], and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people, from every quarter [all collected]: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow [and protection] of my roof [the cross-beams or rafters of the house]. 9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness [dazzling blindnesses], both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door. 12And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here [in the city] any besides? son-in-law and thy sons, and thy daughters, arid whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: 13For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them [the outcry of their sins] is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it. 14And Lot went out and spake unto his sons-in-law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the Lord will destroy [as a destroyer] this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons-in-law [Luther: he was ridiculous in their eyes]. 15And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here [are found and rescued]; lest thou be consumedin the iniquity [the visitation for the iniquity] of the city. 16And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. 17And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad [into the open country], that he said, Escape for thy life [thy soul]; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain [valley-region]; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. 18And Lot said unto them [the two passing from him; between whom Jehovah had revealed himself], Oh, not so, my Lord! 19Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast showed unto me, in saving my life; and I cannot 20escape to the mountain, lest some [the] evil take me, and I die: Behold now this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh let me escape thither! (is it not a little one?) and my soul [through its exemption] shall live. 21And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. 22Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou be come thither; therefore the name of the city was called Zoar [smallness]. 23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. 24Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. 26But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. 27And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: 28And he looked toward (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι) Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace [lime-kilns or metal-furnaces. The earth itself burned as an oven]. 29And it came to pass when God [Elohim] destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt. 30And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31And the firstborn said unto the younger [smaller], Our father is old, and there is not a man [besides] in the earth to come in unto us, after the manner of all the earth: 32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he perceived not [was not in a conscious state] when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight [nights] with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab [from the father; or seed of the father; son of my father; brother and son]: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi [son of my people, son and brother]: the same is the father of the children of Ammon [= Ben-ammon] unto this day. GENERAL REMARKS1. It is evident that these two chapters form but one section: the first verse of the 19th chapter forms the direct continuation of the previous narrative. [The connection of this chapter with the preceding is twofold, and very close. This forms the more complete unfolding of the promise, Genesis 17:21, and the friendly intercourse which Jehovah here holds with the patriarch is the direct fruit of the symbolical purification of himself and his house through the rite of circumcision, Genesis 17:23-27. Thus purified, the way was open for this friendly appearance and fellowship.—A. G.] The modern criticism attributes this section to the Jehovistic enlargement, and finds it necessary, therefore, to regard Genesis 19:29, as an Elohistic interpolation, which, in the original writing must have immediately followed Genesis 17 (Knobel, p. 166). But there are the same strong internal reasons why the name Elohim should appear in Genesis 19:29, as there are that Genesis 17:1, should speak of Jehovah, and afterwards of Elohim. In this section, however, Jehovah appears in all other passages. The complete theophany of God corresponds to the completed promise of Isaac, the bearer of the covenant; and in this completed form of revelation he is Jehovah. But the announcement of the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah is essentially connected with the promise of the heir of blessing. The judgment itself, also, is a judgment of Jehovah; for, 1. The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, through a fiery judgment, is an end of the world upon a small scale, with which the necessity, for that constant revelation of salvation, for the rescue of the world, whose foundation was now being laid, is clearly apparent. 2. With the firm confirmation of the father of the faithful in the future of his believing race, his relations to the world must also be actually and clearly defined, i.e., Abraham must prove his faith in his love, mercy, and his intercessions for Sodom also. 3. In the founding of this believing race, the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, as a judgment of Jehovah, stands as a solemn warning for Abraham and his children, and through them for the world in all ages. The Dead sea could not remain without significance for the dwellers in Canaan. 4. Even the issue of the history of Lot belongs to the history of the completed promise; not only the position of Lot, intermediate between Abraham and Sodom, nor even his exemption and safety, which he owes to Abraham’s intercession, and his once better conduct, nor, on the other hand, the danger, terrors, losses, want, and moral disgrace into which he was betrayed through his worldly mind and his unbelief; but the issue of the history of Lot, his full separation from the theocratic obligations and privileges, and the descent from him of the Moabites and Ammonites, who were related to the Jews, and yet alien to them, belong also to the full presentation of the antithesis between the house of Abraham and the people of Sodom. 5. The abominations of Sodom, moreover, not only find a bright contrast in the consecrated marriage of Abraham and Sarah, but even a contrast in the incest with which the household of Lot was stained (see Introduction).—Knobel finds contradictions here which have no existence; e.g., between Genesis 18:12; Genesis 17:17; between the recapitulation, Genesis 19:29, and the whole narrative of the overthrow of Sodom. He remarks upon the narrative, that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is not, in his view, a natural event, but a divine judgment, like the flood. He explains the narrative of the impure origin of the Moabites and Ammonites by a reference to the odious Jewish motives. In answer to this Keil refers to Deuteronomy 2:9; Deuteronomy 2:19, according to which Israel should not possess the land of these two nations on the ground of their descent from Lot, and remarks, they were first excluded from a position among the Lord’s people, on account of their unbrotherly conduct towards Israel (Deuteronomy 23:4 ff.). Knobel here fails to recollect, that so far as the race of the chosen Judah is concerned, it was derived from an impure connection of Judah with his daughter-in-law, Thamar, just as in the remark, that the Jews gloried in the beauty of their ancestress, he failed to remember that Leah is especially described as not beautiful. He holds, that this narrative has an historical support, in the terrible fate of the vale of Siddim; but as to the rest, it is a pure mythical statement. [Aside from the fact that this supposition of the mythological character of the narrative overlooks the opposition referred to in the following sentence, it overlooks, also, the historical basis for this narrative in Genesis 13:13, the close connection with the subsequent history, and the whole moral bearing and use of this history in both the Old and New Testaments.—A. G.] Of the two sides or aspects of the history, the prominent side, viz., the opposition between the manifestation of God to Abraham, and the judgment upon Sodom, is thus not properly estimated. 2. This Section may be divided into the following parts: 1. The appearance of Jehovah in the oak-grove of Mamre, and the promise of the birth of Isaac (Genesis 18:1-15); 2. the revelation of the approaching judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah to Abraham, and Abraham’s intercessory prayer (Genesis 18:16-33); 3. the entrance of the two angels into Sodom, and the complete manifestation of the corruption of the Sodomites, in opposition to the better conduct of Lot (Genesis 19:1-11); 4. the comparative unfitness of Lot for salvation, his salvation with difficulty, and the entrance of the judgment (Genesis 18:12-29); 5. the departure of Lot, and his descendants (Genesis 18:30-33). AND 1. The completed manifestation and promise of God in the oak-grove of Mamre (Genesis 18:1-15).—The Lord appeared unto him.—Both the reality of the manifestation, on the one hand, and the seeing in vision on the other, appear in the clearest and most distinct form in the history. The elements which belong to the vision appear first at the very beginning: he lifted up his eyes and looked; then, further, in the departure of Jehovah from Abraham (Genesis 18:33); and in his reappearance to Lot (Genesis 19:17). The objective element is seen especially in the threefold character of the manifestation, in the transaction between Jehovah and Sarah, and in the history of the two angels in Sodom; especially in the assaults of the Sodomites upon them. But the peculiarities serving to introduce these wonderful objective facts, lie partly in the peculiar character of the history, as the narrative of a vision, partly in its symbolic statements, and partly in its peculiar ghostly form. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is near; for them the evening of the world has come. It is a prelude of the last day, in which the angelic appearance is entirely natural, and is introduced through an inner and spiritual anticipation of the judgment itself, in those who seek to resist its influence, by indulgence in wicked, or, as in the case of the Sodomites, in abominable, courses. Delitzsch thinks that Abraham recognized the unity of the God of revelation, in the appearance of the three men. As to this, see the remarks upon the Angel of the Lord, Genesis 12. He adds: “One should compare the imitations of this original history among the heathen. Jupiter, Mercury, and Neptune, visit an old man, by name Hyricus, in the Boeotian city Tanagra; he prepares them a feast, and, though childless hitherto, receives a son in answer to his prayer (Ovid’s ‘Fast.,’ v. 494, etc.).” And then, further, the heathen accompaniment to Genesis 19 : “Jupiter and Mercury are journeying as men; only Philemon and Baucis, an aged, childless wedded pair, receive them, and these, therefore, the gods rescue, bearing them away with themselves, while they turn the inhospitable region lying around the hospitable hut into a pool of water, and the hut itself into a temple (Ovid’s Metam., viii. 611 ff.).” But the essential distinction between our ideal facts and these myths, lies in this, that while the first lie in the centre of history as causal facts or forces, having the most sacred and real historical results, these latter lie simply on the border ground of mythology. [How completely and thoroughly these words dispose of the whole mythical supposition in this as in other cases.—A. G.]—In the heat of the day.—“The dinner hour, when they took their principal meal (Genesis 43:16; Genesis 43:25; 1 Kings 20:16) and their accustomed rest (2 Samuel 4:5). Volney (Travels, I. p. 314) says the Arab, when he takes his meal, sits at the door of his tent, in order to observe and invite those who are passing; and Burkhardt (Arabian Proverbs, p. 331 f.), it is a custom in the East to eat before the door and to invite to a share in the meal every passing stranger of respectable appearance.” Knobel.—And bowed himself to the ground.—Abraham instantly recognizes among the three, the one whom he addresses as the Lord in a religious sense, who afterwards appears as Jehovah, and was clearly distinguished from the two accompanying angels, Genesis 19:1. [The original Hebrew word is used to denote both civil and religious homage. The word itself, therefore, cannot determine whether Abraham intended by his bowing to express religious homage, though it is probable that he did.—A. G.] “They are three,” Delitzsch says, “because of the threefold object of their mission, which had not only a promising, but also a punitive, and saving character.” Against this interpretation, however, there is the fact that Jehovah not only speaks the promise, but sends the judgment also upon Sodom, and that not one, but both angels conducted the rescue of Lot. “If there lies,” says Delitzsch, further, “in the fact that God appears in the three angels, a trinitarian reference, which the old painters were accustomed to express, by giving to each of the three the glory which is the characteristic sign of the divine nature, still the idea that the Trinity is represented in the three is in every point of view untenable.” The germ of the doctrine of the Trinity lies, indeed, not in the three forms, but truly in the opposition between the heavenly nature of Jehovah and his form of manifestation upon the earth in the midst of the two angels, i.e., in this well-defined, clearly-appearing duality.—If now I have found favor.—Knobel and Delitzsch differ in the explanation of the ΰִ ?ρΞπָ ?ΰ, etc. (Knobel: “If I have still found favor,” i.e., may it still be the case.) We agree with the Supposition that Abraham uses the expression in his prayer, out of the consciousness that he had already found favor, i.e., that his expression presupposes a covenant-relation between himself and Jehovah. The cordial invitation is in this case far more than oriental hospitality, but still Abraham uses the human greeting, as the heavenly forms wear the appearance of human travellers.—And wash your feet.—This is the first concern of the pilgrim in the East, when he enters the house after treading the sandy, dusty ways, with nothing but sandals. They were to rest themselves under the tree, leaning upon the hand in the oriental manner.—A morsel of bread.—A modest description of the sumptuous meal which he had prepared for them. His humble and pressing invitation, his modest description of the meal, his zeal in its preparation, his standing by to serve those who were eating, are picturesque traits of the life of faith as it here reveals itself, in an exemplary hospitality. “According to the custom still in use among the Bedouin sheiks (comp. Lane, “Manners and Customs,” II. p. 116), Abraham prepared, as soon as possible, from the cakes made by his wife from three seahs [About three pecks. A seah was about the third part of an ephah; the ephah was equal to ten omers, and the omer about five pints. Murphy.—A. G.] of fine meal, and baked under the ashes (ςֻ ?βּ ?εֹ ?ϊ, unleavened cakes, baked upon hot, round stones), and a tender calf, with butter and milk, or curdled milk (Knobel: Cream), a very rich and pleasant-tasting meal.” Keil.—And he stood by them.—[Wordsworth here calls attention to the points of resemblance between this history and that of Zaccheus, Luke 19:4; Luke 19:6; Luke 19:8-9, and then says with great beauty and force: “This seems to be one of the countless instances where, in the tissue of the Holy Scriptures, the golden threads of the Old Testament are interwoven with those of the New, and form, as it were, one whole. p. 84.—A. G.] “This is the custom still in the Eastern countries. The Arab sheik, if he has respected guests, does not sit in order to eat with them, but stands in order to wait upon them.” (Shaw, “Travels,” p. 208; Buckingham, “Mesopotamia,” p. 23; and Seetzen, “Travels,” I. p. 400, etc.) Knoble.—And they did eat.—In Judges 13:16. the Angel of Jehovah refuses to eat. Knobel regards it as a mark of distinction to Abraham, that these heavenly messengers should eat. Since the two angels were entertained by Lot in Sodom, it would appear that the peculiar reception of the meal should be ascribed in a special sense to them. This, however, does not remove the difficulty, in the fact, that those coming from heaven should eat earthly food. The supposition of Neumann, that it is all a dream up to Genesis 18:16, is refuted by the whole tenor of the narrative, but especially by the history of the entertainment of the two angels by Lot. Josephus, “Antiq.,” i.11, 2, Philo, the Targums, and the Talmud, explain the eating as a mere appearance. Tertullian, on the contrary (“Adv. Marc.,” iii. 9), holds to a temporary incarnation. Delitzsch and Keil [So also Jacobus, after Kurtz, referring to John 1:14; Philippians 2:7; Luke 24:44.—A. G.] agree with him, and both refer to the eating of the risen Saviour with his disciples. But the idea of a temporary incarnation in a peculiar sense, is an extremely anthropomorphic, and not well-grounded, assumption; and the bodily nature of the glorified Christ, of whom Augustin says: “that he ate is a fruit of his power, not of his necessity,” quod manducavit, potestatis fuit non egestatis, is not to be identified with the form of the manifestation of the angels. But Delitzsch gives still another explanation. “The human form in which they appeared, was a representation of their invisible nature, and thus they ate, as we say of the fire, it consumes (or eats) all (Justin, Dial. cum Tryph., Genesis 34).” There may be here an intimation of the mysterious fact, that the spiritual world is mighty in its manifestations, and overcomes the material, according to the figurative expression of Augustin: The thirsting earth absorbs the water in one way, the burning rays of the sun in another; that from want, this by power. [“Aliter absorbet terra aquam siliens, aliter solis radius candens: illa indigentia, iste potentia.” Thus Baumgarten: That the angels could eat lies in their pneumatic nature, for the spirit has power over matter; that they did eat here is the very highest act of this divine sojourn or rest in the home of Abraham, p. 206.—A. G.]—Which was behind him.—The Angel of the Lord was placed with his back towards the door of the tent. But it greatly strengthens the real objective character of the manifestation, that Sarah also hears, and indeed hears doubting, the promise of the Angel.—According to the time of life.—“The time of returning to life,” is the return of the same time in the next year. Time returns to life again apparently in the similar appearances of nature. Thus one form of time in nature expires after another, and becomes living again in the next year.—Wherefore did Sarah laugh.—Although Sarah only laughed within herself, and behind Jehovah and the tent door, yet Jehovah observed it. Her later denial (although, indeed, she had not laughed aloud) and her fear, prove that her laugh proceeded from a bitter and doubting heart. Keil, however, is too severe when he says “that her laugh must be viewed as the laugh of unbelief,” and Delitzsch, when he describes it as the scoff of doubt. It is sufficient that there is a distinction between her laughing and that of Abraham. The Scripture says (Hebrews 11:11) that she was a believer in the promise, and the fact of her conception is the evidence of her faith. [It thus becomes evident that one object in this manifestation, the drawing out and completing the faith of Sarah, has been accomplished. The question, Is anything too hard for the Lord? is the same which the angel Gabriel used when announcing to Mary the birth of Jesus. Mary bowed in faith, while Sarah laughs in doubt. But the words here used, with the reproof administered to her laugh, seem to have called out and strengthened her faith. See Wordsworth, p. 84; Baumgarten, p. 207.—A. G.] [Delitzsch closes his exposition of this passage with the suggestive words: “This confidential fellowship of Jehovah with the patriarch corresponds to that of the risen Lord with his disciples. The patriarchal time is more evangelic than the time of the law. As the time before the law, it is the type of the time after the law,” p. 285.—A. G.] 2. The announcement of the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham’s intercessory prayer (Genesis 18:16-32).—And the men rose up from thence.—The travellers depart from Hebron in the direction of Sodom, i.e., over the mountain to the valley of the Jordan. Abraham accompanies them. There is a wonderful union of the state of visions and of the actual outward life. We do not forget that this condition was habitual in the life of our Lord, and that it is reflected in the history of Peter (Acts 12:11-12) as it is also in that of Paul. According to tradition, Abraham accompanied them as far as “the place Caphar-Barucha, from whence Paula looked through a deep ravine to the Dead Sea,” “the solitude and lands of Sodom.” Robinson thinks this is probably the present village Bni Na’im, about one and a half hours easterly from Hebron [“Bib. Researches,” vol. ii. p. 189.—A. G.] (Von Raumer, “Palestine,” p. 183).—Shall I hide from Abraham.—The reason why God would announce to Abraham, beforehand, the judgment upon Sodom, is given in the following words. There is at first great regard to the excellence of Abraham, but connected with this, however, a reference to his destination as the father of the people of promise; he must understand the judgments of God in the world, because he must understand the redemption. [All the principles of the divine providence in its relations to the sins of men appear here; his forbearance and patience, his constant notice, the deciding test, and the strictness and righteousness of the judgment, and hence Abraham is told here, that these same principles might operate upon the minds of the people of God in all ages.—A. G.] For the judgment cannot be understood without the redemption, nor the redemption without the judgment. The “natural event” of Knobel thus becomes to Abraham and his children, a divinely-comprehended event, and cannot remain a dark mystery; it presupposes its spiritual and moral significance. But on this account especially, the event, as a judgment, is of peculiar importance, in order that, like every following judgment, it may prove a monitory example to the house of Abraham—the people of God.—For I have known him.—Luther, following the Vulgate, I know that he, etc. Thus the good behavior of Abraham is (in an Arminian way) made the cause of the divine knowledge. But the μְ ?ξַ ?ςַ ?ο is opposed to this. The knowledge of Jehovah is fore-determined, like προγινώσκειν, Romans 8:29, and thus one with the ἐκλέγεσθαι, Ephesians 1:4. Keil: “In preventing love he sees (ιָ ?γַ ?ς), as in Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5,” which, however, cannot be included in the mere acknowledgment of Abraham. [The word includes knowledge and love. See Psalms 1:6; Psalms 31:8; 1 Corinthians 8:3; 1 Corinthians 13:12. Baumgarten, p. 208.—A. G.] Kurtz explains this passage strangely. God has given the possession of the land to Abraham, therefore he would be sure of his consent in this arrangement as to a part of the land. Keil: “The destruction of Sodom and the neighboring cities should serve as an enduring monument of the divine punitive righteousness, in which Israel should have constantly before its eyes the destruction of the godless. Finally, Jehovah unveils to Abraham, in the clearest manner, the cause of this destruction, that he might not only have a clear and perfect conviction of the justice of the divine procedure, but also the clear view that when the measure of iniquity was full, no intercession could avert the judgment. It is both for the instruction and warning of his descendants.” But still more certainly, also, at first, to give occasion to the prayer of Abraham, and thus show to his children what position they must take in regard to all the threatening judgments of God upon the world.—The cry of Sodom.—It is right to refer to Genesis 4:10 for the explanation of these words, and hence the cry which is meant is the cry of sins for vengeance or punishment. Outbreaking offences against the moral nature, as murder and lusts, especially unnatural lusts, abuse and pain nature, and so to speak, force from it a cry of necessity, which sounds throughout the world and ascends to heaven. The infamy of Sodom and Gomorrah in the world, is not excluded from this tendency and result, but forms only the reflex, or one element of the cry. The λִּ ?ι gives the strongest emphasis to the utterance. [Baumgarten and Keil render it indeed. The cry of Sodom, indeed it is great—their sin, indeed it is very grievous. But the usual force of the λִּ ?ι, for, because, gives a good sense. It is for or because the cry is such, that the Lord comes down to test and punish.—A. G.]—I will go down now.—The anthropomorphic expression includes also a divine thought or purpose. Jehovah could not be uncertain whether the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah contained the truth, but it was still a question whether Sodom, by its conduct against the last deciding visitation of God, would show that its corruption placed it beyond any help or salvation. The translation of Luther, “whether it has done according to the cry,” does not meet the demands of the text. It must become evident through its last trial, whether it has reached the limit of the long-suffering patience of God. Thus it is not specially to convince himself, but to introduce the final decision. According to Delitzsch and Keil, the λָּ ?μָ ?δ must be taken as a noun, as in Isaiah 10:23, not as an adverb, as Exodus 11:1, “ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δλָ ?μָ ?δ, to bring to an end, here to denote the most extreme corruption, in other passages used to express the utmost severity of punishment (Nahum 1:8 f.; Jeremiah 4:27; Jeremiah 5:10).” Keil.—I will know.—A sublime, fearful expression of the fact, that Jehovah will at last introduce for the godless a decisive test, which according to their situation is a temptation, the judgment which in their case hardens, and the judgment for the hardening. It will issue at the last, as they themselves have decided. Patience and anger both have definite, sharp limits.—And the men.—The two angels who accompanied Jehovah in the form of men. It is observable that here it is the men simply, and then in Genesis 19:1 it is the two angels. This order presupposes a very clear consciousness as to the distinction between the one chief person and his two companions; a distinction which Delitzsch misses, according to his view of the Angel of the Lord. Here, also (Genesis 18:22), the two angels disappear, as they go farther, while Jehovah remains at the place, in the Angel of the Lord; in (Genesis 19:17) on the contrary, the two angels receive an increase through an undefined, but evident, new appearance of Jehovah. It is with reference to the later assault of the Sodomites, that the angels are here described as men. Their departure to Sodom is in fulfilment of the word of Jehovah: I will know. They depart to introduce the final decision. They depart, but Abraham remains standing before Jehovah, upon that height whence the vale of Sodom could be seen (Genesis 19:17), and addresses himself to prayer. The Jewish conjecture, that Jehovah remains standing before Abraham, is a wretched way of bettering the connection, which presupposes the distinction between the one Jehovah and the two angels before Jehovah.—And Abraham drew near.—The ιִ ?βַּ ?ωׁ designates especially the nearness to Jehovah, and more especially the venturesome [Rather the bold. Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 10:22.—A. G.], mediating nearness in the priestly and believing disposition which the prayer implies and contains (Jeremiah 30:21). That Abraham in his prayer thought especially of Lot, is evident, but that he interceded for Lot only, is an assumption which wrongs not only the divine thought of this prayer but the text itself. Abraham would not then have ceased with the number ten, and his prayer also would have taken the form of an ambiguous circumlocution. Keil is correct in his remark against Kurtz, Abraham appeals in his prayer, not to the grace of the covenant, but to the righteousness of Jehovah. But he is incorrect when he rejects the position of Calvin: “Common mercy towards the five nations” impels Abraham to his prayer, and on the contrary brings into prominence the love springing from faith; for the one of these does not exclude the other. Luther admirably explains his heartfelt desire: “He asks six times, and with so great ardor and affection, so urgently, that in the very great and breathless interest with which he pleads for the miserable cities, he seems as if speaking foolishly.” In the transactions of Abraham with God, the pressing earnestness on the part of Abraham, and the forbearance on the part of Jehovah, stand out in clear relief. Abraham goes on from step to step, Jehovah grants him step by step, without once going before his requests. He thus draws out from Abraham the measure and intensity of his priestly spirit, while Abraham, on his side, ever wins a clearer insight as to the judgment of God upon Sodom, and as to the condition of Sodom itself.—The first prayer or petition. Foolish, apparently presuming in form, sacred as to its matter! God, as he has known him as the righteous one, must remain the same in his righteousness, and cannot, in any exercise of his punitive providence, separate his almighty power from his righteousness. The prayer is a pious syllogism. Major proposition: Jehovah cannot sweep away the righteous with the wicked. (The emphasis lies upon the sweeping away. The prayer itself proves that the righteous suffer through the wicked, indeed, with him and for him.) The minor premise: there might be fifty righteous ones in Sodom, i.e., righteous, guiltless in reference to this destructive judgment. Innocent children are indeed not intended here, but guiltless adults, who might form some proportionate counterpoise to the rest. The conclusion: If it should be thus, the judge of the world could not destroy the cities, for righteousness is not the non plus ultra of strength, but power conditions and limits itself through right. Fifty righteous, five [twice five?] in each city (the singular is used here because Sodom represents all the five cities, or the pentapolis appears as one city, whose character and destiny is decided in the conduct of Sodom) of the pentapolis, would be sufficient salt to save the city. Five is the number of freedom, of moral development.—Second petition. The lowly, humble form of the second prayer, corresponds with the bold form of the first, for Abraham has now heard that Jehovah will spare it for the sake of fifty.—I have taken upon me (ventured) to speak unto the Lord.—This is not merely to pray unto the Lord. He has ventured the undertaking, to exert a definite influence upon Jehovah, i.e., on the supposition of a moral and free relation, boldly he has ventured to speak to him, although uncalled.—Which am but dust and ashes.—Delitzsch: “In his origin dust, and ashes at the end.” Notwithstanding this creature nature, he has still ventured to place himself in his personality over against the personality of Jehovah. He has taken the step of faith across the Rubicon, from the blind, creaturely subjection to Jehovah, into the free kingdom of his love.—Per-adventure there shall lack five.—He does not say: Peradventure there are five and forty righteous, but clings to the divine concession. If it is as thou hast said, then the want of five cannot be decisive. The forty-five will compensate for the want of five.—Third petition. Since he knew now that Jehovah would not insist upon the five, he descends at once to the forty, and urges still that the righteous vengeance should be restrained for their sakes until perhaps they might be found. Still from this point on he ventures only to make the supposition, per-adventure there are so many righteous there, without expressly joining to it the inference: wilt thou not spare, etc.?—Fourth petition. But now, after the number forty is allowed, Abraham feels that he can take a bolder step, before which, however, he prays that Jehovah would not be angry. Jehovah had twice yielded the five; he now comes to thirty, and prays that he would at once yield the ten.—Fifth petition. The compliance of Jehovah with his requests emboldens him. Thus he excuses his boldness this time by the mere consistency of his words, as he comes down to twenty.—Sixth petition. He would venture only one more request, and that not without the deprecatory prayer: Oh, let not the Lord be angry.—He ceases with the ten, since less than two men to each city could not avail to turn away the destructive judgment. But great as the interceding Abraham appears in his bold, persistent progress in his petitions, he appears equally great in ceasing when he did, although the human motive to bring into the account Lot, his wife, his two daughters, and his sons-in-law, and thus to go on to the number five, was obvious and strong. And thus there is still a distinction between the mere begging, which knows no limit, and the prayer which is conscious that it is limited through the moral nature or spirit, and, indeed, by the Holy Spirit. When Delitzsch says “that apparent commercial kind of entreaty is the essence of true prayer—is the sacred ἀναίδεια of which our Lord speaks, Luke 11:8, the importunity (shamelessness) of faith, etc.,” we would underscore and emphasize the apparent, and appeal rather to the repeated asking than to the bargaining nature, and recollect that the importunity, Luke 11:8, has its full authorization only in the figure, but cannot be identified without explanation, with what is analogous to it, the full joyfulness of prayer.—And the Lord went his way: not to avoid (as Delitzsch conjectures) further entreaties on the part of Abraham, for Jehovah’s remaining where he was, and the joyfulness of Abraham’s prayer, stand in a harmonious relation. “The judgment, which now follows, upon the five cities, shows that not ten φַ ?γִּ ?ιχִ ?ιν, i.e., not sinless, holy persons, but upright, who, through the fear of God and the power of conscience, had kept themselves free from the prevailing sins and crimes of those cities, could be found in Sodom.” Keil. Delitzsch: “His prayer, however, has not fallen to the ground.” He refers to the rescuing of Lot and his family. See Genesis 19:1 ff for AND ETHICAL and AND . Footnotes:[Genesis 18:3.—The versions vary, some reading one form and some the other. The Septuagint has Κύριε, Vulg. Domine. So also the Syriac and Onkelos. The Masoretic text, therefore, is preferable to that used in our version.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:8.—He, i.e. Abraham.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:8.—was standing.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:10.—Heb., according to the living time.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:14.—Heb., difficult, wonderful, Sept. μὴἀδυνατήσειπαρὰτῷΘεῷῥῆμα? See Luke 1:37.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:17.—Jehovah.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:18.—Lit., I am doing, am about to do.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:21.—Heb. whether they have made completeness, or to a consummation.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:25.—ηָ ?μִ ?μָ ?δ, abominable.—A. G.] [Ch. 19 Genesis 18:1.—two of the angels.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:2.—ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πַ ?ι. Not the same form which Abraham uses.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:9.—ιִ ?ωְׁ ?τֹּ ?θωָ ?τεֹ ?θ, will he always be judging.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:13.—Lit., are destroying.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:14.—Lit., The takers of his daughters.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:14.—as a jester.—A. G. [Genesis 18:16.—Heb. delayed himself.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:18.—ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι. O Lord.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:21.—have lifted up thy face.—A. G.] [Genesis 18:23.—Heb., and Lot came unto.—A. G.] [The Lord appeared, but the appearance was in the form of three men or angels. There may be, as Wordsworth suggests, here a declaration of the divine unity, and an intimation of the plurality of persons; perhaps of the doctrine of the Trinity.—A. G.] [“For therefore are ye come—to give me occasion to offer yon my hospitality.” Keil, p. 166.—A. G.] [“Their coming was of God. He recognized in it a divine call upon his hospitality.” Jacobus, “Notes,” vol. i. p. 9.—A. G.] [Flesh-meat was not ordinary fare. See Pict. Bible, and Bush, Notes, vol. i. p. 286.—A. G.] [Literally, living time. Murphy: “Seemingly the time of birth when the child comes to manifest life,” p. 316.—A. G.] [Jacobus has a striking note here upon the connection of what follows with what precedes. “These are only the right and left hand movements. The records are in their proper antithesis, as setting forth the divine character and counsel. The right and left hand of the Judge are for the opposite parties. Life eternal is for the one, and everlasting punishment for the other.” Matthew 25:46. All history is full of this antithesis.—A. G.] [It is the moral demand which sin makes for punishment. Bush: “Notes,” vol. i. p. 297.—A. G.] See Genesis 18:1 ff for the passage quote with footnotes. 3. The entrance and sojourn of the two angels in Sodom, and the completed manifestation of its corruption in opposition to the better conduct of Lot (Genesis 19:1-11).—And there came two angels.—Stier: ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?λιν without the article; the peculiar personal angels who here first appear definitely in the history of the kingdom of God, although the idea of the angel, in its wider sense, had been in existence since Genesis 3. They arrive at Sodom at evening, having left Hebron after midday. The idea of an actual human journey from place to place is thus complete; but the inmost central points of the narrative are the two great manifestations, of which the first was given to Abraham about midday, and now Lot shares the second at evening. But here the objective character of the manifestation is far more prominent than the possession and extent of the power to perceive the vision, for Lot did not recognize them at first as angels, and they appear to have been seen by the Sodomites, unless we prefer the supposition that they had learned from Lot’s household of the two shining youthful forms who had turned in there for the night. [The term which Lot uses in his address, ΰֲ ?γπַ ?ι, shows that he regarded them as men.—A. G.]—And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom.—Knobel well says: “Jehovah, as the most holy, will not enter the unholy city,” while Delitzsch asserts “that Jehovah came in them to Sodom.” That Lot sat in the gate of Sodom, is mentioned rather to his reproach than to praise his hospitality. [It is a reproach to him that he is in Sodom at all, but his sitting in the gate is not mentioned here as his reproach.—A. G.] He sits at the gate in order to invite approaching travellers to a lodging for the night, and is thus hospitable like his uncle. Knobel remarks, Genesis 19:1 : “This polite hospitality is still practised among the Arabians; they count it an honor to entertain the approaching stranger, and often contend with each other who shall have the honor. Tavernier, ‘Travels,’ i. p. 125; Burckhardt, ‘Bedouins,’ p. 280, and ‘Travels in Syria,’ p. 641 ff.; Buckingham, ‘Syria,’ i. p. 285; Seetzen, ‘Travels,’ i. p. 400.” “The gate in the East is usually an arched entrance, with deep recesses upon both sides, which furnish an undisturbed seat for the observer; here below and at the gate they gather, to transact business, as there are usually also stands for merchandise in these recesses, and to address narrower or wider circles upon the affairs of the city (Genesis 34:20; Deuteronomy 21:19).” Delitzsch.—Behold now, my lords (ΰֲ ?γπַ ?ι).—He does not recognize them immediately as angels, which is the less remarkable since the doctrine of angels must first make its way into the world through such experiences, and which is not excluded by the disposition or fitness to perceive visions (comp. Hebrews 13:2).—Nay, but we will abide in the street [i.e., the open, wide place in the gate.—A. G.] (comp. Luke 24:29).—It appears to have been the object of the angels to ascertain the state of the city from the street; but Lot’s hospitable conduct seems, on the other hand, to them a favorable sign for the city, which they will follow.—But before they lay down.—The wickedness of the city immediately develops itself in all its greatness. That the old and young should come; that they should come from every quarter of the city [literally the end; see Jeremiah 51:31. Keil: “As we say, to the very last man.”—A. G.]; that they assault the house, notwithstanding the sacred rights of guests; that they so shamelessly avow their pederastic purpose; that they will not even be appeased by Lot, to whom they once owed their salvation (Genesis 14), and (as one may say, preferred their demonic, raging, unnatural lusts, to natural offences) that they did not cease to grope for the door, after they were stricken with blindness; this is the complete portraiture of a people ripe for the fiery judgment.—That we may know them.—A well-known euphemism, but, therefore, here an expression of shameless effrontery. It is the mark of their depravity that they seek pleasure in the violation of nature, and have their vile passions excited by the look or thought of heavenly beauty (see Gφthe’s “Faust,” ii. division, at the close). “The lustful abomination, according to Romans 1:27 the curse of heathenism, according to Judges 7. a copy of demonic error, according to the Mosaic law (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13) an abomination punishable with death, here had no mask, not even the ζsthetic glory with which it was surrounded in Greece.” Delitzsch. The vice of pederasty was reckoned among the abominations of Canaan, and even the Israelites were sometimes stained with it (Judges 19:22).—Behold now, I have two daughters.—“The Arab holds his guest who lodges with him as sacred and inviolable, and if necessary defends him with his life (see Russel, ‘Natural History of Aleppo,’ i. p. 334, etc).” Knobel. “He commits sin, seeking to prevent sin through sin.” Delitzsch. Keil remarks, “his duty as a father should have been held more sacred.” But it may be questioned whether there is not to be brought into account in Lot an element of cunning—a kind of irony—since he could reckon with certainty upon the taste for unnatural lust in the Sodomites (he so speaks because he knew his people); or whether, rather, the important thing is not found in the supposition that he acted in the confusion of the greatest amazement and anxiety. [Which would naturally be increased if he had discovered by this time that they were heavenly visitors.—A. G.] We must take into account, in this whole history, that a premonitory feeling of the destruction of Sodom rested upon their minds, which had released in Lot the spiritually awakened disposition or preparedness for desperate acts of virtue, as it had in the Sodomites the demonic rage in wickedness; as the same influence has elsewhere appeared during earthquakes and similar events. In any case Lot could not have miscalculated in the thought of a stratagem in which he relied not only upon the opposition of his sons-in-law, but much more upon the unnatural lusts of the Sodomites.—He will needs be a Judge (Judge and Judge).—See the original text. “We may thus see that there is a sting in the words of Lot, because he would now reprove their unnatural passions, as he had indeed done before (see 2 Peter 2:7).—We will deal worse with thee than with them.—“They would smite and kill him, but abuse his guests.” Knobel. In the words, they pressed sore upon the man, the narrator intimates more than lies upon the face of the words. They at the same time attempt to break through the door. The angels interfered, and the Sodomites were stricken with blindness. It is not natural blindness which is meant, but the blinding in which the spiritual power of the angels works together with the demonic fury of the Sodomites. [ρַ ?πְ ?εֵ ?ψִ ?ιν, a blindness produced by dazzling light, probably combining total privation of sight and a confusion or wandering of mind.—A. G.] It marks the excess of their wickedness, the continuance of their abomination until the very midst of the judgment, that they do not, even in this condition, cease from seeking the door. 4. Lot’s comparative unfitness for salvation, his salvation with difficulty, and the entrance of the judgment (Genesis 19:12-29).—And the men said unto Lot.—They reveal themselves now as heavenly messengers; and no less distinctly their calling to destroy the city and their mission to save him and his household (any one related by marriage—son-in-law). We regard the usual construction, hast thou here any besides? son-in-law and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast, etc., as incorrect. 1. Because then son-in-law would precede the sons and daughters, and is used in the singular. 2. Because in the words “whatsoever thou hast,” sons-in-law, as well as sons and daughters are included. [The probable reference is to those in the city and not in the house—any one related to him.—A. G.]—And the Lord hath sent us.—The Angel of the Lord never speaks in this way.—And Lot went out and spake, etc.—There are two explanations: 1. Those taking his daughters, i.e., who had taken his daughters to wife. Thus the Septuagint, the Targums, Jonathan, Jewish interpreters, Schumann, Knobel, Delitzsch. According to this explanation, Lot had, besides his married daughters in the city, two unmarried daughters. 2. μֹ ?χְ ?ηִ ?ιν, those about to accept or take, bridegrooms. Thus Josephus, the Vulgate, Clericus, Ewald, Keil, and others. Knobel quotes (ηַ ?πִּ ?ξְ ?φָֹ ?ΰϊ) Genesis 19:15 in favor of the first explanation; but Keil remarks that this does not designate an opposition between the unmarried and married daughters, but between these and the sons-in-law who remained behind. We may add, moreover, that there is no intimation that Lot had warned married daughters to rise up.—The angels hastened Lot.—Since they were sent to execute the destruction, there does not seem any occasion for the haste, as if it proceeded from some fate—from an agency beyond themselves. But there is a threefold reason for their haste: 1. The zeal of the righteousness of God, since the measure of the iniquity of Sodom was full; 2. their own holy affection; 3. the connection of their mission with the preparation of the judgment in the natural relations of Sodom.—And while he lingered.—It is clear in every way that Lot, from his spiritless, half-hearted nature, which made it difficult to part from his location and possessions, was rescued with the greatest difficulty. [The Lord being merciful to him, literally, by the mercy of Jehovah upon him, i.e., which was exercised towards him.—A. G.]—And set him down.—This completes the work of the two angels in saving Lot, and their work of destruction now begins.—That he said (see the remarks upon the Angel of the Lord, Genesis 12)—It is “Jehovah speaking through the angel,” says Delitzsch. But why then does this form occur first here? Before, the angels had said, Jehovah has sent us. Because the approach of Jehovah is not expressly mentioned, Keil also admits here “that the angel speaking, speaks, as the messenger of Jehovah, in the name of God.” Upon the ground of the miraculous help given to him, Jehovah calls him now to personal activity in his own salvation. But Lot, on the contrary, clings to the receding forms of the two angels, and it cannot surprise us, that in his agitation he should confound their appearance and the voice of Jehovah.—For thy life.—Life and soul are here one, not merely according to the verbal expression, but in the very idea of the situation; it includes the thought: “Save thy soul.”—Look not behind thee.—The cause is given in Lot’s wife. It is the religious expression for the desire to return, the hesitation, the lingering, as if one could easily hasten from the divine judgment (see Luke 9:62). Knobel draws analogies from the sphere of heathen religions. “In order not to see the divine providence, or working, which is not permitted the eye of mortals. For similar reasons the ancients in completing certain religious usages did not look around them (p. 173).” Certainly the Lord might take into account the holy horror in Lot at the spectacle of the fiery judgment. Still the first word is explained by the second: Neither stay thou in all the plain; and the second by the third: Escape to the mountain.—It is the mountains of Moab, on the other side of the Dead Sea, which are intended.—And Lot said unto them: Oh, not so, my Lord.—He could not distinguish the miraculous vision of the appearance of the angels and the miraculous report of the voice of Jehovah which now came to him. He pleads in excuse for his want of energy that fear presses heavily upon him; and fear weighs upon him because, while he was free from the abominations of Sodom, he was not free from its worldly mind. [The evil, i.e., the destruction which was to come upon Sodom. He feared that he could not reach the mountain.—A. G.] Lot also now becomes, in his own interest, an intercessor for others. He points to the little Bela, the smallest of the cities of the pentapolis, and thinks it is a small matter for the Lord to grant him this as a place of refuge, because it is so small, and therefore exempt it from destruction. The name Zoar was derived from these events. “Zoar is not to be sought in the Ghor el Mezrαah, i.e., upon the peninsula which here stretches into the Dead Sea (see Isaiah 15:5), but rather in the Ghor el Szaphia, at the south-eastern end of the Sea, in the outlet of the Wady el Ahhsa. This locality is well watered and covered with shrubs and trees at the present time, but is unhealthy. It is inhabited and well cultivated by the Bedouins, who have here a permanent settlement; and in the winter it is the gathering place for more than ten tribes. Thus Seetzen, Burckhardt, Robinson.” Knobel. For further references to Zoar, see in Knobel, p. 174; Keil, p. 165; and the Bible-Dictionaries. [Robinson, “Researches,” ii. p. 480, 648, 661.—A. G.]—The sun was risen upon the earth.—According to Keil, Lot was now just on the way, but the text says expressly, that he had entered Zoar. For the distances in the vale of Siddim see Knobel, p. 175.—Then the Lord rained [Heb. caused it to rain.—A. G.] fire from the Lord.—The antithesis which lies in this expression, between the manifestation of Jehovah upon the earth, and the being and providence of Jehovah in heaven, is opposed by Keil. The ξֵ ?ΰֵ ?ϊιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ is according to Calvin an emphatic repetition. This does not agree with Keil’s explanation of the Angel of the Lord. Delitzsch remarks here: There is certainly in all such passages a distinction between the historically revealed, and the concealed, or unrevealed God (comp. Hosea 1:7), and thus a support to the position of the Council of Sirmium: “the Son of God rains it down from God the Father.” The decisive execution of the judgment proceeds from the manifestation of Jehovah upon the earth, in company with the two angels; but the source of the decree of judgment lies in Jehovah in heaven. The moral stages of the development of the kingdom of God upon the earth, correspond with the providence of the Almighty in the heavens, and from the heavens reaching down into the depths of cosmical nature.—Brimstone and fire.—Keil, in the interest of the literal interpretation, misses here the religious and symbolical expression. “The rain of brimstone and fire was no mere thunder-storm, which kindled into a fire the ground already saturated with naphtha. [Whatever may be the explanation of this catastrophe, whether we suppose, as seems most probable, that God used natural agencies, or make more prominent and exclusive the storm from heaven, it is clear on either supposition that the event was miraculous, the result of the direct interposition of God. Upon the Dead Sea, the ‘Notes’ of Bush and Jacobus; the ‘Dictionaries’ of Smith and Kitto; Robinson: ‘Researches’; Stanley on ‘Palestine’; and the numerous books of travels may be consulted.—A. G.] For it cannot be proved from such passages as Psalms 11:6 and Ezekiel 38:22 that lightning is ever called in the Scriptures brimstone and fire, since these passages evidently refer to the event narrated here. The words must be understood in an entirely peculiar sense, that brimstone with fire, i.e., the burning brimstone, fell from heaven, etc.” But the words are not thus peculiarly understood, brimstone with fire, i.e., burning brimstone, but brimstone and fire. Brimstone cannot mix with fire, in the air, without becoming fire. We might, indeed, think of burning meteors, which stood in reciprocal relations and efficiency with the burning ground. Knobel adopts the explanation of Josephus: “Antiq.” i. 11, 4; “Bell Jud.” iv. 8, 4; and Tacit.: “History,” v. 7. Fire and brimstone appear also elsewhere as the instruments of divine punishment (Psalms 11:6; Ezekiel 38:22). The author does not point out more fully what was the concern of the two angels in the destruction. But in analogous cases, when God was about to send evil diseases or pestilences, he used the angels as his instruments (2 Samuel 24:16; Isaiah 37:36). Delitzsch: “Not only Sodom and Gomorrah, but, with the exception of Zoar, the other cities of the pentapolis (Genesis 14:2), as is stated Deuteronomy 29:23 (comp. Hosea 11:8), or as it is here, the whole circle, all the plain, was submerged in fire and brimstone; a catastrophe which also Strabo, Tacitus, and Solinus Polyhistor, fully attest, and which is constantly referred to in the later literature, e.g., Psalms 11:6 (see Hupfield upon this passage), even down to the Revelation.”—But his wife looked back from behind him.—Some conclude from this expression, that she went behind Lot, and thus looked back. But the looking back is plainly not more to be understood in a strict literal sense than the account that she became a pillar of salt. Female curiosity, and the longing for her home at Sodom, led her to remain behind Lot, and delay, so that she was overtaken in the destruction (see Luke 17:31-32). Keil even departs from the literal interpretation in the term, pillar of salt, when he explains: she was encrusted with salt; resembled a pillar of salt, just as now objects in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea, are soon encrusted from its salty evaporations. This salt-pillar is mentioned as still existing in the “Book of Wisdom,” Genesis 11:7, and in Clemens of Rome to the “Cor.” 11; Josephus:“Antiq.” i. 11, 4, as that which they had seen. The biblical tradition has here passed into a mere legend, which points out a pillar-like salt-cone, about forty feet high, at the lower end of the Dead Sea, as this pillar of salt (see Knobel, p. 176, Seetzen: “Travels,” ii. p. 240; Lynch: “Report,” p. 183 ff.). This salt-cone is connected with the salt-mountain of Usdum (Sodom). Robinson: “Researches,” ii. p. 481–485. [Also Grove’s article on the “Salt Sea,” in Smith’s Dictionary.—A. G.]—And Abraham gat up early in the morning. [That is, the morning of the destruction.—A. G.]—The catastrophe of the judgment was soon completed. The destruction, viewed from its universal aspect and relations, is ascribed to Elohim. But it is God, as Elohim also, who saves Lot, for Abraham’s sake (see the remarks upon his intercession).—Out of the midst of the destruction.—A vivid description of the salvation of Lot from the extremest peril, in a place which itself lay in the skirts of the overthrow,—a statement which Knobel, without the least ground, attempts to prove differs from the earlier account. The destination of this judgment, whose preconditions lay in the terrestrial volcanic character of the vale of Siddim (see Genesis 14:10), for an eternal warning to the descendants of Abraham, i.e., all the members of the kingdom of God, appears clearly in the constant quotation in the Holy Scriptures. Sodom is alone named, as the most important city (Isaiah 3:9; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:48; Matthew 11:23), Sodom and Gomorrah as the two greatest (Isaiah 1:9; Isaiah 1:13; Isaiah 1:19, and in other passages), Admah and Zeboim (Hosea 11:8), and in the “Book of Wisdom” the five cities are named in a vague and general way. The catastrophe, conditioned through the nature of the ground, corresponds with the divine decree of judgment. The fundamental idea is the burning of the earth, through the fire from heaven; but that an earthquake, which are frequent in Palestine, may have been in action, and that volcanic eruptions might have wrought together with this, is intimated in the expression: All the plain was overthrown. The Dead Sea was formed through the flowing in of the Jordan, in connection with the sinking of the ground. But there are two views concerning the Dead Sea. According to one (Leake, Hoff, and others), the Jordan before this flowed through the vale of Siddim to the Ailanitic gulf of the Red Sea. In the other view (Robinson and others), there was an inland sea, before the catastrophe of Sodom, which forms part of the Dead Sea. For the reasons in favor of the latter view, see Knobel, p. 177. A principal reason is found in the fact that the northern part of the Dead Sea has a depth throughout of nearly 1300 feet, while the southern is only 15 feet deep, is rich in asphaltum, has hot places, and is hot at the bottom. Bunsen: “That northern basin, according to Ritter’s statement (xv. 767, 778), is due to the falling in of the ground; the local elevation of the southern part, to the peculiar character of the ground.” Upon the Dead Sea, see Knobel, p. 177; Keil, p. 165; Delitzsch, p. 398; and the Dictionaries, especially the article “Salt Sea,” in the “Bible Dictionary for Christian People.” [“The earlier view is now abandoned, and it has no decisive ground in the sacred history.” Delitzsch, p. 289. See also Grove, in S. D. p. 1339.—A. G.] 5. Lot’s departure, and his descendants (Genesis 19:30-38).—And Lot went out of Zoar.—[“Lot’s rescue is ascribed to Elohim, as the judge of the whole earth, not to the covenant God, Jehovah, because Lot in his separation from Abraham was removed from the special leading and providence of Jehovah.” Keil, p. 166.—A. G.] After he had recovered from the paralyzing terrors which fettered him in Zoar, a calculating fear took possession of him and drove him from Zoar further into the mountains of Moab, in the east. It was an unbelieving fear, for the Lord had granted Zoar to him as an asylum; he could not trust that divine promise further. The result is, that, poor and lonely, he must dwell with his two daughters in a cave in those cavernous chalk mountains. Lot is thus now a poor troglodyte. “There are in that region now those who dwell in caves and grottoes (Buckingham and Lynch).” Knobel, p. 178.—And the first-born said to the younger.—[Our father is old. This confirms the assertion of St. Stephen, in which it is implied that Abraham was not the oldest son of Terah; for Lot was now old, and he was the son of Haran, and Haran was Abraham’s brother. Thus one part of Scripture confirms another, when perhaps we least expect it. Wordsworth, p. 89.—A. G.] The desire for posterity led her to the iniquitous thought of incest, which she believes excusable because there is not a man in the earth, etc. According to Keil and Knobel, they did not think that the human race had perished, but only that there was no man who would unite himself with them, the remnant of a region stricken with the curse. Their idea of the world, according to the terms of the narrative, appears to have been sad and gloomy. What did they know of the world, in their mountain solitude? This deed was worthy of Sodom, says Keil. But there is a distinction and a wide difference between incest and pederasty (see introduction). Knobel thinks that they were represented by the writer as moulded by the mother, who was probably a Sodomite; and, on the other hand, that Lot, as the nephew of Abraham, was more favorably (i.e., partially) represented. Every one of these points is fiction! The narrative, Knobel remarks, lacks probability. It assumes that Lot was so intoxicated both times that he should know nothing of what took place, and still, an old man should, with all this, be capable of begetting seed. Keil, on the contrary, says it does not follow from the text that Lot was in an unconscious state during the whole interval, as the Rabbins have, according to Jerome, described this as an incredible thing, taken in connection with the issue of the event. Indeed, the narrative says only that Lot was in an unconscious state, both when his daughters lay down, and when they rose up; in the evening perhaps through intoxication, in the morning through profound, heavy sleep. In any view, a certain measure of voluntariness must be assumed, according to the degree in which he was conscious, and therefore his intoxication can only be urged as an excuse, and this a wretched excuse, since the intoxication was, like the deed itself, immediately repeated. Psychologically, the reaction from great mental effort and tension is to be taken into account in pronouncing upon the pleasures of rest in an indolent and sensual nature.—Moab.—There are two derivations: ξֵ ?ΰָ ?α, from the father, or ξεֹ, water (as the semen virile is euphemistically called in Arabic), for semen and ΰָ ?α. Keil decides in favor of the first derivation, from a reference to the explanatory expressions (Genesis 19:32; Genesis 19:34; Genesis 19:36). [And also the analogy of the αֶּ ?πΞςַ ?ξִּ ?ι.—A. G.]—Ammon.—αֶּ ?πΞςַ ?ξִּ ?ι, son of my people. According to Delitzsch, the form ςַ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ο designates simply the descendants of the people. For the character of the Moabites and Ammonites, especially in reference to their origin, see Knobel, p. 178, who, however, in his usual method, draws the inference as above remarked, that this narrative has its origin in Jewish animosity. Besides the reply of Keil [See Deuteronomy 2:9; Deuteronomy 2:19; Deuteronomy 23:4. Lot here disappears from the history, and, as Kurtz remarks, it is the design of this narrative to give a support for the later records of the relation of these tribes with the Israelites.—A. G.] Delitzsch also may be consulted (p. 401). Knobel himself recognizes the fact of the descent of both of these peoples from Lot. The nomadic hordes of Lot gradually extended themselves east and northeast, and partly subdued and destroyed, and partly incorporated among themselves, the original tribes of the Emim and Susim. AND ETHICALSee the preliminary and Exegetical remarks. 1. Upon the manifestation in the oak grove of Mamre compare Genesis 12. We observe, however, that the manifestation which was given to Abraham, was complex, because it had reference in part to him and the birth of Isaac, and in part to Lot and Sodom. Hence it resolves itself, in the course of the history, into two manifestations. 2. The connection of the promise of redemption and the announcement of judgment, which is peculiar to this section, runs throughout the whole sacred Scripture. 3. The oriental virtue of hospitality appears here in the light of the theocratic faith, and so likewise its blessing, which is proclaimed throughout the whole Scripture, down even to the epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 13:2.) It is a contradiction in the natural custom of the Arabs, that they will rob the pilgrim in the desert before he enters their tents, but receive him with the greatest hospitality, as it is generally true that the natural virtues of people are tainted by contradictions. Hospitality, however, is the specific virtue of the Arab, his inheritance from his father Abraham. But in Abraham himself this virtue is consecrated to be the spiritual fruit of faith. 4. The feast of God with Abraham. [How true it is that Abraham has now become the friend of God, James 2:23. And what light this history casts upon the meaning of that term.—A. G.] A New Testament and heavenly sign, whose later reflection is the table of shew-bread in the temple, the Lord’s Supper in the New Covenant, and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in the new world. 5. The distinction between the laughing of Abraham and Sarah (see above). In Genesis 26:6 there appears still another, a third laugh, in order to determine the name Isaac (comp. Genesis 5:9). The laughter of a joyful faith, the laughter of a doubting little faith, and the laughter of astonishment or even of the animosity of the world, appear and participate in the name of the son of promise, as indeed at that of every child of the promise. 6. The initiation of Abraham into the purposes of God. In Genesis 18:17, “the Scripture has the addition of τοῦπαιδόςμου (ςαγι) to ἀπὸ ’Αβραὰμ, for which Philo reads τοῦφίλουμου (comp. James 2:23). There is scarcely any passage in which this ςַ ?αְ ?γִּ ?ι or ΰֹ ?δֲ ?αִ ?ι (Isaiah 41:8; 2 Chronicles 20:7), would be more fitting than in this. Abraham is the friend of Jehovah (among the Moslems it has become a surname; chalνl Allah, or merely el-chalil, from which Hebron is also called Beit-el-chalξl, or simply El-chalξl), and we have no secrets from a friend.” Delitzsch (comp. John 15:15 ff.). The first reason is, that God has chosen Abraham, and that he, as the chosen, has the destination to found in his race for all time, a tradition and school of the revelation of God, of righteousness and judgment. The doctrine of the election first appears here in its more definite form. [God says, I know him, but also that he will command, &c. We ought not to overlook how early family relations, instructions and discipline, assume an important place in the progress of the kingdom of God; and what a blessing descends upon those who are faithful as parents. “Family religion is God’s method for propagating his church. This would lead him to exercise a careful parental authority for controlling his house in the name of God.” Jacobus.—A. G.] 7. A further and more peculiar reason, why God reveals to Abraham the impending judgment upon Sodom, lies in this, that not only the history of Sodom, but also the Dead Sea, should be for all time a constituent part of the sacred history, a solemn warning for the people of God, and for all the world. At the same time this history should make illustrious the justice of God, according to which a people are ripe for judgment, when a cry of its iniquity ascends to heaven. 8. Abraham’s intercession, in its strength and in its self-limitation, is an eternal example of the true position of the believer to the corruption of the world. Upon the self-limitation of intercession see 1 John 5:16. Intercession even falls away from faith and becomes mere fanaticism or frenzy, when it oversteps the limits of truth. Abraham’s excuses in his intercession, his prudent progress in his petitions, his final silence, prove that even the boldest intercourse is morally conditioned. On the other hand, the whole power of intercession and the full certainty that prayer will be answered, appear here most clearly. [See the 29th verse, which makes it clear that Araham’s intercession was not fruitless.—A. G.] 9. It is evident from the intercession of Abraham, that the father of the faithful had a very different idea of righteousness from that which regards it as consisting only in the non plus ultra of punishment. See upon the idea of δίκαιος, Matthew 1:19. Moreover, in the reflection, the prudence, and the constancy of the intercession, the Abrahamic or even the Israelitish character appears here in its true worth and in its sanctified form, as it enters afterward in the life of Jacob at first less sanctified, but at the same fitted for sanctification. But in regard to the thought of Abraham’s intercession, we would make the following remarks: 1. His intercession takes more and more the form of a question. 2. He does not pray that the godless should be freed from punishment, but for the sparing of the righteous, and the turning away of the destructive judgment from all, in case there should be found a sufficient salt of the righteous among them. 3. His prayer includes the thought that God would not destroy any single righteous one with the wicked, although the number of the righteous should be too small to preserve the whole. [The righteous, of course, are not destroyed, although they are often involved in the punishment of the wicked.—A. G.] 10. This history makes the truth conspicuous for all time, that the whole depraved world is preserved through a seed of believing and pious men, and that indeed, not according to a numerical, but according to their dynamic majority. Ten righteous would have saved Sodom. But when even the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13) does not avail to save a people or a community, then still God cares for the salvation of his chosen, as is seen in the history of Noah, the history of Lot, and the history of the destruction of Jerusalem. But the relative mediators who are given to the world in the “salt of the earth,” point to the absolute mediator, Christ, who is the central saving pivot in the history of the world. [We stand here on the verge of a most striking type of the judgment. We know that the storm is gathering and ready to burst, but in the awful silence which precedes it we hear the voice of the intercessor. Thus while the final judgment is preparing, the voice of the true intercessor is heard.—A. G.] 11. The Angels in Sodom. In all such cases there must come a last final decision. See above. 12. The manifestation which was given to Lot, corresponds with that which was given to Abraham, in a way similar to that in which the vision of the centurion, Cornelius, at Cζsarea, corresponds to the vision of Peter, at Joppa (Acts 10). The precondition for this connection of the revelations was, doubtless, in both cases, the mysterious bond of a common premonition or presentiment of great events. 13. The sin of Sodom runs, as a general characteristic, through the heathen world (see Romans 1:24); still, in this aspect some nations are far more innocent or guilty than others. Church history also, in this connection, preserves sad remembrances. Among the causes of the ruin of the Osmanic kingdom, this sin stands prominent whose analogue is found in the sin of Onan (Genesis 38:8). 14. The description of the night scene in Sodom is a night piece of terrible aspect and impressiveness. It is plain (from the little prospect of the mass for the gratification of personal lusts, and from the probability that the inhabitants of the city only knew indirectly of Lot’s mysterious guests), that the uproar of the Sodomites was more than half an uprising against the judgment of Lot which they had already experienced, and a tumultuous manifestation that their abominable immorality must be held as a public custom, of which we have a purely analogous event in the uproar of the heathen at Ephesus (Acts 19:28 ff). All the spirits of villainy, wantonness, and scoffing unbelief are to be regarded as unfettered. The ripeness of the city for destruction, however, is not to be viewed directly as a ripeness of the Sodomites for damnation (see Matthew 11:23). 15. The demonic and bestial nature of sin appears in this history in frightful, full life, or rather death size. [So, also, its corrupting power. Lot felt its influence, even though he resisted and condemned their vile practices. The offer which he makes to save his guests, although made under great confusion, anxiety and terror, shows its influence.—A. G.] 16. Lot’s salvation is an image of salvation with the utmost difficulty. But the delay of his faint heartedness is raised to its highest power of double heartedness in the history of his wife. She is the example of a worldly mind, which turns back from the way of salvation, and through its seeking after the world falls into the fire of judgment. In this sense the Lord has set Lot’s wife as a warning example (Luke 17:32). We may perceive that even Lot was sensibly depressed as to the earnestness of his faith, through the ridicule of his sons-in-law, who regarded him as a jester. 17. The Dead Sea serves to complete the symbolic meaning which is peculiar to the whole land of Canaan. The whole land is an illustration of the divine word, and of sacred history, and thus the Dead Sea in particular, is the glass of the divine judgment. As a monument of the miraculous judgment it stands opposed to the Red Sea, which is the monument of the miraculous deliverance. So, likewise, as the sea of the old covenant, it stands opposed to Genessaret, the sea of the new covenant. In the description of the Dead Sea, however, we must guard against those ancient assumptions, of the apples of Sodom, etc., although some one-sided apologies for these traditions of the Dead Sea have appeared again in recent times. [It is interesting to note how often this event is referred to in the New Testament, not only directly but incidentally. The phrases flee from the wrath to come, unquenchable fire, the description of the suddenness and completeness of the judgment, and its eternal duration in the smoke of their torment, which ascendeth for ever and ever. All have a more or less direct reference to this event.—A. G.] 18. The early rising of Abraham, his hastening to the place where he stood before Jehovah, and his silent look to the smoking vale of Siddim, is a sublime and impressive picture. There stands the mourning priest, lonely and silent in the morning light, as Jeremiah sat upon the ruins of Jerusalem. Now he saw that there were not ten righteous in Sodom, but knew from the rescue of Noah from the flood, and felt confident indeed that his intercession had not been in vain. 19. In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, as in the primitive miracles in Egypt, and in the biblical miracles generally, the correspondence between the miraculous divine providence and the intellectual and natural conditions upon the earth must not be mistaken. 20. Lot and his daughters. It is a psychological fact that, in human nature, especially in beginners in the age of faith or those whose sensuous nature is strong, after a great tension of the life of faith, of spiritual elevation, great and dangerous reactions occur, during which temptation may easily prove corrupting to the man. 21. Moab and Ammon. See the Bible Dictionaries. “De Wette, Tuch, Knobel, explain the narrative as a fiction of Israelitish national animosity, &c. (See above.) When, however, later debauchery (Numbers 2:25) and impiety (e.g. 2 Kings 3:26 ff) appear as fundamental traits in the character and cultus of both people, we can at least hold with equal justice, that these inherited sins came with them from their origin, as that the tradition of their origin has moulded their character.” 22. Lot’s disappearance. The chastising hand of God is seen in the gravest form, in the fact that Lot is lost in the darkness of the mountains of Moab, as a dweller in the caves. But it may be questioned whether one is justified by this, in saying that he came to a bad end, as Delitzsch does in a detailed description, after a characteristic outline by F. C. V. Mosers (p. 400, comp. Kiel, p. 167). His not returning poor and shipwrecked can be explained upon better grounds. In any case the testimony for him, 2 Peter 2:7-8, must not be overlooked. There remains one light point in his life, since he sustained the assaults of all Sodom upon his house, in the most extreme danger of his life. [It may be said, moreover, that his leaving home and property at the divine warning, and when there were yet no visible signs of the judgment, and his flight without looking back, indicate the reality and genuineness of his faith.—A. G.] His two-fold intoxication certainly has greater guilt than the one intoxication of Noah. His two-fold sin with his daughters may involve greater difficulty than the act of Judah. Both analogies show, however, that in judging so ancient a character we may easily place them too strictly in modern points of view. True, he appears, in comparison with Abraham, with whom he once entered upon the path of the faith of the promise, in a light similar to that in which Esau appears in relation to Jacob. He might have sufficient piety to save his soul, but he was no man of the future, who could found a line of blessing; he was too much like the mass, too much under the senses, and too much involved in respect to worldly things for such a calling. “With the history of Lot,” Delitzsch remarks, “the side line from Haran is completed, and the origin of two people who are interwoven in the history of Israel is related.” 23. The destruction of Sodom an example of the later destruction of the Canaanites. 24. The prudence which, in the life of Abraham, appears as a sinful prudence, and yet susceptible of being sanctified, appears in the lives of his kindred as a family trait of the children of Therah, in Lot and his daughters, as well as in Laban. But it takes on in them the expression of refined cunning, and thus becomes manifoldly and positively ungodly. Thus Lot himself chose the region of Sodom; thus he flatteringly addressed the Sodomites as brethren; thus he offers them his daughters as a substitute, probably from an ironical expression of a prudent foresight that they, controlled by their demonic and unnatural lusts, would reject his proposal: but his daughters use criminal cunning to obtain offspring. This incest, however, appears in a milder light when set in contrast with the sin of Sodom. 25. Passavant. These cities are represented throughout the old covenant as types of the most severe judgments of God (Jeremiah 41:11; Jeremiah 50:40, etc.) And there is again another word in the old covenant, a wonderful, mysterious promise, spoken concerning these places, which, at the very least, alleviates the eternity of the pain, and for the sake of Jesus Christ, the only redeemer of all mankind, abbreviates the endurance of the heavy judgments of the poor heathen (see Ezekiel 39:25; Jeremiah 29:14; Jeremiah 48:47; Ezekiel 16). [The passages quoted by no means sustain the inference which is here drawn from them; and the inference lies in the face of the general and constant testimony of the Scriptures. The words of our Lord, Matthew 11:24, place the destiny of these places and of the heathen in its true light.—A. G.] That farther prophetic vision of the seer appears to cast new light upon the farther fate of Sodom, when he says: This water flows out towards the east and down into the plain, and goes into the sea (salt sea), and when it comes into the sea its waters shall become healthful (Genesis 47:8 ff.; 1 Peter 3:19 f.; Genesis 4:6). [The following learned and impressive note on the destruction of Sodom, kindly furnished me by its author, will be read with the deepest interest.—A. G.] Note on the Destruction of Sodom—Its Suddenness—The Deep Impression it made on the Ancient Mind—Its Frequent Mention in the Scriptures—Tacitus—The Arabian Tradition.—“As the subversion by God of Sodom and Gomorrah.” Such is the constant style of reference in the Bible. See Deuteronomy 29:22; Isaiah 13:19; Jeremiah 49:18; Jeremiah 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Amos 4:11. Its ever occurring in the same form of words, shows that it was a proverbial or traditional saying; and this reveals to us how vividly the awful event had stamped itself upon the human memory. It is always described in language of its own. The peculiar Hebrew word is used in the same way of no other catastrophe. The word ξַ ?δְ ?τֵ ?λָ ?δ denotes utter subversion or reversal,—the bringing of a thing, and all that belongs to it, in the direct opposite of its former condition. Land has become water, fertility barrenness and salt, beauty deformity, fragrance and freshness a vile and loathsome putridity. It is not simply decay and ruin, but an overthrow total and remediless. These cities are thus referred to as a standing warning—a judgment of God visible from generation to generation. It is a region cursed by the Almighty,—doomed ever to bear the marks of its dreadful visitation, to which Peter refers, 2 Peter 2:6, καὶπόλειςΣοδόμωνκαὶΓομόῤῥαςτεφρώσαςΚΑΤΑΣΤΡΟΦΗκατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγματεθεικώς: “the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah he condemned with an overthrow, when he reduced them to ashes and set them forth as an example.” The Greek word katastrophe is the exact counterpart of the Hebrew ξδτλδ, having the same peculiar intensity of meaning as used in this connection. In Judges 7. the language is still stronger—πρόκεινταιδεῖγμαπυρὸςαἰωνίου: “they are set forth as an example, undergoing (ὑπέχουσαι) the sentence of eternal fire.” This eternal fire does not mean the punishment of the inhabitants in another world (though the event itself may be regarded as the first type of Hell, the first suggestive glimpse to the human mind of that awful doctrine), but has primary reference to their long earthly desolation. The language most graphically expresses the condition of those doomed plains, as showing the signs of their fearful burning, age after age, ἀπ’ αἰῶνοςεἰςαἰῶνα. These regions were very near to Jerusalem, almost if not quite visible from the highest places; and this accounts for the prophet’s frequent appeal to them, εἰςδεῖγμα, et in terrorem. How fearful is the allusion to it made by Ezekiel 16:46; where the adulterous Judah is told to remember the startling proximity of this her younger or smaller sister, so early buried in volcanic fires: “Thine elder sister, Samaria, that dwelleth on thy left (the N. W.), and thy smaller sister, Sodom, and her daughters (the other cities of the plain), that lie upon thy right.” How awful the reminiscence of this lost sister Sodom lying for so many ages under the sulphurous waters of the Dead Sea, with all the burnt district a short distance to the right of Jerusalem, and ever presenting that terrific warning, the δεῖγμαπυρὸςαἰωνίου, to the oft rebellious city. We find elsewhere evidence of the deep impression this early divine judgment made upon the ancient mind. The language of Tacitus, Hist. v. 7, could only have come from some vivid tradition prevailing in the East and brought thence to Rome: Haud procul inde campi, quos ferunt olim uberes, magnis que urbibus habitatos, fulminum jactu arsisse, et manere vestigia terramque ipsam specie torridam vim frugiferam perdidisse; nam cuncta atra et inania velut in cinerem vanescunt. Ego, sicut inclitas quondam urbes igne c�lesti flagrasse concesserim, etc. There is something in the language strikingly resembling that of Peter and Jude. Compare Tacitus’ fulminum jactu arsisse—igne c�lesti flagrasse—manere vestigia, with the δεῖγμαπυρὸςαἰωνίου, and in cinerem with τεφρώσας. They appear to be the set terms in all descriptions. Nothing but an early, most vivid impression could have produced such fixedness and vividness in the language of the tradition. The same feature of constancy in terms for which no others could be an adequate substitute, appears remarkably in the notices of the Koran, which strong internal evidence shows must have come from tradition independent of the O. T. scriptures. It manifests itself especially in one word ever found in connection. It is the Arabic ΗαΪُ ?ζٌ ? Κَ ?έΗَ ?άΗΚ, which is, etymologically, the same with the Hebrew ξַ ?δִ ?τֵּ ?λָ ?δ, and used in a similar manner as a participial noun. The peculiarity, however, is, that in the Arabic the primary sense which belongs to it in this connection had long ceased, so that no traces of it are anywhere else found, even in the remains which we have of ante-Mohammedan writing. Both the form and the peculiar sense have become obsolete in all other applications of the root. In this recurring phrase, as used of these ancient cities, it has acquired something like the force of a proper name as a well known appellative, taking its place along with Midian, Egypt, Hud, Thamud, and other names of places that tradition gives as having been specially visited with the divine vengeance. Thus Sodom and Gomorrah are ever called Al-mow-ta-fe-kat, “the overturned.” As in Koran Surat, liii. 51–55, where it occurs with others given as proper names: “And that he destroyed Ad, and Thamud, and left no remainder; and also the people of Noah before them, and the Mow-ta-fe-kat (the overturned) he cast down, and that which covered them covered them.” The last clause of this passage is meant to be intense in its repetition: that is, there is no conceiving the horrors under which they lay; “ that which covered them covered them,”—no tongue can tell it. So, also, Koran lxix. Genesis 9 : “thus went on Pharoah and those who were before him, the Mow-ta-fe-kat (the overturned), in their sin.” Thamud and Ad, as usual, had been mentioned just before. The constant introducing of the Mow-ta-fe-kat along with these, which are peculiar Arabic traditions, shows that the story of the “overturned” cities had a common origin with them, and was not derived from the Hebrew scriptures. The usage appears still more clearly, Koran ix. 71, where the term in question occurs in connection with the people of Ad, and the wicked in the days of Abraham, who is the peculiar Mohammedan patriarch: “Did there not come to them the story of those who were before them—the people of Noah and of Ad, and of the people of Abraham, and of the inhabitants of Midian, and of ‘the Overturned’ (the Mow-ta-fe-kat), whose messengers came unto them with their prophecies?” Now what makes this the more striking is the fact (as before indicated) that although the Arabic root, Ηάέάَ ?ί, or Οάέάَ ?ί, is, in all other cases (and these are quite frequent), used solely in its secondary meaning of falsehood (coming from the primary sense of subversion, turning upside down, through the intermediate ideas of contrariness or opposition, ab invertendo, pervertendo), in these special usages from the Koran, and others like them, the word ever goes back to its primitive Hebrew sense, being taken precisely as δτκ and ξδτλδ in the Bible. If the Hebrew verb had had a hoth-pa-hel form, its participle, ξָ ?ϊְ ?δַ ?τֵּ ?κְ, moth-hap-pek = motaffek, would be almost identical with the Arabic word so constantly used for this purpose (in this sense) and for no other. Evidently it was an archaism in the days of Mohammed, and this accounts for its being used as a proper name, in which form it had become fixed against change and substitution. The root is used in the same manner throughout the Syriac version, but in this branch of the Shemitic it had, in all its applications, kept nearer to its old primary sense preserved in the Hebrew. What shows that it was an antique phrase in Arabic, or that Ηάέάَ ?ί (or δτκ) had lost the sense of subversion in all other applications, and that its employment as a proper name in this particular connection came from traditional preservation, is the fact that even in translating the Old Testament, the Jewish Arabic interpreters never use it,—not even in those places where the Hebrew δτκ and ξδτλδ would have immediately suggested it as the more fitting word; and this, too, notwithstanding that they frequently give to an Arabic term a rarer Hebrew sense. Thus Rabbi Saad does not employ it in this very passage, Isaiah 13:19, but uses, instead, the more common Arabic verb, ήαΘ, to express the sense of overturning which is given by ξϊτλδ: ίΘΗΚαΘΗααεΣαζγζΪΪζζΙ. Now in the Arabic verb Ηάέάَ ?ί, the letter δ (or εά) of the Hebrew has been softened into ΰ, but there can be no doubt of the two words being etymologically identical. So, too, in the Koran, sometimes, the Hebrew sense of the antique Arabic ΗαΪζΚٌ ?έίΙ , is clearly given in different and more common Arabic words. As in Surat xv. 73, 74, where, speaking again of this very judgment, and the manner of it, it says: “And a sudden storm took them at sunrise, and we made the highest parts of it to be the lowest, ίΪαδΗΪΗανεΗΣΗΠάΗάεΗ (that is, we turned it upside down), and we rained upon them stones of burning marl”—a volcanic earthquake and a lava shower. This standing epithet occurs, Lamentations 4:6, in the same connection and in the same way; that is, in the nature of a proper name, though there it has the form of the participle perfect of δτκ. It is ρְ ?γֹ ?νδַ ?δֲ ?τεּ ?λָ ?δ, “Sodom the overturned.” Our English translation of the whole passage is far from being clear: “Greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom which was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her”: μֹ ?ΰηָ ?μεּ αָ ?δּ ιָ ?γָ ?ιִ ?ν. In this passage there is an uncertainty as to the etymology and meaning of the word ηָ ?μεּ, but that interpretation is to be preferred which is most in keeping with the ideas of suddenness, or quick alarm, that make so graphic a feature in all allusions to the event, whether Hebrew or Arabic. Gesenius makes ημε from ηεμ (torquere), and gives it the sense: non immissζ sunt manus, “no hands were sent upon, or against her”—meaning, hands of the enemy. Rabbi Tanchum’s Arabic commentary is to the same effect: “Of Sodom it is said here, that there did not come upon her the hand of man, but she was overturned, at one blow, by the divine command; the word being the same as that in Jeremiah 23:19, ‘on the head of the wicked shall rush (ιָ ?ηεּ ?μ) a rushing tempest, ρַ ?ςַ ?ψξִ ?ϊְ ?ηεֹ ?μֵ ?μ (a whirlwind slung or hurled), and also as found Ecclesiastes 5:12; Ecclesiastes 5:15. ιֵ ?ωׁ ψָ ?ςָ ?δηεֹ ?μָ ?δ, there is a sore evil (an impending or threatening evil) that I have seen under the sun.” It may be a question here, however, whether ιγιν refers to the hands of the enemy, or to the hands of the inhabitants of the doomed city. If we place the accent on the ultimate, ηָ ?μεּ may be from ημδ, and this would give us the rendering, “when no hands were weak in her”—that is, suddenly, when they were in their full strength and security. Or the same general idea may be obtained from ηεμ, if we advert to its primary sense, which we find very clearly in the Arabic ΟάΗα. It is a curving motion combined with the spiral or oblique. Hence the sense of pain as expressed by twisting, wringing (torquere). It is used to denote the most intense anguish, the wringing of the hands in despair; which is the language employed by the Peschito Syriac version to render ἀπορία (distress or perplexity), Luke 21:25. No hands were wrung in her. So sudden was the storm that there was no time for lamenting over their doom. All this, too, is expressed by the way in which the frequent Koranic word, Υَ ?νίَ ?Ι, is used when sudden judgments are described, and especially this particular event. It is rendered sometimes, punishment, or pain. It is also used of the crash of the thunder, fragor tonitru; but in its most literal sense it denotes one sharp cry or shriek. Or it may be rendered, a shock. Thus in the passage before quoted, Surat xv. Genesis 73: “a sudden storm or shock took them at sunrise” (comp. Genesis 19:23). The same, verse 83 of the same Surat, “took them early in the morning.” Though literally denoting one sudden scream of terror, it is taken for the cause, the thunderstorm or earthquake that produces it. Thus is it most impressively employed to represent the suddenness and surprise of the judgment that came upon those people of Lot, as the Sodomites are styled, εΗΗαٌ ?ΗΥνίΙζΗΝαΙεΗαεΗεδΠάζΗέ, “only one shock; there was in it no waiting,” no recovery. Or it may be rendered, “only one cry, and all was over.” The remedilessness, as well as the suddenness, is still more graphically set forth in the use of similar language, Surat xxxvi. Genesis 25 : “Lo, one cry, and they are all still”—literally, burnt out, ΞΗεαζδ, extinguished, dead. So, again, Surat liv. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ EIGHTH SECTIONAbraham and Abimelech of Gerar. His and Sarah’s renewed exposure through his human, calculating prudence, as formerly in Egypt before Pharaoh. The Divine preservation. Abraham’s intercession for Abimelech Genesis 20:1-181 And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country [the mid-day], and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned [as a stranger even] in Gerar [lodging-place, pilgrim’s rest]. 2And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister; and Abimelech 3[father of the king, or father-king] king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. But God [Elohim] came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man [thou diest, art dead], for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife 4[is married]. But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? 5Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart, and the innocency of my hands have I done this. 6And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. 7Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou and all that are thine. 8Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid. 9Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. 10And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou 11[evil], that thou hast done this thing? And Abraham said, Because I thought [said], Surely the fear of God [Elohim] is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake. 12And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 13And it came to pass when God [Elohim] caused me to Wander [to go on pilgrimages; a striking plural. The manifestations of God here and there, caused me to go here and there, pilgrimages] from my father’s house, that I said unto her. This is thy kindness which thou shalt show unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother. 14And Abimelech took sheep and oxen [small and large cattle], and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them to Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife. 15And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee 16[stands open to thee]: dwell where it pleaseth thee [is good in thine eyes]. And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold he is to thee [for] a covering of the eyes unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved [set right, proved to be a wife, not unmarried]. 17So Abraham prayed unto God [Elohim]: and God [Elohim] healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants: and they bare children. 18For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife. GENERAL REMARKS1. The present chapter and the following appear to favor strongly the documentary hypothesis. The cases in which the name Jehovah appears (Genesis 20:18; Genesis 21:1), have, according to Delitzsch, all the traits of explanatory additions of the completer. But Knobel accepts, aside from the text of the original writing (Genesis 21:2-5), a twofold enlargement, which should be ascribed to the Jehovistic writer, but which he must have derived in great part from Elohistic records designed to complete the original record, and only in part from a completing Jehovistic record (p. 180, 181). We leave the hypothesis of different records to rest upon its own basis, but shall enquire how far the choice in the names of God may be explained from the text itself, and this without regard to the hypothesis in question. 2. The repetition of the fact that Abraham proclaims his wife to be his sister has been noticed already. In Knobel’s view, the Jehovistic writer has recorded the occurrence with Sarah already (Genesis 12:11-20), because he could then do it independently, which could not be the case here. “This conjecture,” remarks Delitzsch, “is certainly plausible if one ascribes the Elohistic portions to a peculiar source, but it is equally probable that the same event might occur twice in the life of Abraham.” Keil, on the other hand, justly brings into prominence the great distinction between the two histories. The first difficulty, viz. that Abraham, after having experienced in Egypt the reproach of this deed, should here repeat it once more, cannot be removed, if, as Delitzsch holds, Abraham in Egypt had condemned himself to penitence after the reproof of Pharoah; if even he walked under a general sense that he had done wrong, as Delitzsch and Baumgarten state the case. [It is not insupposible, surely, in the light of experience, that even such a believer as Abraham should have fallen again into the same sin: that he should have repeated the act even when he was walking under the sense of his wrong-doing in the first instance.—A. G.] Our history gives us the key (v. 13) why this act was repeated. Abraham could not make an explanation to Pharoah, concerning the determination to proclaim his wife his sister while among strangers, but Abimelech has instilled the necessary confidence in him, for this confidential explanation. But if the saying was then founded and chosen, the event might, under possible circumstances, have often occurred unless Jehovah had interfered to prevent this venture of an unfounded and exaggerated confidence; which we have already above distinguished from a mere exposure of Sarah. It must be taken into account, moreover, that Abraham had recently received fearful impressions of the godless beings in the world, which naturally filled him with suspicion. The second difficulty consists in this: that Abimelech should have found delight in taking Sarah, who was ninety years old, into his harem. According to Kurtz, her still blooming or now rejuvenated beauty was not the motive; according to Delitzsch, he would relate himself by marriage with the rich nomadic prince, Abraham. Beauty and the consideration of rank do not exclude each other; spiritual excellence and greatness have often an almost magical effect. But it is to be observed that here it is not said that the beauty of Sarah was reported to Abimilech. He knew only, it may be, that there was a sister of Abraham in his tent, and brought her to himself. 3. We are here told again that Abraham broke up his tent, and journeyed thence towards the south—the land towards the mid-day (Genesis 12:9; Genesis 13:1). According to Genesis 13:18, he had a permanent abode at Hebron; but here he removes from Hebron to the south. This is to be explained upon the ground that, for the northern parts of Canaan, the south designates preλminently the land of Judah; but for the land of Judah, thus for Hebron itself, it denotes the parts towards Arabia Petrea, Egypt, and the western shore upon the Mediterranean. The southern section of Canaan (which was assigned to the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin) falls into four distinct parts, through the character of the country. The mountains (δָ ?δָ ?ψ) or highlands form the central part, upon whose westerly slopes lies a hilly country which gradually sinks to the plain (ωְׁ ?τֵ ?μָ ?δ), while towards the east the descent (ξִ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψ) falls off into the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, but towards the south, the mid-day land (πֶ ?βֶ ?α, Joshua 15:21; compare above Genesis 12:9; Genesis 13:1) forms, in several distinctly marked terraces, a kind of first step to the mountains, from the Petrean peninsula. (See Gross, in Stud. und Krit. 1843, p. 1080.) Here Abraham descends to the stretch of country between Kadesh and Shur, and remained a long time about Gerar, whose ruins have been recently discovered by Rowland, under the name Khirbet-el-Gerβr, about three hours south-easterly from Gaza, in the neighborhood of a deep and broad wady, which takes the name Dschurf-el-Gerβr.” Delitzsch. Robinson sought Gerar in vain, see Schrφder, p. 382. “Eusebius and Jerome locate the place about twenty-five Roman miles south from Eleutheropolis, and Sozomen relates that there stood very near here, in a winter stream, a great and renowned convent. The name of Marcian, bishop of Gerar (perhaps in the convent), appears among the subscribers in the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451.” “Gerar, upon the way from Gaza to Elusa, removed about three hours from the first-named place.” Bunsen. The most southerly of the five cities of the Philistines was not far from Beersheba. The king of Gerar, Abimelech, had this territory in the lands of the Philistines, according to Genesis 21:33. In Genesis 26:1, he is named directly as a king of the Philistines. According to Bertheau, the reference to the Philistines is an anticipation, and Delitzsch also finds in Genesis 26 traces of a later hand, though not recognizing therein an actual anticipation. If τְ ?μֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ denotes the land of wanderers, or of strangers (Gesenius), the name denotes those who came from the coasts into the interior, in distinction from the earlier Canaanites, and the inquiry whether the later Philistines, of the times of the Judges and Kings, are here meant, is a matter by itself; in any case, the text here intimates that the later confederate cities of the Philistines did not yet exist. Hitzig and Ewald also concede Philistine emigrations into Canaan, or traditions of them, before Moses. Knobel’s view, that Abraham may have left Hebron from a similar anxiety with that which led Lot (to leave Zoar), is arbitrary in the highest degree, since Abraham was in covenant with the mightier men in Hebron. According to Keil, he went probably to find better pastures. In any case the pasture-ground must be changed from time to time, but this could be done through a wider range, as we learn from the history of Joseph and Moses. The neighborhood of the scene of the terrible judgment upon Sodom, in connection with other unknown motives, may have determined him to change his residence. The birth of Isaac (Genesis 21) and the offering of Isaac (Genesis 22) occur during his residence in the further south: but then he dwelt (Genesis 23:1) again in Hebron, although his return thither from Beersheba, where he had last dwelt (Genesis 21:33), is not recorded. 4. Since, from the promise which was given to Abraham in the oak-grove of Mamre, to the birth of Isaac, we must reckon, according to Genesis 18, about a year, Abraham must have drawn southwards very soon after the overthrow of Sodom, and the meeting with Abimelech must also have taken place at an early date. But if Genesis 20:17-18 seem to point to a longer time, this creates no real difficulty, since the sickness of the house of Abimelech may have lasted a long time after Sarah was restored. Moreover, our history illustrates, in two respects, what may introduce the further history of the birth of Isaac. First, we see that Sarah was not faded in her appearance, although according to the usual supposition her body was dead. Then we see how her usual relation to Abraham could be animated and strengthened by a new affection resulting directly through the exposure and disturbance to which it had been subjected. AND 1. Abraham’s settlement in the South, especially in Gerar. Abimelech’s error, and the admonition of God (Genesis 20:1-7).—Between Kadesh and Shur.—Kadesh, see Genesis 14:7; Shur, Genesis 16:7. We must distinguish between this dwelling-place and the peculiar sojourn in Gerar. Schrφder: “Leaving his herds and servants behind him in this region, he himself repairs to Gerar.”—Abimelech (Father King, or my Father King). A standing title for the kings of Gerar, as Pharoah was in Egypt and Melchizedec, or Adonizedec, in Salem (see Psalms 34:1); the king the father of the land.—God (Elohim) came to Abimelech.—It is presupposed that Abimelech had the knowledge of the true God; he could not have known him as Jehovah.—In a dream by night.—Knobel finds in this feature, as in similar cases, that these communications are not in accordance with the Elohistic writer. But the supposition is entirely arbitrary. The prophetic dream of the night is generally closely connected with the moral reflections and longings of the day. It is in full agreement with the nature of dreams, that the communication should be made in several, not in one single act (see Genesis 37, 41; Matthew 2).—She is a man’s wife (married).—Literally, ruled by a ruler, or her lord. His sin was thus marked as an infringement of the married rights of a stranger. The anxious dream appears to have been introduced through the sickness impending over him (see Genesis 5:17).—Wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?—Delitzsch refers the βַּ ?ν directly to the adjective righteous. A nation however righteous, i.e., although it is righteous. But why then does he use the term people or nation? Knobel thinks that the fate of the Sodomites was floating in his mind. In this way this chapter is, through a delicate psychological feature, connected with the preceding. Abimelech is conscious of innocence as to his subjective state. He assumes the right to possess a harem or to live in polygamy, and the right of princes to bring into their harem any unmarried persons of their territory. He is conscious of a pure heart, and asserts that his hands are pure, since Abraham and Sarah, through their own declarations, had rendered it impossible that he should have any intention to interfere with the rights of another. She is my sister. [These incidents show the truth and the need of Scripture;—its truth, because it does not represent the patriarchs as exempt from human infirmities; the need of it, because the best of men were not able to make for themselves even a correct standard of moral duty (and how much less of faith) without Scripture. Wordsworth, p. 91.—A. G.]—And God said unto him in a dream.—The transaction continues in a new and more quiet dream. God recognizes the apology as essentially valid, and reveals to him how and why he had kept him from touching the wife of a prophet. With this he points out to him the cause of his sickness. The command to restore the woman was enforced by a threatening. Although he was guiltless as to his subjective state, it is a reproach to him that he acted blindly, and betrayed himself into the danger, either of depriving a prophet of his wife, or rather of being punished by God with death. [That Abimelech thought himself innocent, did this, as he says, in the ϊָ ?ρΞμְ ?αַ ?α integrity of his heart, may be explained from his moral and religious standpoint. But that God recognizes his deed as such, and still says to him that he can only live through the intercession of Abraham, thus that his sin was one worthy of death, proves that God regards him as one who was fitted to have, and ought to have, deeper moral views and piety. This is intimated in the change of the names of God in the narrative, and noticed in the text. Keil, p. 168.—A.G.] That is to say, the spirit of a higher moral standpoint comes to him in his dream, and opens to him not only the cause of his sickness, but also that divine preservation secured by the sickness, as well as his duty and the danger of death in which he was still moving. With this he receives an enlargement of his religious knowledge. “At first ΰμδιν (without the article) the Godhead in a general sense appears to him (Genesis 20:3): but Abimelech recognizes in the appearance the Lord ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι, upon which the narrator introduces δָֽ ?ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν the personal and true God, as speaking to him (Genesis 20:6.)—For he is a prophet.—The spirit of prophecy had been present from the beginning in the Scripture, but here the name prophet occurs for the first time. How could this aggravate the error of Abimelech, that Abraham, whose rights he ignorantly had violated, was a prophet? Knobel explains that the sin of violating the rights of the chosen of God, which he had in idea committed, was a sin against God himself. Since every sin is a sin against God himself, it must still be asked, how far this shows the danger of greater guilt? for the text cannot be explained under the idea of a partiality of God for Abraham. But Abimelech held Abraham and Sarah as the ordinary nomads of his time, and thought therefore that he could blindly lay his hands upon them: he thus resisted the dim impression, which they must have made upon him, of a higher calling and aim. A prophet should be received in the name of a prophet; the sin against the divine in the prophet was a sin against the divine in his own conscience, and thus in a special sense a sin against God.—And he shall pray for thee.—Abraham had already appeared as a royal warlike hero, in his conflict with the Eastern kings. We have learned to recognize him as a priest, especially in his intercessory prayer for Sodom: here he appears preλminently as a prophet. But here intercession appears as the most obvious function of the prophet. The attributes of the prophet and the priest are thus still inwardly united in one, as this indeed is evident from the altars he erected. 2. The atonement of Abimelech(Genesis 20:8-16).—And called all his servants (courtiers).—It marks the frank, open character of this God-fearing king, that he humbles himself by communicating the events of the night, before his courtiers. It was humbling in the first place to confess that, in spiritual blindness, he had made a dangerous mistake, and secondly that he must restore to the stranger his wife. It speaks well also for his household and his court, that the effect of his reverence communicates itself to his servants.—Then Abimelech called Abraham.—He addresses him before his people, for Abraham had not only brought him into danger, but also his household and kingdom. He had reason to complain of the conduct of Abraham, as Pharaoh before him (Genesis 12). He is thus also evidently a bold, heroic character, who does not shrink from declaring against Abraham his injured sense of truth and justice, although he must have regarded him as under the special protection of God. He does not belong to the kings who oppose the priests in slavish bigotry.—What hast thou done to us?—Done to us. Thus he values the unity in which he feels that he is bound with his household and people. But he reproaches him especially with this: that he had brought him into danger of bringing sin both upon himself and his people. This, he says, is immoral. But since he takes up again the words, What have I offended thee? and asks, What hast thou seen? he utters in a discreet form, which concedes the possibility that he might have ignorantly occasioned the wrong of Abraham, his consciousness that he had himself indeed given no occasion for this deceitful course. Keil and Knobel explain the words what hast thou seen? what hast thou in thy eye, what purpose? Delitzsch (with a reference to Psalms 37:37; Psalms 66:18): “It is preferable to take the word in its usual sense through all time: what evil hast thou seen in me or in us, that thou believest us capable of greater evil?”—Abraham said, because I thought (said).—He assumes the antecedent; I acted thus, because he is ashamed. The two grounds of apology follow. The first runs: Because I spake (thought or considered it with myself and with Sarah). [This use of he word ΰξψδι is fully illustrated by Bush, who refers to Exodus 2:14; 1 Kings 5:5; Psalms 14:1.—A. G.]—Surely the fear of God is not in this place.—This special motive has its explanation in the fact that he had so recently seen the destruction of Sodom. The fear of men which had determined him so to act in Egypt, was awakened afresh by this destruction. But he palliates the offence of this declaration by his second excuse. He explains at first that what he had said was not untrue, since Sarah, as his half-sister, was his sister; and then why, in his migration from Haran, he had arranged with Sarah that she should journey with him from place to place under the name of his sister. [Some suppose that Sarah is the same with Iscah, Genesis 11:29. Bush holds that Terah had two wives: the one the mother of Haran, the father of Sarah and Lot; the other the mother of Abraham.—A. G.] The suppressed feeling of an endless, difficult pilgrimage, and of a very dangerous situation, reveals itself clearly in the expressions of Gen 20:13-14. He cannot yet speak to Abimelech of Jehovah, his covenant God. Still less was it necessary that he should reveal to him that Jehovah had promised Canaan to him. Thus he says: at the command of God I entered upon my wanderings. He speaks of his theocratic journeys as wanderings, says Elohim instead of Haelohim, uses this noun with the plural of the verbs, that he may make himself understood by Abimelech. “This use of the substantive with the plural verbs is found (in the Pentateuch only in this author, Genesis 35:7; Exodus 22:8; Exodus 30:4; Exodus 30:8; Joshua 24:19. Gesenius, § 146, 2; Ewald, § 318 a.)” Knobel. Keil finds in the words of Abraham, especially in the plural of the verb, a certain accommodation to the polytheistic standpoint of the Philistine king. Delitzsch, on the other hand, remarks, that the plural connection of Elohim is found in passages which exclude any idea of accommodation, or of any polytheistic reference; by which he refutes at the same time the explanation of Schelling, that the Gods of the house of Terah are to be understood by Elohim. Under the expression ΰֱ ?μִֹ ?δִ ?ινδִ ?ϊְ ?ςεּ [The verb here is not necessarily plural. But if it be, it is only an instance of the literal meaning of Elohim, the eternal, supernatural powers, coming into view. Murphy, p. 328.—A. G.] we understand the fact, expressed with some reservation, that Haelohim, through a plurality of special manifestations of God, which he received here and there, had caused him to move from place to place, and thus, although in the extremest danger which his wanderings could occasion, extended his providence over him still. When, on the contrary, Abimelech (Genesis 26:28) calls God Jehovah, Delitzsch supposes (p. 103), but without certainty, that it is the same person, and besides overlooks the difference of time, in which a longer intercourse may have made the Philistines familiar with the Abrahamic ideas.—And Abimelech took sheep and oxen.—He is satisfied, and acts analogously to the conduct of Pharaoh (Genesis 12), in that he makes Abraham rich presents of the ancient nomadic goods. The departure of Abraham from Egypt also seems to find its echo here. He appears to utter a modest wish that Abraham would leave Gerar. [This seems a forced interpretation of the words.—A. G.] Still he may dwell in his territory where it pleases him.—And to Sarah he said.—“The thousand pieces of silver, i.e., the thousand shekels of silver, are not a peculiar present made to Sarah, but the estimated worth of the present (Genesis 20:14), and designate it as something important.” Knobel. So also Keil. Delitzsch, with others, distinguishes a special present in money, “a truly royal present, since thirty shekels was the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32).” (A thousand shekels of silver after the shekel of the sanctuary would be about 550 dollars; according to the ordinary shekel, less. It is not certain which is intended here.) The first interpretation is preferable, as otherwise the second present must have been made to Sarah.—Behold, he is to thee (or that shall be to thee) a covering of the eyes.—This difficult place admits of different explanations. Vitringa: “If the words are referred to Abraham, the idea seems to be: Abraham, if he professes to be the husband of Sarah, would be instead of a veil to those who, looking upon Sarah more intensely, may be inflamed with love for her. (Thus Ewald; so Delitzsch, p. 404.) We prefer, however, to refer the words to the money received by Abraham. As if he says, let this money, paid as a fine to Abraham, prevent any from desiring thee as I have done. He alludes to the veil usually worn by women. See Genesis 24:65.” Gesenius: “This is an expiatory present to thee, for all that has happened to thee, and to Abram, and she was convinced (of her fault).” Knobel similarly, but still with less fitness, and at the conclusion, “thou art adjudged, i.e., justice is done to thee.” Delitzsch and Keil: “This is to thee an atoning present, for all who are with thee (since the whole family is disgraced in the mistress, etc.)” “It is to be explained,” says Knobel, “after λִּ ?τֵּ ?ψτְּ ?πֵ ?ι to cover one’s face, so that he may forget the wrong done (Genesis 32:21), λִּ ?ρָּ ?δτְּ ?πֵ ?ιωֹׁ ?τְ ?θִ ?ιν to cover the face of the judge, so that he shall not see the right.” Michaelis, Baumgarten, and others, explain the words to mean a present for the purchase of a veil which she should wear in the future. [Murphy urges against this that the proper word for veil is φςιϊ. “The covering of the eyes is a figurative phrase for a recompense or pacificatory offering, in consideration of which an offence is overlooked.” And so also Jacobus.—A. G.] Since Sarah wore no veil in Egypt, but the custom of veiling the face quickly with the mantle soon after appears in the history of Rebekah (Genesis 24:65), this thought seems quite probable. But one would then expect a special present to Sarah, besides the one to Abraham. Delitzsch remarks, “this would be bitter irony.” But the irony in the expression, I have given thy brother, cannot, however, be denied. The ιְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊΞλֹּ ?μ also agrees well with this thought. Besides, it must be considered that Abimelech had to relieve himself of his displeasure as well against Sarah as against Abraham. And what then could this mean, “that shall be to thee an atoning present, and for all with thee,” leaving out of view that here the conjunctive ε is wanting? As a covering of the eyes, designed to make good his error in her eyes, the great present would excite rather only contempt. The atonement would thus be to the violated rights of the husband; Sarah, who had constantly declared that he was her brother, even when prudent calculation became imprudent temerity, had well deserved that she also should suffer a reproof. Still Abimelech appears to define it as a covering of the eyes only in a figurative sense: in the sense of the Vulgate: hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sint, et quocunque perpexeris; mementoque te deprehensam. Since Sarah wore no veil, which designated her as the wife of a husband (see Genesis 24:6; 1 Corinthians 11:10), so the present of Abimelech, wherewith he expiates his fault, has the effect of such a veil; it should for all, and everywhere, be a testimony that she is a married woman. As such should she now be held everywhere, in consequence of his present. With Clericus, therefore, we find here a designed double sense or meaning; a covering of the eyes as an atonement, which should, at the same time, have the effect of a veil. “εְ ?πεֹ ?λַ ?ηַ ?ϊ can only be the second person feminine perf. Niph., although the daghesh lene is wanting in ϊ (Gesenius, § 28, 4, and § 65, 2), for to hold this form for a participle is scarcely possible,” etc.Keil: Since this word may be rendered adjudged as well as justified, we take it in a middle sense, and as designedly having a twofold meaning: convinced, placed right. This last word does not belong to the writer, but to Abimelech himself. With the pride of injured magnanimity, he declares that he, through his atoning present, would provide her with a veil, and designate her as a married woman. For the veil, see Winer. 3. Abraham’s intercession(Genesis 20:17-18). “After this compensation Abraham intercedes (Genesis 20:17), and God removes the sickness from Abimelech and his women. The author does not define the sickness more closely (as in Genesis 12:17); according to Genesis 20:6 it was such a sickness as indisposed to sleep. Compare the plague of the Philistines (1 Samuel 5:6-9; 1 Samuel 12:6; 1 Samuel 12:4, etc.)” Knobel.—And God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants.—Thus Abimelech was not only afflicted with some sexual disease, but indirectly, through his inability, his wife also, i.e., his wife in a peculiar sense, the queen; and his maid-servants, that is, his concubines (see Keil). [They bare means that they were again capable of procreating children. The verb is masculine, because both males and females were involved in this judicial malady. Murphy, p. 329.—A. G.] [This is clear also, since the malady was sent to preserve the purity of Sarah. Abimelech was not suffered to touch her, see Genesis 20:6.—A. G.] Genesis 20:18 contains the explanation—For the Lord (Jehovah) had fast closed up.—[It is Jehovah who delivers Abraham, and preserves the purity of Sarah, the mother of Isaac the promised seed. Wordsworth, p. 93. Who urges also the use of the names of God in the chapter, against the fragmentary hypothesis, with great force.—A. G.] Here the providence of Elohim is traced to the motives of Jehovah, the Covenant God of Abraham, who would protect his chosen. They were closed up; i.e., not as Knobel thinks, they could could not bring to the birth, but the whole household of Abimelech was unfruitful in consequence of his sickness. [The term here used for maid-servants, ΰֲ ?ξָ ?δεֹ ?ϊ, denotes those held as concubines, and is to be distinguished from ωְׁ ?τָ ?δεֹ ?ϊ, servants. See 1 Samuel 25:41.Keil, p. 170.—A. G.] This fearful fact for an ancient household was remarkable here, because the state remained after the free return of Sarah, until Abraham enters with his intercession. But this introduces the circumstance that he had interceded for Sarah also. AND ETHICAL1. See the preliminary remarks and the exigetical paragraphs. The preceding history is the history of sins “crying to heaven.” The history of Abraham in Gerar is a history of unconscious sins, concealed faults in the life of most excellent men, of the father of the faithful, and of a noble heathen king. 2. The first meeting between the house of Abraham and the Philistines. It serves to illustrate the fact, that the knowledge of God among the Philistines has sunken lower and lower in the lapse of time, while it has been more and more completely developed among the theocratic people. 3. Abraham in Gerar, in a certain measure, a counterpart to Lot in the caves. Lot fears the presence of men; Abraham appears to have sought a wider intercourse. Both fall into folly and sin, after the experience of the great judgment upon Sodom. The reaction from a state of great spiritual excitement reveals itself even in Abraham. 4. The repetition of the old saying of Abraham, is a proof that he, in his faith, thought himself justified in using it. We must take into account also, that Sarah also was his sister in the faith, and that she had accustomed herself, in her painful sense of her unfruitfulness, to style themselves brother and sister. 5. Abimelech’s dream. In the night sleep, the spirit of revelation comes nearer to the heathen, as is shown also in the dreams of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. It is a medium of revelation also for children (Joseph, in the old covenant), and for laborers with the hand (Joseph, in the new covenant); and the prophetic disposition, enduring into the night or extending itself through its hours (Isaac, Jacob, Paul). Moreover, Pharaoh’s butler and baker (Genesis 40:8); the Midianites (Judges 7:13-15); the wife of Pilate (Matthew 27:19, compare Wis 18:17-19), had significent dreams. 6. Abimelech’s innocence and guilt. The moral standpoint of tradition, in its relation to the higher standpoint. Traditional morality and the morality of conscience. The religious susceptibility of Abimelech. 7. Abraham a prophet. There are different views as to the derivation of this word. A derivation from the Arabic, analogous form, explains the word to mean the bringer of knowledge, the foreteller or predictor (see Delitzsch, p. 634; a communication of Fleischer). The derivation from the Hebrew παΰ, ebullire, appears to us nearer at hand, and corresponds better with the idea of the prophet. In the reference of the word to the Niph., Redslob explains it in a passive sense, what is poured forth; W. Newmann and Hφlemann, actively pouring forth, speaking. If we regard the Niph. as both passive and reflexive, then the prophet is a man who, because he has received communications poured into himself, pours forth. One who is a fountain. But the pouring forth designates more than the simple speaking. It is the utterance of that which is new, in the inspired, outpouring form; analogous to the out-pouring of a fountain, which is ever pouring out new, fresh water. The prophet pours forth that which is new, both in words and deeds; the miraculous words of prophecy, and the miraculous deeds of typical import. The derivation which Delitzsch proposes from τη ,τδ = αΰ, to breathe, the inspired, appears to be sought from dogmatic motives. Abraham was a prophet in the most general sense; the organ of the divine revelation, seer of the future. He was a prophet, priest, and king in one person, but preλminently a prophet. And here God brings out distinctly his prophetic dignity, because he is in this especially commended as the friend of God, the object of his protecting care, with whose injury Abimelech’s sickness was connected, and by whose intercession he could be healed. The peculiar order of the prophets, introduced through the prophetic schools of Samuel, was formed after the order of priests, and then the order of kings were severed from the general class or order of prophets. 8. Abimelech’s character and his atonement. Through his noble and pious conduct he wins a friend in Abraham (Genesis 21:22 ff.) 9. Abraham’s intercession, a claim of his faith in the promise. His intercession for Abimelech and Gerar, a counterpart to his intercession for Sodom. The intercession of Abraham for Abimelech, his house, and kingdom, in comparison with his intercession for Sodom. 10. Abraham has, through his fear, and the prudential means which his fear bade him to use, twice directly brought about the very thing which he feared, the taking away of his wife, and perhaps would have incurred his death, either the first or second time, if God had not interfered. How fear first truly makes that actual which it seeks to hinder in ungodly ways, the history of Joseph’s brethren, who sold him that he might not rise above them; the conduct of Pharaoh towards Israel, which brings him and his hosts to destruction in the Red Sea; Saul’s determination against David; but above all, the history of the crucifixion of Christ on the part of the Jewish Sanhedrim prove still more perfectly. How this same fact appears in proverbs, under various forms, e.g., in the saying of �dipus, is well known. 11. The Philistines (see the Bible Dictionaries). Their first appearance in sacred history makes a favourable impression; Abimelech knows, or learns to know, the only true God. Later, the Philistines appear sunken in idolatry. AND Any homiletic use of this chapter presupposes homiletic wisdom. Themes: Abraham in the repetition of his fall.—Abraham and Abimelech.—Abraham’s character: reverent humility, moral pride.—Abraham, the believer, in his weakness, exalted above the man of the world, in his strength. [The exaltation, however, a matter of pure grace.—A.G.] First Section.—Abraham’s and Abimelech’s error (Genesis 20:1-7) Abraham’s reaction after his high spiritual experiences.—The repetition of his old fault. 1. Causes: Recent experience of the corruption of the world, false prudence, exaggerated confidence, the brotherly relation to Sarah, the tolerable issue of the case in Egypt. 2. Natural results: Anxiety and danger, shame before a heathen’s princely court. 3. Gracious issue through the interference of God.—How self-will rushes into the danger which, with many plans, it seeks to avoid.—How the believer endangers the promise of God, and how it is wonderfully guarded through the grace of God.—Abimelech’s integrity the point of union for the gracious providence of God.—The author of sacred marriage is also its protector.—The care of God for Sarah a care for the world. Starke: Now God, in his providence, rescues Abraham again from his human weakness.—(Genesis 20:4. The Holy Spirit marks this doubtless, lest any one should say that Isaac was the son of Abimelech.) (Although God is a lover of life, yet still, according to his punitive righteousness, there may be ascribed to him, as here, a destruction, consumption, etc.)—God suffers his saints to fall into folly and sin, that it may be clear how little they are able to do right by themselves.—Cramer: God preserves the sacred marriage state.—Osiander: Subjects are often punished on account of the transgressions of their rulers. Genesis 20:6. A simple and not evilly intended plan, even in a bad cause, if it proceeds from inconsideration, Or from ignorant zeal, is described by this word—simplicity, in Holy Scripture (2 Samuel 15:11, etc.) Genesis 20:6. God hinders men from committing sin in many ways.—God searches the heart, and knows what is done in integrity and what in pretence.—Calwer, Handbuch: Genesis 20:2. As there (in Egypt) so here, Abraham reaches the directly opposite point from that which he intended. Sarah was taken away, just because he said, she is my sister.—Schrφder: (V. Herberger.) Genesis 20:1. Abraham will avoid the cross, (?) but he passes from the smoke into the flame, from the mud into the mire. There are in foreign lands misfortunes and adversities as well as where he has lived hitherto. Ah! Lord, help us, that we may sit quietly in our little space; the dear cross dwells yet nowhere, as everywhere, i.e., wherever we are.—His sin appears greater here than at the first offence; he stands no longer as then (in Egypt), at the beginning of the divine leadings. After so many and such great experiences of God’s faithfulness, still such unfaithfulness to him. (?)—(Calvin.) All those who will not, as is becoming, trust themselves to the providence of God, shall win like fruits of unbelief. Genesis 20:2. It is to be considered that an extraordinary beauty is ascribed to Sarah; then also, that notwithstanding her ninety years, she is in the first half of human life at that period of the world.—Luther: Genesis 20:3. It is impossible that a man who believes in the promises of God, should be forsaken.—God would suffer the heavens to fall, rather than forsake his believing people.—Thus God shows how displeasing adultery is to him. Genesis 20:6. Abimelech has sinned nevertheless, therefore God by no means concedes to him “purity of hands,” as the “integrity of heart.”—Passavant: An old oak which loses a bough or twig, has not, therefore lost its crown.—Pharaoh and Abimelech. Genesis 20:4. Many a king who is called christian, has done what these two kings did, and even worse, and his people have necessarily suffered for it in various ways before his crumbling throne; in a thousand offences, sins, sorrows, etc. Kings may learn what the sins of princes are before God, and the people also may learn to hate and deplore the evil which descends from the upper ranks.—The prosperity of the family depends upon the marriage state, and the welfare of society upon that of the family, and upon the society turns the good of the state. Genesis 20:6. It is a great grace when God guards any one from sinning, either against their fellows or against God.—Thou knowest not how often God has kept thee and me (Psalms 105:14-15; Zechariah 2:8).—Schwenke: The Scriptures do not describe a saint in Abraham, but a man, who, although so good, is yet a sinner like ourselves, but who through faith was justified before God, and what he did as he went from step to step in the narrow path of faith stands recorded, that we with him might enter the school of faith. Second Section.—Abraham’s confusion and shame, and Abimelech’s atonement.—(Genesis 20:8-16). The castigatory speech of the heathen to the father of the faithful. Genesis 20:11. The judgment of faith concerning the world ought not to be a prejudice.—The danger of life in Abraham’s pilgrimage an apology for his swerving to his own way. Genesis 20:8. The zeal of Abimelech in the removing and expiating of his fault.—His noble and pious integrity: 1. In the expression of his fear of God; 2. of his injured moral feeling; 3. his readiness to make his error good. Genesis 20:9. Abimelech knew that his royal sins fell upon his household and kingdom, as a burden and as guilt. Starke: Genesis 20:9. It is to the praise of this heathen king, who, however, was not without some fear and knowledge of God, that he held a breach of the marriage law to be so great a sin that the whole land could be punished. Genesis 20:10. Osiander: A pious ruler and a pious father of the household agree well, since they warn and keep their own in the fear of God.—The praise of mildness and gentleness.—Luther: The saints were gently punished and for their good.—Bibl. Tόb. Genesis 20:9. We should amend our past faults without delay.—Schrφder: (Luther) He who was before a king (Abimelech) is now a bishop who spreads among his subjects the fear and knowledge of God, so that they also should learn to fear God and honor his word. Here indeed the Sodomites, and those who dwelt in Gerar, are held in broad contrast. Genesis 20:12. (Museums: Concerning Sarah as the sister of Abraham: recognize hero the type of Christ and the Church. The Church is the sister and the bride of Christ; sister through God the Father, bride through the mystery of the incarnation, and the truth of his espousal, etc.) Genesis 20:15. While the Egyptian invites Abraham in a complimentary way out of his land, the Philistine says, Behold my land is before thee.—(Calvin): This distinction is due to the fact that the severely punished Pharoah experienced only fear, so that the presence of Abraham was intolerable. Abimelech, on the other hand, was, with the terror, at the same time comforted.—Passavant: Genesis 20:11. Christians’ excuses are oftentimes worse than their faults.—But Abraham is the father of the faithful; God sees in him Isaac, the son of promise, conceived, born, reared in faith, etc.; he sees in him Jacob his servant, etc., Moses, Aaron, Joshua, but above all that one of the seed of David, Galatians 3:16.—The forefather bore already in himself, that seed of faith upon the Son of God from which should bloom the new hosts of saints and righteous of the old and new covenant, as the dew drops from the womb of the morning (Psalms 110).—Schwenke: Thus the Lord knows how to make good what has been complicated, and endangered through human prudence. Third Section.—Abraham’s intercession, the healing of Abimelech and his household. (Genesis 20:17-18). Abraham believes still in the efficacy of intercession, although Sodom was destroyed notwithstanding his intercessory prayer.—The connection of intercession, with the receptivity of those to whom it relates.—Abraham as an intercessor for Sodom and for Gerar.—The healing of Abimelech an illustration of salvation, and leading to it.—Starke: A beautiful exchange between the worldly and spiritual state. That bestows gold and possessions, this recompenses with the knowledge of God and prayer.—Osiander: If God punishes this king with such serious earnestness and severity, who ignorantly had taken another man’s wife, how will they escape who knowingly and deliberately defame and dishonor other men’s wives and daughters?—Schrφder: (Calvin.) Abraham arms and disarms the hand of God at the same time.—(Roos): Thus God does not forsake his own in their need, although there are not wanting faults on their side.—(Val. Hebberger: We know how to make what is good evil, since we are masters there, but how to make good again what is evil, that is the work of God.)—Because Abraham and Sarah should laugh, they must first weep sound repentance. The martyr-week ever precedes the Easter-week with Christians. Footnotes:[Genesis 20:1.—δַ ?πֶּ ?βֶ ?α. The region south of what was afterwards called Judah.—A. G.] [Genesis 20:7.—πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ, from παΰ, to cause to bubble up as a fountain. Keil, Delitzsch, and others derive it from a root πΰ and τΰ, to breathe, and thus make uabi to mean one inspired—who speaks that which is inbreathed of God.—A. G.] [Genesis 20:13.—δִּ ?ϊְ ?ςεּ is plural in punctuation, agreeing grammatically with ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν.Vav, however, may be regarded as the third radical, and the verb may then really be singular. Murphy, p. 325.—A. G.] [Genesis 20:16.—πֹ ?λָ ?ηַ ?ϊ, 2 pers. fem. sing. Niphal, an unusual form. See the Exegetical note.—A. G.] [Genesis 20:18.—Jehovah.—A. G.] [The term, however, may mean, dead as to progeny, which is rendered probable by Genesis 20:17. God healed Abimelech. Jacobus.—A G.] [See Jeremiah 27:18, referred to by Bush.—A. G.] [Wordsworth suggests all three senses—that of a propitiation; of a provision for the purchase of a veil; and of an allusion to the usage of covering a bride with a veil, p. 92.—A. G.] [If, with Baumgarten, and according to the accents, we connect the εְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊΞλֹּ ?μ with the last word, the sense can only be: and all this has been done or given that thou mayest be righted or redressed, p. 220. So also Murphy.—A. G.] [How thankful for the interference of God,—A. G.] NINTH SECTIONThe birth of Isaac. Ishmael’s expulsion. The Covenant of peace with Abimelech at Beer-sheba Genesis 21:1-341 And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. 2For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God [Elohim] had spoken to him. 3And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac [Jitzhak; he or one will laugh].4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old [at the eighth day], as God 5[Elohim] had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto him. 6And Sarah said, God [Elohim] hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. 7And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have borne him a son in his old age. 8And the child grew and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. 9And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking. 10Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. 11And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight, because of his son. 12And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight, because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed [thy descendants] be called. 13And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. 14And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and [took with her] the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba [seven wells; well of the oath]. 15And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. 16And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot [as archers]: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over 17against him, and lifted up her voice and wept. And God [Elohim] heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God [Elohim] called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God [Elohim] hath heard the voice of the lad where he Isaiah 18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. 19And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. 20And God was with the 21lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an [mighty] archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran [Gesenius: prob. a region abounding in caverns]: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt. 22And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol [mouth of all; i.e., commanding all] the chief captain of his host [general] spake unto Abraham, saying, God 23[Elohim] is with thee in all that thou doest: Now therefore swear unto me here by God [Elohim] that thou wilt not deal falsely [injure deceitfully] with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son: but [rather] according to the kindness [truth] that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. 24And Abraham said, I will swear. 25And Abraham reproved Abimelech [brought a charge against him] because [in the case] of a well of water, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away. 26And Abimelech said, I wot not [have not known] who hath done this thing; neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it but to-day. 27And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant. 28And Abraham set [still] seven ewe-lambs of the flock by themselves. 29And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe-lambs, which thou hast set by themselves? 30And he said, For these seven ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me that I have digged this well. 31Wherefore he called that place Beer-sheba; because there they sware both of them. 32Thus they made a covenant at Beer-sheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. 33And Abraham planted a grove [Tamarisk, tree] in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God. 34And Abraham sojourned in the Philistines’ land many days. GENERAL REMARKS1. Delitzsch holds (“not led astray by Genesis 21:1”) that Genesis 21:1-21, forms the fourth Elohistic part of the third section of the life of Abraham. The first part (Genesis 21:1-8, of Genesis 21) goes back to Genesis 17, unfolds itself with a clear reference to it, and forms one whole with it. The second verse here refers to Genesis 17:21. According to Knobel on the contrary, only Genesis 21:2-5, belong to the original writing; the rest consists of Jehovistic enlargements, out of records which, at the most, may possibly be Elohistic. Since Delitzsch describes Genesis 20 also as Elohistic, it is plain that he must assume different Elohistic sources. But out of this assumption the whole arbitrary and artificial hypothesis may be developed. There must certainly be some internal reason for the change of the names in the first and second verses. That the name Elohim should be used in the history of the expulsion of Ishmael, and of the covenant of Abraham with Abimelech requires no explanation: Abimelech does not know Jehovah; Ishmael walks under the general providence of God. The reason lies in the fact that in Genesis 21:2 there is a reference to Genesis 17:21, while Genesis 21:1 refers to Genesis 18:14. So likewise it is with the circumcision of Isaac, which Elohim commanded (Genesis 21:4); it embraces in Isaac both Esau and Jacob. Sarah also (Genesis 21:6), refers the name of Isaac to the arrangement of Elohim; since every one in the world (existing under Elohim), would recognize Isaac as a miraculously given child—awakening laughter and joy.2. It is questionable whether we should refer Genesis 21:8 to what precedes, or what follows. Delitzsch favors the first connection, Knobel and Keil the last. They suppose that the feast at the weaning of Isaac gave occasion for the expulsion of Ishmael. But this is not certain, and were it even certain, Genesis 21:8 could, notwithstanding, belong to the conclusion of the history of the childhood of Isaac. AND 1. Isaac’s birth, circumcision, and the feast at his weaning.—(Genesis 21:1-8).—And the Lord (Jehovah) visited. [“The Sept. has ἐπεσκέψατο, a word adopted by St. Luke in two places in the song of Zacharias (Luke 1:68-78), who thus intimates the connection between the birth of Isaac and the birth of the promised seed.” Wordsworth p. 93. He refers also to the connection of the song of the blessed virgin with these exultant and thankful words of Sarah. See also Genesis 17:17-19; Luke 2:21; John 8:56; and Luke 1:44-47.—A. G.] Sarah.—τָ ?χַ ?γ to come to, to visit, to visit with the purpose of aiding, of saving, or with the design to punish, marking the great transitions in the providence of God; an idea running throughout the Scriptures (Genesis 50:24; Exodus 3:16), to express which, according to Knobel, the Elohist uses ζָ ?λָ ?ψ (ch.Genesis 8:1; Genesis 19:29; Genesis 30:20); where, however, in the two first cases, the ideas are widely different. The pregnancy of Sarah is traced back to Jehovah, since the conception of Isaac is a fruit of faith, i.e., of that connection of the sexes, on the part of both parents, animated and sanctified through faith.—As he had said (Genesis 18:14).—As God had said to him (Genesis 17:21).—[These expressions have an exegetical value, not only as showing the divine faithfulness, and the development of his plan, but as showing also how the different parts of this book are inwoven together, and thus prove its unity.—A. G.]—As God had commanded him (Genesis 17:12).—It is assumed, alluding to what had been done before on this occasion, that the son should bear the name Isaac. God had given him this name already, before his birth (Genesis 17:19; comp. Genesis 19:11). The special cause of this name lies in the laughing of Abraham (Genesis 17) whose darker echo is heard in the laugh of Sarah (Genesis 18), and the laughter of the people at this singular birth, of which Sarah speaks further here. The one thread running through all these various laughs is the apparently incredible nature of the event. Knobel, therefore, holds, without sufficient ground, that these are “different attempts to explain the origin of the name.”—An hundred years old (see Genesis 17:24).—And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh.—Delitzsch signalizes the poetical force of the two sentences of Sarah. “They are joyful cries, the first a distich, the second in three lines. Hence also the term ξִ ?μֵּ ?μ instead of γִּ ?αֵּ ?ψ. Sarah, without doubt, goes back to the divine giving of the name, which the laughing of Abraham had occasioned. But then also, she glances at her own laughing, which is now followed by another and better laugh, even the joyful cry of a thankful faith. That laugh arose from her unbelief, this Jehovah has given to her as the fruit of her faith. But she must explain still further, and that not without a certain feeling of shame.” (Delitzsch, comp. Genesis 18:12.)—All that hear will laugh with me.—[ξִ ?ι with the perfect has the sense of the conjunctive. Keil, p. 172.—A. G.]—i.e., with astonishment at the miraculously given child.—A great feast.—Starke: “The Hebrews, and other eastern nations, named their feasts from the drinks (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊֶּ ?δ), as if more regard was paid to the drinks than to the food.” But as the joy over Isaac, in respect to the promise given in him, was directed more to the spiritual than the bodily, so also without doubt this feast was arranged with reference to the same thing.—And the child grew.—Knobel and Keil refer the eighth verse to the following section. “Ishmael,” Keil remarks, “mocked at the feast held at the weaning of Isaac.”Knobel: he had made sport. But it is hardly probable that Ishmael had thus made sport or mocked on one occasion only. “The weaning of the child was often delayed, sometimes after three (2Ma 7:27; Mungo Park’s “Travels,” p. 237), and even after four years, (Russel: “Natural History of Aleppo,” I. p. 427). [“The weaning from the mother’s breast was the first step to the independent existence of the child” (Baumgarten), and hence gave occasion for the profane wit and mocking of Ishmael, in which there was, as Keil remarks, unbelief, envy, and pride.—A. G.] It was observed by Abraham, as also to day in the lands of the east, as a family feast. Schrφder: “The Koran fixes two years, at least, as the period of nursing children.” 2. The expulsion of Ishmael (Genesis 21:9-21).—And Sarah saw the son of Hagar.—It is not said that this happened at the feast upon the weaning of Isaac. The different explanations of ξְ ?φַ ?ηֵ ?χ. The first explanation: The word describes one making sport, as Genesis 19:14; Ishmael appears as a playful lad, leaping and dancing around, who thus excited the envy of Sarah. Thus Knobel, after Aben Ezra, Ilgen, Gesenius, Tuch. The Septuagint and Vulgate introduce so much into the text: “playing with Isaac.” Since Ishmael was fourteen years of age at the birth of Isaac, and now about sixteen to seventeen, Sarah must certainly have seen him playing with Isaac much earlier, with jealousy, if his playfulness generally could indeed have excited her jealousy. But if Ishmael, at the feast-day of Isaac, was extravagantly joyful, he thus gave an assurance of his good-will towards her son, the heir of the house. Hence the second explanation: The word describes the act of scoffing, mockery. Keil and others, after Kimchi, Vatabl, Piscat, Grot, against which Knobel objects that the word in question was never used of mocking. “Still less,” he adds, “are we to think of a persecution of Isaac (Galatians 4:29; Rosenm.; Del.), or of a controversy about the inheritance (the old Jewish interpret.), or of an idolatrous service (Jonathan, Jarchi).” Delitzsch explains: “Ishmael, at the feast of the weaning of the child, made sport of the son of his father instead of sharing the joy of the household.” But the text certainly says only that Sarah made the observation that he was a jesting, mocking youth. But since the ξְ ?φַֹ ?ηֵ ?χ follows so directly upon ιִ ?φְ ?ηָ ?χ, so we may certainly conjecture that the word is here used to denote that he mimicked Isaac, jeered at him, or he ridiculed Isaac. [He does not laugh, but makes himself sportive, derides. This little feeble Isaac a father of nations! Hengstenberg: Beitrδge, ii. p. 276. Kurtz urges well in favor of the stronger meaning of the word, the force of the Pihel and the fact that the conduct of Ishmael so described was made the reason by Sarah for her demand that the son of the bondwoman should be driven out, p. 202.—A. G.] Leaving this out of view, the observation of Sarah was certainly the observation of a development of character. Ishmael developed a characteristic trait of jealousy, and such persons pass easily, even without any inclination, to mockery. It is probable that this reviling conduct appeared in some striking way at the feast of the weaning of Isaac, although this cannot be inferred with certainty from the text. “The Rabbins feign here a controversy between the children, about the descent of Isaac from Abimelech, about the inheritance, and the like.” Schrφder. Sarah does not regard him directly as a pretender, claiming the rights of primogeniture, but as one unworthy to be heir with her son. Even later, the moral earnestness and the sense and love of truth in the heir of the promise, are wanting in the talking and fiction-loving Arab. But tradition has added to this feature, his hand is against every man, and thus has found the explanation, that he persecuted Isaac with his jests and scoffs, a tradition which Paul could use in his allegorical explanation. [The apostle does far more than merely use a Jewish tradition. He appears to allude to the use made of this history by the prophet Isaiah (Genesis 54), and in his explanation of the allegory states that the conduct of Ishmael towards Isaac was a type of the conduct of the self-righteous Jews towards those who were trusting in Christ alone for righteousness, or who were believers. This mocking, therefore, was the persecution of him who was born κατὰσάρκα against him who was born κατὰπνεῦμα. In this view, the word can only mean the unbelieving, envious sport and derision of this youth, proud of his mere fleshly preλminence, as Keil and Hengstenberg hold. He was thus, obviously, in heart separated from the household of faith.—A. G.] The passages, however, which Delitzsch quotes (Genesis 39:14 and Ezekiel 23:32) for the meaning of φηχ, to scoff, must not be overlooked. In her estimate of character, Sarah was far superior to Abraham, as Rebekah was also superior to Isaac in judgment in reference to her two sons.—Cast out this bondwoman and her son.—Knobel thinks that according to Genesis 25:6 the Elohist has not admitted into the record any such expulsion. The unmerciful severity towards his own son and his mother, does not agree well with the character of Abraham, and it is doubtful, therefore, whether we are dealing here with a literal fact. But this is a mere human arbitrariness, in which the lofty, pure motive, remains unappreciated. [There is underlying all these objections of Knobel and others who sympathize with him, a false hermeneutical principle, viz., that we must interpret and explain the word by what we conceive to have been the moral state and feelings of these historical personages.—A. G.] The word of Sarah was displeasing to Abraham also. It is not the Angel of the Lord, but God as Elohim, who confirms the judgment of Sarah. For the exclusion of Ishmael was requisite not only to the prosperity of Isaac and the line of the promise, but to the welfare of Ishmael himself.—For in Isaac shall thy seed be called (see Genesis 17:19).—There are three explanations of these words: 1. After Isaac shall thy seed be named (Hofmann). But Delitzsch reminds us that the people of the promise are only once called Isaac (Amos 7:9). 2. In Isaac shall thy seed be called into existence (Drechsler); better, 3. In Isaac shall the people which is, and is called (Isaiah 41:8) the peculiar seed of Abraham, have its point of departure (Bleek, Delitzsch).—And also of the son of the bondwoman (comp. Genesis 17:20; Genesis 16:12).—And Abraham rose up early in the morning.—He did not yield to the will of Sarah, but indeed to the command of God which, as it seems, came to him in a revelation by night. This decided, perfect, prompt cheerfulness, proves that he would, at the command of God, sacrifice Isaac also (Genesis 22:3).—And took bread and a bottle of water.—The narrative passes over the provision of Hagar with the simple requisites for her journey; with the bread it may be thought (Genesis 25:6) that there was included a provision with money for a longer time. He had doubtless made known to his household the revelation of the night, so that Sarah might not be elated nor Hagar depressed.—And the child.—[He was now about sixteen or seventeen—a youth. “Boys were often married at this age.” Ishmael was soon after married. This must be borne in mind in our estimate of the command given to Abraham.—A. G.] According to the Septuagint, Tuch, and others, the author places the burden upon the boy also; [The ε conjunctive makes it necessary that the εְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊδַ ?ιֶּ ?μֶ ?γ should be connected with the principal verb ιִ ?χַּ ?η. Keil, p. 172.—A. G.] but this does not follow from the text. Knobel correctly recalls to view that Ishmael was at this time at least sixteen years old. Delitzsch, on the contrary, understands the passage in the first instance thus: Abraham placed Isaac [Ishmael?—A. G.] also upon the back of Hagar; and speaks of inconsistencies and contradictions in the context; but then, he himself destroys this interpretation in a casual side remark. The Vulgate also here corrects the Septuagint.—She departed and wandered.—In the first case she found the way easily, for her flight was voluntary, but in this case she is quickly lost, no doubt because of the extreme agitation of her mind on account of her sudden dismissal. Luther has admirably shown these inward causes for her wandering.—In the wilderness of Beersheba.—Southerly from Beersheba (see Genesis 21:33), bordering upon the desert El Tih.—And the water was spent in the bottle.—This was the special necessary of life for those passing through the desert. The boy began to faint from thirst.—And she cast the child.—The words here have certainly the appearance as if spoken of a little child. But a wearied boy of sixteen years, unacquainted with the straits of the desert, would naturally be to the anxious mother like a little child. The expression, she cast him, is an expression that, with a feeling of despair, or of renunciation, she suddenly laid down the wearied one, whom she had supported and drawn along with her, as if she had prayed that he might die, and then hastened away with the feeling that she had sacrificed her child. A whole group of the beautiful traits of a mother’s love appear here; she lays her child under the protecting shadow of a bush; she hastens away; she seats herself over against him at the distance of a bowshot, because she will not see him die, and yet cannot leave him, and there weeps aloud. Thus also Ishmael must be offered up, as Isaac was somewhat later. But through this necessity he was consecrated, with his future race, to be the son and king of the desert. And now Hagar must discover the oasis, which is also a condition of life for the sons of the desert.—As it were a bowshot.—Just as the stone’s throw in Luke 22:41.—And God heard the voice of the lad.—The weeping of the mother and the child forms one voice, which the narrative assumes. It is a groundless particularism when it is said Ishmael was heard because he was the son of Abraham.—And the Angel of God.—As Jehovah himself is Elohim for Ishmael, so the Angel of the Lord (Jehovah) also is for him the Angel of God. There is no word here of a peculiar angelic appearance, for Hagar only hears the call of the Angel from heaven. But the call of the Angel was so far completed by the work of God that he opened her eyes. Since she suffers on account of the people of revelation, the angel of revelation here also, as in her flight, Genesis 16, protects and rescues her.—What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not.—Her heart grows firm and strong again under the revelation from above.—And hold him in thine hand.—Jerome infers admirably from this expression as to the sense of the former passage, “from which it is manifest that he who is held could not have been a burden upon his mother, but her companion.”—For I will make him a great nation.—A repetition of the earlier promise in Genesis 16. He therefore cannot die.—I will make him.—It is only the Angel of Elohim, who is Elohim, who can thus speak.—And she saw a well of water.—A living fountain, not merely a cistern. The cisterns were covered, and only discoverable by signs which were known only to those who were entrusted with the secret. Some have conjectured that Hagar now discovered these marks of a cistern. But it is a well in the peculiar sense which is here spoken of.—And gave the lad drink.—Ishmael is saved, and now grows up as the consecrated son of the desert.—And became an archer.—The bow was the means of his livelihood in the desert. “Some of the Ishmaelitish tribes, e.g., the Kedarenes and Itureans (Genesis 25:13-15), distinguish themselves through this weapon.” Knobel. For the twofold signification ψֹ ?αֶ ?δ, see Delitzsch, p. 410.—And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran.—Ishmael is already in the way from Palestine to Arabia. The wilderness of Paran is the present great desert El Tih. It runs from the southern border of Palestine, especially from the desert of Beersheba, beginning with the desert of Sin, between Palestine and Egypt, southeasterly down to the northern part of the Sinaitic peninsula, where it is limited by the mountains of Paran [Robinson and Coleman think it embraces the whole great desert, and this supposition best meets the various notices of this desert in the Scriptures.—A. G.] (See the article in the “Bible Dictionary for Christian People.”)—A wife out of the land of Egypt.—Hagar takes a wife for her son from her own home. Thus the heathen element at once receives additional strength. The Ishmaelite Arabs are thus, as to their natural origin, sprung from a twofold mingling of Hebrew and Egyptian blood; of an ideal and contented disposition, inwoven with a recluse, dream-like, and gloomy view of the world. 3. The covenant between Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 21:22-34).—And Abimelech spake unto Abraham.—Abimelech, i.e., father of the king, or father-king, the king my father, the title of the kings at Gerar; Phichol, i.e., the mouth of all, probably also a title of the highest officer of the kings at Gerar. The proposition of Abimelech to Abraham to make a covenant with him rests upon a deep feeling of the blessing which Abraham had in communion with God, and upon a strong presentiment that in the future he would be a dangerous power to the inhabitants of Canaan. It is to this man’s praise that he does not seek in a criminal way to free himself from his anxiety, as Pharaoh in his hostility to the Israelites in Egypt, or as Saul in his hostility to David, but in the direct, frank, honest way of a covenant. Abimelech has indeed no presentiment how far the hopes of Abraham for the future go beyond his anxieties. The willingness, however, of Abraham to enter into the covenant, is a proof that he had no hopes for the personal possession of Canaan. As a prudent prince, Abimelech meets him in the company of his chief captain, who might make an impression of his power upon Abraham, although he addresses his appeal chiefly to his generosity and gratitude. He appeals to the faithfulness which he had shown him, and desires only that he should not be injured by Abraham either in his person or in his descendants. But Abraham distinguishes clearly between political and private rights, and now it is for him to administer rebukes.—And he reproved Abimelech because of a well of water (see Genesis 13:7; Genesis 26:15; the great value of wells in Canaan).—But the ingenuous prince in part throws back the reproach upon him: Abraham had not spoken of the matter until to-day, and he had known nothing of it. He is ready, therefore, to make restitution, and now follows the making of the covenant.—Sheep and oxen.—The usual covenant presents (Isaiah 30:6; Isaiah 39:1; 1 Kings 15:19).—Seven ewe lambs of the flock.—Although the well belonged to him, he secures again in the most solemn way its possession, through the execution of the covenant, since a gift which one of the contracting parties receives from the other binds him more strictly to its stipulations (Ewald: “Antiquities,” p. 18).—Beersheba.—It is a question, in the first place, how the name is to be explained, and then, what relation this well, in its derivation, sustains to the wells of Beersheba (Genesis 26:32). Knobel asserts that the author explains Beersheba through oath of the wells, since he takes ωֶׁ ?αַ ?ς for ωְׁ ?αεּ ?ςָ ?δ, oath; but literally the word can only signify seven wells. Keil, on the other hand, asserts that the sense of the passage is this: that the wells take their name from the seven lambs with whose gift Abraham sealed his possession. When we recollect that in the name of Isaac differently related titles were united, we shall not press the antithesis between the seven wells and the wells of the oath. The form designates it as the seven wells, but the seven really marks it as the well of the oath. “πִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ς, they sware, literally they confirmed by seven, not because three, the number of the deity, is united in the oath with four, the number of the world (Leopold Schmidt, and this exposition is undeniably suggestive), but on account of the sacredness of the number seven, which has its ground and origin in the number seven of the creation (which, however, may be divided into the three and the four); they chose seven things for the confirmation of the oath, as Herodotus, among others, testifies of the Arabians (Genesis 3:8).” Keil. According to Knobel, the narrative of the name Beersheba (Genesis 26:30) is only another tradition concerning the origin of the same name. “But Robinson,” Delitzsch replies, “after a long time the first explorer of the southern region of Palestine, found upon the borders of the desert two deep wells, with clear, excellent water.” These wells are called Bir es Seba, seven wells; after the erroneous explanation of the Bedouins, the well of the lions. According to Robinson, Beersheba lay in the bed of a wide watercourse running here towards the coast, called Wady es Seba (Rob. “Pal.” i. p. 300).—And he planted a grove (tamarisk).—“Probably the Tamarix Africana, common in Egypt, Petrea, and Palestine; not a collection (compare with this tamarisk of Abraham, that in Gibeah, 1 Samuel 22:6, and that in Jabesh, 1 Samuel 31:13).” Delitzsch. “They were accustomed to plant the tamarisks as garden trees, which grew to a remarkable height and furnished a wide shade.” [Calvin remarks that the planting of the trees indicates that Abraham enjoyed more of quiet and rest after the covenant was made than he had done before.—A. G.] Michaelis. The tamarisk, with its lasting wood and evergreen foliage, was an emblem of the eternity of God, whom he declared, or as Keil expresses it, of the eternally enduring grace of the true God of the Covenant. But it is questionable whether Abraham, the great antagonist of all that is traditional in mythology, overthrowing the symbolism of nature, would make such an exception here. We must then also suppose that his preaching of Jehovah, the eternal God, both preceded and followed the planting of the tamarisk. Knobel thinks it is clear that a remarkable tamarisk stood there, which one then traced back to Abraham. As a planter of the tamarisk, Abraham appears a prophet of civilization, as in his proclaiming of the eternal God (the χָ ?ψָ ?ΰ with beth is always more definite than simply to call upon; it designates also the act of proclaiming) he is the prophet of the faith (the cultus).—The name ΰֵ ?μςεֹ ?μָ ?ν appears to be used here as a peculiar explanation of ιηεδ, and thus to justify the translation of this name by the words, the eternal. But Abraham had earlier (Genesis 14:22) designated Jehovah as El Eljon, then recognized him (Genesis 17:1) as El Shaddai. It follows from this that Jehovah revealed himself to him under various aspects, whose definitions form a parallel to the universal name Elohim. The God of the highest majesty who gave him victory over the kings of the East, the God of miraculous power who bestows upon him his son Isaac, now reveals himself in his divine covenant-truth, over against his temporary covenant with Abimelech, as the eternal God. And the tamarisk might well signify this also, that the hope of his seed should remain fresh and green until the most distant future, uninjured by his temporary covenant with Abimelech, which he will hold sacred.—Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines.—Abraham evidently remained a longer time at Beersheba, and this, together with his residence at Gerar, is described as a sojourn in the land of the Philistines. But how then could it be said before, that Abimelech and his chief captain turned back from Beersheba to the land of the Philistines? Keil solves the apparent difficulty with the remark, the land of the Philistines had at that time no fixed bounds towards the wilderness; Beersheba did not belong to Gerar, the kingdom of Abimelech in the narrower sense.—Many days.—These many days during which he sojourned in the land of the Philistines, form a contrast to the name of the eternal God, who had promised Canaan to him. AND ETHICAL1. Sarah’s visitation a type of the visitation of Mary, notwithstanding the great distinction between them. The visitation lies in the extraordinary and wonderful personal grace, to which an immeasurable general human salvation is closely joined. But with Sarah this visitation occurs very late in life, and after long waiting; with Mary it was entirely unexpected. Sarah’s body is dead; Mary had not known a husband. The son of Sarah is himself only a type of the son of Mary. But with both women the richest promise of heaven is limited through one particular woman on the earth, a conception in faith, an apparently impossible, but yet actual human birth; both are illustrious instances of the destination of the female race, of the importance of the wife, the mother, for the kingdom of God. Both become illustrious since they freely subjected themselves to this destination, since they yielded their sons in the future, the sons of promise, or in the son of promise; for Isaac has all his importance as a type of Christ, and Christ the son of Mary is the manifestation of the eternal Son.—The visitation of Sarah was that which Jehovah had promised a year before. He visits the believer with the word of promise, and visits him again with the word of fulfilment. Abraham must have waited five and twenty years for the promise, Sarah only one year. 2. Isaac: he will laugh, or one will laugh (see Genesis 17:19). The believer laughs at the last. 3. The sons of old age and miraculously-given children: the sons of Noah, Isaac, Joseph (Genesis 37:3), Benjamin (Genesis 44:20), Samuel, John the Baptist, and Christ. 4. The little song of Sarah, the sacred joyful word of the mother over Isaac. The first cradle hymn. 5. The feast of the weaning of Isaac. “The announcement, the birth, the weaning of the child.—All this furnishes matter for manifold joy and laughter; ιִ ?φְ ?ηַ ?χ, i.e., the laughter, the fulness of joy in his name. Our Lord reveals the profoundest source of this joy when he says (John 8:56), Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad. Since Sarah, the wife of one, became the mother of Isaac, she became the mother of Israel (Isaiah 51:2; Malachi 2:15; Ezekiel 33:24), and since she is the mother of Israel, the ancestress, and, in some sense, the mother of Jesus Christ, who derives his flesh and blood from Isaac, out of Israel, and in whom Abraham is a blessing to all the nations, the birthday of Isaac, spiritually viewed, thus becomes the door or entrance of the day of Christ, and the day of Christ the background of the birthday of Isaac.” Delitzsch. Calvin dwells especially upon the circumstance that Sarah nursed her child. “Whom he counts worthy of the honor of being a mother he at the same time makes nurse; and those who feel themselves burdened through the nursing of their children, rend, as far as in them lies, the sacred bonds of nature, unless weakness, or some infirmities, form their excuse.” It is remarkable that a century after the Genevan Calvin, the Genevan Rousseau should again hold up the sacredness of this law of nature, that mothers should nurse their own children, against the unnatural custom at his time of using wet-nurses, although, indeed, he himself had fundamentally no right to plead it. 6. The whole context confirms the Hebrew tradition, which finds in the jests of Ishmael the kindred idea of mockery, and upon this rests the confirmation of the allegorical explanation of Paul (Galatians 4; comp. “Biblework” on Galatians 4:22-30). [The apostle, however, does not say that the history was designed to be typical, but had been used and may be used to illustrate the truth he was discussing.—A. G.] [Ishmael mocked the child of promise, the faith of his parents, and therefore the word and purpose of God. His mocking was the outward expression of his unbelief, as the joy of his parents, which gave rise to the feast, was of their faith. It thus reveals his character as unworthy and incapable of sharing in the blessing, which then, as now, was secured only by faith. Hence, like Esau, Saul, the carnal Judaizers of the apostle’s day, all who trust in themselves rather than in the promise, he was cast out.—A. G.] 7. Female tact and accuracy in the estimate of youthful character. Sarah. Rebekah. Sarah’s interference with the order of Abraham’s household cannot be without sin, but in this case she meets and responds to the theocratic thought. This fact is repeated in a stronger form in the position of Rebekah over against that of Isaac, since she secures to Jacob the right of the first-born. Both fathers must have their prejudices in favor of the rights of the natural first-born corrected by the presaging, far-seeing mothers. 8. Abraham rose up early in the morning, especially when a command of the Lord is to be fulfilled or a sacrifice is to be brought (Genesis 22). 9. The expulsion of Hagar. Since Ishmael had grown to nearly sixteen years of age in the house of Sarah, her proposal cannot be explained upon motives of human jealousy. The text shows how painful the measure was to Abraham. But the man of faith who should later offer up Isaac, must now be able to offer Ishmael also. He dismisses him, however, in the light of the promise, that his expulsion confirmed his promotion to be the head of a great nation, and because the purpose of God in reference to Isaac could only become actual through this separation. The separation of Lot from Abraham, of Ishmael from Isaac, of Esau from Jacob, proceeds later in the separation of the ten tribes from Judah, and finally in the excision of the unbelieving Jewish population from the election (Romans 10.; Galatians 4.). These separations are continued even in the Christian Church. In the New-Covenant, moreover, the Jews for the most part have been excluded as Ishmael, while many Ishmaelites on the contrary have been made heirs of the faith of Abraham. The Queen of Sheba perhaps adheres more faithfully to wisdom than Solomon. 10. The moral beauty of Hagar in the desert, in her mother-love and in her confidence in God. Hagar in the desert an imperishable pattern of true maternal love. 11. The straits of the desert the consecration of the sons of the desert. The terrible desert, through the wonderful help of God, the wells, and oases of God, became a dear home to him. There is no doubt, also, that after he had learned thoroughly by experience that he was not a fellow-heir with Isaac, he was richly endowed by Abraham (Genesis 25:6), and also remained in friendly relations with Isaac (Genesis 25:9). 12. Abimelech’s presentiment of Abraham’s future greatness, and his prudent care for the security of his kingdom in his own person and in his descendants. The children of Israel did not attack the land of the Philistines until the Philistines had destroyed every recollection of the old covenant relations. Abimelech ever prudent, honest, and noble. The significance of the covenant of peace between the father of the faithful and a heathen prince (comp. “Covenant of Abraham,” ch.14). 13. Abraham gives to Abimelech upon his desire the oath of the covenant, as he had earlier sworn to the king of Sodom. “I will swear,” the sign of the condescension of the believer, in the relations and necessities of human society. Bearing upon the doctrine of the oath. 14. Abraham learns the character of Jehovah in a living experience of faith, according to his varied revelations, and with this experience the knowledge of the attributes of God rises into prominence. As Elohim proves himself to be Jehovah to him, so Jehovah again proves himself to be Elohim in a higher sense. God the Exalted is the Covenant God for him; God the Almighty performs wonders for him; God the Eternal busies himself for him in the eternal truth of the Covenant. 15. Abraham calls upon and proclaims the name of the Lord. The one is in truth not to be separated from the other. The living prayer must yield its fruit in the declaration, the living declaration must have its root in prayer. The faith of Abraham in Jehovah develops itself into a faith in the eternal truth of his covenant, and in the ever green and vigorous life of the promise. [“He calls upon the name of the Lord with the significant surname of the God of perpetuity, the eternal, unchangeable God. This marks him as the sure and able performer of his promise, as the everlasting vindicator of the faith of treaties, and as the infallible source of the believer’s rest and peace.” Murphy.—A. G.] For the tamarisk (see Dictionaries of the Bible) and for the meaning of the desert of Beersheba and the city of the same name (see Concordances). 16. Abraham, Samson, and David, in the land of the Philistines. Alternate friendships and hostilities. Abraham at first gains in South-Canaan a well, then a grave (ch, 23.). Both were signs of his inheriting the land at some future time. 17. Beersheba, honored and sanctified through the long residence of Abraham and Isaac. This city marking the southern limits of Israel in contrast with the city of Dan as a northern limit was, later, also profaned through an idolatrous service (Amos 5:5; Amos 8:14). 18. Passavant dwells upon the glory of the Arabians in Spain for seven centuries. “Indeed, they still, to day, from the wide and broad desert, ever weep over the forsaken, crushed clods of that heroic land.” But what has Roman fanaticism made of the land of Spain? He says again: “Arabia has also its treasures, its spices, and ointments, herds of noble animals, sweet, noble fruits, but it is not a Canaan, and its sons, coursing, racing, plundering, find in its wild freedom an uncertain inheritance.” “Galatians 4:29 is fulfilled especially in the history of Mohammed.” 19. Upon the covenant of Abraham and Abimelech, Passavant quotes the words, Blessed are the peace-makers. Schwenke represents Abimelech as a self-righteous person, but without sufficient reason. AND See the doctrinal paragraphs.—The connection between Isaac’s birth and Ishmael’s expulsion.—The joyful feast in Abraham’s house.—Hagar’s necessity; Hagar’s purification and glorification.—Abraham’s second meeting with Abimelech.—Abraham at Beersheba, or the connection between civilization and the cultus in Abraham’s life. An example for Christian missions. 1. Isaac’s birth (Genesis 21:1-8). Genesis 21:1. In the providence of God we first experience that he himself visits us, that he gives us himself; then that he visits us with his deeds of salvation. “Noble natures regard what they are as one with what they do.” It is true of God above all others, that we come to know him in his gifts, and his gifts in his visitation.—The section affords appropriate texts for baptismal discourses. Starke: the repetition (as he had spoken, of which he had spoken) has the utmost emphasis. The promises of God must at last pass into fulfilment, even when all hope has been lost by men. His promises are yea and amen.—Luther: “Moses abounds in words, and repeats his words twice, in order to bring before our minds the unutterable joy of the patriarch. This joy would be increased also (if it is true, as some say, that the Son of God in human form appeared to Sarah in the sixth week, and wished her joy of her young son, Genesis 18:10).—H. C. Rambach: Isaac’s birth in many respects resembles greatly the birth of Christ: 1. Both births were announced long before; 2. both occur at the time fixed by God; 3. both persons were named before they were born; 4. both were supernaturally (miraculously) conceived; 5. both births occasioned great joy: 6. the law of circumcision begins (as to its principle) with Isaac, and ceases in (through) Christ. Genesis 21:7. In her joy Sarah speaks of many (several) children, when she had borne only one son, who, however, was better to her than ten sons.—She will say: Not only has my dead body received strength from God, to bring a child into the world, but I am conscious of such strength that I can supply its food which sometimes fails much younger and more vigorous mothers.—Sarah did this (nursed her child) although she was a princess (Genesis 23:6) and of noble blood, for the law of nature itself requires this from all, since, with this very end in view, God has given breasts to all and filled them with milk. The Scriptures united these two functions, the bearing of children and nursing them, as belonging to the mother (Luke 11:27; Luke 23:29 : Psalms 22:10). Thus these two things were reckoned among the blessings and kindness of the Great God (Genesis 49:25), while an unfruitful body and dry breasts are a punishment from him (Hosea 9:11-14). Genesis 21:8. (Whether, as the Jews say, Shem, Melchizedec and Selah were present at this feast, cannot be said with certainty.)—Abraham doubtless had his servants to share in the feast, and held instructive conversation with them, exhorting them to confidence in God, to the praise of his name. It is a peculiarly spiritual, joyful, and thankful feast.—An enumeration of biblical feasts (2 Corinthians 1:20).—The blessing of children. Ingratitude, in regarding many such gifts (children) as a punishment.—Feasts after baptism are not opposed to the will of God, but they should still be observed to his honor, with pious people, without luxury, and other poor women in childbed should not be forgotten.—Schrφder: Genesis 21:1. He is faithful (Numbers 23:19).—Since every birth flows from (is a gift from) God (Psalms 127:3), so we may rightly say, that the Lord visits those to whom he sends children. Genesis 21:3. Isaac was the son of the free-woman, born through the promise of God (Galatians 4:22-23), consequently a type of every child of God, who through the strength of the promise, or of the gospel, is born to freedom and of a free-woman. (Roos.)—What strange disappointments! The son, who receives from God who hears the cries and wishes of men, his name Ishmael (God hears) is not the promised one, but the promise was fulfilled in the other, Isaac, who was named according to a more common human custom! [The laughing of Abraham (Genesis 17:17) has however a greater spiritual worth than the cry of Hagar for help (Genesis 16:11).]—Passavant: Behold, two children of one father and in the same house, reared under one discipline, consecrated before the same altar, of like hearts, borne before God upon the same prayer and thus offered to him, and still so unlike in their minds and ways, in their conduct and aims, etc.; the dark mysteries of nature and grace.—Taube: The birth of Isaac and expulsion of Ishmael an example of what occurred at the Reformation, and of what must take place in us all. 2. Ishmael’s removal (Genesis 21:9-21). The theocratic separations in their import: a. Judgment in respect to the fitness for theocratic purposes, but not, b. in respect to a destination to blessedness.—[So Henry. We are not sure that it was his eternal ruin; it is presumption to say that all those who are left out of the external dispensation of God’s covenant, are therefore excluded from all his mercies.—A. G.]—The providence of God over Ishmael.—The Arabians.—The Mohammedan world.—Mission Sermons.—The external separation presupposes an inward estrangement. Starke: Genesis 21:9. A laughing, jesting, gay, and playful youth. It may be that Ishmael had reviled Isaac because of his name which he had received from a laugh, and had treated him with scorn.—Lange: Genesis 21:10. Sarah could not have been without human weakness in this harsh demand; but the hand of God was in it.—Cramer: The faults and defects of parents usually cleave to their children, hence parents, especially mothers during pregnancy, should guard themselves lest they stain themselves with a grave fault which shall cleave to their children during their lives.—Bibl. Tόb.: The mocking spirit is the sign of an evil, proud, jealous, envious heart; take heed that thou dost not sit with the scorner (Psalms 1:1)—Bibl. Wirt.: Cases often occur in a family in which the wife is much wiser than her husband, hence their advice and counsel ought not to be refused (1 Samuel 25:3; 1 Samuel 25:17). Polygamy produces great unhappiness.—Cramer: There will arise sometimes disputes between married persons, even between those who are usually peaceful and friendly. Still one should not give loose reins to his passion, or allow the difference to go too far. Genesis 21:12. Lange: Here we see that the seed of the bondwoman shall be distinguished from Isaac.—The general rule is, that the wife shall be subject to her husband, and in all reasonable things obey him, but here God makes an exception.—Since Abraham in the former case had followed his wife without consulting God, when she gave him Hagar to wife, so he must now also fulfil her will.—The comparison of Ishmael with the unbelieving Jews at the time of the New Testament: the haughty, perverse, scoffing spirit of persecution; the sympathy of Abraham with Ishmael, the compassion of Jesus towards the Jews; the expulsion and wandering in the wilderness, but still under the Divine providence; the hope that they shall finally attain favor and grace.—Cramer: The recollection of his former sins should be a cross to the Christian.—One misfortune seldom comes alone.—Bibl. Wirt.: There is nothing which makes a man so tender and humble as the cross, affliction, and distress.—Gerlach: The great truth that natural claims avail nothing before God, reveals itself clearly in this history.—Isaac receives his name from a holy laughing; Ishmael was also a laugher, but at the same time a profane scoffer.—Calwer, Handbuch: What we often receive as a reproach, and listen to with reluctance, may contain under the rough, hard shell a noble kernel of truth, which indeed agrees with the will of God.—Schrφder: (Luther supposes Abraham to invite to the feast all the patriarchs then living; with Melchizedec and the King of the Philistines.)—Isaac, the subject of the holy laugh, serves also as a laughing-stock of profane wit.—Ishmael is the representative of that world in the church yet scoffing at the church. (In the letter to the Galatians of the bond-church, in opposition to the free.—Both, if I may say so, are the sons of laughter but in how different a sense. Sarah does not call Ishmael by his name (a clear sign of her indignation), and shows her contempt by calling him the son of this bond-woman. (Luther: Genesis 3:24; Proverbs 22:10; John 8:35.) Genesis 21:13. Ishmael remained his son, and indeed his first-born, whom he had long held for the heir of the blessing. It is never easy to rend from our hearts the objects of our dear affections. But he who must soon offer Isaac also is here put into the school for preparation. Michaelis sees in this removal the evidence that God was displeased with polygamy. Genesis 21:14. In many points surely the men of God seem somewhat cold and hard-hearted (Exodus 32:27; Deuteronomy 13:6 ff; Deuteronomy 33:9; Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26). After this distinction was clearly made, Ishmael himself might draw near again (Genesis 25:9) and indeed share in the possessions of his rich father. Baumgarten.—The expulsion of Ishmael was a warning for Israel, so far as it constantly relied upon its natural sonship from Abraham.—Thus the Papists to-day, when they parade their long succession, say nothing more than if they also called Ishmael the first-born. Genesis 21:17. We see moreover here that if father and mother forsake us, then the Lord himself will take us up. Calvin.—The same: Genesis 21:19. If God withdraw from us the grace of his providence we are as surely deprived of all means of help, even of those which lie near at hand, as if they were far removed from us. We pray him, therefore, not only that he would supply us with what we need, but give us prudence to make a right use of it; otherwise it will happen that, with closed eyes, we shall lie in the midst of our supplies and perish.—Passavant: Hagar’s marriage was Sarah’s own deed, not the work of God, and this also made her fearful. Men easily become anxious about their own, self-chosen ways.—Abraham obeys.—The obedience of the pious blessed in its results in all cases.—God knows how to find us, even in the wilderness. 3. Abraham’s covenant with Abimelech (Genesis 21:22-34).—Traces of noble minds in the heathen world.—The Hebrews and the Philistines.—Why they attract and why repel.—Starke: Bibl. Tub.. Even the world wonders at the blessedness of the pious.—Bibl. Wirt. It is allowed the Christian truly to enter into covenant with strange, foreign, and, to a certain extent, with unbelieving people.—A pious man ought to complain to the rulers of the reproach and injustice he suffers.—Rulers should themselves guard the care of the land, since courtiers often do what they wish.—The Rabbins (Genesis 21:33) think that Abraham planted a garden of fruit-trees, in which he received and entertained the strangers, from which he did not suffer them to depart until they became proselytes.—It is probable that Abraham had pitched near a grove or wood, from which he might have wood for his sacrifices, and in which he might perhaps hold his worship, and also that he might have more shade in this hot Eastern land.—I am also a stranger here upon the earth.—Gerlach: Genesis 21:22. The blessing of God which rested upon Abraham awakened reverence even in these heathen, who served still the true God; a type of the blessing which, even in Old-Testament times, passed over from the covenant people upon the heathen.—Schrφder: A consolation follows upon the great sorrow (Calvin).—The oath was an act of condescension to the evident mistrust of the Princes; in the other aspect an act of worship.—The Holy Scriptures regard the oath as if a peculiar sacrament; there is the name of God, and the hearts of the people are reconciled, and mistrust and strifes destroyed. (Luther).—Nature fixes itself firmly when all goes well. But faith knows here no continuing city (Berlenburger Bibel).—Moses reports three sacred works of Abraham: 1. He labored; 2. he preached; 3. he bore patiently his long sojourn in a strange land. Footnotes: [Genesis 21:12.—In Isaac shall seed be called to thee.—A. G.] [Genesis 21:17.—Not ξμΰκְ ιδεֹ ?δ, as in Genesis 16:7.—A. G.] [“The birth of Isaac is the first result of the covenant, and the first step toward its goal. As it is the germ of the future development, and looks to the greater than Isaac—the New Testament Son of Promise—so it is the practical and personal pledge on God’s part, that the salvation of the world shall be accomplished.” Jacobus.—A. G.] [Kurtz says that Ishmael laughed at the contrast between the promises and corresponding hopes centring in Isaac, and the weak nursling, p. 201.—A. G.] [Bush suggests that it is some legal divorce which is intended. The Heb. word has that meaning, see Leviticus 21:7; Leviticus 21:14; Leviticus 22:13; Isaiah 57:20.—A. G.] [The angel of Elohim, not Jehovah, because Ishmael, since the divinely ordained removal from the house of Abraham, passes from under the protection of the covenant God, to that of the leading and providence of God, the ruler of all nations. Keil, p. 173.—A. G.] [Baumgarten renders a hero an archer; and refers for an analogy to the phrase πַ ?ςֲ ?ψָ ?δαְ ?ϊεּ ?μָ ?δ, p. 223.—A. G.] [Murphy renders Kin and Kith to represent the Hebrew πִ ?ιπִ ?ιπֶ ?λְ ?γִּ ?ι, p. 334.—A. G.] [There are thus, in fact, two wells, from which the city might have been named, and from which it was named, according to the two accounts or testimonies in Genesis. Delitzsch, p. 296.—A. G.] [So we do not see the fountain opened for sinners in this world’s wilderness until God opens our eyes. Jacobus.—A. G.] TENTH SECTIONThe sacrifice of Isaac. The sealing of the faith of Abraham. The completion and sealing of the Divine Promise Genesis 22:1-191 And it came to pass after these things [preparatory thereto, that God [Elohim] did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: 2and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah [shown or provided of Jehovah]; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 3And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men [servants] with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. 4Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. 5And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come [may come] again to you (πָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?λָ ?δ). 6And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife: and they went both of them together. 7And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am [I hear], my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went [further] both of them together. 9And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid [upon it] the wood in order; and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 10And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: 12and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know [I have perceived] that thou fearest God [literally: a God-fearer art thou], seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 13And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked [spied, descried], and behold, behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh [Jehovah will see]: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. 15And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. 18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed [shall bless themselves; Hithpael]; because thou hast obeyed my voice. 19So Abraham returned unto his young men; and they rose up, and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt [still longer] at Beer-sheba. GENERAL REMARKS1. The documentary hypothesis [which implies not only that historical documents may have come down to Moses, and were used by him, but also that the book is compacted from distinct and still distinguishable compositions.—A. G] meets in this section a very significant rebuke, whose import has not been sufficiently estimated either by Knobel or Delitzsch. “Leaving out of view the term Elohim, nothing reminds us,” says Knobel, “of the Elohistic, but rather, everything is in favor of the Jehovistic author, e.g., in the main point, its whole tendency as thus stated (the knowledge of the unlawfulness of human sacrifices in Israel), the human way in which God is spoken of, etc. We must, therefore, hold that the Jehovist uses Elohim here, so long as he treats of human sacrifices, and then first, after this sacrifice, so foreign to the religion of Jehovah (Genesis 22:1), has been rebuked, uses Jehovah.” The real distinction of the names of God is thus recognized without considering its consequences. Delitzsch says, “the enlarger generally uses the name ιδεδ less exclusively than the author of the original writing the ύδ(ΰμδιν). This change of the names of God is, at all events, significant, as is every change of the names of God in the original dependence and connection of one of the two narrators.” This concession does not agree with his introduction, when he says, “a comprehensible distinction between the two names of God, Elohim and Jehovah, is not always to be received; the author has often merely found a pleasure in ornamenting his work with the alternation of these two names” (p. 32, 33). The change in the names in this section is explained by the fact, that the revelation of God, which the patriarch received at the beginning of the history, mingled itself in his consciousness with traditional Elohistic ideas or prejudices, while in the sequel, the second revelation of Jehovah makes a clear and lasting distinction between the pure word of Jehovah, and the traditional Elohistic, or general religious apprehension of it. 2. We have already discussed, in the introduction (p. 74. ff.), the peculiar idea in the history of the sacrifice of Isaac, which the traditional theological misunderstanding has transformed into a dark enigma, which lies as a grave difficulty or stumbling block in the history. In his “History of the Old Covenant” (2d ed. p. 205), Kurtz resumes with great zeal the discussion, with reference to Hengstenberg’s Beitrδge, iii. p. 145; Lange: Leben Jesu, i. p. 120; “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 818, and other works, and asserts directly that God demanded from Abraham the actual slaying of Isaac. It is no difficulty, in his view, that God, the true one, who is truth, commands at the beginning of the narrative, what he forbids at the close, as it was not difficult to him to hold that the assumed angels (Genesis 6) were created sexless, but had in some magical way themselves created for themselves the sexual power. [This is the difficulty which Kurtz overlooks. It is not the difficulty in reconciling this command with the prohibition of human sacrifices in the Mosaic law, but in reconciling the command with the prohibition in this history, if the killing of Isaac is referred to in both. Hengstenberg and those who argue with him, urge in favor of their view: 1. That the command relates only to the spiritual sacrifice of Isaac, here termed a burnt-offering because of the entire renunciation of Isaac as a son by nature, which he was to make, so that Isaac was to be dead to him, and then received back again from the dead, no longer in any sense a son of the flesh, but the son of promise and of grace; and then, 2. the numerous places in the Scripture in which these sacrificial terms are used in a spiritual sense (e.g., Hosea 14:3; Psalms 40:7-9; where the same term, burnt-offering, is used, and the Psalmist describes the entire yielding of his personality as the sacrifice which God required; Psalms 51:19; Psalms 119:108; Romans 12:1; Philippians 4:18; Hebrews 13:15, etc. See also the passage 1 Samuel 1:24-25); and finally 3. the force and usage of the word here rendered to tempt. But on the other hand it is urged with great force: 1. That the terms here used are such as to justify, if not require, the interpretation which Abraham put upon the command, i.e., that he was required literally to slay his son as a sacrifice; 2. that it is only as thus understood that we see the force of the temptation to which Abraham was subjected. It is obviously the design of the writer to present this temptation as the most severe and conclusive test. He was tried in the command to leave his home, in his long waiting for the promised seed, in the command to expel Ishmael. In all these his faith and obedience stood the test. It remained to be seen whether it would yield the son of promise also. This test, therefore, was applied. The temptation was not merely to part with his son, the only son of his love, but it was in the command to put him to death, of whom it was said, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” The command and the promise were apparently in direct conflict. If he obeys the command he would seem to frustrate the promise; if he held fast to the promise and saved his son he would disobey the command. 3. That this interpretation best explains the whole transaction, as it related to Isaac as the channel of blessing to the world, and the type of Christ, who was the true human sacrifice—the man for men. 4. That there is no real moral difficulty, since God, who is the giver of life, has a right to require it, and since his command clearly expressed, both justified Abraham in this painful deed and made it binding upon him. 5. That this seems to be required by the words of the apostle, Hebrews 11:19, “accounting that God was able to raise him from the dead.” The weight of authority is greatly in favor of the latter interpretation, even among recent commentators, and it is clearly to be preferred. In regard to the difficulty which Hengstenberg and Lange urge, it may be said that the command of God is not always a revelation of his secret will. He did not intend that Abraham should actually slay his son, and there is therefore no change in his purpose or will. He did intend that Abraham should understand that he was to do this. It was his purpose now to apply the final test of his faith (a test needful to the patriarch himself, and to all believers), which could only be the surrender to the will of God of that which he held most dear; in this case his son, the son of promise, in whom his seed should be called. To apply the test, he commands the patriarch, as he had a perfect right to do, to go and offer his son a burnt-offering. When the act was performed in heart, and was about to be actually completed, the test was clear, the obedience of faith was manifest, the whole condition of things was changed, and there was therefore a corresponding change in the formal command, though no change in the divine purpose.—A. G.] The actual divine restraint, which even restrained the sacrifice of Isaac in the very act (p. 207), forms the reconciling middle-term between the command to Abraham and the prohibition to Abraham’s descendants. We cannot truly yield our assent to such reconciling middle-terms between the commands and prohibitions of God. The question, how could the assumed positive command, “Thou shalt slay Isaac,” become a ground of the certain faith of Abraham? which is the main difficulty in the ordinary view of the passage, Delitzsch dismisses with the remark (3d ed. p. 418), “the subjective criterion of a fact of revelation is not its agreement with the utterances of the so-called pious consciousness which exalts itself above the Scripture, etc., but it is the experience of the new-birth.” This accords entirely with the explanation of the Tridentine theologians. The subjective criterion of a fact of revelation is rather that clear, i.e., calm, because free from doubt, firm certainty of faith produced directly by the fact of revelation itself. And this is truly a consciousness of the pious, which does not indeed set itself above the Scripture, but with which, also, the different acts, words, and commands of Jehovah, who ever remains the same in his truth and veracity, cannot be in conflict. The agreement between the declarations of the eternal revelation, and the eternal declarations of the religious consciousness, is so far wanting here, that Delitzsch says: “Israel knew that God had once required from Abraham (the human sacrifice) in order to fix for it a prohibition for all time. The law therefore recognizes the human sacrifice only as an abomination of the Moloch-worship (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:1-5), and the case of Jephthah belongs to a time when the Israelitish and Canaanitish popular spirit and views were peculiarly intermingled.” Then the abomination of the Moloch-service in Israel rests purely upon the positive ground of the example in this history, an example which with the same extreme positiveness, might be understood to have just the contrary force, if it signifies, perhaps; we may omit the human sacrifice in all such cases, when Jehovah makes the same wonderful prohibition. As to the sacrifice of Jephthah, Delitzsch regards it as a sort of reconciling middle-term between the Moloch-worship of the Canaanites and the prohibition of a Moloch-worship in Israel, that a hero of the time of the Judges should have acted in a heathen (even Canaanitish!) rather than in an Israelitish manner. Jephthah, who with the most definite and triumphant consciousness distinguishes between the Moabitish and Ammonite God, Chemosh, to whom, probably, human sacrifices were offered (2 Kings 3:27), and the God of Israel, Jehovah (Judges 11:24); Jephthah, who made his vow of a sacrifice to Jehovah, after the spirit of Jehovah came upon him (Judges 11:29), a vow which was connected with a prayer for victory over a Moloch-serving people; Jephthah, who was clearly conscious that he had made his vow to Jehovah that through him he might overcome the children of Ammon under their God Chemosh; offered indeed an abomination to Jehovah; and it is obvious what is meant when it is said, the daughters upon the mountains bewailed her virginity (not the lost, but the illegally fixed) and not her life, although the matter concerned her life; but it is not so evident when it is said that she never knew a man, after her father had put her to death (Judges 11:39), and it must not surprise us, truly, that it became a custom for the daughters of Israel to spend four days yearly to commemorate and praise a virgin who was entirely in accordance with her father in the most hurtful and godless misunderstanding, and in the most abominable sacrifice. We have to observe three oppositions in this history: first, that between πִ ?ρָּ ?δεַ ?ιּ ?ΰֹ ?ξֶ ?ψ and εַ ?ιִּ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰξִ ?οΞδַ ?ωָּׁ ?ξַ ?ιִ ?ν, second, that between δָ ?ΰֱ ?μֹ ?ηִ ?ιν and ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, and third, that between δςμδ of verse second and ωηθ of verse tenth.—The key to the explanation of the whole history lies in the expression πִ ?ρָּ ?δ. It denotes not simply to prove, or to put to the test (Knobel, Delitzsch), but to prove under circumstances which have originated from sin, and which increase the severity of the proof, and make it a temptation. And in so far as the union of the elements of the testing and of the tempting, i.e., the soliciting to evil, is under the providence of Jehovah, it denotes, he tempts, in much the same sense that he also punishes sin with sin. It is defined more closely thus: he leads or can lead into temptation (to do wrong) (Matthew 6:13). But the closest analysis is this: the proving is from God, the temptation is from sin (James 1:13). Thus the promise at Marah (Exodus 15:25-26) was in so far a temptation of the people as it had the inclination to misinterpret the same in a fleshly sense; the giving of the manna was a temptation so far as it was connected with the ordinance that the manna should not be gathered upon the Sabbath (Exodus 16:4); the terrible revelation of God from Sinai (Exodus 20:20) was a temptation of the people, since it could be the occasion for their falling into slavish fear, and flight from the presence of God (Exodus 20:19); comp. Deuteronomy 8:2; Genesis 22:16; especially Genesis 13:4; Judges 2:22. The demand of God from Abraham that he should sacrifice his son, became, through the remaining and overwhelming prejudices of the heathen, to whom to sacrifice was identical with to slay, a temptation to Abraham actually “to lay his hands upon the lad.” The command of God stands sure, but he did not understand its import fully, viz., that he should, in and under the completion of an animal sacrifice, consecrate and inwardly yield his son to Jehovah, and thus purify his heart from all new fleshly and slavish attachment to him. But it was the ordination of God, that in his conflict with the elements of the temptation, he should come to the point, when he could reveal to him the pure and full sense of his command. Hence also the first revelation was darker than the second. This fact is distorted when Schelling finds here in the Elohim the ungodly principle, which appears in opposition to the Maleach Jehovah as the true God (Delitzsch, p. 417). Even the distinction between a night and dream-voice, and a clear and loud tone at the perfect day (Ewald), decides nothing, although generally the dream-vision is the more imperfect form. But the distinction between an imperfect, vague, and general, and the perfect, definite revelation, is here truly of decisive importance. The history of the prophets (as of Jonah) and of the apostles (as of Peter) confirms abundantly that a true divine revelation can be obscured through an erroneous understanding of the revelation (as indeed the unerring voice of conscience may be obscured through an erroneous judgment of the conscience). This same fact appears and continues in the development of faith. “The flame purifies itself from the smoke.” We thus hold here, as earlier, with Hengstenberg and Bertheau, that the divine command to Abraham was subject to a misunderstanding in him, through the inner Asiatic sinful tradition of human sacrifice, but a misunderstanding providentially appointed to be finally salutary to Abraham. With this contrast between the imperfect and perfect revelation now referred to, corresponds fully the contrast between hζlohim, Elohim on the one side, and Maleach-Jehovah, and Jehovah on the other side. God, as the God of all Gods, whose name breaks through all the impure conceptions of him, gave the first command, which Abraham, in his traditional and Elohistic ideas, with an admixture of some misconception, has yet correctly but vaguely understood, but the God of revelation corrects his misunderstanding, when he seals and confirms his understanding, that he should sacrifice his son to God in his heart. But the third opposition, between the expression to sacrifice and to slay (δςμδ and ωηθ), is very important. It is a fact that the Israelitish consciousness from the beginning has distinguished between the spiritual yielding, consecration (especially of the first-born), and the external symbolical slaying of a sacrificial animal for the representation and confirmation of that inward consecration; and thus also between the sacrifice and the killing in a literal sense. This fact was also divinely grounded, through the sacrifice of Isaac. It served, through the divine providence, for the rejection of all heathenish abominations, and for the founding of the consecrated typical nature of the sacrifices of the Israelites. 3. According to De Wette, Schumann, von Bohlen and others, this narrative is a pure myth. Knobel is doubtful whether there is not a fact lying at its basis, but which he explains in a rationalistic manner (p. 189). He gives correctly the ideas of the history, the removing of human sacrifice, and the sanctifying of a place for sacrifice at Jerusalem. But the main, idea, the spiritual sacrifice of the son, as well as the unity of the idea and the historical fact escapes him. For the untenableness of mythical interpretations in the Old Testament, see the Introduction. AND 1. The command of God to Abraham, and his journey to Moriah (Genesis 22:1-3).—God did tempt Abraham.—For the meaning of the word see above. It is in the highest degree probable that the form of the revelation was a dream-vision of the night, as this was the form of the revealed command to remove Ishmael.—Abraham! Behold, here am I.—Similarly: My father! Here am I, my son (Genesis 22:7). Abraham, Abraham! Here am I (Genesis 22:11). These brief introductions of the conversation express the great tension and application of the human mind in those moments, in a striking way, and serve at the same time to prepare us for the importance of the conversation. The call: Abraham! the announcement of a revelation, of a command. Here am I! the expression of hearing and obedience.—Take now thy son.—χַ ?ηΞπָ ?ΰ. The πָ ?ΰ modifies the command; it seems to express that Elohim wished to receive the sacrifice from him as a freewill offering.—Thine only.—[Reminding us, as was intended, of the only begotten of the Father. A. G.] The Sept. has ἀγαπητόν, the Vul. unigenitum. The ιηιγ is more significant; it renders emphatic the incomparableness; this term and the two following express the greatness of the sacrifice, but also the thought that God knew well what he demanded from him.—Get thee into the land of Moriah.—i.e., into the region of the mountain of Moriah, or of Jerusalem. The name Moriah was anticipated; according to Genesis 22:14, it was occasioned through the events here recorded. Michaelis, Bleek and Tuch understand the word to refer not to Jerusalem, but to Moreh in Sichem. See the counter-reasons in Knobel. One main reason among others, is that the way from Beer-sheba, where Abraham still dwelt, by Hebron and Jerusalem to Sichem, according to Robinson, required about 35 hours, a distance which the old man Abraham and the youth Isaac could not well have accomplished in three days (Genesis 22:4). The distance from Beer-sheba to Jerusalem is, according to Robinson, 20½ hours. For the meaning of Moriah see below. [Hengstenberg (Beit. ii. p. 263) derives the name from ψΰδ, to see. It is the Hoph. part, with the abbreviated name of Jehovah, or ιδ, and signifies the shown or pointed out of Jehovah. The πִ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ, 2 Chronicles 3:1, has no decisive weight against this since it may be rendered: “which was pointed out, shown to David,” as well as “where Jehovah appeared to David.”—A. G.] The Samaritans hold Gerizim to have been the place of the sacrifice, but have not altered the text.—And offer him there.—For a bnrnt offering may mean as a burnt offering, or, also, with a burnt offering, in and under the symbolical presenting of it.—Upon one of the mountains.—A clear intimation of the region of Jerusalem.—Which I will tell thee of.—It is not said when this more distinct designation of the place of the sacrifice should be given. The designation is, however, already, by anticipation, contained in Moriah.—And Abraham rose up early in the morning. (See Chap. Genesis 21:24.)—And saddled his ass.—Girded, not saddled him. The ass was destined to bear the wood upon his covering. Abraham sets out with the bleeding heart of the father, and the three days’ journey are, no doubt, designed to give him time for the great conflict within him, and for the religious process of development (see Acts 9:9). [As far as the matter of obedience was concerned, the conflict was over. His purpose was fixed. He did not consult with flesh and blood, but instantly obeyed.—A. G.] 2. The mountain and place of the sacrifice. (Genesis 22:4-10.)—Then on the third day.—He had now entire certainty as to the place. It is barely intimated how significant, sacred and fearful the place of sacrifice was to him.—Abide ye here with the ass.—The young men or servants, or young slaves, destined to this service, must not go with him to the sacred mountain, nor be present at the fearful sacrifice.—And I and the lad.—They could easily see from the wood of the burnt-offering, and the fire, and the knife, that he went not merely to worship, but to sacrifice; but to him the sacrifice was the main thing.—And will worship, and come again to you.—Knobel remarks: “The author appears not to have believed that Abraham would be presented in a bad light, through such false utterances (comp. Genesis 12:13; Genesis 20:12).” We have already seen what are the elements of truth, in the places referred to, here the sense of the word of Abraham is determined through the utterance of the wish in πωια, which, according to the form επωεαδ, might be translated: and may we return again—would that we might. It is the design of the ambiguous term to assure them as to his intention or purpose. [It is rather the utterance of his faith that God was able to raise him from the dead. See Hebrews 11:19.—A. G.]—And laid it upon Isaac.—From the three days’ journey of Isaac, and the service which he here performs, we may conclude that he had grown to a strong youth, like Ishmael, perhaps, at the time of his expulsion (the age at which we confirm).—The fire.—“A glimmering ember or tinder wood.” Knobel.—But where is the lamb?—Isaac knew that a sacrificial animal belonged to the sacrifice. The evasive answer of the father, trembling anew at the question of his beloved child, appears to intimate that he held the entrance of a new revelation at the decisive moment to be possible. Until this occurs he must truly obey according to his previous view and purpose.—The terms of the address: My father! my son!—The few weighty and richly significant words mark the difficulty of the whole course for Abraham, and present in so much clearer a light, the unwavering steadfastness of his readiness to make the offering.—And took the knife.—The very highest expression of his readiness. Nothing is said of any agitation, of any resistance, or complaint on the part of Isaac. It is clear that he is thus described as the willing sacrificial lamb.3. The first call from heaven (Genesis 22:11-14).—Abraham, Abraham!—As the call of the Angel of Jehovah stands in contrast with that of Elohim, so, also, the repetition of the name here, to its single use (Genesis 22:1). A clearer, wider, more definite, and further leading revelation is thus described. The repeated call: Abraham! designates also the urgency of the interruption, the decided rejection of the human sacrifice. For the Angel of the Lord, see Genesis 12.—Now I know that thou fearest God.—Abraham has stood the test. The knowledge of God reflects itself as a new experimental knowledge in the consciousness of Abraham. [I know, in the sense of use, declare my knowledge—have made it manifest by evident proof. Wordsworth, p. 100. “An eventual knowing, a discovering by actual experiment.” Murphy, p. 341.—A. G.]—Behind him a ram.—ΰַ ?ηַ ?ψ for ΰָ ?ηεֹ ?γ behind, backwards is not used elsewhere in the Old Testament, and from this has arisen the conjectural reading ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ, and also numerous constructions (see Knobel, p. 175). Gesenius explains the word in the background; but we should observe well that it is said that Abraham looked around him, and thus perceived the same behind his back. Unseen, God mysteriously prepares his gifts for his own. He does not receive a positive command to sacrifice the ram instead of his son, although he recognizes in the fact that the ram with his long, crooked horns was caught in the thicket, the divine suggestion. Knobel: “In a like way, through a divine providence, a goat is presented as a sacrificial animal for Iphigenia, whom her father, Agamemnon, would sacrifice to Venus at Aulis (Eurip. Iphig. Aulid. 1591 ff.).”—In the stead of his son.—This expression is of deciding importance for the whole theory of sacrifice. The sacrificial animal designates the symbolical representation of the person who presents the sacrifice; but this representation in the later ritual of the sacrifices, must be interpreted differently, according to the different sacrifices.—And Abraham called the name of that place.—Delitzsch and Keil explain the word ιִ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ, Jehovah observes, or takes care, but reject the explanation of the Niphal, ιֵ ?ψָ ?ΰֶ ?δ etc., upon the mount of the Lord it shall be seen, chosen, i.e., be provided, or cared for. They lay aside this signification of the Niphal, and Delitzsch translates: he appears upon the mount of Jehovah. But the Niphal must here certainly correspond with the Kal, although we could point to no other proof for it. The explanation also, upon the mount where Jehovah appears, is far too general, since Jehovah does not appear only upon Moriah. The expression: “it will be chosen, provided,” does not mean he will care for, but he will himself choose, and hence the Niphal also must be: The mount of Jehovah is the mountain where he himself selects and provides his sacrifice. Moriah is, therefore, indeed, not the mount of the becoming visible, of the revelation of God (Delitzsch), but the mount of being seen, the mount of selection, the mount of the choice of the sacrifice of God—inclusive of the sacrifices of God. [And thus of the sacrifice.—A. G.] For Moriah and Zion, compare the Bible Dictionaries and the topography of Jerusalem. 4. The second call from heaven (Genesis 22:15-19). The subject of the first call was preλminently negative, a prohibition of the human sacrifice, connected with a recognition of the spiritual sacrifice, ascertained, and confirmed through this suggestion of the typical nature of the sacrifice. The second call of the Maleach Jehovah is throughout positive.—By myself have I sworn.—The oath of Jehovah (Genesis 24:7; Genesis 26:3; Genesis 50:24; Exodus 13:5; Exodus 11:33) is described here as a swearing by himself, also, Exodus 32:13; Isaiah 45:23; Hebrews 6:13 ff. The swearing of God by himself, is an anthropomorphic expression, for the irrevocable, certain promise of Jehovah, for which he, so to speak, pledges the consciousness of his own personality, the promise as it imprints itself in the perfect sealing of the assurance of the faith of the believing patriarchs. Abraham can only be certain of the oath of God, through its eternal echo in his own heart. Hence this oath is supposed also where the perfection of the assurance of the faith is supposed. Hence, also, Jehovah declares that he had sworn unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and it is not altogether correct, although Keil yields his assent, when Luther says with reference to Psalms 89:36; Psalms 110:4; Psalms 132:11, “As the promise of the seed of Abraham descends in the seed of David, so the sacred scriptures transfer the oath given to Abraham, to the person of David.” Although “there is nothing said in the promise, 2 Samuel 7, and 1 Chronicles 17 upon which these psalms rest, of an oath of God.” Knobel. The oath of God reveals itself even in the sealing of the faith, leaving out of view the fact that the promise given to David was much more particular and definite than that which Abraham received.—Saith the Lord (the saying of Jehovah).—[Compare the rendering of the Sept., thou hast not withheld thy son, with the terms of the apostle, Romans 8:32. The resemblance is striking, and is One of the catch-words of which Wordsworth speaks.—A. G.] A solemn statement of the promise, pointing down to the time of the prophets. πְ ?ΰֻ ?νιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, address of the Lord, occurs elsewhere in the Pentateuch only (Numbers 14:28), and without Jehovah in the words of Balaam (Numbers 24:3-15). In addition to the comparison of the number of the stars of heaven (Genesis 15:5), we have that of the sand upon the sea-shore, the strong figure for an innumerable mass (Genesis 32, 13; Joshua 11:4).—Shall possess the gate of his enemies.—The most obvious sense is this: Israel should overcome his enemies, and capture their cities, since he should seize and occupy their gates. But the gate here points to a deeper meaning. The hostile world has a gate or gates in its susceptibilities, through which the believing Israel should enter it (Psalms 24:7-9). The following words prove that this is the sense of the words here.—And shall be blessed (shall bless themselves).—The blessing of the nations (Genesis 12) in which they appear still in a passive attitude, becomes, in its result, the cause of their freely blessing themselves in the seed of Abraham, i.e., wishing blessedness, and calling themselves blessed.—Because thou hast obeyed my voice (comp. Genesis 22:16).—The great promise of Jehovah is no blind, arbitrary, form, but stands in relation to the tried and believing obedience of Abraham (see James 2:23). [The closing remarks of Keil on this passage, are as follows: This glorious issue of the temptation so triumphantly endured by Abraham, not only authenticates the historical character of this event, but shows, in the clearest manner, that the temptation was necessary to the faith of the patriarch, and of fundamental importance to his position in the history of salvation. The doubt whether the true God could demand a human sacrifice, is removed by the fact that God himself prevents the completion of the sacrifice, and the opinion that God, at least apparently, comes into conflict with himself, when he demands a sacrifice, and then actually forbids and prevents its completion, is met by the very significant change in the names of God, since God who commands Abraham to offer Isaac, is called ηָ ?ΰֶ ?μֹ ?δִ ?εν, but the actual completion of the sacrifice is prevented by ιδεδ, who is identical with the ξַ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ. Neither ιδεδ, the God of salvation, or the God of the covenant, who gave to Abraham the only son as the heir of the promise, demands the sacrifice of the promised and given heir, nor ΰμδιν, God the creator, who has the power to give and take away life, but δΰμδιν, the true God, whom Abraham knew and worshipped as his personal God, with whom he had entered into a personal relation. The command (coming from the true God, whom Abraham served) to yield up his only and beloved son, could have no other object than to purify and sanctify the state of the heart of the patriarch towards his son, and towards his God; an object corresponding to the very goal of his calling. It was to purify his love to the son of his body from all the dross of fleshly self-love, and natural self-seeking which still clave to it, and so to glorify it through love to God, who had given him his son, that he should no more love his beloved son as his flesh and blood, but solely and only as the gracious gift and possession of God, as a good entrusted to him by God, and which he was to be ready to render back to him at any and every moment. As Abraham had left his country, kindred, father’s house, at the call of God, so he must, in his walk before God, willingly bring his only son, the goal of his desires, the hope of his life, the joy of his old age, an offering. And more than this even. He had not only loved Isaac as the heir of his possessions (Genesis 15:2,) but upon Isaac rested all the promises of God, in Isaac should his seed be called (Genesis 21:12). The command to offer to God this only son of his wife Sarah, in whom his seed should become a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:4; Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16), appeared to destroy the divine promise itself; to frustrate not only the wish of his heart, but even the repeated promises of his God. At this command should his faith perfect itself to unconditional confidence upon God, to the firm assurance that God could reawaken him from the dead. But this temptation has not only the import for Abraham, that he should, through the overcoming of flesh and blood, be fitted to be the father of believers, the ancestor of the Christ of God; through it, also, Isaac must be prepared and consecrated for his calling in the history of salvation. As he suffered himself, without resistance, to be bound and laid upon the altar, he gave his natural life to death, that he might, through the grace of God, rise to newness of life. Upon the altar he was sanctified to God, consecrated to be the beginner of the holy Church of God, and thus “the later legal consecration of the first-born was completed in him” (Delitzsch). As the divine command, therefore, shows in all its weight and earnestness the claim of God upon his own, to sacrifice all to him, even the most dear (comp. Matthew 10:37, and Luke 14:26), penetrating even to the very heart, so the issue of the temptation teaches that the true God does not demand from his worshippers a bodily human sacrifice, but the spiritual sacrifice, the unconditional yielding up of the natural life, even unto death. Since through the divine providence Abraham offered a ram for a burnt-offering, instead of his son, the animal sacrifice was not only offered as a substitute for the human sacrifice, and sanctioned as a symbol of the spiritual sacrifice of the person himself, well pleasing to God, but the offering of human sacrifices by the heathen, is marked as an ungodly ἐθελοθρησκεία, judged and condemned. And this comes to pass through Jehovah, the God of salvation, who restrains the completion of the external sacrifice. Hence, this event, viewed with respect to the divine preparation of salvation, wins for the church of the Lord prophetic significance, which is pointed out with peculiar distinctness in the place of this sacrifice, the mount Moriah, upon which, under the legal economy, all the typical sacrifices were brought to Jehovah, upon which, also, in the fulness of time, God the Father, gave his only-begotten Son an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, in order, through this one true sacrifice, to raise the shadowing image of the typical animal sacrifice to its truth and real nature. If, therefore, the destination of Moriah, as the place for the offering of Isaac, with the actual offering of the ram in his stead, should be only at first typical, with reference to the significance and object of the Old Testament sacrifice, still this type already, also, points down to that in the future appearing antitype, when the eternal love of the Heavenly Father, itself, did what it demanded here from Abraham, namely, spared not his only-begotten son, but gave him, for us all, up to that death actually, which Isaac only endured in spirit, that we might die with Christ spiritually, and with him rise to eternal life (Romans 8:32; Romans 6:5, etc.), pp. 177–17.—A. G.] AND ETHICAL1. The ruling thought in this whole narrative, is the perfection of the obedience of faith of Abraham, not merely, however, in the sacrifice of his son, but also in his readiness to perceive the revelation of Jehovah, which forbids the killing of his son, and causes the symbolic killing of the sacrifice provided as the seal and confirmation of the spiritual sacrifice. Faith must prove itself in the inward hearty concession of the dearest objects of life, even of all our own thoughts, as to the realization of salvation, present and future, to the providence of the grace of God. But it cannot complete itself with reference to this salvation, without purifying itself, or allowing itself to be purified from all traditional, fanatical ideas, or misconceptions of faith. In the completion of faith, the highest divinity coincides with the purest humanity. The sacrifice of Isaac is, therefore, the real separation of the sacred Israelitish sacrifice from the abominations of human sacrifices. “These sacrifices, especially of children, were customary among the pre-Hebraic nations of Palestine (2 Kings 16:3; Psalms 106:38), among the kindred Ph�nicians (Porphyr. de abstin. ii. 56; Euseb. Pr�par. ev. i. 10, and Laudd. Const. xiii. 4), among their descendants, the Carthaginians (Diod. xx. 14, Plutarch, etc.), among the Egyptians (Diod. i. 88, etc.), among the tribes related with Israel, the Moabites and Ammonites (2 Kings 3:27) who honored Moloch with them (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2), appear also in the Aramaic and Arabian tribes (2 Kings 7:31 ff.), as well as in Ahaz among the Israelites (2 Kings 16:3 ff.), but were forbidden by the law (Deuteronomy 12:31), and opposed by the prophets (Jeremiah 7:31 ff.). They were thus generally spread through the cultus of the nations in contact with Israel, but were entirely foreign to its legally established religion.” Knobel. According to Hengstenberg, the human sacrifice does not belong to heathenism in general, but to the darkest aspect of heathenism (Beitrδge iii. p. 144). Kurtz believes that he gives the correction (p. 210). The fact that the spirit of humanity among the Greeks and Romans opposed the human sacrifice (see Lange: Positive Dogmatik, p. 862), loses its force with him, since he ascribes this opposition to the religious and rationalistic superficialty of their times; the human sacrifices are, indeed, a fearful madness, but a madness of doubt as to the true sacrifice, of hopelessness as to finding the true atonement. But the true atonement is even in the death of Christ, the obedient concession of Christ to the judgment of God; and the analogy of the crucifixion of Christ in the Moloch-sacrifice, must be distinguished from it both on the side of Judaism and of the world. The entire perversion of the fact that the religion of Jehovah abhors and rejects the human sacrifice, as it has been introduced by Vatke and Von Bohlen (the religion of Jehovah stood originally upon the same plane with the Moloch service), and has been completed by Daumer, Kurtz has examined and exposed in a most satisfactory way (p. 204 ff.). [The arbitrariness and blasphemy of Daumer, and the boldness with which he makes his assertions in the face of all history, render his work unworthy of any serious refutation. And Kurtz justly treats it with ridicule.—A. G.] Ghillany’s essay: “The Human Sacrifice of the Old Hebrews,” may be, also, consulted here, but is essentially one with Daumer. 2. The sacrifice of Isaac has an inward connection with the expulsion of Ishmael, which will appear more clearly if we recollect that the age of both at the time of these events must have been nearly the same. Thus must Abraham repent in the history of Isaac, the human guilt which lay in his relation to Ishmael. But as he had surely doubted a long time as to the choice of Ishmael, so also a doubt intrudes itself as to the literal external sense of the divine command in regard to Isaac; a doubt which can no more prejudice or limit the divine revelation than perhaps the doubting thought of Paul upon the way to Damascus, but rather serves to introduce the new revelation. [The narrative of Paul’s conversion will not bear out this comparison. He does not seem to have been in any doubt, but was, as he himself says, conscientious. He verily thought that he ought to persecute the Church of God.—A. G.] 3. The distinction between the divine revealed command and Abraham’s misconception of it, is similar to the distinction between the infallible conscience and the fallible judgment in regard to conscience, which has not been sufficiently noticed in theology. Thus also Peter, on his way from Joppa to Cζsarea, with the divine commission to convert Cornelius, might have connected with it the misconception that he must first circumcise him, but the further revelation tears away the misconception. The stripping away of the erroneous and unessential ideas of the time, belongs also to a sound development of faith. 4. The burnt-offering of Abraham appears here as the foundation and central point of all the typical sacrifices in Israel. Its fundamental thought is the spiritual yielding of the life, not the taking of the bodily life. It receives its wider form in the Passover lamb, in which the division of the offerings is already intimated, viz., the thank or peace-offering and the consecrated killing on the one hand, and the sin-and guilt- (trespass) offering and the imprecatory offering on the other, The peculiar atonement offering is a higher centralization and completion, in which the whole system of offerings points to that which is beyond and above itself. 5. The mountain of Jerusalem receives, through the offering of Abraham, its preconsecration to its future destination as the later mount Moriah upon which the temple stood, the preconsecration of the historical faith in God, which transcends the unhistorical faith in God of Melchizedec. 6. The Angel of the Lord gives the more accurate and particular definition of that which Elohim has pointed out in the more general way. 7. The obedience of faith which Abraham renders in the sacrifice of Isaac, marks the historical perfection of his faith, in a decisive test. It marks the stage of the New Testament δοκιμή, or sealing (see the Biblework upon James). 8. The typical significance of the sacrifice of Isaac is so comprehensive that we may view it, in some measure, as embracing all Old Testament types, just as the sacrifice of Abraham itself may be regarded as including the whole Mosaic system of sacrifices. The sacrifice itself is the type of the sacrificial death of Christ, and indeed, just as truly, in reference to the interest of God, as to the interest of the world in this fact. The self-denial of Abraham is a copy, a symbol (not perhaps a type) of the love of God, who gave his only-begotten Son for the salvation of the world (John 3:16 : Romans 8:32). The sacrificial act of Abraham, as also the enduring silence of Isaac, is typical in reference to the two sides of the suffering obedience of Christ, as he is priest and sacrifice at the same time. Isaac received again from the altar is now, in reference to Abraham, a God-given, consecrated child of the Spirit and of promise: in reference to Christ, a type of the resurrection, and therefore, also a type of the new resurrection life of believers. 9. Since Abraham must have reconciled the promise, earlier connected with the person of Isaac, with the command to offer Isaac as he understood the command, he was necessarily driven to the hope of a new awakening, as this is admirably expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Genesis 11:19). Luther remarked upon the obedience of faith: “Faith reconciles things which are contrary.” [Abraham’s faith rested not upon the conclusions of his understanding, but upon the word of God. The nature and strength of his faith appear in that he held to the promise while he went promptly to do what, to human view, seemed to prevent its fulfilment. He set to his seal that God was true. He believed that God would fulfil all that he had promised. How he did not stay to question. This is true faith. It takes the word of God as it is, in the face of all difficulties, and acts upon it.—A. G.] But this reconciliation of apparent contradictions does not happen in this method, that faith in blind passivity receives and holds the contradictions, or rather, suffers them to remain (as, e.g., universal grace and particular election), but that faith itself is brought, through the spirit of revelation, to a higher standpoint. [But is not this standpoint just that from which faith receives truths apparently contradictory, upon their own evidence in the word of God, and holds them, though it is not seen how they can be reconciled?—A.G.]—In the anticipating activity of his faith, Abraham gained the idea of the resurrection, but in the actual issue of the history of the sacrifice he gained the idea of the true sacrifice (Psalms 51:18-19 : Hebrews 10:19 ff.), as also the fundamental form of the Old Testament sacrifice. [In the stead of his son. “The wonderful substitution in which God set forth, as in a figure, the plan of the Mosaic economy, for the offering of animal victims instead of human sacrifices—pointing forward to the only acceptable substitute whom they foreshadowed, who is God’s Lamb and not man’s—the Lamb of God’s providing and from his own bosom. His only-begotten and well-beloved Son, the man—the God-man.” Jacobus. And this great doctrine, running through the whole system of sacrifice, culminates in the sacrifice of Christ—the innocent in the stead of the guilty.—A. G.] 10. Delitzsch: “The concession unto death at the threshold of the preliminary history of the new-humanity is not completed, but merely a prefiguration, for Isaac’s death would have been useless, but the concession unto death at the threshold of the history itself is completed, because the fulfilling and perfection of the death of Christ is the passing of himself, and with him of humanity, into life. Judaism believes differently. It sees in the sacrifice or binding of Isaac an act serviceable for all time, and bringing Israel into favour with God. Where the Church prays for the sake of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, the Synagogue prays for the sake of the binding of Isaac” (p. 418). 11. The oath of Jehovah. It is not merely the basis for the oaths of men, but: 1. The expression of the absolute self-determination, consciousness, and faithfulness of the personal God; 2. The expression of a corresponding unshaken certainty of faith in the hearts of believers; 3. The expression of the indissoluble union between the divine promise and the human assurance. 12. The name Moriah points out that as God himself perceives (selects) his sacrifice in the readiness of an obedient heart to make the sacrifice, man should wait in expectation, and not make an arbitrary and abominable sacrifice. 13. W. Hoffmann: “Until now we hear only of the bruiser of the serpent, of a conqueror, of a blessing of the nations, of a dominion; in short only the image of a great king and dominion, could present itself to human thought as the form in which the divine salvation should reach perfection. But now sorrow, concession, death, the rendering of self as a sacrifice, enter into the circle of the hope of salvation, and indeed so enter that the hope of salvation and the sacrifice belong together and are inseparable.” 14. The completion of the promise. As the whole history of the sacrifice of Isaac is typical, so also is the expression of the completed promise. It refers beyond Israel, to the innumerable children of Abraham by faith, and the conquest of the world, promised to them, appears both in the aspect of a contest, as in that of the solemn feasts of victory and blessing. 15. We cannot say directly that Abraham sacrificed Isaac as a natural son, that he might receive him again sanctified and as a spiritual son. For Isaac was given to him as the son of the promise from his birth. But he sacrificed him in his present corporeal nature, that he might receive him again as the type of a second, new, and higher life. Thus Israel must sacrifice its ideas of the present kingdom of God in order to gain the true kingdom of God which is not of this world. The want of this idea of sacrifice betrays the most of them into unbelief through Chiliastic dreams. It happens similarly to all who, in the sacrificial hour appointed by God, will not sacrifice their inherited ideas that they may gain a glorified form of faith. On the other hand, every arbitrary external sacrifice is regarded and judged as a self-chosen service of God. 16. The meaning of the ram in the sacrifice of Abraham is not to be lightly estimated. It designates figuratively the fact, that Christ also, in his sacrificial death, has not lost his own peculiar life, but, as the leading shepherd of his flock, has only sacrificed his old temporal form of a servant, in order that through his death he might redeem them from death, the fear of death, the bondage of sin and Satan, and introduce them into a higher, deathless life. [In the person of Abraham is unfolded that spiritual process by which the soul is drawn to God. He hears the call of God, and comes to the decisive act of trusting in the revealed God of mercy and truth, on the ground of which act he is accounted as righteous. He then rises to the successive acts of walking with God, covenanting with him, communing and interceding with him, and at length withholding nothing that he has or holds dear from him. In all this we discern certain primary and essential characteristics of the man who is saved through acceptance of the mercy of God proclaimed to him in a primeval gospel. Faith in God (Genesis 15), repentance towards him (Genesis 16), and fellowship with him (Genesis 18), are the three great turning-points of the soul’s returning life. They are built upon the effectual call of God (Genesis 12), and culminate in unreserved resignation to him (Genesis 22). With wonderful facility has the sacred record descended in this pattern of spiritual biography, from the rational and accountable race to the individual and immortal soul, and traced the footsteps of its path to God. Murphy p. 342.—A. G.] AND Through the traditional exegetical interpretation, the sacrifice of Isaac has often been used homiletically without due caution. What Kurtz in his work asserts with confidence we often hear also from the pulpit—God commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac. Thus a gross sensuous interpretation in fact transforms a history which is the key to the nature of the whole Old-Testament sacrificial system, which presents in a striking light the humane aspect of the theocracy in contrast with heathenism, into an offence to the human and Christian feeling, i.e., an offence which is burdensome and injurious to a limited and contracted theology, but must be carefully distinguished from the offences or difficulties of unbelief. We make this remark notwithstanding Kurtz thinks that he must administer to us a rebuke for similar utterances (p. 206). Luther also has already spoken of the difficulty in treating this passage correctly. Genesis 22:1. The testing or trying of Abraham, as full of temptation: 1. As a temptation; 2. as a testing. Or: 1. The sacrifice of God; 2. Abraham’s obedience of faith. Genesis 22:2. Abraham’s sacrifice: 1. The command of God; 2. the leading of God; 3. the decision of God; 4. the judgment of God. Genesis 22:3. Abraham’s obedience of faith: 1. Faith as the soul of obedience; 2. obedience as the full preservation of faith.—Abraham’s sealing. Genesis 22:16. The oath of God: 1. What it means; 2. as it perpetuates and generalizes itself in the sacraments; 3. to whose advantage it will be.—The silence of Isaac. Genesis 22:4. Abraham’s journey to Moriah an image of the way to all true sacrifice: 1. The journey thither; 2. the journey home.—Moriah, or the meeting of God with the sacrificing believer: 1. God sees; 2. he is seen, appears; 3. he cares for, provides; 4. he himself selects his sacrifice; 5. he gives to man in an eternal form what he has taken from him in a temporal form. Starke: (Moses does not relate the peculiar time of this severe test of Abraham’s faith. Some place it in the thirteenth, others in the fifteenth, and still others in the thirty-fifth or thirty-seventh year of Isaac. Because in this whole transaction Isaac was a type of Christ, and he finished the work of redemption, through his death, in the thirty-third, or according to others the thirty-fourth, year of his age, it may well be thought that in this year also Isaac was led out as a sacrifice.—The existing incorrect use of the typology still runs through the misconceptions of Passavant and Schwenke. He is three and thirty years old, says Schwenke; and Passavant says he was grown up to be a mature man.)—Some reckon ten temptations wherein Abraham’s faith was put to the test, among which this was the last and most severe: 1. When he must leave his fatherland at the call of God (Genesis 12:1), etc. Genesis 22:2. (Offer him there, put him to death with thine own hand, then burn the dead body to ashes, thus make him a burnt-offering.—Luther and others think that Adam, Cain and Abel, Noah also when he came from the ark, held their worship of God and sacrificed upon this mountain. Hence the Arabic and both the Chaldaic interpreters name it the land of the worship and service of God.—Various ancient utterances as to the mountain of Moriah and its meaning follow.) Genesis 22:4. God reveals the place where our Saviour should suffer and die, earlier than the city in which he should be born (we must distinguish, however, between verbal and typical prophecy).—The two servants of Abraham. It is scarcely, at least not seriously, to be conjectured even, as the Chaldaic interpreters suppose, that they were Ishmael and Eliezer.—Neither Sarah nor Isaac knew at the time the special object of the journey. Undoubtedly the mother would have placed many hindrances in the way, and would have sought to dissuade Abraham for entering it.—When it is said (Hebrews 11:19) that he had received him as a figure, we discern what Abraham knew through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. (At all events Abraham knew that the sacrifice of the first-born should henceforth be an ordinance of God, and that this should culminate in a closing sacrifice bringing salvation).—The three days of the journey.—Abraham must in his heart hold his son as dead, as long as Christ should lie in the grave.—But one must above all else guard against a self-chosen service of God.—Upon Genesis 22:8. He stood at the time in the midst of the controversy between natural love and faith.—(The altar upon Moriah. The Jews think that it was the altar which Noah had built upon this mountain after the flood, which time had thrown into ruins, but was again rebuilt by Abraham.)—Upon Genesis 22:13. The LXX render, in the thicket, Sabek. They regarded it as a proper name, which shows the ignorance of the Hebrew language in the Greek commentators, after the Babylonian captivity. Starke records the fact, that some “Papists” refer the expression of Christ upon the cross, lama sabacthani, to this bush Sabek, and that Athanasius says, Planta Sabek est venerand crux.—Comparison of the sacrifice of Isaac with the death and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:13). Genesis 22:10. Lange: God knows the right hour, indeed, the right moment, to give his help.—Bibl. Wirt.: If our obedience shall please God, it must be not merely according to examples without command, but in accordance with the express word of God.—Bibl. Tub.: Genesis 22:11. When we cannot see on any side a way of escape, then God comes and often shows us a wonderful deliverance.—Hall: The true Christian motto through the whole of life is: The Lord sees me. Genesis 22:15. The last manifestation of God with which Abraham was directly honored, which appears in the Holy Scriptures.—The oath of God: just as if he had sworn by his name, or by his life. In place of this form of speech Christ uses very often the Verily.—John 16:20.—What one gives for God, and to him, is never lost. [Not only not lost, but received back again in its higher form and use. Even so every child of Abraham must hold all that is most precious to him as the gift of God’s grace; must first yield to God the blessings which seem to come to him as to others, as mere natural blessings, and then receive them back as coming purely from his grace.—A. G.] Lisco: What could better teach the Jews the true idea and aim of the whole sacrificial service (the perfect yielding to God) than the history of Abraham? Genesis 22:6. Thus Jesus bare his cross. Genesis 22:18. The great blessing is Christ who brings blessings to all nations (Acts 3:25; Galatians 3:8).—When God brings a dear child near to death, or indeed calls it away, he thus proves us in a like way.—Gerlach: The name Moriah signifies, shown, pointed out, by Jehovah, and refers especially to the wonderful pointing to the ram, through which Isaac was saved, since this was for Abraham the turning-point of the history, through which God confirmed his promise and crowned the faith of Abraham. Genesis 22:12. God knows: he knows from experience, from the testing, that the man remains faithful to him, since without the test his faithfulness is uncertain. He foreknew it, in so far as he foreknew the result of the trial.—Calw. Hand.: God naturally lays such severe trials not upon children, but upon men.—Abraham kept his faith in God, as Jehovah, through his act; now also God will approve himself to Abraham, as Jehovah.—This same promise appears here for the third time (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18) as a reward for Abraham’s obedience and triumph of faith.—Each new well-endured trial of faith leads to greater strength of faith; the fruit of faith yields nourishment again to faith itself.—The act of faith on the part of Abraham here described, is held, not only by Jews and Christians, but even by Mohammedans, as the very acme of all his testing, and as the most complete obedience of his faith.—Schrφder: Genesis 22:1. He is constantly leading us into situations in which what lies concealed in the heart must be revealed.—The devil tempts that he may destroy; God tempts that he may crown (Ambrose).—The temptation has as a presupposition, that God has not yet been perfectly formed in us (Hengstenberg).—The idea of the sacrifice (1 Samuel 1:25). And they slew the bullock and brought the child to Eli (comp. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECTIONThe sorrows and joys of Abraham’s domestic life. The account and genealogy of those at home. Sarah’s death. Her burial-place at Hebron; the seed of the future inheritance of Canaan. The theocratic foundation of the consecrated burial Genesis 22:20 to Genesis 23:2020 And it came to pass after these things that it was told Abraham, saying [what follows], 21Behold, Milcah, she hath also borne children unto thy brother Nahor; Huz [see Genesis 10:23; a light sandy land, in northern Arabia] his first born, and Buz [a people and region in western Arabia] 22his brother, and Kemuel [the congregation of God] the father of Aram. And Chesed [the name of a Chaldaic tribe], and Hazo [an Aramaic and Chaldaic tribe; Gesenius: perhaps for ηָ ?ζεֹ ?δ, vision], and Pildash [Fόrst: τֶּ ?μֶ ?γΰָ ?ωׁ, flame of fire], and Jidlaph [Gesenius: tearful; Fόrst: melting away, pining], and Bethuel [Gesenius: man of God. Fόrst: dwelling-place or people of God]. 23And Bethuel begat Rebekah [Ribkah, captivating, ensnaring; Fόrst: through beauty]: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham’s brother. 24And his concubine, whose name was Reumah [Gesenius: raised, elevated; Fόrst: pearl or coral], she bare also Tebah [Fόrst: extension, breadth; a locality in Mesopotamia], and Gaham [Gesenius: having flaming eyes; Fόrst: the black; an Aramaic, dark-colored tribe], and Thahash [the name of an unknown animal: badger, marten, seal?], and Maachah [low-lands; a locality at the foot of Hermon; used besides as a female name]. Genesis 23:1.And Sarah was an hundred and twenty and seven years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah. 2And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba [city of Arba]; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her. 3And Abraham stood-up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, 4I am a stranger and a sojourner [not a citizen] with you: give me a possession of a burying-place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight. 5And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him, 6Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince [a prince of God] among us: in the choice [most excellent] of our sepulchres bury thy dead: none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead. 7And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth. 8And he communed with them, saying, If it be your mind [soul, soul-desire] that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and entreat for me to Ephron [Fόrst: more powerful, stronger] the son of Zohar [splendor, noble]. 9That he may give me the cave of Machpelah [Gesenius: doubling; Fόrst: winding, serpentine], which he hath, which is in the end of his field; for as much money as it is worth [full money] he shall give it me for a possession of a burying-place [hereditary sepulchre] among you. 10And Ephron dwelt [sat] among the children of Heth. And Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the audience [ears] of the children of Heth, even of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying, 11Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give I thee, and the cave that is therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee: bury thy dead. 12And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land. 13And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land, saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me [give me hearing]: I will give thee money for the field; take it from me, and I will bury my dead there. 14And Ephron answered Abraham, saying unto him, 15My lord, hearken unto me: the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that betwixt me and thee? bury therefore thy dead. 16And Abraham hearkened [followed] unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant. 17And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees which were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure [stood] 18Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city. 19And after this Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan. 20And the field, and the cave that is therein, were made sure unto Abraham for a possession of a burying-place by the sons of Heth. AND 1. Survey. The two sections which we have here placed together, with the following and the last sections of the life of Abraham, form a contrast with his previous history. The revelations from God, the wonderful events of his life, cease, for Abraham’s life of faith is completed with the sacrifice of Isaac. To the wonderful completion of the faith of Abraham there is now added the purely natural and human perfection of Abraham. Its history is certainly much shorter, but it is at the same time a proof that the miraculous in the Old Testament does not stand in any exclusive relation to the material and human. A mythology seeking to produce effect, would have closed the life of the father of the faithful with some splendid supernatural or heroic events. It is, on the other hand, a trait of the true historical character of the tradition here, that it closes the life of Abraham in the way already stated. But at the same time the true christological character of the Old Testament history, wherein it forms the introduction to the New Testament manifestation of the God-man, discovers itself therein, that the history of the life of Abraham does not close abruptly with his greatest act of faith, but that from and out of this act of faith there proceeds a natural and human progress of a consecrated and sanctified life, a course of life into which even the second marriage of Abraham does not enter as a disturbing element. A termination of this kind has already appeared in the life of Noah, appears later in the life of Jacob; and has its New Testament counterpart in the history of the forty days of the risen Christ. But as in the life of Jesus, so in the life of Abraham, the events after the great contests of faith are not without importance. The two sections which we have combined under this point of view, the family sorrows and family joys of Abraham point downwards to the history of Isaac and Israel. From the son of Abraham there must now be a family of Abraham, and to this the family genealogy of the house of Nahor serves as an introduction. This genealogical register first names Rebekah, and then lays the ground for the mission and the wooing of the bride by Eliezer (Genesis 24), a history in which also the wooing of his bride by Jacob is introduced through the mention of Laban. But as the history of the family of Abraham is introduced through the record of the house of Nahor, so also is the first possession of Abraham and his descendants in Canaan introduced by the narrative of the death of Sarah. The burial-place in the cave and field of Machpelah, are made a point of union for the later appropriation of Canaan by the people of God, just as in the new covenant, the grave of Christ has introduced for Christians the future possession of the earth; a method of conquest which unfolds itself through the graves of the martyrs and the crypts of Christian churches throughout the whole world. “The testing of the faith of Abraham is completed with the sacrifice of Isaac, the end of his divine calling is fulfilled, and henceforward the history of his life hastens to its conclusion. It is altogether fitting that there should follow now, after this event, a communication to him concerning the family of his brother Nahor (Genesis 11:27 ff.), which is joined with so much appropriateness to the sacrifice of Isaac, since it leads on to the history of the marriage of the heir of the promise. The βַּ ?νδִ ?ιΰ (comp. Gen _2:29) also points to this actual connection. As Sarah had borne a son to Abraham, Milcah also bare sons to Nahor. βַּ ?νδִ ?ιΰ of Genesis 23:24 refers back to Genesis 23:20.” Keil.—Schrφder: “This paragraph is merely a continuation of Gen 11:27 ff. As Genesis 19:37-38, brought the side line of Haran to its goal and end, so here the side line of Nahor is continued still further, a testimony, moreover, that Moses never loses the genealogical thread of the history.” 2. Genesis 22:20-24. Knobel holds the number twelve of the sons of Nahor, as also of the sons of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13 ff.) for an imitation of the twelve tribes of Israel. It is unjustifiable to infer from such accidental, or even important resemblances, without further grounds, that the record is fiction. It is certainly true also, that of the sons of Nahor, as also of the sons of Jacob, four are the sons of a concubine. Still, as Keil observes in the history of the sons of Jacob, there are two mothers as also two concubines. Keil also opposes, upon valid grounds, the view of Knobel, that the twelve sons of Nahor must signify twelve tribes of his descendants; thus, e.g., Bethuel does not appear as the founder of a tribe. “It is probably true only of some of the names, that those who bore them were ancestors of tribes of the same name.” Keil.—Huz his first-born.—He must be distinguished from the son of Aram (Genesis 10:23), and from the Edomite (Genesis 30:28). Knobel holds that he must be sought in the neighborhood of the Edomites.—Buz.—“Also, since this tribe is mentioned (Jeremiah 25:23) in connection with Dedan, and Thema, aud since Elihu, the fourth opponent of Job, belonged to it (Job 32:2).” Knobel.—Kemuel—“Is not the ancestor or founder of the Aramaic people, but an ancestor of the family of Ram, to which the Buzite, Elihu, also belonged, since ΰֲ ?ψָ ?ν stands for ψָ ?ν.” Keil.—Chesed.—The chief tribe of the Chaldees appears to have been older than Chesed, but he seems to have been the founder of a younger branch of the Chaldees who plundered Job (Job 1:17).—Bethuel, the father of Rebekah (see Genesis 25:20).—Maacha.—Deuteronomy 3:14; Joshua 12:5, allude to the Maachathites. At the time of David the land Maacha was a small Aramaic kingdom (2 Samuel 10:6-8; 1 Chronicles 19:6). “The others never appear again.” Keil. For conjectures in regard to them, see Knobel, p. 194. For the difference in the names Aram, Uz, Chasdim, see Delitzsch, p. 422. 3. Gerlach: “The German word ‘Kebsweib’ signifies a woman taken out of the condition of service, or bondage, and this is the meaning of the Hebrew term. Besides one or more legal wives, a man might take, according to the custom of the ancients, one from the rank of slaves, whose children, not by Abraham, but by Jacob, were made sharers alike with the legally born (naturally, since, they were held for the adopted children of Rachel and Leah). It was a kind of lower marriage, as with us the marriage ‘on the left,’ for the concubine was bound to remain faithful (Judges 19:2; 2 Samuel 3:7), and any other man who went in unto her, must bring his trespass offering (Leviticus 19:20); the father must treat the concubine of his son as his child, and the son also, after the contraction of a marriage with one of equal rank, must still treat her as his concubine (Exodus 21:9-10).” 4. Genesis 23:1-20. Sarah’s death and burial in the cave of Machpelah, purchased with the adjoining field, by Abraham, from the children of Heth as a possession of a burying-place. Knobel and Delitzsch find in the antique and detailed method of statement, and similar traits, the stamp of the characteristics of the fundamental Elohistic writing. The more truly the human side of the theocratic history comes into relief, this peculiar, pleasant, picturesque tone of the narrative appears, as, e.g., in the next so-called Jehovistic chapter. The division of this section into two parts, the one of which should embrace only the two first verses, Sarah’s death (Delitzsch) is not in accordance with the unique, pervading method of statement throughout the whole. Sarah’s grave was the cradle of the Abrahamic kingdom in Canaan. The scene of the narration is in Hebron (now El Chalil). When Isaac was born, and also at the time of his sacrifice, Abraham dwelt at Beersheba (Genesis 22:19). At Isaac’s birth Sarah was ninety years old (Genesis 17:17), now she has reached 127 years, and Isaac is thus in his 37th year (see Genesis 25:20). “Between the journey to Moriah, and Sarah’s death, there is thus an interval of at least 20 years.” Delitzsch. During this interval Abraham must have changed his dwelling place to Hebron again. The mention of this change of residence may have appeared, therefore, superfluous to the writer, and further, it may be that even during his abode at Beersheba, Hebron was his principal residence, as Knobel conjectures.—The years of the life of Sarah.—The age of Sarah was impressed on the memory of the Israelites through this repetition, as a number which should not be forgotten. Keil: “Sarah is the only woman whose age is recorded in the Bible, because, as the mother of the seed of promise, she became the mother of all believers (1 Peter 3:6).”—Kirjath-Arba, the same is Hebron (see Genesis 13:18).—The name Kirjath-Arba, i.e., city of Arba, is marked by Keil after Hengstenberg as the later name (coming after Hebron), since the Anakim had not dwelt there at the time of the patriarchs, but Delitzsch, on the contrary, according to Joshua 14:15, and Judges 1:10, views it as the earlier name. Since, however, Numbers 13:22, the city at the very blooming period of the Anakim, was called Hebron, and, indeed, with reference to its being founded seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt, it seems clear that while the time mentioned in the books of Joshua and Judges, was an earlier time, it was not the earliest, and the succession in the names is this: Hebron, Kirjath-Arba, Hebron, El Chalil (the friend of God, viz., Abraham). It is still, however, a question whether Hebron may not designate specially a valley city of this locality, which belonged to the Hittites (see Genesis 37:14, where Hebron is described as a valley), the name Kirjath-Arba, on the contrary, the mountain and mountain city, belonging to the Anakim. The locality seems to favor the supposition of two neighboring cities, of which one could now use the valley city as the abode of Abraham for the whole locality, and now the mountain city. We have confessedly to accept such a relation between Sichem and the neighboring town Sichar, in order to meet the difficulty in John 4:5. Delitzsch explains the change of names through a change of owners. Even now Hebron is a celebrated city, at the same time a hill and valley city, although no longer, great and populous, situated upon the way from Beersheba to Jerusalem, and about midway between them (7–8 hours from Jerusalem), surrounded by beautiful vineyards, olive trees and orchards; comp. the articles in Winer’s “Dictionary,” Von Raumer, and the various descriptions of travellers. [Robinson’s description (ii. 431–462) is full and accurate, and leaves little to be desired.—A. G.]—In the land of Canaan.—This circumstance appears here conspicuously in honor of Sarah, and from the importance of her burial-place.—And Abraham came.—The shepherd prince was busy in his calling in the field, or in the environs. It is not said that he was absent at the death of Sarah, but only that he now sat down by the corpse at Hebron, to complete the usages of mourning (to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her), and to provide for her burial.—From before his dead (corpse).—From before his dead. He had mourned in the presence of the dead; now he goes to the gate of the city, where the people assembled, where the business was transacted, and where he could thus purchase a grave.—To the sons of Heth.—The name, according to Knobel, appears only in the Elohistic writings. [This attempt to define and characterize particular points of the book by the use of special names, breaks down so often that it may be regarded as no longer of any serious importance.—A. G.]—A possession of a burying-place with you.—It is, as F. C. V. Moser remarks, a beautiful scene of politeness, simplicity, kindness, frankness, humility, modesty, not unmingled with some shades of avarice, and of a kind of expectation when one in effecting a sale, throws himself upon the generosity of the purchaser.” Delitzsch. The delicate affair is introduced by the modest request of Abraham. As a stranger and a sojourner he had no possession, thus even no burying-place among them. He therefore asks that they would sell him a piece of ground for the purpose of a burial-place.—Thou art a mighty prince (a prince of God).—That is, a man to whom God has given a princely aspect, in consequence of communion with him. [A man whom God has favored and made great.—A. G.] They offer him a sepulchre, among the most select of their sepulchres (upon the exchange of μεֹ for μεּ see Knobel and the opposing remarks by Keil). [μֵ ?ΰξֹּ ?ψ is generally used absolutely, but the peculiarity here is not without analogy (see Leviticus 11:1), and does not justify the change to μεֹ nor that adopted by the Sept. μֹ ?ΰ.—A. G.] But Abraham cannot consent thus to mingle himself with them. He has a separate burying-place in his eye.—And Abraham stood up.—The reverential bowing is an expression of his gratitude and of his declining the offer. In the oriental bowing the person touches the earth with his brow. Luther often translates the word in question by “to worship,” in relation to men, where it is obviously unsuited to the sense.—If it be your mind.—Abraham introduces, in a very courtly and prudent way, his purpose to secure the cave of Ephron. It marks Ephron as a man of prominence and rank, that he avails himself of their intercession; Keil infers from the words his city (Genesis 23:10), that he was then lord of the city. This is doubtful.—The cave of Machpelah.—“The name is rendered in the Septuagint: τὸσπήλαιοντὸδιπλοῦν, according to the meaning of ξַ ?λְ ?τֵּ ?μָ ?δ. But it is a proper name, which is also true of the field (Genesis 49:30; Genesis 50:13), although it was originally derived from the form of the cave.” Keil. Caves were often used for sepulchres in Palestine (see Winer, sepulchres).—And Ephron, the Hittite, answered.—“When now Ephron offered to give the cave to Abraham—this is a mode of expression still in use in the East, by which, so far as it is seriously intended, leaving out of view any regard to a counterpresent, richly compensating the value of the present, for the most part it is designed to prevent any abatement from the price desired. [See ‘The Land and the Book,’ by Thompson, ii. 381–388.—A. G.] (Comp. Dieterici and descriptions of the Eastern lands, ii. p. 168 f.).” Keil. It is not certain that we should identify so directly the original utterance of true generosity with the like sounding form of a later custom. It must be observed, still, that Abraham modestly desired only to gain the cave, a place which was at the end of the field, and to this no one objected; on the contrary, Ephron offered him at the same time, the adjoining field. And this is in favor of the good intention of Ephron, since he could have sold to him the cave alone at a costly price.—And Abraham bowed down himself (again).—An expression, again, of esteem, thankfulness, and at the same time, of a declinature, but, also, an introduction to what follows. He presses, repeatedly, for a definite purchase. The answer of Ephron: “The field, four hundred shekels,” etc., announces again the price in courtly terms. Knobel explains: “A piece of land of so little value could not be the matter of a large transaction between two rich men.” But it is the more distinct echo of the offer of the present, and with this utters an excuse or apology for the demand, because he (Abraham) would insist upon having it thus.—And Abraham weighed.—“At that time none of the states had stamped coins which could be reckoned, but pieces of the metals were introduced in the course of trade, and these pieces were of definite weight, and, indeed, also marked with designations of the weight, but it was necessary to weigh these pieces in order to guard against fraud” (see Winer, article Mόnzen). Knobel. The use of coins for the greater convenience of original barter, has been regarded as the invention of the Ph�nicians, as also the invention of letters is ascribed to them.—Current money with the merchant.—The Hebrew term is ςֹ ?αֵ ?ψμַ ?ρֹּ ?ηֵ ?ψ, passing over, transitive; i.e., current, fitted for exchange in merchandise. The idea of the distinction between light pieces, and those of full weight, existed already. Keil: ‘The shekel of silver used in trade was about 274 Parisian grains, and the price of the land, therefore, about 250 dollars, a very considerable sum for the time.” The Rabbins ascribe the high price to the covetousness of Ephron. Delitzsch, however, reminds us, that Jacob purchased a piece of ground for 100 χְ ?ωִׂ ?ιθָ ?δ (Genesis 33:19), and the ground and limits upon which Samaria was built, cost two talents, i.e., 6,000 heavy shekels of silver (1 Kings 16:24). For the shekel see Delitzsch, p. 426. [Also article in Kitto on “Weights and Measures,” and in Smith’s “Dictionary.”—A. G.] It must be observed, too, that we cannot judge of the relation between the price and the field, since we do not know its bounds.—Machpelah, which was before Mamre.—For these local relations compare Delitzsch and Keil, and also 5. Raumer, p. 202. [Compare also Robinson: “Researches,” vol. ii. pp. 431–462; Stanley: “History of the Jew. Church.” This cave, so jealously guarded by the Mohammedans, has recently been entered by the Prince of Wales with his suite. Dean Stanley, who was permitted to enter the cave, says that the shrines “are what the Biblical narrative would lead us to expect, and there is evidence that the Mohammedans have carefully guarded these sacred spots, and they stand as the confirmation of our Christian faith.”—A. G.] The cave lay μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι (Genesis 23:17; comp. Genesis 23:19) before Mamre, i.e., over against the oak grove of Mamre; Keil and Knobel think eastward, Delitzsch southerly. But the expression here does not appear to refer to any quarter of the heavens. The valley of Hebron runs from north to south, in a southeasterly direction. Mamre and Machpelah must have been situated over against each other in the two sides, or the two ends, of this valley. Since the structure Haram, which the Mohammedan tradition (without doubt, a continuation of the earlier Christian tradition,) designates as the cave of Machpelah, or as Abraham’s grave, and which the Mohammedan power jealously guards against the entrance of Jews or Christians, lies upon the mountain-slope towards the east, it is clear that Mamre must be sought upon the end of the valley, or mountain-slope toward the west (which forms its eastern side). Here lies the height Numeidi, which Rosenmόller says is the land of Mamre. We must then hold that the grove of Mamre descended into the valley, and that Abraham dwelt here in the valley at the edge of the grove. Still the opposition in locality (the vis-ΰ-vis) may be defined from the high ground which lies northerly from Hebron, and is called Nimre or Nemreh (= Mamre?), but even then also Abraham must have dwelt at the foot of this eminence. However, according to the old Christian tradition (Schubert, Robinson, Seetzen, Ritter and others), this Hebron of Abraham (Wady el Rame or Ramet el Chalil, with its ruins of old walls and foundations) lay about an hour northward from the present city. This view is abandoned by the most recent commentators, since this would require too great a distance between Mamre and Hebron. So much seems at least to be established, viz., that the tradition in regard to Machpelah is confirmed, then that the tradition concerning Mamre and the location of Mamre, must be determined by the situation of Machpelah. [In regard to the words of St. Stephen, Acts 7:16, Wordsworth holds that Abraham purchased two burial-places, the first, the cave of Machpelah, the second at Sichar or Shechem; and that it is by design that the one should be communicated to us by the Holy Spirit, speaking by Moses, the Hebrew legislator, and the other by the Hellenist Stephen, when he pleaded before the Jewish Sanhedrim the cause of the faithfulness of all nations, p. 103. See also Alexander “on the Acts.”—A. G.]—And the field of Ephron was made sure.—The record of the transaction is very minute; first, in regard to the purchase price and the witnesses (Genesis 23:16), then in regard to the piece of ground (the cave, the field and all the trees) (Genesis 23:17), finally, in reference to the right of possession (again with the mention of witnesses) (Genesis 23:18); as if a legal contract was made and executed. Even the burial of Sarah belongs to the confirmation of the possession, as is apparent from the forms of Gen 23:19, and from the conclusion of the account in Genesis 23:20. AND ETHICAL(Upon Genesis 22:20-24.) 1. See the Exegetical and Critical remarks. 2. Joy follows upon sorrow, comfort succeeds the conflict. The message which Abraham received was very providential, and comes at the right moment. Isaac was saved, Soon Abraham must think of his marriage, and of the establishment of his family through him. The opportune account from Mesopotamia of the children of his brother Nahor laid the foundation for the hope in him. that he might find in his family a suitable bride for Isaac. Rebekah also is mentioned in the report. Rebekah appears as the youngest branch of the children of Nahor, his grandchild through Bethuel. She is in so far a late-birth, as Isaac was. Her brother Laban, who, in some respects, forms a parallel to Ishmael, the brother of Isaac, first appears later in the history. 3. It avails not for the race to be hasty, the race is not always to the swift. Nahor precedes Abraham with his twelve sons, as Ishmael does Isaac. In the line of Abraham, the twelve sons appear first in the third generation. 4. The message from Nahor’s house, the sign of a relationship and love, sanctified through a reference to higher ends. 5. Love excites the thoughts of the loved ones in the distance, forms the greeting, and devises also the messages in primitive times. Between the earliest messengers, the angels of God, and the latest form of human communication, the telegraph, there is every possible form of communication and kind of messengers; but they all ought to serve, and all shall, in accordance with their idea, serve the purposes of love and the kingdom of God.—The importance of the newspaper.—A pious man remarks: I have only two moulding books, the one is the Bible, the other the newspaper.—We should view all the events of the times in the light of God. 6. Nahor, the brother of Abraham, stands still in a spiritual relationship with him; both his message, and the piety and nobleness of his grandchild Rebekah, prove this. But he is clearly less refined than Abraham. Abraham suffers the espousal of Hagar to be pressed upon him, because he had no children; but Nahor, who had already eight children by Milcah, took in addition to her a concubine, Reumah.—Contrasts of this kind teach us to estimate the higher direction of the partriarchal life, as e.g. also the history of Lot, will be estimated in the mirror of the history of Sodom. (Upon Genesis 23.) 1. See the Exegetical and Critical remarks. 2. Sarah. “It was in the land of promise that Sarah, the ancestress of Israel, died. The Old Testament relates the end of no woman’s life so particularly as the end of the life of Sarah—for she is historically the most important woman of the old covenant. She is the mother of the seed of promise, and in him of all believers (1 Peter 3:6). She is the Mary of the old Testament. In her unshaken faith Mary rises still higher than Sarah, but the Scriptures neither record the length of her life, nor her death. This occurs because the son whom Sarah bare was not greater than herself, but Mary bore a son before whose glory all her own personality fades and vanishes away,” etc. Delitzsch. 3. Abraham, the father of believers, also a model of the customary courtliness, and a proof how this courtliness is, at the same time, an expression of regard, of human love and gratitude, a polished form of human friendship, and a protection of personality and truth. [Religion does not consist entirely in acts of worship, in great self-denials or heroic virtues, but in all the daily concerns and acts of our lives. It moulds and regulates our joys and sorrows; it affects our relations; it enters into our business. Thus we have the faith and piety of Abraham, presented in the ordinary changes, the joys, the sorrows, and the business transactions of his life.—A. G.] 4. Our history is a living portraiture of the courtliness and urbanity general in the remote antiquity and in the East. 5. The traffic and purchase of Abraham, throughout, a testimony of Israelitish prudence and foresight, but free from all Jewish meanness and covetousness. 6. The gradual development of money, or of the measures in value of earthly things, proceeding from the rating of the nobler metals, especially of silver, according to its weight. The importance of the Ph�nicians in this respect. 7. A precious gain, the gain of a burial possession for her descendants, is connected with the death of Sarah. “The first real-estate property of the patriarchs was a grave. This is the only good which they buy from the world, the only enduring thing they find here below, etc. In that sepulchre Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, were laid, there Jacob laid Leah, and there Jacob himself would rest after his death, even in death itself a confessor of his faith in the promise. This place of the dead becomes the punctum saliens of the possession of the promised land. It was designedly thus minutely described, as the glorious acquisition of the ancestors of Israel. It was indeed the bond which ever bound the descendants of Abraham in Egypt to the land of promise, drew with magnetic power their desires thither, and, collected in Canaan, they should know where the ashes of their fathers rested, and that they are called to inherit the promise, for which their fathers were here laid in the grave.” Delitzsch.—The cave Machpelah became for the Israelites the sacred grave of the old covenant, which they won again with the conquest of Canaan, just as the Christians in the crusades reconquered the sacred grave of the new covenant, and with it Palestine. And the Christians also, like the Jews, have lost again their sacred grave and their holy land, because they have not inwardly adhered sufficiently to the faith of the fathers, who beyond the sacred grave looked for the eternal city of God: because they have sought too much “the living among the dead.” Even now the last desire of the orthodox Jews is for a grave at Jerusalem, in Canaan. [The transaction in securing this burial-place was, not as some have thought, to secure a title to the land of promise, that was perfect and secure in the sovereign promise of God: but it was: 1. A declaration of the faith of Abraham in the promise; 2. a pledge and memorial to his descendants, when in captivity, of their interest in the land.—A. G.] 8. Notwithstanding the ancients did not easily receive a stranger into their families (among the Greeks and Romans usage forbade it), the Hittites are ready to receive Sarah into their best family sepulchres, as Joseph of Arimathea took the body of our Lord into his own tomb. This is a strong testimony to the impression which Abraham, and Sarah also, had made upon them, to their reverence and attachment for the patriarchal couple. They appear also, like Abimelech at Gerar, to have had their original monotheism awakened and strengthened by their intercourse with Abraham, whom they honor as a “Prince of God.” 9. Hebron, the first royal city of David, is situated five hours southerly from Bethlehem, his native city. How deeply the present spiritual relations of Hebron lie under the splendor of the royal city of David! Its inhabitants cultivate the vine, cotton, have glassworks, and live “in constant feuds with the Bethlehemites.” V. Raumer. 10. The custom of burial and the sanctification of the grave, after the intimation, Genesis 15:15, appears here in a striking and impressive manner. 11. In order to preserve his hope for Canaan pure, Abraham could not entangle, himself with the Caananites, thus: 1. He could not use, in common with the heathen, their sepulchre; 2. he could not receive as a present a possession in the land. [This chapter is interesting as containing the first record of mourning for the dead, of burial, of property in land, of purchase of land, of silver as a medium of purchase, and of a standard of weight. Murphy, p. 347.—A. G.] AND (Upon Genesis 22:20-24.) Human consolation follows the great conflict and victory of faith.—The joyful message which Abraham received: a. From his home; b. from his blood relations; c. from his spiritual kindred.—The destination and the blessing of the ties of relationship, in the widest sense.—The end and the blessing of all communication in the world.—All human messengers should be messengers of love, in joy and sorrow.—Salutations, messages, letters, journals, are all also under the conduct of divine providence. Human missions are accompanied by divine missions.—A people spring from children, or how significantly Rebekah here comes forward from her concealment.—The joy of a loving participation in the happiness of companions—neighbors. Starke: (A picture of Syria and Babylon.) Psalms 112:2; Psalms 127:3,—Osiander: God usually refreshes and quickens his people again, after temptation.—Calwer, Handbuch: When Isaac was about to be offered, God allows him to hear that his future wife was born and educated. (Upon Genesis 23.) The richly blessed end of Sarah as it appears: 1. In the quenchless memory of her age by Israel; 2. in the mourning of Abraham; 3. in his care for her grave; 4. in the esteem of the Hittites (every one is ready to admit her into his sepulchre); 5. in the opportunity for the securing of the sepulchre as a possession by Abraham.—The whole chapter instructive on the grave, as is chapter fifth on death, the eleventh chapter of John on the resurrection from the grave: 1. Of death; 2. of mourning; 3. of the acquisition of sepulchres; 4. of the burial itself; 5. of hope over the grave.—The true mourning a sanctified feeling of death: 1. A fellow-feeling of death, with the dead; 2. an anticipation of death, or a living preparation for one’s own death; 3. a believing sense of the end or destination of death, to be made useful to the life.—Sarah’s grave a sign of life: 1. A monument of faith, a token of hope; 2. an image of the state of rest for the patriarchs; 3. a sign of the home and of the longing of Israel; 4. a sign or prognostic of the New-Testament graves.—The solemn burial of the corpse: 1. An expression of the esteem of personality even in its dead image; 2. an expression of the hope of a new life.—The sanctification of the grave for a family sepulchre, foreshadowing the sanctification of the church-yards or God’s-acres.—Abraham the father of believers, also the founder of a believing consecration of the grave—offers themes for funeral discourses, dedication of church-yards, and at mourning solemnities.—The first possession which Abraham bought was a grave for Sarah, for his household, for himself even.—The choice of the grave: 1. Significantly situated (a double cave); 2. still more suitably (at the end of the field).—Israel’s first possession of the soil: the grave of Sarah; the first earthly house of the Christian; the grave of Christ and the graves of the martyrs. Genesis 23:2. The mourning of Abraham: 1. Its sincerity (as he left his pursuits and sat or lay before the corpse); 2. its limit, and the preservation of his piety (as he rose up from before the corpse, and purchased the grave).—Abraham himself must have had his own mortality brought to his mind by the death of Sarah, since he cared for a common grave. Genesis 23:9; Genesis 23:13. Abraham’s traffic; 1. In his transparency; 2. his purity; 3. his carefulness and security.—Abraham and the Hittites a lively image of the Eastern courtliness in the early times.—The true politeness of spirit as a cultivation of hearty human friendliness, in its meaning: 1. Upon what it rests (respect for our fellows and self-respect); 2. what it effects (the true position toward our neighbors, as an olive-branch of peace and a protection of personal honor).—The mysterious sepulchre at Hebron.—The Mohammedans as the intelligent protectors of the graves of the East until the time of its restitution.—Starke: (There is no ground for the saying of the Rabbins, that Sarah died from sorrow when she learned of the sacrifice of Isaac).—The fear of God makes no one insensible to feeling, as the Stoics have asserted (Job 14:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; Psalms 39:5-6). Genesis 23:13. There is a reference here to the first money transaction, for the land was not to be received as a present, or be held without price, by Abraham, but by his successors, hence he must pay for what he obtains (Acts 7:5). This was, however, plainly the ordering of God, that Abraham, through a purchase of a burial-place with money, should have a foothold, and some possession of property, as a pledge of the future possession.—God also shows that he takes the dead into his care and protection, and he would never do this had he not a purpose to reawaken the dead.—Cramer: We should proceed with gentleness and modesty in our dealings with any one.—Bibl. Tub.: Purchases should be made with prudence, that we may not give cause for controversy (1 Corinthians 6:7).—We should veil in a seemly way the bodies of the dead, and bear them reverently to the grave.—Lisco: Thus Abraham gained the first possession in the land of promise; here he would bury Sarah, here he himself would be buried; thus he testifies to his faith in the certainty of the divine promise made to him, as in a later case the prophet Jeremiah, just before the exile, testified his faith in the return of Israel from its banishment, by the purchase of the field of Hanameel at Anathoth (Jeremiah 32.).—Calwer, Handbuch: The possession of a burying-place as his own, satisfied the pious pilgrim, and is for him a pledge of the full possession of the land by his successors.—Schrφder: Genesis 23:1. Then also the believer may recollect how God has written all his days in his book. Psalms 139:16 (Berleb. Bibl.). Genesis 23:2. The tear of sorsow has its right in the heart, because it is a human heart: but there is a despair concerning death, as concerning sin.—It is thoughtfully tender to lay the children of the mother earth again in her bosom (Sir 40:1).—The money with which he secures the cave is the blessing of God; thus God procures for him peculiarly a possession in the land of promise. Footnotes: [The allusion is to a German law or custom, in regard to marriage between persons of unequal rank, and the offspring of such a marriage.—A. G.] [The concubine was a secondary or half-wife, and among the Hebrews her position was well defined, and was not regarded as illegitimate. Her position was not that of a mistress, as we use the term concubine.—A. G.] [Sarah, though dead, was still his. Wordsworth.—A.G.] [Wordsworth here calls attention to the fact that the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 2:11) quotes these words as found in the Septuagint, when he addresses believers as “strangers and pilgrims.” They were, like Abraham, the father of the faithful.—A. G.] [The patriarch had encountered other trials, but he had hitherto been spared this of death. But now death enters. No health, relations, affections, can resist the march and power of death. Abraham has in heart parted with his children, now he must part actually from her who had shared all his trials and hopes.—A. G.] [In that grave was implied the hope of Resurrection. Wordsworth, p. 104.—A. G.] TWELFTH SECTIONAbraham’s care for Isaac’s marriage. Eliezer’s wooing of the bride for Isaac. The theocratic founding of a picous bride-wooing. Isaac’s marriage Genesis 24:1-671 And Abraham was old, and well stricken [come in days] in age: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. 2And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son, of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: 4But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. 5And the servant said unto him, Peradventure, the woman will not be willing to follow me into this land; must I needs bring thy son again into the land from whence thou camest? 6And Abraham said unto him, Beware that thou bring not my son thither again. 7The Lord God of heaven, which took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land, he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence. 8And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this thine oath: only bring not my son thither again. 9And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter. 10And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master [with every kind of costly goods] were in his hand: and he arose and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. 11And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water, at the time of the evening, even at the time that women go out to draw water. 12And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee send me good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master Abraham. 13Behold I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: 14And let it come to pass that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also; let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast showed kindness unto my master. 15And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. 16And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin; neither had any man known her; and she went down to the well and filled her pitcher, and came up. 17And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water from thy pitcher. 18And she said, Drink, my lord; and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. 19And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking. 20And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. 21And the man, wondering at her, held his peace [waiting to know], to wit whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not. 22And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden ear [nose] ring, of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands, of ten shekels weight of gold, 23And said, Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee: is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in? 24And she said unto him, I am the 25daughter of Bethuel, the son of Milcah, which she bare unto Nahor. She said, moreover, unto him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in. 26And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord. 27And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master’s brethren. 28And the damsel ran and told them of her mother’s house these things. 29And Rebekah had a brother, and his name was Laban [the white]: and Laban ran out unto the man, unto the well. 30And it came to pass, when he saw the ear [nose] ring, and bracelets upon his sister’s hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, Thus spake the man unto me; that he came unto the man, and behold, he stood by the camels at the well. 31And he said, Come in, thou blessed of the Lord; wherefore standest thou without? for I have prepared the house, and room for the camels. 32And the man came into the house: and he [Laban] ungirded his camels, and gave straw and provender for his camels, and water to wash his feet, and the men’s feet that were with him. 33And there was set [as the imperf. Hoph. of ιָ ?ωַׂ ?ν] meat before him to eat: but he said, I will not eat until I have told mine errand. And he [Laban] said, speak on. 34And he said, I am Abraham’s servant. 35And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, 36and gold, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and camels, and asses. And Sarah, my master’s wife, bare a son to my master when she was old: and unto him hath he given all that he hath. 37And my master made me swear, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell. 38But thou shalt go unto my father’s house, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son. 39And I said unto my master, Peradventure the woman will not follow me. 40And he said unto me, The Lord, before whom I walk, will send his angel with thee, and will prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred and of my father’s house. 41Then shalt thou be clear from this mine oath [the oath given by me] when thou comest to my kindred; and if they give not thee one, thou shalt be clear from my oath. 42And I came this day unto the well, and said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: 43Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher [λָ ?γ, bucket; a jug similar to a pail or bucket, of wide mouth] to drink: 44And she say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed out for my master’s son. 45And before I had done speaking in my heart [in myself], behold, Rebekah came forth with her pitcher on her shoulder; and she went down unto the well, and drew water; and I said unto her, Let me drink, I pray thee. 46And she made haste, and let down her pitcher from her shoulder, and said, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: so I drank, and she made the camels drink also. 47And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the ear [nose] ring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands. 48And I bowed down my head and worshipped the Lord, and blessed the Lord God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way, to take my master’s brother’s daughter unto his son. 49And now if ye will [are ready to] deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me: and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand or to the left. 50Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceedeth from the Lord; we cannot speak [in our own choice] unto thee bad or good. 51Behold Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master’s son’s wife, as the Lord hath spoken. 52And it came to pass, that, when Abraham’s servant heard their words, he worshipped the Lord, bowing himself to the earth. 53And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah: he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things. 54And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away unto my master. 55And her brother and her mother said, Let the damsel abide with us a few days [a circle of days], at the least ten [a decade]; after that she shall go. 56And he said unto them, Hinder me not, seeing the Lord hath prospered my way; send me away, that I may go to my master. 57And they said, We will call the damsel, and inquire at her mouth. 58And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go. 59And they sent away Rebekah their sister, and her nurse, and Abraham’s servant, and his men. 60And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister; be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them [enemies]. 61And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant took Rebekah, and went his way. 62And Isaac came from the way of [visit to] the Well Lahai-roi [of the living—animating, quickening-vision]; for he dwelt 63[had his station] in the south country. And Isaac went out [now northwards] to meditate in the field [the northern field-region] at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. 64And Rebekah lifted up her eyes; and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. 65For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil and covered herself. 66And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. 67And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death. GENERAL REMARKSTo the chapter upon the sepulchre and the burial of the dead, there follows now a chapter upon the wooing of the bride. The former has greater strength of expression, grounded in the last need, death and the care for the dead; the latter has greater richness and life, and glows in all the freshness and fulness of a sacred, biblical idyll, the first pearl in that string of pearls, in the religious glorification of the human bridal state which runs down through the wooing of Rachel by Jacob, the little book of Ruth, to its culmination in the Song of Songs. Abraham was warned by the death of Sarah, to set the concerns of his house in order, to seek a bride for Isaac, and thus to provide for his descendants. The narrative joins one beautiful trait to another, until the circle is complete; the spirit of his master Abraham, who had instructed him, is clearly reflected in the faithful and prudent bridal journey of his servant, and Rebekah appears from the beginning as the glorious, lovely and boldly-determined maiden, peculiarly fitted for the quiet, patient Isaac. “Humanly speaking, the following history belongs to the most attractive portions of the first book of Moses; we are tempted to call it a biblical idyll. Everything in these verses, down to the most minute part, is finished and elaborated with inimitable beauty.” Schrφder. Delitzsch refers to the excellent treatment of this narrative by F. C. V. Movers. The fundamental thought in the narrative is the providence of God in Isaac’s marriage. It appears in Abraham’s believing foresight and care for Isaac, in the faithfulness and prudence of his servant, in the happy meeting of Rebekah and the servant, in the forming of the life and character of Rebekah, in the hospitality and the pious spirit of her house, even in the self-interested conduct of Laban, in the meeting of Isaac and Rebekah, in the movement of her heart, and in his love. “It is thus through the providence of God that Rebekah became the wife of Isaac, and an ancestress of the people of Israel.” Knobel. The documentary hypothesis falls into perplexity here, since, according to Genesis 23 and Genesis 25:19, the fundamental writing must have related this marriage. It relieves itself with the conjecture that the brief Elohistic narration has been displaced by this longer Jehovistic narrative. Knobel finds in the fact that the mission proceeds from Abraham, and the report is made to Isaac, although he has no real ground for the conjecture, as also in similar cases, the traces that the narrative is not genuine. [Which is much the same as if he had said, since the narrative is not constructed as I think it should have been, it cannot be genuine.—A. G.] It may be divided into the following particular portions: 1. The arrangement of the theocratic journey for the bride, the spiritual image and character of the bride (Genesis 24:1-9); 2. the journey for the bride, and the choice of the bride (Genesis 24:10-21); 3. the entrance into the house of the bride (Genesis 24:22-33); 4. the wooing of the bride (Genesis 24:34-49); 5. the rewards for the bride (Genesis 24:50-54); 6. the bridal journey (Genesis 24:54-61); 7. the meeting of the bridegroom and the bride (Genesis 24:62-67). AND 1. The arrangement of the theocratic journey for the bride (Genesis 24:1-9).—And Abraham.—The motives for his arrangement: 1. After Sarah’s death his age warned him to provide for Isaac’s marriage. 2. the blessing of Jehovah warns him, he must now through the marriage of his son, do his own part, that the blessing might be preserved. His faith and his acts of faith must correspond to the promise of blessing of Jehovah. Isaac could not marry a Canaanitess, but only a Shemitess, one who was of equal birth in a theocratic point of view. It might possibly be from his own ancestral home, and the account which he had received of the home of Nahor, favored his hope. He could not think of Lot’s daughters.—Unto his eldest servant.—It is usually inferred from Genesis 15:2, that Eliezer of Damascus is here meant. Gerlach says it is not probable, because he is not named. For the same reason the CalwerHandbuch concludes that he is intended, because otherwise the servant would be named in so important a mission, and this inference is just. Eleazer was peculiarly fitted for this mission, as an old man in the school of Abraham (more than 60 years had elapsed since Genesis 15:2). Eleazer thus stands for all time as the type of all pious and prudent bride-wooers. He is a steward or ruler of the whole house, thus a trusted servant. [The word servant like the word elder, is an official title. Bush refers to Genesis 40:30; Exodus 12:30; Deuteronomy 34:5; Hebrews 3:5; and for elder to Genesis 50:7; Rth 4:2; 1 Timothy 5:17.—A. G.] Still the present mission of Abraham is so important, that he lays him under the obligations of an oath.—Put thy hand under my thigh.—This usage in the oath is referred to only in one other place (Genesis 47:29). The person who took the oath, was to place his hand under the thigh of him to whom it was given. Some refer this rite to a heathen idea or imagination. “It points to the generating member, which, as the organ of the generative strength of nature had a kind of sacredness among the ancients, and in the Phallus (or Bacchus) worship, had a kind of religious honor (Arnob. advers. Gent. 5), e.g.: among the Egyptians (Herod., ii. 48; Plutarch; Theodoret), among the Syrians (Lucian), at times even among the Hebrews (1 Kings 15:13?). It is recorded of the Egyptian Bedouin in modern times, that in a solemn asseveration or oath he places his hand upon the generative organ (Sonnim.: ‘Travels,’ ii. p. 474).” Knobel. According to the Jewish idea (which the Targums, Jonathan, Jarchi, Tuch, etc., follow), the rite relates to the generative member in its relations to God, by virtue of circumcision. Von Bohlen, Gesenius, Knobel, bring together these two ideas or explanations. The explanation of the ancients, that Abraham, with reference to the promise of the covenant, “had in his mind the promised seed of the covenant, the future Christ,” is a mystical and Christian idea, not improperly adduced here, remarks Delitzsch, although the thought is “usually regarded as belonging to the New Testament (see Strippelmann: ‘The Christian Oath,’ p. 22). It is doubtful whether ὅρκος and ὅρκις, testari and testiculus, stand in a relation referring back to this custom.” Since the hand in the oath has always the signification of pledging oneself, we must inquire first of all, what rite-forms of the hand in the person who takes the oath, usually appear. But now Abraham, when he takes the oath (Genesis 14:22), raises his hand to heaven, before those around him, when he worshipped the El Eljon, the heavenly exalted God (comp. Revelation 10:5-6). According to Ezekiel 20:5, the object of the hand is generally to mark the subject in respect to which the obligation is taken. In this idea the Christian oath is taken upon the gospel, or even upon a chest of relics. When, therefore, Eleazer and Joseph give the oath, in that they place their hands upon the thigh of the one swearing them, the act had a special meaning. The thigh is the symbol of posterity; in Israel the symbol of the promised posterity, with the included idea of the promise, Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5. Eleazer and Joseph thus must swear by the posterity, the promise and the hope of Abraham and Israel. This promise should be changed into a curse for them if they did not regard the oath. This oath was required in Eleazer because he did not belong to the house of Abraham, in Joseph, because, as a prince in the land of Egypt, he might be tempted to be false to the faith of the promise. It is sufficient to regard the thigh as the symbol of the whole posterity, the generative organ as symbolical of the immediately succeeding generation.—By Jehovah [It is not an ordinary marriage which is here about to be made, which would fall under the providence of Elohim; but a marriage which concerns the kingdom of God, and therefore, Jehovah appears in the whole narrative. Keil, p. 183.—A. G.], the God of heaven.—Eleazer knows the God of Abraham, and the faith of the promise. He should swear by the God of the promises, the God of Abraham, and with this the rite of laying the hand upon the thigh corresponds.—That thou shalt not take a wife.—Eleazer does not appear as the guardian of Isaac, now forty years old, after the death of Abraham (Knobel), but the negation in his oath designates only the negative side of his mission. Since Abraham had appointed him to gain a bride for Isaac, he might easily, as an old man, have given free play to his own opinion, and viewed a brilliant match in Canaan as advantageous for Isaac’s future. Abraham himself certainly exercises a patriarchal and guardian-like care over the patient and yielding Isaac, who, although forty years of age, appears not to have thought of marriage, but mourned his mother in earnest, devout contemplation. It involves also the decisive patriarchal and theocratic union under the providence of Jehovah.—Peradventure the woman will not be willing.—The servant has not an equal measure of faith with Abraham. Since the journey to Mesopotamia for a Shemitic bride is thus strongly enjoined, and Isaac must not marry a Canaanitess, it appears to him that it may easily happen that he must take Isaac back to Mesopotamia, if he should indeed be married.—Beware thou.—Abraham opposes him. As the father of faith upon the promise, of the people of the future, he had the watch-word, “never backward.” To the syllogism of the reflecting and calculating servant, he opposes the syllogism of faith. Its major premise: Jehovah had brought him out of his fatherland into a strange land; its minor: he had promised to his seed the land of Canaan; its conclusion: therefore he will crown the mission of Eleazer, through the leading of his angel, with a successful issue. In this assurance he can easily quiet the sworn servant with the explanation, if the otherwise proper wife will not follow him from Mesopotamia, he should be clear from his oath. 2. The journey for the bride, and the choice of the bride (Genesis 24:10-21).—And the servant took.—The ten camels, and the accompanying train of servants, must, on the one hand, bear the presents and represent the riches of his master; and on the other hand, are already carefully prepared, and destined for the caravan of the bride and her maidens. He provides himself, in case of success, with every kind of jewels from the treasures of his master, which came later into legitimate use. He could take of every kind which he wished, they were all at his disposal; Abraham risking all upon the issue of this journey.—To Mesopotamia (Aram, of the two rivers.)—Mesopotamia, between the Euphrates and Tigris, Padan-Aram (Genesis 25:20), according to Knobel, an Elohistic expression; upon Egyptian monuments, Neherin = Naharaina.—To the city of Nahor—i.e., to Haran (see Genesis 11:31; Genesis 12:4).—By a well of water at the time of the evening.—As the arrangement of the stately caravan, so also the encampment here reveals the master-servant. The lions find the gazelles by the springs of water. Eleazer would here, in a peaceful way, find the bride of Isaac. The camels lie down at the well of water without the city, at evening, not to rest for the night, but to rest temporarily, and during the delay. (When the camels kneel down they are unloaded, since their burden lies upon the ground.)—Even the time that women go out to draw water.—The maidens and women in the East still bring the water they need from the well at evening (Von Schubert, ii. p. 401; Robinson, “Palestine,” ii. p. 351). They held their female conversations at the wells, as the men did in the gate.—O Lord God of my master.—He had done his part, but knew that the result depended upon the blessing of God. In humility he calls upon Jehovah, the God of his master Abraham, for whose sake he would hear him.—Send me good speed (grant that it may come to meet, anticipate me), i.e., what he wished, Keil adds. The usual explanation, however, seems more significant, the success appointed by God cannot be secured by force; Jehovah causes that it shall meet the pious. We emphasize, the coming to meet. Now he determines the sign for the discovery of the bride destined by God for Isaac. The sign consists in this, that she should go far beyond his request, in her friendliness and readiness to serve him. His request merely expresses the desire that he might sip a little water from her pitcher; her trial consists in this, that she should give him to drink fully, and in addition, with voluntary friendliness, give to his camels also. This proof of love was, on the one hand, certainly not usual, but on the other, it was not unheard of, nor prohibited by any custom. Niebuhr (“Travels,” ii. p. 410) has still experienced the same or similar volunteered service (comp. Robinson, “Palestine,” ii. p. 351). But we should recollect that many things of the kind to-day, are imitations of the partriarchal tradition, as e.g. also, the previously mentioned oath of the Bedouin, with the hand upon the thigh.—Before he had done speaking.—She came already, to the surprise of the narrator himself.—Behold Rebekah.—She is no other than Rebekah, the grandchild of Nahor, the legitimate daughter born to Bethuel, son of Milcah. She had thus the quality of theocratic descent in an eminent degree. [On both sides, maternal as well as paternal.—A. G.] Then she was very beautiful, as Sarah before, and Rachel after her, a tender maiden, pure from contact with any man. And how politely (“my lord,”), how graciously (“she hasted and let down”), with what animation (“she hasted, ran”), and how cheerfully she fulfilled all the conditions of the sign chosen and determined.—The Kad upon her shoulder is rather a bucket, or wide-mouthed jar, than a pitcher, otherwise it would not be fitted to give the camels drink. [This jar was sometimes borne on the head, and sometimes strapped upon the shoulder. The λψ is the same term used for the vessels borne by the men of Gideon, and which were broken with a blow, Judges 7:20 : and differs from the ηξδ, the term for bottle in the narrative of Hagar.—A. G.] 3. The sojourn at the home of the bride (Genesis 24:21-33).—Wondering at her, held his peace (waiting).—Knobel prefers the explanation of ωΰδ by Gesenius: attentive look, view, following the Septuagint and Vulgate. Delitzsch and Keil prefer the explanation, wondered, was astonished. The following phrase, held his peace in order to know, is in favor of the latter explanation. The attentive, inquiring look was not limited through the silence, but through the astonishment. He restrained himself in his astonishment. She had indeed fulfilled the sign, and as to his prayer all was clear, but as to his reflection the question now first arose, was she a Shemitess? was she single? would she be willing to go with him?—The man took a golden ear-(nose) ring.—The present which he now makes her could not have been a bridal present, but simply a friendly recognition and reward of her friendly service (although “the nose-ring is now the usual engagement present among the Bedouins.”) Delitzsch. The conviction that the right person was found here truly finds expression, otherwise he would have been rewarding her at too lavish an expense. At this moment Rebekah had even somewhat disconcerted the aged Eliezer. The ring was a golden nose-ring, worn from the central wall of the nose, of about a half shekel in weight. The two bracelets of gold, worn upon the wrist, were each of about five shekels weight (see Winer, art. Schmuck, Isaiah 3:18 ff.). Eliezer’s heart knew well what would rejoice the-the heart of even a pious maiden, and with this present, the choice of which expresses his assurance, introduces his question as to her family. The question as to entertainment in her house is an utterance of the full assurance of his hope. It reveals the working of his mind, in so far as he asks the second question, without waiting for the answer to the first. Rebekah’s answer accords entirely with his wish. She answers also his second question, but as the prudent Rebekah, with the reservation which became her, for it did not belong to her expressly to invite the strange man in. But Eliezer knew enough, as is evident from his profound bowing before Jehovah, and his praise and thanksgiving. [ηֶ ?ρֶ ?ψ is the free grace, with which Jehovah had given the promise to Abraham, ΰֶ ?ξֶ ?δ the faithfulness and truth with which he fulfils the promise. The two words often occur in the Scriptures. Baumgarten, p. 243.—A. G.] For Rebekah the prayer is a mysterious, joyful announcement from the home of Abraham, and beautiful is the contrast that she thereupon hastens away, while the servant completes his prayer. Of her mother’s house.—Bethuel was living, and therefore the maiden-like presentiment of a love-suit reveals itself as she hastens to her mother’s confidence.—And Laban ran.—As the first mention of Rebekah (Genesis 22:23) prepares the way for this narrative, so here we make beforehand the acquaintance of Laban, who later exerts so important an influence upon the history of Jacob. Still the narrator has motives also for this allusion in the present history. His invitation of his own accord to Eliezer, to come into the house of his father, and the prominence which he has in the engagement of Rebekah, with and before his father, prove the great influence which he had in his parental home. His sister Rebekah appears also with similar energy in comparison with Isaac. There was, doubtless in the very arrangement of the patriarchal home, special room for the dynamic efficiency of a strong personality, in contrast with the retiring nature of the more receptive character. Laban appears always to have led his father Bethuel, as Abraham led his son Isaac: and Rebekah exercises a stronger influence upon the history of her house than Sarah or Rachel upon theirs. The sacred writer now appears to go back and bring up the narrative.—And it came to pass, when he saw—but purposely, to bring into prominence this motive with Laban, since he places the gold ornaments in the first rank, and the words of Eliezer, which Rebekah reports, in the second. We have here evidently a trait of that covetousness which appears so prominently in the later history of Laban. There may be also a characteristic of the courtly accommodation and exaggeration in the religious expression he uses, when he invites Eliezer, as “the blessed of Jehovah,” i.e., in a name of God which was not usual with him, and which he probably learned from the form of expression which the servant had used (although this cannot be asserted with certainty, since the calling upon Jehovah had already its beginnings in the house of Therah). But there is no more necessity, on account of these features, of misunderstanding the real central thing in Laban’s state of mind, than, on account of similar traits, of misunderstanding the character of Lot (see Genesis 31:24). His words of invitation have been made the foundation of an Advent song: Wherefore wilt thou stand without, etc.—And the men’s feet.—The servants who accompanied Eliezer are here mentioned for the first time. That Laban took care for them also completes the expression of his polite hospitality.—I will not eat.—“No one had asked him as to the object of his journey, for that would have been a violation of the Eastern usages of hospitality, which places these and similar questions after the meal. But the servant of Abraham unburdens himself.” Delitzsch. A new mark of his faithful service, of his prudence and full assurance of hope. 4. The suit for the bride (Genesis 24:34-39). The speech of Eliezer. The first speech in the Bible. A simple historical account of his journey, and still at the same time an example of a wise speech, which weaves skilfully the motives he would present with the account he gives. The motives from kindred are first urged: the mission is from Abraham. He is proud of being Abraham’s servant. Then the human interests. Abraham has grown very rich and great, and has one only legitimate son and heir. But even the human motive is religiously sanctified. His wealth and his son are peculiar blessings of God. Now follows the religious motive. Especially the oath to take no Canaanitess, but a Shemitess of his own race. This concern must have awakened in Nahor’s and Bethuel’s house not only kindred feelings, but also laid its claims upon the conscience. That arrested migration of Therah rested as a silent reproach upon the conscience of the family; the house of Bethuel might now enter again into direct and blessed fellowship, through the granting of Rebekah. This religious motive was strengthened through the statement of the trustful hope of Abraham, for a successful issue of the mission. Then, again, in the highest measure, through the recital of his prayer, and how the sign determined upon had been fulfilled. And here, as a result of this recital, the human motive is urged again—the indirect praise of Rebekah; she had proved herself unconsciously a moral ideal of a maiden worthy of love. But finally, with the pride of a free, God-entrusted suitor, he presses his suit upon them and demands an instant decision. He urges his opinion, that they would be refusing kindness and truth (ηֶ ?ρֶ ?ψεֶ ?ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ) towards his master, if they should give him a denial, because, indeed, they were not only his blood-relations, but also his theocratic spiritual kindred, nevertheless he would not beg of them a bride for the son of Abraham. If they would not deal thus kindly and truly, he would go into the same city, into the same land, to the right or to the left, especially to the other sons of Nahor, as he had already intimated in his previous words that he should be freed from his oath when he had used all possible efforts.—My master’s brother’s daughter, i.e., in the wider sense. His granddaughter, or the daughter of the son of his brother. 5. The betrothal of the bride (Genesis 24:50-54). Laban and Bethuel. The decision. “Rebekah’s brother joins in the decision. The custom, according to which the brother must interest himself for the sister (Genesis 34:5; Genesis 11:25; Judges 21:22; 1 Samuel 13:22), justified him in so doing.” Knobel. Keil, with others, remarks, this usage grows out of polygamy, through which the father might easily come to have less concern for the children (daughters) of the less beloved wife. They recognize in the whole affair the will of Jehovah; they have neither good nor evil, i.e., indeed, nothing to speak (Numbers 24:13, etc.). The consent of Rebekah was not sought in the betrothal itself, but in the far less important point of the immediate departure. From this it follows that they were sure of her consent to the union, although the authoritative powers of the house must decide upon it.—Worshipped the Lord, bowing down to the earth.—A mute attestation of thankfulness, a sign of a mind moved with astonishment and joy. But notice here also the haste; his official zeal cuts short his prayer. [Baumgarten calls attention to this prayer of the servant, in his present circumstances, and surrounded by those who did not honor Jehovah, as a proof how well Abraham had instructed and trained his household.—A. G.] At first the bridal-presents for the bride must be produced, then the betrothal-presents for the family, especially for Laban and his mother. With respect to the last-named presents, they are an honorable form of the later, at least, usual purchase of the bride (see Winer: “Marriage”). The first were given to the bride, in the name of the bridegroom, after the existing custom, according to which the bridegroom sent to the bride presents, before the marriage, which should have the effect to cement the union—a custom still prevalent in the East (see Knobel, p. 204). A shepherd prince in Canaan might purchase the necessary articles of this kind from Ph�nician and Aramaic caravans.—And they did eat and drink.—Now first they could enjoy their food and drink, which would naturally constitute an evening feast. 6. The bridal journey (Genesis 24:54-61).—Send me away, that I may go to my master.—If it was bold in Eliezer to insist upon an immediate decision, the successful issue makes him now, in his official zeal, still bolder. His earnestness assumes the appearance of harshness, and it can be excused only by his great joy, and his great anxiety to bring the affair to a happy issue, before anything should occur to make a disturbance. A few days, or a tenth of days, i.e., not as Keil thinks, a few or much more ten days, but at least ten days. An indefinite number of days is an indefinite period, which might easily be protracted into a long period. But since Eliezer will not consent to ten days, Rebekah must decide, and her declaration is characteristic again of her vigorous, determined, bold mind. She is equally ready for a departure. She says with modest but decided brevity, ΰֵ ?μֵ ?κְ. The sudden departure could hardly have occurred on the next day; it is sufficient that it was immediately prepared.—Rebekah their sister.—This is literally true only of Laban. Rebekah truly became also through her betrothal, the equal of her parents.—And her nurse.—Deborah (Genesis 35:8). The nurse in noble families usually remained (2 Kings 11:2) a permanent and valued companion of her foster-child.—And they blessed Rebekah.—The words of blessing form a little song. They emphasize it that Rebekah is their sister, for they are proud of her dim but great hopes.—Be thou the mother of (grow to) thousands of millions.—This wish of a countless host of descendants (not of children alone, that would be senseless) is so far not hyperbolical, as in the origin and growth of the people of Israel, saying nothing of the church of believers, it has been richly fulfilled. The blessing of children was the highest happiness of the Hebrew woman. “It is still thus in the East (Volney: “Travels,” ii. p. 359).” Knobel.—Let thy seed possess (see Genesis 22:17). The house of Nahor itself formed a certain opposition to the heathen, and well knew also that Abraham and the children of Abraham should complete the opposition. These intuitions were doubtless refreshed through the communication of the servant. We ought not, however, to be surprised that the two clauses of this verse represent Abraham’s hope, rather in respect to the number than the character of his seed.—And her damsels.—The stately company of damsels corresponded not only to the stately equipage and approach of the suitor, but was an actual necessity, since she was going into a strange land, under the leading of strange men. “Laban gave, however, only one maiden to each of his daughters at her marriage (Genesis 29:24; Genesis 29:29).” Knobel. 7. The meeting of the bridegroom and the bride (Genesis 24:62-67).—And Isaac came.—The apparently confused narrative here is found to be a clear one, upon the supposition of a clear view of the land. The wells of Hagar alluded to, lay still southerly from Beer-sheba. If Eliezer journeyed home from Mesopotamia, or the northeast, he must have come to Hebron to Abraham, before he could have been visible to Isaac, in the way to these wells, or generally in his stations in the farther south. But if he was earlier visible to the young bridegroom, it follows, that he must now have gone from Hebron northwards into the field. The allusion to the wells as to his residence in the south region, is made with the purpose of bringing into prominence again, how it occurred, through a happy providence, that he went so far to meet the bride. He had returned in a happier frame from his visit to these wells, which were of greater importance to him, since he usually had his outposts in the south. But now he went out from Hebron (for Sarah’s tent was certainly still at Hebron, Genesis 24:67) into the peculiar field, or cultivated region, without any intimation that Rebekah would meet him from that side, on the way down from Bethlehem. Delitzsch: “He came from his arrival at the wells, not as Hupfeld and Ewald explain; he had even reached the wells.” Delitzsch, however, thinks the meeting took place in the region of the wells of Hagar, and that Isaac had for the sake of meditation removed his residence from Hebron into the south. The oak-grove of Mamre must certainly have been large enough to give opportunity for meditation. Isaac doubtless went into the south region, not to lead any technically hermit life, but to oversee the flocks of his father. Delitzsch also conjectures that he was laying the affair of his marriage before the Lord, at these wells. But the author rather points to the fact, that he was still clinging to his grief over his mother Sarah. [If, however, Abraham was now residing at Beer-sheba, then Isaac may have met the caravan to the northward of this place. Sarah’s tent would of course be taken with Abraham in his removals.—A. G.]—At the eventide.—“As the evening turned itself hither—drew on.” Delitzsch.—Went out to mourn (meditate).—μָ ?ωׂ ?εּ ?ηַ. Explanations: 1. For the purpose of thinking. Septuagint, Vulgate, Baumgarten, Delitzsch. 2. In order to pray. Targums, Arabic version, Luther, and others. 3. For deliberation. Aquila and others. 4. For the purpose of walking, exercise. Syriac, Aben Ezra, Kinchi. 5. To bring the traveler (!) Bottcher. 6. For lamentation. Knobel. In order to give himself alone, and undisturbed, to mourning the death of his mother. [The first three explanations may well be thrown together, since thought, prayer, and deliberation, or meditation, are seldom separated in the experience of the pious.—A. G.] Knobel correctly quotes, in favor of this, the frequent signification of ωִׂ ?ιηַ and Genesis 24:67. One might almost think it was in the field of Ephron, but then we should have to seek the cave of Machpelah northerly from Hebron. But the remark of Knobel “that Isaac first after the death of Abraham, according to the Elohist (Genesis 25:11), removed into the southern country,” is of no moment, since we must distinguish between the mere resting-place of a subordinate, and the chief abode of a shepherd-prince.—She lighted off the camel.—Another instance of the rapid, energetic Rebekah. “Fell from the camel, i.e., threw herself off from the animal she rode, sprang quickly down, and indeed as a mark of her reverence for Isaac, for she recognized him as a man of rank. This custom is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 25:23; 2 Kings 5:21), even by this same writer (Joshua 15:18); it appears also, elsewhere among the ancients, e.g., among the Romans (Liv. Genesis 24:44). In the East, today, the rider descends from the animal he rides when he meets a distiguished person (Niebuhr: ‘Arabia,’ p. 50, and the ‘Description of his Travels,’ i. p. 239; Joliffe: ‘Travels,’ p. 274), and it is required of Jews and Christians when they meet a Mohammedan of rank (Niebuhr, etc.).” Knobel.—What man is this.—She thus assumes that Eliezer knew him. A womanly presentiment.—Therefore she took a veil.—Keil: “The mantle-like Arabian veil for the head.” “The bride appears before the bridegroom veiled, hence the nubere viro. Plin. H. N., 21, 22. When the two came together the veil was removed. The custom still exists in the East (Russel, etc.).” Knobel.—All things that he had done.—Meeting his young master, the self-importance of the old servant appears more freely in his words.—Into his mother Sarah’s tent.—The tent of Sarah was occupied by the new mistress, although Abraham was again married. It lay in Hebron, and there is no reason for the inference of Knobel, from Genesis 24:62, that it must be sought in Beer-sheba (comp. Genesis 31:33). The wives also of the Bedouin chiefs have their own tents.—And he loved her.—She became the object of his peculiar bridal love.—And Isaac was comforted.—[The word death is not in the original. It seems as if the Holy Spirit would not conclude this beautiful and joyful narrrative with a word of sorrow—death.—Words-worth, p. 109.—A. G.] Until this occurred he had mourned the death of his mother, from three to four years. Since the great mournings lasted from thirty to seventy days (Genesis 50:3; Numbers 20:29; Deuteronomy 34:3), Knobel cannot find anything here of the three or four years’ mourning of Isaac. But there is a plain distinction between the customary mournings and the weight of sadness in the life of a retiring and elegiac nature. Isaac appears to have clung to his mother Sarah, much as Jacob did afterwards to his mother Rebekah. AND ETHICAL1. See the Critical and Exegetical remarks. This chapter evidently presents a picture for all time, of a sacred bride-wooing. Abraham designates as the chief requisite of a blessed theocratic marriage, spiritual kindred and equality of birth. The Shemites of his father’s house did not indeed stand upon the same line of theocratic hopes with himself, but they were still acquainted with his hopes and recognized them; they were free from the tendency of the grosser heathenism, and the result shows that Rebekah, the daughter from the home of Nahor, had a clearer insight into theocratic things than Isaac himself. And although, on the other hand, the Canaanites, at the time of Abraham, were not so sunken in corruption as the Canaanitish generations at the time of Joshua; although there were a Melchizedec, an Abimelech, and similar characters, and around them circles who feared God, among the people; still all this was a waning blessing, which the curse gradually overwhelms, as the history of Sodom shows, and Abraham, who knew the end of the Canaanites because Canaan was promised to him, could not mingle the future of his race with the race of the Canaanites. The τίκτεινἐντῷκαλῷ is according to Plato’s Symposion, or the instruction of Diotima, a peculiar spiritual impulse of Eros, after the Greek ideal; but Abraham in the theocratic history has realized this fundamental principle in a far higher sense (see John 1:13). 2. The oath upon the loins of Abraham (see the exegetical notes under the first paragraph). It should be observed that Abraham himself here causes the oath to be taken. 3. The Angel of the Lord, who, as the Angel of the covenant, promised Isaac the heir of the covenant to Abraham, will, according to the assurance of Abraham, mediate and secure a marriage suited to the covenant. 4. The journey and position of Eliezer at the well in Haran, his aim and his prayer, prove that two things belong to a happy marriage: human foresight and wisdom, and the blessing of Jehovah; i.e., not merely the general blessing of God, but the blessing of the God of the covenant. 5. The mark which Eliezer fixed upon as the sign by which he should recognize the bride selected by Jehovah for Isaac, shows what an important estimate was placed upon genuine good works in the house of the father of the faithful, especially upon human friendliness, hospitality, kindness to animals and men. The cheerful service which Rebekah gives to the aged Eliezer, shows a love of men free from any sensual interest. But that on his side, Eliezer places a high estimate upon her beauty, and in his conduct treats her in a youthful and complimentary way, shows the glorious power and effect of her beauty. 6. The scripture has throughout a free estimate of the importance of beauty. It places the beautiful with the good, in the praise of the creation, as the Greeks place the good with the beautiful. But in the beauty of the ancestresses of Israel (Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel,) it sees the symbolical manifestation of a consecrated, beautiful life of the soul. We must distinguish clearly in reference to the estimate of the beautiful, the purely Christian standpoint, from the ecclesiastical and monkish. This last has drawn from the words, “he was without form or comeliness” (Isaiah 53:2), the inference, that the most beautiful among the children of men (Psalms 45:3) was of an extraordinarily disagreeable appearance. The moral idea, and the moral estimate of the luxury, in the presents of Eliezer. 7. The expression ηֶ ?ξֶ ?ψεֶ ?ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ, which runs through the whole Old Testament as a description of the divine grace and truth (see Micah 7:20), and even in the New Testament (John 1:17), appears here in a remarkable manner for the first time, in reference to the conduct of man with man. “Thus also,” says Delitzsch, “mutual proofs of love between men are ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γ, and the mutual truly intended, faithful acts between men are ΰֶ ?ξֶ ?ϊ.” We must, however, hold, indeed, that these ideas even in reference to the relations of man to man, have a theocratic definiteness and peculiarity. The house of Nahor must prove, through its love to Abraham, that it went with him in spirit, and through its truth preserves its connection with him. Under these circumstances, the refusal of their daughter would have been theocratic felony. 8. The importance of pious mothers for the kingdom of God. 9. The elevated distinction of the wife, in the history, and for the history of the kingdom of God. 10. Eliezer’s bride-wooing, the first speech in the Bible, a fit beginning for the whole circle of biblical speeches. 11. Eliezer, the earthly messenger of Abraham, in the convoy of the heavenly messengers. A pious diplomat, accompanied by the Angel of the Lord. The diplomats of this world are often accompanied by demons. 12. The propensity of Isaac for retirement and mourning, agrees with his passive individuality, and with his fearful and affecting experiences in his childhood upon Moriah. If, in after times, he does not seem fully to understand the great consequence of his father, and clings to and pines for his mother, this is explained by his history; but we see also how very greatly the hopes of Abraham were endangered through this retiring and melancholy propensity. But Abraham saw the right way to relief. Rebekah was a consoling providential gift from Jehovah for Isaac, and he was rescued from the lonely way of the recluse, since he now entered fully upon the way of the future of Israel. AND Abraham’s marriage-suit for his son Isaac.—The sanctification of the bride-wooing.—The qualifications of a blessed bride.—The life pictures in this history: Abraham, Eliezer, Rebekah, Laban, Isaac.—The mother in history, the foundation of the kingdom of God.—The two remarkable meetings (that of Eliezer and Rebekah, and that of Rebekah and Isaac), a testimony for the old proverb that “marriages are made in heaven.”—How this proverb has its significance: a. In the narrower sense, in the marriage of the pious; b. in the wider sense, in the marriage of the ungodly (the providence of judgment); c. in the sense of a divine discipline and instruction, leading from the way of evil to the way of virtue and salvation.—Rebekah as a maiden, virgin, bride, wife, mother.—(The heroine at last acted too purely as a heroine. She must repent. She saw her Jacob no more after their separation).—The coφperation of parents in the marriage of their children: a. Its justice or propriety; b. its limits.—Eliezer in his faithfulness, prudence and piety.—Eliezer, an example of the way in which the blessing of the Lord, and the faithfulness of men, meet together in one.—Eliezer’s petition and thanksgiving.—The import of beauty in the kingdom of God.—Rebekah’s charming service, the peculiar, fundamental trait of a noble, pious womanliness.—The blessing of an unfeigned human friendliness.—Especially in the female sex.—Eliezer’s speech the first in the Bible: a. As the speech of a servant; b. of a master; c. which turns the heart to the master.—The love and truth of God, as a foundation for love and truth among men.—The bridal feast at Haran.—Detain me not, or the unrestrained eagerness to reach the goal.—The caravan of Rebekah, or the kingdom of God under the figure of a journeying pilgrim and wanderer.—Isaac’s and Rebekah’s meeting.—Isaac’s transformation.—The blessing of pious love.—Rebekah in the tent of Sarah, or the joining of a new blessing to the old. 1. Genesis 24:1-9. Starke: Certainly it was no small thing, since Abraham is represented as a prince, that Eliezer, next to his master, should have supreme command in all the house. The word “servant,” therefore, is not a term of contempt here, but a truly marked name of honor, as the word ςαγ is elsewhere used also (Exodus 5:21, etc.). Joseph was such a servant afterward in the house of Pharaoh the king (Genesis 39:4).—Luther: It is truly in the arrangement of a household a great, valuable gift, to have a faithful servant or maiden, since the dishonesty and wickedness of servants is a common complaint the world over.—Cramer: The blessing of God makes rich without toil (Proverbs 10:22; Psalms 128:4). When one has something important before him, let him attend to it with prudence and under good advice. (There follow here several remarks upon the true marriage, and upon the duties of parents and children in contracting marriage.) (Jeremiah 29:6; 1 Kings 11:4.) Lange: Genesis 24:5. Whoever allows himself to be used in important concerns, does well to seek beforehand full instructions.—The Angel (Hebrews 1:14 : Psalms 34:8).—Cramer: Homes and goods are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife comes from the Lord (Proverbs 19:14).—Schrφder: The hoary head should impel us to set our household in order (Calvin).—The last labor of each of the patriarchs, is to attend to the necessary dispositions and arrangements with respect to their successors (Drechsler).—What Abraham in his faith here avoids, was expressly forbidden to the people of Abraham in the law (Genesis 18:19; Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:1-3). Natural prudence would have led Abraham to coutract an alliance with one of the Canaanitish families through the marriage of Isaac, to have thus secured for himself support and protection, and indeed, thus to have taken the first step toward the possession of the land of Canaan; but he had learned already that God directed his way, etc. (Roos).—It occurs, even to-day, in the East, that the marriage of children is arranged by the parents, before the young persons have seen each other. Similar occurrence, Genesis 21:21.—The doctrine we draw from this passage, is this, that parents should take care for their sons and daughters, that they may be advanced to an honorable marriage state, although parents at times misuse their power and right, and constrain children to take those in marriage whom they have not loved. Such parents should be punished, for they have no parental heart or disposition, but are as blocks or stones, etc. (Luther).—Here the angels are the servants of the bride or marriage (Luther against “The Romish Celibacy”). [Parents in disposing of their children, should carefully consult the welfare of their souls, and their furtherance in the way to heaven. Henry.—A. G.] 2. Genesis 24:10-21. Starke: (All the goods of his master were in his hand. The Jews infer from this that Eliezer had taken an inventory of his master’s goods with him to Haran, that he might persuade more readily the bride of Isaac to go with him!) Genesis 24:14. Upon the desire of Eliezer to recognize the bride through a sign. We see that God himself was not displeased with it. But it does not follow, therefore, that we should follow this example, since that would be to tempt God. (But the general truth that the cheerful readiness to render service to the aged and helpless, and an affable demeanor, are to be viewed as qualities in maidens which render them worthy of love, and desirable in marriage, is, however, truly contained in this example.)—Cramer: Genesis 24:11. A reminding us of our duty, to relieve the animals from their toil, and to feed and water them at the proper time. Genesis 24:17. A Christian must begin his bride-wooing with prayer.—Musculus: To be a creature of God, is common to all; to be beautiful is the mark of special favor.—(Upon Genesis 24:19. This was a great offer surely, since it is well known that when camels have had nothing to drink for several days, they drink for a long time after one another before they are satisfied).—Christian parents should train their children, especially their daughters, not to idleness and pride, but to household duties and work. Genesis 24:21. A man often does something in the simplicity of his heart, and knows not what end God will make it serve.—We may serve our neighbors in a greater measure than they desire.—Lisco: The ring. Either a semicircular ring, as a diadem for the brow, pendent above the nose, or the customary nose-ring of the East (Isaiah 3:21; Ezekiel 16:12; Proverbs 11:22).—Calwer Handbuch: A remarkable hearing of prayer.—Schrφder: The Arabians still call Mesopotamia El Dschesireh, i.e., the island.—At one sign from the camel’s driver the camel kneels down; at another he rises up.—The Arabian geographers still recognize the fountains without the city, which provide the needy inhabitants with water.—Valerius Herberger: A young person, also, should not, as dazzled and blinded, cling to one only, and think that if he could not obtain that one, he must go out from the world, but should ever look to the Lord, and see whither he will lead him. What God gives prospers well, but what men and the lust of the eye gives, that becomes a pure purgatory. (But although the understanding, and, indeed, the spiritual understanding, should direct the affair, still the choice itself remains a matter of the heart). [We here learn to be particular in commending our affairs to the conduct and care of divine providence. It is our wisdom to follow providence, but folly to force it. Henry.—A. G.] 3. Genesis 24:22-33. Starke: (Upon Genesis 24:22. Is it not in opposition with 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 2 Timothy 3:4-5, to put on these ornaments? We answer: 1. Rebekah had no conceit of herself in connection with them; 2. as Sarah was a princess, so Rebekah became the daughter of a prince, and we cannot refuse to distinguished persons a certain preλminence in clothing and ornaments; 3. the great abundance of gold, precious stones and jewels in the Levitical cultus, was not to contribute to pride.)—Cramer: Genesis 24:27. If God has heard us, we should thank him. Genesis 24:31. Blessed of the Lord. An honorable title of the believer in the Old Testament (Psalms 37:22, etc.).—To be obliging, mild, hospitable, is a Christian virtue.—Calwer Handbuch: (The bracelets were 42 ducats, the ring 2 ducats).—Schrφder: One may hold this before the sour hypocrites, who hold it a part of spirituality and peculiar sanctity not to wear gold or silver. God permits the pomp, splendor and ornaments at a marriage feast. Even the dance cannot be condemned, if it is carried on in a chaste, moral and honorable way. Luther. [The hypothetical “if” shows the doubtfulness of this announcement even in Luther’s mind, and in the circumstances by which he was surrounded.—A. G.] Genesis 24:31. Upon Laban’s sonorous words. As soon as a living consciousness of God springs up in any one, there enters, as its consequence, a sacred horror of going beyond one’s own stand-point (Hengstenberg). (But although Laban speaks here beyond his own proper measure, still we are not justified in denying his piety). 4. Genesis 24:34-49. Starke: Upon Genesis 24:35. Herein Eliezer shows his prudence. He knew well that a mother would never give her daughter to a man who lived more than a hundred miles away, in scanty, perhaps needy circumstances. He thus also, when he says, “The Lord hath blessed my master,” turns away from his master every suspicion that he had gained such great wealth in any wrong way.—Upon Genesis 24:37. Hence they could not entertain the thought, if Abraham is so rich why so great and expensive a journey? (he could indeed have easily taken a Canaanitess).—Upon Genesis 24:47. In verses 22, 23, it is said, the servant had given her the presents before he had asked after her relationship, here the reverse seems to be true; but the two are easily reconciled upon the supposition that he brought out the presents before the question, but after it, laid them upon her. (They are rather reconciled upon the theory, that he here gives the order of things as he would have acted, while he himself above, in the joy of his heart, a little too hastily, or in the strong assurance of a prosperous issue, had actually done both things at the same time, leaving out of view, that by the presupposition and statement of the question here, he declares the friend-liness of the family of Bethuel.)—To the right hand or to the left. Nahor left several sons, and Eliezer was not therefore confined to one line of Nahor’s descendants.—The Christian suitor must not seek to constrain by power the consent of the bride, of her parents and friends, but leave all to the providence of God.—Schrφder: The fulness and particularity with which the servant makes his narrative, agrees perfectly with the character of the affectionate, intelligent, and aged parents. He knows how to put every lever into play; he uses every possible means.—While in verse 14 he had used the common term maiden, he uses here with great diligence, in his circumstantial speech, the more elevated term virgin. [The distinction referred to is that between Bethulah and Almah. The latter appears in Isaiah 7:14. See Wordsworth.—A. G.]—The nose-ring, the golden ring, which penetrated the middle wall of the nose, hung down over the mouth, was a female ornament of the ancient East (Ezekiel 16:12), and remains so still, according to Niebuhr and Arvieux. About the size of a dollar, it frequently surrounded the whole mouth. It is at present also used among the Arabians as an engagement present. 5. Genesis 24:50-54. Starke: Upon Genesis 24:50. The received conjecture that Bethuel stands in the background because he was old or sick. Otherwise it appears as if the brother had somewhat to say in the marriage of his sister.—Upon Genesis 24:52. Eliezer must have been a most devout worshipper (Genesis 24:12; Genesis 24:26-27).—Christian (pious) marriages are not by chance, but made by God.—Bibl. Wirt.: When parents see that God deals with their children in a favorable way, they should not have too much unseasonable consideration or hesitancy.—Schrφder: Of a so-called purchase-price (for the wife) (Genesis 29; Exodus 22:16-17), which was usually analogous to the price of a slave,—as the Arab of to-day purchases his bride perhaps for from three to five camels—and of our word marriage, from to buy, or to hire, there is nothing said here, since the suitor divided richly his jewels between Laban and the mother. 6. Genesis 24:54-61. Starke: Upon Genesis 24:55. Because she must go with him to about 124, or, according to another reckoning, 128 miles. The Jews have received it as a rule that there should be at least ten months between the engagement and the home-bringing of the bride. (The Jews understand ιξιν to mean a year, and under the tenth, ten months.)—Lange: Although Eliezer would not be detained several days, it is not necessary to conclude that the departure took place on the very next day. (He reminds us, with good reason, that Rebekah had her things to arrange and pack for the departure, etc. It is certain that they hasted, and did not remain more than ten days). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECTIONAbraham’s second Marriage. Keturah and her Sons. Abraham’s death and his burial Genesis 25:1-101 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah [incense, vapor, fragrance]. 2And she bare him Zimran [= Simon. Celebrated in song, renowned], and Jokshan [fowler], and Medan [strife], and Midian [contention], and Ishbak [leaving, forsaking], and Shuah [bowed, sad—pit, grave]. 3And Jokshan begat Sheba [man; the Sabζans], and Dedan [Fόrst: low country, lowlands]. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim [plural of Asshur. Fόrst: hero, strength], and Letushim [hammered, sharpened], and Leummim [people]. 4And the sons of Midian; Ephah [darkness, gloomy], and Epher [= opher; a young animal, calf], and Hanoch [initiated], and Abidah [father of wisdom, the wise], and Eldaah [Gesenius: whom God has called]. All these Were the children of Keturah. 5And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 6But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and [separating] sent them away from 7Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. And these are the days of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years. 8Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full [satisfied with life; see Genesis 35:29] of years; and was gathered to his people. 9And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before [easterly from] Mamre; 10The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife. GENERAL REMARKSThe present section is closely connected with the following (Genesis 25:12-18) which treats of Ishmael, and with the whole history of Isaac, under the common idea of the descendants of Abraham. It introduces first these descendants in the widest idea of the word: the sons of Keturah. Then those in a narrower sense: the family of Ishmael. And upon these, those in the most restricted sense: Isaac and his sons. The writer adheres to the same method here which he has followed in the presentation of the tabular view of the nations. He begins in his description with those most remote, then proceeds to those nearer, and finally comes to those standing nearest the centre. We cannot, however, make the Tholedoth (generations) here the place of a division in the history, since the end of the life of Abraham marks distinctly a section which is closed at the beginning of the history of Isaac; and thus, as the genealogy of Keturah is interwoven with the history of Abraham, so the genealogy of Ishmael is connected with the history of Isaac. Knobel holds that the section Genesis 25:1-18 belongs to the original writing. But it is not Elohistic merely because it contains genealogies, but because of the universal relation of the tribes here referred to. Knobel remarks upon the two genealogies of Keturah and Hagar, that the tribes dwelt in western Arabia and Arabia Petrea, and also in the northern half of Arabia Felix, while the descendants of Joktan (Genesis 10:26 ff.) belonged to southern Arabia, at least in the earliest time. “From the Abrahamic horde (?) there were thus divisions who went to the east, south-east, and south, where, however, they found original Arabian inhabitants, with whom they mingled and formed new tribes. We are not, therefore, to understand that the tribes here mentioned in each case were descended entirely from Abraham. It is not intended, even, that these tribes alone peopled the regions described; rather they were inhabited by other tribes also, e.g., Amalekites, Horites, Edomites, and others. The Arabs, who are truly so very dependent upon the Hebrew traditions, agree essentially with the Hebrew accounts. They distinguish: 1. Original Arabs in different parts of Arabia; 2. Katanites in Yemen and Hhadramant, and 3. Abrahamites in Hedjaz, Nejd, etc., but trace back the last-named to Ishmael, who turned his course to Mecca, and joined the tribe Djorhomites, with whom Hagar herself was buried. (See Ibn Coteiba, ed. by Wόstenfeld, pp. 18, 30 ff. Abulfeda: Hist. Anteisl., ed. by Fleischer, p. 190 ff.)” Knobel. [Also article “Arabia,” in Kitto and in Smith.—A. G.] AND 1. Genesis 25:1-4. Abraham and Keturah.—Then again Abraham took a wife.—The sense of this statement evidently is: 1. That Abraham took Keturah first after the death of Sarah, and had six sons by her, thus at an age of 137 years and upward (Abraham was ten years older than Sarah, who died aged 127 years); 2. that Keturah, although united with Abraham according to the nature of monogamy, enjoyed only the rights of a concubine (see Genesis 25:6, comp. 1 Chronicles 1:32). The first point is opposed by Keil: “It is generally held that the marriage of Abraham with Keturah was concluded after the death of Sarah, and that the power of Abraham at so great an age, to beget still six sons, is explained upon the ground that the Almighty God had endowed his body, already dead, with new life and generative strength, for the generating of the son of promise. This idea has, however, no sure ground upon which it rests, since it is not said that Abraham took Keturah to wife first after the death of Sarah, etc. This supposition is precarious, and does not agree well with the declaration that Abraham had sent away the sons of his concubines with presents during his own lifetime,” etc. Keil appears desirous to save the literal expression, that Abraham’s body was dead when he was a hundred years old (Romans 4:19) but in the effort comes into direct conflict with the moral picture of the life of Abraham, who even in his younger years had only taken Hagar at the suggestion of Sarah, in impatience as to the faith of the promise, and thus certainly would not in later years, and when there was no such motive, have violated the marriage rights of Sarah by taking another wife. He might also send the sons of Keturah away from his house before they were from thirty to forty years of age, as he had before sent Ishmael away. The expression as to the dead body evidently cannot be understood in an absolute sense, otherwise the conception of Isaac even could not be spoken of. But if, however, there is a miracle in the conception of Isaac, it follows only that the facts of our history are to be viewed as extraordinary, not as something incredible.—And she bare him (see 1 Chronicles 1:32).—1. Keturah’s sons: Zimram. Ζομβρᾶν or Ζεμβρᾶν, etc. in the Septuagint. Knobel compares it with Ζαβράμ, the royal city of Κιναιδοκολπῖται, westwards from Mecca, upon the Red Sea, spoken of in Ptolemζus, 6, 7, 5, etc. Still he is in doubt. According to Delitzsch they lie nearer the Zemareni (Plin. vi. 32).—Jokshan.—Knobel: “Probably the Κασσανῖται (in Ptolem. 6., 7, 6) upon the Red Sea.” Keil suggests the Himjaric tribe of Jakisch, in southern Arabia.—Medan and Midian.—Knobel: “Without doubt Μοδιάνα, upon the eastern coast of the Ailanitic gulf, and Μαδιάμα, a tract to the north-east of this, in Ptolem. Genesis 6:7; Genesis 2:27. The two tribes appear to have been united. The Arabian geographers regard a place, Madjain, as the residence of the father-in-law of Moses.”—Ishbak. Knobel: “Perhaps the name is still preserved in Schobeck, a place in the land of the Edomites.”—Shuah.Knobel: “It must be sought in or near the Edomites, since a friend of the Edomite, Job, belonged to this tribe (Job 2:11).” Other explanations may be seen in Delitzsch and Keil.—2. Jokshan’s sons: Sheba.—Probably the Sabζans mentioned in connection with Tema (Job 6:19). The plunderers of the oxen and asses of Job (Job 1:15).—Dedan.—Named in Jeremiah 25:23, in connection with Tema and Buz, as a commercial people.—3. The sons of Dedan: Ashurim, compare with the tribe Asyr; Letushim, with the Banu Leits; Leummim, with the Banu Lam.—4. The sons of Midian: Epha.—Named in Isaiah 60:6, in connection with Midian, a people trading in gold and incense.—Epher The Banu Ghifar in Hedjaz; Hanoch, compare with the place Hanakye, three days journey northerly from Medina: Abidah and Eldaah. “Compare with the tribes Abida and Wadaah, in the vicinity of Asyr.” Keil. For the more particular and detailed combination of these names with Arabic tribes, see Knobel, p. 188–190. [The attempt to identify these tribes, and fix their locality, has not been very successful. The more full and accurate explorations of Arabia may shed more light upon what is now very obscure—although it is probable that in their eternal wars and tumults, their fixed limits, and probably the tribes themselves, have been lost.—A. G.] 2. Genesis 25:5-6. Abraham’s bequests.—All that he had,—i.e., The herds and essential parts of his possessions. Isaac was the chief heir of his legitimate marriage. This final distinction was previously a subject of divine appointment, and had been also confirmed by Abraham (Genesis 24:36), and finds expression in the arrangements for Isaac’s marriage.—The sons of the concubines.—In comparison with Sarah, the mistress, even Keturah was a wife of a secondary rank. This relation of degrees is not identical with concubinage, nor with a morganitic marriage. It is connected, beyond doubt, with the diversity in the right of inheritance on the part of the children.—Gave gifts.—He doubtless established them as youthful nomads, with small herds and flocks, and the servants belonging with them.—Unto the east country.—To Arabia. [In the widest sense, easterly, east, and south-east.—A. G.] This separation was not occasioned merely by the necessities of nomadic chiefs, but also for the free possession of the inheritance by Isaac (see Genesis 13:11; Genesis 36:6). Delitzsch thinks that he had already, during his lifetime, passed over his possessions to Isaac. Under patriarchal relations, there is no true sense in which that could be done. But when the necessities of the other sons were satisfied, the inheritance was thereby secured exclusively to Isaac. “The Mosaic, and indeed patriarchal usage recognized only a so-called intestate inheritance, i.e., one independent of the final arrangement of the testator, determined according to law, by a lineal and graded succession. If, therefore, Abraham would not leave the sons of his concubines to go unprovided for, he must in his own lifetime endow them with gifts.” Delitzsch. 3. Genesis 25:7-10. Abraham’s age, death, burial, and grave.—And these are the days.—The importance of the length of Abraham’s life is here also brought into strong relief through the expression which is fitly chosen. One hundred and seventy-five years.—An old man and full of years.—[Of years is not in the original. Abraham was full, satisfied.A. G.] According to the promise Genesis 13:15, comp. Genesis 35:29.—And was gathered.—The expression is similar to that: come to his fathers (Genesis 15:15), or shall be gathered to his fathers (Judges 2:10), and presupposes continued personal existence, since it designates especially the being gathered into Sheol, with those who have gone before, but also points without doubt, to a communion in a deeper sense with the pious fathers on the other side of death. In later days Abraham’s bosom became the peculiar aim and goal of the dying saints (Luke 16:22).—And they buried him.—Ishmael takes his part in the burial, not as Knobel thinks, because he was first removed after this; but because he was not so far removed but that the sad and heavy tidings could reach him, and because he was still a renowned son of Abraham, favored with a special blessing (Genesis 17:10.—In the cave of Machpelah.—It should be observed with what definiteness even the burial of Abraham in his hereditary sepulchre is here recorded. AND ETHICAL1. Delitzsch: “Keturah was not, like Hagar, a concubine during the lifetime of the bride: so far Augustin: De civ. dei, xvi. 34, correctly rests upon this fact in his controversy with the opponents of secnnd� nupti�. But still she is, Genesis 25:6 (comp 1 Chronicles 1:32), τִּ ?ιμֶ ?πֶ ?ωׁ; she does not stand upon the level with Sarah, the peculiar, only one, the mother of the son of promise. There is no stain, moreover, cleaving to this second marriage. Even the relation to Keturah promotes, in its measure, the divine scheme of blessing, for the new life which (Genesis 26) came upon the old, exhausted nature and strength of Abraham, and the word of promise, which destined him to be the father of a mass of nations, authenticates itself in this second marriage.” 2. The second marriage of Abraham has also its special reason in the social necessities and habits of the aged and lonely nomad. The word (Genesis 2:24) holds true of Isaac. 3. Physiology speaks of a partial appearance of a certain regeneration of life in those who have reached a great age; new teeth, etc. These physiological phenomena appear to have reached a full development in the life of Abraham. We should perhaps hold—that these epochs of regeneration in the course of life appear more frequently in the patriarchs, living nearer to the paradisiac time and state. [We must not, however, overlook the fact, that the regeneration in Abraham’s case was supernatural.—A. G.] 4. The Abrahamites in the wider sense, who partially peopled Arabia, must form the broad basis for the theocratic faith of Abraham, and become a bridge between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and heathenism on the other.—Gerlach: “All these are heads of Arabian tribes, but they are in great part unknown. Those who are best known are the (Genesis 25:2) Midianites, on the east of the Ailanitic gulf. A mercantile people (Genesis 37:28) often afterwards at war with Israel (especially Judges 8.) who in the time of the kings, have already disappeared from the history.” Bunsen: “The Arabians are still Saracens, i.e., east-landers (comp. Genesis 29:1).” 5. The days of the years. The life-time is spent in the days of the years, and at its end the years appear as days. [Abraham is now in all respects complete as to his life; he has rendered the highest obedience (Genesis 22), he has secured a grave in the land of promise (Genesis 23), he has cared for the marriage of the son of promise (Genesis 24), he has dismissed the sons of nature merely (Genesis 25:5-6), and finally he has come to a good age and is satisfied with life. Then Abraham dies. Baumgarten, p. 246.—A. G.] 6. Gathered to his people. The choice of the expression here rests upon a good ground; Abraham has become a father in an eminent and peculiar sense. Essentially, moreover, the expression is the same with that (Genesis 15:15), come to his fathers, lie with the fathers (Deuteronomy 31:16), be gathered with the fathers (Judges 2:10). “These expressions do not mean merely to die, for βָּ ?εַ ?ς and ξεּ ?ϊ are constantly joined together (Genesis 25:8; Genesis 25:17; Genesis 35:29, etc.), nor to be buried in a family burial-place with relatives, because the burial is expressed still by χָ ?αַ ?ψ (Genesis 25:9; Genesis 15:15, etc.), and because they are used of those who were not buried with their fathers, but in other places, e.g., Moses, David, etc., as well as of those in whose tombs the first one of the fathers was laid, e.g., Solomon and Ahab (1 Kings 11:43; 1 Kings 22:40).” Knobel. But there is no ground for his assertion, that these expressions, however, are derived from burials in common public grounds, and then transferred to the admission into Sheol. We should not confound with this harsh assumption the fact, that a more or less common burial represented perhaps the reunion on the other side of the grave. But the peculiar church-yards or large public burial-places were unknown to the patriarchal nomads. Jacob did not bring the body of his Rachel to Hebron. There must have been developed already with Enoch a definite consciousness of the faith of immortality (Hebrews 11:5). Delitzsch: “As the weariness with life on the part of the patriarchs was not only a turning away from the miseries of the present state, but a turning to that state beyond the present, free from these miseries, so the union with the fathers is not one of the corpse only, but of the persons. That death did not, as it might have appeared from Genesis 3:19, put an end to the individual continued existence of the man, was an idea widely spread through the after-paradisiac humanity, which has its ultimate (?) source and vindication in that grace of God testified to man at the same time with his anger,” etc. The consciousness of immortality no more takes its origin after the fall, than the conscience (Romans 2:14-15). The hope of life in the patriarchs was surely something more (Hebrews 11:13) than a mere consciousness of immortality. But death and the state beyond it has evidently, in the view of the patriarchs, a foreshadowing and gleam of that New-Testament peace, which was somewhat obscured during the Mosaic period, under the light of the law, and the more developed feeling of guilt and death. To the very rich literature upon this subject belong: Bφttcher: de Inferis, etc.; �hler: Veteris Testamenti sententia de rebus post mortem futuris illustrata; the writings of Gideon Brecher, Engelbert, Schumann; “The presupposition of the christian doctrine of Immortality stated,” H. Schultz. Upon Sheol consult the Bible Dictionaries.7. Was gathered to his people, or those of his race, to his fathers—to go home to them, thus to go home—lie or rest with them; a symbolical, rich, glorious declaration of a personal life in the other world, and of a union with those of like mind or character. 8. The connection of Ishmael with Isaac in the burial of Abraham presents the former in a favorable aspect, as Esau appears in a favorable light in his conduct towards Jacob at his return to Canaan. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs.—How God fulfils to Abraham all his promises: 1. The promise of a rich life (father of a mass of nations, of a great age); 2. the promise of a peaceful death (satisfied with life, full of days, an honorable burial).—The Abrahamites, or children of Abraham: 1. Common characteristic religiousness, spirituality, wide-spread, ruling the world; 2. distinctions (Arabian and Jew, Mohammed and Christ, Mohammedanism and the Christian world).—Abraham’s bequests, a modification of the strictness of the right of inheritance.—Days of Abraham, or this full age even, at last only a circle of days.—Abraham died in faith (Hebrews 11:13)—The present and future in the burial of Abraham: 1. On this side, the present, his two sons alone in the cave of Machpelah with the corpse; 2. on that side, the future, a community of people, the companions of Abraham, to whose society he joins himself.—Abraham died on the way to perfection: 1. How far perfected? 2. how far still not perfect? Starke: (Upon the division of Arabia in the wider sense.)—Cramer: The second or third marriage is not prohibited to widowers or widows; still all prudence and care ought to be exercised (Romans 7:8; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Tob 3:8).—Bibl. Wirt.: Pious and prudent householders act well when for the sake of good order they make their bequests among their children and heirs (Isaiah 38:1).—(Since Isaac was born in the hundredth year of Abraham, and Jacob and Esau in the sixtieth year of Isaac, and in the twentieth year of his married state, so Jacob must have been fifteen years old at the death of Abraham.) (Sir 14:16-17.)—The pious even are subject to death, still their death is held precious by the Lord.—What God promises his children, that he certainly keeps for them (Genesis 15:15; Psalms 33:4).—To die at a tranquil age and in a tranquil time, is an act of God’s kindness and love.—Cramer: The cross and adversity make one yielding and willing to die.—The souls of the dead have their certain places; they are in the hand of God, and no evil befalls them (Wis 3:1; 2 Corinthians 5:8).—Lisco: Faith in immortality is indeed never expressly asserted in the Holy Scriptures (see however Matthew 22:32), but is everywhere assumed, for without this faith the whole revelation of God would be vain and nugatory; the Scripture doctrine of the resurrection of the body includes the doctrine of immortality; is impossible indeed without this. This truth is set in its fullest and clearest light by Christ (2 Timothy 1:10),—Calwer Handbuch: We see, moreover, from these verses, how the Bible relates only the true history. Had it been a myth or poem it would have left Abraham at the highest step of the glory of his faith, and passed over in silence this union with Keturah at the age of a hundred and forty years. Abraham is presented to us as an instance and type of faith, but not as one artistically drawn and beautified, but as one taken from actual life, not even as a (superhuman) perfect believer, but as one such, who leaves us to find the first perfect one in his great descendant, and points us to him. Schrφder: The satisfaction with life well agrees with a heavenly-minded man (Roos).—To his people. The words sound as if Abraham went from one people to another, and from one city to another. An illustrious and remarkable testimony to the resurrection and the future life (Luther).—Since Abraham himself was laid there (in the cave of Machpelah) to rest, he takes possession in his own person of this promised land (Drechsler). [And while his body was laid there as if to take possession of the promised land, his soul has gone to his people to take possession of that which the promised land typified, or heaven.—A. G.]—For the character of Abraham see Schrφder, p. 442, where, however, the image and form of Sarah is thrown too much in the shade; [In the section now completed the sacred writer descends from the general to the special, from the distant to the near, from the class to the individual. He dissects the soul of man, and discloses to our view the whole process of the spiritual life, from the new-born babe to the perfect man. The Lord calls, and his obedience to the call is the moment of his new birth. The second stage of his spiritual life presents itself to our view when Abraham believed the promise, and the Lord counted it to him for righteousness, and he enters into covenant with God. The last great act of his spiritual life is the surrender of his only son to the will of God. Murphy, p. 362.—A. G.] Footnotes:[Genesis 25:2.—Medan, Judge, and Midian, one who measures. Murphy.—A. G.] [Genesis 25:8.—Lit., Breathed out.—A. G.] [It is not unusual for the author to go back and bring up the narrative, especially at the close of one section, or at the beginning of another; but it is not probable that this is the case here. We may hold to the literal sense of the words, that Abraham’s body was dead, i.e., dead as to offspring, and yet hold that the energy miraculously given to it for the conception of Isaac was continued after Sarah’s death.—A. G.] [Ishmael, although not the promised seed, was yet the subject of a special blessing. The sons of Keturah had no particular blessing. Ishmael is, therefore, properly associated with Isaac, in paying the last offices to their deceased father. Murphy, p. 360.—A. G.] [Also an Excursus of Prof. Tayler Lewis on Genesis 37:35, below, and the wide literature here open to the English reader; embracing the doctrine of “the intermediate state,” and the controversies upon the intermediate place.—A. G.] B. ISAAC, AND HIS FAITH-. Genesis 25:12 to Genesis 28:9FIRST SECTIONIsaac and Ishmael Genesis 25:11-1811 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and [but] Isaac dwelt by the well Lahai-roi [wells of the quickener of vision]. 12Now [and] these are the generations [genealogies, Toledoth] of Ishmael, Abraham’s 13son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bare unto Abraham. And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names according to their generations: the first-born of Ishmael, Nebajoth [heights; Nabathei, a tribe of Northern Arabia]; and Kedar 14[dark skin. An Arabian tribe], and Adbeel [miracle of God], and Mibsam [sweet odor]. And Mishma [hearing, report, what is heard], and Dumah [silence, solitude], and Massah [bearing, burden, 15 uttering what is said], Hadar [inner apartment, tent], and Tema [desert, uncultivated region], Jetur 16[Seven? a nomadic village], Naphish [recreation], and Kedemah [eastward]; These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns [fixed abodes], and by their castles; 17twelve princes according to their nations. And these are the years of the life of Ishmael: an hundred and thirty and seven years; and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people. 18And they dwelt from Havilah [a region of Arabia inhabited by the descendants of Joctan, upon the eastern boundary of the Ishmaelites] unto Shur [a place east of Egypt, in the borders of the desert], that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward [in the direction of] Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren [he settled eastward of all his brethren]. GENERAL REMARKSSee the remarks upon the previous section. AND 1. Genesis 25:11. Isaac after the death of Abraham.—God blessed Isaac.—The blessing of Abraham continues in the blessing of Isaac; this is manifested in his welfare and prosperity, or rather in a grateful consciousness which refers his welfare to the kindness of God. We read: Elohim blessed Isaac; for Isaac, as future ancestor of Edom and Jacob, sustained now a universal relation. In earthly respects Edom is Isaac’s heir as well as Jacob, or even by preference.—By the well Lahai-roi.—By the well of Hagar. According to Genesis 35:27, Jacob met his aged father Isaac at Hebron. Doubtless this city bore the same relation from the time of Abraham onwards; Hebron was the principal residence, Beer-sheba the principal station for overseeing their flocks. At this station Isaac, as steward of his father, had already taken up his abode, and in consequence of his love of solitude and seclusion he became so fond of it that now he dwelt here regularly, without yielding up the principal residence at Hebron; he even moved his tent from Beer-sheba farther into the deep solitude of Hagar’s well. 2. Genesis 25:12-16. The Toledoth of Ishmael. [Upon the documentary hypothesis, each of these phrases marks the beginning of a new document. But if we are to regard each of these documents as the work of a separate author, then this author contributes only seven verses to the narrative. This is obviously running the theory into the ground, and shows how unreasonable it is to regard these phrases as indicating any change of author. They open new themes or sections of the history.—A. G.] Here also it is obvious that the Toledoth of Genesis does not begin the separate section of the history, but frequently concludes them. In Genesis 4, 5 the first human race, together with the Toledoth of Adam, is dismissed from history. So is it also in Genesis 10, in respect to the heathen nations, descendants of Japheth, Ham, and Shem. Ch. 11 dismisses the more theocratic Shemites, together with their Toledoth. In Genesis 22:20, the Nahorites, the last of the Shemites and nearest to Abraham, retire from the history, just as the Haranites, or Lot and his descendants in Genesis 19:36; and as the Abrahamites descending from Keturah, in Genesis 25; and in our section the Ishmaelites. After the close of the history of Isaac the Edomites, Genesis 36:1, etc., appear. The theocracy permits no branch of the human race to vanish out of its circle of vision without fixing it in its consciousness. In Genesis 37:2 Jacob also retires into the background as compared with the history of his sons. With the Toledoth of Ishmael comp. 1 Chronicles 1:28-31.—Whom Hagar the Egyptian.—Besides the names of the twelve sons of Ishmael that here present themselves, there occurs also (1 Chronicles 5:10) the name of the Hagarites, Ishmaelites called after the mother, whose name is no doubt assumed in one or more of the names before us. In respect to the frequent occurrence of the name Hagar in Arabic authors, see Knobel, p. 211.—Nebajoth and Kedar.—Delitzsch: “The names of the twelve sons of Ishmael are in part well known. Nebajoth and Kedar are not only mentioned together in Isaiah 60:7, but also by Plin.: Hisi. Nat., 6, 7 (Nabatζi et Cedrei; Kaidhβr and Nβbat (Nabt) are also known to Arabian historians as descendants of Ishmael. In respect to the meaning of the word Nabatζans, both in a stricter and a more comprehensive sense, as also in regard to their abodes in Arabia Petrea and beyond, see Knobel, Delitzsch, Keil.—The Kadarenes, described Isaiah 21:17 as good bowmen, lived in the desert between Arabia Petrea and Babylonia (Isaiah 42:11; Psalms 120:5). “The Rabbins use their name to denote the Arabians in general.” Knobel.—Adbeel and Mibsam.—In respect to these names, as well as to that of Kedma, we can only reach conjectures (see Knobel).—Mishma (Septuagint and Vulgate: Masma).—Connected by Knobel with Μαισαμανε͂ις of Ptol., Genesis 6:7; Genesis 6:21. In Arabic authors we have beni Mismah.—Duma.—Probably Dumath al Djendel, on the border between Syria and Babylonia.—Massa.—Apparently the same as Μασανοί, on the northeast side of Duma according to Ptol., Genesis 5:19; Genesis 5:2.—Hadar (a more correct reading, 1 Chronicles 1:30, is ηֲ ?γַ ?γ, as compared with the maritime country Chathth, famous among the ancient Arabians on account of its lances), between Omam and Bahrein. For further information see Knobel, etc.—Hadar is taken together with Thema, which Knobel connects with Θεμοί of Ptolemy, on the Persian Gulf, or with the Arabic banu Teim, a celebrated tribe in Hamasa, probably different from the Tema, Isaiah 21:14; Jeremiah 25:23; Job 6:19.—Jetur, Naphisch (see 1 Chronicles 5:18).—“Neighbors to the Israelites on the east side of Jordan. Knobel refers Jetur to the Iturζans. The present Druses are probably their descendants.” Kedma.—“As a separate Arabic tribe we can only refer it, in its narrower sense, to αְּ ?πֵ ?ιχֶ ?γֶ ?ν, who in Judges 6:3; Judges 6:33; Judges 7:12, are distinguished from other Arabians, and must have dwelt in the vicinity of the country east of Jordan. Perhaps they are the same with those enumerated with the Moabites and Ammonites in Isaiah 11:14 and Ezekiel 25:4; Ezekiel 25:10.” Knobel. The sons of the East in a more comprehensive sense denotes the Arabians generally, the Saracens.—By their towns, and by their castles, i.e., their movable and fixed habitations.—Twelve princes according to their nations (Lange renders “to their nations”).—The translation, according to their nations, can only mean, as moulded, determined by their nations. We hold, therefore, the expression to mean: twelve princes chosen for governing and representing their twelve tribes. 3. Genesis 25:17-18. The death of Ishmael and the expansion of the Ishmaelites.—The years of the life of Ishmael.—This hale man attained only an age of a hundred and thirty-seven years, while on the contrary, the more delicate appearing Isaac reaches the age of a hundred and eighty years. Possibly the natural passions of the one consumed life sooner; no doubt also the quiet, peaceful, believing disposition of the other, exercised a life-prolonging influence. Ishmael dies, the Ishmaelites spread themselves abroad.—From Havilah unto Shur.—Havilah, see Genesis 10:29. Knobel: “From Chaulan in the south to the eastern boundary of Egypt.” Schur. From Egypt to the east in the direction of Assyria. According to Josephus: “Antiq.” i. 12, 4, the Ishmaelites dwelt from the Euphrates to the Red Sea.—In the presence of all his brethren, i.e., Hebrews, Edomites, and the children of Keturah. If we understand by Havilah the Chaulotζans on the boundary of Arabia Petrea (Keil), we must assign a different meaning to these words. Keil: “From southeast to southwest.” Knobel: “From southeast to northwest.” Delitzsch: “The capital of the Ishmaelitic tribes was Hezaz, situated south of Yemen. From this they spread themselves to the west side of the Siniaitic peninsula, and still further in a northerly and northeasterly direction beyond Arabia Petrea and Deserta to the countries under Assyrian sway.” [He died. He had fallen into the lot of his inheritance. The Heb. word includes the idea of a deliberate settlement, and an assertion by force of his rights and possessions. Thus the promise uttered before his birth was now fulfilled.—A. G.] AND ETHICAL1. Ishmael in his development precedes Isaac, as Esau precedes Jacob, as the world gets the start of the kingdom of heaven. It looks well for the development of Ishmael that he buries his father in company with his brother Isaac, though the latter had been preferred to him. 2. The twelve princes of Ishmael are also mentioned as witnesses that God has faithfully fulfilled his promises concerning their ancestor. The Arabs, too, count twelve sons of Ishmael. 3. The Ishmaelites, the germ of the Arabic people in its historic significance. The country of Arabia. Its history. Mohammed. The mission of the Mohammedans. The mission among the Mohammedans. Since Ishmael did not subject himself to Israel, he has become subject to the Turk. 4. Ishmael’s genealogy seems to have been preserved in the house of Isaac, just as Therah’s in the house of Abraham, or as the genealogy of the nations in house of Shem. The father’s house does not lose the memory or the trace of the lost son. 5. How the blessing of Abraham descends upon Isaac. The hereditary blessing in the descendants of Abraham, an antithesis to the hereditary curse in the descendants of Adam generally. The inclination to solitude in the life of Isaac. The nature, rights, and limit of contemplation. Contemplative characters. History of a contemplative life. AND See Doctrinal and Ethical.—Isaac the blessed son of a blessed father. The great divine miracle, that the blessing of a saving faith was preserved in one line (in spite of all partial obscurations) from Adam to Christ.—Isaac’s inclination to solitary contemplation.—Perhaps he believed already that a special blessing was confined to that particular place, the well of vision.—That Isaac selected Hagar’s well as a favorite spot, testifies to the nobility of his soul (for Hagar was the rival of his mother, and Ishmael was her son).—Ishmael’s death; or the robust often die before the feeble.—From Ishmael, a child once languishing and perishing from thirst in the wilderness, God’s providence made a great (world-conquering) nation.—We may in fact best comprehend the patriarchal triad by regarding Abraham as constituting especially an example of faith, Isaac an example of love, Jacob an example of hope. We have prominently presented to us the still more predominating features: the man of the deeds of faith, the man of the sufferings of faith, the man of the struggles of faith. Starke: The temporal blessing (of Isaac) a prelude: a. As an earnest for the whole land of Canaan; b. as a type and pledge of the eternal and spiritual blessing of salvation in Christ.—Misma, Duma, Masa. From these three names, meaning: hearing; silence, patience, the Hebrews formed the proverb: We must hear many things, keep secret many things, and suffer many things.—(The Ishmael ites called Hagarites after Hagar. In later times they preferred to be called Saracens, after Sarah, as if dwelling in the tents of Sarah.) Ver, 17. Some cite this to prove the happy death of Ishmael, some to prove the contrary. Luther does not wish to decide, but leaves it with God Genesis 25:18. (Psalms 112:2.)—What God promises he will surely perform. Let us only have faith in his promises (Genesis 17:20; Genesis 21:13).—Bibl. Wirt.: People of no note may become eminent and distinguished persons if it is God’s will (Genesis 41:40-43). Lisco: Ishmael becomes the ancestor of the Bedouins of Arabia; these, therefore, and the Edomites descending from Esau, are the nations nearest related to the Hebrews,—Calwer Handbuch: The father’s blessing descends upon the children.—After Abraham, that hero of faith, had gone to his rest, Isaac appears in the foreground of the history. In his character love appears predominant, the less powerful and independent love, or love itself with its weaknesses. He appears as a gentle, pliable link between Abraham and Jacob, possessing neither the manly strength of the father nor of the son. Nevertheless, he wears an amiable aspect, which, when closely viewed, immediately wins our affections. He does not make his appearance as a fictitious and an artfully embellished personage, but as a historical character; so much so, that his faults appear in the foreground, whilst his good qualities fall into the background and lie concealed to the superficial observer. Isaac is of a predominantly kind nature, and therefore appears reserved, outwardly, but inwardly and really, frank.—Schrφder: As to the character of Abraham and Isaac, see pp. 442 and 443. With Abraham, who, as father of the faithful, was to begin the long line of believing souls, and in whose peculiar form of life their life was to have its way prepared, everything is vigorous and peculiarly independent. With Isaac, on the contrary, who only continues this line, everything appeared perfectly arranged, just as it is with Joshua in relation to Moses, etc.—(Hengstenberg: However, we must not mistake the peculiar characteristics of Isaac, Joshua, Elisha.)—It seems to me, one might know that he is the son of a dead body, but on this very account is he eminently a gift of God (Ziegler).—Could the memory of the knife drawn over him by the hand of the father ever become extinguished in the mind of the son? Perhaps this affords us a partial solution of his life and character (Krumm.).—Let us not overlook the fact that he was the only monogamist among the patriarchs, remaining satisfied with his Rebekah. Abraham’s piety descends as an heritage to Isaac, therefore the grace of God also descends upon Isaac (Val. Herberger)—The dwelling of Isaac at a place so important in the life of Ishmael (Hagar’s well), attests his friendly relation to his step-brother.—Gathered unto his people. A beautiful and charming description of immortality. We are now living among the gross people of this world, who seek but little after God, yea, in the very kingdom of the devil. But when we depart from this wretched life, we shall die peacefully, and be gathered unto our people, and there will be no distress, no misery, no tribulation, but peace and rest. (Luther). Footnotes:[Genesis 25:18.—Lit., he fell down, or it fell to him.—A. G.] SECOND SECTIONJacob and Esau Genesis 25:19-3419 And these are the generations [genealogies] of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begat Isaac: 20And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan-Aram [from Mesopotamia], the sister to Laban 21the Syrian. And Isaac entreated the Lord [Jehovah] for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22And the children struggled together [thrust, jostled each other] within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the Lord. 23And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger [the greater shall serve the less]. 24And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau [covered with hair]. 26And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob [heel-catcher]; and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them. 27And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter [a man knowing the hunt], a man of the field [a wild rover, not an husbandman]; and Jacob was a plain [discreet, sedate] man, dwelling in tents. 28And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison [game was in his mouth his favorite food]: but Rebekah loved Jacob. 29And Jacob [once] sod pottage; and Esau came from the field, and he was faint. 30And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee [let me devour greedily], with that same red pottage [from the red—this red, here]; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom 31[Red]. And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright. 32And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die [going to die]: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright. GENERAL REMARKS1. According to Knobel we have, in the present narration, as in Genesis 26, a mixture of different records upon an Elohistic basis by means of the Jehovistic supplement. It is enough to say, that in our section the theocratic element is predominant. [Keil remarks that if the name of God occurs less frequently here, it is due partly to the historic material, which gives less occasion to use this name, since Jehovah appeared more frequently to Abraham than to Isaac and Jacob; and partly to the fact that the previous revelations of God formed titles or designations for the God of the Covenant, as “God of Abraham,” “God of my father,” which are equivalent in significance with Jehovah.—A. G.] It introduces the election of Jacob in opposition to Esau. The order of the Toledoth Knobel explains thus: “The author usually arranges them, in the first place, according to the individual patriarchs, after he has recorded the death of the father. Next begins the proper history of the patriarchs, e.g., Genesis 10:1; Genesis 11:27; Genesis 25:13; Genesis 36:1; Genesis 37:2. We have already made the remark that the Toledoth frequently dispose of a more general sequence of history, in order to pass over to a more special one. Delitzsch finds three “transitions” in the history of Jacob. The first reaching to the departure of Jacob, Genesis 25:19 to Genesis 28:9; the second to Jacob’s departure from Laban, Genesis 32:1 (a section, however, in which nothing in regard to Isaac occurs); the third, from Jacob’s return to the death of Isaac, Genesis 35:29. But this section, too, is merely a history of Jacob, except the three verses in Genesis 35:27-29. On the other hand it is preeminently the history of Joseph and of the rest of the sons of Jacob, which begins at Genesis 37:2, where, according to Knobel, the history of Jacob should first begin. In the separate biographies we are to distinguish the theocratic stages of the life of the patriarchs, from the periods of their human decrepitude and decease, in which the new theocratic generation already becomes prominent. This history has four sections: Rebekah’s barrenness and Isaac’s intercession; Rebekah’s pregnancy and the divine disclosure of her condition; the antithesis in the nature of the sons reflecting itself in the divided love of the parents; and Esau’s prodigality of his birthright, parting with it for a mess of pottage. In the second section we have the prophetic preface, in the third and fourth the typical prelude to the entire future history of the antithesis between Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom. 2. The points of light in the life of Isaac lie in part back of this narrative. These are his child-like inquiries and his patient silence upon Moriah (Genesis 22); his love to Rebekah (Genesis 24); his brotherly communion with Ishmael at the burial of Abraham, and his residing at the well Lahai-Roi (Genesis 25). Here we now read first of his earnest intercession on account of the barrenness of Rebekah; then, moreover, of his preference of Esau because he was fond of game. Somewhat later Jehovah appeared unto him at Gerar, preventing him from imitating his father Abraham in going to Egypt during the famine, although he imitates him in passing off Rebekah for his sister. In this, too, he differs from Abraham, that he began to devote himself to agriculture (Genesis 26:12). He suffers himself, however, to be supplanted by the Philistines, and one well after another is taken away from him, until he at last retains only one, and finds rest at Beer-sheba. In the second appearance too (Genesis 26:24), his deep humility is reflected in this, that he preserves the promise of the blessing, receiving it as he does for the sake of his father Abraham. He now takes courage, and, as Abraham did, proclaims the name of the Lord, and ventures to reprove the conduct of Abimelech. His digging of wells, as well as his tilling the soil, seems to indicate a progress beyond Abraham. Then, too, he is willing to transmit to Esau the theocratic blessing of the birthright, though Esau had shortly before sorely grieved him by the marriage of two of the daughters of the Hittites. The marked antithesis between Isaac’s vision power, his contemplative prominence, and his short-sightedness in respect to the present life, as well as the weakness of his senses, appears most strikingly in Genesis 27. Rebekah proceeds now with more energy, and Isaac dismisses Jacob with his blessing, who returns after many years to bury his father. When Isaac blessed his sons his eyes had already become dim, yet many years passed before he died (from his one hundred and thirtieth to his one hundred and eightieth year). Delitzsch exaggerates Isaac’s weakness as making him in everything a mere copy of Abraham. “Even the wells he digs are those of Abraham, destroyed by the Philistines, and the names he gives to them are merely the old ones renewed. He is the most passive of the three patriarchs. His life flows away in a passive quietness, and almost the entire second half in senile torpidity (!). So passive, so secondary, or, so to speak, so sunken or retired is the middle period in the patriarchal history.” We have referred to the points in which he does not imitate Abraham, but is himself. He does not go to Egypt during the famine, as Abraham did; he begins the transition from a nomadic to and agricultural life, he digs new wells in addition to the old ones, he lives in exclusive monogamous wedlock, and even in his preference of Esau, the game, surely, is not the only motive. If the external right of the firstborn impressed so deeply his passive character (especially in connection with the robust, striking appearance of Esau, seeming to fit him particularly to be heir of Canaan); there can be no doubt, also, that he was repelled by traits in the early life of Jacob. But most especially does he appear to have had a feeling for those sufferings of the firstborn Ishmael, which he endured on his account. And hence he appeared willing to make amends to Esau, his own firstborn, a fact to which, at least, his dwelling at Hagar’s well, and his brotherly union with Ishmael, may point. It is evident that the ardent Rebekah, by her animated, energetic declarations (Genesis 24:18-19; Genesis 24:25; Genesis 24:28; Genesis 24:58; Genesis 24:64-65; Genesis 25:22), formed a very significant complement to Isaac, confiding more in the divine declarations as to her boys than Isaac did, and therefore better able to appreciate the deeper nature of Jacob. But when Isaac, through his passiveness, fails in the performance of his duty, the courageous woman forgets her vocation, and with artifice counsels Jacob to steal the blessing from Isaac—a transgression for which she had to atone in not seeing again her favorite son after his migration. And even if Isaac was shortsighted respecting his personal relations in this world, yet the words of the blessing attest that his spiritual sight of the divine promises had not diminished with his blinded eyes. It had its ground, moreover, in the very laws of the psychical antithesis that Isaac, so feeble in will and character, was attracted by the wild and powerful Esau; while the brave, energetic Rebekah found greater satisfaction in union with the gentle Jacob. In the assumed zeal of her faith for the preservation of a pure theocracy among the patriarchs, she too excels Isaac. We should bear in mind that they were Jews who relate so impartially the Nahoritic Rebekah’s superiority over the Abrahamic Isaac. [“Consenting to be laid on the altar as a sacrifice to God, Isaac had the stamp of submission early and deeply impressed on his soul. Hence, in the spiritual aspect of his character, he was the man of patience, of acquiescence, of susceptibility, of obedience. His qualities were those of the son, as Abraham’s were those of the father. He carried out, but did not initiate; he followed, but did not lead; he continued, but he did not commence. Accordingly the docile and patient side of the saintly character is now to be presented to our view.” Murphy, p. 367.—A. G.] AND 1. Genesis 25:19-21. Rebekah’s barrenness, and Isaac’s intercession.—Padan-Aram.—Level, plain of Aram: Hosea 12:12, it reads, field of Aram. Genesis 48:7. Padan, Mesopotamia. Keil limits the name to the large plain of the city of Haran, surrounded by mountains, following the conjectures of Knobel, who, however, regards Padan-Aram as a specific Elohistic expression. According to others, Mesopotamia is divided into two parts, and here the level country is distinguished from the mountainous region. But this does not apply to Haran. To one travelling from Palestine to Mesopotamia across the mountains, Mesopotamia is an extensive plain. According to Genesis 25:26, Isaac waited twenty years for offspring. This was a new trial to him, though not to Abraham, who still lived. Since the line of the blessing was to pass through Isaac, his intercession was based upon a divine foundation in Jehovah’s promise. [For his wife, with reference to, literally before; which Luther says is to be explained spiritually, indicating the intensity of his prayer, the single object before his mind.—“Entreated the Lord. The seed of promise must be sought from Jehovah, so that it should be regarded, not as the fruit of nature, but as the gift of divine grace.” Keil, p. 191.—A. G.] 2. Genesis 25:22-23. Rebekah’s pregnancy, and the divine explanation of her condition.—The Hebrew expression ιϊψφφε denotes a severe struggling with each other. Knobel will have it that this feature was derived from the later enmities between the Israelites and Edomites, and quotes Genesis 4:14; Genesis 16:12; Genesis 19:30. “In like manner, according to Apollod., 2, 2, 1, Acrisius and Proetus, two brothers, had already quarrelled with each other in the womb of their mother about the dominion.” That such intimations and omens can have no real existence is regarded as a settled matter in the prejudices of this kind of criticism.—Why am I thus?—We see again the character of Rebekah in this very expression. According to Delitzsch, she was of a sanguine temperament: rash in her actions, and as easily discouraged. We would rather regard her words as an ill-humored expression of a sanguine-choleric temperament. It does not mean: why am I yet living? (Delitzsch, referring to Genesis 27:46, Knobel, Keil), but why am I so? i.e., in this condition. [Why this sore and strange struggle within me?—A. G.]—To inquire of the Lord.—According to a certain Jewish Midrash, she went to Salem (so Knobel). According to Delitzsch, she went rather to Hagar’s well; at all events, to a place sacred on account of revelations and the worship of Jehovah. Luther thinks she went to Shem, others to Abraham or Melchizedek, just as men inquired of the prophets in the time of Samuel (1 Samuel 9:9). The prophet nearest to her, if she had wanted one, would have been Isaac. The phrase “she went” no doubt means she retired to some quiet place, and there received for herself the divine revelation. For in the patriarchal history sacred visions determined as yet sacred places, nor is it different at present. [Still the phrase seems to imply that there was some place and mode of inquiring of the Lord. Perhaps, as Theodoret suggests, at the family altar.—A.G.] According to Knobel, she received the experience indicated as, in general, a sign of ill omen. Delitzsch thinks she saw in it the anger of Jehovah. However, we must not too sharply interpret her ill humor, on account of the mysterious, painful, and uneasy condition, and the alarming presentiment she may have had of the contentions of her posterity. That she was to be a mother of twins she did not know at this time.—Two nations.—The divine answer is a rhythmical oracle. (See Delitzsch.) [Two nations are in thy womb; And two people from thy bowels shall be separated; And people shall be stronger than people; And the elder shall serve the younger. Wordsworth.—A. G.] With the prophetic elevation the poetic form appears also. It appears very distinctly from this oracle, that they would differ from the very womb of the mother. Since Esau’s liberation is not predicted here, Knobel regards this as a sign that the author lived at a time before Edom threw off the yoke of Judah. We know, however, how the theocratic prophecies gradually enlarge. The meaning of this obscure revelation, clothed as it was in the genuine form of prophecy, and which so greatly calmed her, she saw in a certain measure explained in the relations that had existed between Isaac and Ishmael. 3. Genesis 25:24-28. The birth of the twins. The antithesis of their nature, and the divided partiality of the parents towards their children.—Behold, there were twins.—The fulfilment of the oracle in its personal, fundamental form.—And the first came out red.—Of a reddish flesh color. His body, like a garment of skins, covered with hair. (Luxuriance of the growth of the hair.) In the word ΰγξεπι there is an allusion to ΰγεν, in the word ωֵׂ ?ςָ ?ψ there is an allusion to ωֵׂ ?ςִ ?ιψ. “Arab authors derive also the red-haired occidentals from Esau.” Knobel. Both marks characterize his sensual, hard nature.— And his hand took hold on Esau’s heel.—Delitzsch: “It is not said that he held it already in the womb of his mother (a position of twins not considered possible by those who practise obstetrics), but that he followed his brother with such a movement of his hand.” Knobel contends against the probability of this statement, since, according to a work on obstetrics by Busch, the birth of the second child generally occurs an hour after that of the first one, frequently later. The very least that the expression can convey is, that Jacob followed Esau sooner than is generally the case; upon his heels, and, as it were, to take hold of his heel. Since the fact, considered symbolically, does not speak in his favor; since it points out the crafty combatant who seizes his opponent unawares by the heel, and thus causes him to fall, there is the less ground for imagining any forgery here. The signification of the name “Jacob” is essentially the same with “successor,” as Knobel conjectures. Jacob’s cunning seems to have been stripped from him in his life’s career, deceived as he had been by Laban, and even by his own sons, whilst there remains his holy prudence, his deeper knowledge, and his incessant looking to the divine promise.—A cunning hunter.—Esau developed himself according to the omen.—Because he did eat of his venison.—Literally, “was in his mouth.”—And Jacob was a plain man.—ΰιωϊν. Luther: a pious man. Knobel: a blameless man, i.e., as a shepherd. “Hunting, pursued, not for the sake of self-defence or of necessity, but for mere pleasure, as with Esau, the author regards as something harsh and cruel, especially when compared with the shepherd-life so highly esteemed by the Hebrews.” Isaac’s fondness for venison, however, cannot be fully explained by this. Gesenius emphasizes the antithesis of gentle and wild. Delitzsch explains ϊָּ ?ν, “with his whole heart” devoted to God and the good, etc. Keil, more happily, as “a disposition inclined to a domestic, quiet life.” The most obvious explanation of the word in this place points out a man, modest, correct, and sedate, in contrast with the wild, unsteady, roving, and proud manner of Esau’s life. Jacob was modest, because he adhered to the costume of his father, and stayed near the tents.—Because he did eat of his venison, lit., was in his mouth. This weakness of the patriarch was not his only motive in his preference of Esau, but it is particularly mentioned here on account of the following narrative. In like manner, Haman was a melancholy, indolent man, fond of good living. 4. Genesis 25:29-34.The typical prelude of the historical antithesis between Jacob and Esau.—Jacob sod pottage.—A dish of lentiles, see Genesis 25:34.—Feed me.—Lit.,“let me swallow,” an expression for eating greedily, μςθ. According to Knobel, Esau, by reason of his greediness, was not able to think of the name, “lentiles,” but points them out by the words, “that Red!” At the most, “that Red” might express his strong appetite, excited by the inviting color. The addition δָ ?ΰָ ?γֹ ?νδָ ?ζֶּ ?δ is generally interpreted: “from that same Red.” The repetition in the original shows that his appetite was greatly excited: “Let me swallow, I pray thee, some of that Red, that Red there!” We question, however, whether he did not say rather: Feed with that Red, me the Red one. Thus by a rude, witty play upon words, he would have introduced the fact of his afterward having been called “the red one.” At all events his name is not to be deduced from the red pottage. “In the words ΰַ ?γְ ?ξεֹ ?πִ ?ι and ωֵׂ ?ςָ ?ψ above there is indicated a different relation of the names ΰֱ ?γεֹ ?ν (red-brown) and ωֵׂ ?ςִ ?ιψ (hairy), but the one referring to ΰָ ?γεֹ ?ν, that red, i.e., brown-yellow pottage of lentiles, φοινικίδιον, is there predominant. Moreover, thousands of names, e.g., among the Arabs (comp. Abulfeda’sHist. Anteisl.), have a like fortuitous origin. But if any one should regard it as accidental that the history of nations for several thousand years should have been connected with a pottage of lentiles, he will not look in vain for similar occurrences in perusing the pages of Oriental history. [Therefore was his name called Edom. There is no discrepancy in ascribing the name both to his complexion and the color of the lentile broth. The propriety of a name may surely be marked by different circumstances. Nor is it unnatural to suppose that such occasions should occur in the course of life. Jacob, too, has the name given to him from the circumstances of his birth, here confirmed.—A. G.] It is scarcely necessary to say here, that lentiles (adas) are still a favorite dish in Egypt and Syria.” Delitzsch.—Sell me this day.—Knobel, as his manner is, regards this fact as improbable. He thinks the object of the narrative is to answer the question, how the birthright descended from Esau to Jacob, and thus erroneously supposes that, according to the Jewish view, the people of God, from Adam down to Isaac, had always descended from the line of the first-born. The text, however, presents to our view the contrast between Esau’s carnal thinking and Jacob’s believing sensibility, in the measure of fanatical exaggeration, and according to its conflict so decisive and typical for all time. The right of the first-born has its external and internal aspects. The external preference consisted in the headship over the brothers or the tribe (Genesis 27:29), and later also in a double portion of the inheritance of the father. The internal preference was the right of priesthood, and in the house of Abraham, according to the supposition thus far assumed, a share in the blessing of the promise (Genesis 27:4; Genesis 27:27-29). [Which included the possession of Canaan and the covenant fellowship with Jehovah, and still more, the progenitorship of him in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed.—A. G.] To acquire a rightful claim to this, was undoubtedly the principal aim in the bargain, as is seen immediately from the answer of Esau: “I am at the point to die;” and also from the fact that Esau appears not to have been limited in his external inheritance. It is to the praise of Jacob that he appreciated so highly a promise extending into the far future and referring to the invisible; the realization of which, moreover, though he was unconscious of it, was already prepared in his very being (either in his natural disposition or in his election). The acuteness, too, with which he discerned Esau’s gross bondage to appetite, deserves no censure. The selfishness of his nature by which he so soon estimates his profits and takes advantage of his brother,—this impure motive, as well as a fanatical self-will arising from his excitement in respect to the birthright, through which he anticipates God’s providence, is all the more obvious in his cunningly availing himself of the present opportunity. [Yet it must be borne in mind that he laid no necessity upon Esau. He leaves him to accept or reject the proposal. And Esau knew well, though he did not value it, what the birthright included. His own words, “what profit shall it do to me, seeing I am about to die?” show clearly that he knew that it included invisible and future things, as well as the visible and present. It was because he thus consciously sold his birthright, and for such a consideration, that the Apostle, Hebrews 12:16, calls him a profane person.—A. G.] In Esau of course he was not mistaken.—Behold I am at the point to die.—Esau, in his carnal disposition, seems to regard only the present and the things of this life, and of the things of this life, the visible and the sensual only. He yields the entire higher import of the birthright, the specific blessing of Abraham, the inheritance of his posterity, the right and land of the covenant, for the satisfaction of a moment—and that, too, near his paternal hearth, where he would soon have obtained a meal. He is therefore designated (Hebrews 12:16) as βέβηλος, or profane.—Swear to me this day.—Jacob’s demand of an oath in this transaction evinces a very ungenerous suspicion, just as the taking of the oath on the part of Esau shows a low sense of honor.—And rose up and went his way.—As if nothing happened. Repentance followed later. AND ETHICAL1. Rebekah’s barrenness during twenty years. The sons of Isaac, too, were to be asked for; they were to be children of faith, especially Jacob. Sarah’s example appears to occur again. Similar examples: Rachel, Hannah, Elizabeth. Even when not viewed in the light of the Abrahamic promise of the blessing, barrenness was regarded in the ancient Orient as a trial of special severity; how much more so in this case. Starke: “Barrenness among the patriarchs (Hebrews) was a painful occurrence. It was sometimes the fruitful source of strife (Genesis 30:2); tears were shed (1 Samuel 1:7); it was considered a reproach (Luke 1:25); it was even held for a curse.” Here, however, Abraham could from his own experience comfort them; he lived fifteen years after the birth of the children. 2. Isaac’s intercession. It could be based upon God’s promise and Abraham’s experience. Jehovah heard him. He granted more than asked. Instead of one child he received two. Undoubtedly Rebekah sustained his intercession by her prayers. 3. Rebekah’s pregnancy, her painful sensation, her ill-humor and alarming presentiments. The gentle story of the hopeful maternal temperament is often of the greatest significance in history. Isaac, in accordance with his disposition, prays to Jehovah; Rebekah, after her manner of feeling, goes and asks Jehovah. Undoubtedly she herself is the prophetess to whom God reveals the manner and future of her delivery. Jehovah speaks to her. The word of revelation, though dark, infuses into her an earnest yet hopeful feeling of joy, instead of maternal sadness and despondency. Two brothers, as two nations—two nations, to contend and fight with each other from the very womb of the mother. The larger, or elder, and externally more powerful, governed by the smaller, the younger, and apparently the more feeble. In these three points the antithesis between Ishmael and Isaac is reflected again. [The Apostle, Romans 9:12, dwells upon this passage as affording a striking illustration and proof of the doctrine he was then teaching. Isaac was chosen over Ishmael, but further still, Jacob was chosen over Esau, though they were of the same covenant mother, and prior to their birth. The choice, election, was of grace.—A. G.] 4. Brothers unlike, hostile; twins even at enmity, whose physiological unconscious antipathy shows itself already in the womb of the mother—dark forebodings of life not yet existing, bearing witness, however, that the life of man already, in its coming into being, is a germinating seed of a future individuality. This cannot be meant to express a mutual hatred of the embryos. Antipathies, however, as well as sympathies, may be manifested in the germinating life of man as in the animal and vegetable kingdom. 5. The relation of prophecy and poetry appears in the rhythmical form of the divine declaration as it is laid before us. Common to both is the elevated lyrical temperament manifesting itself in articulate rhythm. 6. The individuality of the twins is manifested immediately by corresponding signs. Esau comes into this world with a kind of hunter’s dress covering his rough-red skin; he is, and remains, Esau or Edom. Jacob seems to be a combatant immediately; an artful champion, who unawares seizes his opponent by the heel, causing him to fall. But under Jehovah’s direction and training. Jacob, the heelholding struggler, becomes Israel, the wrestler with God. In the name “Jacob” there is then intimated, not only his inherited imperfection, but at the same time his continual struggle, i.e., there exists a germ of Israel in Jacob. Esau, in his wild rambles, becomes an after-play of Nimrod. Jacob is so domestic and economical that he cooks the lentile broth himself. Esau appears to have inherited from Rebekah the rash, sanguine temperament, but without her nobility of soul; from Isaac he derives a certain fondness of good living—at least of game. Jacob inherited from Isaac the quiet, contemplative manner, from Rebekah, however, a disposition for rapid, prudent, cunning invention. Outwardly regarded, Jacob on the whole resembled more the father,—Esau the mother. This, however, seems to be the very reason why Isaac preferred Esau, and Rebekah Jacob. The gentle Isaac, who was to transmit to one of his children the great promise of the future, even the hope of Canaan, might have considered Esau, not only in his character of first-born, but also in that of a courageous and strong hunter, more suitable to hold and defend Abraham’s prospects among the heathen, than Jacob, who was so similar to himself in respect to domestic life. He might, therefore, understand the oracle given to Rebekah in a sense different from that received by her; or he might doubt, perhaps, its objective validity, opposed as it was to the customary right of succession. That Esau’s venison exercised an influence as to his position towards Esau, is proved from the text. It might be to him a delusive foretaste of the future conquests of Canaan. Esau’s frank nobility of soul is seen also in his promptly and zealously complying with the request. Rebekah confided in her oracle and understood her Jacob better. But even here there coφperated that mutual power of attraction which lay in the two antithetical temperaments. Without doubt, Esau, the stately hunter, moved about in his paternal home as a youthful lord; in which fact Isaac thought that he saw a sign of future power. 7. Isaac’s taste and Esau’s greediness—the two prime features of a likerish deportment. The weakness of the father soon increases to the greediness of the son. Isaac’s contemplation and weakness as to his senses reminds us of similar contrasts. 8. And Jacob sod pottage. Every human weakness has its hour of temptation, and if we do not watch and pray, it will come upon us like a thief. 9. To sell one’s birthright for a pottage of lentiles: this expression has become the established expression for every exchange of eternal treasures, honors, and hopes, for earthly, visible, and momentary pleasures. No doubt the motto: Let us eat and drink, etc., is an echo of Esau’s expression. Yet we are not at liberty to regard this moment of abandonment to appetite as an instance of a frame of mind continual, fixed; nor can we refer the divine reprobation, beginning with this moment, to his future happiness. He was rejected relatively to the prerogatives of the Abrahamic birthright. Notwithstanding his manliness and placability, he was not a man who had longings for the future, and therefore could not be a patriarch among the people of the future (Malachi 1:3; Hebrews 12:17). Jacob, however, was different; he knew how to prize the promises, in spite of those faults of weakness and craft, from which God’s training purified him. 10. Thus it stood with both children even before their birth. The antithesis of their lives was grounded in the depths of their individuality, that is, in the religious inclination of the one, and the spiritual superficiality of the other. But their very foundations had their ground in the divine election (Romans 9:11). The fundamental relations become apparent, with respect to both, in a sinful manner. They become apparent through the sins of both, but they would have appeared, too, without their sinful actions, by God’s providence. The question is about a destination, who was to be the proper bearer of the covenant, not about happiness and perdition. 11. In their next conflict Jacob’s ungenerous negotiation increases to fraud. Thence his subsequent great sufferings and atonement. By the deception of Laban, too, as well as by that of his sons, must expiation be made. The bloody coat of many colors, sent to him by his sons, reminded him of Esau’s coat, in which he approached his father. For Jacob’s opinion concerning the sufferings of his life, see Genesis 47:9. Starke: Paul, in quoting these words, Romans 9:12, does not speak of an absolute decree to eternal life or eternal damnation. Because God was to establish his church among the posterity of Jacob, and the Messiah was to come through them, Esau’s posterity, if desirous of salvation, must turn to the worship of Jacob (John 4:22). Upon the idea of election, see Lange’s Positive Dogmatic, article Ordo Salutis. [Also Tholuck, Meyer, Hodge on the passage Romans 9:11. It seems well-nigh impossible to escape the conviction that the Apostle here teaches the sovereign choice of persons, not merely to the external blessings, but the internal and spiritual blessings of his kingdom, i.e., to salvation.—A. G.] 12. The present prophecy respecting Jacob and Esau is farther developed in the blessings of Isaac (Genesis 27). Thus everything was historically fulfilled. For Edom and Idumζa, see the Bible Dictionaries; also respecting the prophetic declarations concerning Edom. The prophet Obadiah represents Edom as a type of the anti-theocratic (anti-Christian) conduct of false and envious brothers. This typical interpretation no more excludes the preaching of the Gospel in Idumζa than similar and more definite representations of Babel exclude the preaching of Peter at Babylon. 13. The Hebraic, i.e., the profoundest conception of history, here comes into view again. All history develops itself from personal beginnings. The personal is predominant in history. 14. The mystery of births; of the like relation between male and female being; of the unlike but natural relations between the more and less gifted, between noble and common; and of the different degrees of natural dispositions—a reservation of God, in his decrees of providence. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical. The house of a patriarch in its light and dark aspects: a. The divine blessing and human piety; b. human weakness and sin.—Different directions of the parents. Contrasts of the children.—The trials in the life of Isaac.—Children a blessing, an heritage of the Lord.—The intercession and its answer.—Isaac’s prayers, Rebekah’s inquiries.—Hoping mothers are to inquire of the Lord.—Twin brothers not always twin spirits.—Jacob and Esau.—The sale of the birthright for a pottage of lentiles.—Edom’s character in respect to good and evil. (Saying of Lessing: Nothing in a man is condemned as execrable if he only has the reputation of honor and integrity.)—Jacob’s sin, to human eyes, indissolubly connected with his higher strivings.—It is reserved to the chemistry of God to separate the dross of sin from the pure metal of a pious striving (Malachi 3:3).—The experience of the pious, a succession of divine purifications.—Hereditary faults.—Jacob’s haste and eager grasping, the sign Of the severe expiatory penitential sorrows of his life.—He wished to acquire externally, what God’s grace had put into his heart.—The first fault of Jacob a harbinger of the second.—Hereditary virtues and hereditary vices.—Divine election: 1. A predestination of Jacob’s and Esau’s theocratic position; 2. no decree as to their deportment.—Esau and Jacob; or a frank, noble disposition without subjectiveness, without a desire, and even without a true sense of divine things; opposed to an enthusiastic feeling for the eternal, yet tainted with self-deceit and dishonesty.—Jacob, a man of the higher longing and hope. Esau, a man of sensual pleasure, regardless of the future. Starke, Cramer: The true church is never respected by the world as much as the great mass of the children of the flesh; we must not, therefore, place the bushel by the largest heap.—Bibl. Tub.: Children are an heritage of the Lord (Psalms 127:3).—Hall: Isaac asks for one son and he receives two.—Lange: Married people are under obligations to unite in prayer, especially on important occasions.—Notwithstanding natural causes, God, as creator, reserves to himself the closing and opening of the womb of mothers. This shows his sovereignty over the human race (Jeremiah 31:20).—Rebekah, in her impatience, may be a type of those who, having been aroused by God, so that a struggle, necessarily painful, takes place between spirit and flesh, soon become impatient.—In an unfruitful conjugal life we are to take comfort in this: 1. That God visited with barrenness holy people in former times—Sarah, Rachel, Hannah, Elisabeth; 2. God best knows our wants; 3. we are not to render an account for children, etc.; 4. to die without children takes away, in a certain degree, the bitterness of death; 5. the times are calamitous (Matthew 24:19). In times of need we are not to consult soothsayers, but God and his word.—(The struggle of the flesh with the spirit in the new life of the new-born; Romans 7:22-23). Genesis 25:26. Genesis 3:16.—Cramer: Within the pale of the Christian Church we have different classes of people: Jews and heathen (John 10:16), true believers and hypocrites, good and evil (Matthew 13:47). God does not judge after the advantages of the flesh, of age, of size and other things which concern the appearance.—Bibl. Wirt.: Two churches are prefigured here: one believing the promises of Christ; the other depending on a carnal advantage of antiquity and extent. These two bodies will never come to an agreement, until finally the true church, as the smaller, will overcome the false by the victory of her faith, and triumph over her in eternal blessedness (1 John 5:4).—O, children, remember what anxiety you have cost your mothers. Genesis 25:28. Lange: The preference of parents for one or another of their children may have its natural cause, and be sanctified, but seldom does it keep within proper limits. Probably Esau was more attached to his father, and Jacob to his mother. (Isaac, probably, prefers venison, not as a delicacy, but to make better and economical use of his cattle; and because wild animals are of no use to the husbandman, but only cause destruction to him.) Genesis 25:29. The simplicity of early time. Jacob sitting by the hearth and cooking, which is usually the duty of the females. Genesis 25:31. The apology for Jacob (Luther and Calvin, indeed, approve of his transaction on the ground of his right to the privilege of the first-born by the divine promise). Though the first-born was highly esteemed among the patriarchs, Christ would not descend from one of the first-born (indicating that he was the true first-born, who was to procure for us the right of the first-born from God). [See, also, Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 20:5; Hebrews 12:23.—A. G.] He claims to descend, not from Cain, but from Shem; not from Nahor, or Haran, but from Abraham; not from Ishmael, but from Isaac; not from Esau, but from Jacob; not from the seven elder sons of Jesse, but from David, and from Solomon, who was one of David’s younger sons.—(Genesis 25:27. The permission of hunting on certain conditions: First, that the regular vocation be not neglected; second, that our neighbor be not injured.)—Cramer: In educating children we are to pay particular attention to their dispositions, observing in what direction each one inclines, for not every one is qualified for all things (Proverbs 20:11; Proverbs 22:6).—Godless men, who, for the sake of temporary things, despise and hazard the eternal (Philippians 3:19). Gerlach: The birth of many celebrated men of God, preceded by a long season of barrenness.—Thereby the new-born babe is to become not only more endeared to the parents, who turn their whole attention to it, but is especially to be regarded by them as a supernatural gift of God, and thus become a type of the Saviour’s birth from a virgin.—The divine prophecy: The patriarchs come into view only (?) in reference to their descendants, with whom they are considered as constituting a unity. For prophecy has not been fulfilled in respect to the brothers as individuals.—Lisco: A frivolous contempt of an advantage bestowed on him by God.—So, also, an inconsiderate oath (Hebrews 12:16).—An immoderate longing after enjoyment sacrifices the greatest for the least, the eternal for the temporal.—Calwer Handbuch: Abraham too rejoiced in the birth of these boys; he lived yet 15 years after their birth, and the narrative of his death and burial has been, for historical purposes, considered first. When the inherited blessing of the promise is the subject treated of, the mere course of nature cannot decide the issues, in order that all praise may be to God, and not to men.—Schrφder: (The Rabbins explain Isaac’s faithfulness to Rebekah from the fact of his having been offered in sacrifice to God (1 Timothy 3:2). Isaac, to whom the very promise was given, is placed after Ishmael, and Ishmael, possessing a temporal promise only, is put far before him. He is lord over other lords, counts 12 princes in his line, while Isaac lived alone and without any children, like a lifeless clod (Luther).—All the works of God begin painfully, but they issue excellently and gloriously. Earthly undertakings progress rapidly, and blaze up like a fire made of paper, but sudden leaps seldom prosper (Val. Herb.).—Every mother conceals a future; every maternal heart is full of presagings. Her bodily pains, she interprets as spiritual throes that await her.—The case of Rebekah presents consolation to a woman with child (Val. Herb.).—Calvin: Rebekah probably inquired of God in prayer.—Her example should teach us not to give way too much to sadness in distress. We are to restrain, and struggle with, ourselves.—Prophecy (even the heathen oracles) always assumes a solemn and metrical style, etc. The prophet is a poet, as frequently the poet is a prophet.—Her alarming presentiment did not deceive Rebekah. The struggle within her indicated the external and internal conflicts not only of her children, but even of the nations which were to descend from them.—This Genesis 25:23 embraces all times; it is the history of the world, of the church, and of individual hearts, enigmatically expressed. (Coats made of red camel’s hair were worn by poor people, also by prophets (Zechariah 13:4; 2 Kings 1:8).)—The Hebrew Admoni is also connected with Adam; Esau is a son of Adam, predominantly inclined to the earth and earthly things.—(Isaac’s bodily nature appears feeble everywhere; Genesis 27:1; Genesis 27:19). Such persons are fond of choice and finer viands. Wherever Abraham has calves’ flesh, butter and milk, on special festive occasions, Isaac delights in venison and wine (Genesis 27:3-4; Genesis 27:25).—In the Logos, as the first-born of all creatures, the signification of the first-born, both animal and human, has its true, its ultimate, and divine foundation (Ziegler). The father is pleased, that Esau, like Ishmael, Genesis 21:20, is a good hunter, and he regards it as an ornament to the first-born, who is to have the government (Luther). Esau becomes Edom, and therefore, still the more remains Esau merely; Jacob, on the other hand, becomes Israel (Genesis 32:28).—Jacob is the man of hope. The possession that he greatly desires is of a higher order: hopes depending on the birthright. He never strives after the lower birthright privileges. (It is doubtful, also, whether these were as fully developed at the time of Abraham as at the time of Moses).—I am at the point to die. Sooner or later I will have to succumb to the perils to which my vocation exposes me. A thought expressed more than once by Arabic heroes (Tuch).—Esau’s insight into the future extended to his death only.—Jacob’s request that Esau should swear. He is as eager for the future as Esau is for the present.—(Lentiles, to this day, are a very favorite dish among the Arabs, being mostly eaten in Palestine as a pottage. Robinson found them very savory, etc.).—Want of faithful confidence in him who had given him such a promise, it was this that made Jacob wish to assist God with carnal subtilty, as Abraham once with carnal wisdom.—Thou shalt not take advantage of thy brother. For the present, no doubt, Jacob obscured the confidence of his hopes, just as Abraham, by anticipation, obscured his prospects.—As Ishmael had no claim for the blessings of the birthright, because begotten κατὰσάρκα, so Esau forfeits the blessings of his birthright, not because begotten κατὰσάρκα, but because inclined κατὰσάρκα (Delitzsch). Footnotes:[Genesis 25:19.—The ϊּ ?εֹ ?μִ ?γֹ ?ϊ is more than genealogies. See note on Genesis 25:4, Genesis 2.—A. G.] [Genesis 25:22.—Lit., If so, for what this am I.—A. G.] [Genesis 25:23.—βֹ ?εִ ?ιν and μִ ?ΰֻ ?ξּ ?ιν are here used as synonymous, although there is ground for the distinction which refers the former to the nations generally, and the latter to the peculiar people of God.—A. G.] [Genesis 25:25.—All over like a hairy garment; literally, the whole of him as a mantle of hair.—A. G.] Genesis 25:27.—ϊָּ ?ν, perfect, peaceful, in his disposition, as compared with the rude, roving Esau.—A. G. THIRD SECTIONIsaac in the region of Abimelech at Gerar. The manifestation of God, and confirmed promise. His imitation of the maxim of his father. The exposure of Rebekah. The living figure of a richly blessed, patient endurance Genesis 26:1-221 And there was [again] a famine in the land, besides the first [previous] 1famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar. 2And the Lord [Jehovah] appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into 3Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: Sojourn [as a stranger] in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform [cause to stand] the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give to thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed [bless themselves]; 5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. 6And Isaac dwelt in Gerar: 7And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he [thought he], the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon. 8And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife. 9And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety [certainly] she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said [I thought], Lest I die for her. 10And Abimelech said, What is this that thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. 11And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth [injures] this man or his wife shall surely be put to death. 12Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received [found. A. G.] in the same year an hundred fold: and [thus] the Lord blessed him: 13And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: 14For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him. 15For all the wells which his father’s servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped, them, and filled them with earth. 16And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we. 17And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley [(brook) valley—wady.—A. G.] of Gerar, and dwelt there. 18And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after [like] the names by which his father had called them. 19And Isaac’s servants digged in the valley [at the bottom], and found there a well of springing [living] water. 20And the herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac’s herdmen, saying, The water is ours: and he called the name of the well Ezek [contention]; because they strove with him. 21And they digged another well, and strove for that also: and he called the name of it Sitnah [enmity-adversary, Satan wells]. 22And he removed [brake up] from thence, and digged another well; and for that they strove not: and he called the name of it Rehoboth [wide room]; and he said, For now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land. GENERAL REMARKS1. The present chapter (Genesis 26) is the only one devoted exclusively to traditions concerning Isaac. The former narratives were, on the one hand, interwoven with Abraham’s history, and, on the other, contained the beginnings of the history of Esau and Jacob. The section in the following chapter, but more fully given in the beginning of Genesis 28, forms a conclusion, in which the history of Isaac and that of his sons are considered as one. This is followed by Genesis 35:27, like a melancholy echo extending over Isaac’s long and isolated life, during which Rebekah disappears from the scene, deeply grieved on account of her sons. We have here a vivid life-picture, taken from the midst of Isaac’s pilgrimage, and representing clearly the fact that Isaac’s composedness and, tranquillity draw after them pure blessings. This thought, however, pervades his whole history. He submits to suffer upon Moriah, and thus receives a mysterious theocratic consecration as a type of Christ. He waited for his bride until Abraham’s and Eliezer’s care procured one for him without his co-operation, and in this he fared well. During Rebekah’s long barrenness he seeks no remedy such as Abraham did in connection with Hagar, but finally resorts to prayer, and is richly compensated in the bestowal of twins. During the famine he does not go to Egypt, but, according to Jehovah’s instruction, remains in Canaan, and here, in the country of the Philistines, is most abundantly blessed. He receives in silence the censure of Abimelech for his deceptive statement respecting Rebekah. He is exiled, and departs from Gerar. He yields one well after another to the shepherds of the Philistines, ever receding, further and further; and yet the king of the Philistines applies to him for an alliance, as to a mighty prince. Finally Isaac knows how to reconcile himself to the strong deception prepared for him by Rebekah and Jacob, and even this pliancy of temper is blessed to him, in that he is thereby kept in the right theocratic direction. His passive conduct, too, at the marriage of his sons, renders the difference between the true Esau and the theocratic Jacob more distinct. His composure and endurance seem infirmities; these, however, with all weakness of temperament, are evidently supported by a power of the spirit and of faith. The moral power in it is the self-restraint whereby, in opposition to his own wishes, he gives up his hasty purpose to bless Esau. Isaac learned experimentally upon Moriah, that quietness, tranquillity, and confidence in the Lord have a glorious issue. This experience is stamped upon his whole career. If we judge him from the declarations concerning Rebekah at Gerar, he appears to be the timid imitator of his father; though the assuming of his father’s maxim in this respect may be explained from his modest, susceptible nature. But that he does not imitate his father slavishly, is seen especially from the fact of his quiet suffering without any resistance. This is made evident, too, by the fact that he does not, like Abraham, go to Egypt during the famine. Moreover, he does not take a concubine, as Abraham did; nor like him does he look to divine revelation for the decision respecting the lawful heir, but holds himself sure of it by reason of the transmitted right of the first-born. New and original traits appear in his transition to agriculture, as well as in his zealous digging of wells. The naming of the wells, taken away from him, has something of humor, such as is peculiar to tranquil minds. His pleasant disposition reveals itself not only in his preference of venison, but by his peculiar manner of preparing, for Abimelech of Gerar, and his friends, a feast, even after the gentle reproof, and before he made a covenant with him on the following day. In his vocation, however, as patriarch, he shows himself a man of spirit by building an altar unto the Lord, and calling upon his name (Genesis 26:25). And while there are but two visions mentioned definitely during his life (Genesis 26:3, Genesis 26:24), still there follows a higher spiritual life, and, at the same time, a further development of the Abrahamic promise through the disposition he manifests in the blessing of his sons. Our section may be divided as follows: 1. Isaac’s sojourn in the country during the famine in consequence of an injunction of Jehovah. Renewed promise (Genesis 26:1-6); 2. Isaac’s assertion that Rebekah was his sister (Genesis 26:7-11); 3. Isaac’s prosperity; his exile from the city of Gerar, and his settlement in the valley of Gerar (Genesis 26:12-17); 4. Isaac’s patience in what he endured from the Philistines, and its blessing (Genesis 26:18-22). Knobel regards the present chapter as a Jehovistic supplement, mingled with Elohistic elements. [In regard to the numerous points of resemblance between Isaac and Abraham, Kurtz has shown (Gesch., p. 226) that these resemblances are not slavish imitations, but are marked by distinct peculiarities, and moreover, that these similar experiences are not accidental, but on the one hand, as the result of the divine providence, they flow from the same purpose and discipline with the father and the son, and on the other hand, as far as they are the result of human choices, they arise from an actual resemblance in their condition and hopes. Thus all believers in their experiences are alike and yet unlike.—A. G.] AND 1. Genesis 26:1-6. Isaac’s abode in the country.—A famine.—It is distinguished from the famine in the history of Abraham. Isaac, following the example of his father, was on the point of going to Egypt, but is arrested by divine interposition. “Isaac’s history commences with the same trial as the history of Abraham” (Delitzsch). This frequent calamity of antiquity occurs once more in the history of Jacob.—Isaac went unto Abimelech.—Not the one mentioned Genesis 20:21 (Kimchi, Schum, etc., Del.), but his successor (Knobel). The same may be said of Phichol (Genesis 21:22). There is here, very probably, a different Abimelech, and with him another Phichol. The former is expressly called king. Upon this name Abimelech, as a standing title of the kings, compare the title to the 34th Ps. with 1 Samuel 21:11.—Gerar.—“The ruins of which, under the name of Kirbet-el-Gerβr, have been again discovered by Rowland, three leagues in a southeasterly direction from Gaza.” Del. Isaac intends to go to Egypt, but according to God’s instruction, he is to remain in Palestine as a stranger.—Go not down.—It is characteristic that Abraham received the first divine instruction to depart, Isaac to remain. God leads every one according to his peculiar necessities. Even in Canaan nothing shall be wanting to him.—All these countries.—Extending the promise beyond Canaan [or rather all the lands of the different Canaanitish tribes.—A. G.]—I will be with thee.—A promise of help, blessing, and protection, especially needed by Isaac.—I Will perform the oath.—As for God, the divine oath was absolutely firm, though, on the part of Abraham, it might have been obscured. But since Abraham, on his part, remained true to the covenant, it is renewed to the son by virtue of an oath, whilst in regard to the contents of the promise, it is even enlarged. The one land of Canaan is changed into many countries, the seed multiplied as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore, becomes stars only; and the blessing of the nations (Genesis 22:18) becomes in his seed a voluntary blessing of the nations among themselves.—Because that Abraham.—Literally, for that. Abraham’s obedience is brought out conspicuously through the use of the richest deuteronomic terms. To the commendation of obedience in general, follows in strict derivation: 1. the charge; 2. the commandments; 3. the institutions; 4. the germ of the Thorah in the plural, εϊεψϊ. [He kept the charge of God, the special commission he had given him; his commandments, his express or occasional orders; his statutes, his stated prescriptions graven on stone; his law, the great doctrine of moral obligations. Murphy, p. 874. His obedience was not perfect, as we know, but it was unreserved, and as it flows from a living faith, is thus honored of God.—A. G.] The motive of the promise emphasizes the humility and low position of Isaac. He must also, however, render the obedience of faith, if Jehovah’s blessing is to rest upon him, and, indeed, first of all, by remaining in the country. Abraham had to go to Egypt, Jacob must go to Egypt to die there, Isaac, the second patriarch, is not to go to Egypt at all. Notwithstanding the resemblance to the promise, Genesis 22, the new here is unmistakable. 2. Genesis 26:7-11. Isaac’s assertion respecting Rebekah. In the declaration of Isaac, the event here resembles Abraham’s experience, both in Egypt and at Gerar, but as to all else, it differs entirely. With regard to the declaration itself, it is true that Rebekah was also related to Isaac, but more distantly than Sarah to Abraham. It is evident from the narrative itself that Isaac is not so seriously threatened as Abraham, although the inquiries of the people at Gerar might have alarmed him. It is not by a punishment inflicted upon a heathen prince, who perhaps might have abducted the wife, but through the intercourse of Isaac with Rebekah that the true relation became known. That the Abimelech mentioned in this narrative is the same person who, eighty years before, received Sarah into his harem, appears plausible to Kurtz and Delitzsch, since it may be taken for granted that as a man gray with age he did not send for Rebekah and take her into his harem. We reject these as superficial grounds. The main point is, that Isaac appears in this narrative as a very cautious man, while the severe edict of Abimelech seems to suppose a solemn remembrance in the king’s house of the former experience with Abraham. The oath that follows seems also to show that the new Abimelech avails himself of the policy of his father, as well as Isaac. The windows in old times were latticed openings for the light to enter, as found in the East at the present day. 3. Genesis 26:12-17. Isaac’s prosperity and exile.—Then Isaac sowed.—Besides planting trees, Abraham was yet a mere nomad. Isaac begins to pursue agriculture along with his nomadic life; and Jacob seems to have continued it in a larger measure (Genesis 37:7). “Many nomads of Arabia connect agriculture with a nomadic life (see Burkhardt: Syrien, p. 430, etc.).” Knobel. This account agrees well with the locality at Gerar. The soil of Gaza is very rich, and in Nuttar Abu Sumar, a tract northwest of Elysa, the Arabs possess now storehouses for their grain (see Robinson, i. p. 291, 292). Even at the present time, in those countries (e.g., Hauran), the soil yields a very rich produce (Burkhardt: “Syria,” p. 463). Knobel. [The hundred-fold is a large and very rare product, and yet Babylonia is said to have yielded two hundred and even three hundred fold. Herod., i. p. 193; Murphy, p. 375.—A. G.] “The exigency of the famine induced Isaac to undertake agriculture, and in the very first year his crops yielded a hundred-fold (ωְׂ ?ςָ ?ψִ ?ιν). The agriculture of Isaac indicates already a more permanent settlement in Palestine; but agriculture and the occupation of the nomadic life were first engaged in equally by the Israelites in Egypt, and it was not until their return from Egypt that agriculture became the predominant employment.” Delitzsch.—And the Philistines envied him.—Hostilities began in their filling with earth the wells that Abraham dug at Gerar, and which therefore belonged to Isaac. This very act is already an indirect expulsion, for without wells it is not possible that Isaac should live a nomadic life at Gerar. [The digging of wells was regarded as a sort of occupancy of the land, and as conferring a kind of title to it; and hence perhaps the envy of the Philistines.—A. G.] “This conduct was customary during wars (2 Kings 3:25; Isaiah 15:6), and the Arabs fill with earth the wells along the route of the pilgrims if they do not receive the toll asked by them (Troilo: Orientalische Reisebeschreib., p. 682; Niebuhr: ‘Arab.’ p. 362).” Knobel.—Go from us.—Abimelech openly vents his displeasure against Isaac. He banishes him from his city, Gerar, and from his country in the narrower sense.—In the valley of Gerar.—The undulating country Gurf-el-Gerβr, through which flows a wady (Ritter: Erdk. xiv. p. 804). Constantine erected a monument in this valley (Sozom. 6, 32). 4. Genesis 26:18-22. Isaac’s patient behavior under the violation of his rights by the Philistines. The wells.—Digged again the wells.—Behind his back too, the Philistines filled the wells which Abraham dug. Knobel infers from verse 29 that the hostile conduct of the Philistines was not mentioned in the more ancient record! The discoveries of the wells (Genesis 26:19; Genesis 26:21), too, must be regarded as identical with the digging again, Genesis 26:18!—The quarrels about the wells seem to be connected with views respecting the boundaries of Isaac’s place of exile. He is driven further and further by them. “Quarrels about watering-places and pastures are common among the Bedouins (see Genesis 13:7; Exodus 2:17; Burkhardt: ‘ Syria,’ p. 628, and ‘Bedouins,’ p. 118). Among the ancient Arabs, also, severe contests arose about watering-places (Hamasa, i. p. 122 f. 287). In many regions the scarcity of water is such that the Bedouins rather offer milk than water as a beverage (Seetzen, iii. p. 21).” Knobel. Isaac yields without any resistance; still he erects a monument to the injustice he suffered. The name of the second well, ωִׂ ?θְ ?πָ ?δ, from the verb ωׂ ?θο, brings to view an enmity malignant and satanic.—A well of springing water.—Running water (Leviticus 14:5, etc.).—Rehoboth (ample room).—The third well was probably situated beyond the boundaries of Gerar; for it is previously said that he had removed from thence, i.e., from the valley of Gerar. The name Rehoboth indicates that now by the guidance of Jehovah he had come to a wide, open region. Ruhaibeh, a wady, southwest from Elusa, and discovered by Robinson (i. 291 ff.ύ), together with the extended ruins of the city of the same name, situated upon the top of a mountain, remind us of this third well (Strauss: ‘Sinai and Golgotha,’ p. 149).” Delitzsch. Robinson also discovered further north, in a wady, what was perhaps the Sitnah of Isaac. Ruhaibeh is situated about three hours in a southerly direction from Elusa and about eight and a half from Beer-sheba, where the main roads leading to Gaza and Hebron separate from each other. AND ETHICAL1. Delitzsch: “This chapter (26) is composed of these seven short, special, and peculiarly colored narratives, which the Jehovist arranged. One purpose runs through all: to show, by a special narration of examples running through the first forty years of Isaac’s independent history, how even the patriarch himself, though less distinguished in deeds and sufferings, yet under Jehovah’s blessing and protection comes forth out of all his fearful embarrassments and ascends to still greater riches and honor.” His life, however, is not “the echo of the life of Abraham;” but Isaac’s meekness and gentleness indicate rather a decisive progress, which, like his pure monogamy, was a type of New Testament relations. 2. The events related in the present section belong undoubtedly to a time when Esau had not reached the development of all his powers, for otherwise this stately and powerful hunter would scarcely have submitted so quietly to the infringements of his rights by the Philistines. 3. The two visions which mark the life of Isaac are entirely in accordance with his character and his point of view. In the first, Jehovah addresses him: Go not down into Egypt; in the second: Fear not. The promises, however, which he receives, are further developments of the Abrahamic promise. For Isaac, moreover, Jehovah’s promises become a divine oath, i.e., a confidence of faith in him built upon a rock. 4. The three famines occurring in the history of the three patriarchs constitute the fixed manifestations of one of the great national calamities of antiquity, from which the pious have to suffer together with the ungodly; but in which the pious always experience the special care of the Lord, assuring them that all things work together for good to them that love God. 5. Isaac’s imitation of his father in passing his wife for his sister, incurs the more severe censure of history than the same actions of Abraham, and it has this time for its result the gradual expulsion from Gerar. This ignominy, too, must have the more inclined him to yield patiently to the infringements of his rights by the Philistines; and thus he is again blessed with the freedom of a new region, so that the word is fulfilled in him: Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth. 6. Isaac and Abimelech, sons of their respective fathers, and yet having each a peculiar character according to their individual and finer traits. 7. Isaac, and the signs that appear of a willingness to struggle bravely for the faith, though still subject to his natural infirmities and obscured by them. 8. Isaac’s energy in his agricultural undertakings and in the diligent digging of wells. 9. The filling of the wells with earth, as taken in a spiritual sense, indicates an old hatred of the Philistines towards the children of God. 10. And thou shouldst have brought guiltiness upon us. The idea of guilt is the extension of culpability over the future of the sinner; and frequently (as e.g. in public offences) more or less even to those around us. Participation of sin is participation in its corrupting and ruinous results. AND To the whole chapter. How the promises of Abraham descend upon Isaac: 1. As the same promises; 2. as newly shaped in their development and confirmation.—Incidents of a life of faithful suffering and rich with blessings, as presented in the history of Isaac: Isaac during the famine; in danger at Gerar; as exposed to the jealousy of the Philistines; during the exile; in the strife about the wells; in the visit of Abimelech; in the marriage of Esau.—How Isaac gradually comes out of his difficulty: 1. From Gerar to the valley of Gerar; 2. from the valley of Gerar to Rehoboth; 3. from Rehoboth to Beer-sheba.—Isaac as a digger of wells, a type also of spiritual conduct: 1. In digging again the wells of the father that are filled with earth; 2. in digging new wells.—Isaac and Abimelech, or the sons in relation to their fathers: 1. Resemblance; 2. difference.—The blessing of Isaac in his crops (at the harvest-festival).—Malignant joy, a joy moat destructive to the malignant man himself. [Wordsworth, who finds types everywhere, says: “Here also we have a type of what Christ, the pure Isaac, is doing in the church. The wells of ancient truth had been choked up by error, but Christ reopened them and restored them to their primitive state and called them by their old names,” etc., p. 115.—A. G.] Starke: (What Moses narrates in this chapter appears to have happened before Esau and Jacob were born (see Genesis 26:7). [More probably when they were about fifteen years old, after Abraham’s death.—A. G.] Regarding the Philistines and Philistia, see Dictionaries.) The reason why God did not permit Isaac to go to Egypt is not given, yet it may have been that Isaac might experience the wonderful providence and paternal care of God toward him. Some (Calvin) assign the reason, that Isaac, because not as far advanced in faith as his father Abraham, might have been easily led astray by the idolatrous Egyptians (the result shows, however, that it was unnecessary this time).—I will give all these countries. Thy descendants through Esau shall receive a great part of the southern countries, lying between Canaan and Egypt. Genesis 26:5. It does not follow from these four terms, which were frequently used after the law was given upon Mt. Sinai, that Abraham already possessed the law of Moses, as the Jews assert. Had this been the case, no doubt he would have transmitted it to his children. Moses, however, chooses these expressions, which were in use in his time, in order to point out clearly to the people of Israel how Abraham had submitted himself entirely to the divine will and command, and earnestly abstained from everything to the contrary in his walk before God. To these four terms there are sometimes added two more, viz., rules and testimonies.—Osiander: There are no calamities in the world from which even the pious do not sometimes suffer. The best of it, however, is that God is their protection and comfort (Psalms 91:1).—We are to remember the divine promises, though ancient and general, and apply them to ourselves.—Cramer: We are to abide by God’s command, for his word is a light unto our path (Psalms 119:105).—Thus God sometimes permits his people to stumble, that his care over them may become known.—To Genesis 26:10. From this we see that the inhabitants of Gerar, notwithstanding their idolatry, were still so conscientious that they considered adultery a crime so great as to involve the whole land in its punishment.—Cramer: Comely persons should be much more watchful of themselves than others.—The woods have ears and the fields eyes, therefore let no one do anything thinking that no one sees and hears him.—Strangers are to be protected. (Since Isaac possessed no property, perhaps he cultivated with the king’s permission an unfruitful tract of land, or hired a piece of ground.)—It is the worst kind of jealousy if we repine at another’s prosperity without any prospect of our own advantage. Bibl. Tub.: God blesses his people extraordinarily in famine. Cramer: Success creates jealousy; but let us not be surprised at this; it is the course of the world. Genesis 26:17. To suffer wrong, and therein to exercise patience, is always better than to revenge oneself and do wrong.—Christian, the Holy Scriptures are also a well of living water; draw therefrom incessantly.—Bibl. Tub.: The jealousy and artifice of enemies cannot prevent or restrain the blessing which the Lord designs for the pious. Footnotes:[Genesis 26:8.—When the days were drawn out.—A.G.] [Genesis 26:10.—λִּ ?ξְ ?ςַ ?θ within a little; it lacks but little, as the Chaldee renders.—A.G.] FOURTH SECTIONIsaac in Beer-sheba. Treaty of Peace with Abimelech Genesis 26:23-3323 And he went up from thence to Beer-sheba. 24And the Lord appeared unto him the same [first] night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father; fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake. 25And he builded an altar there, and called upon [witnessed to] the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac’s servants digged a well. 26Then [and] Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath [possession, occupant] one of his friends, and Phichol the chief captain [see Genesis 21:22, commander] of his army. 27And Isaac said unto them, Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me [have treated me with hatred], and have sent me away from you? 28And they said, We saw certainly that the Lord was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us [on both sides], 29 even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee; That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art [thus art thou] now the blessed of the Lord. 30And he made, them a feast, and they did eat and drink. 31And they rose up betimes in the morning, and sware one to another: and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace. 32And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac’s servants came and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water. 33And he called it Shebah [seven; here in its signification: oath]: therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba unto this day. AND To Beer-sheba.—The former residence of Abraham (Genesis 21:33), and Isaac’s former station for his flocks.—The appearance of Jehovah.—A night vision; a form which now enters more definitely into the history of the patriarchs.—The God of Abraham, thy father.—In this way Jehovah reminds him of the consistency of his covenant faithfulness, but especially of his covenant with Abraham.—Fear not.—This encouraging exhortation no doubt refers to the disposition of Isaac. Abraham needed such an encouragement, after having exposed himself to the revenge of the Eastern kings on account of his victory over them. Isaac needs it because of his modest, timid disposition, and on account of the enmity of the Philistines, by whom he was driven from place to place. Perhaps his heart foreboded that Abimelech would yet follow him. He consecrates his prolonged sojourn at Beer-sheba by the erection of an altar, the establishment of a regulated worship, and by a fixed settlement.—Then Abimelech went to him.—By comparing this covenant act with that between Abraham and Abimelech of Gerar, the difference appears more strikingly. Abimelech, in the present chapter, is accompanied not only by the chief captain of his army, but also by his friend, i.e., Ahuzzath, his private counsellor. Isaac animadverts on his hatred, but not like Abraham, on the wells that had been taken away from him (see Genesis 21:25). Even in the boasting assertion of Abimelech respecting his conduct toward Isaac—which the facts will not sustain—we recognize, apparently, another Abimelech, less noble than the former. This appears also in his demand of the imprecatory oath (ΰμδ). It is also peculiar to Isaac that he permits a banquet, a feast of peace as it were, to precede the making of the covenant. The same day, after the departure of Abimelech, the servants, who had commenced some time before to dig a new well, found water. Their message seems to be a new reward of blessing, immediately following the peaceable conduct of Isaac. Isaac names this well as Abraham had done the one before (Genesis 21:31); thus the name Beer-sheba is given to it also. [It is not said that this name was here given for the first time; but as the covenant concluded was the renewal and confirmation of the covenant of Abraham with the previous Abimelech, so the name is the renewal and confirmation of that given by Abraham. The same name is appropriate to both occasions.—A. G.] The existence of both these wells bears witness to the credibility of this fact. Keil. Knobel, of course, regards this as an entirely different tradition. But Delitzsch remarks: To all appearance, Isaac, in the naming of this well, followed the example of his father in naming the well situated near it; since in other cases he renewed the old names of the wells.—Bunsen: To swear, to the Hebrew, signifies, “to take sevenfold,” or, “to bind oneself to seven holy things, referring to the Aramaic idea of God as Lord of Seven; i.e., of the seven planets (Sun, Moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn).” The remembrance of the seven sacrifices or pledges of the covenant, is far more probable, unless the expression is to be regarded as signifying a seven-fold degree of ordinary certainty. AND ETHICAL1. Isaac’s holy elevation of soul at his return from the country of the Philistines to his old home, Beer-sheba, crowned by a promise and a glorious appearance of God. 2. The divine promise renewed; see above. 3. Isaac at Beer-sheba. He builds an altar to the Lord before a tent for himself. In the establishment of the worship of Jehovah, in this testimony to him, as he calls upon his name, and in his preaching, he is a worthy heir of his father. 4. Human covenants are well established, if a divine covenant precedes and constitutes their basis. 5. Isaac in his yielding, his patient endurance and concessions, a terror to the king. 6. Isaac’s feast of peace with Abimelech, a sign of his great inoffensiveness. 7. The solemnity of the well, and on the same day with the feast of peace, or, the blessing of noble conduct. 8. Abraham prefers to dwell in the plains (Moreh, Mamre), and he planted trees. Isaac prefers to reside at wells, and he is fond of digging wells. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs. The rich contents of the term: God of Abraham. It declares: 1. That the eternal God has made a covenant with us imperishable beings (Luke 20:37-38); 2. the continuity, the unity, the unchangeableness, of the revelation of Jehovah through all times and developments; 3. the transmission of the hereditary blessing from the believing father to the believing children.—How the expression, in the history of the patriarchs, fear not (Genesis 15:1; Genesis 26:24; Genesis 28:15), goes through the whole scriptures until it reaches its full development in the angelic message of the birth of Christ (Luke 2:10), and at the morning of his resurrection. Starke: Cramer: God always supports his church, and builds it everywhere (Isaiah 51:6). Whatever a Christian undertakes, he ought to undertake in the name of the Lord (Colossians 3:17). When a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7; Genesis 33:4).—Lawful alliances and oaths are permitted (Deuteronomy 6:13).—Gerlach: At this place, remarkable, already, during the life of Abraham, the Lord renews the assurance of his grace, as afterwards to Jacob (Genesis 46:1); whilst, in the consecration of individual places, he connected himself with the child-like faith of the patriarchs, and satisfied the want to which it gave rise. Schrφder: The least thing we sacrifice for the sake of God, he repays, by giving us himself (Berl. Bib.). Whenever Jehovah calls himself God of Ahraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he shows, thereby, in each day’s revelation of himself to Israel, the ground and occasion of the same in the revelation that is past—thus connecting the new with the old, while presenting the grace shown to the posterity, as a necessary consequence of that which he had covenanted to their fathers’ fathers. True religion is essentially historical; history (not fanciful myths) is its foundation and limits. God is our God, because he has made himself our God by repeated acts in history. In the kingdom of God everything develops and progresses; there is no past without a future, nor a future without a past.—Abraham received the promise respecting the Messiah in the name of all the faithful; if, now, Isaac and every believer be blessed for the sake of Abraham, he is blessed merely for the sake of the promise that was given to Abraham, and, therefore, for the sake of Christ (Roos).—Isaac is mindful of his sacerdotal office, as soon as he takes up his abode (Berl. Bib.).—The Abimelech mentioned here is more cunning than his father, for he pretends to know nothing about the taking away of Isaac’s wells by his servants (Luther).—Such is the course of the world. Now insolent, then mean. He who wishes to live in peace with it (which is true of all believers) must be able to bear and suffer (Roos).—The Abimelech of Genesis 21 uses Elohim, a word proper to him; the one in the present chapter, not caring much about the affair, says Jehovah, because he constantly heard Isaac make use of this divine name. He accommodates himself to the feast of Isaac, as Laban in Genesis 24 (Romans 12:20; Joshua 9:14; 2 Samuel 3:20; Isaiah 25:6; Luke 14:17.)—The divine blessing of this conciliatory and humble love, did not exhaust itself in temporal things. Isaac contended and suffered for the sake of wells; as to the wells which he digged soon after his arrival at Beer-sheba, it happened on the very day he made the covenant and swore, etc.—The relation, of which the name Beer-sheba was the memorial, had ceased to exist. But by the repetition of the fact, the name regained its significance and power, and was the same as if now given for the first time (Hengstenberg). Footnotes: [Genesis 26:24.—ΰָ ?πֹ ?λִ ?ι The pronoun is emphatic—I the God, etc.—A. G.][Genesis 26:25.—ώώιַ ?ιֶ ?θ. Not the usual word for the pitching a tent, see verse.17. The term may be chosen with reference to the permanence of his abode, or the increase of his family and retinue.—A. G.] [Genesis 26:28.—Lit., Seeing we have seen.—A. G.] [Genesis 26:29.—Lit., If thou shalt. The usual Hebrew form of an imprecation or oath.—A. G.] FIFTH SECTIONIsaac’s sorrow over Esau’s marriage with the daughters of Canaan Genesis 26:34-3534 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith [celebrated?] the daughter, of Beeri [heroic son? Fontanus?] the Hittite, and Bashemath [lovely, áֹּ ?ùֶׂ ?í, fragrance, spicy] the daughter of Elon [oak-grove, strength] the Hittite: 35Which were a grief of mind [a heart-sorrow] unto Isaac and Rebekah. AND Esau was forty years old.—Isaac, therefore, according to Genesis 25:26, was about 100 years.—According to Genesis 28:9, he took Mahalath as his third wife, together with the two mentioned here. These names are mostly different, as to form, from those of Gen 36:2, etc. The points of resemblance are, first, the number three; secondly, the name of Bashemath; third, the designation of one of them as the daughter of Elon, the other as a daughter of Ishmael. In respect to the dissimilarities and their solution, see Knobel, p. 278, on Genesis 36; Delitzsch, 505; Keil, 229.—Which were a grief of mind.—Lit.: “a bitterness of spirit.” Their Canaanitish descent, which, in itself, was mortifying to Esau’s parents, corresponds with the Canaanitish conduct. It is characteristic of Esau, however, that, without the counsel and consent of his parents, he took to himself two wives at once, and these, too, from the Canaanites. Bashemath, Ahuzzath, Mahalath (Genesis 28:9) are Arabic forms. AND ETHICAL1. Esau’s ill-assorted marriage a continuance of the prodigality in the disposal of his birthright. 2. The threefold offence: 1. Polygamy without any necessary inducement; 2. women of Canaanitish origin; 3. without the advice, and to the displeasure of his parents. 3. The heart-sorrow of the parents over the misalliance of the son.—How it produced an effect in the mind of Rebekah, different from that produced in the mind of Isaac. AND See Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs. Starke: Lange: Children ought not to marry without the advice and consent of their parents.—Cramer: Next to the perception of God’s wrath, there is no greater grief on earth than that caused by children to their parents.—Gerlach: Esau may be regarded as a heathen, already and before his expulsion from the line of blessing.—Calwer Handb.: Took two wives. Opposed to the beautiful example of his father.—In addition to the trials undergone up to this time, domestic troubles are now added. It is very possible that this act of disobedience toward God and his parents, of which Esau became guilty by his marriage, matured the resolution of Rebekah, to act as related in Genesis 27.—Schröder: The notice respecting Esau, serves, preëminently, to prepare for that which follows (Esau’s action). A self-attestation of his lawful expulsion from the chosen generation, and, at the same time, an actual warning to Jacob.—Lamentation and grief of mind appeared when he was old, and had hoped that his trials were at an end (Luther). Footnotes: [Genesis 26:34.—Beeri, of a well.—A. G.] [Genesis 26:35.—The margin, lit., bitterness of spirit.—A. G. SIXTH SECTIONIsaac’s preference for the natural first-born, and Esau. Rebekah and Jacob steal from him the theocratic blessing. Esau’s blessing. Esau’s hostility to Jacob. Rebekah’s preparation for the flight of Jacob, and his journey with reference to a theocratic marriage. Isaac’s directions for the journcy of Jacob, the counterpart to the dismissal of Ishmael. Esau’s pretended correction of his ill-assoried marriagesGen_27:1 to Genesis 28:91 And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: And he said unto him, Behold, here am I. 2And he said, Behold, now I am old, I know not the day of my death. 3Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons [hunting weapons], thy quiver, and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison; 4And make me savory meat [tasty; favorite; festive dish. De Wette: dainty dish], such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die. 5And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it. 6And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying, 7Bring me venison, and make me savory meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the Lord before my death. 8Now therefore, my son, obey my voice [strictly], according to that which I command thee. 9Go now to the flock [small cattle], and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savory meat for thy father, such as he loveth: 10And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death. 11And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man: 12My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing. 13And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them. 14And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savory meat 15[dainty dish], such as his father loved. And Rebekah took goodly [costly] raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son: 16And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth [part] of his neck; 17And she gave the savory meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob. 18And he came unto his father, and said, My father: And he said, Here am I; who art thou, my son. 19And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy firstborn; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me. 20And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the Lord thy God brought it to me. 21And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau, or not. 22And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. 23And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau’s hands: so he blessed him. 24And he said, Art thou [thou there] my very son Esau? 25And he said, I am. And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank. 26And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son. 27And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son 28 is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed: Therefore [thus] God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth and plenty [the fulness] of corn and wine: 29Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee [thy mother’s sons shall bow]: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee. 30And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting. 31And he also had made savory meat, and brought it unto his father, and said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son’s venison, that 32thy soul may bless me. And [then] Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau. 33And Isaac trembled very exceedingly [shuddered in great terror above measure], and said, Who? where is he [who then was he]? that hath taken [hunted] venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed. 34And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father. 35And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing. 36And he said, Is he not rightly named [heel-holder, supplanter] Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright [right of the firstborn]; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me? 37And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him [have I endowed him]: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son? 38And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his 39voice and wept. And [then] Isaac his father answered, and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; 40And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother: and [but] it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion [in the course of thy wanderings], that thou shalt break his yoke from, off thy neck. 41And Esau hated Jacob, because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart [formed the design], The days of mourning for my [dead] father are at hand, then will I slay my brother Jacob. 42And these words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah: and she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said unto him, Behold, thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth comfort himself, purposing to kill thee [goes about with revenge to kill thee]. 43Now therefore, my son, obey my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother, to Haran: 44And tarry with him a few days 45[some time], until thy brother’s fury turn away; Until thy brother’s anger turn away from thee, and he forget that which thou hast done to him: then I will send, and fetch thee from thence: why should I be deprived also of you both in one day? 46And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life, because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me [what is life to me] Genesis 28:1.And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. 2Arise, go to Padan-aram [Mesopotamia], to the house of Bethuel, thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from 3thence of the daughters of Laban, thy mother’s brother. And God [the] Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be [become] a multitude of people; 4And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger [of thy pilgrimage], which God gave unto Abraham. 5And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padan-aram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother. 6When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padan-aram, to take him a wife from thence; and that, as he blessed him, he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan; 7And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padan-aram; 8And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; 9Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath [from root ημδ, Cecinit. Delitzsch derives it from ηֲ ?μֵ ?ι, to be sweet] the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth [heights, nabathζa], to be his wife. GENERAL REMARKS1. Knobel, without regard to verse 46, and notwithstanding the word Elohim, verse 28, regards our section as a Jehovistic narrative. We have only to refer to the prevailing Jehovistic reference. Respecting the origin of our narrative Knobel has given his opinion in a remarkable manner, e.g., he cannot conceive how an old man may hear well, smell well, and yet be unable to see!! 2. The time. “Isaac at that time was a hundred and thirty-seven years old, the age at which Ishmael, his half-brother, died, about fourteen years before; a fact which, in consequence of the weakness of old age, may have seriously reminded him of death, though he did not die until forty-three years afterwards. The correct determination of his age, given already by Luther, is based upon the following calculation: Joseph, when he stood before Pharaoh, was thirty years old (Genesis 41:46), and at the migration of Jacob to Egypt he had reached already the age of thirty-nine; for seven years of plenty and two years of famine had passed already at that time; nine years had elapsed since the elevation of Joseph (Genesis 45:6). But Jacob, at that time, was a hundred and thirty years old (Genesis 47:9); Joseph, therefore, was born when Jacob was ninety-one years; and since Joseph’s birth occurred in the fourteenth year of Jacob’s sojourn in Mesopotamia (comp. Genesis 30:25 with Genesis 29:18; Genesis 29:21; Genesis 29:27), Jacob’s flight to Laban happened in his seventy-seventh year, and in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of Isaac. Comp. Hengstenberg: Beitr. iii. p. 348, etc.” Keil. 3. The present section contains the history of the distinction and separation of Esau and Jacob; first introduced by enmity after the manner of man, then confirmed by the divine judgment upon human sins, and established by the conduct of the sons. This narrative conducts us from the history of Isaac to that of Jacob. The separate members of this section are the following: 1. Isaac’s project; 3. Rebekah’s counter-project; 3. Jacob’s deed and blessing; 4. Esau’s complaint and Esau’s blessing; 5. Esau’s scheme of revenge, and Rebekah’s counter-scheme; 6. Jacob and Esau in the antithesis of their marriage, or the divine decree. AND 1. Genesis 27:1-4.—And his eyes were dim.—We construe with the Sept., since we are of the opinion that this circumstance is noticed as an explanation of the succeeding narrative.—Thy quiver.—The ἅπαξλεγ., ϊְּ ?μִ ?ι (lit. hanging), has by some been explained incorrectly as meaning sword (Onkelos and others).—Savory meat.—τθςξιν, delicious food. But it is rather to be taken in the sense of a feast than of a dainty dish. It is praiseworthy in Isaac to be mindful of his death so long before-hand. That he anticipates his last hours in this manner indicates not only a strong self-will, but also a doubt and a certain apprehension, whence he makes the special pretence, in order to conceal the blessing from Jacob and Rebekah. [Notwithstanding the divine utterance before the children were born, undoubtedly known to him, and the careless and almost contemptuous disposal of his birthright by Esau, and Esau’s ungodly connection with the Canaanitish women, Isaac still gives way to his preference to Esau, and determines to bestow upon him the blessing.—A. G.] 2. Genesis 27:5-17. Rebekah’s counter-project.—Unto Jacob her son.—Her favorite.—Two good kids of the goats.—The meat was to be amply provided, so as to represent venison.—As a deceiver (lit., as a scoffer).—“He is afraid to be treated as a scoffer merely, but not as an impostor, since he would have confessed only a mere sportive intention.” Knobel. It may be assumed, however, that his conscience really troubled him. But from respect for his mother he does not point to the wrong itself, but to its hazardous consequences.—Upon me be thy curse.—Rebekah’s boldness assumes here the appearance of the greatest rashness. This, however, vanishes for the most part, if we consider that she is positively sure of the divine promise, with which, it is true, she wrongfully identifies her project.—Goodly raiment.—Even in regard to dress, Esau seems to have taken already a higher place in the household. His goodly raiment reminds us of the coat of Joseph.—Upon his hands.—According to Tuch, the skins of the Eastern camel-goat (angora-goat) are here referred to. The black, silk-like hair of these animals, was also used by the Romans as a substitute for human hair (Martial., xii. 46).” Keil. 3. Genesis 27:18-29. Jacob’s act and Jacob’s blessing.—Who art thou, my son.—The secrecy with which Isaac arranged the preparation for the blessing must have made him suspicious at the very beginning. The presence of Jacob, under any circumstances, would have been to him, at present, an unpleasant interruption. But now he thinks that he hears Jacob’s voice. That he does not give effect to this impression is shown by the perfect success of the deception. But perhaps an infirmity of hearing corresponds with his blindness.—Arise, I pray thee, sit and eat.—They ate not only in a sitting posture, but also while lying down; but the lying posture at a meal differed from that taken upon a bed or couch. It is the solemn act of blessing, moreover, which is here in question.—How is it that thou hast found it so quickly.—It is not only Jacob’s voice, but also the quick execution of his demand, which awakens his suspicion.—And he blessed him.Genesis 27:23. This is merely the greeting. Even after having felt his son, he is not fully satisfied, but once more demands the explanation that he is indeed Esau.—Come near now, and kiss me.—After his partaking of the meat, Isaac wants still another assurance and encouragement by the kiss of his son.—And he smelled the smell of his raiment.—The garments of Esau were impregnated with the fragrance of the fields, over which he roamed as a hunter. “The scent of Lebanon was distinguished (Hosea 14:7; Son 4:11).” Knobel. The directness of the form of his blessing is seen from the fact that the fundamental thought is connected with the smell of Esau’s raiment. The fragrance of the fields of Canaan, rich in herbs and flowers, which were promised to the theocratic heir, perfumed the garments of Esau, and this circumstance confirmed the patriarch’s prejudice.—And blessed him, and said.—The words of his blessing are prophecies (Genesis 9:27; Genesis 49)—utterances of an inspired state looking into the future, and therefore poetic in form and expression. The same may be said respecting the later blessing upon Esau.—Of a field which the Lord hath blessed.—Palestine, the land of Jehovah’s blessing, a copy of the old, and a prototype of the new, paradise.—Because the country is blessed of Jehovah, he assumes that the son whose garments smell of the fragrance of the land is also blessed.—Therefore God give thee.—Ha-elohim. The choice of the expression intimates a remaining doubt whether Esau was the chosen one of Jehovah; but it is explained also by the universality of the succeeding blessing. [He views Ha-elohim, the personal God, but not Jehovah, the God of the Covenant, as the source and giver of the blessing.—A. G.]—Of the dew of heaven.—The dew in Palestine is of the greatest importance in respect to the fruitfulness of the year during the dry season (Genesis 49:25; Deuteronomy 33:13; Deuteronomy 33:28; Hosea 14:6; Sach. viii. 12).—And the fatness of the earth.—Knobel: “Of the fat parts of the earth, singly and severally.” Since the land promised to the sons was to be divided between Esau and Jacob, the sense no doubt is: may he give to thee the fat part of the promised land, i.e., Canaan. Canaan was the chosen part of the lands of the earth belonging to the first-born, which were blessed with the dew of heaven and the fatness of the earth. As to the fruitfulness of Canaan, see Exodus 3:8. Compare also the Bible Dictionaries; Winer: article “Palestine.” The antithesis of this grant to that of the Edomitic country appears distinctly, Genesis 27:39. A two-fold contrast is therefore to be noticed: 1. To Edom; 2. to the earth in general; and so we have ξο. But to a blessed land belong also blessed seasons, therefore plenty of corn and wine.—Let people serve thee.—To the grant of the theocratic country is added the grant of a theocratic, i.e., spiritual and political condition of the world.—And nations.—Tribes of nations. Not only nations but tribes of nations, groups of nations, are to bow down to him, i.e., to do homage to him submissively. This promise was fulfilled typically in the time of David and Solomon, ultimately and completely in the world-sovereignty of the promise of faith.—Be Lord over thy brethren.—This blessing was fulfilled in the subjection of Edom (2 Samuel 8:14; 1 Kings 11:15; Psalms 60:8-9).—Thy mother’s sons.—His prejudice still shows itself in the choice of this expression, according to which he thought to subject Jacob, the “mother’s” son, to Esau.—Cursed be every one that curseth thee.—Thus Isaac bound himself. He is not able to take back the blessing he pronounced on Jacob. In this sealing of the blessing he afterwards recognizes also a divine sentence (Genesis 27:33). His prophetic spirit has by far surpassed his human prejudice. [This blessing includes the two elements of the blessing of Abraham, the possession of the land of Canaan, and a numerous offspring, but not distinctly the third, that all nations should be blessed in him and his seed. This may be included in the general phrase, let him that curseth thee be cursed, and him that blesseth thee be blessed. But it is only when the conviction that he had against his will served the purpose of God in blessing Jacob, that the consciousness of his patriarchal calling is awakened within him, and he has strength to give the blessing of Abraham to the son whom he had rejected but God had chosen (Genesis 27:3-4). See Keil.—A. G.] 4. Genesis 27:30-40. Esau’s lamentation and Esau’s blessing.—And Isaac trembled.—If Isaac himself had not intended to deceive in the matter in which he was deceived, or had he been filled with divine confidence in respect to the election of Esau, he would have been startled only at the deception of Jacob. But it is evident that he was surprised most at the divine decision, which thereby revealed itself, and convinces him of the error and sin of his attempt to forestall that decision, otherwise we should hear of deep indignation rather than of an extraordinary terror. What follows, too, confirms this interpretation. He bows not so much to the deception practised upon him as to the fact and to the prophetic spirit which has found utterance through him. Augustine: De Civitate Dei, 16, Genesis 37 : “Quis non hic maledictionem potius expectaret irati, si h�c non superna inspiratione sed terreno more generentur.”—Who? where is he?—Yet before he has named Jacob, he pronounces the divine sentence: the blessing of the Lord remains with that man who received it.—He cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry.—Hebrews 12:17.—Bless me, even me also.—Esau, it is true, had a vague feeling that the question here was about important grants, but he did not understand their significance. He, therefore, thought the theocratic blessing admitted of division, and was as dependent upon his lamentations and prayers as upon the caprice of his father.—Thy brother came with subtilty.—With deception. Isaac now indicates also the human error and sin, after having declared the divine judgment. But at the same time he declares that the question is only about one blessing, and that no stranger has been the recipient of this blessing, but Esau’s brother.—Is not he rightly named. (δλִ ?ι)?—Shall he get the advantage of me because he was thus inadvertently named (Jacob=heel-catcher, supplanter), and because he then acted thus treacherously (with cunning or fraud) shall I acquiesce in a blessing that was surreptitiously obtained?—He took away my birthright.—Instead of reproaching himself with his own act, his eye is filled with the wrong Jacob has done him.—Hast thou not a blessing reserved for me?—Esau is perplexed in the mysterious aspect of this matter. He speaks as if Isaac had pronounced a gratuitous blessing. Isaac’s answer is according to the truth. He informs him very distinctly of his future theocratic relation to Jacob. As compared with the blessing of Jacob he had no more a blessing for Esau, for it is fundamentally the greatest blessing for him to serve Jacob.—Hast thou but one blessing?—Esau proceeds upon the assumption that the father could pronounce blessings at will. His tears, however, move the father’s heart, and he feels that his favorite son can be appeased by a sentence having the semblance of a blessing, and which in fact contains every desire of his heart. That is, he now understands him.—The fatness of the earth.—The question arises whether ξִ ?ο is used here in a partitive sense (according to Luther’s translation and the Vulgate), as in the blessing upon Jacob, Genesis 27:28, or in a privative sense (according to Tuch, Knobel, Kurtz, etc.). Delitzsch favors the last view: 1. The mountains in the northeastern part of Idumζa (now Gebalene), were undoubtedly fertile, and therefore called Pal�stina Salutaris in the middle ages (Von Raumer, in his Pal�stina, p. 240, considers the prophecy, therefore, according to Luther’s translation, as fulfilled). But the mountains in the western part of Idumζa are beyond comparison the most dreary and sterile deserts in the world, as Seetzen expresses himself. 2. It is not probable that Esau’s and Jacob’s blessing would begin alike. 3. It is in contradiction with Genesis 27:37, etc. (p. 455); Malachi 1:3. This last citation is quoted by Keil as proof of the preceding statement. [The ξִ ?ο is the same in both cases, but in the blessing of Jacob, “after a verb of giving, it had a partitive sense; here, after a noun of place, it denotes distance, or separation, e.g., Proverbs 20:3.” Murphy. The context seems to demand this interpretation, and it is confirmed by the prediction, by thy sword, etc. Esau’s dwelling-place was the very opposite of the richly-blessed land of Canaan.—A. G.] But notwithstanding all this, the question arises, whether the ambiguity of the expression is accidental, or whether it is chosen in relation to the excitement and weakness of Esau. As to the country of Edom, see Delitzsch, p. 455; Knobel, p. 299; Keil, p. 198; also the Dictionaries, and journals of travellers.—And by thy sword.—This confirms the former explanation, but at the same time this expression corresponds with Esau’s character and the future of his descendants. War, pillage, and robbery, are to support him in a barren country. “Similar to Ishmael, Genesis 16:12, and the different tribes still living to-day in the old Edomitic country (see Burkhardt: ‘Syria,’ p. 826; Ritter: Erdkunde, xiv. p. 966, etc.).” Knobel. See Obadiah, Genesis 27:3; Jeremiah 49:16. “The land of Edom, therefore, according to Isaac’s prophecy, will constitute a striking antithesis to the land of Jacob.” Keil.—And shalt serve thy brother.—See above.—And it shall come to pass.—As a consequence of the roaming about of Edom in the temper and purpose of a freebooter, he will ultimately shake off the yoke of Jacob from his neck. This seems to be a promise of greater import, but the self-liberation of Edom from Israel was not of long continuance, nor did it prove to him a true blessing. Edom was at first strong and independent as compared to Israel, slower in its development (Numbers 20:14, etc.). Saul first fought against it victoriously (1 Samuel 14:47); David conquered it (2 Samuel 8:14). Then followed a conspiracy under Solomon (1 Kings 11:14), whilst there was an actual defection under Joram. On the other hand, the Edomites were again subjected by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7; 2 Chronicles 25:11) and remained dependent under Uzziah and Jotham (2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chronicles 26:2). But under Ahaz they liberated themselves entirely from Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 2 Chronicles 28:17). Finally, however, John Hyrcanus subdued them completely, forced them to adopt circumcision, and incorporated them into the Jewish state and people (Josephus: “Antiq.” xiii. 9, 1; xv. 7, 9), whilst the Jews themselves, however, after Antipater, became subject to the dominion of an Idumζan dynasty, until the downfall of their state. 5. Esau’s scheme of revenge, and Rebekah’s counter-scheme (Genesis 27:41-46).—And Esau said in his heart.—Esau’s good-nature still expresses itself in his exasperation toward Jacob and in the scheme of revenge to kill him. For he does not maliciously execute the thought immediately, but betrays it in uttered threats, and postpones it until the death of his father.—The days of mourning … are at hand.—Not for my father, but on account of my father; i.e., my father, weak and trembling with age, is soon to die.—Then, and not before, he will execute his revenge. He does not intend to grieve the father, but if his mother, his brother’s protectress, is grieved by the murder, that is all right, in his view.—These words were told.—On account of his frank and open disposition, Esau’s thoughts were soon revealed; what he thought in his heart he soon uttered in words.—And called Jacob.—From the herds.—Flee thou to Laban.—Rebekah encourages him to this flight by saying that it will last but few days, i.e., a short time. But she looked further. She took occasion from the present danger to carry on the thoughts of Abraham, and to unite Jacob honorably in a theocratic marriage. For, notwithstanding all his grief of mind arising from Esau’s marriages, Isaac had not thought of this. But still she lets Isaac first express this thought. Nor is Isaac to be burdened with Esau’s scheme of revenge and Jacob’s danger, and therefore she leads him to her mode of reasoning by a lamentation concerning the daughters of Heth (Genesis 27:46).—Deprived also of you both.—Bunsen: “Of thy father and thyself.” Others: “Of thyself and Esau, who is to die by the hand of an avenger.” But as soon as Esau should become the murderer of his brother, he would be already lost to Rebekah. Knobel, again, thinks that in verse 46 the connection with the preceding is here broken and lost, but on the contrary connects the passage with Genesis 26:34 and Genesis 28:1, as found in the original text. The connection is, however, obvious. If Knobel thinks that the character of Esau appears different in Genesis 28:6 etc., than in Genesis 27:41, that proves only that he does not understand properly the prevailing characteristics of Esau as given in Genesis. 6. Jacob and Esau in the antithesis of their marriage, or the divine decree (Genesis 28:1-9).—And Isaac called Jacob and blessed him.—The whole dismissal of Jacob shows that now he regards him voluntarily as the real heir of the Abrahamic blessing. Knobel treats Genesis 28—ch. 33 as one section (the earlier history of Jacob), whose fundamental utterances form the original text, enlarged and completed by Jehovistic supplements. There are several places in which he says contradictions to the original text are apparent. One such contradiction he artfully frames by supposing that, according to the original text, Jacob was already sent to Mesopotamia immediately after Esau’s marriage, for the purpose of marrying among his kindred—a supposition based on mere fiction. As to other contradictions, see p. 233, etc.—Of the daughters of Canaan.—Now it is clear to him that this was a theocratic condition for the theocratic heir.—Of the daughters of Laban.—These are first mentioned here.—And God Almighty.—By this appellation Jehovah called himself when he announced himself to Abraham as the God of miracles, who would grant to him a son (Genesis 17:1). By this apellation of Jehovah, therefore, Isaac also wishes for Jacob a fruitful posterity. Theocratic children are to be children of blessing and of miracles, a multitude of people (χδμ), a very significant development of the Abrahamic blessing. [The word used to denote the congregation or assembly of God’s people, and to which the Greek ecclesia answers. It denotes the people of God as called out and called together.—A. G.]—The blessing of Abraham.—He thus seals the fact that he now recognizes Jacob as the chosen heir—And Isaac sent away Jacob (see Hosea 12:13).—When Esau saw that Isaac.—Esau now first discovers that his parents regard their son’s connection with Canaanitish women as an injudicious and improper marriage. He had not observed their earlier sorrow. Powerful impressions alone can bring him to understand this matter. But even this understanding becomes directly a misunderstanding. He seeks once more to gain the advantage of Jacob, by taking a third wife, indeed a daughter of Ishmael. One can almost think that he perceives an air of irony pervading this dry record. The irony, however, lies in the very efforts of a low and earthly mind, after the glimpses of high ideals, which he himself does not comprehend.—To Ishmael.—Ishmael had been already dead more than twelve years; it is therefore the house of Ishmael which is meant here.—Mahalath.—Genesis 36:2 called Bβshemath.—The sister of Nebajoth.—As the first-born of the brothers he is named instead of all the others; just as Miriam is always called the sister of Aaron. The decree of God respecting the future of the two sons, which again runs through the whole chapter, receives its complete development in this, that Jacob emigrates in obedience of faith accompanied with the theocratic blessing, to seek after the chosen bride, whilst Esau, with the intention of making amends for his neglect, betrays again his unfitness. The decrees of God, however, develop themselves in and through human plans. AND ETHICAL1. The present section connects a profound tragic family history from the midst of the patriarchal life, with a grand and sublime history of salvation. In respect to the former, it is the principal chapter in the Old Testament, showing the vanity of mere human plans and efforts; in respect to the latter, it holds the corresponding place in reference to the certainty of the divine election and calling, holding its calm and certain progress through all disturbances of human infatuation, folly, and sin. 2. It is quite common, in reviewing the present narrative, to place Rebekah and Jacob too much under the shadows of sin, in comparison with Isaac. Isaac’s sin does not consist alone in his arbitrary determination to present Esau with the blessing of the theocratic birthright, although Rebekah received that divine sentence respecting her children, before their birth, and which, no doubt, she had mentioned to him; and although Esau had manifested already, by his marriage with the daughters of Heth, his want of the theocratic faith, and by his bartering with Jacob, his carnal disposition, and his contempt of the birthright—thus viewed, indeed, his sin admits of palliation through several excuses. The clear right of the first-born seemed to oppose itself to the dark oracle of God, Jacob’s prudence to Esau’s frank and generous disposition, the quiet shepherd-life of Jacob to Esau’s stateliness and power, and on the other hand, Esau’s misalliances to Jacob’s continued celibacy. And although Isaac may have been too weak to enjoy the venison obtained for him by Esau, yet the true-hearted care of the son for his father’s infirmity and age, is also of some importance. But the manner in which Isaac intends to bless Esau, places his offence in a clearer light. He intends to bless him solemnly in unbecoming secrecy, without the knowledge of Rebekah and Jacob, or of his house. The preparation of the venison is scarcely to be regarded as if he was to be inspired for the blessing by the eating of this “dainty dish,” or of this token of filial affection. This preparation, at least, in its main point of view, is an excuse to gain time and place for the secret act. In this point of view, the act of Rebekah appears in a different light. It is a woman’s shrewdness that crosses the shrewdly calculated project of Isaac. He is caught in the net of his own sinful prudence. A want of divine confidence may be recognized through all his actions. It is no real presentiment of death that urges him now to bless Esau. But he now anticipates his closing hours and Jehovah’s decision, because he wishes to put an end to his inward uncertainty which annoyed him. Just as Abraham anticipated the divine decision in his connection with Hagar, so Isaac, in his eager and hearty performance of an act belonging to his last days, while he lived yet many years. With this, therefore, is also connected the improper combination of the act of blessing with the meal, as well as the uneasy apprehension lest he should be interrupted in his plan (see Genesis 27:18), and a suspicious and strained expectation which was not at first caused by the voice of Jacob. Rebekah, however, has so far the advantage of him that she, in her deception, has the divine assurance that Jacob was the heir, while Isaac, in his preceding secrecy, has, on his side, only human descent and his human reason without any inward, spiritual certainty. But Rebekah’s sin consists in thinking that she must save the divine election of Jacob by means of human deception and a so-called white-lie. Isaac, at that critical moment, would have been far less able to pronounce the blessing of Abraham upon Esau, than afterward Balaam, standing far below him, could have cursed the people of Israel at the critical moment of its history. For the words of the spirit and of the promise are never left to human caprice. Rebekah, therefore, sinned against Isaac through a want of candor, just as Isaac before had sinned against Rebekah through a like defect. The divine decree would also have been fulfilled without her assistance, if she had had the necessary measure of faith. Of course, when compared with Isaac’s fatal error, Rebekah was right. Though she deceived him greatly, misled her favorite son, and alienated Esau from her, there was yet something saving in her action according to her intentions, even for Isaac himself and for both her sons. For to Esau the most comprehensive blessing might have become only a curse. He was not fitted for it. Just as Rebekah thinks to oppose cunning to cunning in order to save the divine blessing through Isaac, and thus secure a heavenly right, so also Jacob secures a human right in buying of Esau the right of the firstborn. But now the tragic consequences of the first officious anticipation, which Isaac incurred, as well as that of the second, of which Rebekah becomes guilty, were soon to appear. 3. The tragic consequences of the hasty conduct and the mutual deceptions in the family of Isaac. Esau threatens to become a fratricide, and this threat repeats itself in the conduct of Joseph’s brothers, who also believed that they saw in Joseph a brother unjustly preferred, and came very near killing him. Jacob must become a fugitive for many a long year, and perhaps yield up to Esau the external inheritance for the most part or entirely. The patriarchal dignity of Isaac is obscured, Rebekah is obliged to send her favorite son abroad, and perhaps never see him again. The bold expression: “Upon me be thy curse,” may be regarded as having a bright side; for she, as a protectress of Jacob’s blessing, always enjoys a share in his blessing. But the sinful element in it was the wrong application of her assurance of faith to the act of deception, which she herself undertook, and to which she persuaded Jacob; and for which she must atone, perhaps, by many a long year of melancholy solitude and through the joylessness which immediately spread itself over the family affairs of the household. 4. With all this, however, Isaac was kept from a grave offence, and the true relation of things secured by the pretended necessity for her prevarication. Through this catastrophe Isaac came to a full understanding of the divine decree, Esau attained the fullest development of his peculiar characteristics, and Jacob was directed to his journey of faith, and to his marriage, without which the promise could not even be fulfilled in him. 5. Isaac’s blindness. That the eyes of this recluse and contemplative man were obscured and closed at an early age, is a fact which occurs in many a similar character since the time of “blind Homer” and blind Tiresias. Isaac had not exercised his eye in hunting as Esau. The weakness of his age first settles in that organ which he so constantly neglected. With this was connected his weakness in judging individual and personal relations. He was conscious of an honest wish and will in his conduct with Esau, and his secrecy in the case, as well as the precaution at Gerβr, was connected with his retiring, peace-loving disposition. Leaving this out of view, he was an honest, well-meaning person (see Genesis 27:37, and Genesis 26:27). His developed faith in the promise, however, reveals itself in his power or fitness for the vision, and his words of blessing. 6. Rebekah obviously disappears from the stage as a grand or conspicuous character; grand in her prudence, magnanimity, and her theocratic zeal of faith. Her zeal of faith had a mixture of fanatic exaggeration, and in this view she is the grand mother of Simeon and Levi (Genesis 38). 7. It must be especially noticed that Jacob remained single far beyond the age of Isaac. He seems to have expected a hint from Isaac, just as Isaac was married through the care of Abraham. The fact bears witness to a deep, quiet disposition, which was only developed to a full power by extraordinary circumstances. He proves, again, by his actions, that he is a Jacob, i.e., heel-catcher, sup-planter. He does not refuse to comply with the plan of the mother from any conscientious scruples, but from motives of fear and prudence. And how ably and firmly he carries through his task, though his false confidence seems at last to die upon his lips with the brief ΰָ ?πι, Genesis 27:24! But however greatly he erred, he held a proper estimate of the blessing, for the security of which he thought he had a right to make use of prevarication; and this blessing did not consist in earthly glory, a fact which is decisive as to his theocratic character. Esau, on the other hand, scarcely seems to have any conception of the real contents of the Abrahamic blessing. The profound agitation of those who surrounded him, gives him the impression that this must be a thing of inestimable worth. Every one of his utterances proves a misunderstanding. Esau’s misunderstandings, however, are of a constant significance, showing in what light mere men of the world regard the things of the kingdom of God. Even his exertion to mend his improper marriage relations eventuates in another error. 8. Isaac’s blessing. In the solemn form of the blessing, the dew of heaven is connected with the fatness of the earth in a symbolic sense, and the idea of the theocratic kingdom, the dominion of the seed of blessing first appears here. In the parting blessing upon Jacob, the term χδμ indicates a great development of the Abrahamic blessing.—Ranke: Abraham, no doubt, saw, in the light of Jehovah’s promises, on to the goal of his own election and that of his seed, but with regard to the chosen people, however, his prophetic vision extended only to the exodus from Egypt, and to the possession of Canaan. Isaac’s prophecy already extends farther into Israel’s history, reaching down to the subjugation and restoration of Esau. 9. The blessing pronounced upon Esau seems to be a prophecy of his future, clothed in the form of a blessing, in which his character is clearly announced. It contains a recognition of bravery, of a passion for liberty, and the courage of a hunter—The Idumζans were a warlike people. 10. When, therefore, Isaac speaks in the spirit, about his sons, he well knew their characters (Hebrews 11:20). The prophetic blessing will surely be accomplished; but not by the force of a magical efficacy; as Knobel says: “A divine word uttered, is a power which infallibly and unchangeably secures what the word indicates. The word of God can never be ineffectual (comp. Genesis 9:18; Numbers 22:6; 2 Kings 2:24; Isaiah 9:7).”—The word of a prophetic spirit rests upon the insight of the spirit into the profound fundamental principles of the present, in which the future, according to its main features, reflects itself, or exhibits itself, beforehand. 11. The high-souled Esau acted dishonestly in this, that he was not mindful of the oath by which he had sold to Jacob the birthright; and just as Rebekah might excuse her cunning by that of Isaac, so Jacob might excuse his dishonest conduct by pleading Esau’s dishonesty. 12. The application of the proverb, “The end justifies the means,” to Jacob’s conduct, is apparently not allowable. The possible mental reservation in Jacob’s lie, may assume the following form: 1. I am Esau, i.e., the (real) hairy one, and thy (lawful) first-born. But even in this case the mental reservation of Jacob is as different from that of the Jesuits, as heaven from earth. 2. Thy God brought the venison to me; i.e., the God who has led thee wills that I should be blessed. 13. However plausible may be the deceit, through the divine truth some circumstance will remain unnoticed, and become a traitor. Jacob had not considered that his voice was not that of Esau. It nearly betrayed him. The expression: “The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau,” has become a proverb in cases where words and deeds do not correspond. 14. The first appearance of the kiss in this narrative presents this symbol of ancient love to our view in both its aspects. The kiss of Christian brother-hood and the kiss of Judas are here enclosed in one. 15. Just as the starry heavens constituted the symbol of the divine promise for Abraham, so the blooming, fragrant, and fruitful fields are the symbol to Isaac. In this also may be seen and employed the antithesis between the first, who dwelt under the rustling oaks, and of the other, who sat by the side of springing fountains. The symbol of promise descends from heaven to earth. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs. Upon the whole the present narrative is both a patriarchal family picture and a religious picture of history.—Domestic life and domestic sorrow in Isaac’s house.—In the homes of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.—The blind Isaac: 1. Blind in two respects; and 2. yet a clear-sighted prophet.—How Isaac blesses his sons: 1. How he intends to bless them; 2. how he is constrained to bless them.—Human guilt and divine grace in Isaac’s house: 1. The guilt; Isaac and Rebekah anticipate divine providence. They deceive each other. Esau is led to forget his bargain with Jacob; Jacob is induced to deceive his father. Yet the guilt of all is diminished because they thought that they must help the right with falsehood. Esau obeys the father, Jacob obeys the mother. Isaac rests upon the birthright, Rebekah upon the divine oracle. 2. God’s grace turns everything to the best, in conformity to divine truth, but with the condition that all must repent of their sins.—The image of the hereditary curse in the light of the hereditary blessing, which Isaac ministers: 1. How the curse obscures the blessing; 2. how the blessing overcomes the curse.—The characteristics mentioned in our narrative viewed in their contrasts: 1. Isaac and Rebekah; 2. Jacob and Esau; 3. Isaac and Jacob; 4. Isaac and Esau; 5. Rebekah and Esau; 6. Rebekah and Jacob.—The cunning of a theocratic disposition purified and raised to the prudence of the ecclesiastical spirit.—God’s election is sure: 1. In the heights of heaven; 2. in the depths of human hearts; 3. in the providence of grace; 4. in the course of history.—The clear stream of the divine government runs through all human errors, and that: 1. For salvation to believers; 2. for judgment to unbelievers. To Section First, Genesis 27:1-4. Isaac’s infirmity of age, and his faith: 1. In what manner the infirmity of age obscured his faith; 2. how faith breaks through the infirmities of age.—Isaac’s blindness.—The sufferings of old age.—The thought of death: 1. Though beneficial in itself; 2. may yet be premature.—The hasty making of wills.—We must not anticipate God.—Not act in uncertainty of heart.—The preference of the parents for the children different in character from themselves.—The connection of hunting and the enjoyment of its fruits, with the divine blessing of promise: 1. Incomprehensible as a union of the most diverse things; 2. comprehensible as a device of human prudence; 3. made fruitless by the interference of another spirit.—Isaac’s secrecy thwarted by Rebekah’s cunning device.—Human right and divine law in conflict with each other.—Isaac’s right and wrong view, and conduct. Starke: It is a great blessing of God, if he preserves our sight not only in youth, but also in old age (Deuteronomy 34:7).—Cramer: A blind man, a poor man (Tob 5:12).—Old age itself is a sickness (2 Samuel 19:35).—If you are deprived of the eyes of your body, see that you do not lose the eye of faith (Psalms 39:5-6).—A Christian ought to do nothing from passion, but to judge only by the word of God.—Bibl. Tub.: Parents are to bless their children before they die; but the blessing must be conformed to the divine will (Genesis 48:5). Doubtless Jacob, taught by Isaac’s error, learned to bless his children better; i.e., in a less restricted manner.—(The Rabbins assert that Jacob desired venison before his pronouncing the blessing, because it was customary that the son about to receive the blessing should perform some special act of love to his father.)—Osiander: It is probable that Isaac demanded something better than ordinary, because this was to be also a peculiar day. To all appearance it was a divine providence through which Jacob gains time to obtain and bear away the blessing before him.—Schrφder: Contemplative men like Isaac easily undermine their health (?).—Experience teaches us that natures like that of Isaac are more exposed to blindness than others. Shut in entirely from the external world, their eyes are soon entirely closed to it.—The son, by some embodiment of his filial love, shows himself as son, in order that the father on his part also, may, through the act of blessing, show himself to be a father.—Love looks for love.—Thus the blessing may be considered not so much as belonging to the privilege of the first-born, but rather as constituting a rightful claim to these privileges. Section Second, Genesis 27:15-17. Rebekah’s counter-scheme opposed to Isaac’s scheme.—Rebekah’s right and wrong thought and conduct.—Rebekah protectress of the right of Jacob’s election opposed to Isaac the elect.—Jacob’s persuasion: 1. The mother’s faith and her wrong view of it.—The faith of the son and his erroneous view.—Jacob’s doubt and Rebekah’s confidence.—The defect in his hesitation (it was not a fear of sin, but a fear of the evil consequences).—The defect in the confidence (not in the certainty itself, but its application).—The cunning mother and the cunning son.—Both too cunning in this case.—Their sufferings for it—God’s commandment is of more weight than the parental authority, than all human commands generally. Starke: Some commentators are very severe upon Rebekah (Saurin, Discours XXVIII; others on the contrary (Calvin and others), praise her faith, her cunning, her righteousness (because Esau as a bold scoffer, had sold his birthright), her fear of God (abhorrence of the Canaanitish nature). (We must add, however, that Calvin also marks the means which Rebekah uses as evil.)—Rebekah, truly, had acted in a human way, striving by unlawful means to attain a good end.—Bibl. Wirt: If the Word of God is on our side we must not indeed depart from it, but neither must we undertake to bring about what it holds before us by unlawful means, but look to God, who knows what means to use, and how and when to fulfil his word.—Bibl. Tόb: God makes even the errors of the pious to work good, if their heart is sincere and upright; yet we are not to imitate their errors. Gerlach: Though staining greatly, as she did, the divine promise by her deception, yet at the same time her excellent faith shines out through the history. She did not fear to arouse the brother’s deadly hatred against Jacob, to bring her favorite son into danger of his life and to excite her husband against her, because the inheritance promised by God stood before her, and she knew God had promised it to Jacob. (Calvin).—Schrφder: (Michaelis: The kids of the goats can be prepared in such a way as to taste like venison.) Isaac now abides by the rule, but Rebekah insists upon an exception (Luther).—The premature grasping bargain of Jacob (Genesis 25:29, etc.,) is the reason that God is here anticipated again by Rebekah, and Jacob’s sinful cunning, so that the bargain again turns out badly.—Luther, holding that the law is annulled by God himself, concludes: Where there is no law, there is no transgression, therefore, she has not sinned (!?)—Both (sons) were already 77 years old. The fact, that Jacob, at such an age, was still under maternal control, was grounded deeply in his individuality (Genesis 25:27), as well as in the congeniality which existed between Jacob and his mother. Esau, surely, was passed from under Rebekah’s control already at the age of ten years. Section Third, Genesis 27:18-29. Isaac’s blessing upon Jacob: 1. In its human aspect; 2. in its divine aspect.—The divine providence controlling Isaac’s plan: Abraham, Isaac and Esau.—Jacob, in Esau’s garments, betrayed by his voice: 1. Almost betrayed immediately; 2. afterwards clearly betrayed.—Isaac’s solicitude, or all care in the service of sin and error gains nothing.—Jacob’s examination.—The voice is Jacob’s voice, the hands are Esau’s hands.—Isaac’s blessing: 1. According to its external and its typical significance; 2. in its relation to Abraham’s promise and the blessing of Jacob.—Its new thoughts: the holy sovereignty, the gathering of a holy people, the germ of the announcement of a holy kingdom. Isaac’s inheritance: a kingdom of nations, a church of nations.—The fulfilment of the blessing: 1. In an external or typical sense: David’s kingdom; 2. in a spiritual sense: the kingdom of Christ. Starke: Jacob, perhaps, thought with a contrite heart of the abuse of strange raiment, when the bloody coat of Joseph was shown to him. To say nothing of the cross caused by children, which, no doubt, is the most severe cross to pious parents in this world, and with which the pious Jacob often met (Dinah’s rape, Benjamin’s difficult birth, Simeon’s and Levi’s bloody weapons, Reuben’s incest, Joseph’s history, Judah’s history, Genesis 38, etc.). For Jacob sinned: 1. In speaking contrary to the truth, and twice passing himself for Esau; 2. in really practising fraud by means of strange raiment and false pretences; 3. in his abuse of the name of God (Genesis 27:20); 4. in taking advantage of his father’s weakness.—Yet God bore with his errors, like Isaac, etc. Genesis 27:26 : a collection of different places in which we read of a kiss or kisses (see Concordance).—That this uttered blessing is to be received not only according to the letter, but also in a deeper, secret sense, is apparent from Hebrews 11:20, where Paul says: that by faith Isaac blessed his son, of which faith the Messiah was the theme. Gerlach: The goal and central point of this blessing is the word: be lord over thy brethren. For this implies that he was to be the bearer of the blessing, while the others should only have a share in his enjoyment.—Lisco: Earthly blessing (Deuteronomy 33:28).—Cursed be, etc. He who loves the friends of God, loves God himself; he who hates them, hates him; they are the apple of his eye.—Calwer Handbuch: The more pleasant the fragrance of the flowers and herbs of the field, the richer is the blessing. Earthly blessings are a symbol and pledge to the father of divine grace.—Power and sway: The people blessed of the Lord must stand at the head of nations, in order to impart a blessing to all.—Isaac, much against his will, blesses him whom Jehovah designs to bless.—Schrφder: Ah, the voice, the voice (of Jacob)! I should have dropped the dish and run away (Luther).—Thus also the servants of God sow the seed of redemption among men, not knowing where and how it is to bring fruits. God does not limit the authority granted to them by other knowledge and wisdom. The virtue and efficacy of the sacraments by no means depend, as the Papists think, upon the intention of the person who administers them (Calvin).—(Esau’s goodly raiment: Jewish tradition holds these to be the same made by God himself for the first parents (Genesis 3:21), and it attributes to the person wearing them the power even of taming wild beasts.—The inhabitants of South Asia are accustomed to scent their garments in different ways. By means of fragrant oils extracted from spices, etc. (Michaelis).—Smell of a field. Herodotus says, All Arabia exhales fragrant odors.)—Thus he wished that the land of Canaan should be to them a pattern and pledge of the heavenly inheritance (Calvin).—Dew, corn, wine, are symbols of the blessings of the kingdom of grace and glory (Ramb.).—That curseth thee. Here it is made known, that the true church is to exist among the descendants of Jacob. The three different members of the blessing contain the three prerogatives of the first-born: 1. The double inheritance. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C. JACOB.-ISRAEL, THE WITH GOD, AND HIS FIRST SECTIONJacob’s journey to Mesopotamia, and the heavenly Ladder at Bethel Genesis 28:10-2210 And Jacob went out from Beer-sheba, and went toward Haran. 11And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones [one of the stones] of that place, and put them [it] for his pillows, and lay 12down in that place to sleep. And [then] he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached [was reaching] to heaven: and behold, the angels of God 13[were] ascending and descending on it. And behold, the Lord stood [was standing] above it: and said, I am the Lord God [Jehovah, the God] of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; 14And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west [evening], and to the east [morning], and to the north [midnight], and to the south [midday]: and in 15thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places [everywhere] whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of [promised thee]. 16And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not. 17And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful [awful] is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this [here] is the gate of heaven. 18And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. 19And he called the name of that place Bethel [house of God]; but the name of that city was called [earlier] Luz at the first. 20And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God [Elohim] will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21So that I come again to my father’s house in peace [in prosperity]; then shall the Lord 22[Jehovah] be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto thee. REMARKJacob’s divine election, as well as the spirit of his inward life and the working of his faith, first appear in a bright light in his emigration, his dream, and his vow. AND 1. Jacob’s emigration, his night-quarters, and dream (Genesis 28:10-15).—Went out from Beer-sheba.—The journey from Beer-sheba to Haran leads the pilgrim through a great part of Canaan, in a direction from south to north, then crossing the Jordan, and passing through Gilead, Bashan, and Damascus, he comes to Mesopotamia. It was the same journey that Abraham, and afterwards Eliezer, had already made, well known to the patriarchal family.—And he lighted upon a certain place.—Not after the first day’s journey, but after several days’ journey (see Genesis 22:4). Bethel (see Genesis 28:19), or originally Luz, Λουσά, was situated in the mountain of Ephraim, on the way from Jerusalem to Shechem, probably the present Beitin; more than three hours north of Jerusalem (see Dictionaries, especially Winer, and books of travels, particularly Robinson, ii. pp. 125–130).—He lighted upon.—By this expression the place in which he took up his night-quarters, in the open air, is distinguished from the city already existing.—And tarried there all night.—After the sun went down, indicating an active journey. Even at the present date it frequently occurs that pilgrims in those countries, wrapped in their cloaks, spend the night in the open air, during the more favorable seasons of the year.—He took of the stones.—“One of the stones.” A stone becomes his pillow. Thus he rests upon the solitary mountain, with no covering but the sky.—And he dreamed.—In his dream a strange night-vision comes to him, and it belongs to his peculiar character that in this condition he is susceptible of this dream. “Here he sleeps upon a hard pillow, exiled from his father’s house, with deep anxiety approaching an uncertain future, and intentionally avoiding intercourse with his fellow-men; a stranger, in solitude and without shelter.” Delitzsch. The dream-vision is so glorious, that the narrator represents it by a threefold δִ ?πֵּ ?δ. The participles, too, serve to give a more vivid representation. The connection between heaven and earth, and now especially between heaven and the place where the poor fugitive sleeps, is represented in three different forms, increasing in fulness and strength; the ladder, not too short, but resting firmly on the earth below and extending up to heaven; the angels of God, appearing in great numbers, passing up and down the ladder as the messengers of God; ascending as the invisible companions of the wanderer, to report about him, and as mediators of his prayers; descending as heavenly guardians and mediators of the blessing; finally, Jehovah himself standing above the ladder, henceforth the covenant God of Jacob, just as he had hitherto been the covenant God of Abraham and Isaac. [It is a beautiful and striking image of the reconciliation and mediation effected by the Angel of the Covenant. See John 1:51.—A. G.]—Jehovah, the God of Abraham.—According to Knobel, this is an addition of the Jehovistic enlargement, which does not fit the connection here, where the question is simply about Jacob’s protection and guidance. Just as if this could be detached from his theocratic position and importance! First of all, Jacob must now know that Jehovah is with him as his God; that the God of Abraham—his ancestor in faith—and the God of Isaac, will henceforth also prove himself to be the God of Jacob.—The land whereon thou liest.—The ground on which he sleeps as a fugitive, is to be his possession, to its widest limits. Canaan, from the heights of Bethel, extends in all directions far and wide. His couch upon the bare ground is changed into an ideal possession of the country.—As the dust of the earth (see Genesis 22:17; Genesis 26:4). —To one sleeping upon the bare ground, this new symbol of the old promise was peculiarly striking.—Thou shalt spread abroad.—The wide, indefinite extension to all quarters of the heavens, introduces the thought, that all the nations of the earth are to be blessed in him. [That which is here promised transcends the destiny of the natural seed of Abraham. Murphy, p. 386.—A. G.] In the light of this promise, the personal protection and guidance here promised to him has its full significance and certainty. Jehovah guarantees the security of his journey, of the end sought, of his return, and finally, of the divine promises given to him. But the security against Esau is not yet clearly given to him; still the expression: I will not leave thee, until—does not mean, that he would at one time forsake him, but indicates the infallible fulfilment of all the promises. [The dream-vision is a comprehensive summary of the history of the Old Covenant. As Jacob is now at the starting-point of his independent development, Jehovah now standing above the ladder, appears in the beginning of his descent, and since the end of the ladder is by Jacob, it is clear that Jehovah descends to him, the ancestor and representative of the chosen people. But the whole history of the Old Covenant is nothing else than, on one side, the history of the successive descending of God, to the incarnation in the seed of Jacob, and, on the other, the successive steps of progress in Jacob and his seed towards the preparation to receive the personal fulness of the divine nature into itself. The vision reaches its fulfilment and goal in the sinking of the personal fulness of God into the helpless and weak human nature in the incarnation of Christ. Kurtz.—A. G.] 2. Jacob’s awaking, his morning solemnity, and vow (Genesis 28:16-22).—Surely the Lord.—The belief in the omnipresence of God was a part of the faith of Abraham’s house. And that God was even present here, he did not first learn on this occasion (as Knobel seems to think), but it is new to him that Jehovah, as the covenant God, revealed himself not only at the consecrated altars of his fathers, but even here. Jacob (who was not to take, and did not desire to take, any of the Canaanitish women), probably from religious zeal, avoided taking up his abode for the night in the heathen city, Luz. Generally, indeed, he would feel ill at ease in a profane and heathenish country. The greater, therefore, is his surprise, that Elohim here reveals himself to him, and that as Jehovah.—How dreadful (see Exodus 3:5)—House of God.—The dreadfulness of the place results from the awe-inspiring presence of the God of revelation. The place, therefore, is to him a house of God, a Bethel, and the Bethel is to him at the same time the door of heaven. He feels as a sinner rebuked and punished at this sacred place; he trembles and is filled with holy awe, but not disheartened. He did not tremble before men nor wild beasts, but now he trembles before Jehovah in his sanctuary, but it is the trembling of a pious confidence.—And he set it up for a pillar.—Calvin: “A striking monument of the vision.” We must here distinguish between the stone for a pillar, as a memorial of divine help, as Joshua and Samuel erected pillars (Genesis 31:45; Genesis 35:14; Joshua 4:9; Joshua 4:20; Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 7:12); and the anointing of the stone with oil, which consecrated it to Jehovah’s sanctuary (Exodus 20:30). In the same manner, we must distinguish, on the one hand, between the consecrated stone of Jacob, which marked the place as an ideal house of God and a future place for sacrifice (see Genesis 35:15; comp. Genesis 35:7), and in an unknown-typical prophecy the place of the future tabernacle, and, on the other hand, the anointed stones worshipped with religious veneration (whence the expression: “Oelgφtze,” idols of oil), and especially the stones supposed in the heathen world to have fallen from heaven, by whose names we are reminded of Bethel, but whose worship, however, is not to be derived from Jacob’s conduct at Bethel (see Keil, p. 302; Knobel, p. 239; Delitzsch, p. 460; Winer, “Stones”).—Called the name.—Knobel: “According to the Elohist, he assigns the name at his return (Genesis 35:15).” The naming at the last-quoted place, however, clearly expresses the execution of his purpose to sacrifice upon the stone, and thus to change it from an ideal to an actual Bethel, a place for the worship of God. It is evident that this naming of Luz, or the place near by, was of importance only to Jacob and his house, and that the Canaanites called the city Luz now as before, until it became a Hebrew city. According to Keil, Jacob himself called the city Luz by the name of Bethel, but not the place where the pillar was erected. This would be very strange, and it is not proved by Genesis 48:3, where Jacob in Egypt characterizes in general the region of this divine revelation. From Joshua 16:2; Joshua 18:13, too, we receive the impression that Luz and Bethel, strictly taken, were two separate places; for Jacob had not passed the night in the city of Luz, but in the fields or upon the mountain, in the open air. Generally, the whole region was called Luz, in the time of the Canaanites, but Bethel at the time of the Israelites.—Vowed a vow.—The vow seems to unite the faith in Jehovah with external and personal interests. But the following points should be considered: First, the vow is only an explanation and appropriation of the promise immediately preceding; second, it is a very modest appropriation of it (meat and drink and raiment); thirdly, Jacob emphasizes especially that point which the promise had left dark for his further trial (Genesis 32:7), viz., the desire to return to his paternal home in peace, i.e., especially, free from Esau’s avenging threats.—The vow too: Then shall the Lord be my God, is emphatical, and explains itself by the following promises. Jacob fulfilled the first after his return (Genesis 35:7; Genesis 28:16), and Israel fulfilled it more completely. The tithes, that first appear in Abraham’s history (Genesis 14:20), were no doubt employed by Jacob, at his return, for burnt-offerings and thank-offerings and charitable gifts (see below) (Genesis 31:54; Genesis 46:1). [Murphy says, the vow of Jacob is a step in advance of his predecessors. It is the spirit of adoption working in him. It is the grand and solemn expression of the soul’s free, full, and perpetual acceptance of the Lord to be its own God. The words, If God will be with me, do not express the condition on which Jacob will accept God, but are the echo and thankful acknowledgment of the divine assurance, I am with thee. The stone shall be God’s house, a monument of the presence and dwelling of God with his people. Here it signalizes the grateful and loving welcome which God receives from his saints. The tenth is the share of all given to God, as representing the full share, the whole which belongs to him. Thus Jacob opens his heart, his home, and his treasure, to God. As the Father is prominently manifested in Abraham, and the Son in Isaac, so also the Spirit in Jacob.—A. G.] AND ETHICAL1. Jacob’s pilgrimage. The patriarchs pilgrims of God (Hebrews 11). 2. From Isaac onward the night dream-vision is the fundamental form of revelation in the history of the patriarchs.—Consecrated night-life: 1. As to the occasion: In the most helpless situation, the most solemn and glorious dream. 2. As to the form: A divine revelation in the dream-vision: a. miracles of sight, symbols of salvation; b. miracles of the ear, promise of salvation. 3. As to its contents: The images of the vision: a. the ladder; b. angels, ascending and descending; c. Jehovah standing above the ladder and speaking.—The words of the vision, or the centre of the whole vision (Calov.: Verbum dei quasi anima visionis). General promise; individual promise. 3. The rainbow in the brightness of its colors, though soon vanishing away, proclaims the mercy of God, descending from heaven, and ruling over the earth; but Jacob’s ladder expresses more definitely the connecting and living intercourse between heaven and earth. The ladder reaching down from heaven to earth, designates the revelations, the words, and promises of God; the ladder reaching upwards from earth to heaven, indicates faith, sighs, confession, and prayer. The angels ascending and descending, are messengers and the symbols of the reality of a personal intercourse between Jehovah and his people. 4. The angelic world develops itself gradually. Here they appear in great numbers, after having been preceded by the symbolic cherubim and the two angels, in company with the Angel of the Lord: 1. These hosts, however, appear in the vision of a dream; 2. they ascend and descend on the ladder; it does not appear, therefore, that they flew. They do not speak, but Jehovah speaks above them. Nevertheless, they indicate the living communion between heaven and earth, the longing for another world, well known to the Lord in the heavens; the help and salvation which comes from above, and with which believing hearts are well acquainted, and the ascending and descending signifies that personal life is only mediated and introduced through personal life. They carry on this mediation, bearing upwards from earth reports and prayers, and from heaven to earth protection and blessings. 5. In this vision and guidance of Jacob the Angel of the Lord unfolds and reveals his peculiar nature in a marked antithesis. Jehovah is the one peculiar personality who, exalted above the multitude of angels, begins to speak, receives and gives the word. 6. Christ brings out the complete fulfilment of Jacob’s vision, John 1:52. From this exegesis of the Lord it follows that Jacob, now already as Israel (see John 1:47; Genesis 28:49), not only beheld a constant intercourse between heaven and earth, but foresaw also, in an unconscious, typical representation, the gradual incarnation of God. Baumgarten: “The old fathers, and even Luther and Calvin, are too rash in regarding the ladder, directly and by itself, as the symbol of the mystery of the incarnation. The ladder itself cannot be compared with Christ, but Jacob, who beholds the ladder,” etc. No doubt, Jacob, in his vision, is a type of Christ, and Baumgarten correctly says: “As far as a dream (it is, the night-vision of a believer) stands below the reality, and things that happen but once below those that continually occur, so far Jacob stands below Christ.” Yet the mutual relation and intercourse between God and the elect, of which the advent of Christ is the result and consummation, was doubtless typified by this ladder. 7. From Jacob’s ladder we receive the first definite intimation that beyond Sheol, heaven is the home of man. 8. Just as Jacob established his Bethel at his lonely lodging-place, so Christians have founded their churches upon Golgothas, over the tombs of martyrs, and over crypts; and this all in a symbolic sense. The church, as well as Christians, has come out of great tribulations.—But every true house of God is also, as such, a gate of heaven. 9. The application of oil also, which afterwards, in a religious sense, as a a symbol of the spirit, runs through the entire Scriptures, we find here first mentioned. 10. Jacob’s vow is to be understood from the preceding promise of the Lord. It was to be uttered, according to the human nature, in his waking state, and is the answer to the divine promise. 11. As to the tithes and vows, see Dictionaries. Gerlach: “The number ‘ten’ being the one that concludes the prime numbers, expresses the idea of completion, of some whole thing. Almost all nations, in paying tithes of all their income, and frequently, indeed, as a sacred revenue, thus wished to testify that their whole property belonged to God, and thus to have a sanctified use and enjoyment of what was left. 12. The idea of Jacob’s ladder, of the protecting hosts of angels, of the house of God and its sublime terrors, of the gate of heaven, of the symbolical significance of the oil, of the vow, and of the tithes—all these constitute a blessing of this consecrated night of Jacob’s life. 13. Jacob does not think that Jehovah’s revelation to him was confined to this place of Bethel. He does not interpret the sacredness of the place in a heathen way, as an external thing, but theocratically and symbolically. Through Jehovah’s revelation, this place, which is viewed as a heathen waste, becomes to him a house of God, and therefore he consecrates it to a permanent sanctuary. 14. Genesis 28:20-21. Briefly: If God is to me Jehovah, then Jehovah shall be to me God. If the Lord of the angels and the world proves himself to me a covenant God, then I will glorify in my covenant God, the Lord of the whole world. [There is clear evidence that Jacob was now a child of God. He takes God to be his God in covenant, with whom he will live. He goes out in reliance upon the divine promise, and yields himself to the divine control, rendering to God the homage of a loving and grateful heart. But what a progress there is between Bethel and Peniel. Grace reigns within him, but not without a conflict. The powers and tendencies of evil are still at work. He yields too readily to their urgent solicitations. Still grace and the principles of the renewed man, gain a stronger hold, and become more and more controlling. Under the loving but faithful discipline of God, he is gaining in his faith, until, in the great crisis of his life, Mahanaim and Peniel, and the new revelations then given to him, it receives a large and sudden increase. He is thenceforward trusting, serene, and established, strengthened and settled, and passes into the quiet life of the triumphant believer.—A. G.] AND See Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs.—Jacob, the third patriarch. How he inherited from his grandfather: 1. The active deeds of faith, and from his father; 2. the endurance of faith, and therefore even he appears; 3. as the wrestler of faith.—Or the patriarch of hope in a special sense.—Jacob’s pilgrimage.—His couch upon the stony pillow becomes his Bethel.—The night-vision of Jacob at Bethel becomes more and more glorious: 1. The ladder; 2. the angels ascending and descending; 3. Jehovah and his promise.—The ladder: a. From heaven to earth: the word of God; b. from earth to heaven: prayer (cries and tears, prayer, intercession, thanks, praise).—The Angel of God over our life.—Jehovah speaking above the silent angels, or the peculiar glory of the word of God, especially of the gospel.—Jacob’s noble fearlessness, and his holy fear.—Bethel, or the sacred places and names upon this earth.—Jacob’s vow, the answer to Jehovah’s promise.—How the God of Abraham and Isaac becomes also the God of Jacob, or, Jehovah always the same in the kingdom of God: 1. The living results; 2. the living nature of the results. Section First, Genesis 28:10-15. Starke: Jacob left his home secretly and alone, with all possible speed, before his brother Esau was aware of it. He took nothing with him but his staff (Genesis 32:10).—(Josephus: Unfavorable opinion of the people at Luz.)—Jacob, in this wretched condition upon his journey, a symbol of the Messiah. (Explained allegorically by Rambach: 1. Wooing a wife in a strange country; 2. the true heir appearing in poverty; 3. the sojourn at Bethel. Christ had not where to lay his head.)—This ladder, a symbol of God’s paternal care, by which, as by a heavenly ladder, heaven and earth are connected.—But that this ladder was to typify something far higher, we learn from Christ himself. The mystery of Christ’s incarnation, and of his mediatorial office, was typified by this.—Freiberger Bibel: In this ladder we see the steps and degrees: 1. Of the state of Christ’s humiliation; 2. of the state of his exaltation.—Chrysostom: “Faith is the ladder of Jacob reaching from earth to heaven.—Bernh.: The ladder of Jacob is the church, as yet partly militant upon the earth, and partly triumphant in heaven.—The Lord (Jehovah). Chaldee: The glory of the Lord. Arab.: The right of the Lord.—(Freiberger Bibel: Grotius and Clericus are wrong in not being willing to give the name, the Angel of the Lord, to Christ, but to one of the highest angels, to whom they attribute the name of Jehovah, contrary to the sense and usage of the Holy Spirit.) Genesis 28:15. God, in comforting him, proceeds gradually: 1. He himself is with him, not a mere angel; 2. he will bring him back again; 3. he will never leave him (Romans 8:28).—Parents ought not to bring up their children too delicately, for they never know in what circumstances they may be placed.—Hall: God is generally nearest to us when we are the most humble.—Bibl. Tub.: Even in his sleep Jacob had intercourse with the Lord; in a like manner our sleep should be consecrated to the Lord.—Christ, the true Jacob’s ladder (Psalms 91:2; Isaiah 33:2). Gerlach: That the angels here neither hover nor fly, is owing to the representation and typical significance of the vision. By this very fact Jacob was assured that the place where his head lies, is the point to which God sends his angels, in order to execute his commands concerning him, and to receive communications from him; a symbol of the loving and uninterrupted care for his servants, extending to individuals and minute events.—Dreadful. The old church called the Lord’s supper a dreadful mystery (sacramentum tremendum).—Lisco: Now Jacob, like Abraham and Isaac, stands as the elect of Jehovah. This is of greater importance, since Jacob is the ancestor of the Israelites only. The promises of Jehovah, therefore, that were given to him, must have appeared as the dearest treasure to his descendants.—Schrφder: Ver: 10. Because the sun was set. A symbol corresponding with his inward feeling. The paternal home with the revelations and the worship of the only true God, is far behind him, a strange solitude around him, and a position full of temptation before him.—The living stone, the rock of salvation, is the antitype of that typical stone in the wilderness; do with it what the patriarch did with his (F. W. Krummacher), Hebrews 1:14.—In the symbol of the ladder lies the prediction of the special providence of God.—Earth is a court of paradise; life, here below, is a short pilgrimage; our home is above, and the light of a blessed eternity illuminates our path (F. W. Krummacher). Section Second, Genesis 28:16-22. Starke: Surely the Lord. Chald.: The glory of the Lord. Genesis 28:17. His feeble nature trembled before this heavenly manifestation, because he was well aware of his unworthiness, and the sublimity of God’s majesty considered in the light of the Spirit.—Where God’s word is found, there is a house of God. There heaven stands open.—(The ancients believed that the divinity, after having forsaken the greater part of the earth (as to his gracious presence), could be found at that place, whither they would be called after their departure from Chaldζa (Cyrill Alex.) Genesis 28:18. As Jacob was not induced to set up this stone and worship at it by any superstition or idolatry, so the papists gain nothing in deriving their image-worship from this act; although we read in Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 12:3. that God has expressly prohibited these things.—(The Orientals, in their journeys, use oil for food, for anointing, and for healing.)—Cramer: Although the Lord God is everywhere present (Jeremiah 23:24), he is yet especially near to his church with his grace, his spirit, and his blessing (John 14:18; Matthew 18:20).—Bibl. Wirt.: Wherever the Lord God shows himself in his word, or by deeds of his grace, there is his house, and the gate of heaven, there heaven with its treasures is open.—A Christian walks with great reverence and fear before God, and bows in humble submission before his most sacred majesty.—(Christ, the corner-stone, anointed with the oil of gladness.)—Freiberger Bibel: A church, though built of wood and stones, nevertheless bears this beautiful title, and is called God’s house, or house of the Lord. So frequently were named: a. the tabernacle (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26); b. the first and second temple at Jerusalem, etc. Genesis 28:20-21. Vows must be regarded as holy.—The duty of gratitude.—Whatever a Christian gives to the establishment of divine service, and to the support of pious teachers, he gives to God.—Lisco: How God reveals himself through facts and the experiences of life, by means of which he enlarges the store of our knowledge (still, not here the knowledge of his omnipresence).—Gerlach: The vow, which Jacob here took, was based entirely upon the promise given to him, and served as an encouragement to gratitude, to faith, and to obedience, just as afterwards, in the law, in a similar way, sacrifices were vowed and offered. It belonged to the time of childhood under tutors and governors (Galatians 4:1).—The stone is to become a place of sacrifice.—Calwer Handbuch: Perhaps Jacob accomplished the vow concerning the tithes in a similar sense, as at the feast of tithes and sacrifices (Deuteronomy 14:28-29), which afterwards occurred every three years, and at which the Levites, the stranger, widows, and orphans should be invited, and at which they should eat and be satisfied. This feast may, perhaps, have existed voluntarily, before it became legal and was introduced as a fixed usage.— Schrφder: Generally, the outward connection with the chosen generation, the residence at a place pointed out to them by God, constituted the condition of a participation in Jehovah. Ishmael, leaving the paternal home and Canaan, immediately passed over to Elohim’s dominion. By this manifestation the fear (?) that he, like Ishmael, might be cut off as a branch from its vine, which soon withereth, is taken away from Jacob, and the blessing spoken over him by Isaac at his departure, receives its sanction (Hengstenberg). (The circumstances were more personal and intense; holy persons constituted sacred places, not vice versβ; nor did the promise lie in Isaac’s individuality, but in the house of Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob was conscious that he was the heir of blessing. The place of God’s special care, the ideal church of Jehovah now, is also transferred in a certain sense, from Beer-sheba to Haran.)—Here God himself erected a pulpit, and preached, that his church shall stand forever and ever. But Jacob and the angels of heaven are his hearers. But you must not run to St. Jacob, etc., but in faith look at the place where the word and the sacraments are, for there is the house of God, and the gate of heaven (Luther).—The oil, which, from without, penetrates objects gently but deeply, symbolizes holiness which is to be imparted to common things and persons as a permanent character (Baumgarten).—As God has become ours by faith, so we must cheerfully yield ourselves to our neighbor by love (Berleb. Bibel). SECOND SECTIONJacob’s wives and children. Jacob and Rachel, Laban’s youngest daughter. First and second treaty with Laban. His involuntary consummation of marriage with Leah. The double marriage. Leah’s sons. Rachel’s dissatisfaction. The strife of the two women. The concubines. Jacob’s blessing of children Genesis 29:1 to Genesis 30:241 Then Jacob went on his journey [lifted up his feet] and came [fled] into the land of the people [children] of the east [morning]. 2And he looked, and behold a well in the field, and, lo, there were three flocks of sheep lying by it [before him]; for out of that well they watered the flocks: and a great stone was upon the well’s month. 3And thither were all the flocks gathered: and [then] they rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the sheep, and put the stone again upon the well’s mouth in his place. 4And Jacob said unto them, My brethren, whence be ye? And they said, Of Haran are we. 5And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And they said, We know him. 6And he said unto them, Is he well? And they said, He Isaiah 7 well: and behold, Rachel [lamb, ewe-lamb] his daughter cometh with the sheep. And [But] he said, Lo, it is yet high day, neither is it time that the cattle should be gathered together: water ye the sheep, and go and feed them. 8And they said, We cannot, until all the flocks be gathered together, and till [then] they roll the stone from the well’s mouth; then [and] we water the sheep. 9And while he yet spake with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep: for she kept them. 10And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother. 11And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. 12And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother [nephew]. And that he was Rebekah’s son; and she ran and told her father. 13And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And [Then] he told Laban all these things. 14And Laban said to him, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh. And he abode with him the space of a month. 15And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother [relative], shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be. 16And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah [scarcely, the wearied; still less, the dull, stupid, 17 as Fόrst, rather: the pining, yearning, desiring], and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful [as to form] and well favored [as to countenance]. 18And Jacob loved Rachel: and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. 19And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee than that I 20should give her to another man: abide with me. And [thus] Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him [were in his eyes] but a few days, for the love he had to her. 21And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. 22And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast [wedding feast]. 23And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. 24And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah, Zilpah [Maurer: the dewy—from the trickling, dropping; Fόrst: myrrh-juice] his maid, for an handmaid. 25And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did [have] not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? 26And Laban said, It must not be so done [it is not the custom] in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. 27Fulfil her [wedding] week [the week of this one—fulfil, etc.—is too strong], and we will give thee this also, for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years. 28And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and [then] he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. 29And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah [Maurer, Fόrst: tender. Gesenius: bashful, modest] his handmaid to be her maid. 30And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated [displeasing] he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32And Leah conceived, and bare a son; and she called his name Reuben [see there, a son]: for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon [schimeon, hearing]. 34And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this£ time [at last] will my husband be joined unto me, because I have borne him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi 35[joining, cleaving]. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she said, Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah [praise of God, literally, praised, viz., be Jehovah]; and left bearing. Genesis 30:1 And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die. 2And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel; and he said, Am I [then] in God’s stead, who hath with held from thee the fruit of the womb? 3And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her, and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may [and I shall] also have children 4[be built] by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife. And Jacob went in unto her. 5And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a Song of Solomon 6 And Rachel said, God hath judged me [decreed me my right], and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan [Judge; vindicator]. 7And Bilhah, Rachel’s maid, conceived again, and bare Jacob a second Song of Solomon , 8 Rachel said, With great wrestlings [wrestlings of God, Elohim] have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali [my conflict or wrestler]. 9[And] When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah, her maid, and gave 10her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah, Leah’s maid, bare Jacob a son. 11And Leah said, A 12troop cometh [ with felicity, good fortune]: and she called his name Gad [fortune]. And Zilpah, Leah’s maid, bare Jacob a second son. 13And Leah said, Happy am I [for my happiness], for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher [blessedness]. 14And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes [love-apples] in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son’s mandrakes. 15And she said unto her Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son’s mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to-night for thy son’s mandrakes. 16And [as] Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my 17son’s mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. And God [Elohim] hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son. 18And Leah said, God hath given me my hire [wages, reward], because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar [Yisashcar, it is the reward]. 19And Leah conceived again, and bare Jacob the sixth son. 20And Leah said, God hath endued me with a good dowry [presented me with a beautiful present]; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons: and she called his name Zebulun [dwelling, dwelling together]. 21And afterwards she bare a daughter, and called her name Dinah [judged, justified, judgment]. 22And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb. 23And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach: 24And she called his name Joseph [may he add]; and said, The Lord shall add to me another [a second] son. GENERAL REMARKS1. The first half of the history of Jacob’s sojourn in Mesopotamia is a history of his love, his marriages, and his children. Bridal love, in its peculiar splendor of heart and emotion, never appeared so definitely in Genesis, after Adam’s salutation to Eve, as in the present case. With respect to the moral motives, by means of which Jacob became involved in polygamy, notwithstanding his exclusive bridal love, compare the preface p. lxxvi. We may divide the history into the following stages: 1. Jacob’s arrival at the shepherds’ well in Haran (Genesis 29:1-8); 2. Jacob’s salutation to Rachel and his reception into Laban’s house (Genesis 29:9-14); 3. Jacob’s covenant and service for Rachel and the deception befalling him (Genesis 29:15-25). How Jacob, under the divine providence, through the deception practised upon him, became very rich, both in sons and with respect to the future. (Gφthe: It has always been proved true, That he whom God deceives, is deceived to his advantage.) 4. His renewed service for Rachel (Genesis 29:26-30); 5. The first-born sons of Leah (Genesis 29:31-35); 6. Rachel’s dejection and the concubinage of Bilhah, her handmaid (30. Genesis 29:1-8); 7. Leah’s emulation, and her handmaid Zilpah (Genesis 29:9-13; Genesis 8. Leah’s last children (Genesis 29:14-21); 9. Rachel, Joseph’s mother (Genesis 29:22-24). 2. Knobel finds here a mixture of Jehovistic representation with the original text. He knows so little what to make of the ancient mode of writing narratives that he remarks upon Genesis 29:16-17 : “Moreover the same writer who has spoken of Rachel already (Genesis 29:9-12), could not properly introduce the two daughters of Laban, as is done in the present instance.” AND 1. Genesis 29:1-8. Jacob’s arrival at the shepherd’s well in Haran.—Then Jacob went on his journey.—This consoling and refreshing manifestation reanimated him, so that he goes cheerfully on his journey. Of course, he must use his feet, his bridal tour differs from that of Eliezer, although he himself is the wooer.—Into the land of the people of the East.—The choice of this expression, no doubt, indicates that from Bethel he gradually turned eastward, and crossing the Jordan and passing through the northern part of Arabia Deserta, he came to Mesopotamia, which is also included here.—He looked, and behold.—He looks around to find out where he is. Wells, however, are not only waymarks in nomadic districts, but also places of gathering for the shepherds.—It was not a well of living water,—at least not Eliezer’s well near Haran,—but a cistern, as is proved from the stone covering it. It seems to have been in the midst of the plain of Haran, and the city itself was not yet in sight.—There were three flocks of sheep lying by it.—Scenes of this description were frequently seen in the ancient Orient, (Genesis 24:11, etc.; Exodus 2:16, etc.,) and may still be seen today (Robinson: “Researches,” ii. pp. 180, 357, 371; iii. 27, 250). Watering troughs of stone are placed around the well, and the rule is, that he who comes first, waters his flocks first (V. Schubert: “Travels,” ii. p. 453; Burkhardt: “Syria,” p. 128, etc.). Among the Arabian Bedouins the wells belong to separate tribes and families, and strangers are not permitted to use them without presents, i.e. pay (Burkhardt: “Bedouins,” p. 185; Robinson, iii. p. 7; comp. Numbers 20:17; Numbers 20:19; Numbers 21:22). They are, therefore, often the cause of strifes (Genesis 26:19, etc.). The Arabians cover them very skilfully, so that they remain concealed from strangers (Diod. Sic., ii. 48, 19, 94). Even now they are covered with a large stone (see Robinson, ii. p. 180). Knobel. Robinson: “Most of the cisterns are covered with a large, thick flat stone, in the centre of which a round hole is cut, which forms the mouth of the cistern. This hole, in many instances, we found covered with a heavy stone, to the removal of which two or three men were requisite.” As to the cisterns (see also Keil, p. 203).—And a great stone.—This does not mean that all the shepherds were to come together, that by their united strength they might roll it away. The shepherds of these three herds must wait for the rest of the shepherds with their herds, because the watering of the herds was common and must take place in due order. The remark, no doubt, indicates, however, that the stone was too heavy to be removed by one of the shepherds. The shepherds also appear to have made the removal of the stone as easy as possible to them.—My Brethren.—A friendly salutation between the shepherds.—Of Haran.—[Haran lay about four hundred and fifty miles northeast from Beer-sheba. It would, therefore, be a journey of fifteen days, if Jacob walked at the rate of thirty miles a day. Murphy.—A. G.] From this it does not follow certainly that the city was far off, still Laban might have had tents on the plains for his shepherds.—Laban, the son of Nahor.—Nahor was his grandfather. Bethuel, his father, here retires into the background, just as in Rebekah’s history.—It is yet high day.—According to Starke, Jacob, as a shepherd, wished to remind these shepherds of their duty. It is obviously the prudent Jacob who acts here. He wishes to remove the shepherds, in order to meet his cousin Rachel, who is approaching, alone (see Keil). He thus assumes that they could water their flocks separately, and afterwards drive again to the pasture. 2. Genesis 29:8-14.—Jacob’s salutation to Rachel, and his reception into Laban’s house.—For she kept them.—It is customary among the Arabians of Sinai, that the virgin daughters drive the herds to the pasture (see Burkhardt: “Bedouins,” p. 283). Knobel, Exodus 2:16.—And rolled the stone.—The strong impression that the beautiful Rachel made upon her cousin Jacob is manifested in two ways. He thinks himself powerful enough to roll the stone from the mouth of the cistern out of love to her, and disregards the possibility that the trial might fail. At the same time, too, he boldly disregards the common rule of the shepherds present. Rachel’s appearance made him eager, as formerly Rebekah’s appearance even the old Eliezer, when he took out the bracelets before he knew her. The power of beauty is also recognized here upon sacred ground. Tuch thinks that the united exertion of the shepherds would have been necessary, and the narrative, therefore, boasts of a Samson-like strength in Jacob. But there is a difference between Samson-like strength and the heroic power of inspired love. [Perhaps, however, there was mingling with this feeling the joy which naturally springs from finding himself among his kindred, after the long, lonely and dangerous journey through the desert.—A. G.]—Jacob kissed Rachel.—“The three-fold ΰηιΰξε shows that he acted thus as cousin (rolling the stone from the well’s mouth, etc.). As such he was allowed to kiss Rachel openly, as a brother his sister (Son 8:1).” Knobel.—Yet his excitement betrays him even here, since he did not make known his relationship with her until afterwards.—And wept.—Teals of joy, of reanimation after a long oppression and sorrow (Genesis 45:15; Genesis 46:29). He Wept aloud, with uplifted voice. Brother here equivalent to nephew (Genesis 14:16; Genesis 24:48).—When Laban heard the tidings.—That Jacob made the whole journey on foot might have caused suspicion in the mind of Laban. But he is susceptible of nobler feelings, as is seen from the subsequent narration (Genesis 31:24), although he is generally governed by selfish motives.—And he told Laban.—Surely, the whole cause of his journey, by which he also explained his poor appearance as the son of the rich Isaac. In the view of Keil, he relates only the circumstances mentioned from Genesis 29:2-12.—Surely thou art my flesh and my bone.—He recognizes him fully from his appearance and his communication, as his near relative.—The space of a month.—Literally, during some, an indefinite number of days. It was yet uncertain, from day to day, how they would arrange matters. 3. Genesis 29:15-25. Jacob’s suit and service for Rachel, and the deception practised upon him.—Tell me what shall thy wages be.—This expression is regarded by Keil already as a mark of Laban’s selfishness, but there is no ground for this view. It is rather to be supposed that Laban wished to open the way for his love suit, which, on account of his poor condition he had not yet ventured to press. We see afterwards, indeed, that Laban willingly gives both his daughters to him. We do not, however, wish to exclude the thought, that in the meantime he may have recognized a skilful and useful shepherd in Jacob, and besides acted from regard to his own interest, especially since he knew that Jacob possessed a great inheritance at home.—The name of the elder was Leah.—It is remarkable, that in the explanation of this name we are mostly inclined to follow derived significations of the word μΰδ (see Fόrst upon this verb).—The word ψַ ?κְ used to describe the eyes of Leah, means simply: weak or dull, whence the Arabians have made, moist or blear-eyed. Leah’s eyes were not in keeping with the Oriental idea of beauty, though otherwise she might be a woman greatly blessed. “Eyes which are not clear and lustrous. To the Oriental, but especially to the Arabian, black eyes, full of life and fire, clear and expressive, dark eyes, are considered the principal part of female beauty. Such eyes he loves to compare with those of the Gazelle, (Hamasa, i. p. 557, etc.” Knobel—Rachel, the third renowned beauty in the patriarchal family. If authentic history was not in the way, Leah, as the mother of Judah, and of the Davidic Messianic line, ought to have carried off the prize of beauty after Sarah and Rebekah.—And well favored.—“Beautiful as to her form and beautiful as to her countenance.” Beside the more general designation: beautiful as to her form, the second: beautiful ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ must surely have a more definite signification: beautiful as to her countenance, and, indeed, with a reference to her beautiful eyes, which were wanting to Leah. Thus the passage indirectly says that Leah’s form was beautiful.—Serve thee seven years for Rachel.—Instead of wages he desires the daughter, and instead of a service of an indefinite number of days he promises a service of seven years. “Jacob’s service represents the price which, among the Orientals, was usually paid for the wife which was to be won (see Winer, Realw., under marriage). The custom still exists. In Kerek, a man without means, renders service for five or six years (Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. p. 674), and in Hauran, Burkhardt (“Syria,” p. 464), met a young man who had served eight years for his bare support, and then received for a wife the daughter of his master, but must render service still.” Knobel. On the contrary, Keil disputes the certainty of the assumption that the custom selling their daughters to men was general at that time. And we should certainly be nearer the truth in explaining many usages of the present border Asia from patriarchal relations, than to invert everything according to Knobel’s view. Keil holds that Jacob’s seven years of service takes the place of the customary dowry and the presents given to the relatives; but he overlooks the fact that the ideas of buying and presenting (and barter) are not as far apart in the East as with us. Nor can we directly infer the covetousness of Laban from Jacob’s acceptance of the offer, although his ignoble, selfish, narrow-minded conduct, as it is seen afterwards, throws some light also on these Eastern transactions.—It is better that I give her to thee.—“Among all Bedouin Arabians the cousin has the preference to strangers (Burkhardt, “Bedouin,” p. 219), and the Druses in Syria always prefer a relative to a rich stranger (Volney, “Travels,” ii. p. 62). It is generally customary throughout the East, that a man marries his next cousin; he is not compelled to do it, but the right belongs to him exclusively, and she is not allowed to marry any other without his consent. Both relatives, even after their marriage, call each other cousin (Burkhardt, “Bedouins,” p., 91, and “Arabian Proverbs,” p. 274, etc.; Layard, “Nineveh and Babylon,” p. 222; Lane, “Manners and Customs,” i. p. 167). Knobel.—They seemed unto him but a few days.—So far, namely, as that his great love for Rachel made his long service a delight to him; but, on the other hand, it is not said that he did not long for the end of these seven years. Yet he was cheerful and joyful in hope, which is in perfect keeping with Jacob’s character.—A Feast.—Probably Laban intended, at the great nuptial feast which he prepared, to facilitate Jacob’s deception by the great bustle and noise, but then also to arrange things so, that after seven days the wedding might be considered a double wedding. For it is evident that he wishes to bind Jacob as firmly and as long as possible to himself (see Genesis 30:27).—Leah, his daughter.—The deception was possible, through the custom, that the bride was led veiled to the bridegroom and the bridal chamber. Laban probably believed, as to the base deception, that he would be excused, because he had already in view the concession of the second daughter to Jacob.—And Laban gave unto her Zilpah.—We cannot certainly infer that he was parsimonious, because he gave but one handmaid to Leah, since he undoubtedly thought already of the dowry of Rachel with a second handmaid. The number of Rebekah’s handmaids is not mentioned (Genesis 24:61).—Behold, it was Leah.—[“This is the first retribution Jacob experiences for the deceitful practises of his former days.” He had, through fraud and cunning, secured the place and blessing of Esau,—he, the younger, in the place of the elder; now, by the same deceit, the elder is put upon him in the place of the younger. What a man sows that shall he also reap. Sin is often punished with sin.—A. G.] See Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs. 4. Genesis 29:26-30. His renewed service for Rachel.—It must not be so done.—“The same custom exists among the East Indians (see Manu.: “Statutes,” iii. 160; Rosenm., A. u. “Mod. Orient,” and Von Bohlen, upon this place). Even in the Egypt of to-day, the father sometimes refuses also to give in marriage a younger daughter before an older one (Lane: “Customs and Manners,” i. p. 169).” Knobel. Delitzsch adds the custom in old imperial Germany. This excuse does not justify in the least Laban’s deception, but there was, however, a sting for Jacob in this reply, viz., in the emphasis of the right of the first-born. But Laban’s offer that followed, and in which now truly his ignoble selfishness is manifest, calmed Jacob’s mind.—Fulfil her week.—Lit., make full the week with this one, i.e., the first week after the marriage, which is due to her, since the wedding generally lasted one week (Judges 14:12; Tob 11:19). [Her week—the week of Leah, to confirm the marriage with her by keeping the usual wedding-feast of seven days. But if Leah was put upon him at the close of the feast of seven days, then it is Rachel’s week, the second feast of seven days which is meant. The marriage with Rachel was only a week after that with Leah. The seven years’ service for her was rendered afterwards.—A. G.]—And we will.—Genesis 31:1; Genesis 29:23; probably Laban and his sons. Laban also, as Rebekah’s brother, took part in her marriage arrangements.—Rachel his daughter.—Within eight days Jacob therefore held a second wedding, but he fulfilled the service for her afterwards. Laban, therefore, not only deceived Jacob by Leah’s interposition, as Jacob tells him to his face, but he overreached him also in charging him with seven years of service for Leah. Thus Jacob becomes entangled in polygamy, in the theocratic house which he had sought in order to close a theocratic marriage, first by the father and afterwards by the daughters. 5. Genesis 29:31-35. The first four sons of Leah.—When the Lord saw.—The birth of Leah’s first four sons is specifically referred to Jehovah’s grace; first, because Jehovah works above all human thoughts, and regards that which is despised and of little account (Leah was the despised one, the one loved less, comparatively the hated one, Deuteronomy 21:15); secondly, because among her first four sons were found the natural first-born (Reuben), the legal first-born (Levi), and the Messianic first-born (Judah); even Simeon, like the others, is given by Jehovah in answer to prayer. Jacob’s other sons are referred to Elohim not only by Jacob and Rachel (Genesis 30:2; Genesis 30:6; Genesis 30:8), but also by Leah (Genesis 29:18; Genesis 29:20), and by the narrator himself (Genesis 29:17), for Jacob’s sons in their totality sustain not only a theocratic but also a universal destination.—He opened her womb.—He made her fruitful in children, which should attach her husband to her. But theocratic husbands did not esteem their wives only according to their fruitfulness (see 1 Samuel 1) It is a one-sided view Keil takes when he says: “Jacob’s sinful weakness appears also in his marriage state, because he loved Rachel more than Leah, and the divine reproof appears, because the hated one was blessed with children but Rachel remained barren for a long time.” All we can say is, it was God’s pleasure to show in this way the movements of his providence over the thoughts of men, and to equalize the incongruity between these women.—Reuben.—Lit., Reuben: Behold, a son. Joyful surprise at Jehovah’s compassion. From the inference she makes: now, therefore, my husband will love me, her deep, strong love for Jacob, becomes apparent, which had no doubt, also, induced her to consent to Laban’s deception.—Simeon, her second son, receives his name from her faith in God as a prayer-answering God.—Levi.—The names of the sons are an expression of her enduring powerful experience, as well as of her gradual resignation. After the birth of the first one, she hopes to win, through her son, Jacob’s love in the strictest sense. After the birth of the second she hoped to be put on a footing of equality with Rachel, and to be delivered from her disregard. After the birth of the third one she hoped at least for a constant affection. At the birth of the fourth she looks entirely away from herself to Jehovah.—Judah.—Praised. A verbal noun of the future Hophal from ιγδ. The literal meaning of the name, therefore, is: “shall be praised,” and may thus be referred to Judah as the one “that is to be praised,” but it may also mean that Jehovah is to be praised on account of him (see Delitzsch, p. 465). [See Romans 2:29. He is a Jew inwardly, whose praise is of God. Wordsworth refers here to the analogies between the patriarchs and apostles.—A. G.]—She left bearing.—Not altogether (see Genesis 30:16, etc.), but for a time. 6. Rachel’s dejection, and the connection with Bilhah, her maid (Genesis 30:1-8).—And when Rachel saw.—We have no right to conclude, with Keil, from Rachel’s assertion, that she and Jacob were wanting in prayer for children, and thus had not followed Isaac’s example. Even in prayer, patience may be finally shaken in the human sinful heart, if God intends to humble it.—Give me children or else I die, i.e., from dejection; not: my remembrance will be extinguished (Tremell); much less does it mean: I shall commit suicide (Chrysost.). Her vivid language sounds not only irrational but even impious, and therefore she rouses also the anger of Jacob.—Am I in God’s stead.—Lit., instead of God. God alone is the lord over life and death (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6). Rachel’s sad utterance, accompanied by the threat: or else I die, serves for an introduction as well as an excuse of her desperate proposition.—My maid, Bilhah.—The bad example of Hagar continues to operate here, leading into error. The question here was not about an heir of Jacob, but the proud Rachel desired children as her own, at any cost, lest she should stand beside her sister childless. Her jealous love for Jacob is to some extent overbalanced by her jealous pride or envy of her sister, so that she gives to Jacob her maid.—Upon my knees.—Ancient interpreters have explained this in an absurdly literal way. From the fact that children were taken upon the knees, they were recognized either as adopted children (Genesis 50:23), or as the fruit of their own bodies (Job 3:12).—That I may also have children by her.—See Genesis 16:2.—Dan (judge, one decreeing justice, vindex).—She considered the disgrace of her barrenness by the side of Leah an injustice.—Naphtali.—According to Knobel: wrestler; according to others: my wrestling, or even, the one for whom I wrestled. Delitzsch: the one obtained by wrestling. The LXX place it in the plural: Naphtalim, wrestlings. Fόrst regards it as the abbreviated form of Naphtalijah, the wrestling of Jehovah. Against the two last explanations may be urged the deviation from the form Naphtalim, wrestlings; and according to the analogy of Dan, vindicator, the most probable explanation is, my wrestler. As laying the foundation for the name, Rachel says: With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister.—The wrestlings of God could only be in the wrestlings of prayer, as we afterwards see from Jacob’s wrestlings, through which he becomes Israel. Delitzsch, too, explains: These are the wrestlings of prayer, in the assaults and temptations of faith. Hengstenberg: Struggles whose issue bears the character of a divine judgment, but through which the struggle itself is not clearly understood. Knobel: “She was not willing to leave the founding of a people of God to her sister only, but wished also to become an ancestress, as well as Leah.” But how can Rachel speak of a victory over her sister rich in children? Leah has left bearing, while Bilhah, her maid, begins to bear; at the same time, Rachel includes as much as possible in her words in order to overpersuade herself. [She believes that she has overcome.—A. G.] Hence, still, at Joseph’s birth she could say: Now (not before) God has taken away my reproach. 7. Genesis 30:9-13. Leah’s emulation, and Zilpah, her maid.—Took Zilpah, her maid.—Leah is still less excusable than Rachel, since she could oppose her own four sons to the two adopted sons of Rachel. But the proud and challenging assertions of Rachel, however, seem to have determined her to a renewed emulation; and Jacob thought that it was due to the equal rights of both to consent to the fourth marriage. That Leah now acts no longer as before, in a pious and humble disposition, the names by which she calls her adopted sons clearly prove.—A troop cometh.—Good fortune. An unnecessary conjecture of the Masorites renders it αָּ ?ΰβָ ?γ, “fortune, victory cometh.”—Asher.—The happy one, or the blessed one. 8. Genesis 30:14-21. Leah’s last births.—Call me blessed.—An ancient mode of expression used by happy women from Leah to Mary (Luke 1:48). The preterite expresses the certain future.—And Reuben went.—Reuben, when a little boy (according to Delitzsch five years old; according to Keil only four), brought unto his mother a plant found in the fields, and called γּ ?εּ ?γָ ?ΰִ ?ιν, a name which has been rendered in various ways. “The LXX correctly translates, γεγΰιν = μῆλαμανδραγορῶν; γεγι (and the kindred μεμι) is the Mandragora venalis (high-German: alrϋna, alrϋn, mandrake; Grimm., ‘Mythol.’ ii. p. 1153, edit, iii.), out of whose small, white and-green flowers, which, according to the Song vii. 14, are harbingers of Spring, there grows in May, or what is equivalent, at the time of the wheat-harvest, yellow, strong, but sweet-smelling apples, of the size of a nutmeg (Arab tuffah ex Saitβn, i.e., pomum Satan�), which in antiquity as well as during the middle ages (see Graesse: ‘Contributions to the literature and traditions of the Middle Ages,’ 1850) were thought to promote fruitfulness and were generally viewed as Aphrodisiacum.” Delitzsch. Hence the fruit was called Dudaim amatoria, Love-apple. Theophrastus tells us that love-potions were prepared from its roots. It was held in such high esteem by them that the goddess of love was called Mandragoritis. All the different travellers to Palestine speak about it (see Knobel, p. 224; Delitzsch, p. 467; Keil, p. 207; Winer: Alraun, Mandrake).—Give me of those mandrakes.—Love-apples. In the transaction between Rachel and Leah concerning the mandrakes, her excited emulation culminated, not, however, as Keil says, as a mutual jealousy as to the affection of their husband, but a jealousy as to the births, otherwise Rachel would not have been obliged to yield, and actually have yielded to Leah the right in question.—And God hearkened unto Leah.—Knobel thinks that the Jehovistic and Elohistic views are here mingled in confusion. The Elohist records of Leah after the ninth verse, that she prayed, and considers her pregnancy an answer to her prayer; the Jehovist, on the contrary, ascribes it to the effect produced by the mandrakes, of which Leah retained a part. Here, therefore, the critical assumption of a biblical book-making culminates. It is obviously the design to bring out into prominence the fact that Leah became pregnant again without mandrakes, and that they were of no avail to Rachel, a fact which Keil renders prominent. Moreover, it could not be the intention of Rachel to prepare from these mandrakes a so-called love-potion for Jacob, but only to attain fruitfulness by their effects upon herself. Just as now, for the same purpose perhaps, unfruitful women visit or are sent to certain watering-places. From this standpoint, truly, the assumed remedy of nature may appear as a premature, eager self-help.—Issachar.—According to the Chethib, ι‬ ?ωωλώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώώψ, there is reward; according to Keil, ιωׂ ?ΰωׂ ?λψ, it brings reward, which is less fitting here. Leah, according to Genesis 30:18, looked upon Issachar as a reward for her self-denial in allowing her maid to take her place. By this act, also, her strong affection for Jacob seems to betray itself again. But no such struggle is mentioned of Rachel in the interposition of her maid.—Zebulun.—That the children here are altogether named by the mothers, is Jehovistic, as Knobel thinks: “The Elohist assigns the names to the children through the father, and is not fond of etymologies!” It is just as great violence to the words: God hath endued me, etc., to say the name signifies a present, while, according to the words following, it signifies dweller. The name of Zebulun is first formed after the inference which Leah drew from the divine gift or present. ζָ ?αַ ?μ, to dwell, alludes to the preceding ζαγ, to make a present; both verbs are ἅπαξλεγ.—Dinah, is mentioned on account of the history, Genesis 34. Genesis 37:35 and Genesis 36:7 seem to intimate that he had other daughters, but they are not mentioned further. Dinah is the female Dan. Leah retains her superiority. Hence there is no fuller explanation of the name after the deed of Dinah’s brothers, Genesis 34. 9. Genesis 30:22-24. Rachel the mother of Joseph.—And God remembered Rachel.—The expression: he remembered, here also denotes a turning-point after a long trial, as usually, e.g., Genesis 8:1. In relation to the removing of unfruitfulness, see 1 Samuel 1:19.—And God hearkened to her.—She therefore obtained fruitfulness by prayer also.—Joseph.—This name, in the earlier document, as Knobel expresses himself, is called ιֹ ?ΰρֵ ?σ, one that takes away, i.e., takes away the reproach, from ΰρσ; and then, in the second document, he shall add, from ιρσ. Delitzsch also explains: one that takes away. Keil adopts both derivations. The text only allows the latter derivation: he may add. To take away and to add are too strongly opposed to be traced back to one etymological source. Rachel, it is true, might have revealed the sentiments of her heart by the expression: God hath taken away my reproach; but she was not able to give to her own sons names that would have neutralized the significance and force of the names of her adopted sons Dan and Naphtali. That she is indebted to God’s kindness for Joseph, while at the same time she asks Jehovah for another son, and thereupon names Joseph, does not furnish any sufficient occasion for the admission of an addition to the sources of scripture, as Delitzsch assumes. The number of Jacob’s sons, who began with Jehovah, was also closed by Jehovah. For, according to the number of twelve tribes, Israel is Jehovah’s covenant people. In regard to the fact, however, that Jacob’s children were not born chronologically in the preceding order, compare Delitzsch with reference to Eusebius: Pr�paratio Evang., ix. 21, and Astruc.: “Conjectures,” p. 396, and Keil. The first-born, Reuben, was born probably during the first year of the second seven years, and Simeon at the close of the same. All the sons, therefore, were born during the second heptade. Dinah’s birth, no doubt, occurs also during this period, though Keil supposes, from the expression ΰηψ, that she may have been born later. But if we now adopt the chronological succession, Leah would have given birth to seven children in seven years, and even then there was a pause for some time between two of them. The imperfect, with the ε consecutive, however, does not express always a succession of time, but sometimes also it expresses a train of thought. We may suppose, therefore, that Leah gave birth to the first four sons during the first four years. In the meanwhile, however (not after the expiration of the four years), Rachel effected the birth of Dan and Naphtali by Jacob’s connection with Bilhah. This probably induced Leah, perhaps in the fifth year, to emulate her example by means of her handmaid, who in a quick succession gave birth to two sons in the course of the fifth and sixth years. During the sixth and seventh years Leah again became a mother, and a short time after Zebulun, Joseph was born also. According to Delitzsch, Joseph’s birth would occur between that of Issachar and Zebulun. But then the expression Genesis 30:25 would not be exact, and the naming of Zebulun by his mother would be without foundation. The last remark also bears against Keil’s view, that Joseph probably was born at the same time with Zebulun, though he also considers it probable that he may have been born later. AND ETHICAL1. The divine revelation, its consolations and its promises, revive the believer, so that he can proceed on his pilgrimage with renewed vigor. An experience similar to that at Bethel Jacob afterwards met with at Peniel (Genesis 32:30). 2. Eliezer, acting for Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, found their future brides by the side of wells. These charming descriptions of the East resemble each other, and yet greatly differ in their details. On account of their significance and beauty, they were applied to spiritual relations by the fathers. [See also Wordsworth, who goes fully into all the details of these analogies.—A. G.] 3. Jacob experienced the gracious providence of Jehovah here at the well, through one act after another: Shepherds from Haran; acquaintances of Laban; Rachel’s appearance; the occasion and call to assist her at the moment. 4. Is he well? δֲ ?ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?νμεֹ. Happiness and welfare, according to the oriental, but particularly according to the biblical, view, consists especially in peace, inviolability, both as to outward and inward life. 5. The characters. Laban’s character. That Laban was really a sharer in the theocratic faith, and susceptible of noble and generous sentiment, is evident not only from the manner in which he receives Jacob, but also from the way in which he dismisses him (Genesis 31:24; Genesis 31:54 ff.). But we also see, how, under the influence surrounding him at home (Genesis 31:1), the selfishness in him gradually increased, until it culminated in the base use which he made of his nephew’s necessity and love, and thus, at last, proceeds to practise the grossest deception. Even in this deception, however, we must not overlook the fact that, with a friendly interest in Jacob, he considered it as a pious fraud. He was willing to give both his daughters to Jacob; perhaps, too, he had in his eye Leah’s quiet but vehement affection for Jacob. He so far restrained his selfishness, also, that he permits Jacob to return home with the large possessions that he had acquired while with him. Moreover, he had to overcome the excited spirit of his sons and brethren. The lower standpoint which he occupies is evident from the fact that he himself leads his nephew into a theocratic double-marriage, but perhaps also with the intention of securing to his house, with greater certainty, a full share in the mysterious blessing expected by Abraham, and because he quietly consented that the strife of his daughters should involve Jacob still farther in polygamy.—As to Leah, the narrator has no fault to find, except that her eyes were not as beautiful as those of her sister, but were tender. The vehement, though quiet love for Jacob, as seen on every occasion, no doubt made her also willing to enter into the deception of Jacob by Laban. Besides, she regarded herself certainly as excusable upon higher grounds and motives, just as Thamar, who fanatically married into the house of promise, and that by a guilty course (Genesis 38). Her increasing humility (see Exegesis) causes her to be an object of Jehovah’s peculiar regard, or rather, by this humility, her especial election as ancestress of David and the Messiah becomes evident, and even in her over-zealous strife with her sister, in which the question is about the increase of the patriarchal family, her self-denial is proven by the struggle with which she gives her maid to Jacob, and the kindness with which she gave the mandrakes to her sister. Rachel, on the other hand, possessed not only bright eyes, but also ardent affections. In the fiery and glowing nature of her affection (Genesis 30:1), as well as in her cunning (Genesis 31:34-35) Rachel is the image of Rebekah, but with these features of character more strongly marked. So also at the end, in the tragical issue of her life. For as Rebekah did not reach the goal and see Jacob again, so Rachel did not attain her aim in sharing with him peacefully and honorably his paternal heritage. In Rachel’s sinful impatience too, there was not wanting also a moral element, for “the pure desire of parents for offspring is the highest degree of virtuous matrimony.” Delitzsch (see p. 465, and the words of Luther there quoted). Keil, without any sufficient reason, places Rachel (p. 206), in religious respects, below Leah. Distinctions of election are not always contrasts of light and darkness. Finally, Jacob here appears clearly as the man of the wrestlings of faith, and as the patriarch of hope. However prudent, it happens to him as to the �dipus in the Greek tragedy. �dipus solved the riddle of the sphinx, yet is blind, and remains blind in relation to the riddle of his own life. Laban cheated him, as his sons did afterwards, and he is punished through the same transgression of which he himself was guilty. Jacob is to struggle for everything—for his birthright, his Rachel, his herds, the security of his life, the rest of his old age, and for his grave. But in these struggles he does not come off without many transgressions, from which, however, as God’s elect, he is liberated by severe discipline. He, therefore, is stamped as a man of hope by the divine providence. As a fugitive he goes to Haran, as a fugitive he returns home. Seven years he hopes for Rachel, twenty years he hopes for a return home; to the very evening of his life he is hoping for the recovery of Joseph, his lost son in Sheol; even whilst he is dying upon Egyptian soil, he hopes for a grave in his native country. His Messianic hope, however, in its full development, rises above all these instances, as is evident in the three chief stages in his life of faith: Bethel, Peniel, and the blessing of his sons upon his death-bed. His life differs from that of his father Isaac in this: that with Isaac the quickening experiences fall more in the earlier part of his life, but with Jacob they occur in the latter half; and that Isaac’s life passes on quietly, whilst storms and trials overshadow, in a great measure, the pilgrimage of Jacob. The Messianic suffering, in its typical features, is already seen more plainly in him than in Isaac and Abraham; but the glorious exaltation corresponds also to the deeper humiliation. 6. Jacob’s service for Rachel presents us a picture of bridal love equalled only in the same development and its poetic beauty in the Song of Solomon. It is particularly to be noticed that Jacob, however, was not indifferent to Rachel’s infirmities (Genesis 30:2), and even treated Leah with patience and indulgence, though having suffered from her the most mortifying deception. 7. The deception practised by Laban upon Jacob was perfectly fitted, viewed as a divine punishment through human sin, to bring his own sin before his eyes. As he introduced himself as the first-born, by the instigation of his mother, so Leah, the first-born, is introduced to him by his mother’s brother, under the pretence of the appearance of his own Rachel. And this deception Laban even excuses in a sarcastic way, with the custom as to the birthright of the daughters at Haran. Thus Jacob atones for his cunning, and Laban truly must atone for his deception. 8. Leah’s election is founded upon Jehovah’s grace. Without any doubt, however, she was fitted to become the ancestress of the Messianic line, not only by her apparent humility, but also by her innate powers of blessing, as well as by her quiet and true love for Jacob. The fulness of her life becomes apparent in the number and the power of her children; and with these, therefore, a greater strength of the mere natural life predominates. Joseph, on the contrary, the favorite son of the wife loved with a bridal love, is distinguished from his brethren, as the separated (Genesis 49) among them, as a child of a nobler spirit, whilst the import of his life is not as rich for the future as that of Judah. 9. If we would regard the deception and imposition practised upon Jacob as at all endurable, we must assume, on the one hand, Leah’s fanatic and vehement love; on the other, his own perfect illusion. This unconscious error and confusion of nature, seems almost to have been transmitted to Reuben, the first-born (Genesis 35:22; Genesis 49:21); and therefore, in consequence of his offence, he also lost the birthright. We cannot, however, entirely concur in Luther’s view, which Delitzsch approves, that while there was nothing adulterous in the connection of Jacob and Leah, it was still extra-natural, and in that sense, monstrous. There was undoubtedly an impure and unnatural element in it. But we must bear in mind, as was remarked above, not only Leah’s love, but also Jacob’s self-oblivion, in which the free choice is generally limited and restrained by the blind forces of the night-life, through and in which God works with creative energy. It is the moment in which the man falls back into the hand of God as the creator. 10. The difference between the house at Haran and Isaac’s house at Beer-sheba, appears from this, that Laban, entangled Jacob in polygamy. And even in this case the evil consequences of polygamy appear: envy, jealousy, contention, and an increased sensuality. Nevertheless Jacob’s case is not to be judged according to the later Mosaic law, which prohibited the marrying of two sisters at the same time (Leviticus 18:18). Calvin, in his decision, makes no distinction between the times and the economies, a fact which Keil justly appeals to, and insists upon as bearing against his harsh judgment (that it was a case of incest) (p. 205). 11. In our narrative we first read of a great and splendid wedding-feast, lasting for seven days. It is therefore not by chance that this splendid wedding-feast was followed by a painful illusion. And, leaving out of view grosser deceptions, how often may Rachel’s image have been changed afterwards into Leah’s form. 12. While the sisterly emulation to surpass each other in obtaining children is tainted with sin, there is yet at the bottom a holy motive for it, faith in the Abrahamic promise consisting in the blessing of theocratic births. Thus also we can explain how the fulness of the twelve tribes proceeded from this emulation. 13. Isaac’s prejudice, that Esau was the chosen one, seems to renew itself somewhat in Jacob’s prejudice that he must gain by Rachel the lawful heir. The more reverent he appears therefore, in being led by the spirit of God, who taught him, notwithstanding all his preference for Joseph, to recognize in Judah the real line of the promise. 14. That the respective mothers themselves here assign the names, is determined by the circumstances. The entire history of the birth of these sons, too, is reflected in their names. Of similar signification are the names: Gad and Asher; Levi and Zebulun; Simeon and Naphtali; Judah and Joseph; Reuben and Benjamin born afterwards; Issachar, Dan and Dinah. 15. The progress of life equalizes and adjusts, to a great extent, the opposition between Jacob’s love for Rachel and his disregard toward Leah, especially by means of the children. At the same time in which he recognizes Leah’s resignation, Rachel’s passionate ill-humor incites him to anger. 16. He shall add; he shall give to me another son. This wish was fulfilled, and was the cause of her death. She died at Benjamin’s birth. How dangerous, destructive, and fatal, the fulfilment of a man’s wishes may be to him, is illustrated by frequent examples in the Scriptures. Sarah wished for a son from Hagar, a source of great grief to her. The desire of Judas to be received among the disciples of Jesus was granted, but just in this position he fell into the deepest corruption. Peter wished to be as near as possible to the Lord in the house of the high priest, but hence his fall. The sons of Zebedee wished for places at the right and left hand of Jesus,—had their wish been fulfilled they would have filled the places of the malefactors on the cross, at the right and left of the Crucified. Rachel’s wish, it is true, was not the only cause of her death, but with a certain triumph the once barren one died in childbirth, just as she was completing the number twelve of Israel’s sons. 17. How important Joseph’s birth was to Jacob is seen from this: that henceforth he thinks of his journey home, although the report looked for from Rebekah tarried long. He was urged to venture a journey home. 18. This history of Jacob’s and Leah’s union sheds a softening light upon even the less happy marriages, which may reconcile us to them, for this unpleasant marriage was the cause of his becoming the father of a numerous posterity; from it, indeed, proceeded the Messianic line; leaving out of view the fact that Leah’s love and humility could not remain without a blessing upon Jacob. The fundamental condition of a normal marriage is doubtless bridal love. We notice in our narrative, however, how wonderfully divine grace may change misfortune, even in such instances, into real good. God is especially interested in marriage connections, because he is thus interested in the coming generations. AND See Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs. Jacob’s wrestlings of faith.—The patriarch of hope.—Jacob’s double flight, from Esau and from Laban.—Rich in fortune and rich in misfortune, in both respects rich in blessing.—Jacob and Rachel, or the consecration of bridal love.—The shepherd and the shepherdess: the same condition.—Jacob’s service for his bride a type of the same service of Christ for the church, his bride.—Rachel and Leah, or God makes a great difference between his children, and yet esteems them alike according to his justice.—The three marriage connections at wells: that of Isaac, of Jacob, and of Moses.—The names of Jacob’s sons, a type of human weakness and divine salvation in his house. (Texts for marriage occasions.) To Section First, Genesis 30:1-8. Starke: Cramer: If God’s command and promise are before us, we can proceed in our undertakings with joy and confidence.—Places where wells are mentioned (see Concordances).—(Jesus, the well of life. The stone, the impotence of human nature, to be removed by faith. Since, according to Genesis 31:47, the Chaldζans spoke a different language from that of the inhabitants of Canaan, Jacob probably made himself understood to the people of Haran, because he had learned the Chaldee from his mother (Clericus).—The changing of the language of the patriarchs into the later Hebrew of the Jews.) [There is every reason to believe that these dialects were then so nearly alike that there was no difficulty in passing from one to the other.—A. G.]—Because the word peace embraces both spiritual and natural well-being, the Hebrews used it as a common salutation. Section Second, Genesis 30:9-14. Divine providence was here at work.—(Allegory of the well. How Christ has removed the heavy stone of sin and death. The three herds referred to the three days in which Christ was in the grave! etc. Burmann.) Genesis 30:13. This was necessary in order to remove all suspicion from the mind of Laban, since he still remembered what a numerous retinue had accompanied Eliezer.—As three distinguished patriarchs found their brides at wells (Moses and his Zipporah), just so the Lord Christ presents to himself the church, his spiritual bride, through holy baptism, as the laver in the word.—Schrφder: Their first meeting a prophecy of their whole future united life. Genesis 30:11 (Calvin). In a chaste and modest life greater liberties were allowed.—(If any one turn to the true source of wisdom, to the word of God, and to the Saviour revealed therein, he will receive celestial wisdom for his bride. Berl. Bibel.) Section Third, Genesis 30:15-25. Genesis 30:20. As a regular servant. A typical intimation of the Messiah, who in the form of a servant, with great and severe toil, obtained his bride.—(Reward of Jacob’s patient waiting, of his faith and his chastity. Genesis 30:18. Virtuous maidens do not attend large, exciting assemblies, to get a husband, but remain at their vocation, and trust in God, who is able to give to them a pious, honorable, and upright husband.—Lange: If the whole difficult service became easy to Jacob from the love he had to Rachel, why should it not be said of God’s children, that it is from love to God that we keep his commandments, etc. (1 John 5:3).—Bibl. Wirt.: A chaste love is a beautiful thing, by which conjugal love is afterwards more and more strengthened and confirmed. Genesis 30:25. Here Jacob might have understood how it grieved Esau when, for the sake of his birthright, he had practised upon him such cunning and deceit. As he had done unto others, God permitted that he should receive from others.—The crafty Laban wears the image of the world; whoever serves it never receives what he expects; he looks for Rachel, and behold it is Leah (Olear). Gerlach: From this instance onward (especially) God speaks to Jacob by every occurrence. Laban deceives him, because he thinks that Laban’s (Jacob’s?) service will be profitable to him, and thus he (Laban) loses not only a great part (?) of his herds, but is also obliged to part from his children.—The misery of bigamy: it was therefore expressly forbidden in the law (Leviticus 18:18) that any one should marry two sisters at the same time, or to favor one wife before the other (Deuteronomy 21:17). The seven years of service reminds us perhaps of the later statute among the Israelites, according to which servants were to obtain their freedom during the seventh year (Exodus 21:2); Jacob, therefore, as a compensation for the daughters, took upon himself a seven years’ service (slavery).—(The danger of exciting Esau prevented him from bringing the price from his home, even had he entrusted his affair to God.)—Schrφder: Space is no obstacle to faith, nor time to hope.—An engagement of long standing, if decreed by God, may become a salutary and beneficial school for a Christian marriage.—Comparisons between the deception practised by Laban upon Jacob, and that which Jacob practised upon Esau: 1. One brother upon another. 2. There the younger instead of the older; here the older, etc. 8. (Roos) He did not know Leah when he was married to her, just as his father knew him not when he blessed him. 4. Leah at the instigation of her father, Jacob at the instigation of his mother.—But he received, notwithstanding his ignorance as to Leah, the wife designed for him by God, who was to become the mother of the Messiah, just as Isaac blessed him unwittingly as the rightful heir of the promise. Ah, in how many errors and follies of men, here and everywhere, do we find God’s inevitable grace and faithfulness intertwined (Roos). Section Fourth, Genesis 30:26-30. Starke: Genesis 30:27. It is remarkable that the ancient Jews, at births, marriages, and deaths, observed the seventh day as an holy day (Genesis 21:4; Luke 2:21; Genesis 50:10; Sir 22:13). From this fact we may conclude that the ancient Hebrews already considered the day of birth and circumcision, the day of marriage, and the day of death, as the three most important ones in life.—(Genesis 30:28. Jacob might have asked for a divorce.)—Jacob’s polygamy not caused by sensuality; but did not remain unpunished.—(Burmann: Comparison between the two wives and the Old and New Testament, the two churches to whom the Lord is betrothed. The Old Testament Leah, the wearied, the tender eyed.)—Hall: God often afflicts us through our own friendship (relatives). He often punishes our own sins by the sins of others, before we are aware of it (2 Samuel 16:22).—Osiander: Oh, what is avarice not capable of?—Hall: God’s children do not easily obtain what they wish for, but must toil hard for it; (German) work for it, tooth and nail.—Schrφder: Jacob’s history, in its turning-points, meets with personages who serve to bring out his character more clearly in contrast with theirs; their thoughts bound in the present,—his looking on into the future. Thus Esau and Laban. Section Fifth, Genesis 30:31-35. Starke: Osiander: It is still customary with God to take care of the distressed.—Cramer: God distributes his gifts by parts. Do not despise any one.—Hall: God knows how to weigh to us in similar ways both our gifts of grace and our crosses.—Bibl. Wirt.: There is nothing so bad or so complicated but that God can bring good out of it.—(Signification of the word from which “Judah” is derived: 1. To thank; 2. to commend; 3. to praise; 4. to confess.) From this Judah all Jews received their beautiful name.—Gerlach: Reuben: see a son; in allusion to Raah-Be-Onyi, i.e., he (Jehovah) hath looked upon my affliction.—Schrφoder: The mother gives the names, as she does also in Homer. Section Sixth, Genesis 30:1-8. Starke: Bibl. Wirt.: Impatience is the mother of many sins.—Even to the pious in their married life the sun of peace and harmony does not always shine; at times dark clouds of dissension and strife arise. But we must guard in time against such clouds and storms.—We must not try to obtain the divine blessing by unrighteous means.—Schrφder: Children are God’s gift. All parents should consider this, and take such care of these divine gifts that when God calls those whom he has entrusted to them, they may render a good account (Valer. Herb.).—In Rachel we meet with envy and jealousy, while in Jehovah there is compassion and grace. Section Seventh, Genesis 30:9-13. Schrφder: For all times Israel is warned by the patriarch’s culpable weakness and pliancy in relation to his wives, as well as by the frightful picture of his polygamy. (Israel, it is true, should even in this way learn to distinguish the times, to recognize the workings of divine grace in and over the errors of men, and to rejoice at the progress in his law.) Section Eighth, Genesis 30:14-21. Starke: (Do you ask as to the nature of the Dudaim? some think they are lilies, others that they are berries, but no one knows what they are. Some call them “winter cherries.” Luther.)—The rivalry of the sisters. Thus God punished him because he had taken two wives, even two sisters. Even the holy women were not purely and entirely spiritual.—Schrφder: In reference to the maid’s children, God’s name is neither mentioned by Leah nor by the narrator. They were in the strictest sense begotten in a natural way (Hengstenberg). (This is wrong, for in the first place Jacob had nothing to do with the maids in the natural way of mere lust; 2. in that case they would not have been numbered among the blessed seed of Israel. The principal tribes, indeed, did not spring from them.) Section Ninth, Genesis 30:22-24. Starke: Why barrenness was considered by Abraham’s descendants as a sign of the divine curse: 1. It appeared as if they were excluded from the promise of the enlargement of Abraham’s seed; 2. They were without the hope of giving birth to the Messiah; 3. They had no share in God’s universal command: be fruitful and multiply.—Osiander: Our prayers are not to be considered as in vain, if we receive no answer immediately. If we are humbled sufficiently below the cross, then we will be exalted.—Schrφder: Luther says respecting Jacob’s wives that they were not moved by mere carnal desire, but looked at the blessing of children with reference to the promised seed. Footnotes: [Genesis 30:11. Lit, with a troop or band.—Lange follows the Sept., Vulg., and the most of the early versions. But whether we follow the Keri, or the Chethib, as in our version, it is better to adhere to the signification, a troop or band. For while Leah uses hereafter the name ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν instead of ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ indicating the lower religious state into which she has fallen, through the use of these mere human expedients, we can hardly suppose that she would thus name her child in recognition of the power of a fictitious deity, or avow her faith that her children were the result of mere fortune. Aside from this, Genesis 49:19, is decisive.—A. G. [Genesis 30:18. Heb. ιֵ ?ωׁ ωָׂ ?λָ ?ψ, there is a reward—or ιִ ?ωָּׂ ?ΰωָׂ ?λָ ?ψ, he brings reward. A. G. THIRD SECTIONJacob’s thought of returning home. New treaty with Laban. His closely calculated proposition (Prelude to the method of acquiring possession of the Egyptian vessels). Laban’s displeasure. God’s command to return Genesis 30:25 to Genesis 31:325 And it came to pass, when Rachel had borne Joseph, that Jacob said unto Laban, Send me away [let me go], that I may go unto mine own place, and to my country. 26Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee, and let me go: for thou knowest my service which I have done thee. 27And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry; for I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake. 28And he said, [farther], Appoint me thy 29wages, and I will give it. And [But] he said unto him, Thou knowest how I have 30served thee, and how thy cattle was with me [what thy herds have become under me]. For it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it is now increased unto a multitude; and the Lord hath blessed thee, since my coming [after me]: and now when shall I provide for mine own house also? 31And he said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me anything [anything peculiar], If thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock [small cattle]: 32I will pass through all thy flock to-day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted [dappled] cattle [lambs], and all the brown [dark-colored] cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire. 33So shall my righteousness [rectitude] answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire; before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me. 34And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word. 35And he removed that day the he-goats that were ringstreaked [striped] and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hands of his sons. 36And he set three days’ journey betwixt himself [the shepherds and flocks of Laban] and Jacob [the flocks of Jacob under his sons]: and Jacob fed the rest [the sifted] of Laban’s flocks. 37And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, [gum] and of the hazel [almond] and chestnut-tree [maple]; and pilled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which 38 was in the rods. And he laid the rods which he had [striped] pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs when the flocks came [to which the flocks must come] to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth [threw, cast] ringstreaked, speckled and spotted. 40And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban’s cattle. 41And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. 42But when the cattle were feeble, 43he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s. And the man increased exceedingly, and had much [small] cattle, and maid-servants, and menservants, and camels and asses. Genesis 31:1 And he heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying, Jacob hath taken away all that was our father’s; and of that which was our father’s hath he gotten all this glory [riches]. 2And Jacob beheld the countenance of Laban, and, behold, it was 3not toward him as before [formerly]. And [Then] the Lord said unto Jacob, Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred [thy home]; and I will be with thee. GENERAL REMARKS1. The term αִּ ?βְ ?μָ ?μ, Genesis 30:27 (comp. Genesis 12:13), shows that this section, according to Knobel, is Jehovistic. 2. In consequence of Laban’s deception, Jacob must serve fourteen years for his Rachel. According to Genesis 31:41 he served him six years longer, agreeably to the terms of the contract that he had just now concluded with him. 3. The doubtful way in which he now secured his reward leads us to conjecture that he was conscious that he had been defrauded by Laban, and that he was dealing with a selfish man, whose selfishness and power, he thought, could only be countervailed by cunning. Nor is it to be denied that wisdom’s weapon is given to the feeble to protect himself against the harsh and cruel power of the strong. Our narrative comes under the same category with the surreptitious obtaining of the blessing of the first-born by Jacob, and the acquisition of the gold and silver vessels of the Egyptians by the Israelites. The prudence manifested in these cases is the same; but still there was a real deception in the first case (one deception, however, against another); in the present case it was simply an overreaching, while in the third they were only availing themselves of the situation of the Egyptians, i. e., their disposition. In all three cases, however, the artful, or at least wisely-calculated, project, was provoked by a great and gross wrong. Esau proposes to take back the birthright which he had sold to Jacob. Laban caused him to perform a service of fourteen years, and intends to make him still further a prey to his avarice. The Egyptians have indeed consumed the very strength of Israel by their bondage. And if the scale here turns against Jacob because he thus cunningly overreached his father-in-law, it is balanced by Laban’s pressing him again into his service, that he might misuse him anew; nor is the marvellous charm to be left out of view, which lay in his ancient nomadic science and art. Superior minds were never inclined to let their arts and sciences lie dormant. AND 1. Genesis 30:25-34. The new contract.—When Rachel.—At Joseph’s birth [which therefore could not have occurred until the fifteenth year of his residence with Laban.—A. G.] a strong feeling comes over Jacob, which leads him to believe that he is to return home without having received a call from thence or a divine command here. It is apparent from what follows that he first of all wished to become independent of Laban, in order to provide for his own. He is, therefore, soon hampered again, since a fair prospect opened to him now and here. Laban’s character now comes into view in every utterance.—May I still grace, etc., lit., If I have found favor, etc. If this expression may be called an aposiopesis, we must still bear in mind that this was a standing form of expression even in the oath. Keil supplies “stay yet.” The optative form already expresses all that is possible. If πηωϊι is, according to Delitzsch, a heathen expression, then the phraseology in Laban’s mouth appears more striking still, through the connection of this expression with Jehovah’s name.—Appoint me.—He not only recognizes, almost fawningly, Jacob’s worth to his house, but is even willing to yield unconditionally to his determination—a proof that he did not expect of Jacob too great a demand. But Jacob is not inclined to trust himself to his generosity, and hence his cunningly calculated though seemingly trifling demand. Laban’s consent to his demand, however, breathes in the very expression the joy of selfishness; and it is scarcely sufficient to translate: Behold, I would it might be according to thy word. But Jacob’s proposition seems to point to a very trifling reward, since the sheep in the East are nearly all white, while the goats are generally of a dark color or speckled. For he only demands of Laban’s herds those sheep that have dark spots or specks, or that are entirely black, and those only of the goats that were white-spotted or striped. But he does not only demand the speckled lambs brought forth hereafter, after the present number of such are set aside for Laban (Tuch, Baumg., Kurtz), but the present inspection is to form the first stock of his herds (Knobel, Delitzsch). [The words, “thou shalt not give me anything,” seem to indicate that Jacob had no stock from Laban to begin with, and did not intend to be dependent upon him for any part of his possessions. Those of this description which should appear among the flocks should be his hire. He would depend upon the divine providence and his own skill. He would be no more indebted to Laban than Abraham to the king of Sodom.—A. G.] Afterwards, also, the speckled ones brought forth among Laban’s herds are to be added to his, as is evident from his following arts. Michaelis and Bohlen miss the purport, but it lies in verse 33. For when he invites Laban to muster his herds in time to come, αιενξηψ it surely does not mean literally the next day, as Delitzsch supposes, but in time to come (see Gesenius, ξηψ). As often as Laban came to Jacob’s herds in the future he must regard all the increase in speckled and ringstreaked lambs as Jacob’s property, but if he found a purely white sheep or an entirely black goat, then, and only then, he might regard it as stolen. (As to the sheep and goats of the East, see Bible Dictionaries, the Natural History of the Bible, and Knobel, p. 246.) Moreover, this transaction is not conducted wholly “in the conventional forms of oriental politeness, as in Genesis 23, between Abraham and the Hittites” (Del.). Laban’s language is submissive, while that of Jacob is very frank and bold, as became his invigorated courage and the sense of the injustice which he had suffered. 2. Genesis 30:35-36. The separation of the herds.—And he removed.—It surely is not correct, as Rosenmόller, Maurer, Del. and Keil suppose, that Laban is here referred to; that Laban, “to be more certain,” had removed the speckled ones himself and put them under the care of his own sons. In this view everything becomes confused, and Bohlen justly remarks: “The reference here is to Jacob, because he intended to separate the animals (Genesis 30:32), as certainly it was proper for the head servant to do, and because there is no mention of Laban’s sons until Genesis 31:1, while Jacob’s older children were certainly able to take care of the sheep.” Reuben, at the close of this new term of six years, had probably reached his thirteenth year, Simeon his eleventh. But even if they had not reached these years, the expression he gave them, αּ ?ιγΞαּ ?πιε, could mean: he formed a new family state, or herds, as a possession of his sons, although they were assisted in the management by the mothers, maids, and servants, since he himself had anew become Laban’s servant. Hence it is also possible (Genesis 30:36) for him to make a distinction between himself as Laban’s servant, and Jacob as an independent owner, now represented by his sons. It is altogether improbable that Jacob would entrust his herds to Laban’s sons. But it is entirely incomprehensible that Jacob, with his herds, could have taken flight without Laban’s knowledge, and gained three days the start, unless his herds were under the care of his own sons. [This is of course well put and unanswerable on the supposition that the sheep and goats which were removed from the flocks ere Jacob’s stock to begin with, but it has no force if we regard these as Laban’s, and put therefore under the care of his own sons, while Jacob was left to manage the flocks from which the separated were taken.—A. G.]—Three days’ journey betwixt.—Lit., “a space of three days between.” Certainly days’ journeys here are those of the herds and are not to be estimated according to the journeys of men. Again, Jacob is ahead of Laban three days, and yet Laban can overtake him. We may conceive, therefore, of a distance of about twelve hours, or perhaps eighteen miles. By means of this separation Jacob not only gained Laban’s confidence but also his property. 3. Genesis 30:37-43. Jacob’s management of Laban’s herds.—Took him rods.—De Wette: Storax, almond-tree, maple. Bunsen: “Gum-tree. The Alexandrians here translate, styrax-tree, but Hosea 4:13 poplars. If we look at the Arabic, in which our Hebrew word has been preserved, the explanation of styrax-tree is to be preferred. It is similar to the quince, grows in Syria, Arabia, and Asia Minor, reaches the height of about twelve feet, and furnishes, if incisions are made in the bark, a sweet, fragrant-smelling, and transparent gum, of a light-red color, called styrax. Almond-tree. This signification is uncertain, since the hazelnut-tree may also be referred to. Plane-tree. A splendid tree, frequent even in South Europe, having large boughs, extending to a great distance (hence the Greek name, Platane), and bearing some resemblance to the maple tree.” Jacob of course must select rods from such trees, whose dark external bark produced the greatest contrast with the white one below it. In this respect gum-tree might be better adapted than white poplars, almond-tree or chestnut better than hazelnut, and maple better than plane-tree. Keil: Storax, chestnut, and maple trees, which all have below their, bark a white, dazzling wood. Thus he procured rods of different kinds and pilled white streaks in them.—And he set the rods.—Knobel thinks, he placed the staffs on the watering-troughs, but did not put them in the gutters. But this does not agree with the choice of the verb, nor the fact itself: the animals, by looking into the water for some time, were to receive, as it were, into themselves, the appearance of the rods lying near. They, in a technical sense, “were frightened” at them. The wells were surrounded with watering-troughs, used for the watering of the cattle.—And they conceived.—For the change of the forms here, see Keil, p. 210.—And brought forth cattle.—“This crafty trick was based upon the common experience of the so-called fright of animals, especially of sheep, namely, that the representations of the senses during coition are stamped upon the form of the f�tus (see Boch., Hieroz., i. 618, and Friedreich upon the Bible, i. 37, etc.).” Keil. For details see Knobel, p. 247, and Delitzsch, p. 472—And set the faces of the flock.—Jacob’s second artifice. The speckled animals, it is true, were removed, from time to time, from Laban’s herds, and added to Jacob’s flock, but in the meantime Jacob put the speckled animals in front of the others, so that Laban’s herds had always these spotted or variegated animals before them, and in this manner another impression was produced upon the she-goats and sheep. Bohlen opposes this second artifice, against Rosenmόller, Maurer, and others. The clause in question should be: he sent them to the speckled ones that already belonged to him (τπι in the sense of versus). But the general term δַ ?φֹּ ?ΰο is against this. The separation of the new-born lambs and goats from the old herds could only be gradual.—The stronger cattle.—The third artifice. He so arranged the thing that the stronger cattle fell to him, the feebler to Laban. His first artifice, therefore, produced fully the desired effect. It was owing partly, perhaps, to his sense of equity toward Laban, and partly to his prudence, that he set these limits to his gain; but he still, however, takes the advantage, since he seeks to gain the stronger cattle for himself. Bohlen: “Literally, the bound ones, firmly set, i. e., the strong, just as the covered ones, i. e., the feeble, languid, faint; for the transition is easy from the idea of binding, firmness, to that of strength, and from that of covering, to languishing, or faintness. Some of the old translators refer them to vernal and autumnal lambs (comp. Plin. 8, 47, Columella, De re rust., 8, 3), because the sheep in Palestine and similar climates bear twice in a year (Aristot., Hist. Anim., 6, 18, 19; ‘Problems’, 10, 46; Bochart, Hieroz., i. p. 512), and because those conceived in the Spring or Summer and born in the Autumn are stronger than those conceived in Autumn and born in Spring. But the text does not draw this precise distinction.” The Septuagint only distinguishes between ἐπίσημα and ἄσημα. Luther renders “late” and “early born.”—And the man increased.—With the rich increase in cattle, care was taken at the same time to secure an increase in men-servants and maid-servants, as well as camels and asses. Knobel finds a contradiction in the fact that this rich increase is here ascribed to Jacob’s artifice, whilst it is attributed to the divine blessing in Genesis 31:9. But so much only is evident, that Jacob did not act against his conscience, but thought that he might anticipate and assist by human means the fulfilment of those visions in which the rewards of this kind were promised to him.—And he heard. The complete success that Jacob met with excited the envy and jealousy of Laban’s sons, whose existence is indicated first in the plural (Genesis 29:27), but whose definite appearance here shows that the selfish disposition peculiar to this family was more fully developed in them than in Laban himself.—The words of Laban’s sons.—According to Delitzsch, they were quite small, not yet fourteen years of age—an assertion, however, which has no sufficient ground. 4. Genesis 31:1-3. Jacob’s resolution to return home.—All that was our father’s.—They evidently exaggerate in their hatred, and even accus him of dishonesty by the use of the expression: of that which was our father’s. But Laban shares in the threatening disposition; his countenance had changed remarkably toward Jacob, a fact all the more striking, since he had formerly been extraordinarily friendly. Trouble and dangers similar to those at home now develop themselves here; then comes, at the critical juncture, Jehovah’s command: Return. AND ETHICAL1. Jacob’s resolution to return home at his own risk, is to be explained from his excessive joy at Joseph’s birth, and from his longing for home and for deliverance from the oppression of Laban. Moreover, he seems to have considered Rachel’s son as the principal Messianic heir, and therefore must hasten to conduct him to the promised land, even at the peril of his life. Besides, he now feels that he must provide for his own house, and with Laban’s selfishness there is very little prospect of his attaining this in Laban’s house. These two circumstances show clearly why he allows himself to be retained by Laban (for he has no assurance of faith that he is now to return), and in the second place, the manner and means by which he turns the contract to his own advantage. 2. We here learn that Laban’s prosperity was not very great before Jacob’s arrival. The blessing first returns to the house with Jacob’s entrance. But this blessing seemed to become to Laban no blessing of faith. His conduct toward the son of his sister and his son-in-law, becomes more and more base. He seizes eagerly, therefore, the terms offered to him by Jacob, because they appear to him most favorable, since the sheep in the East are generally white, while the goats are black. His intention, therefore, is to defraud Jacob, while he is actually overreached by him. Besides, this avails only of the mere form; as to the thing itself, Jacob really had claims to a fair compensation. 3. Just as Jacob’s conduct at the surreptitious obtaining the birthright was preceded by Isaac’s intended cunning, and the injustice of Esau, so also, in many respects, here Laban’s injustice and artifice precedes Jacob’s project (Genesis 31). In this light Jacob’s conduct is to be judged. Hence he afterwards views his real gain as a divine blessing, although he had to atone again for his selfishness and cunning, in the form of the gain, at least, by fears and danger. Moreover, we must still bring into view, as to Jacob’s and Laban’s bargain, the following points: 1. Jacob asks for his wages very modestly and frankly; he asks for his wives and children, as the fruit of his wives, and for his discharge. While Laban wishes to keep him for his own advantage. 2. Jacob speaks frankly, Laban flatters and fawns. 3. Jacob might now expect a paternal treatment and dowry on the part of Laban. Laban, on the contrary, prolongs his servile relation, and asks him to determine his reward, because he expected from Jacob’s modesty the announcement of very small wages. 4. In the proposition made by Jacob, he thought he had caught him. 4. The establishment of his own household, after being married fourteen years, shows that Jacob, in this respect, as well as in the conclusion of his marriage, awaited his time. 5. The so-called impressions of she goats and sheep, a very old observation, which the coφperation of subtle impressions, images, and even imaginations at the formation of the f�tus, and, indeed, the f�tus itself among animals confirms.—The attainment of varieties and new species among animals and plants is very ancient, and stands closely connected with civilization and the kingdom of God. 6. Jacob’s sagacity, his weapon against the strong. But as he stands over against God, he employed different means, especially prayer. 7. The want of candor in Laban’s household, corresponds with the selfishness of the household. 8. In the following chapter we find still further details respecting Jacob’s bargain. In the first place, the selfish Laban broke, in different ways, the firm bargain made with Jacob, in order to change it to his advantage (Genesis 31:7). Secondly, Jacob’s morbid sense of justice had been so excited that he received explanation of the state of things in his herds even in his night-visions. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical paragraphs. The present section is, for the most part, fitted for religious, biographical, and psychological contemplations. It is to be treated carefully both with respect to Jacob’s censure as well as his praise.—Jacob’s resolutions to return home: 1. The first: why so vividly formed, but not accomplished; 2. the second: the cause of his assurance (the divine command). Moreover, perils equal to those threatening at home, were now surrounding him.—His longing for home during his service abroad.—The hardships of a severe servitude in Jacob’s life, as well as in the history of his descendants: when blessed?—Laban’s selfishness and Jacob’s sense of right at war with each other.—Prudence as a weapon in life’s batttle: 1. The authority to use this weapon when opposed to a harsh superiority or subtlety; 2. the mighty efficacy of this weapon; 3. the danger of this weapon.—Jacob’s prudence in its right and wrong aspects in our history: 1. The right lies in his just claims; 2. the wrong, in his want of candor, his dissimulation and his self-help.—His natural science, or knowledge of nature, combined with prudence, a great power in life.—The difficulties in the establishment of an household: 1. Their general causes; 2. how they are to be overcome.—Jacob’s prosperity abroad.—Jacob struggling with difficulties all his life long. Section First, Genesis 30:25-34. Starke: (As to the different meanings of πηω, Genesis 30:27. Some commentators hold that Laban had superstitiously consulted his teraphim, or idols.)—Bibl. Wirt.: It is customary with covetous people to deal selfishly with their neighbors. Genesis 30:30. By means of my foot. Luther: i. e., I had to hunt and run through thick and thin in order that you might be rich. Genesis 30:34. If Laban had been honest, he could have represented to Jacob, that he would be a great loser by this bargain. God even blesses impious masters on account of their pious servants (1 Timothy 5:8).—Calwer Handbuch: Jacob 91 years old.—Thus Laban’s covetousness and avarice is punished by the very bargain which he purposed to make for his own advantage.—We are not to apply the criterion of Christianity to Jacob’s conduct.—Schrφder: Acts and course of life among strangers. As to Laban. Courtesy together with religion are made serviceable to the attainment of his ends.—Thus, also, in the future, there is only a more definite agreement of master and servant between Jacob and his father-in-law.—(The period of pregnancy with sheep lasts five months; they may therefore lamb twice during the year. Herds were the liveliest and strongest in autumn, after having enjoyed the good pasture during the summer, etc. On the contrary, herds are feeble after having just passed the winter.) Section Second, Genesis 30:35-36. Starke: A Christian is to look for pious men-servants and maid-servants. Section Third, Genesis 30:37-43. Starke: Christian, be warned not to misuse this example to encourage the practice of cunning and deceit with your neighbor.—Cramer: Wages that are earned, but kept back, cry to heaven; hence nature here serves Jacob (James 5:4).—Hall: God’s children, even in external things, have evident proofs that his grace over them is greater than over the godless.—Schrφder: Luther and Calvin are inclined to excuse Jacob (Genesis 31:12). Section Fourth. Genesis 31:1-3. Starke: It is a very great reproach if acquaintances and relatives slander each other.—Hall: As the godless enjoy no peace with God, so also the pious enjoy no peace with godless men.—Cramer: Sin in man is so poisonous that it glitters in the eye, and is sweet to the taste, and pleasant to all the members.—Schrφder: Thus the Lord often serves his people more through the jealousy of the godless, than if he suffered them to grow feeble in prosperity. Genesis 30:3. Luther: It probably was an answer to Jacob’s prayer.—The divine command and promise compensates Jacob for the promised message of the mother. Thus his return receives the character of an act of faith (Baumgarten). Footnotes: Genesis 30:27.—Lit., I have augured, πִ ?ηַ ?ωׁ ?ϊִּ ?ι; Sept., οἰωνίςομαι; not that Laban was a serpent-worshipper, but that he used divination as the heathen; and thus drew his inferences and auguries.—A. G. Genesis 30:30.—Lit., at my foot—A. G. Genesis 30:33.—Lit., in day to-morrow—the future—at all times, when, etc. Lange renders “when thou shalt come upon or to my wages; i.e., to examine.—A. G. Genesis 30:37.—Heb.,ςַ ?ψξֹ ?εο, plane-tree; so Sept., Vulg. and Syriac—A.G. εַ ?ιֵּ ?ηְ ?ξְ ?πָ ?ϊ, an unusual archaic form for εַ ?ϊֵּ ?ηַ ?ξְ ?πְ ?ϊ. Keil.—A G. Ch. 31. Ver Genesis 31:2.—Lit., weight.—A G. Genesis 30:2.—Lit., as yesterday, the day before.—A. G. FOURTH SECTIONJacob’s flight. Laban’s persecution. The covenant between the two on the mountain of Gilead. Departure. Genesis 31:4 to Genesis 32:2, 4And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock. 5And said unto them, I see [am seeing] your father’s countenance, that it is not toward me as before: 6but the God [Elohim] of my father hath been with me. And ye know that with all my power I have served your father. 7And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times: but God suffered him not to hurt me. 8If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the cattle bare speckled: and if he said thus, The [symm.: white-footed] ring-streaked shall be thy hire; then bare all the cattle ring-streaked. 9Thus God hath taken away the [acquisitions] cattle of your father, and given them to me. 10And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and behold [I saw], the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ring-streaked, speckled, and grizzled. 11And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. 12And he said, Lift up now thine eyes and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ring-streaked, speckled, and 13grizzled: for I have seen all that Laban [is doing] doeth unto thee. I am the God of Beth-el, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred [birth]. 14And Rachel and Leah answered, and said unto him, Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house? 15Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us, and hath quite devoured also our money. 16For all the riches which God hath taken from our father, that is ours, and our children’s: now then, whatsoever God hath said unto thee, do. , 17Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and wives upon camels; 18And he carried away all his cattle, and all his goods [his movable property, gain] which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padan-aram; for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan. 19And Laban went to shear his [to the feast of sheep-shearing] sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images [Teraphim, household gods] that were her father’s. 20And Jacob stole away unwares [the heart of] to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled. 21So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed over the river [Euphrates], and set his face [journey] toward the mount Gilead. 22And it was told 23Laban on the third day, that Jacob was fled. And [Then] he took his brethren with him, and pursued after him seven days’ journey: and they overtook him in the mount Gilead. 24And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night, and said unto him, Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad. 25Then Laban overtook Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mount: and Laban with his brethren [tented] pitched in the mount of Gilead. 26And Laban said to Jacob, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unwares to me, and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword [the spoils of war]? 27Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me, and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away [given thee a convoy] with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp? 28And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons [grandsons], and my daughters? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing. 29It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed 30that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad. And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father’s house; yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods? 31And Jacob answered and said to Laban, Because I was afraid: for I said [said to myself], Peradventure thou wouldest take by force thy daughters from me. 32With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live: before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee: for Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them. 33And Laban went into Jacob’s tent, and into Leah’s tent, and into the two maid-servants’ tents; but he found them not. Then went he out of Leah’s tent, and entered into Rachel’s tent. 34Now Rachel had taken the images [household gods], and put them in the camel’s furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not. 35And she said to her father, Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women [female period] is upon me. And he searched [all], but found not the images. 36And Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban: and Jacob answered, and said to Laban, What is my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued [burned] after me? 37Whereas thou hast searched all my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household-stuff? set it here before my brethren, and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us both. 38This twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she-goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten. 39That which was torn of beasts, I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it [must make satisfaction for it]; 40of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night. Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes. 41Thus have I been twenty years in thy house: I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle: and thou hast changed my wages ten times. 42Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac had been with me, surely thou hadst sent me away now empty. God hath seen mine affliction, and the labor [wearisome labor] of my hands, and rebuked [judged] thee yesternight. 43And Laban answered, and said unto Jacob, These daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children, and these cattle are my cattle [herds], and all that thou seest is mine; and what can I do this day unto these my daughters, or unto their children which they have borne? 44Now therefore come thou, let us make a covenant 45[a covenant of peace], I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and thee. And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. 46And Jacob said unto his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made an heap: and they did eat there upon the heap. 47And Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha [syriac: heap of witness]: but Jacob called it Galeed [the same in Hebrew]: 48And Laban said, This heap is a witness between me and 49 thee this day. Therefore was the name of it called Galeed: And Mizpah [watch-tower]; for he said, The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another. 50If thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if thou shalt take other wives besides my daughters, no man is with us; see, God, is witness betwixt me and thee. 51And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this heap [stone heap], and behold this pillar, which I have 52cast [erected] betwixt me and thee; This heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm. 53The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge [plural] betwixt us. And [But] Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac. 54Then Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mount. 55And early in the morning Laban rose up, and kissed his sons and his daughters, and blessed them: and Laban departed, and returned unto his place. Genesis 32:1 And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And 2when Jacob saw them, he said, This is God’s host: and he called the name of that place Mahanaim [two camps: double camp]. GENERAL REMARKS1. Delitzsch regards the present section as throughout Elohistic; but according to Knobel, Jehovistic portions are inwrought into it, and hence the narrative is here and there broken and disconnected. 2. The present journey of Jacob is evidently in contrast with his previous journey to Mesopotamia; Mahanaim and Peniel form the contrast with Bethel. 3. We make the following division: 1. Jacob’s conference with his wives, Genesis 31:4-16; Genesis 2. the flight, Genesis 31:17-21; Genesis 3. Laban’s pursuit, Genesis 31:22-25; Genesis 4. Laban’s reproof, Genesis 31:26-30; Genesis 5. Laban’s search in the tents of Jacob, Genesis 31:31-35; Genesis 6. Jacob’s reproof, Genesis 31:36-42; Genesis 7. the covenant of peace between the two, Genesis 31:43; Genesis 31:53; Genesis 8. the covenant meal and the departure, Genesis 31:54–ch. Genesis 32:2. AND 1. Genesis 31:4-16. Jacob’s conference with his wives.—Unto his flock.—Under some pretext Jacob had left the flocks of Laban, although it was then the feast of sheep-shearing, and gone to his own flocks (a three days’ journey, and probably in a direction favoring his flight). Hither, to the field, he calls his wives, and Rachel, as the favorite, is called first.—Changed my wages ten times.—The expression ten times is used for frequently, in Numbers 14:22, and in other passages. [Keil holds that the ten, as the number of completeness, here denotes as often as he could, or as he had opportunity. It is probably the definite for an indefinite.—A. G.]—If he said thus, The ring-streaked.—As Laban deceived Jacob in the matter of Rachel, so now in the arrangement for the last six years, he had in various ways dealt selfishly and unjustly, partly in dividing equally the spotted lambs, according to his own terms, and partly in always assigning to Jacob that particular kind of spotted lambs which had previously been the least fruitful.—And the Angel of God.—Jacob here evidently joins together a circle of night-visions, which he traces up to the Angel of the Lord, as the angel of Elohim, and which run through the whole six years to their close. If Laban imposed a new and unfavorable condition, he saw in a dream that now the flocks should bring forth lambs of that particular color agreed upon, now ring-streaked, now speckled, and now spotted. But the vision was given to comfort him, and indeed, under the image of the variegated rams which served the flocks. This angel of Elohim declares himself to be identical with the God of Bethel, i, e., with Jehovah, who reveals himself at Bethel as exalted above the angels. It is thus his covenant God who has guarded his rights against the injustice of Laban, and prepares this wonderful blessing for him; a fact which does not militate against his use of skill and craft, but places those in a modified and milder light. The conclusion of these visions is, that Jacob must return. [The difference between this narrative and that given in ch.30, is a difference having its ground and explanation in the facts of the case. For obvious reasons Jacob chose here to pass over his own strategy and craft in silence, and brings out into prominence the divine providence and aid to which his prosperity was due. That Jacob resorted to the means he did, is not inconsistent with the objective reality of the dream-vision, but rather confirms it. If he regarded the vision as prophetic of the issue, as he must have done, the means which he used, the arts and cunning, are characteristic of the man, who was not yet weaned from confidence in himself, was not entirely the man of faith. If we regard this vision as occurring at the beginning of the six years’ service, it is entirely natural that Jacob should now connect it so closely with the voice of the same angel commanding him to return to the land of his birth.—A. G.]—Are we not counted of him strangers?—Laban takes the same position towards his daughters as towards Jacob himself. Hence they have nothing more to hope for from him. He had sold them as strangers, i. e., really, as slaves, for the service of Jacob. But this very price, i. e., the blessing resulting from Jacob’s service, he had entirely consumed, i. e., the daughters had received no share of it. Hence it is evident that they speak with an inward alienation from him, although not calling him by name, and that they desired the flight. 2. Genesis 31:17-21. The Flight.—The circumstance that Jacob, with his wives, was already at the station of his herds, while Laban remained at his own station, three days’ journey distant, keeping the feast of sheep-shearing, favored the flight. Either Laban had not invited Jacob to this feast, which is scarcely probable, since he was usually at this station, or Jacob took the opportunity of leaving, in order to visit his own flocks. As the sheep-shearing lasted several days (1 Samuel 25.) the opportunity was a very favorable one.—And Rachel had stolen.—This feature, however, as also the following, when she denied the theft to her father, reveals a cunning which is far more befitting the daughter of Laban, than the wife of the prudent Jacob.—The images.—Literally Teraphim (see Delitzsch, p. 410, Note 73), Penates, small figures, probably resembling the human form, which were honored as guardians of the household prosperity, and as oracles. But as we must distinguish the symbolic adoration of religious images (statuettes) among ancients, from the true and proper mythological worship, so we must distinguish between a gentler and severe censure of the use of such images upon Shemitic ground. Doubtless the symbolic usage prevailed in the house of Laban and Nahor. It is hardly probable that Rachel intended, by a pious and fanatical theft, to free her father from idolatry (Greg. Naz., Basil), for then she would have thrown the images away. She appears to have stolen them with the superstitious idea that she would prevent her father from consulting them as oracles, and under their guidance, as the pursuer of Jacob, from overtaking and destroying him (Aben Ezra). The supposition of a condition of war, with its necessity and strategy, enters here with apologetic force. This, however, does not exclude the idea, that she attributed to the images a certain magical, though not religious, power (perhaps, as oracles. Chrysostom). The very lowest and most degrading supposition, is that she took the images, often overlaid with silver, or precious metals, from mercenary motives (Peirerius). Jacob himself had at first a lax rather than a strict conscience in regard to these images (see Genesis 35:2), but the stricter view prevails since the time of Moses (Exodus 20; Joshua 24:2; Joshua 24:14 f.) [The derivation of the Heb. word teraphim, always used in the plural, is doubtful. Some derive it from taraph, to rejoice—thus dispensers of good; others from a like root, to inquire—thus they are oracles; and others, as Kurtz and Hofmann, make it another form of Seraphim. They were regarded and used as oracles (Judges 17:5-6; Ezekiel 21:21; Zechariah 10:2). They were not idols in the worst sense of the word; and were sometimes used by those who professed the worship of the true God (1 Samuel 19:13). The tendency was always hurtful, and they were ultimately rooted out from Israel. Laban had lapsed into a more corrupt form of religion, and his daughters had not escaped the infection. We may modify our views of Rachel’s sin, but it cannot be excused or justified (see Keil, “Arch.,” p. 90; Wordsworth, p. 132; Hengstenberg, “Christology;” Haverick’s “Ezek.” 13:47).—A.G.]—And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban.—The explanation κλέπτειννόον in the sense of “to deceive” (Del., Keil), appears to us incorrect. The expression indeed does not bear the sense which we moderns associate with the words “steal the heart,” and Genesis 31:26 seems to indicate that the heart of Laban is the love which this hard-hearted father bears towards his daughters. Rachel, however, seems to have been his favorite. He regarded and treated her not only as a wise but cunning child, and, hence, while he searched carefully everything in all the tents, he did not venture to compel her to arise. The last clause of Gen 31:20, further cannot possibly mean “in that he told him not that he fled.” For who would betray his own flight? We interpret δִ ?βִּ ?ιγ impersonally, it was not told him.—The Syrian.—“Moses gives this title to Laban because the Syrians were more crafty than other nations.” Jacob, however, surpassed him (Cleric.). Over the river.—The Euphrates.—Toward the mount Gilead.—For the mountains of Gilead see Geographies of Palestine, Bible Dictionaries, Books of Travels, etc. “Knobel understands δַ ?ψβִּ ?μְ ?ςָ ?γ to be the mountain range now known as Gebel Gilad, or Gebel es-Ssalt, and combines ξφτδ with the present Ssalt. But this assumption leads to the improbable results that Mahanaim, south of Jabbok and Succoth (probably the one on the other side), lay north from Jabbok, and thus Jacob’s line of march would be backwards in a north-westerly direction.” Delitzsch. Delitzsch understands correctly, that it is the northern side of the mountains of Gilead, above the Jabbok, which lay nearest to those coming from Mesopotamia.ְ ?3. Genesis 31:22-25. Laban’s pursuit.—On the third day.—This is partially explained by the long distance between the two stations.—His brethren with him.—Of the same tribe, kinsmen.—Seven days’ journey.—As Jacob, with his herds, moved slower than Laban, he lost his start of three days in the course of seven days.—And God came to Laban.—A proof that he had still some nobler traits of character.—Either good or bad.—The translation neither good nor bad is not fitting here. Literally from good to bad (Knobel). It presupposes that he was inclined to pass from a hasty greeting of his daughters and their children, to reproaches and invectives.—Now Jacob had pitched his tent.—As soon as he reached the heights of the mountain range, the mount Gilead, he pitched his tent, but here Laban with his retinue overtook him, and tented near by him. The text assumes: 1. That a certain mountain, north of Jabbok, gave its name to the whole range of mountains (just as Galilee, originally designating a small mountain region, gradually extended its significance). 2. That thus we must distinguish between this first mountain in the range of Gilead, and the principal mountain mentioned later. 4. Genesis 31:26-30. The words of Laban are characteristic, passionate, idiomatic, exaggerated even to falsehood and hypocrisy, and still at the end there is a word which betrays the man—shows his human nature and kindness. He calls his daughters his heart; their voluntary flight (although he had sold them) an abduction, as if they were captives. He asserts that he had not given any occasion to Jacob to flee, on the contrary, that he would have sent him away with music and mirth. He had not, however, even suffered him to take leave of his daughters and grandsons. These tender utterances are followed at once by haughty threats (Genesis 31:29). From his own point of view it seems imprudent to relate the night warning, but his pride and animosity lead him to do it. Jacob should not think that he willingly let him go unpunished, but “the God of your father,” he says, with a bitter heart, has forbidden me. He finally (Genesis 31:30) acknowledges in a sarcastic way that Jacob might go, but only to crush him with the burden of his accusation, in which, however, there was a two-fold exaggeration; first, in calling the teraphim his gods, and then, second, in making Jacob the thief. The true sentiment for his children, the fear of God, and, finally, a real indignation at the secrecy of Jacob’s departure, form the core of the speech, which assumes at last the shape of a pointed accusation. There is no trace of self-knowledge or humility.—With mirth.—(See 1 Samuel 18:6; 2 Samuel 6:5.) The word ωִׂ ?ξְ ?ηָ ?δ is indeed a collective for all that follows, and Delitzsch thinks it probably means dance.—With tabret.—See Winer: “Musical Instruments.” [Also Kitto and Smith.—A. G.].—Thou hast done foolishly.—Thou who art usually so prudent hast here acted foolishly. The reproach of folly carries with it that of immorality.—It is in the power of my hand.—Knobel and Keil [and Jacobus.—A. G.] translate “There is to God my hand,” with reference to Job 12:6; Habakkuk 1:11. Others translate ΰֵ ?μ power (so Rosen., Gesen.), [Wordsworth, Bush, A. G.] and this seems here to be preferable, notwithstanding Knobel’s objection, since Laban immediately says it is Elohim who restrains his hand. 5. Genesis 31:31-35. Laban’s search.—Laban’s rash accusation gives Jacob, who knew nothing of the theft of the teraphim, great boldness.—Let him not live.—We must emphasize the finding, otherwise Jacob condemned Rachel to death. “The cunning of Rachel was well planned, for even if Laban had not regarded it as impure and wrong to touch the seat of a woman in this state (see Leviticus 15:22), how could he have thought it possible that one in this state would sit upon his God.”—Delitzsch. But Keil calls attention to the fact that the view upon which the law (Leviticus 15.) was based, is much older than that statute, and exists among other people. [See also Kurtz: Gesch., vol. i. p. 252; Baehr’s “Sym. of the Mosaic Cultus,” vol. ii. p. 466.—A. G.] For the camel’s furniture or saddle, see Knobel, p. 251. 6. Genesis 31:36-42. Jacob’s reproof. He connects it with Laban’s furious pursuit and search. Then he reminds him generally of his harsh treatment, as opposed to his own faithful and self-sacrificing shepherd service for more than twenty years. “The strong feeling and the lofty self-consciousness which utter themselves in his speech, impart to it a rhythmical movement and poetic forms (γָּ ?μַ ?χΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ι to pursue ardently; elsewhere only 1 Samuel 17:53.”) Delitzsch.—And the frost by night.—The cold of the nights corresponds with the heat of the day in the East (Jeremiah 36:30; Psalms 121:6).—My sleep.—Which I needed and which belonged to me. He had faithfully guarded the flocks by night. Notwithstanding all this Laban had left him unrewarded, but the God of his fathers had been with him and secured his rights. Both the name of his God, and of his venerable father, must touch the conscience of Laban.—The fear of Isaac.—[Heb: he whom Isaac feared.] The object of his religious fear, and veneration; of his religion, σέβας, σέβασμα.—Rebuked thee yesternight.—This circumstance, which is only incidentally alluded to in the course of Laban’s speech, forms the emphatic close to that of Jacob. Jacob understands the dream-revelation of Laban better than Laban himself. 7. The covenant of peace between the two. Laban is overcome. He alludes boastfully indeed once more to his superior power, but acknowledges that any injury inflicted upon Jacob, the husband and father, would be visited upon his own daughters and their children.—What can I do unto thee.—i.e., in a bad sense. The fact that his daughters and grandsons were henceforth dependent upon Jacob, fills his selfish and ignoble mind with care and solicitude about them; indeed, reminded of the promises to Abraham and Isaac, he is apprehensive that Jacob might some time return from Canaan to Haran as a mighty prince and avenge his wrong. In this view, anticipating some such event, he proposes a covenant of peace, which would have required merely a feast of reconciliation. But the covenant of peace involved not only a well-cemented peace, but a theocratic separation.—Let us make a covenant.—Laban makes the proposal, Jacob assents by entering at once upon its execution. The pillar which Jacob erected, marks the settlement, the peaceful separation; the stones heaped together by his brethren (Laban and his retinue, his kindred) designate the friendly communion, the covenant table. The preliminary eating (Genesis 31:46) appears to be distinct from the covenant meal (Genesis 31:54), for this common meal continued throughout the day. The Aramaic designation of the stone heap used by Laban, and the Hebraic by Jacob, are explainable on the supposition “that in the fatherland of the patriarchs, Mesopotamia, the Aramaic or Chaldee was used, but in the fatherland of Jacob, Canaan, the Hebrew was spoken, whence it may be inferred that the family of Abraham had acquired the Hebrew tongue from the canaanites (Ph�nicians).”—Keil. [But this is a slender foundation upon which to base such a theory. The whole history implies that the two families of Abraham and Nahor down to this time and even later found no difficulty in holding intercourse. They both used the same language, though with some growing dialectic differences. It is just as easy to prove that Laban deviated from the mother tongue as that Jacob did.—A. G.] Knobel regards it an error to derive the name Gilead, which means hard, firm, stony, from the Gal-Ed here used. But proper names are constantly modified as to their significance in popular use, from the original or more remote, to that which is proximate.—And Mizpah, for he said.—Keil concedes that Genesis 31:49-50 have the appearance of an interpolation, but not such as to justify any resort to the theory of combination from different sources. But since Laban’s principal concern was for the future of his daughters, we might at least regard the words, And Mizpah, for he said, as a later explanatory interpolation. But there is not sufficient ground even for this, since Galeed and Mizpah are here identical in fact, both referring to the stone heap as well as to the pillar. Laban prays specifically to Jehovah, to watch that Jacob should not afflict his daughters; especially that he should not deprive them of their acquired rights, of being the ancestress of Jehovah’s covenant people. From this hour Jehovah, according to his prayer, looks down from the heights of Gilead, as the representative of his rights, and watches that Jacob should keep his word to his daughters, even when across the Jordan. But now, as the name Gilead has its origin in some old sacred tradition, so has the name Mizpah, also. It is not to be identified with the later cities bearing that name, with the Mizpah of Jephthah (Judges 11:11; Judges 11:34), or the Mizpah of Gilead (Judges 11:29), or Ramoth-Mizpah (Joshua 13:26), but must be viewed as the family name which has spread itself through many daughters all over Canaan (Keil, 216).—No man is with us.—i.e., no one but God only can be judge and witness between us, since we are to be so widely separated.—Which I have cast.—He views himself as the originator, and of the highest authority in this covenant.—That I will not pass over.—Here this covenant thought is purely negative, growing out of a suspicious nature, and securing a safeguard against mutual injuries; properly a theocratic separation.—The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor.—The monotheism of Laban seems gliding into dualism; they may judge, or “judge.” He corrects himself by adding the name of the God of their common father, i.e., Terah. From his alien and wavering point of view he seeks for sacredness in the abundance of words. But Jacob swears simply and distinctly by the God whom Isaac feared, and whom even his father-in-law, Laban, should reverence and fear. Laban, indeed, also adheres to the communion with Jacob in his monotheism, and intimates that the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor designate two different religious directions from a common source or ground. 8. Ver. Genesis 31:54 to Genesis 32:4. The covenant meal, and the departure.—Then Jacob offered Sacrifice.—As Isaac prepared a meal for the envious and ill-disposed Abimelech, so Jacob for Laban, whom even this generosity should now have led to shame and repentance. The following morning they separate from each other. The genial blood-tenderness of Laban, which leads him to kiss both at meeting and parting should not pass unnoticed (see Genesis 31:28; Genesis 29:13, and the Piel forms). It is a pleasant thing that as a grandfather he first kissed his grandsons. Blessing, he takes his departure.—Met him.—Lit., came, drew near to him, not precisely that they came from an opposite direction. This vision does not relate primarily to the approaching meeting with Esau (Peniel relates to this), but to the dangerous meeting with Laban. As the Angel of God had disclosed to him in vision the divine assistance against his unjust sufferings in Mesopotamia, so now he enjoys a revelation of the protection which God had prepared for him upon Mount Gilead, through his angels (comp. 2 Kings 6:17). In this sense he well calls the angels, “God’s host,” and the place in which they met him, double camp. By the side of the visible camp, which he, with Laban and his retainers, had made, God had prepared another, invisible camp, for his protection. It served also to encourage him, in a general way for the approaching meeting with Esau.—Mahanaim.—Later a city on the north of Jabbok (see V Raumer’s “Palestine,” p. 253; Robinson: “Re searches,” vol. iii. 2 app. 166), probably the one now called Mahneh. [For the more, distinct reference of this vision to the meeting with Esau, see KurtzGeschichte, p. 254, who draws an instructive and beautiful parallel between this vision and that at Bethel.—A. G.] AND ETHICAL1. Jacob a fugitive even in his journey home. But the God of Bethel protects him now as the God of Mahanaim; and the angels who, as heavenly messengers, moved up and down the ladder at Bethel, now appear, as became the situation, a warlike host, or the army of God. Keil holds that he saw the angels in a waking state, “not inwardly, but without and above himself; but whether with the eye of the body or of the spirit (2 Kings 6:17) cannot be decided.” At all events, in the first place he saw an objective revelation of God, with which was connected, in the second place, the vision-power [i.e., eine visionδre stimmung, a power or disposition corresponding to the vision and enabling him to perceive it.—A. G.]. 2. The want of candor between Laban and Jacob at Haran leads finally to the violent and passionate outbreak on Mount Gilead. But such outbreaks have ever been the punishment for the want of frankness and candor. The fearful public terrors of war, correspond to the secrecies and blandishments of diplomacy.—The blessing of a genuine and thorough frankness. Moral storms, their danger, and their salutary results. 3. The visions in which Jacob saw how God secured his rights against Laban’s injustice, prove that from his own point of view he saw nothing wrong in the transaction with the parti-colored rods. But those rods are thus seen to be merely a subordinate means. There is no sufficient ground for the conjecture of Keil, that it may be suspected that the dream-vision of Jacob (of the spotted rams) was a mere natural dream (see p. 212). It is evident that the vision-disposition pervades the night-life of Jacob, growing out of his oppressed condition and his unjust sufferings.—Schrφder: “But Jacob’s crafty course (Genesis 30:37) is not therefore commended by God, as Luther and Calvin have taught. Jacob was still striving to bring about the fulfilment of the divine promise by his own efforts.” 4. The alienation of the daughters of Laban from their father is not commendable, but is explained by his severity. On the other hand, they are bound to their husband in a close and lovely union. For the theft of the teraphim, see the Exegetical notes. 5. It is not a chance that we meet here in the idols of Laban the earliest traces of idolatry in the Old World, although they had doubtless existed elsewhere much earlier and in a grosser form. We can thus see how Polytheism gradually developed itself out of the symbolic image-worship of Monotheism (Romans 1:23). Moreover, the teraphim are estimated entirely from a theocratic point of view. They could be stolen as other household furniture (have eyes but see not). They could be hidden under a camel’s saddle. They are a contemptible nonentity, which can render no assistance. Genesis 31:23. The zeal for gods and idols is always fanatical. 6. The speech of Laban, and Jacob’s answer, give us a representation of the original art of speaking among men, just as the speech of Eliezer did. They form at the same time an antithesis between a passionate and exaggerated rhetoric and phraseology on the one hand, and an earnest, grave, religious, and moral oratory on the other hand, exemplified in history in the antithesis of the heathen (not strictly classic) to the theocratic and religious oratory. The contrast between the speeches of Tertullus and Paul Acts 24:2) is noticeable here. Laban’s eloquence agrees with his sanguine temperament. It is passionate, exaggerated in its terms, untrue in its exaggeration, and yet not without a germ of true and affectionate sentiment. Analysis of diffuse and wordy speeches a difficult but necessary task of the Christian spirit. 7. Proverbs 20:22, Romans 12:17, come to us in the place of the example of Jacob; still we are not justified in judging the conduct of Jacob by those utterances of a more developed economy (as Keil does). [This is true in a qualified sense only. The light which men have is of course an important element in our judgment of the character of their acts. But Jacob had, or might have had, light sufficient to know that his conduct was wrong. He might have known certainly that it was his duty, as the heir of faith, to commit his cause unto the Lord.—A. G.] 8. The establishment of peace between Laban and Jacob has evidently, on the part of Laban, the significance and force, that he breaks off the theocratic communion between the descendants of Nahor and Abraham, just as the line of Haran, earlier, was separated in Lot. 9. At all events, the covenant-meal forms a thorough and final conciliation. Laban’s reverence for the God of his fathers, and his love for his daughters and grandsons, present him once more in the most favorable aspect of his character, and thus we take our leave of him. We must notice, however, that before the entrance of Jacob he had made little progress in his business. Close, narrow-hearted views, are as really the cause of the curse, as its fruits. 10. The elevated state and feeling of Jacob, after this departure of Laban, reveals itself in the vision of the hosts of God. Heaven is not merely connected with the saint on the earth (through the ladder); its hosts are warlike hosts, who invisibly guard the saints and defend them, even while upon the earth. Here is the very germ and source of the designation of God as the God of hosts (Zebaoth). 11. There are still, as it appears to us, two striking relations between this narrative and that which follows. Jacob here (Genesis 31:32) pronounces judgment of death upon any one of his family who had stolen the images. But now his own Rachel, over whom he had unconsciously pronounced this sentence, dies soon after the images were buried in the earth (see Genesis 35:4; Genesis 35:18). But when we read afterwards, that Joseph, the wise son of the wise Rachel, describes his cup as his oracle (although only as a pretext), the conjecture is easy, that the mother also valued the images as a means of securing her desires and longings. She even ascribes marvellous results to the mandrakes. 12. The Mount of Gilead a monument and witness of the former connection between Mesopotamia and Canaan. AND Contrasts: Jacob’s emigration and return, or the two-fold flight, under the protection of the God of Bethel, and of Mahanaim.—Laban the persecutor: a. of his own; b. of the heir of the promise.—The persecutor: 1. His malicious companions; 2. those who flee from him; 3. his motives.—The word of God to Laban: “Take heed,” etc., in its typical and lasting significance.—The punishments of the want of candor: strife and war.—The two speeches and speakers.—The peaceful departure: 1. Its light side, reconciliation; 2. its dark aspect, separation. First Section, Genesis 31:4-16. Starke: Cramer: The husband should not always take his own way, but sometimes consult with his wife (Sir. 4:35).—It is a grievous thing when children complain before God of the injustice of their parents.—Children should conceal, as far as possible, the faults of their parents.—Lisco: The human means which he used are not commanded by God, but are his own.—Gerlach: Jacob’s conduct, the impatient weakness of faith; still a case of self-defence, not of injustice.—Schrφder: A contrast: the face of your father, the God of my father. Second Section, Genesis 31:17-21. Starke: Although Jacob actually begins his journey to the land of Canaan, some suppose that ten years elapse before he comes to Isaac, since he remained some time at Succoth, Sichem, and Bethel (comp. Genesis 33:17; Genesis 35:6).—The shearing of the sheep was in the East a true feast for the shepherds—an occasion of great joy (see Genesis 38:12; 1 Samuel 25:2; 1 Samuel 25:8; 1 Samuel 25:36). Section Third, Genesis 31:22-25. Starke: Josephus. The intervention of the night, and the warning by God in his sleep, kept him from injuring Jacob.—Bibl. Tub.: God sometimes so influences and directs the hearts of enemies that they shall be favorably inclined towards the saints, although they are really embittered against them.—Hall: God makes foolish the enemies of his church, etc.—Whoever is in covenant with God need have no fear of men.—Schrφder: Jacob moves under the instant and pressing danger of being plundered, or slain, or of being made a slave with his family and taken to Mesopotamia. Still the promiser (Genesis 28:15) fulfils the promise to him. Thus, whatever may oppress us for a time, must at last turn to our salvation (Calvin). Section Fourth, Genesis 31:26-30. Starke: (It is the way of hypocrites when their acts do not prosper, to speak in other tones.) Genesis 31:29. He does not say that he has the right and authority, but that he has the power (comp. John 19:10). In this, however, he refutes himself. For if he possessed the power, why does he suffer himself to be terrified and deterred by the warning of God in the dream?—Calwer Handbuch: He cannot cease to threaten.—He would have injured him but dared not.—Schrφder: The images are his highest happiness, since to him the presence of the Deity is bound and confined to its symbol. Section Fifth, Genesis 31:31-35. Starke: Cramer: Genesis 31:32. A Christian should not be rash and passionate in his answer. Genesis 31:35. The woman’s cunning is preλminent (Sir 25:17; Judges 14:16).—Calwer Handbuch: Genesis 31:38. The ewes and the goats in their state were the objects of his special care.—Falsehood follows theft.—Man’s cunning is ready; woman’s inexhaustible and endless (Val. Herberger). Section Sixth, Genesis 31:36-42. Starke: What is included in a shepherd’s faithfulness (Genesis 31:38).—Bibl. Wirt.: When one can show that he has been faithful, upright, and diligent, in his office, he can stand up with a clear conscience, and assert his innocence. Cramer: A good conscience and a gracious God give one boldness and consolation.—Schrφder: The persecution of Jacob by Laban ends at last in peace, love and blessing.—Thus the brother line in Mesopotamia is excluded after it has reached its destination. Section Seventh, Genesis 31:43-53. Starke: (Different conjectures as to what Laban understood by the God of Nahor, whether the true God or idols).—Cramer: When a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7).—Calwer Handbuch: Laban now turns again and gives way to the natural affections of a father. The circumstances which tended to calm his mind: 1. The seven days’ journey; 2. the divine warning; 3. the mortification resulting from his fruitless search; 4. Jacob’s self-defence and the truth of his reproaches.—His courage and anger gradually give way to fear and anxiety.—Schrφder: In the Hebrew, the word “if ” occurs twice, pointing, as we may suppose, to the idea, may God so punish thee.—(Luther: How can this fellow (Laban) so name the thing?) Eighth Section, Genesis 31:55 to Genesis 32:2. Starke: Jacob has just escaped the persecutions of his unjust father-in-law, when he began to fear that he should meet a fiercer enemy in his brother Esau. Hence God confirms him in his faith, opens his eyes, etc.—It is the office of the angels to guard the saints. (Two conjectures as to the double camp: one that some of the angels went before Jacob, others followed him; the other that it is the angel camp and the encampment of Jacob.)—(Why the angels are called hosts: 1. From their multitude; 2. their order; 3. their power for the protection of the saints, and the resistance and punishment of the wicked; 4. from their rendering a cheerful obedience as became a warlike host.—Calwer Handbuch: The same as Genesis 28 Probably here as there an inward vision (Psalms 34:7).—Schrφder: Jacob’s hard service, his departure with wealth, and the persecution of Laban, prefigure the future of Israel in Egypt.—(Val. Herberger.) Whosoever walks in his way, diligent in his pursuits, may at all times say with St. Paul: “He shall never be forsaken.”—The invisible world was disclosed to him, because anxiety and fear fill the visible world.—Luther: The angels. In heaven their office is to sing Glory to God in the Highest; on the earth, to watch, to guide, to war. Genesis 31:6.—The full form of the pronoun, see Green’s Grammar, 71, (2.)—A. G. Genesis 31:7.—δֵ ?ϊֶ ?μ, Hiphil from ϊָּ ?μַ ?μ; see Green’s Grammar, 142, (3.)—A. G. Genesis 31:10.—Heb., Beruddim, spotted with hail. Our word, grizzled, is from the French, grκle, hail, and thus a literal translation of the Hebrew.—A. G. Genesis 31:15.—The Hebrew form, the absolute infinitive after the finite verb, denotes continuance of the action.—He has constantly devoured.—A. G. Genesis 31:19.—ϊְּ ?ψָ ?τִ ?ιν. The word occurs fifteen times in the Old Testament; three times in this chapter, and nowhere else in the Pentateuch. It is always in the plural. It means, perhaps, to live well, or to nourish. In two passages (Judg. 17. and 18., and Hosea 3:4), they are six times associated with the ephod. The use of them in the worship of God, is denounced as idolatry (1 Samuel 15:23), and hence they are classed with the idols put away by Josiah, 2 Kings 23. Murphy—A. G. Genesis 31:29.—Heb., There is to God my hand.—A. G. FIFTH SECTIONJacob’s return. His fear of Esau. His night wrestlings with God. Peniel. The name Israel. Meeting and reconciliation with Esau. Genesis 32:3 to Genesis 33:163 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother, unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom. 4And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned [have been a stranger] with Laban, and stayed there until now: 5And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and men-servants, and women-servants: and I have sent [and now I must send, the δ paragogic] to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight. 6And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him. 7Then Jacob was greatly afraid, and distressed: and he divided the people that was with him, and the flocks, and 8herds, and the camels into two bands: And said [thought], If Esau come to the one company, and smite it, then the other company which is left shall escape. 9And Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the Lord which saidst [art saying] unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred [birth- place], and I will deal well with thee: 10I am not worthy [too little for] of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast shewed unto thy servant: for with my staff 11[alone] I passed over this Jordan, and now I am become two bands [camps]. Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear him, lest Hebrews 12 will come and smite me, and the mother with [upon, over] the children. And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make [establish] thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude. 13And he lodged there that same night, and took of that which came to his hand a present for Esau his brother; 14Two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams, 15Thirty milch camels with their colts, forty kine and ten bulls, twenty she-asses and ten foals. 16And he delivered them into the hand of his servants, every drove by themselves; and said unto his servants, Pass over before me, and put a space betwixt drove and drove. 17And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee [what he drives before him]. 18Then thou shalt say, They be thy servant Jacob’s: it is a present sent unto my lord Esau: and behold, also, he is behind us. 19And so commanded he the second, and the third, and all that followed the droves, saying, On this manner shall ye speak unto Esau, when ye find him. 20And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said [thought], I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept [make cheerful my face] of me. 21So went the present over before him; and himself lodged that night in the company. 22And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two women-servants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok. 23And he took them, and sent them over the brook, and [then] sent over that he had [his herds]. 24And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him, until the breaking of the day. 25And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh [hip-joint or socket]: and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. 26And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh: and he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. 27And he said unto him, What is thy name? 28And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel [Yisrael]: for as a prince hast thou power [thou hast contested] with God, and with men, and hast prevailed. 29And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name: and he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. 30And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [face of God]: for I have seen God face to face, and my life [soul] is preserved. 31And as he passed over Penuel [Peniel], the sun rose upon him, and he halted [was lame] upon his thigh. 32Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew [sciatic nerve], which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank. Genesis 33:1. And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids. 2And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost [at the last], 3And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother. 4And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept. 5And he lifted up his eyes, and saw [now] the women and the children, and said, Who are those with thee [whom hast thou there]? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant. 6Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves. 7And Leah also with her children came near, and bowed themselves; and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed themselves. 8And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove [camp] which I me? And he said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord. 9And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself. 10And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore [now] I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me. 11Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough: and he urged him, and he took it. 12And he said, Let us 13take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before thee. And [But] he said unto him, My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me, and if men should over-drive them one day, all the flock will die. 14Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure; until 1 come unto my lord unto Seir. 15And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me: And he said, What needeth it? Let me find grace in the sight of my lord. 16So Esau returned that day on his way unto Seir. REMARKSKnobel supposes here an artificial mingling of heterogeneous and even contradictory parts, taken from different sources, a supposition resting, as is often the case, upon a want of insight as to the connection, which is the great law in that kind of criticism. The sending of messengers by Jacob to Esau, is regarded as a proof that he was not afraid of his brother, while the Jehovist represents him as being in terror of him, etc. (p. 256). All parts of this section turn upon Jacob’s relation to Esau: 1. The sending of messengers (Genesis 32:3-6); 2. the fear of Jacob, and his preliminary division of the train into two bands (Genesis 32:7-8); 3. Jacob’s prayer (Genesis 32:9-12); 4. the delegation of new messengers with his presents (Genesis 32:13-21); 5. the night passage of the train over Jabbok, and Jacob’s wrestling; Peniel (Genesis 32:21-32); 6. Esau’s approach, the new arrangements of the train, and the greetings (Genesis 33:1-11); 7. Esau’s offer and return (Genesis 32:12-16). AND 1. The sending of the messengers (Genesis 32:3-6).—Sent messengers before him.—The measure was precautionary, to inspect what the danger was, and to conciliate his brother.—Unto the land of Seir.—The natural taste for hunting and the thirst for power, must have led Esau, even during the lifetime of Isaac, to think of a location more suitable to him, since the thickly settled region of Hebron was not favorable either for hunting or for the establishment of a strong power. The region of Seir, or the mountians of Edom (see Bible Dictionaries and geographies, and books of travels) seemed more favorable in both respects. We thus see that Esau had already made a decided progress in his occupation of the new land, without having completely transferred his residence from Hebron to Seir, which followed afterwards (see Genesis 36:6). The same distinction between the chief residence, and an out-station or colony, meets us in the life of Isaac. Keil says he severed the relations which bound him to his father’s house and possessions, “because he was more and more thoroughly convinced that the blessing pronounced by his father upon Jacob, and which excluded him from the inheritance of the promise, the future possession of Canaan, could not be changed.” But this would ascribe too much to Jacob’s obedience of faith to Esau. The fact takes place, doubtless, upon natural grounds. Esau’s power did not lie in his faith, but in his strong hand. This man of might had gathered his sons, servants, and confederates, and already partially completed the conquest of the Horites. He deems the momentary possession of power of greater value than the promise of a religious dominion, the actual possession of which lay in the dim future. He entertains, no doubt, therefore, that he has already surpassed his brother, and this may, first of all, have predisposed him to peaceful thoughts towards him, especially after Jacob’s humble message, whose prominent thought was that he now cheerfully conceded to him the external honors of the first-born. In his present state of mind Esau is satisfied to leave his brother to struggle a little longer with his fear, and to harass and distress him with a pompous show of his forces. The messengers return without bringing back any friendly counter-greeting. He comes as a princely sheik of the desert, with his retainers. This is the preliminary answer. The text here presupposes that Jacob had received some notice of Esau’s operations at Seir. [There is no contradiction between this text and Genesis 36:6. It is not said here that Esau had any fixed abode or dwelling in Seir. The fact that he appears with his armed band shows that he was out upon a warlike expedition, and probably with the design of driving the Horites from Seir. It was not his home. His family and possessions were still in Canaan, and were first removed to Seir (Genesis 36:6) when it had been freed from his enemies, and thus made a safe abode for his wives and children.—A. G.] 2. The fear of Jacob, and his preliminary division of the train into two bands (Genesis 32:7-8).— Was greatly afraid.—Jacob’s fear was not groundless. Rebekah had not called him back. Esau has not intimated that he was reconciled or would be easily appeased. The messengers had not brought back any counter-greeting. Esau was coming with his four hundred men. The promise at Bethel, too, relates definitely only to the journey and the return, and the vision at Mahanaim was a disclosure as to his deliverance from the hand of Laban, but not accompanied with new promises. The main thing, however, was this, he is ill at ease in his conscience, with regard to his offence against Esau. His fear, therefore, as well as his prudence, appears in the division of his train into two bands. This measure precedes his prayer, as the last act of his overhasty and impatient cunning, which does not appear to have been exercised after his prayer and struggle. The measure itself has little to do with the name Mahanaim, to which Knobel refers it. It may serve to explain the fact that the Bedouins usually march in divisions. 3. The prayer of Jacob (Genesis 32:9-12). Jacob is conscious now that all his cunning cannot give his heart rest.—Which saidst unto me.—Here begins the third link in the chain; God of Abraham and God of Isaac. He appeals to the repeated promise of the covenant God of his fathers, given to him in the divine intimation and warning to return.—I will deal Well with thee.—He strives to draw from this vague expression a promise of protection against Esau. On the other hand, he cannot appeal with any confidence to the blessing of his father Isaac, which he had stolen.—I am not worthy of the least.—Literally, am less than. Humiliation and gratitude underlie the joyful confidence in asking for deliverance.—This Jordan.—We must conceive of the ford of Jabbok, as lying in the neighborhood of the Jordan.—The mother with the children.—Literally, upon the children, since she protects the children against the raging foe. Used proverbially (see Deuteronomy 22:6; Hosea 10:14). Knobel, Keil, Delitzsch, reject the rendering, upon the children.—As the sand of the Sea.—This is the import of the promise Genesis 28:14, as the dust of the earth; and thus he increases the imagery of the Abrahamic promise, Genesis 22:17. Such a destructive attack as now threatens him, would oppose and defeat the divine promise. Faith clings to the promise, and is thus developed. [The objection that it is unbecoming in Jacob to remind God of his promise, shows an utter misconception of true prayer, which presupposes the promise of God just as truly as it implies the consciousness of wants. Faith, which is the life of prayer, clings to the divine promises, and pleads them.—A. G.] 4. The delegation of new messengers with his presents (Genesis 32:13-21).—And took of that, etc.—His prayer led him to better means of help than the division of his train in fear, and for a flight near at hand. He passes from the defensive to the offensive. He will not flee from Esau, but go to meet him, and overcome him with deeds of love. Delitzsch thinks he did not select the present until the next morning. Keil, however, says, correctly, that the prayer, the delegation with the present, the transfer across the Jabbok, and Jacob’s struggle, all took place on the same night (Genesis 32:14). Delitzsch, indeed, admits that the crossing of the Jabbok, and Jacob’s struggle, occur in the same night. The present which Jacob chose for an immediate departure during the night, was a great propitiatory sacrifice to the injured brother, and an humble homage to the mighty prince of the desert, consisting of five hundred and fifty head of cattle. And thus, while making an atonement to Esau, he actually atones also for his cunning course towards Laban. The selections corresponded with the possession of the Nomadic chiefs, as to the kinds of animals (comp. Job 1:3; Job 42:12), and as to the proportion between the males and females to the rule of Varro, De re rustica. Keil. The present is broken up into divisions with intervening spaces [lit., breathing places.—A. G.], and thus approaches Esau, that by the regular appearance of these different droves, he might, by one degree after another, soften the fierce disposition of his brother. Observe: 1. The climax; goats, sheep, camels, cattle, asses. 2. The spaces between the droves. Each impression must be made, and its force felt by Esau, before the next comes on. 3. The ever repeated form of homage: Thy servant, Jacob. A present. My lord Esau. 4. The final aim: friendly treatment: Thy servant, Jacob himself, is behind us. Knobel supposes that he finds here even, a difference between the interpretation of the Jehovist, and the design of his predecessor to describe the procession according to oriental custom (p. 230).—For he said.—We meet here, for the first time, the later important λִּ ?τֵּ ?Ξ (comp. xx.16). Esau’s face is to be covered by atoning presents, so that he should not see, any more, the offence which Jacob had committed against him. Jacob had, in an ideal sense, deprived him of princely honor; he now recognizes, in a true and real sense (and one entirely suited to Esau’s thought and disposition), his princely honor, and thus atones, in fact, for his fault, since Esau cared nothing for the ideal element in and by itself. λִּ ?τֵּ ?ψ here, at its first occurrence, refers to the reconciling of one who is angry, and to the atonement for guilt. Since the offence is covered for Esau’s face, so even Esau’s face is covered as to the offence. It is very remarkable, moreover, that the word “face” here occurs three times. Esau’s face is covered towards Jacob’s obligation and guilt. Then Jacob beholds the face of Esau, and is comforted, and Esau lifts up Jacob’s face, i. e., cheers, enlightens it, since he receives him kindly. 5. The night-crossing of the train over Jabbok, and Jacob’s wrestling (Genesis 32:21-32).—And he rose up that night.—The confidence of Jacob, rising out of his prayer and the sending of his present, is so strong that he does not defer the crossing of his train over the ford of Jabbok until the morning. Jabbok is now called the Zerka, i. e., the blue, from its deep-blue mountain water. “It rises near the caravan route at Castell Zerka; its deep mountain valley then forms the boundary between Moered on the north and Belka on the south. It empties into the Jordan about midway between the Sea of Tiberias and the Dead Sea, and about an hour and a half from the point at which it breaks through the mountain.” Von Raumer: “Palestine,” p. 74. The Jabbok comes from the east nearly opposite to Sichem. It was at one time the boundary between the tribes of Gad and Manasseh. For further details, see the Bible Dictionaries.—Although it is quite customary in the East to travel during the night (see Knobel, p. 258), yet still the crossing of his train over a rapid mountain stream would be difficult. The ford which Jacob used was not that upon its upper course, near the route of the Syrian caravans, at Kŭ ?la’t Zerka, “but the one farther to the west, through which Buckingham, Burkhardt (‘Syria,’ p. 597), and Seetzen (‘Travels,’ I. p. 392) passed, between Jebel Adschlun and Jebel Jelaad, and at which are still to be seen traces of walls, buildings, and the signs of an older civilization (Ritter, ed. 15. p. 1040).” Keil.—And he was left alone.—It is generally supposed that Jacob remained on the north side of the Jabbok. Keil, p. 218; Delitzsch, p. 334. [Jacobus; Wordsworth, p. 136.—A. G.] Rosenmόller and Knobel reject the idea that Jacob recrossed the stream, although nothing there claimed his attention, the latter indeed, on the incorrect assumption that Jacob crossed the Jabbok going from the south, northwards. In Genesis 32:23 it is, he passed over, i.e., he himself, without mentioning that he took his family, which is specially related elsewhere. [It seems probable that he first went over himself, and then, finding the crossing safe, he returned and sent over his herds and his family.—A. G.] Then, too, it is not necessary that εַ ?ιִּ ?εָּ ?ϊֵ ?ψ should be understood in a local sense (see Ges. under ιϊψ). Moreover, we find him (Genesis 32:32), when leaving the place of his wrestling, Peniel, ready to proceed on his journey. Lastly, it would seem an act of cowardice if Jacob had sent his wives and children across the brook, which was a protection against the danger, while he himself remained behind. [Still, the narrative plainly implies that Jacob remained on the north of the Jabbok. And whatever courage may have prompted to do, as to protect his own with his life, Jacob was dimly conscious that the crisis of his life was now upon him, and that he must be alone with God. It was not the want of courage, but the sense that help must come from God, and the working of his faith which led him to cling to the arm of God, which kept him here for the prayer and struggle and victory.—A. G.]—And there wrestled a man with him.—Now, when he supposed everything arranged, the greatest difficulty meets him. The unmeasured homage, with which he thought to reconcile Esau, touches the violation or at least puts in peril the promise which was given to him. Moreover, he has not only injured Esau, but offended God (Elohim), who is the God of Esau, and will not suffer him to be injured with impunity.—There wrestled a man.—This archaic form occurs only here and in Genesis 32:25-26. Dietrich traces it to the idea of “struggling or freeing oneself from;” Delitzsch to ηαχ, to limit, to touch each other closely, member to member. We prefer the reference to the kindred form, ΰτχ, to hold fast, to adhere firmly, etc. Hithpael, to hold to oneself. There seems to be an allusion in the word to the name Jabbok (Knobel), or rather, the brook derives its name from this struggle, ιַ ?αּ ?χ instead of ιְ ?ΰַ ?αֹּ ?χ (Keil). An older derivation traces the word, “to dust,” to raise dust in the struggle. The question arises whether the sense of the word here is, that the nameless man came upon Jacob, as if he had been his enemy, or that Jacob seized the man, as he appeared to him, and held him fast, while he strives to free himself from the grasp. According to Genesis 32:27, the last sense is the true one. If we take the other supposition, we must conceive that Jacob, during the night-wrestling, recognized as a friend the man who came upon him as an enemy. Still there is no intimation of a hostile attack. The passage in Hosea 12:4, also supports the idea that Jacob held fast the mysterious man, and not vice versβ. “He took his brother by the heel in the womb—and by his strength he had power with God—he had power over the angel and prevailed—he wept and made supplication unto him—he found him in Bethel.”—And when he saw that he prevailed not against him.—That is, Genesis 32:27, he could not compel him to let him go.—For the day breaketh.—In regard to this, and to the circumstance that Jacob remained alone, Knobel remarks, “that the acts of God are not spectacles for the eyes of impious mortals (see Genesis 19:17; Genesis 22:13; Exodus 12:29).” There is, however, a broad distinction between the heathen and theocratic interpretation of this event. There is no reference here to any fear or dread of the day-light on the part of spirits.—The hollow of his thigh.—Lit., the socket of the hip. It is not said that he struck it a blow (Knobel); the finger of God (for it is God who is spoken of) needs but to touch is object, and the full result is secured.—And the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint.—This is explained more fully in the thirty-fourth verse. The sinews of his thigh (nervus ischiadicus) were paralyzed through the extreme tension and distortion’. But this bodily paralysis does not paralyze the persevering Jacob.—I will not let thee go.—Now the blessing which he obtained from his father by cunning and deceit, must be sought with tears from this mysterious divine man. And then he blesses him when he gives him the name Israel, i. e., the God-wrestler or fighter (from ωׂ ?ψϊ and ΰμ). [The captain and prince of God, from sarah, to marshal in battle, to lead, to command, to fight, and hast prevailed, ωָׂ ?ψִ ?ιϊָ, as a prince. Wordsworth, p. 138.—A. G.] Instead of a supplanter, he has now become the holy wrestler with God, hence his name is no longer Jacob, but Israel. There is no trace in his after- of the application of his wisdom to mere selfish and cunning purposes. But the new name confirms to him in a word the theocratic promise, as the name Abraham confirmed it to Abram. For the connection of this passage with Genesis 38:10, see the Exegetical note upon that passage.—And hast prevailed.—Has he overcome in his wrestling with God, he need have no further fears as to his meeting with Esau.—Wherefore is it, that thou dost ask after my name?—The asking after his name in this particular way, not the general inquiry, is the point which occasions this answer. The believer is not to learn all the names of the Lord in this theoretic manner, but through the experience of faith; thus even the name Immanuel. Indeed, he had already learned his name substantially.—Thou hast wrestled with God and men.—It does not rest upon “the view which the Jews have when they regard the name Jehovah as ἄῤῥητον,” as Knobel asserts.—And he blessed him.—The blessing contained already in the name Israel, is now definitely completed.—Peniel, or Penuel with the ε conj., face of God. The locality of this place has not been definitely fixed (V. Raumer, p. 255), but if it could be identified it would be idle to look for it upon the north of the Jabbok. Knobel refers for an analogy to the Ph�nician promontoryΘεοῦπρόσωπον. [Keil thinks Peniel was upon the north of the Jabbok, though he does not regard it as certain. Kiepert locates it on the Jabbok. It was certainly east of Succoth (see Judges 8:8-9), and was most probably on the north of the Jabbok.—A. G.]—Face to face.—With his face he had seen the face of God (Exodus 33.; Deuteronomy 34:10). Exodus 33:20 is not in contradiction to this, since that passage speaks of the seeing of God beyond and above the form of his revelation in its legal development.—And my life is preserved.—Luther’s translation and my soul is healed, saved, is equally beautiful and correct. For it is impossible that the idea here is that of the later popular notion: he rejoices that he had seen the face of God and did not die.—The sun rose upon him. The sun not only rose, but rose especially upon him; and with a joyful mind he begins with the sunrise his journey to meet Esau.—And he halted upon his thigh.—He appears not to have noticed this before. In the effort of the wrestling it had escaped him, just as the wounded soldier oftentimes first becomes aware that he is wounded by the blood and gash, long after the wound was received.—Therefore the children of Israel eat not.—“The author explains the custom of the Israelites, in not eating of the sinew of the thigh, by a reference to this touch of the hip of their ancestor by God. Through this divine touch, this sinew, like the blood (Genesis 9:4) was consecrated and sanctified to God. This custom is not mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament; the Talmudists, however (Tract. Cholin, Mischna, 7), regard it as a law, whose transgression was to be punished with several stripes.” Knobel. Delitzsch adds: “This exemption exists still, but since the ancients did not distinguish clearly in βִּ ?ιγ (βιγδπωׁ ?δ, the large, strong cord of the sinew of the thigh), between muscle, vein, and nerve, the sinew is now generally understood, i.e., the interior cord and nerve of the so-called hind-quarter, including the exterior also, and the ramifications of both.” 6. Esau’s approach, the new arrangement of the train, and the greeting (Genesis 33:1-11).—And Jacob lifted up his eyes.—In contrast to his previous inward contemplation, and in confident expectation.—And he divided the children.—We read no more of the two bands or trains. He now separates his family into three divisions. He himself, as the head of the family, as its protector and representative, takes the lead; then follow the handmaids with their children; then Leah with hers; and at last, Rachel with Joseph. This inverted order, by which the most loved came last, is not merely chosen from a careful and wise prudence, but at the same time the free expression of the place which they occupied in his affections.—To the ground seven times.—Not that he cast himself seven times to the ground, which would have been expressed by ΰτινΰψφδ, but he bowed himself seven times with the low inclination of the head [the low oriental bow, in which one bends the head nearly to the ground without touching it. Keil.—A. G.]. But even this courtesy far excels the usual degree in oriental greetings, and finds its explanation in the number seven. The bowing itself expresses the recognition of an external princely prerogative, from which Esau believed that he had robbed him; the seven-fold utterance of this recognition stamps it with the mimic (Ger., mimische) seal of the certainty which belongs to the covenant. Thus Jacob atones for his offence against Esau. The manifestation of this courtesy is at the same time, however, a barrier which in the most favorable issue protects him, before mingling with the spirit and temper of the Edomitic army.—And Esau ran to meet him.—He is overcome; his anger and threats are forgotten; the brother’s heart speaks. Jacob’s heart, too, now released from fear, is filled with like affection, and in their common weeping these gray-headed men are twins once more. “The unusual pointing of ιַ ?ωָּׁ ?χֵ ?δεּ probably indicates a doubt as to the sincerity of this kiss. But the doubt is groundless. The Scriptures never authorize us to regard Esau as inhuman. He is susceptible of noble desires and feelings. The grace of God which ruled in his paternal home has not left him without its influence.” Delitzsch. The assertion of Knobel, “that the author of Gen 27:1 ff; Genesis 32:8 ff. could not thus write if he wrote proprio marte,” is critically on the same level with the remark of Tuch upon Jacob’s prayer, Genesis 32:9—“it is unseemly in the narrator that he allows Jacob to remind God of his promises.” The old Jewish exegesis has indeed outbid this modern zeal in effacing this great and beautiful moral feature in the narrative. “The Breschith Rabba and Kimchi inform us that some in the earlier time held that ιִ ?ωָּׁ ?χֵ ?δεּ meant here that he bit him. The Targum of Jonath. says that Jacob’s weeping sprung from a pain in his neck, and Esau’s from a toothache.” Knobel.—The children which God.—The name Elohim, out of regard to Esau’s point of view [and, as Delitzsch and Keil suggest, in order not to remind Esau of the blessing of Jehovah, of which he was now deprived.—A. G.]—Joseph and Rachel.—It is a fine trait in the picture that the order is here reversed, so that Joseph comes before his mother. The six-year-old lad seems to break through all the cumbrous ceremonial, and to rush confidently into the arms of his uncle.—By all this drove (camp or train).—Knobel thinks that he here discovers a third explanation of the name Mahanaim, and finds in the answer of Jacob, these are to find grace, etc., an offensive fawning, or cringing humility. But in fact, it is not a mere present which is here in question, but a voluntary atonement—an indirect confession that he needed forgiveness. We find this same thought also in Esau’s refusal.—I have enough.—Esau had a two-fold reason for his refusal, for he doubtless possessed a large share of the paternal estate, while Jacob had earned all that he had by the labor of his hands. It is nevertheless a noble strife, when Esau says, keep that thou hast,I have enough, and Jacob overcomes him, take, I pray thee, my blessing,I have enough of all, or briefly all.—For therefore I have seen.—This cannot mean, I have gained the friendly aspect of thy face by my present, but therefore, for this purpose, is it. As things now stand, the present is an offering of gratitude.—As though I had seen the face of God.—The words sound like flattery, but they bear a good sense, since in the friendly face of his brother he sees again in full manifestation the friendliness of God watching over his life’s path (Job 33:26; Psalms 11:7). [He refers either to his wrestling with the angel, in which he had “learned that his real enemy was God and not Esau, or in the fact that the friendly face of his brother was the pledge to him that God was reconciled. “In the surprising, unexpected change in his brother’s disposition, he recognizes the work of God, and in his brother’s friendliness, the reflection of the divine.” Delitzsch.—A. G.] The words, take, I pray thee, my blessing, are just as select and forcible. It is as if, in allusion to the blessing he had taken away, he would say, in so far as that blessing embraced present and earthly things, and is of value to you, I give it back. Knobel explains the choice of the expression from the benedictions which accompanied the present. “The presents to the clergy in the middle ages were called benedictions.” But the idea of homage lies nearer here. In the reception of his present he has the assurance that Esau is completely reconciled to him. The friendliness in Esau’s countenance is a confirmation to him of the friendliness of the divine countenance, a seal of the grace of God, which he saw in his face at Peniel. 7. Esau’s offer and return (vers.12–16).—I will go before thee.—The kindness of Esau assumes a confidential and officious character. He will take the lead in the way, go before as the protector of his caravan. But that could have happened only at the expense of Jacob’s freedom. Besides this, the caravan, with tender children, and sucklings among the cattle, could not keep pace with a train of Bedouin. Jacob urges this strenuously, in order to effect a separation. It is no pretence on his part, but it is the only reason he ventures to offer to the powerful Esau, whose superficial nature unfitted him to appreciate the other reasons. He reveals to him also, in a striking way, his purpose to come to him at Seir. Is this the new Israel or the old Jacob who speaks? The words are ambiguous, even if he actually visited him in after years at Seir, as some have urged as an excuse. There is, indeed, a peculiar emphasis upon the word μְ ?ΰִ ?θִ ?ι, in connection with the verb, which excludes any obligation to hasten there. He declines, also, the offer of a protecting band.—What needeth it?—He is conscious of a higher protector. He desires nothing from Esau but a peaceful and friendly deportment. [Jacob’s promise of a visit was honestly made. His course led him to Canaan, probably to Hebron, and from thence he contemplated a visit to Esau at Seir. Whether it was ever made, or not, we do not know. The narrative does not record all the events of Jacob’s life, and this may well have been one of those less important, which it passes over in silence. There is no ground, in any case, to question his sincerity, or to think that it is the old Jacob who speaks.—A. G.] AND ETHICAL1. This section belongs to the more important parts of Genesis, especially of the patriarchal history, holding in the life of Jacob a position like Genesis 15, 17, 18, , 22, in the life of Abraham, Genesis 27 in the life of Isaac, and Genesis 41, 45. in the life of Joseph. We have here, indeed, the full development of patriarchalism, the bud which shall open into its most perfect flower, and which unfolds itself completely in the blessing of Jacob. As the institution of a sacred sacrifice reached its full development in the offering of Abraham (Genesis 22), and the mysterious fact of election comes into prominence in the blessing of Isaac (Genesis 27), so this narrative brings out in a clear, distinct form: 1. The prayer of faith, based upon the promise and the clear consciousness of the contrast between human unworthiness and divine grace; 2. the actual occurrence of a believing wrestling with God, and its result, the prelude to the theanthropic life; 3. the contrast between the old and new man, between Jacob and Israel, the token of the new birth growing out of the circumcision of the heart; hence, also, 4. the dawn of the love of one’s enemies, and of the triumph of that affection over the hatred of our enemies, through confidence in God and the proofs of his reconciliation; and 5. lastly, that divine law, according to which believers inwardly and truly overcome the world, by their outward subjection to the demands of its power. In the struggle with Jacob, moreover, the form of the Angel of the Lord passes already into the form of the angel of his face, which afterwards, in the book of Exodus, develops itself more completely. Thus, also, we find here already clearly intimated the germ of the distinction between the external aspect of the kingdom of God (the blessing of Isaac), and its inward essence, a distinction winch was not fully comprehended by Israel at the time of Christ, and over which, even in our own day, many toil and labor without clear conceptions. This section contains also a representation of the nightly and sacred birth hour of Israel, and in a formal point of view is well fitted to introduce a true insight into the fundamental form of revelation. 2. The intellectual movement and progress in the narrative, correspond to the most subtle laws of the spiritual and intellectual life of the soul. After Jacob had seen the divine messengers, the angels, in his journey, he takes heart, and sends a human embassy to greet Esau. The contents of their message is determined by his prudence. He greets his lord Esau, as Jacob his servant. The unpleasant and dangerous recollections of the events which had occasioned his long absence, are passed over; on the contrary, he speaks of his rich possessions in herds and flocks, which he had acquired while with Laban, lest Esau should think that he was now returning, longing for the paternal goods. He wishes only to find favor in the eyes of Esau. In thus rendering homage to him, he recognizes the earthly and temporal prerogatives of the first-born, and at the same time makes indirectly a confession of his guilt. When the messengers return without any counter-greeting, and announcing that Esau was drawing near, the mere human prudence of Jacob again suggests his course. As he apprehends a hostile attack from Esau, so he thinks of resisting force with force, but with the prospect of being vanquished. Hence the division of his caravan into two bands. But this measure gives him no rest. His pressing wants drove him to faith and prayer, a prayer which marks already a great development of the patriarchal life and faith. His soul was thus so sustained and comforted, that he can no more rest or sleep during the night. He now boldly crosses the Jabbok (his Rubicon, or better, his Kedron) with his whole train. And then, in the loneliness and solitude, he meets with the decisive struggle of his life. After the victory of his faith in this struggle, he is, as Jacob, lame in his thigh; he no longer expects salvation from his natural struggles with Esau, but has found, in the grace of Jehovah, the source of his world subduing humility and love. He thinks no longer of the two bands for mutual self-defence or flight, but on the contrary, he sends his five bands to the attack, five different acts of homage embodied in presents, which, as a continuous train, has the most impressive aspect, and gives the highest satisfaction to Esau in the presence of his four hundred men. The closing word of the messengers was that Jacob was coming after them; he himself, and thus the strongest expression of his confidence toward his brother. Upon the five droves which designate the completed act of homage, as an actual outward occurrence (since five is the number of free choice), there follows now the seven-fold bowing of Jacob himself, as a sacred assurance of his intellectual, real homage, as to the prerogatives of the first-born which belonged to Esau. Hence his family also, in three intervals and acts, which follow the salutation, must render the same homage. Jacob, in offering so large a portion of his herds, had made a great sacrifice; so that probably it may be literally true that his children, who at first rode upon camels, now that so few of the camels were left, were obliged to walk. But it was both noble and wise not to take advantage of Esau’s magnanimous feelings, as he had formerly done of his natural and sensual infirmity in the matter of the lentile pottage. And now he has completely overcome him, and even more than this. As he had at first to guard against his former threats, and his alarming appearance, so now against his amiable importunity, which might have led him into the danger of mingling and developing his cause and future history with those of Esau. Esau actually yields to his request, and returns. He overcomes him in this, too, but not as Jacob the supplanter, but as Israel the warrior of God [the prince with God.—A. G.]. 3. Jacob’s prayer. The great development of faith which marked this prayer: 1. The resting of the prayer upon the divine promises, and the more definite development of prayer in its general idea; 2. the contrast: I am not worthy, etc. [literally, I am too little for, less than.—A. G.], an ancient denial of any righteousness of works, a watchword of humility for all time; 3. the connection of the divine goodness and grace (here in the plural) and truth, or faithfulness, which henceforth runs through the sacred scriptures; 4. the beautiful description of the divine blessing, for with my staff I passed over this Jordan, etc. [Jacob’s faith appears in the very terms by which he addresses God, in his confidence in the divine promise and command, the two pillars of his hope, in his expectation of deliverance, not-withstanding his deep sense of his personal unworthiness, and in the clear, sharp contrast which he makes between the destruction he feared and the divine promise. How could the promise: I will make thy seed as the sand of the sea, be saved, if the mother was to be slain with the children? As Luther has said, this is a beautiful specimen of all hearty prayer, and has all the attributes of real prayer.—A. G.] 4. The prayer of Jacob precedes his choice of his presents for Esau. We must first deal with God, be reconciled with him, then with men. First faith, then works. 5. Jacob’s present. A great sacrifice of penitence and restitution, of large value in itself, but far more glorious in its spiritual form and import. 6. Jacob’s wrestling. We must distinguish: 1. The motive of the struggle; 2. its elements; 3. its greatness; 4. the fruits of victory. Its motive cannot lie in Jacob’s fear of Esau, although he was not yet free from all fear. For as to the main thing, his fears have been removed by the foregoing prayer and the sending of the present, with which, indeed, is connected also the announcement that Jacob himself was coming to meet Esau. The motive arises from the fact, that a new, and indeed the final and greatest necessity, sprang from this act of homage which Jacob had just performed. He had restored to Esau in spirit as well as in his outward arrangements the honor of the first-born, as to its earthly aspects. But had he not thus resigned also his theocratic birthright, the Abrahamic blessing? This question rested upon his mind with great weight, since the external aspect of the blessing was apparently inseparably connected with the inward. To how many of his descendants has the external theocracy occupied the place of the inward and real kingdom of God! Abraham must distinguish the present from the future, Isaac between patient endurance and dominion, but Jacob must now learn to distinguish between the external attributes and the internal and real possession of the birthright and the blessing. And since these things have hitherto been inseparably blended in his mind, there must now be, as it were, a rent in his very soul; it is only through the sorest birth-throes that he can attain a faith in the blessing, stripped of its outward and temporal glory. If he will retain the real blessing, then apparently he must recall the messengers who have gone to render homage to Esau. If he suffers these to go on, then all his hopes for the future seem to vanish. And still this is impossible, since his hope is inscribed, as a destination, in his innermost being, his election. Like Abraham upon Moriah, he must also, through his readiness to make the sacrifice, attain the full assurance in its great gain, the new life springing out from this sacrifice. Hence his wrestling. According to Hosea, it consisted essentially and fundamentally in weeping and tears; a weeping and tears that he might secure the assurance of the blessing in his very sacrifice of the blessing. His sacrifice must be completed in his heart, for it is the genuineness of his repentance, but he must also have the certainty of his blessing, for it is the genuineness and certainty of his faith. And all that he can present to the God of revelation, for redemption and deliverance from this fearful appearance of opposition in his inward life, is his sighs and tears. There his prayer becomes a vision of the most intensive form and nature. Jehovah appears to him in his Angel, the Angel appears to him in human form, in the form, indeed, of some individual man. The man in a certain measure is his alter ego in an objective form, in so far as he is the image of his innermost individuality in its communion with Jehovah, or the type of the Son of Man, the God-man. But the man meets him as a stranger. He must in him become certain of his own inward election, as Moses was made certain of the law in his own heart, in the law of the two tables of stone. At first he meets him as a mighty wrestler, who will cast him to the ground, and then proceed on his way. That is, the Angel of his election will cast him down and then leave him lying in his repentance in bitter anguish over his life lost through his sin and guilt. But Jacob wrestles with him, although unable, and even not choosing, to make use of his strivings as Jacob, of his supplanting and crafty efforts. His human prudence discerns no way of escape from this fearful inward sorrow, nor does it seek any. But what was the very core and centre of his nature as Jacob, his adherence to his faith in the future, that is preserved, even now; he does not yield in his wrestling. The day dawns upon the struggle, and now the strange man seems to get the upper hand; he puts Jacob’s thigh out of joint. The human strength and elasticity of the patriarch were gone. And now the trial culminates, when the man says: Let me go. But now also the precise thought of Jacob, and the purpose of his heart, comes out in the words: I will not let thee go except thou bless me. He struggles no more, but throws his arms around the neck of the divine man and clings to him. This is the full renunciation, and the full and determined embracing of faith, both in one act, and there lies his victory. The mysterious stranger asks after his name and his name is now as an acknowledgment, a confession, Jacob. His new name, Israel, which is now given to him, on the other hand, imports not only his absolution, but also his restitution, indeed, his exaltation above his previous blessed condition. From this time onwards he is the warrior of God. He not only overcomes Esau, but God suffers him to prevail over him in that specific way of wrestling which he has just learned. Jacob now asks after his name. He must not seek this name, however, prematurely, but learn it in his actual experience. The names Peniel, Shiloh, Immanuel, are for him to be developed from the name Israel. But when the parting one gives him a special blessing, that is the assurance, that in bringing the offering of the external qualities of the blessing to Esau, he has perfectly and fully gained the essential blessing of Abraham. As in the very beginning of his new birth he had learned to distinguish between the old and new life, between Jacob and Israel, between the wrestlings of Jacob and the strength of Israel, so also he has now been taught to distinguish between the rights of the natural human birth, and the rights of the new divine birth. [There is another view of this wrestling, which bases it upon the character and previous history of Jacob. He was not, indeed, destitute of faith and reliance upon God, but the prominent feature of his character was a strong reliance upon his own resources and strength. He had thus fallen into doubtful and censurable courses. In this confidence he had wrestled with Esau for the birthright, and with Laban for the reward of his wages and his present possessions. God had dealt with him by chastisements. He had been involved in difficulties and trials which he could not well have failed to connect with his sins. Still his fault was not corrected. And now, on his return to the land of promise, and his paternal home, to inherit the blessing he had so striven to secure, he is met by Esau with his four hundred men. Conscious of his weakness, and reminded of his sins, feeling as he doubtless did that Esau’s anger was not unprovoked, he flies to God for help (Genesis 32:10-13). His prayer gives him relief from his fears. But it does not necessarily wean him from his self-reliance. He must feel that his crimes against men are at the same time sins against God. And to teach him this, and at the same time bring him to unreserved reliance upon God, is the purpose with which God meets him here. The progress of the struggle and its issue show this. He struggles with this new combatant to the very end, or as long as he had any strength, but when his thigh was thrown out of joint, then he saw how vain the struggle in this form was. In his disabled state he merely hangs upon the conqueror, and thus overcomes him. He is no longer strong in himself, but in the Lord. It is his faith, the divine principle planted in him, in one sense “the divine energy” working in him, which secures the victory. The lesson which Jacob here learned reveals its power in his whole after-life. He is no longer the supplanter. His life is not marked by his own strivings, but by his reliance upon God. And this is in accordance with the prophet Hosea (Genesis 12:4 ff.), who not only teaches that the sighs and tears were prominent features in the struggle, but that in his wrestling with God in this way, Jacob has completely secured what he had been striving for from his birth, the inheritance of the first-born, the promise and blessing of the covenant; secured it, however, not by his own strength, but by casting himself upon God.—A. G.] 7. With regard to the form of the struggle, it cannot on the one hand be a dream-vision which is spoken of (Rosenm. and others), nor on the other hand an external event (Kurtz: “History of the Old Covenant,” i. p. 260; Auberlen, in the article “Jacob,” in Herzog’s Encyclopζdic.) [Jacobus: “Notes,” ii. p. 134; Murphy, p. 414; Wordsworth, p. 137.—A. G.]; for the mythical explanation may be entirely left out of view. For moral struggles and decisions are not wrought in dreams or in dream-visions. Against an external bodily wrestling, Hengstenberg reminds us forcibly that an outward wrestling does not occur in the form of weeping and supplication. Kurtz attempts to evade this difficulty by assuming two acts in the struggle, in which the external bodily wrestling precedes the spiritual wrestling with tears and prayers. He thus seeks to exclude the vision and the ecstasy (conditions which in our view are only two aspects of one and the same state). Keil rejects the idea of a natural corporeal wrestling, but thinks that an ecstasy, of a like or related condition of the body and soul, must be received. We have often seen already that the condition of vision or ecstasy does not exclude the objective manifestation. We now see, also, that the soul-struggles in vision, might present themselves under the form of bodily labor, and wrestlings of the soul, since in the vision the whole spiritual process is represented in pictures; and further, that such a struggle may even produce bodily effects, as here the lameness of Jacob’s thigh. Kurtz replies, on the contrary, that such effects of the inward life upon the body are not certainly ascertained; that, indeed, the reverse is for the most part true in such cases, the germinant bodily complaint giving its peculiar form to the dream. But how can one confound these mere natural dreams with the very highest religious events in the world of mind? Should we suppose that the whole history of the despised one rested upon a mere illusion, still the history of Gethsemane would not stand there in vain with reference to the event here before us. It has been denied that such a lameness as that described here, could result from any corporeal wrestling. [It may be said, however, that there is no necessity here for departing from the obvious and literal sense of the passage. The idea of close personal corporeal conflict seems to be suggested in the very terms which the sacred writer has chosen to describe this wrestling. It is certainly implied in the crippling of the thigh. And if God walked in the garden with Adam, and partook of the feast which Abraham prepared, there is no reason why he should not enter into bodily conflict with Jacob. The other events in the narrative, the crossing of the Jabbok, the rising of the sun, seem also to require that we should understand this wrestling as real, objective, corporeal, without any attempt, however, to define too closely its precise mode.—A. G.] 8. The man who wrestled with Jacob. “Some have absurdly held that he was an assassin sent by Esau. Origen: The night-wrestler was an evil spirit (Ephesians 6:12). Other fathers held that he was a good angel. The correct view is that he was the constant revealer of God, the Angel of the Lord” Schrφder. Delitzsch holds “that it was a manifestation of God, who through the angel was represented and visible as a man.” The well-known refuge from the reception of the Angel of the Incarnation! In his view, earlier explained and refuted, Jacob could not be called the captain, prince of God, but merely the captain, prince of the Angel. “No other writer in the Pentateuch,” Knobel says, “so represents God under the human form of things as this one.” Jacob surely, with his prayers and tears, has brought God, or the Angel of the Lord, more completely into the human form and likeness than had ever occurred before. The man with whom he wrestles is obviously not only the angel, but the type also of the future incarnation of God. As the angel of his face, however, he marks a development of the form of the angel of revelation which is taken Up and carried on in Exodus. 9. The angel and type of the incarnation, is at the same time an angel and type of atonement. When Kurtz (p. 257) says “that God here meets Jacob as an enemy, that he makes an hostile attack,” the expressions are too strong. There is an obvious distinction between a wrestler and one who attacks as an enemy, leaving out of view the fact, that there is nothing said here as to which party makes the assault. After the revelations which Jacob received at Bethel, Haran, and Mahanaim, a peculiar hostile relation to God is out of the question So much, certainly, is true, that Jacob, to whom no mortal sins are imputed for which he must overcome the wrath of God (Kurtz, p. 258, the divine wrath is not overcome but atoned), must now be brought to feel that in all his sins against men he has striven and sinned against God, and that he must first of all be reconciled to him, for all the hitherto unrecognized sins of his life. 10. The wrestling of Jacob has many points of resemblance to the restoration of Peter (John 21). As this history of Peter does not treat of the reconstituting of his general relation to Jesus, but rather of the perfecting of that relation, and with this of the restitution of his apostolic calling and office, so here the struggle of Jacob does not concern so much the question of his fundamental reconciliation with Jehovah, but the completion of that reconciliation and the assurance of his faith in his patriarchal calling. And if Christ then spake to Peter, when thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, etc., in order that he might know that henceforth an entire reliance upon the leading and protection of God must take the place of his sinful feeling of his own strength and his attachment to his own way, so, doubtless, the lameness of Jacob’s thigh has the same significance, with this difference, that as Peter must be cured of the self-will of his rash, fiery temperament, so Jacob from his selfish prudence, tending to mere cunning. 11. A like relation holds between their old and new names. The name Simon, in the narrative of Peter’s restoration, points to his old nature, just as here the name Jacob to the old nature of Israel. Simon’s nature, however, was not purely evil, but tainted with evil. This is true also of Jacob. He must be purified and freed from his sinful cunning, but not from his prudence and constant perseverance. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SIXTH SECTIONJacobs settlement in Canaan. At Succoth. At Shechem. Dinah. Simeon and Levi. The first manifestation of Jewish fanaticism. Jacob’s rebuke, and removal to Bethel Genesis 33:17 to Genesis 34:3117 And Jacob journeyed to Succoth [booths], and built him an house, and made booths for his cattle: therefore, the name of the place is called Succoth. 18And Jacob came to Shalem [in peace], a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan-aram [Mesopotamia]; and pitched his tent before the city. 19And he bought a [the] parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor [ass; peaceful bearer of public burdens], Shechem’s father, for an hundred piecesof money. 20And he erected there an altar, and called it El-Elohe-Israel [strength]. Genesis 34:1.And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went outto see the daughters of the land. 2And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country [region], saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. 3And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel. 4And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel [from Jacob] to wife. 5And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: (now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace [held in, or to himself] until they were come). 6And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. 7And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel, in lying with Jacob’s daughter; which thing ought not to be done [and remain]. 8And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife. 9And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you. 10And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein. 11And Shechem said unto her father, and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me, I will give. 12Ask me never so much dowry and gift [price of the bride], and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife. 13And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully [under mere pretence], and said, Because he had defiled Dinah their sister: 14And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised: for that were a reproach unto us: 15But in this [condition] will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised; 16Then will We give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. 17But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone. 18And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem, Hamor’s son. 19And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob’s daughter: and he was more honorable than all the house of his father. 20And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed 21with the men of their city, saying, These men are peaceable with us, therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein: for the land, behold, it is large enough for them: 22let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters. Only herein [on this condition] will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one 23people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised. Shall not their cattle, and their substance, and every beast of theirs be ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us. 24And unto Hamor, and unto Shechem his son, hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city: and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city. 25And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males. 26And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out. 27The sons of Jacob came [now] upon the slain and spoiled the city; because they 28[its inhabitants] had defiled their sister. They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field. 29And all their wealth and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house. 30And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me [so greatly] to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites, and the Perizzites: and I being few in number [of a small household; easily numbered], they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me, and I shall be destroyed, I and my house. 31And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot? Genesis 35:1.And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God [El] that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. 2Then Jacob said unto his household and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments: 3And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day [at the time] of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. 4And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand [possession], and all their ear-rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak [terebinth] which was by Shechem. 5And they journeyed: and the terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob. 6So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan (that is Bethel), he and all the people that were with him. 7And he built there an altar, and called the place El-beth-el; because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his 8brother. But Deborah [bee], Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Bethel, under an oak: and the name of it was called Allon-bachuth. 9And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-aram [Mesopotamia]; and blessed him. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company [χδμ] of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins. 12And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land. 13And God went up from him, in the place where he talked with him. 14And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink-offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon. 15And Jacob called the name of the place where God spake with him, Bethel. REMARKSThe section now before us, whose unity consists in the remarkable sojourn of Jacob at the different stations, on his homeward journey to Hebron, may be divided as follows: 1. The settlement at Succoth; 2. the settlement at Shechem; 3. Dinah: a. The rape of Dinah; b. Shechem’s offer of marriage; c. the fanatical revenge of the sons of Jacob, or the bloody wedding; the plot, the massacre, the sacking of the city, the judgment of Jacob upon the crime; 4. the departure for Bethel; 5. the sealing of the covenant between God and the patriarch at Bethel. Knobel, as usual, finds here a commingling of Jehovistic and Elohistic elements, since the internal relations are brought into view as little as possible, while names and words are emphasized. AND 1. Genesis 33:17.—To Succoth.—The name Succoth, booths, tents, might have been of frequent occurrence in Palestine, but the locality here spoken of is generally regarded as the same with the later well-known city of Succoth, which lies east of the Jordan. It was situated within the limits of the tribe of Gad (Joshua 13:27; Judges 8:5-14; Psalms 60:6). Josephus speaks of it under its Greek name Σκηναί, and Jerome Succoth is at this day a city across the Jordan, in the neighborhood of Scythopolis. Robinson (later “Resear.,” pp. 310–312) identifies Succoth with Sβkut, lying west of the Jordan, and southerly from Beisan. The fact that the traditional Succoth lies too far to the north, and that it is not easy to see how Jacob, after crossing the Jabbok, should come hither again, is in favor of this suggestion. Nor is it probable that, having so nearly reached the Jordan, he would have settled in the east-Jordan region (comp. Genesis 32:10). Knobel thinks that the writer wished to show that the patriarch had now fixed his abode in the trans-Jordan region. That Succoth belonged to the tribe of Gad, does not disprove Robinson’s conjectures, since there may have been more than one Succoth. Compare, further, as to the traditional Succoth, Von Raumer p. 256; Knobel, p. 204 [also Keil, Murphy, Wordsworth, Jacobus, Smith’s “Bib. Dic.,” all of whom decide against Robinson.—A. G.]—And he built.—He prepares here for a longer residence, since he builds himself a house instead of tents, and booths for his flocks, i. e., inclosures made of shrubs or stakes wattled together. Knobel thinks “that this is very improbable, since Jacob would naturally wish to go to Canaan and Isaac” (Genesis 31:8). But if we bear in mind that Jacob, exhausted by a twenty-years’ servitude and oppression, and a flight of more than seven days, shattered by his spiritual conflicts, and lame bodily, now, first, after he had crossed the Jordan, and upon the spiritual and home land, came to the full sense of his need of repose and quiet, we shall then understand why he here pauses and rests. As the hunted hart at last sinks to the ground, so he settles down and rests here for a time. He seems to have hoped, too, that he would be healed at Succoth, and it is probably with a special reference to this that it is said, Genesis 33:18, that Jacob came “in peace or in health” to Shechem. Jacob, too, after his experience of his brother Esau’s importunity, had good reason for inquiring into the condition of things at Hebron, before he brought his family thither. [The fact that he built a house for himself, and permanent booths for his flock, indicates his continued residence at Succoth for some years; and the age of Dinah at his flight from Laban makes it necessary to suppose either that he dwelt here or at Shechem six or more years before the sad events narrated in the following chapter.—A. G.] And it appears, indeed, that, either from Succoth or Shechem, he made a visit to his father Isaac at Hebron, and brought from thence his mother’s nurse, Deborah, since Rebekah was dead, and since she, as the confidential friend of his mother, could relate to him the history of her life and sufferings, and since, moreover, she stood in closer relation to him than any one else. Nor could Jacob, as Keil justly remarks, now an independent patriarch, any longer subordinate his household to that of Isaac. 2. The sojourn at Shechem (Genesis 33:18-20).—And Jacob came (to Shalem) in good health.—The word ωָׁ ?μִ ?ν is taken by the Sept., Vul., and Luther [and by the translators of the Eng. Bib.—A. G.], as a proper noun, to Shalem, which some have regarded as another name for Shechem, and others as designating an entirely different place, and the more so, since the village of Salim is still found in the neighborhood of Shechem (Robinson: “Researches,” vol. iii. p. 114 ff.). But it is never mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament, and ωָׁ ?μֵ ?ν as an adjective, refers to the αְּ ?ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν, Genesis 28:21. Jehovah has fulfilled his promise.—A city of Shechem.—Or, to the city. Lit., of Shechem. The city was not in existence when Abraham sojourned in this region (Genesis 12:6). The Hivite prince Hamor had built it and called it after the name of his son. For the old name Mamortha of Pliny, see Keil, p. 224 [who holds that it may be a corruption from Hamor; but see also Robinson, vol. iii. p. 119.—A. G.].—In the land of Canaan.—Keil infers from these words that Succoth could not have been in the land of Canaan, i. e., on the west of the Jordan. But the words here, indeed, refer to the immediately following Hebraic acquisition of a piece of ground, just as in the purchase of the cave at Hebron by Abraham it is added, “in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 23:19).—Padan-aram (see Genesis 25:20)—before the city.—[See the Bible Dictionaries, especially upon the situation of Jacob’s well, and Robinson, vol. iii. pp. 113–136.—A. G.]. Even after his return to Hebron Jacob kept a pasture station at Shechem (Genesis 37:12).—A parcel of a field (Joshua 24:32).—Abraham purchased for himself a possession for a burial place at Hebron. Jacob goes further, and buys a possession for himself during life. “This purchase shows that Jacob, in his faith in the divine promise, viewed Canaan as his own home, and the home of his seed. Tradition fixes this parcel of land, which, at the conquest of Canaan, fell as an heritage to the sons of Joseph, and in which Joseph’s bones were buried (Joshua 24:32), as the plain lying at the southeast opening of the valley of Shechem, where, even now, Jacob’s well (John 4:6) is shown, and about two hundred or three hundred paces north of it a Mohammedan wely, as the grave of Joseph (Robinson: “Researches,” vol. iii. pp. 113–136, and the map of Nablous, in the “German Oriental Journal,” xvi. p. 634).” Keil. For the relation of this passage with Genesis 48:22, see the notes upon that passage.—An hundred pieces of money.—Onk., Sept., Vul., and the older commentators, regard the Quesita as a piece of silver of the value of a lamb, or stamped with a lamb, and which some have held as a prophecy pointing to the Lamb of God. Meyer (Heb. Dict.) estimates the Quesita as equal to a drachm, or an Egyptian double-drachm. Delitzsch says it was a piece of metal of an indeterminable value, but of greater value than a shekel (see Job 42:11).—An altar, and named it.—That is, he undoubtedly named it with this name, or he dedicated it to El-Elohe-Israel. Delitzsch views this title as a kind of superscription. But Jacob’s consecration means more than that his God is not a mere imaginary deity; it means, further, that he has proved himself actually to be God (God is the God of Israel); God in the clear, definite form of El, the Mighty, is the God of Israel, the wrestler with God. Israel had experienced both, in the almighty protection which his God had shown him from Bethel throughout his journeyings, and in the wrestlings with him, and learned his might. In the Mosaic period the expression, Jehovah, the God of Israel, takes its place (Exodus 34:23). “The chosen name of God, in the book of Joshua.” Delitzsch. [The name of the altar embraces, and stamps upon the memory of the world, the result of the past of Jacob’s life, and the experiences through which Jacob had become Israel.—A. G.]  3. Dinah (Genesis 34:1-31).—Dinah the daughter of Leah.—a. The rape of Dinah (Genesis 34:1-4). Dinah was born about the end of the fourteenth year of Jacob’s residence in Haran. She was thus about six years old at the settlement at Succoth. The sojourn at Succoth appears to have lasted for about two years. Jacob must have spent already several years at Shechem, since there are prominent and definite signs of a more confidential intercourse with the Shechemites. We may infer, therefore, that Dinah was now from twelve to sixteen years of age. Joseph was seventeen years old when he was sold by his brethren (Genesis 37:2), and at that time Jacob had returned to Hebron. There must have passed, therefore, about eleven years since the return from Haran, at which time Joseph was six years of age. If now we regard the residence of Jacob at Bethel and the region of Ephrata as of brief duration, and bear in mind that the residence at Shechem ceased with the rape of Dinah, it follows that Dinah must have been about fourteen or fifteen years of age when she was deflowered. In the East, too, females reach the age of puberty at twelve, and sometimes still earlier (Delitzsch). From the same circumstances it is clear that Simeon and Levi must have been above twenty.—Went out to see.—Scarcely, however, to see the daughters of the native inhabitants for the first time, nor to a fair or popular festival (Josephus). Her going indicates a friendly visit to the daughters of the land, a circumstance which made her abduction possible, for she was taken by Shechem to his house (Genesis 34:26).—His soul clave unto Dinah.—This harsh act of princely insolence and power is not an act of pure, simple lust, which usually regards its subject with hatred (see the history of Tamar, 2 Samuel 13:15).—Spake kindly to her.—Probably makes her the promise of an honorable marriage.—b. Shechem’s offer of marriage(Genesis 34:5-12).—And Jacob heard it.—In a large nomadic family the several members are doubtless often widely dispersed. Besides, Dinah did not return home.—Held his peace until they were come.—The brothers of the daughter had a voice in all important concerns which related to her (Genesis 24:50 ff.). Moreover, Jacob had to deal with the proud and insolent favorite son of the prince, i. e., prince of that region, and a painful experience had made him more cautious than he had been before.—And Hamor the father of Shechem.—As if he wished to anticipate the indignation of Jacob’s youthful sons.—Because he had wrought folly.—Keil speaks of “seduction,” but this is an inadequate expression. Some measure of consent on the part of Dinah is altogether probable. In this case the dishonor (θִ ?ξֵּ ?ΰ) had a double impurity, since an uncircumcised person had dishonored her.—And the men were grieved.—Manly indignation rises in these young men in all its strength, but as the wise sons of Jacob, they know how to control themselves. [It was more than indignation. They were enraged; they burned with anger; it was kindled to them.—A. G.]—He had wrought folly.—ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δπְ ?αָ ?μָ ?δ, a standing expression for crimes which are irreconcilable with the dignity and destination of Israel as the people of God, but especially for gross sins of the flesh (Deuteronomy 22:21; Judges 20:10; 2 Samuel 13:12), but also of other great crimes (Joshua 7:15).—Which thing ought not to be done.—A new and stricter morality in this respect also, enters with the name Israel.—My son Shechem.—The hesitating proposal of the father gives the impression of embarrassment. The old man offers Jacob and his sons the full rights of citizens in his little country, and the son engages to fulfil any demand of the brothers as to the bridal price and bridal gifts. Keil confuses these ordinary determinations. [He holds only with most that they were strictly presents (and not the price for the bride) made to the bride and to her mother and brothers.—A. G.]—c. The fanatical revenge of the sons of Jacob(Genesis 34:13-29).—Deceitfully.—Jacob had scarcely become Israel when the arts and cunning of Jacob appear in his sons, and, indeed, in a worse form, since they glory in being Israel.—And said (γִ ?αֵּ ?ψ), we cannot do this thing.—Keil thinks the refusal of the proposition lies fundamentally in the proposal itself, because if they had not refused they would have denied the historical and saving vocation of Israel and his seed. The father, Israel, appears, however, to have been of a different opinion. For he doubtless knew the proposal of his sons in reply. He does not condemn their proposition, however, but the fanatical way in which they availed themselves of its consequences. Dinah could not come into her proper relations again but by Shechem’s passing over to Judaism. This way of passing over to Israel was always allowable, and those who took the steps were welcomed. We must therefore reject only: 1. The extension of the proposal, according to which the Israelites were to blend themselves with the Shechemites; 2. the motives, which were external advantages. It was, on the contrary, a harsh and unsparing course in reference to Dinah, if the sons of Leah wished her back again; or, indeed, would even gratify their revenge and Israelitish pride. But their resort to subtle and fanatical conduct merits only a hearty condemnation.—The young man deferred not.—We lose the force of the narrative if we say, with Keil, that this is noticed here by way of anticipation; the thing is as good as done, since Shechem is not only ready to do it, but will make his people ready also. The purpose, indeed, could only be executed afterwards, since Shechem could not have gone to the gate of the city after his circumcision.—And communed with the men of the city.—They appeal in the strongest way to the self-interest of the Shechemites. Jacob’s house was wealthy, and the Shechemites, therefore, could only gain by the connection.—αְּ ?δֵ ?ξָ ?δ. Beasts of burden, camels, and asses. “According to Herodotus, circumcision was practised by the Ph�nicians, and probably also among the Canaanites, who were of the same race and are never referred to in the Old Testament as uncircumcised, as e.g., it speaks of the uncircumcised Philistines. It is remarkable that the Hivites, Hamor and Shechem, are spoken of as not circumcised. Perhaps, however, circumcision was not in general use among the Ph�nician and Canaanitish tribes, as indeed it was not among the other people who practised the rite, e.g., the Ishmaelites, Edomites, and Egyptians, among whom it was strictly observed only by those of certain conditions or rank. Or we may suppose that the Hivites were originally a different tribe from the Canaanites, who had partly conformed to the customs of the land, and partly not.” Knobel.—On the third day.—After the inflammation set in. This was the critical day (see Delitzsch, p. 340). [He says it is well known that the operation in case of adults was painful and dangerous. Its subjects were confined to the bed from two to three weeks, and the operation was attended by a violent inflammation.—A. G.] “Adults were to keep quiet for three days, and were often suffering from thirty-five to forty days.”—Simeon and Levi.—Reuben and Judah were also brothers of Dinah, but the first was probably of too feeble a character, and Judah was too frank and noble for such a deed. “Simeon and Levi come after Reuben, who, as the first-born, had a special responsibility towards his father (Genesis 37:21 ff; Genesis 42:22), and appears, therefore, to have withdrawn himself, and as the brothers of Dinah next in order undertake to revenge the dishonor of their sister. For the same reason Ammon was killed by Absalom (2 Samuel 13:28). Seduction is punished with death among the Arabians, and the brothers of the seduced are generally active in inflicting it (Niebuhr: Arabien, p. 39; Burkhardt’s ‘Syria,’ p. 361, and ‘Bedouins,’ p. 89).” Knobel. Keil says that the servants of Simeon and Levi undoubtedly took part in the attack, but it may be a question whether each son had servants belonging to himself. The city lay in security, as is evident from the μαθη.—Sons of Jacob.—Without the ε conjunctive. The abrupt form of the narrative does not merely indicate “the excitement over the shocking crime.” For it is not definitely stated that all the sons of Jacob took part in sacking the city (Keil), although the slaughter of the men by Simeon and Levi may have kindled fanaticism in the others, and have led them to view the wealth of the city as the spoils of war, or as property without an owner. Much less can it be said that Simeon and Levi were excluded from these sons (as Delitzsch supposes). On the contrary, they are charged (Genesis 49:6) with hamstringing the oxen [Eng. ver., digged through a wall.—A. G.], i. e., with crippling the cattle they could not take with them. Nor are we here to bring into prominence that the Jacob nature breaks out again in this act, but, on the contrary, that the deed of the sons of Jacob is entirely unworthy. [Kurtz urges as an extenuation of their crime: 1. The fact that they viewed the rape as peculiarly worthy of punishment because they were Israel, the chosen people of God, the bearers of the promise, etc.; 2. their natural character, and the strength of their passions; 3. their youthful ardor; 4. the absence of counsel with their depressed and suffering father. But with every palliation, their treachery and bloodthirstiness, their use of the covenant sign of circumcision as a means to cloak their purpose, their extension of their revenge to the whole city, and the pillage of the slain, must shock every one’s moral sense.—A. G.]—d. The judgment of Jacob upon their crime(Genesis 34:30-31).—Ye have troubled me.—If we look at the places in which the word ςλψ occurs (Joshua 6:18; Joshua 7:15), we shall see plainly that Jacob is not speaking here of mere simple grief. The idea proceeds from the shaking of water, to the utmost confusion and consternation of spirit, or changes and loss of life. The expression made to stink, signifies not merely to become odious, offensive, but to make infamous, literally, to make one an abomination. When Knobel concludes from the words: And I being few in number, that Jacob did not censure the act as immoral, but only as inconsiderate, and one which might thus cause his ruin, the inference is manifestly false and groundless. He expresses his censure of the act as immoral in the words trouble me, put him to shame, made him blameworthy, while they thought that they were glorifying him.—Should he deal.—Should one then, not should he then (Knobel), for he is dead; nor even should they then. The idea is, that if they had suffered this patiently they would thereby have consented that their sister should generally have been treated in this way with impunity. They thus insist upon the guilt of Shechem, but pass over his offer of an atonement for his crime, and their own fearful guilt. “They have the last word (Delitzsch), but Jacob utters the very last word upon his deathbed.” [And there, too, he makes clear and explicit his abhorrence of their crime, as not merely dangerous, but as immoral, and this in the most solemn and emphatic way.—A. G.] Indirectly, indeed, he even here utters the last word, in his warning call to rise up and purify themselves by repentance. They must now flee from their house and home, i.e., from the land which they have so lately purchased. Footnotes: [Genesis 33:18.—Shalem is not a proper noun, but must be rendered in peace, as in Jacob’s vow (Genesis 28:21), to which it evidently refers.—A. G.] [Genesis 33:19.—Quesitah—weighed or measured. Sept., Vul., Onk., have lamb, as if stamped upon the coin; but coined money was not in use among the patriarchs.—A. G.] [Genesis 34:3.—Lit., spake to her heart.—A. G.] 4. The departure to Bethel. Genesis 35:1-8.—And God said to Jacob.—The warning to depart comes from Elohim, and hence Knobel and Delitzsch regard the section in Genesis 35 as Elohistic, though Knobel thinks the Jehovist has made additions. Without regard to this, we can easily see, that God, who is to hold the Canaanites under his fear, so that they shall not take revenge on the house of Jacob, must be called Elohim. Although Jacob had suffered nearly ten years to elapse since his return from Mesopotamia, without fulfilling the vow he had made (Genesis 28:20) at Bethel, when he fled from Esau (Keil), we are not, therefore, to infer that he had been regardless of his duty during these ten years. For a perfect security against Esau was a part of that which was to complete his happy return; but there arose a necessity between Peniel and Succoth, that he must not only have security for himself and his family, against the persecutions of Esau; but against his officious importunity, before he could go beyond Shechem with his whole train. Hence his sojourn at Succoth and Shechem. But when he is now reminded of a duty, too slowly fulfilled, the motive is found not merely in the vow which he has to fulfil, but in the circumstances occasioned by his sons, which make his longer stay at Shechem unsafe, to which we must, doubtless, add, that in the mean-while the relations and distinctions between his house and that of Esau, were more securely and permanently established. Have not the sons, who formerly were easily infatuated to render homage to their stately uncle, now manifested in an extreme way their Israelitish consciousness? The recollection (Genesis 31:30) proves that Jacob cherished the consciousness of his duty. He seems, indeed, to have gone too far in his precautionary tardiness. In seeking to entirely avoid Esau, he is entangled with the Shechemites. The call and warning also—Make an altar at Bethel—informs him that the time for his complete return home has now come.—Up to Bethel.—Bethel lay in the mountain region.—Put away the strange gods.—The shock that Jacob had experienced by the rape of Dinah, the crime of his sons, the imperilled existence of his family, and the divine warning immediately following, strengthens his sense of the holiness of God, and of the sinfulness in himself and his household, and he enjoins, therefore, an act of repentance, before he can enter upon the act of thanksgiving. He has, moreover, to confess, in reference to his house, the sins of a refined idolatry, the sins of his sons at Shechem, and his own sins of omission. His love for Rachel had, doubtless, led him weakly to tolerate her teraphim until now. But now he has grown strong and decided even in respect to Rachel. The fanatical Israelitish zeal of his sons had also a better element, which may have quickened his monotheistic feeling. Since the majority of Jacob’s servants came from the circle and influence of the Nahorites, whose image-worship was viewed by the stricter Israelitish thought as idolatry (Exodus 20; Joshua 24:2), there were probably to be found in Jacob’s house other things, besides the teraphim of Rachel, which were regarded as the objects of religious veneration. But the purification was necessary, not merely because they were now to remove to Bethel, the place of the outward revelation of Jehovah (Knobel), but because the spirit of Jehovah utters stronger demands in the conscience of Jacob, and because the approaching thanksgiving must be sanctified by a foregoing repentance. [There is good ground for the conjecture that there was a special reason for the charge now, since in the spoil of the city there would be images of gold and silver.—A.G.]—And be clean.—The acts take place in the following order: 1. The putting away of the strange gods; 2. A symbolical purification, completed, with out any doubt, through religious washings (Exodus 29:4; and similar passages); and 3. The change of garments. In some cases (Exodus 19:20) a mere washing of the garments was held to be sufficient, here the injunction is more strict, since the pollution has been of longer duration. In Knobel’s view they were to put on their best garments, but they would scarcely go on their mountain journey in such array. The changed garments express the state of complete purification, even externally.—Unto God who answered me.—He will thus fulfil his vow, and hold a thanksgiving feast with them.—And all their ear-rings.—They followed the injunction of Jacob so strictly, that they not only gave up the religious images, but also their amulets (chains), for the ear-rings were especially so used (see Winer: Real Wφrterbuch, Amulets).—And Jacob hid them.—As stripped and dead human images they are buried as the dead (Isaiah 2:20).—Under the oak (Terebinth).—Knobel: “In the Terebinth grove at Shechem, i.e., under one of its trees (comp. Genesis 12:6; Judges 6:11). According to Genesis 12:7, and other passages, it was a grove. We must, therefore, read here ηָ ?ΰַ ?μָּ ?η, as in Joshua 24:26, by the same author, to whom belongs also Exodus 32:2, or assume that there were both kinds of trees in the grove.”—And the terror of God was upon.—The genuine repentance in the house of Jacob was followed by the blessing of divine protection against the bloody revenge with which he was threatened from those who dwelled near Shechem. God himself, as the protecting God of Jacob, laid this terror upon them, which may have been introduced on the one hand, through the outrage of Shechem (Knobel); and on the other, through the fearful power of Jacob’s sons, their holy zeal, and that of their God.—Luz, which is in the land of Canaan.—The words appear to be added, in order to fix the fact, that Jacob had now accomplished his prosperous return. [The name Luz, almond tree, still recurs, as the almond tree is still flourishing. Murphy.—A. G.]—And all the people.—The number of Jacob’s servants, both in women and children, may have been considerably increased through the sudden overthrow of Shechem. Although Jacob would have restored all, as some have conjectured, the heads of the families to whom this restitution could be made were wanting.—That is Bethel.—There is no contradiction, as Knobel thinks, between this passage and Genesis 28:19, which is to be explained upon the assumption of an Elohistic account, but as (Genesis 35:15) a confirmation of the new name which Jacob gave the city. Luz is so called by the Canaanites now, as it was before, although a solitary wanderer had named the place, where he spent the night, more than twenty years before, Bethel.—El-Bethel. He names the altar itself, as he had also the altar at Shechem (Genesis 33:20) and still further the place surrounding the altar, and thus declared its consecration as a sanctuary. El, too, is here in the genitive, and to be read of God; the place is not called God of Bethel, but of the God of Bethel. He thus evidently connects this consecration with the earlier revelation of God received at Bethel.—Then Deborah died.—The nurse of Rebekah had gone with her to Hebron, but how came she here? Delitzsch conjectures that Rebekah had sent her, according to the promise (Genesis 27:45), or to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren, for their care; but we have ventured the suggestion that Jacob took her with him upon his return from a visit to Hebron. She found her peculiar home in Jacob’s house, and with his children after the death of Rebekah. For other views see Knobel, who naturally prefers to find a difficulty even here. It is a well-known method of exaggerating all the blanks in the Bible into diversities and contradictions.—Allonbachuth.—Oak of weeping. Delitzsch conjectures that perhaps Judges 4:5; 1 Samuel 16:3, refer to the same tree as a monument, a conjecture which, however, the locality itself refutes.—And God appeared unto Jacob.—The distinction between God spake and God appeared is analogous to the distinction in the mode of revelation (Genesis 12 Gen 35:1; Genesis 35:7). “He now appears to him,” Keil says, “by day in visible form: for the darkness of that former time of anguish has now given way to the clear light of salvation. The representation is incorrect, and is based upon the assumption, that the night revelations are confined to times of trouble.—Again.—Now, at his return when the vow has been paid, as before in his migration, when the vow was occasioned and made. But now Jehovah appears to him as his God, according to his vow, then shall the Lord be my God. [When he came out of Padanaram.—This explains the clause (Genesis 35:6), which is in the land of Canaan. Bethel was the last point in the laud of Canaan that was noticed in his flight from Esau. His arrival at this point indicates that he has now returned to the land of Canaan. Murphy, p. 427.—A. G.]—And blessed him.—So also Abraham was blessed repeatedly.—Thy name is Jacob?—We read the phrase according to its connection with Genesis 32:27, as a question. Then Jacob answered to the question “what is thy name? Jacob. Here God resumes the thread again, thou art Jacob? But if any one is not willing to read the words as a question, it still marks a progress. The name Israel was given to him at Peniel, here it is sealed to him. Hence it is here connected with the Messianic promise. [Murphy suggests also that the repetition of the name here implies a decline in his spiritual life between Peniel and Bethel.—A. G.]—I am God Almighty.—This self-applied title of God has the same significance here as it had in the revelation of God for Abraham (Genesis 17:1); there he revealed himself as the miracle-working God, because he had promised Abraham a son; here, however, because he promises to make from Jacob’s family a community [assembly.—A. G.] of nations. [The kahal is significant as it refers to the ultimate complete fulfilment of the promise in the true spiritual Israel.—A. G.] Knobel sees here only an Elohistic statement of the fact which has already appeared of the new naming of Jacob, which, too, he regards as a mere poetic fiction. According to this supposition, Israel here cannot be warrior of God, but, perhaps, prince with God. Even Delitzsch wavers between the assumption of an Elohistic redaction or revision, and the apprehension and recognition of new elements, which, of course, favor the idea of a new fact. To these new elements belong the libation, the drink-offering (probably of wine), poured upon the stone anointed with oil, Jacob’s own reference to this revelation of God at Bethel (Genesis 48:3), and the circumstance that Hosea 12:5, can only refer to this revelation. Under a closer observation of the development of Jacob’s faith, there cannot be any question as to the confounding the theophany at Peniel with a second theophany at Bethel. It must be observed, too, that henceforth the patriarch is sometimes called Jacob, and sometimes Israel. [This is the first mention of the drink-offering in the Bible.—A. G.] AND ETHICAL1. We view Jacob’s settlement at Succoth: a. In the light of a building of booths and houses for refreshment, after a twenty years’ servitude, and the toils and soul-conflicts connected with his journeyings (comp. the station Elim, Exodus 15:27, where Israel first rested); b. As a station where he might regain his health, so that he could come to Shechem well and in peace; c. As a station where he could tarry for a time on account of Esau’s importunity (comp. Exegetical notes). 2. Jacob’s places of abode in Canaan, in their principal stations, are the same with those of his grandfather Abraham. He settles down in the vicinity of Shechem, as formerly Abraham had done in the oak groves of Moreh (Genesis 12:6). Then he removed to Bethel, just as Abraham had gone into the same vicinity (Genesis 12:8), and after his wandering to Egypt returned here again to Bethel. At last he comes to Hebron, which had been consecrated by Abraham, as the seat of the patriachal residence. 3. For the history of Shechem in the history of the kingdom of God (see Bible Dict.) It is: a. A capital of the Hivites, and as such the scene of the brutal heathenish iniquity, in relation to the religious and moral dignity of Israel; b. The birth-place of Jewish fanaticism in the sons of Jacob; c. A chief city of Ephraim, and an Israelitish priestly city; d. The capital of the kingdom of Israel for some time; e. The principal seat of the Samaritan nationality and cultus. The acquisition of a parcel of land at Shechem by Jacob, forms a counterpart to the purchase of Abraham at Hebron. But there is an evident progress here, since he made the purchase for his own settlement during life, while Abraham barely gained a burial place. The memory of Canaan by Israel and the later conquest (comp. Genesis 48:22), is closely connected with this possession. In Jacob’s life, too, the desire to exchange the wandering nomadic life for a more fixed abode, becomes more apparent than in the life of Isaac. [Robinson’s “History of Shechem” is full and accurate. Wordsworth’s remark here, after enumerating the important events clustering around this place from Abraham to Christ, is suggestive. Thus the history of Shechem, combining so many associations, shows the uniformity of the divine plan, extending through many centuries, for the salvatian of the world by the promised seed of Abraham, in whom all nations are blessed; and for the outpouring of the spirit on the Israel of God, who are descended from the true Jacob; and for their union in the sanctuary of the Christian church; and for the union of all nations in one household in Christ, Luke 1:68.—A. G.] 4. Dinah’s history, a warning history for the daughters of Israel, and a foundation of the Old Testament limitation of the freedom of the female sex. 5. The collision between the sons of Jacob and Shechem, the son of Hamor, is a vivid picture of the collisions between the youthful forms of political despotism and hierarchal pride. Shechem acts as an insolent worldly prince, Jacob’s sons as young fanatical priests, luring him to destruction. 6. After Jacob became Israel, the just consciousness of his theocratic dignity appears manifestly in his sons, under the deformity of fanatical zeal. We may view this narrative as the history of the origin, and first original form of Jewish and Christian fanaticism. We notice first that fanaticism does not originate in and for itself, but clings to religious and moral ideas as a monstrous and misshapen outgrowth, since it changes the spiritual into a carnal motive. The sons of Jacob were right in feeling that they were deeply injured in the religious and moral idea and dignity of Israel, by Shechem’s deed. But still they are already wrong in their judgment of Shechem’s act; since there is surely a difference between the brutal lust of Ammon, who after his sin pours his hatred upon her whom he had dishonored, and Shechem, who passionately loves and would marry the dishonored maiden, and is ready to pay any sum as an atonement; a distinction which the sons of Jacob mistook, just as those of the clergy do at this day who throw all branches of the seventh commandment into one common category and as of the same heinous dye. Then we observe that Jacob’s sons justly shun a mixture with the Shechemites, although in this case they were willing to be circumcised for worldly and selfish ends. But there is a clear distinction between such a wholesale, mass conversion, from improper motives, which would have corrupted and oppressed the house of Israel, and the transition of Shechem to the sons of Israel, or the establishment of some neutral position for Dinah. But leaving this out of view, if we should prefer to maintain (what Jacob certainly did not maintain) that an example of revenge must be made, to intimidate the heathen, and to warn the future Israel against the Canaanites, still the fanatical zeal in the conduct of Jacob’s sons passed over into fanaticism strictly so called, which developed itself from the root of spiritual pride, according to its three world-historical characteristics. The first was cunning, the lie, and enticing deception. Thus the Huguenots were enticed into Paris on the night of St. Bartholomew. The second was the murderous attack and carnage. How often has this form shown itself in the history of fanaticism! This pretended sacred murder and carnage draws the third characteristic sign in its train: rapine and pillage. The possessions of the heretics, according to the laws of the middle ages, fell to the executioner of the pretended justice; and the history of the crusades against the heretics testifies to similar horrors and devastation. Jacob, therefore, justly declares his condemnation of the iniquity of the brothers, Simeon and Levi, not only at once, but upon his death-bed (Genesis 49), and it marks the assurance of the apocryphal standpoint, when the book Judith, for the purpose of palliating the crime of Judith, glorifies in a poetical strain the like fanatical act of Simeon (Genesis 9). Judith, indeed, in the trait of cunning, appears as the daughter in spirit of her ancestor Simeon. We must not fail to distinguish here in our history, in this first vivid picture of fanaticism, the nobler point of departure, the theocratic motive, from the terrible counterfeit and deformity. In this relation there seems to have been a difference between the brothers, Simeon and Levi. While the former appears to have played a chief part in the history of Joseph also (Genesis 42:24, and my article, “Simeon,” in Herzog’s “Real Encyclopedia”), and in the division of Canaan was dispersed among his brethren, the purified Levi came afterwards to be the representative of pure zeal in Israel (Exodus 32:28; Deuteronomy 33:8) and the administrator of the priesthood, i. e., the theocratic priestly first-born, by the side of Judah the theocratic political first-born. A living faith and a faithful zeal rarely develop themselves as a matter of fact without a mixture of fanaticism; “the flame gradually purifies itself from the smoke.” In all actual individual cases, it is a question whether the flame overcomes the smoke, or the smoke the flame. In the life of Christ, the Old-Testament covenant faithfulness and truth burns pure and bright, entirely free from smoke; in the history of the old Judaism, on the contrary, a dangerous mixture of fire and smoke steams over the land. And so in the development of individual believers we see how some purify themselves to the purest Christian humanity, while others, ever sinking more and more into the pride, cunning, uncharitableness and injustice of fanaticism, are completely ruined. Delitzsch: “The greatest aggravation of their sin was that they degraded the sacred sign of the covenant into the common means of their malice. And yet it was a noble germ which exploded so wickedly.” 7. This Shechemite carnage of blind and Jewish fanaticism, is reflected in a most remarkable way, as to all its several parts, in the most infamous crime of Christian fanaticism, the Parisian St. Bartholomew. [The narrative of these events at Shechem shows how impartial the sacred writer is, bringing out into prominence whatever traits of excellence there were in the characters of Shechem and Hamor, while he does not conceal the cunning, falsehood, and cruelty of the sons of Jacob. Nor should we fail to observe the connection of this narrative with the later exclusion of Simeon and Levi from the rights of the first-born, to which they would naturally have acceded after the exclusion of Reuben; and with their future location in the land of Canaan. The history furnishes one of the clearest proofs of the genuineness and unity of Genesis.—A. G.] 8. Jacob felt that, as the Israel of God, he was made offensive even to the moral sense of the surrounding heathen, through the pretended holy deed of his sons; so far so that they had endangered the very foundation of the theocracy, the kingdom of God, the old-covenant church. Fanaticism always produces the same results; either to discredit Christianity in the moral estimate of the world, and imperil its very existence by its unreasonable zeal, or to expose it to the most severe persecutions. 9. The direction of Jacob to Bethel, by the command of God, is a proof that in divine providence the true community of believers must separate itself from the condition into which fanaticism has placed it. By this emigration Israel hazards the possession at Shechem which he had just acquired. 10. Divine providence knows perfectly how to unite in one very different aims, as this narrative very clearly shows. They are then, indeed, subordinated to the one chief end. The chief end here which the providence of God has in view in the journey of Jacob from Shechem to Bethel, is the duty of Jacob to fulfil the vow he had made at Bethel. But with this the object of his removing from Shechem and of his concealed flight is closely connected. So also the purpose of purifying his house from the guilt of fanaticism, and the idolatrous image-worship. At the same time it is thus intimated that both these objects would have been secured already, if Jacob had been more in earnest in the fulfilment of his vow. 11. As Jacob intends holding a feast of praise and thanksgiving at Bethel, he enjoins upon his household first a feast of purification, i. e., a fast-day. This preparation rests upon a fundamental law of the inner spiritual life. We must first humble ourselves for our own deeds, and renounce all known evil practices, if we would celebrate with joyful praise and thanksgiving, with pure eyes and lips, the gracious deeds of God. The approach of such a feast is a foretaste of blessedness, and hence the conscience of the pious, warned by its approach, is quickened and made more tender, and they feel more deeply the necessity for a previous purification by repentance. In the Mosaic law, therefore, the purification precedes the sacrifices; the solemnities of the great day of atonement went before the joyful feast of tabernacles. Hence the Christian prepares himself for the holy Supper through a confession of his sins, and of his faith, and a vow of reformation. The grandest form in which this order presents itself is in the connection between Good-Friday and Easter, both in reference to the facts commemorated (the atonement and the new life in Christ) and in reference to the import of the solemnities. The Advent-season affords a similar time for preparation for the Christmas festival (comp. Matthew 5:23). 12. Viewed in its outward aspect, the purification of Jacob’s house was a rigid purification from religious image-worship, and the means of superstition, which the now awakened and enlightened conscience of Jacob saw to be nothing but idolatry. But these works of superstition and idolatry are closely connected with the fanaticism for which Jacob’s house must also repent. The common band or tie of idolatry and fanaticism is the mingling of the religious state and disposition with mere carnal thoughts or sentiments. There is, indeed, a fanaticism of iconoclasm, but then it is the same carnal thought, which regards the external aspect of religion as religion itself, and through this extreme view falls into an idolatrous fear of images, as if they were actual hostile powers. The marks of a sound and healthy treatment of images idolatrously venerated, are clearly seen in this history: 1. A cheerful putting away of the images at the warning word of God; but no threats or violence against the possessors of the images; 2. a seemly removal, as in the burial of the dead body. Whatever has been the object of worship should be buried tenderly, unless it was used directly for evil and cruel purposes. The sacred washings follow the removal of the images, the prelude to the religious washings of the Jews, and the first preliminary token of baptism. The washing was a symbol of the purifying from sin and guilt by repentance; and as such was connected with the change of garments, the new garments symbolizing the new disposition, as with the baptismal robes. 13. The religious earnestness with which Israel departed from Shechem set the deed of the sons of Jacob in a different light before the surrounding Canaanites. They saw in the march of Israel a host with whom the holiness and power of God was in covenant, and were restrained from pursuing them by a holy terror of God. The terror of God here indicates the fact, that the small surrounding nations received an impression from the religious and moral earnestness of the sons of Israel, far deeper and more controlling than the thirst for revenge. A like religious and moral working of fear went afterwards before the nation of Israel when it entered Canaan, and we may even view the present march of Jacob as foreshadowing that later march and conquest. But the same terror of God has at various times protected and saved the people of God, both during the old and new covenants. 14. The fulfilment of a pious vow in the life of the believer, corresponds, as the human well-doing, to the fulfilment of the divine promise. It stands in the same relation as the human prayer and amen to the word of God. The vow of baptism and confirmation is fulfilled in the pious Christian life, upon the ground of the grace and truth with which God fulfils his promises. Jacob’s vow refers to a special promise of God, at his entrance upon a difficult and dangerous journey, and hence the fulfilment of the vow was the glorification of the gracious leading of God, and of the truth and faithfulness of God to his word. It was a high point in the life of Israel, from which, while holding the feast, he looked back over his whole past history, but more especially over his long journey and wanderings. But for this very reason the feast was consecrated also to an outlook into the future. For the further history of Bethel, see Bible Dictionaries. 15. The solemn, reverent burial of Deborah, and the oak of weeping dedicated to her memory, are a proof that old and faithful servants were esteemed in the house of Jacob, as they were in Abraham’s household. As they had taken a deep interest and part in the family spirit and concerns, so they were treated in life and death as members of the family. The aged Deborah is the counterpart to the aged Eliezer. The fact that we find her here dying in the family of Jacob, opens to us a glance into the warm, faithful attachment of this friend of Rebekah, and at the same time enables us to conclude with the highest certainty that Rebekah was now dead. Deborah would not have parted from Rebekah while she was living. Delitzsch: “We may regard the heathen traditions, that the nurse of Dionysius (αָּ ?λιּ ?ϊ, Βάκχος) lies buried in Scythopolis (Plin. H. N. ch. v. 15), and that the grave of Silenos is found in the land of the Hebrews (Pausan. Eliaca, cap. 24), with which F. D. Michaelis connects the passage, as the mere distorted echoes of this narrative.” 16. We may regard the new and closing revelation and promise which Jacob received at Bethel after his thanksgiving feast, as the confirmation and sealing of his faith, and thus it forms a parallel to the confirmation and sealing of the faith of Abraham upon Moriah (Genesis 22:15). But it is to be observed here that Jacob is first sealed after having purified his faith from any share in the guilt of fanaticism. And the same thing precisely may be said of the sealing of Abraham, after he had freed himself from the fanatical prejudice that Jehovah could in a religious sense literally demand the sacrifice of a human life, i. e., the literal killing, he became certain of his life of faith, of the promise of God, and of his future. Thus here the flame of Israel is completely purified from the smoke. But here, again, it lies in the very law of the inward life, that God cannot seal the faith from which the impure elements have not been purged. Otherwise fanaticism, too, would be confirmed and sanctioned. Hence the assurance of faith will always waver and fluctuate, even to its disappearance in any one, in the measure in which he combines impure and carnal elements with his faith, and then holds it more and more as a confidence of a higher grade. Enthusiastic moments, mighty human acts of boldness, party earnestness and temerity, will not compensate for the profound, heavenly assurance of faith, an established life of faith, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit. True it is, that the precondition of sealing is justification, the heart experience of the peace of God, of reconciliation by faith; but this gift of God the Christian must keep pure by steadfastness in the Lord, even in the midst of temptation, which is often a temptation to fanaticism (see the Epistle of James), and then he is confirmed. In our estimate of the stages of confirmation, it is not at all strange that Jacob should have the name of Israel, first given to him at Peniel, here confirmed to him. Henceforth he is more frequently called Israel, for the new life in him has become a new nature, the prominent and ruling feature of his being. 17. The renewed Messianic promise assured to Jacob (Genesis 35:11). 18. From the fact that Jacob erected a stone pillar at Bethel, on which he poured a drink-offering, and then oil, Knobel conjectures, without the least ground, that the Elohist here introduces the sacrifice in this form, and knows nothing of an altar and of animal sacrifices (p. 274). But it is evident that this pillar was taken from the altar before mentioned (Genesis 35:7), and that this drink-offering must therefore be distinguished from the sacrifice upon that altar. As in the Wrestling of Jacob, the distinction between the outward and inward aspects of the right of the first-born, and thus also of the priesthood, first comes into view, so here, also, we have the distinction between the peculiar sacrifice in the strict sense and the thank-offering. The stone designates (Genesis 28:20) the ideal house of God, and in this significance must be distinguished from the altar. Through the thank-offering Jacob consecrates the enjoyment of his prosperity to the Lord; through the oil he raises the stone, as well as his thanksgiving, to a lasting, sacred remembrance. [Kurtz remarks here: “The thirty years’ journey from Bethel to Bethel is now completed. The former residence at Bethel stands to the present somewhat as the beginning to the end, the prophecy to the fulfilment; for, the unfolding of the purpose of salvation, so far as that could be done in the life of Jacob, has now reached its acme and relative completion. There the Lord appeared to him in a dream, here in his waking state, and the dream is the prophetic type of the waking reality. There God promised to protect and bless him, and bring him back to this land—a promise now fulfilled. There Jacob made his vow, here he pays it. There God consecrates him to be the bearer of salvation, and makes the threefold promise of the blessing of salvation. So far as the promise could be fulfilled in Jacob, it is now fulfilled; the land of promise is open before him, he has already obtained possession in part, and the promised seed reaches its first stage of completeness in the last son of Rachel, giving the significant number twelve, and the idea of salvation attains its development, since Jacob has become Israel. But this fulfilment is only preliminary and relative, and in its turn becomes a prophecy of the still future fulfilment. Hence God renews the blessing, showing that the fulfilment lies in the future still; hence God renews his new name Israel, which defines his peculiar position to salvation and his relation to God, showing that Jacob has not yet fully become Israel; the promise and the name are correlates—the one will be realized when the other is fulfilled. Hence, too, Jacob renews the name Bethel, in which the peculiarity of the relation of God to Jacob is indicated, his dwelling in and among the seed of Jacob, and the renewing of this name proclaims his consciousness that God would still become in a far higher measure, El-beth-el.”—A. G.] AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical remarks. Jacob’s settlement at Shechem: 1. The departure thither from Succoth; 2. the settlement itself: 3. the new departure to Bethel.—The settlement itself: 1. How promising! happy return. Prosperous acquisition of the parcel of land. Peaceful relations with the Shechemites. Religious toleration. 2. How seriously endangered (through Jacob’s carelessness. He does not return early enough to Bethel to fulfil his vow. Probably he even considers the altar at Shechem a substitute. His love for Rachel makes him tolerant to her teraphim, and consequently to the teraphim of his house generally. His polygamy is perhaps the occasion of his treating the children with special indulgence). 3. How fearfully disturbed! Dinah’s levity and dishonor. Importunity of the Shechemites; the carnage of his sons. The existence of his house endangered. 4. The happy conclusion caused by Jacob’s repentance and God’s protection.—The first great sorrow prepared for the patriarch by his children.—Dinah’s conduct.—The dangerous proposals of friendship by the Shechemites.—The brothers, Simeon and Levi. Their right. Their wrong.—Fanaticism in its first biblical form, and its historic manifestations.—Its contagious power. All, or at least the majority, of Jacob’s sons, are swept along by its influence.—Jacob’s repentance, or the feast of purification of his house.—How the union of repentance and faith is reflected in the sacred institutions. In both sacraments, in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, in the connection of sacred festivals, especially in the connection between Good-Friday and Easter.—The thanksgiving at Bethel.—Here, too, the feast of joy is followed by deep mourning and funeral obsequies.—Deborah: 1. We know very little of her; and yet, 2. we know very much of her.—The greatness of true and unselfish love in the kingdom of God.—The nobility of free service.—Jacob’s confirmation—confirmed as Israel.—The renewed promise. First Section. The settlement at Succoth. Genesis 33:17. Starke: He, no doubt, visited his father during this interval.—Gerlach: (On some accounts we believe that Succoth was situated on the right side of Jordan, in the valley of Succoth, in which lay the city of Beth-Shean. Succoth are literally huts made of boughs, here folds made of boughs of trees and bushes.) Second Section. The settlement at Shechem. Genesis 33:18-20. Starke: (Shechem, Quesita. The Septuagint transl., lambs; Chald., pearls. Others understand money. Epiph., de pond. et mons., asserts that Abraham introduced the art of coining money in Canaan). Schrφder: Von Raumer considers Shalem as the more ancient name of Shechem. Robinson regards it as a proper name, and finds it now in the village of Shalem, some distance east from Shechem. Third Section. Dinah. Genesis 34:1-31. Starke: Dinah’s walk: without doubt, taken from motives of curiosity.—Contrary to all his expectations (for a peaceful, quiet time of worship, etc.), Jacob’s heart is most keenly mortified by Dinah’s disgrace, and the carnage committed by Simeon and Levi.—He who wishes to shun sin, must avoid also occasions of sin.—Curiosity is a great fault in the female sex, and has caused many a one to fall. Schrφder: (Val. Herb.) A gadding girl, and a lad who has never gone beyond the precincts of home, are both good for nothing (Titus 2:5). a. The rape. Starke: (2 Samuel 13:12) By force (2 Samuel 13:12-14). (Judging from Dinah’s levity, it was not without her consent.)—Cramer: Rape a sin against the sixth and seventh commandments.—What a disgrace, that great and mighty lords, instead of being an example to their subjects in chastity and honor, should surpass them in a dissolute and godless deportment.—Gerlach: Genesis 35:7. Fool and folly are terms used frequently in the Old Testament to denote the perpetration of the greatest crimes. The connection of the thought is this, that godlessness and vice are the greatest folly, etc.—Schrφder: Josephus says, Dinah went to a fair or festival at Shechem. The person that committed the rape was the most distinguished (Genesis 35:19) son (the crown-prince, so to speak) of the ruling sovereign.—The sons of Jacob, for the first time, transfer the spiritual name of their father to the house of Jacob, etc. They are conscious, therefore, of the sacredness of their families. The sharp antithesis between Israel and Canaan enters into their consciousness (Baumgarten). b. The proposal of marriage. Starke: Although it is just and proper to strive to restore fallen virgins to honor by asking their parents or friends to give them in marriage, and thus secure their legal position and rights, yet it is putting the cart before the horse.—Little children bring light cares, grown children heavy cares. (God afterwards prohibited (Deuteronomy 7:3) them to enter into any friendly relations with the heathen nations.) c. The fanatical revenge of Jacob’s sons. Starke: Take care that you do not indulge in wrath and feelings of revenge.—Hall: Smiling malace is generally fatal.—Even the most bloody machinations are frequently gilded with religion.—Freiberger Bibel: Hamor, the ruling prince, is a sad example of an unfaithful and interested magistracy, who, under the pretence of the common welfare, pursues his own advantage and interests, while he tries to deceive his subjects.—The Shechemites, therefore, did not adopt the Jewish religion from motives of pure love or a proper regard for it, but from self-interest and love of gain.—Cramer: It is no child’s play, to treat religion in a thoughtless and careless way, and to change from one form to another.—One violent son may bring destruction upon a whole city and country.—Hall: The aspect of external things constrains many more to a profession of religion, than conscience (John 6:26). But how will it be with those who do not use the sacraments from proper motives?—Strictures upon the apology for this deed in the book of Judith, and by others.—Cramer: God sometimes punishes one folly by another.—Hall: To make the punishment more severe than the sin, is no less unjust than to injure.—What Shechem perpetrated alone, is charged upon all the citizens in common, because it seems that they were pleased with it.—Lange: This was a preliminary judgment of God upon the Shechemites, thus to testify what the Canaanites in future had to expect from Jacob’s descendants.—Osiander: When magistrates sin, their subjects are generally punished with them. They evidently do not present circumcision as an entirely new divine service, as an initiation into the covenant with the God of Israel, but only as an external custom.—It is remarkable here, how adroitly Hamor and Shechem represent to the people as pertaining to the common advantage, what was only for their personal interest.—We here meet the wild Eastern vindictiveness in all its force. Moreover, the carnal heathen view, that all the people share in the act of the prince.—Schrφder: We have here the same sad mixture of flesh and spirit which we have seen at the beginning, in Jacob.—Taube: Sins of the world and sins of the saints in their connection, d. Jacob’s judgment upon this crime. Starke: (Jacob, no doubt, sent back all the captives with their cattle.)—(It seems that, while not altogether like Eli, he did not have his sons under a strict discipline, since his family was so large.)—For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God (James 1:20).—Gerlach: How miraculously God protected this poor, despised (?) company from mingling with the heathen on the one hand, and from persecution on the other.—Schrφder: Judging from this test, what would have become of Jacob’s descendants, if divine grace had left them to themselves in such a way (Calvin)? It was not due to themselves, certainly, that they were not entirely estranged from the kingdom of God, etc. Fourth Section. The departure to Bethel. Genesis 35:1-8. Starke: Because the true church was in Jacob’s house, God would not permit it to be wholly destroyed, as Jacob, perhaps, conjectured.—Change your garments.—Which are yet sprinkled with the blood of the Shechemites.—Osiander: Legitimate vows, when it is in our power to keep them, must be fulfilled (Deuteronomy 23:21).—Cramer: The Christian Church may err, and easily be led to superstition; pious bishops, however, are to recognize these errors, and to do away with them. They are to purify churches, houses, and servants, and point them to the word of God. Repentance and conversion of the soul is the proper purification of sins.—Bibl. Tub.: Is our worship to please God, then our hearts must be cleansed, and the strange gods, our wicked lusts, must be eradicated.—The proper reformation of a church consists, not only in the extirpation of idolatry and false doctrines, but also in the reformation of the wrong courses of life (Nehemiah 10:29). Genesis 35:8. All faithful servants, both males and females, are to be well cared for when they become sick or feeble, and to be decently buried after their death.—Cramer: Christ is the pillar set up, both in the Old and New Testament; he is anointed with the oil of gladness, and with him only we find the true Bethel, where God speaks with us.—Gerlach: Genesis 35:1. His worship of God connects itself with this critical point in his history. As in the Old Test., “The God of peace and of comfort,” etc., is frequently mentioned, so also the faith of the patriarch clings to God in his peculiar personal revelations. It is the God who revealed himself at Bethel. (Still the name, El-Bethel, given with the first revelation at Bethel, includes the whole journey of Jacob until his return to Bethel.)—Schrφder: Jehovah has accomplished what he has said.—We can only approach the house of God in faith, when we have first penitentially put away from our houses all strange gods. (Michaelis finds here the first and oldest trace of the baptism of proselytes.) I consider that Deborah, a wise and pious matron, was esteemed, so to speak, by the servants as a grandmother, who served and consoled Jacob (Luther).—Taube: The house of the patriarch Jacob as a mirror of Christian family life. Fifth Section. The sealing of the covenant between God and the patriarch at Bethel. Genesis 35:9-15. Starke: As God appears to Abraham ten times, so he appears to Jacob six times (Genesis 28:12; Genesis 31:11; Genesis 31:13; Genesis 32:1-2; Genesis 32:24; Genesis 35:1; the present passage; and Genesis 46:2).—Schrφder: Now that Jacob has become Israel in its fullest sense, the renewal of the promise connected with the conferring of the name has a far greater signification than before (Hengstenberg). Genesis 35:13. God descends into us, whenever he gives us a token of his presence. Here, therefore, we have a designation of the end of the vision (Calvin).—For the symbolical signification of oil, see Bδhr.—As Israel, as patriarchal ancestor, the foundation-stone of the spiritual temple, he lays the first (?) stone to the building which his descendants are to complete. (Drechsler: So much is certain, that the first idea of a definite house of God is connected with the Bethel of Jacob.) Footnotes: [The verb πβִ ?μεּ, appeared, is here plural—one of the few cases in which Elohim takes the plural verb.—A. G.] [Murphy says, from this time the multiplication of Israel is rapid. In twenty-five years after this time he goes down into Egypt with seventy souls, and two hundred and ten years after that Israel goes out of Egypt numbering about one million eight hundred thousand. A nation and a congregation of nations, such as were then known in the world, had at the last date come of him, and “kings” were to follow in due time.—A. G.] [Among the continental churches confirmation is regarded in much the same light as we regard the open reception of the baptized members of the church, to their first communion; when they are said to assume for themselves the vows which were made for them in their baptism.—A. G.] SEVENTH SECTIONDeparture from Bethel. Benjamin’s birth. Rachel’s death. Genesis 35:16-2016 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath [fruit, the fruitful]: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor. 17And it came to pass, when she was in hard labor, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also. 18And it came to pass as her soul was in departing, (for she died,) that she called his name Ben-oni [my son of pain or sorrow]: but his father called him Benjamin [son of the right hand]. 19And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Beth-lehem [house of bread]. 20And Jacob set a pillar [monument] upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day. , AND And they journeyed.—The residence at Bethel, enjoined upon him, had reached its end with the founding of the altar, and the completed thanksgiving.—And there was but a little way.—An unknown distance. The Rabbinical explanation, “as far as one could plough in a day,” is senseless, for in one direction they could plough miles, but in ploughing a field, the breadth ploughed depends upon the length of the field, but in any case is too small to be the measure of distances. The Sept., misunderstanding the passage, makes it the name of a place. [In the 19th verse, however, the Sept. has hippodrome.—A. G.] Delitzsch conjectures a distance equal to a Persian parasang.—And Rachel travailed.—The wish she had uttered at Joseph’s birth, that God would give her another son, now, after a long period, perhaps sixteen or seventeen years, is about to be fulfilled, but it caused her death. Jacob was now old, and Rachel certainly was no longer young; moreover, she had not. borne children for many years. Delitzsch reckons Jacob’s age at one hundred and six, and Rachel’s at about fifty years.—When she was in hard labor.—The Piel and Hiphil forms of χָ ?ωָׁ ?δ denote not merely heavy birth-pains, but the very birth-throes and anguish.—The midwife, i. e., a maid-servant skilful and trusted in this matter.—Thou shalt have a son.—The last consolation for Rachel. She dies during the final fulfilment of the strongest wish of her life. [As her soul was departing, denotes not the annihilation of the soul, but the change of state and place. It presupposes, of course, its perpetual existence; at least, its existence after death.—A. G.] In this sense we must explain the giving of the name. The emphasis in the son of my pain, must be laid upon son. From her very death-anguish, a son is born to her. Knobel explains the name to mean son of my vanity, ΰεο, because his birth caused her “annihilation,” i. e., death. In this explanation, the child becomes the father, i. e., originator of her “annihilation,” but is not the son. The son of her pain, on the contrary, denotes the great gain of her sorrow; she dies, as it were, sacrificing herself; and, indeed, the once childless, now in childbed.—But his father called him.—Against the interpretation of Benjamin, as the son of prosperity, may be urged the ιξιο in the Hebrew, which cannot with any certainty be said to mean prosperity; and further, that this would have been in harsh contrast with the dying word of the mother. Delitzsch, therefore, holds that the son of the right hand, may mean the son of the south, since the other sons were born in the north. Some derive the name son of prosperity from the fact that Jacob had now reached a happy independence, or from the fact that Benjamin filled up the prosperous number twelve (see Delitzsch). But Benjamin might be regarded as the son of the strong right hand, since he fills up the quiver of the twelve mighty sons (Psalms 127:5). We may bring into view, further, the relation of the name to the state of rest which Jacob now believed that he had attained. The tired wanderer now prepares himself as a patriarch to rest, and his youngest favorite must take the place at his right hand. But he is not thereby designated as his successor. Jacob seems, in some erroneous way, for a long time to have had Joseph in his eye for this position; still, not with the same self-will with which Isaac had chosen Esau. The Samaritan explanation, son of days, ιξιν, i. e., of his old days or age, we pass with a mere allusion. Some suggest, also, that Jacob called him Benjamin, so that he might not be constantly reminded of his loss by the name Ben-oni. This lays the ground for the change of the name, but not for the choice of Benjamin.—In the way to Ephrath.—Ephrath (from τָ ?ψָ ?δ) is the fruitful, a name which corresponds with the added name Bethlehem (house of bread). The distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is about two hours, in a southerly direction, on the road to Hebron. About a half-hour on this side of Bethlehem, some three hundred steps to the right of the road, there lies, in a small recess, the traditional grave of Rachel. This “Kubbet-Rahil (Rachel’s grave), is merely a Moslem wely, or the grave of some saint, a small, square stone structure, with a dome, and within a grave of the ordinary Mohammedan form (Robinson: “Res.” vol. i. p. 322), which has been recently enlarged by the addition of a square court on the east side, with high walls and arches (later “Res.” p. 373).” Keil. We must distinguish between the old tradition as to the locality, and the present structure. Knobel infers, from Micah 4:8, that Jacob’s next station, the tower of the flock, was in the vicinity of Jerusalem. In that case Rachel’s grave, and even Ephrath, must be sought north of Jerusalem, according to 1 Samuel 10:2, and the addition—which is Bethlehem—must be viewed as a later interpretation. In Micah, however, in the passage which speaks of the tower of the flock, or the stronghold of the congregation, the words seem to be used in a symbolical sense. But the passage, 1 Samuel 10:2, is of greater importance. If Rama, the home of Samuel, lay to the north of Jerusalem, then Rachel’s grave must have been in that region, and the more so, since it is said to have been within the limits of Benjamin, whose boundaries did not run below Jerusalem. We refer for further discussions to Knobel, p. 275, and Delitzsch [and Mr. Grove, in Smith’s Bible Dict.—A. G.] We are inclined to regard it as probable that the Benjamites, at the time of the conquest of the country, brought the bones of Rachel from Ephrath, into their own region, and that since then, there have been two monuments of Rachel, one marking the place of her death, and her first burial; the other, the place where they laid her bones, in the home of her Ben-oni. Similar transportations of the remains of the blessed occur in the history of Israel. In this view we may explain more clearly how Rachel (Jeremiah 40:1) bewailed her children at Rama, than it is by the usual remark, that the exiled were gathered at Rama.—Unto this day.—From this notice Delitzsch infers that Genesis was not completed until after the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan. Keil says this remark would have been in place within ten or twenty years after the erection of the pillar. Still, he appears to have felt that a term of from ten to twenty years could make no distinction between older and more recent times, and hence adds in a note, if this pillar was actually preserved until the time of the conquest, i. e., over four hundred and fifty years, this remark may be viewed as an interpolation of a later writer. It belongs, doubtless, to the last redaction or revision of Genesis. Still there are possible ways in which the Israelites even in the desert could have received information as to the existence of this monument, although this is less probable. [Kurtz defends the genuineness of the passage, but locates the grave of Rachel in the vicinity of Rama, on the grounds that the announcement here of a stretch of land is indefinite, and further, that the designation of the place by the distant Bethlehem, arose from the fact that the tower of the flock in Bethlehem was the next station of Jacob, and his residence for a considerable period; and lastly, that Jeremiah 31:15 clearly points to the vicinity of Rama. Keil urges in favor of his own view, that the existence of a monument of this kind, in a strange land, whose inhabitants could have had no interest in preserving it, even for the space of ten or twenty years, might well have appeared worthy of notice.—A. G.] AND ETHICAL1. Rachel’s wish; Rachel’s death; but her death at the same time her last gain in this life. 2. Rachel’s confinement at Bethlehem, viewed in its sad and bright aspects: 1. The sad aspect: A confinement upon a journey; a death in the presence of the goal of the journey so long desired; a parting by death from the desired child. 2. The joyful aspect: A son in whom her old wish is now fulfilled (see Genesis 30:24; also the passionate word, “Give me children, or else I die,” Genesis 30:1); a new enriching of Jacob, and indeed, to the completion of the number twelve; the triumph that she dies as the mother of a child. 3. Rachel’s death and grave. A preliminary consecration of the region of Bethlehem. Through her tragic end she becomes the ancestress of the suffering children of Israel generally, even of the children of Leah (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:17). Her grave probably at, Ephrath and Rama at the same time. Rachel as the first example mentioned in the Scriptures of a mother dying in travail, and a comforter to mothers dying in similar circumstances. The solemn aspect of such a death (Genesis 3:16). Its beauty and transfiguration (1 Timothy 2:15). 4. The heroic struggles, and struggling places of travailing women. Through these painful struggles they form the beautiful complement to the manly struggles in sacred wars. While the latter are institutes of death, the former are the institutes of life. 5. The first midwife who appears in the region of sacred history, is a worthy counterpart to the first nurse, Deborah. She shows the vocation of a midwife, to support the laboring with sympathy, to encourage her, and to strengthen her by announcing the birth of a child, especially of a son, or the announcement of the beginning of the new life. 6. The name Benoni, on Rachel’s lips, was not an utterance of despair, but of a deeply painful feeling of victory. The desired fruit of her womb came out of these death-struggles. Jacob’s naming connects itself with this also: the son of my right hand, companionship of my rest, support, joy of my old age. It is true, indeed, even in the sense of the usually received antithesis, that every new-born child is a Benoni, and a Benjamin; Benoni in Adam, Benjamin in Christ. 7. The youngest children of a family, Benjamin’s companions; and frequently described as Benjamins, they stand under the blessing of a ripe old age, under the protection of older and stronger brothers and sisters; but on the other hand, the danger that the paternal discipline should give way to grandfather-like indulgence, great as it may be in particular cases, is scarcely brought into view here. They embrace, as it were, in themselves, the whole past of the family and the most distant future. 8. Bethlehem here enters, clouded by Jacob’s mourning; afterwards enlightened by David, the Old-Testament hero out of Judah, and finally glorified by the fulfilment of Israel’s hope. 9. The following verse shows how Jacob, as the Israel of God, rises from his grief over Rachel’s death. 10. As her soul was departing. As Starke suggests, we have thus an indication that we are to regard death as the separation of the soul and body. For if, indeed, πֶ ?τωׁ, the soul, is life also, so, and much more, is the human life, soul. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical remarks. It requires no special notice that this section is peculiarly adapted for texts at the burial of women dying ir confinement, at the transactions over consecrated graves, and similar occasions.—Rachel’s death upon the journey.—Rachel’s journey home in a two-fold sense.—Our life a pilgrimage.—As we are all born during the pilgrimage, so we must all die upon our pilgrimage.—We reach a fixed, permanent goal only upon the other side. Benoni and Benjamin: 1. The similarity of the names; 2. the difference between them.—Jacob at Rachel’s grave.—His silent grief.—His uttered faith. Starke: An enunciation of Jacob’s sorrows. It is connected with the names: Simeon, Levi, Dinah, Rachel, Reuben, and Bilhah. Then follows Isaac’s death, and afterwards Joseph’s disappearance; the famine, etc. Hence he says: “Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been” (Genesis 47:9). (An allegorical comparison of Rachel, at this birth, with the Jewish Church. As Rachel died at the birth of Benjamin, so the Jewish Church at the birth of Christ.)—Cramer: The birth-throes are a cross and a reminder of our sins (Genesis 3:16). God recognizes this, and gives his aid (John 16:21).—But if the divinely-blessed mother, or her fruit, should die, their happiness is not put in peril (1 Timothy 2:15).—Christian midwives should encourage women in this fearful crisis.—Women in this state should diligently prepare themselves for death.—Osiander: The dead bodies of the pious are not to be treated as those of irrational animals, but must be decently buried, that we may thus testify our hope in the resurrection from the dead (Proverbs 10:7).—Schrφder: Bethlehem is called now Beit-Lahm; i. e., meat-house. Benjamin a type of the Messiah, who, in his humiliation, was a man of sorrows, and in his exaltation a son of the right hand of God (Drechsler). [Wordsworth here brings out several striking analogies between Benjamin and St. Paul, basing them upon the word ἔκτρωμα, which the apostle applies to himself “as one born out of due time,” properly, “the child whose birth is the cause of his mother’s death.” Paul speaks of himself as one thus born, and thus seems to invite us to compare him with Benjamin. P. 145.—A. G.] Footnotes: [λִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊΞδָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, a space or stretch of ground. How long is unknown; see Genesis 48:7; 2 Kings 5:19. Josephus renders a furlong; the Sept., “somewhat longer distance.”—A. G.] [Lit., for this is also to thee a son.—A. G.] EIGHTH SECTIONThe station at the tower of Edar. Reuben’s crime. Jacob’s sons. His return to Isaac and Hebron (Rebekah no longer living). Isaac’s death. His burial by Esau and Jacob. Genesis 35:21-2921 And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar [flock]. 22And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: 23The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob’s first-born, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun: 24The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin: 25And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: 26And the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid; Gad, and Asher. These are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-aram [Mesopotamia]. 27And Jacob came unto Isaac his father, unto Mamre, unto the city of Arbah (which is Hebron) where Abraham and Isaac sojourned. 28And the days of Isaac were an hundred and fourscore years. 29And Isaac gave up the ghost and died, and was gathered unto his people, being old and full of days; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. AND Gen_35:21-26.—Beyond the tower of Edar.—Had Rachel’s original burial taken place at Rama, we could not well have supposed that Jacob, who here, as Israel, rises above his grief for his loved wife, should have made his next station at Jerusalem. Moreover, the region immediately around Jerusalem was probably not suitable for a nomadic station. We adhere, however, to the tradition which fixes Rachel’s death north of Bethlehem, and the next station of Jacob, below Bethlehem, at the tower of Edar. The tower of the flock is a tower built for the protection of the flocks, and as their gathering place, in a region peculiarly fitted for pasturage (2 Kings 18:8; 2 Chronicles 26:10; 2 Chronicles 27:4 f.). Jerome and the common tradition locate it south of Bethel, and not far from that place. From this tower Jacob could have easily and frequently visited his father Isaac, without prematurely mingling his household and possessions with the household economy at Hebron, which it is possible may yet have stood in strict relations with Esau. Such an absence might have favored Reuben’s criminal purpose and act.—Reuben went.—Bilhah was Rachel’s handmaid, not Leah’s; nevertheless, Reuben was guilty of incest; of a lustful deed of impiety, which occasioned his loss of the birthright (Genesis 49:4). The characteristic weakness of Reuben, which appears in its praiseworthy aspect in other cases (see history of Joseph), here exposes him to the force of temptation.—And Israel heard it.—As if he was absent. Was he at Hebron, and does Reuben, as the temporary head of the household, assume special privileges to himself? Israel heard it, that he might reprove it in a suitable way, in his spiritual maturity, quiet, and dignity.—Now the sons of Jacob were twelve.—Jacob’s sons must also become sons of Israel through a divine discipline and training. They are, however, the rich blessing of the promise, with which he returns to his father, and are here enumerated by name after their several mothers, as if in presenting them to their grandfather. As a whole, they are said to have been born in Padan-aram; although this was not strictly true of Benjamin. We are thus prepared already, and introduced to Isaac’s point of view, for whom, it is true, Jacob brings all his sons from a strange land. Thus the exile Jacob returns home to his father Isaac, laden with the richest blessing of the promise. The dark days of this patriarch are followed by this joyful reappearance of the exile. Genesis 35:27-29.—Unto Mamre (see history of Abraham, above).—Isaac has thus changed his residence to Hebron during the absence of Jacob.—An hundred and fourscore years.—With the conclusion of the life of Isaac, the narrative hastens to the immediately following events (Genesis 37). Jacob was born in the sixtieth year of Isaac’s life (Genesis 25:26), and was thus one hundred and twenty years old when Isaac died. But when he was presented to Pharaoh in Egypt, he was one hundred and thirty years old (Genesis 47:9). Of this time there were seven fruitful and two unfruitful years since Joseph’s exaltation in Egypt (Genesis 45:6), and thirteen years between the selling of Joseph and his exaltation, for he was sold when seventeen (Genesis 37:2), and was thirty when he was raised to honor and power. Hence we must take twenty-three years from the one hundred and thirty years of Jacob, to determine his age at the time Joseph was sold; which is thus one hundred and seven. “Isaac, therefore, shared the grief of Jacob over the loss of his son for thirteen years.” In a similar way, Abraham had witnessed and sympathized with the long unfruitful marriage of Isaac. But Isaac could see in these sorrows of Jacob the hand of God, who will not allow that any one should anticipate him in a self-willed preference of a favorite son.—Old and full of days.—He recognized the close of his life-experiences and trials, and, like Abraham, departed in peace.—And Esau and Jacob buried him.—It is a beautiful, genuine historic feature, that Esau here precedes Jacob, while Isaac is mentioned before Ishmael at the burial of Abraham. Could we draw any inference from this, as to the external inheritance, the assertion of Keil, that Jacob heired the earthly goods of Isaac, is far too strong and confident. It is certain, indeed, that Esau received a considerable portion, and in external affairs merely he took a prominent part, to which the homage Jacob rendered him had given him an indirect claim. A certain degree of separation had already been made between the spiritual and earthly birthright. Isaac was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 49:31). AND ETHICAL1. Jacob’s last station at the tower of Edar is also marked by a new heart-sorrow. 2. Reuben’s crime probably occasioned by his authority over the household during his father’s absence with Isaac at Hebron. The cause of his forfeiture of the right of the first-born (Genesis 49). 3. The number, twelve, of the sons of Jacob, in its typical significance. Twelve, the number of a life completed, or expanded to its full limits and development. Thus in the house of Ishmael and of Esau, but in a higher sense in the house of Israel. Hence the twelve sons are the types of the twelve tribes (Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33), and the twelve tribes of the theocracy types of the twelve apostles of Christ, and these, again, types of the twelve fundamental forms of the New Testament Church (Revelation 21:12 f.). That the number four is a factor of the number twelve, is here intimated by the four mothers; four is the number of the world, three the number of the sanctuary and of the spirit; and thus twelve is the number of a fulness or completeness, consecrated to God. 4. Jacob’s return to Isaac with his sons, the last ray of sunlight for the aged and blinded patriarch. This belonged to the complete satisfaction of the old man’s life, after which he could go to his people “full of days,” or satisfied. Thus Jacob’s soul was once more revived, when he saw the wagons sent by Joseph. 5. The brotherly union of Jacob and Esau at the burial of Isaac, a beautiful token of peace and reconciliation at his end. [“Esau and Jacob having shaken hands over the corpse of their father, their paths diverge to meet no more.” Delitzsch.—A. G.] AND See Doctrinal paragraphs. Isaac’s long and patient waiting for Jacob’s return home, during the night of his blindness.—Light at the evening-time.—Isaac and Simeon (Luke 2).—Esau and Jacob, or the reconciling, peace-making efficacy of death and the grave.—Starke: Genesis 35:22. (The Jewish Rabbis make this a small crime, and say Reuben overthrew the bed, when he saw that, after Rachel’s death, it was not borne into his mother Leah’s tent, but into that of Bilhah; because he inferred that Jacob loved Bilhah more than Leah).—Osiander: In the true Church also there arise at times great scandals.—Gerlach: Comp. 2 Samuel 16:22. Calwer Handbuch: Isaac reached the greatest age among the three patriarchs.—Schröder: Bilhah proved unfaithful; Reuben committed incest.—Jacob’s painful silence.—When he departed, nothing; when he returned, all (Drechsler).—Details as to the number twelve, also in regard to Jacob.—[Wordsworth: The record of these sins in the history is an evidence of the veracity of the historian. If it had been a human composition, designed to do honor to the Hebrew nation, assuredly it would have said little of these flagrant iniquities of Simeon, Levi, Dinah, and Reuben.—A. G.] Footnotes: [Genesis 35:22.—The break in the MS. here, and the Masoretic note, “that there is a hiatus in the middle of the verse,” suits the sense better than the division into verses. It may have been, as Wordsworth suggests, designed to express the unutterable feelings of Jacob when he heard of this horrible act of his eldest son.—A. G.] NINTH SECTIONEsau’s Family Record and the Horites. Genesis 36:1-431 Now these are the generations of Esau [ hairy, rough], who is Edom [red]. 2Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah [ornament, grace] the daughter of Elon [oak-grove, oak, strength] the Hittite, and Aholibamah [tent of the sacred height] the daughter of Anah [answering] the daughter of Zibeon [Gesenius: colored; Fόrst: wild, robber] the Hivite; 3And Bashemath [pleasant fragrance] Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebajoth [lofty place]. 4And Adah bare to Esau, Eliphaz [strength of God]; and Bashemath bare Reuel [friend of God]; 5And Aholibamah bare Jeush [or Jehus, gatherer], and Jaalam [Fόrst: mountain-climber], and Korah [smooth]: these are the sons of Esau, which were born unto him in the land of Canaan. 6And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance which he had got in the land of Canaan; and went into the country from the face of his brother Jacob. 7For their riches were more than that they might dwell together: and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them, because of their cattle. 8Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir [rough, wild mountain-region]: Esau is Edom. 9And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites, in mount Seir: 10These are the names of Esau’s sons; Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau; Reuel the son of Bashemath the wife of Esau. 11And the sons of Eliphaz were, Teman [right side, southlander], Omar [Gesenius: eloquent; Fόrst: mountain-dweller], Zepho [watch], and 12Gatam [Gesenius: puny, thin; Fόrst: burnt, dry valley] and Kenaz [hunting]. And Timna [restraint] was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son: and she bare to Eliphaz, Amalek: these were 13the sons of Adah, Esau’s wife. And these are the sons of Reuel; Nahath [going down, evening], and Zerah [rising, morning], Shammah [wasting; Fόrst: report, call], and Mizzah [Gesenius: fear; Fόrst: perhaps joy, rejoicing]: these were the sons of Bashemath, Esau’s wife. 14And these were the sons of Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, Esau’s wife: and she bare to Esau, Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah. 15These were dukes [princes, heads of families, chiefs] of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz, the first-born son of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, 16Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek: these are the dukes that came of Eliphaz, in the land of Edom: these were the sons [grandsons] of Adah. 17And these are the sons of Reuel, Esau’s son; duke Nahath, duke Zerah, duke Shammah, duke Mizzah: these are the dukes that came of Reuel, in the land of Edom: these are the sons [grandsons] of Bashemath, Esau’s wife. 18And these are the sons of Aholibamah, Esau’s wife; duke Jeush, duke Jaalam, duke Korah: these were the dukes that came of Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau’s 19wife. These are the sons of Esau (who is [prince of] Edom) and these are their dukes. 20These are the sons of Seir the Horite [cave-dweller, troglodyte], who inhabited [primitive dweller?] the land; Lotan [= covering, veiled], and Shobal [traveller, wanderer], and Zibeon, 21and Anah, And Dishon [gazelle], and Ezer [Gesenius: store; Fόrst: connection], and Dishan [same as Dishon]: these are the dukes of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom. 22And the children of Lotan were Hori [troglodytes], and Heman [Gesenius: destruction; Fόrst: commotion]: and Lotan’s sister was Timna. 23And the children of Shobal were these; Alvan [Gesenius: unjust; Fόrst: lofty], and Manahath [rest], and Ebal [Fόrst: bald 24 mountain], Shepho [bare, desert], and Onam [strong, robust]. And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah [screamer, hawk], and Anah [singer, answerer]: this was that Anah that found the mules [hot springs] in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father. 25And the children of Anah were these: Dishon, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah. 26And these are the children of Dishon; Hemdan [pleasant], and Eshban[Gesenius: insight; Fόrst: thoughtful hero], and Ithran [superior = Jethro and Jithron], and Cheran [Gesenius: harp; Fόrst: companion]. 27The children of Ezer are these; Bilhan [—Bilhah; Gesenius: modest; Fόrst: tender], and Zaavan [Fόrst: unquiet, troubled], and Akan [twisting]. 28The children of 29Dishan are these; Uz [sandman, or woodman], and Aran [Gesenius: mightier]. These are the dukes that came of the Horites; duke Lotan, duke Shobal, duke Zibeon, duke Anah, 30Duke Dishon, duke Ezer, duke Dishan: these are the dukes that came of Hori, among their dukes in the land of Seir. 31And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any 32king over the children of Israel. And Bela [comp. Genesis 14:2] the son of Beor [Gesenius: torch, lamp; Fόrst: shepherd] reigned in Edom: and the name of his city was Dinhabah 33[Gesenius, Fόrst: place of plunder (? Fehmgericht)]. And Bela died, and Jobab [shout, howl, i. e., desert] the son of Zerah of Bozrah [fold, fort] reigned in his stead. 34And Jobab died, and Husham [= Hushai; rapid, haste] of the land of Temani reigned in his stead. 35And Husham died, and Hadad [prince; strong, violent] the son of Bedad [separate, the lonely], (who smote Midian in the field of Moab), reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith 36[Gesenius: ruins; Fόrst: tent-village]. And Hadad died, and Samlah [covering] of Masrekah 37[a vineyard] reigned in his stead. And Samlah died, and Saul [asked, wished] of Rehoboth 38[wide, room] by the river reigned in his stead. And Saul died, and Baal-hanan [gracious 39 lord] the son of Achbor [= Achbar, mouse] reigned in his stead. And-Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar [grace, honor] reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pau [Gesenius: bleating; Fόrst: yawning deep]; and his wife’s name was Mehetabel [God-benefiting], the daughter of Matred [pushing], the daughter of Mezahab [water of gold]. 40And these are the names of the dukes that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names; duke Timnah, duke Alvah [Gesenius: unrighteousness; Fόrst: height, exaltation], duke Jetheth [Gesenius: nail; Fόrst: subjugation]. 41Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah [Fόrst: oak strong, and hard], duke Pinon [= Punon; Gesenius: darkness; Fόrst: a mine]. 42, 43Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar [fortress, strong city]. Duke Magdiel [Fόrst: glory of God; Gesenius: prince of God], duke Iram [citizen, city region]: these be the dukes of Edom, according to their habitations, in the land of their possession: he is Esau, the father of the Edomites. . It is in full accordance with the mode of statement used in Genesis, that at this point, at which Esau passes out from connection with the theocratic history, the history of his family, as belonging to the genealogical tree, should be preserved in the memory of the people of God (see p. 495). B. The toledoth of the Edomites is recorded in a series of special genealogies: 1. The point of departure: Esau’s wives and children, and his settlement upon the mountains of Seir (Genesis 36:1-8); 2. Esau’s sons and grandsons viewed as tribe-fathers (Genesis 36:9-14); 3. the tribe-chiefs or princes of the house of Esau (Genesis 36:15-19); 4. the genealogy of the aborigines of the land, the Horites, with whom the Edomites, as conquerors, are mingled (Genesis 36:20-30); 5. the kings of the land of Edom (Genesis 36:31-39); 6. the ruling princes, i. e., the heads of provinces, or rather the seats of chieftains, enduring throughout the reigns of the kings of Edom (Genesis 36:40-43).—C. It is clear that these tables do not form any one peculiar chronological succession. The tables, number three of the Edomitic princes, and four, of the Horite princes, form a parallel; in point of time, indeed, the line of Horite princes must be regarded as the older line. So, also, table number five of the kings of Edom, is parallel with number six of the provincial princes or councillors of Edom. There are, therefore, but three fundamental divisions: 1. The sons and grandsons of Edom; 2. the old and new princes of Edom; 3. the kingdom of Edom viewed as to its kings and as to its provincial rulers (or dukedoms).—In Deuteronomy 2:12; Deuteronomy 2:22, the Edomites appear to have destroyed the Horites, as the aboriginal dwellers in Seir. But this must be understood in the sense of a warlike subjugation, which resulted partly in their absorption, partly and mainly in placing the original dwellers in the land in a state of bondage, and that wretched condition in which they are probably described in the book of Job (Job 16:11; Job 17:6; Job 24:7; Job 30:1; see Knobel, p. 277). Knobel refers these tables, as generally all the completed genealogical tables in Genesis, to the Elohist. But this only is established, that the genealogical tables are, in their very nature, in great part Elohistic. AND Esau’s wives and children, and his settlement upon the mountains of Seir (Genesis 36:1-8).—Of Esau, that is Edom (Genesis 25:30).—In Genesis 26:34 the two first wives of Esau are called Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite. In Genesis 28:9 the third wife bears the name of Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael. Here the daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah, and in the place of Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, we have Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite. But while the daughter of Elon is named Bashemath above, here the daughter of Ishmael bears that name. It is perfectly arbitrary when Knobel and others identify the Zibeon of Gen 36:2 with the Zibeon of Gen 36:21, and then, instead of the addition, the Hivite, read the Horite. But Knobel remarks correctly: “The different accounts (all of which he ascribes to the Elohist) agree in this: a. That Esau had three wives; b. that one of them is called Bashemath; c. that the third was a daughter of Ishmael and sister to Nebajoth.” Keil explains the differences upon the assumption that Moses used genealogical records of Esau’s family and descendants, and left them unaltered. The statement, however, presents no irreconcilable contradiction, but is explained by the custom of the ancient orientals, which is still in use among the Arabians, by which men often received surnames from some important or remarkable event of life (as, e. g. Esau the surname Edom Genesis 25:30), which gradually became proper names, and by which women at their marriage generally assumed new first names (comp. Hengstenberg’sBeitrδge, iii. pp. 273–302). We remark only that Judith takes the name Aholibamah, her father Beeri (for the conjecture of Hengstenberg, which will scarcely stand the test, in our judgment, see Keil, p. 232) the name Anah, while the general popular name Hittites=Canaanites becomes specific in the name Hivite. But now the names Aholibamah and Anah appear to be symbolic and religious names. Bashemath, the daughter of Elon, now bears the name Adah, while, on the contrary, Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, is now called Bashemath. This may be explained upon the supposition that Esau, whose garments were fragrant with sweet odors, distinguished Judith [Mahalath?—A. G.], whom he married twenty years later than his other wives, as his favorite wife by the name Bashemath, the fragrant, while as a compensation he called his former Bashemath, Adah, or ornament. If Beeri was a priest, the name Anah (hearing, answering), would be appropriate to him, as also Aholibamah, tent of height, holy tabernacle, would be to his daughter. For the different attempts at reconciling these differences, see Knobel, p. 278. The impossibility of solving these difficulties is emphasized and supported by a collection of examples, which certainly shows that there were different traditions according to different points of view, in full accord with the living nature and character of biblical relations. [These tables carry the genealogy of the descendants of Esau down to the period at which the Pentateuch closes, since the last of the eight kings, whose united reigns would probably cover this length of time, of whom it is not said that he died, was probably still upon the throne at the time of Moses, and was the king of Edom to whom Moses applied for leave to pass through the land. The statement, though very brief, is arranged with the utmost precision. We have first the introductory statement in regard to Esau and his wives, and his settlement at Seir; then the genealogy of his sons and grandsons born in Seir, in distinction from those born in Canaan; then of the tribe-princes of Edom; then by an easy and natural transition the genealogy of the Horite princes and tribes who were absorbed by the Edomitic tribes; then of the kings of Edom; and lastly of the places or chief seats of these tribal princes, after their families, by their names. It is not surprising that there should be inquiries suggested here, which cannot be answered, or that there should be missing links in the historical statement. The apparent discrepancies, however, involve no contradiction. As to the wives of Esau, the different accounts may be reconciled in either of two ways. We may suppose with some (Murphy, Jacobus) that Judith, during the long period between her marriage and the removal of Esau to Seir, had died, without leaving male issue, and that Aholibamah here recorded is the fourth wife of Esau in the order of time, although in this table classed with the daughter of Elon, because she was a Canaanitess also. The mere change of names in the females occasions little difficulty, since it is so common for persons to have two names, and since the first name of the female was so frequently changed at marriage. This seems a natural supposition, and will meet the necessities of the case. We may, however, suppose, as Hengstenberg suggests (see also Kurtz, Keil, Baumgarten), that the names Beeri and Anah designate the same person. In the 24th verse we meet with an Anah who is thus described: “This was that Anah that found the warm springs (E. V. mules) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.” The identity in the name of the father, Zibeon, leads to the identifying of Anah and Beeri. This is confirmed by the significance of the name Beeri, man of the wells, which would seem to refer to some such remarkable event in the desert. He would probably be known by this name, Beeri, among his associates, but in the genealogy he appears with his own proper name, Anah. That he is in one place called a Hittite, in another a Hivite, in another still a Horite, may be easily explained on the theory that the Hittite defines the race, the Hivite the specific tribe, and the Horite describes him with reference to his abode. The theory of Hengstenberg is certainly ingenious, meets essentially the difficulties in the case, and may well be held until a better is suggested. See Hengstenberg’sBeitrδge, vol. iii. pp. 273–302; Keil, Kurtz, Baumgarten, in loc.—A. G.]—And Adah bare.—See the names of the sons of Esau, 1 Chronicles 1:35. [The difference between the catalogue there and here is due to the change in the Hebrew from one weak letter to another.—A. G.]—Into the country, from the face of his brother.—The conjecture that the word Seir has been left out after the word land or country, is superfluous [and hence unjustifiable.—A. G.], if we understand the words “away from his brother” as a qualifying adjective or phrase. He sought a country in which he should not meet with his brother. The final emigration of Esau to Seir after the death of his father does not exclude the preliminary migration thither (Genesis 32:3); neither does the motive for the earlier removal, the securing of a wide domain for hunting, and over which he might rule, exclude the motive for the later, in the fact that the flocks of the two brothers had grown so large that they could not dwell together. We may well conclude, however, from the last statement, that Esau had at least inherited a large part of the herds of Isaac, although Keil assumes the contrary. Second Section. Esau’s sons and grandsons as the ancestors of tribes (Genesis 36:9-14; comp. 1 Chronicles 1:36-37).—To Mount Seir.—The mountain-range between the Dead Sea and the Ailanitic Gulf. The northern part was called Gebalene, and the southern Es Sherah (see Keil, p. 233; Winer’sReal Wόrterbuch [Kitto, new edition, Smith, Murphy.—A. G.], and the Geographies of the Bible). “While the sons of Aholibamah became directly heads of tribes, it was only the grandsons of the other two wives, each of whom bare only one son, who attained this distinction. There were thus thirteen heads of tribes, or, if we exclude Amalek, who was born of the concubine Timnah, twelve, as with the Nahorites, Ishmaelites, and Israelites.” Knobel. [It is probable, as Hengstenberg has shown, that this Amalek was the ancestor of the Amalekites who opposed the Israelites in their march through the desert; and that this is what Balaam alludes to when he says that Amalek was the first of the nations, not the oldest, but the first who made war with the Israelites after they became the covenant people of God. The reference to the field of the Amalekites, Genesis 14:7, is not in opposition to this, since it is not said in that passage that the Amalekites were slain, but that they were slain who occupied the country which afterwards belonged to this tribe. It is not probable that a people who played so important a part in the history of Israel (see Numbers 13:29; Numbers 14:43; Judges 6:3; Judges 7:12; Judges 12:15; 1 Samuel 14:48; 1 Samuel 15:2 ff; 1 Samuel 27:8; 2 Samuel 8:12) should have been without their genealogy in the book of Genesis. Amalek probably separated himself early from his brethren, perhaps from the fact of his birth not being strictly legitimate, and grew into an independent people, who seem to have had their main position at Kadesh, in the mountains south of Judah, but spread themselves throughout the desert and even into Canaan. See Hengstenberg: Beitrδge, vol. iii. p. 302 ff.—A. G.] There were three divisions from the three wives.—The sons of Eliphaz.—For the ethnographic importance of these names, compare Knobel and the Bible Dictionaries. Amalek, see above.—These are the sons of Adah.—Since Timnah was a concubine, it is assumed that Adah had adopted her. Third Section. The Edomitic tribe-princes (Genesis 36:15-19). “ΰַ ?μּ ?εּ ?τִ ?ιν, probably from ΰֶ ?μֶ ?σ or = ΰֲ ?μָ ?τִ ?ινξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ , families, heads of families, is the peculiar title of Edomitic and Horitic phylarchs, only once, Zechariah 9:7; Zechariah 12:5, applied to Jewish princes or governors. Knobel is entirely wrong when he explains these names geographically.” Keil. But they may have established themselves geographically within more or less fixed limits, e. g. Teman (Edom from Teman to Dedan, Ezekiel 25:13). Fourth Section. Genealogy of the Horites (Genesis 36:20-30; comp. 1 Chronicles 1:38-42).—Of Seir.—The name of the ancestor of the early inhabitants of Seir is identical with the name of the land, as is true also with the names Asshur, Aram, Mizraim, Canaan, in the genealogical table.—The Horites.—ηֹ ?ψִ ?ι, from ηεֹ ?ψ, hole, cave, cave-man, troglodyte.—Who inhabited the land—i. e., the earlier inhabitants in contrast with the Edomites. The land of the Edomites is full of caves (Robinson, “Researches,” vol. ii. p. 551 ff.). “The inhabitants of Idumζa use them for dwellings. Jerome, upon Obadiah, says they had dwellings and sheepfolds in caves. This was peculiarly true of the aboriginal Horites, who (Job 30:6) are described by this peculiarity. It is remarkable that the description of the wretched manner of living and evil courses of the Horites, given in the book of Job, are still accurately true to-day of the dwellers in the old Edomitic land.” Knobel. The Horite table first enumerates seven princes, then their sons, among whom the name Anah occupies a prominent place (Genesis 36:24), who is said in Luther’s version [also in the English.—A. G.], following the error of the Talmud, “to have found the mules in the wilderness.” He discovered rather in the desert δַ ?ιֵּ ?ξִ ?ιν, warm springs (Vulgate), which may refer to the warm sulphur springs of Calirrhoe, in Wady Zerka Maein, or to those in Wady El Ahsa, southeast of the Dead Sea, or to those in Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea. For further details see Knobel and Keil, the latter of whom remarks that the notice of his feeding the asses may indicate that these animals led to the discovery of the springs, p. 225, note. Besides the sons, there are two daughters named in this genealogical table, Thimnah and Aholibamah. “Thimnah may perhaps be the same person with the concubine of Eliphaz, Genesis 36:12. Aholibamah is, however, not the same with the wife of Esau.” Keil. There may have been, also, more than one person of the name of Thimnah. For the differences between this catalogue and that in 1 Chron., comp. Keil, p. 234. [These diversities are mainly those which arise from the substituting one weak letter for another.—A. G.] The princes are still named once more, as they gave their names to tribes or districts. Knobel attempts to explain these names as if they were geographical and not personal, which Keil should not so strongly have opposed. [Keil shows, however, how vain and groundless this attempt is, by the fact that the son of Zibeon discovered the warm springs, which proves of course that this is a table of the names of persons, and not of tribes or their localities.—A. G.] Fifth Section. The kings of the land of Edom (Genesis 36:31-39; comp. 1 Chronicles 1:43-50). Out of the original discordant or opposing Edomite and Horite princes there sprang one united kingdom, the Edomitic element being undoubtedly the predominant. From the statement here made, it is plain that the kings were not hereditary kings; in no case does the son succeed to the father’s throne. Still less are we to suppose, with Keil, Hengstenberg [also Murphy, Jacobus, and others.—A. G.], that it was a well-ordered elective monarchy, with chosen kings, since in that case, at least, some of the sons would have succeeded their fathers. (Knobel wavers between the assumption of elections and usurpations.) It is rather in accordance with the Edomitic character (see the blessing of Isaac), that a circle of usurpations should arise out of the turbulent transition state; dark counterparts of the way and manner in which the judges in Israel wrought together or followed one another at the calling of God. Thus Bela, of Dinhaba, city of plunder, as devourer (as despotic Balaam), might well begin the series. And the name of Jobab, one who with the howling of the desert breaks forth from his fastness, confirms the mode of the kingdom as already intimated. Husham seems to have gained his power and position by surprise, Hadad by violence, and Samlah by political arts and fraud. With Saul, therefore, we first meet with one who was desired and chosen, and the remark that he was succeeded by Baal-hanan, gracious lord, and he by Hadar, rich in power, whose wife bears a truly pious name, justifies the conjecture that the savage, uncultivated forms of violence and cunning gradually gave place to the more noble forms. Of this eighth king of the Edomites, it is not said here that he died. The table closes, therefore, with the time of Hadar. Keil justly assumes that the tribe-princes or phylarchs (who, indeed, as persons, did not follow each other, but were cotemporary, and as hereditary dignities located and fixed themselves geographically) existed as cotemporaries with the kings (with regard to Exodus 15:15, comp. Numbers 20:14 ff.). “While Moses treats with the king of Edom with reference to a passage through his land, in the song of Moses it is the tribe-princes who are filled with fear at the miraculous passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea (comp. Exek. Genesis 32:29). We may urge further that the account of the seats of these phylarchs, Genesis 36:40-43, follows after the catalogue of the kings.” Keil.—Before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.—It has been inferred from this statement, that Genesis, or the part of Genesis lying before us here, was not composed until the time of the kings in Israel. Delitzsch replies to this, that the narrator might have inserted this clause from the stand-point of the promise spoken, e. g. Genesis 17:1 and Genesis 35:11. Then, indeed, we should have expected another mode of expression. But how obvious it is to suppose that this phrase is an interpolation by a later writer! [“The phrase does not imply that monarchy began in Israel immediately after those kings; nor does it imply that monarchy had begun in Israel at the time of the writer; as Isaac’s saying ‘that my soul may bless thee before I die,’ does not imply that he was dead at the time of his saying so. It simply implies that Israel was expected to have kings, as Isaac was expected to die.” Murphy. The sentence is in its place, and the supposition of any interpolation is needless and therefore unwarrantable.—A. G.] But, carefully considered, this table points back to a very remote time of the Edomitic kingdom. Leaving out of view the fact, that usurpations follow each other far more rapidly than hereditary sovereigns, we must observe that no one of these kings ever appears elsewhere, or is in any way involved in the Israelitish history. Some have, indeed, supposed that Hadad, the son of Bedad, Genesis 36:35, is identical with the Edomite king who rebelled against Solomon (1 Kings 11:14), yet the various distinctions of the two differ altogether (see Keil, p. 236). Hengstenberg, with much stronger force, concludes, from the fact that he is said to have smitten Midian in the field of Moab, that he must have been nearly a contemporary with Moses, since at the time of Gideon the Midianites disappear from the history.—Bela the son of Beor.—It is merely an accidental coincidence, that Balaam also, whose name is related to Bela, is a son of Beor, although even Jewish expositors have here thought of Balaam (see Knobel, p. 286).—Of Bozrah.—An important city of the Edomites (Isaiah 34:6 and other passages). Knobel thinks that the name has been preserved in the village Busaireh [see Robinson: “Researches,” vol. ii. p. 511 ff.—A. G.]. For Masrekah and Rehoboth, see Knobel. [Keil holds that the allusion to the river determines the locality to be on the Euphrates; probably it is the Errachabi or Rachabeh on the Euphrates near the mouth of the Chaboras.—A. G.] We prefer, however, to seek it at some small nahar, river, in Edom.—Hadar, 1 Chronicles 1:50, erroneously Hadad.—Mezahab.—Regarded by Knobel as masculine, by Keil as feminine, but the former is more probable. [Keil makes Matred the mother of his wife, and Mezahab her mother. Murphy regards both as masculine nouns. There is no general rule, other than usage, to determine the gender of many Hebrew names, and the usage is not uniform. See Green’s “Grammar,” § 197.—A. G.] Keil supposes that the last-named king, Hadar, is the same one with whom Moses treated for a passage through his land. The theory that the Pentateuch must be entirely referred to Moses, probably lies at the basis of this supposition. The critical history of the Bible, however, cannot depend upon such conjectures. If we take into account the strong desire in the Edomitic race for dominion, we may well conjecture that the first usurpation began soon after the death of Esau’s grandsons. “If now,” Keil remarks, “we place their death about two hundred and fifty years before the exodus of Israel from Egypt, there would be a period of two hundred and ninety years before the arrival of Israel at the borders of Edom (Numbers 20:14); a period long enough for the reigns of the eight kings, even if the kingdom arose first after the death of the phylarchs mentioned in Genesis 36:15-18.” We may add, further, that the tables may possibly close with the beginning of Hadar’s reign, and hence, perhaps, we have a more detailed account of his family. We should thus only have to divide the two hundred and ninety years between the seven kings. An average of forty years is certainly, however, a very long period to assign to a circle of such despotic sovereigns. [If, however, the kings co-existed with the dukes, and were elective, chosen probably by these dukes or phylarchs, and began soon after the death of Esau, we should have a longer average. The length of human life at that period would justify the assumption of these longer reigns; if there is good reason to believe, as there seems to be, that their reigns were peaceful, and not violent usurpations. All these calculations, however, depend upon the length of the period of the bondage.—A. G.] Sixth Section. The permanent tribe-princes, or the seats of their power, in Edom (Genesis 36:40-43; comp. 1 Chronicles 1:51-54). It is plain that we have here the geographical position of the original personal tribe-princes, recorded under the political provincial tribe-names, i. e., we have the ethnographic and geographical divisions of the kingdom of Edom; and Keil justly rejects the assertion of Bertheau, that there follows here a second catalogue of the Edomitic princes, who perhaps, after the death of Hadar, “restored the old tribal institution and the hereditary aristocracy.”—After their places, according to their families, by their names.—After the names, i. e., which their families and places had formed for themselves. Hence many, perhaps the most, of the old names of princes have passed over into new names of tribes and localities.—1. Thimnah=Amalek (see Genesis 36:12; Genesis 36:16; Genesis 36:22).—2. Alwah.—Here the Horitic name Alwan, Genesis 36:23, appears to have forced its way through the Edomite dominion.—3. Jetheth.—4. Aholibamah.—Perhaps the district of the sons of Aholibamah, Genesis 36:2. Keil is inclined to refer it to the Horite Aholibamah, Genesis 36:25—5. Elah.—Reminds us of Elon, Genesis 36:2, and of Eliphaz his grandson and Esau’s son, whose sons, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam (Genesis 36:11), may perhaps have gone up into the district of Kenaz.—6. Pinon.—7. Kenaz.—Points back to Kenaz, the son of Eliphaz, Genesis 36:11—8. Theman.—This was the name of the first son of Eliphaz, Genesis 36:11.—9. Mibzar.—Goes back, perhaps through Bozra, to a tribe-prince. The signification of Zepho, Genesis 36:11, is analogous.—10. Magdiel.—Is perhaps connected with Manahath, Genesis 36:23.—11. Iram.—“ΰֵ ?μָ ?δ is the sea-point Aila. τִּ ?ιπֹ ?ο is the same with Phunon, a camping place of the Israelites (Numbers 33:43 f.), celebrated for its mines, to which many Christians were sent by Diocletian, situated between Petra and Zoar, northeasterly from Wady Musa (Ritter, xiv. p. 125 ff.). ϊֵּ ?ιξָ ?ο, the capital,ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υδַ ?ϊֵּ ?ιξָ ?πִ ?ι, Genesis 36:34.” Keil. Mibzar might be referred to Petra, Knobel thinks, since it is a stronghold, but that place is usually called Selah.—He is Esau.—The conclusion of the narrative is entirely in accordance with the Hebrew conception of the personal character and relations of history. Esau is actually “the father” and not merely the founder of Edom, as he lives on in his toledoth. This close of the toledoth of Esau points forward to the toledoth of Jacob. AND ETHICAL1. The sacred history hangs up in the treasure-house of the Old Testament the tables of the toledoth of Esau, not merely because he too received a blessing from God, and had the promise of a blessing (Keil), but more especially because he now breaks the band of the theocracy, and passes out of view, just as it had done with the tables of the nations, and all the succeeding genealogical tables. God, indeed, permits the heathen to go their own way (Acts 14:16; Psalms 81:13), but is mindful of all his children (Acts 15:14 f.; Genesis 17:26), even those who are in the kingdom of the dead [but in a different sense, surely.—A. G.] (Luke 20:38; 1 Peter 4:6), and hence the people of God, too, preserve their memory in hope. 2. We may suppose that Edom at first preserved the patriarchal religion, although in a more external form. Its vicinity to the tribe of Judah, if it made any proper use of it, was a permanent blessing. The idolatry of Edom is not referred to frequently even in later history. The only allusions are 1 Kings 11:1; 1 Kings 9:8; 2 Chronicles 25:14. From these intimations we may infer that Edom declined, to a certain extent, into heathen, religious darkness, but much more into moral depravity (see Exodus 15:15, and other passages). The people of Israel are frequently reminded, however, in the earlier history, to spare Esau’s people, and treat them as brethren (Deuteronomy 2:4-5; Deuteronomy 23:7-8). It may be remarked, by the way, that these passages show the early age of Deuteronomy, since Edom stands in other relations at a later period. The refined theocratic recollection in Edom, avails so far as to even awaken and cherish its jealousy of Israel. And in this respect Edom stands in the relation of an envious, malicious, and false brother of Israel, and becomes a type of Antichrist (Obadiah). This, however, does not exclude the promise of salvation for the historic Edom, in its individual members (Isaiah 11:14; Jeremiah 49:17 ff.). We do not read of any special conversion of Edom to Christianity, perhaps (see, however, Mark 3:8), because the violent conversion of Edom to the Jewish faith, under John Hyrcanus, had first occurred, by which Edom was partially merged into the Jews, and partially amalgamated with the Bedouin Arabs. To return back to Jacob, or to fall away to Ishmael, was the only alternative open to Edom. 3. In the Herodian slaughter of the children at Bethlehem, however, the old thought of Esau, to kill his brother Jacob, becomes actual in the assault upon the life of Jesus. 4. The history of the Edomites falls at last into the history of the Herods. For this history, as for that of Edom, we may refer to the Bible Dictionaries, the sources of religious history (Josephus, and others), and books of travels. [Robinson, “Researches,” vol. ii. p. 551 ff.—A. G.] 5. The table here is composed of several tables which portray, vividly and naturally, the origin of a kingdom: 1. The period of the tribe-chiefs; 2. the period of the peculiar permanent tribe-princes; 3. the period of the formation of the kingdom, and its continued existence upon the basis of permanent tribe principalities or dukedoms. 6. The subjugation of the Horites (whom we are not to regard as savages, merely because they dwelt in caves) by the Edomites, and the fusion of both people under an Edomitic kingdom, represents to us vividly the process of the formation of a people, as in a precisely similar way it has occurred a hundred times in the history of the world. In sacred history we may refer here especially to the rise of the Samaritans, and in later history, to the formation of the Roman people. The Franks overcame the Gauls as the Edomites the Horites, although under different moulding relations. This great forming process is now taking place under our very eyes in North America. But these historical growths of a people are the subject of a special divine providence (Acts 17:26). 7. We are here reminded again of the prominent personal view of all the relations of life in the sacred Scriptures. At the close of the whole evolution of a people it is said again: This is Esau. He lives still, as the father, in the entire people; stamps even the Horitic element with his own image. 8. The discovery of the warm springs by Anah, is an example of human discoveries in their accidental and providential bearings and significance. [Wordsworth says: There is an important moral in these generations of Esau. They show that the families of the carnal race of this world develop themselves more rapidly than the promised seed. Ishmael and Esau come sooner to their possession than Isaac and Jacob. The promised seed is of slow growth. It is like the grain of mustard-seed (Matthew 13:31). The fulfilments of all God’s promises, of great blessings to his people, are always long in coming. But the kingdoms of this world would soon fade, while the kingdom of heaven will endure for ever (p. 147, 148).—A. G.] AND Meditations upon this chapter must be connected with the general declarations as to Esau, e. g., with Isaac’s blessing upon him, with the prophetic passages relating to Esau, with the history of the Herods, with Acts 17:26, or with other New Testament passages.—The fulfilling of the blessing upon Esau.—Esau’s development.—The ancient and modern Edom.—How Israel even in later days regarded the fraternal relation of Edom as sacred. Starke: This narrative of Esau has, doubtless, its important uses, partly as it shows how richly God fulfils his promises (Genesis 25:23; Genesis 27:39-40), partly as it sets before the descendants of Jacob, how far the boundaries of Esau’s descendants reach, and partly as thence the Israelites are earnestly forbidden to encroach upon them (Deuteronomy 2:4-5), except in relation to the Amalekites (Exodus 17:14). Moreover, there were many pious men among the descendants of Esau, who were in covenant with God. Observe how the patriarchal sacrificial service continued for a long time among the Edomites, until, after the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, the church of the Edomites gradually declined, etc. (Taken in part from Rambach’s “Ecclesiastical History.”) Genesis 36:3. These names lead one to think of Job’s friends. (He then remarks, that some suppose that Job’s friend Eliphaz descended from this one, while others regard the Eliphaz of Job as still older.) View of the Edomites and of the Amalekites.—(Genesis 36:24. Mules, according to Luther. The Hebrew word occurs but once in the sacred Scriptures, and is, therefore, more difficult to explain. The Sept. has formed from it a man’s name; the Chaldee renders it “giants;” the Samar. Emim, a race of giants; in the Arabic some understand a kind of warm bath; others, a kind of healing drug.) Genesis 36:33. This Jobab is held by some, though without any good reason, as the same with Job.—Osiander: The kingdom of Christ alone endures and is eternal; the other kingdoms and sovereignties, which are of this world, are subject to frequent changes, and, indeed, decay and perish (Psalms 89:3-4). Whatever rises rapidly disappears rapidly also (Psalms 37:35 f.). Lange: Jacob, not less than Abraham and Isaac, was a type of Christ: 1. According to the promise, the lord over all Canaan, but he had nothing of his own there but the parcel of the field which he bought at Shechem. Thus, Christ also is the Lord of the whole world, etc.; 2. Jacob a great shepherd, Christ the chief shepherd; 3. Jacob’s long service for Rachel and Leah, Christ in the form of a servant and his service; 4. Jacob gained two herds, Christ the Jews and Gentiles; 5. Jacob a prophet, priest, and king, the three offices of Christ; 6. Jacob’s wrestling, and Christ’s agony and struggle; 7. Jacob lame in his thigh, Christ and the prints of the nails and spear; 8. Jacob left behind him twelve patriarchs, Christ the twelve apostles. Gerlach: Calvin’s remarks. We must here remember, that those separated from God’s covenant rise quickly and decay rapidly, like the grass upon the house-tops, which springs up quickly and soon withers because it has no depth of earth and roots. Both of Isaac’s sons have the glorious promise that kings shall come from them; now they appear first among the Edomites, and Israel seems to be set aside. But the course of the history shows how much better it is first to strike the roots deep into the earth, than to receive immediately a transitory glory which vanishes away in a moment. The believer, therefore, while he toils slowly onwards, must not envy the rapid and joyful progress of others, for the permanent prosperity and blessedness promised to him by the Lord is of far greater value.—Schrφder: (Ranke:) The Israelites also were to be encouraged in their contest, through the conspicuous victory which the Edomites in earlier times had obtained over the numerous tribes of Seir. (Baumgarten:) This external glory in the very beginning of Esau’s history, stands in striking contrast to the simple relations in the family of Jacob, but corresponds perfectly with the whole previous course of our history, which, from the beginning, assigns worldly power and riches to the line which lies beyond the covenant and union with God, while it sets forth the humility and retiring nature in the race chosen by God.—In later history, the kingdom among the Edomites appears to have been hereditary (1 Kings 11:14). Genesis 36:43. (Baumgarten:) We may explain the fact that only eleven names are found here, while there are fourteen above, upon the supposition that some of the seats of power embraced more than one princely family. Footnotes:[Genesis 36:5.—Murphy gives these names the signification of haste, hiding, ice.—A. G.] [Genesis 36:7.—Of their sojournings.—A. G.] [Genesis 36:12.—From ςַ ?νξָ ?μַ ?χ, a nation of head-breakers, spoilers? Lange. Laboring, licking up; Murphy: which seems the better derivation.—A. G.] [Genesis 36:21.—Murphy: threshing.—A. G.] [Genesis 36:30.—Which were to them for tribe-princes (and tribe names).—A. G.] [Genesis 36:32.—The Fehmgericht was the secret criminal court in Westphalia, somewhat akin to our vigilance committees.—A. G.] [Genesis 36:43.—Lit., This is Esau = the father of Edom, the founder of the Edomites, with their kings and princes. This closes this Section, and at the same time prepares us for what follows.—A. G.] THIRD PERIODThe Genesis of the People of israel in egypt from the twelve branches of israel, or the history of joseph and his brethren. joseph the patriarch of the faith-dispensation through humiliation and exaltation.—Genesis 37:1-36—————— FIRST SECTIONJacob’s inconsiderate fondness for Joseph. Joseph’s dreams. His brothers’ envy. Joseph sold into Egypt. Genesis 37:1-361 And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan. 2These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report. 3Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a coat of many colors [a beautiful robe, Genesis 27:15]. 4And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him. 5And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brethren: and they hated him yet the more. 6And he said unto them, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed: 7For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf. 8And his brethren said unto him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? and they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words. 9And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance unto me. 10And he told it to his father, and to his brethren; and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth? 11And his brethren envied him; but his father observed [kept, preserved] the saying. 12And his brethren went to feed their father’s flock in Shechem. 13And Israel said unto Joseph, Do not thy brethren feed the flock in Shechem? come, and I will send thee unto them. 14And he said to him, Here am I. And he said to him, Go, I pray thee, see whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flocks; and bring me word again. So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. 15And a certain man found him, and, behold, he was wandering in the field: and the man asked him, saying, What seekest thou? 16And he said, I seek my brethren: tell me, I pray thee, where they feed their flocks. 17And the man said, They are departed hence; for I heard them say, Let us go to Dothan [the two wells]. And Joseph went after his brethren, and found them in Dothan. 18And when they saw him afar off, even before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him. 19And they said one 20to another, Behold, this dreamer [man of dreams] cometh. Come now, therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into some pit; and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him: and we will see what will become of his dreams. 21And Reuben heard it, and he delivered him [sought to deliver] out of their hands; and he said, Let us not kill him. 22And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, and lay no hand upon him; that he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him to his father again. 23And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stripped Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colors that was on him. 24And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. 25And they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmaelites [a caravan] came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spices [tragakanth-gum], and balm, and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt. 26And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood? 27Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, and our flesh. And his brethren were content. 28Then there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph unto Egypt. 29And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit: and he rent his clothes. 30And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go? 31And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood. 32And they sent the coat of many colors and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found; know now whether it be thy son’s coat or no. 33And he knew it, and said, It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces. 34And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. 35And all his sons, and all his daughters, rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave [sheol] unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him. 36And the Midianites sold him into Egypt, unto Potiphar [Septuagint: Πετεφρῆς, belonging to the sun], an officer of Pharaoh’s [king; Lepsius: sun], and captain of the guard. GENERAL REMARKS1. It is to be noted here, in the first place, that the history of Joseph is amplified beyond that of any of the patriarchs hitherto. This is explained by the contact which Joseph’s transportation gives rise to between the Hebrew spirit and the Egyptian culture and literature. A trace of this may be found in the history of Abraham; for after Abraham had been in Egypt, his history becomes more full. With the memorabilia of Joseph connects itself the account of Moses, who was educated in all the different branches of Egyptian learning, whilst this again points to Samuel and the schools of the prophets. 2. Knobel regards Joseph’s history as having grown out of the original Elohistic text connected with a later revision (p. 288). He supposes, however, in this case, two halves, which, taken separately, have no significance. That Joseph was sold into Egypt, according to the supposed original text, can only be explained from the fact mentioned in the supposed additions, that he had incurred the hatred of his brethren by reason of his aspiring dreams. Reuben’s proposition to cast Joseph into the pit, and which aimed at his preservation, was not added until afterwards, it is said. Even Joseph’s later declaration: I was stolen from the country of the Hebrews, is regarded as making a difference. Delitzsch, too, adopts a combination of different elements, without, however, recognizing the contradictions raised by Knobel (p. 517). He presents, also, as a problem difficult of solution, the usage of the divine names in this last period of Genesis: In Genesis 37 no name of God occurs, but in Genesis 38, it is Jehovah that slays Judah’s sons, as also, in Genesis 39, it is Jehovah that blesses Joseph in Potiphar’s house, and in person; as recognized by Potiphar himself. Only in Genesis 37:9 we find Elohim,—the name Jehovah not being here admissible. From Genesis 40 onward, the name Jehovah disappears. It occurs but once between Genesis 40, 50, as in Genesis 18, when Jacob uses it: “I have waited for thy salvation, Jehovah.” For different interpretations of this by Keil, Drechsler, Hengstenberg, Baumgarten, and Delitzsch, see Delitzsch, p. 515. The three last agree in this, that the author of Genesis, in the oft-repeated Elohim, wished here to mark more emphatically, by way of contrast, the later appearance of the Jehovah-period, Exodus 3:6. This would, indeed, be a very artificial way of writing books. The riddle must find its solution in actual relations. The simple explanation is, that in the history of a Joseph, which stands entirely upon an Elohistic foundation, this name Elohim predominantly occurs. Joseph is the Solomon of the patriarchal times. 3. The generations of Jacob connect themselves with those of Esau. Delitzsch justly remarks, p. 511, that the representation which follows (Genesis 37 to Genesis 50), was intended to be, not a mere history of Joseph, but a history of Jacob in his sons. Otherwise Judah’s history, Genesis 38, would appear as an interpolation. The twelve sons of Jacob constitute Israel’s new seed. The latter fact, of course, has the stronger emphasis. The generations of Jacob are the history and successions of his posterity—that is, his living on in his posterity, just as Adam’s tholedoth, Genesis 5:1, represent the history of Adam, not personally, but historically, in his descendants. 4. Joseph’s history is considered in a triple relation: as the history of the genesis of the Israelitish people in Egypt; as an example of a special providence, such as often brings good out of evil, as ex-emplified in the book of Job; and as a type of the fundamental law of God in guiding the elect from suffering to joy, from humiliation to exaltation—a law already indicated in the life of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but which, henceforth, develops itself more and more (especially in the history of David), to terminate, at last, in the life of Jesus, as presenting the very sublimity of the antithesis. Hence the appearance, in our history, of individual types representing the New-Testament history of Jesus, such as the jealousy and hatred of Joseph’s brethren, the fact of his being sold, the fulfilment of Joseph’s prophetic dreams in the very efforts intended to prevent his exaltation, the turning of his brothers’ wicked plot to the salvation of many, even of themselves, and of the house of Jacob, the spiritual sentence pronounced on the treachery of the brethren, the victory of pardoning love, Judah’s suretyship for Benjamin, his emulating Joseph in a spirit of redeeming resignation, Jacob’s joyful reviving on hearing of the life and glory of his favorite son, whom he had believed to be dead. Concerning Israel’s genesis in Egypt, Delitzsch remarks: “According to a law of divine providences, to be found not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New (?), not the land of the promise, but a foreign country, is the place where the Church is born, and comes to maturity. This foreign country, to the Old-Testament Church, is the land of Egypt. To go before his people, to prepare a place for them, is Joseph’s high vocation. Sold into Egypt, he opens the way thither to the house of Jacob, and the same country where he matures to manhood, where he suffers in prison, and attains to glory, becomes, to his family, the land where it comes to the maturity of a nation,—the land of its servitude, and of its redemption. Thus far Joseph’s history is the overture of Jacob’s history—a type of the way of the Church; not of Jehovah only, but of Christ in his progress from humiliation to exaltation, from subjection to freedom, from sufferings to glory.” See Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1. Israel’s riches of election and endowment are to be developed by contact with different heathen nations, and especially with Egypt. Just as Christianity, the completed revelation of the new covenant, developed itself formally for the world, by its reciprocal intercourse with a Grζco-Romanic culture, thus was it also with the faith of the old covenant in its reciprocal intercourse with the old Egyptian world-culture, as shown especially in the history of Joseph, Moses, and Solomon who became the son-in-law of one of the Pharaohs. More prominently does this appear, again, in the history of Alexandrian Judaism; in which, however, the interchange of influence with Egypt becomes, at the same time, one with that of the whole Orient, and of Greece. The key of Joseph’s history, as a history of providence, is clearly found in the declaration made by him Genesis 45:5-8, and Genesis 50:20. The full explanation, however, of its significance, is found in the history of Christ as furnishing its perfect fulfilment. Permission of evil, counteraction and modification of evil, frustration of its tendency, its conversion into good, victory over evil, destruction of evil, and reconciliation of the evil themselves,—these are the forces of a movement here represented in its most concrete and most powerful relations. The evil is conspiracy, treachery, and a murderous plot against their innocent brother. The conversion of it is of the noblest kind. The plot to destroy Joseph is the occasion of his greatest glorification. But as God’s sentence against the trembling conscious sinner is changed into grace, so also the triumph of pardoning love overcoming hatred becomes conspicuous as a glorious omen in Joseph’s life. “Inasmuch,” says Delitzsch, “as Israel’s history is a typical history of Christ, and Christ’s history the typical history of the Church, so is Joseph a type of Christ himself. What he suffered from his brethren, and which God’s decree turned to his own and his nation’s salvation, is a type of Christ’s sufferings, caused by his people, but which God’s decree turned to the salvation of the world, including, finally, the salvation of Israel itself.” Says Pascal (Pensιes, ii. 9, 2): “Jesus Christ is typified in Joseph, the beloved of his father, sent by his father to his brethren, the innocent one sold by his brethren for twenty pieces of silver, and then becoming their Lord, their Saviour, the saviour of those who were aliens to Israel, the saviour of the world,—all which would not have been if they had not cherished the design of destroying him—if they had not sold and rejected him. Joseph, the innocent one, in prison with two malefactors—Jesus on the cross between two thieves; Joseph predicts favorably to the one, but death to the other; Jesus saves the one, whilst he leaves the other in condemnation. Thus has the Church ever regarded Joseph’s history.” Already is this intimated in the Gospels. What Pascal here says, and as is also held by the fathers, e.g., Prosper Aquitanus, de Promissionibus et Praedictionibus Dei, is but a brief statement of the pious thoughts of all believers, in the contemplation of the history. It is this which imparts to the wonderful typical light here presented its irresistible charm. When, however, Joseph is made the exclusive centre of our history, and the patriarchal type of Christ (Kurtz, “History of the Old Testament,” i. p. 343), Keil presents, in opposition, some most important considerations. It is, indeed, no ground of difference (as presented by him), that Joseph became formally naturalized in Egypt; for Christ, too, was delivered to the heathen, and died out of the camp. Nor does it make any important difference that Joseph received no special revelations of God at the court of Pharaoh, as Daniel did at the court of Nebuchadnezzar; the gift of interpreting dreams he also, like Daniel, referred back to God. Of greater importance is the remark that Joseph is nowhere, in the Scriptures themselves, presented as a type of Christ; yet we must distinguish between verbal references and real relations, such as might be indicated in Zechariah 11:12, and in Christ’s declaration that one of his disciples should betray him. There is, however, a verbal reference in Stephen’s speech, Acts 7:9. There is no mistaking the fact that the Messianic traces in our narrative are shared both by Joseph and Judah. Judah appears great and noble throughout the history of Joseph; the instance, however, in which he is willing to sacrifice himself to an unlimited servitude for Benjamin, makes him of equal dignity with Joseph. So in Abraham’s sacrifice, the Messianic typical is distributed between him and Isaac. Joseph’s glory is preλminently of a prophetic kind; the weight of a priestly voluntary self-sacrifice inclines more to the side of Judah. Benjamin, too, has his Messianic ray; for it is especially on his account that the brethren may appear before Joseph in a reconciling light. On Hiller’s “Typological Contemplation of Joseph,” see Keil, p. 242. Meinertzhagen, in his “Lectures on the Christology of the Old Testament” (p. 204), treats of the typical significance of Joseph with great fulness. It is also to be noted that ever afterwards Benjamin appears theocratically and geographically connected with Judah. 5. The disposition of Joseph’s history, and the settlement of the Israelites in Egypt, as well as its relation to the Hyksos of whom Josephus speaks (contra Apion, i. 14), in an extract from Manetho’s history, presents a question of great historical interest (see Delitzsch, p. 518). The extract concerning the Hyksos has a mythical look. Still darker are other things which Josephus gives us from Manetho and Chζremon (contra Ap., i. 26, 32). Different views: 1) The Hyksos and the Israelites are identical; so Manetho, Josephus, Hugo Grotius, Hofmann, Knobel (p. 301), and, in a modified form, Seyffarth, Uhlemann. 2) The Hyksos are distinct from the Israelites; they were another Shemitic tribe—Arabians, or Ph�nicians; so Cunaeus, Scaliger, etc. This view, says Delitzsch, is now the prevailing one. So also Ewald, Lepsius, Saalschόtz, jut with different combinations. On these see Delitzsch, p. 521. 3) The Hyksos were Scythians; so Champollion, Rossellini. The first view is opposed by the fact that the Israelites founded no dynasties in Egypt, as did the Hyksos; nor did they exist there under shepherd-kings, as the name Hyksos has been interpreted. Against the second view Delitzsch insists that the people of Egypt, into whose servitude Israel fell, appear as a people foreign to them, and by no means as one connected with them. The Shemitic idea, however, is so extended, that we cannot always suppose a theocratic element along with it. The most we can say is, that the Hyksos, who, no doubt, were a roving band of conquerors, came from Syria, or the countries lying north and east beyond Palestine. In the Egyptian tradition, their memory seems to have been so mingled with that of the Israelites, that it would seem almost impossible to separate the historical element from such a mixture. Since, however, the Israelitish history seems more obscured by that of the Hyksos than contradicted, it may be regarded as more probable that the latter came latest. The pressure of the Israelites upon the Canaanites, from the east, may have driven them in part to the south; and the weakening of Egypt by the destruction of Pharaoh and his army, forty years before, might have favored a conquest. The chronological adjustment, however, must be left to itself. For a fuller treatment of this subject, see E. Bφhmer, “The First Book of the Thora” (Halle, 1862); appendix, p. 205, etc. According to Lepsius, the appearance of the Hyksos in Egypt preceded the history of Joseph. At all events, this dim tradition bears testimony to the Israelitish history in many particulars (e.g., that they founded Jerusalem in Judea). On the full confirmation of Joseph’s history by Greek historians and by Egyptian monuments, compare Delitzsch, p. 524, etc.; Hengstenberg, “The Pentateuch and Egypt,” Berlin, 1841. 6. The history of Israel’s settlement in Egypt extends through the sections that follow: 1) The corruption in Jacob’s house, the dispersion of his sons, the loss of Joseph (Genesis 38-39). 2) Joseph’s elevation, and the reconciliation and gathering of his brethren (Genesis 40-50). 3) Israel’s transplantation to Egypt (Genesis 46:1 to Genesis 47:26). 4) The keeping of the divine promise, and the longing of Israel to return home to Canaan (Genesis 47:27–ch. 50). AND Contents: The conspiracy of Jacob’s sons against their brother Joseph, considered in its awful darkness, or the deep commotion and apparent destruction of Jacob’s house: 1. The occasion (Genesis 37:1-11); 2. the opportunity, and the plot of murder (Genesis 37:12-20); 3. Reuben’s attempt to rescue; 4. Judah’s effort to save, unknowingly crossing that of Reuben (Genesis 37:25-27); 5. the crime, the beginning of mourning, the hiding of guilt (Genesis 37:28-32); 6. Jacob’s deep grief, and Joseph apparently lost (Genesis 37:33-36). 1. The occasion (Genesis 37:1-11).—In the land of Canaan.—It seems to have been made already his permanent home, but soon to assume a different appearance.—The generations (see above).—Joseph being seventeen years old.—A statement very important in respect both to the present occurrence and the future history. In Genesis 41:46, he is mentioned as thirty years old. His sufferings, therefore, lasted about thirteen years. At this age of seventeen he became a shepherd with his brethren. Jacob did not send his favorite son too early to the herds; yet, though the favorite, he was to begin to serve below the rest, as a shepherd-boy. At this age, however, Joseph had great naοveness and simplicity. He therefore imprudently tells his dreams, like an innocent child. On the other hand, however, he was very sedate; he was not enticed, therefore, by the evil example of some of his brethren, but considered it his duty to inform his father.—And the lad was with the sons of Bilhah.—For the sons of Bilhah Rachel’s servant stood nearer to him, while those of Leah were most opposed. He brought to his father ΰϊγαϊνψςδ, translated by Keil, evil reports concerning them. A direct statement of their offences would doubtless have been differently expressed. They were an offence to those living in the vicinity. This determined him to inform his father, but it does not exclude a conviction of his own. It is inadmissible to refer this to definite sins (as, e.g., some have thought of unnatural sins). That the sons of the concubines surpassed the others in rude conduct, is easily understood. Joseph’s moral earnestness is, doubtless, the first stumbling-block to his brethren, whilst it strengthens his father in his good opinion. The beautiful robe was the second offence. It is called λְּ ?ϊֹ ?πֶ ?ϊτַּ ?ρִּ ?ιν, “an outer garment of ends,” which extends, like a gown, to the hands and the ancles. The Septuagint, which Luther’s translation follows, renders it “a coat of many colors.” Comp. 2 Samuel 13:18. The common tunic extended only to the knees, and was without arms. Already this preference, which seemed to indicate that Jacob intended to give him the right of the first-born, aroused the hatred of his brethren. One who hates cannot greet heartily the one who is hated, nor talk with him frankly and peaceably. In addition to this, Joseph, by his dreams and presages (though not yet a prudent interpreter), was pouring oil upon the flames. At all events, the δπδ (lo), as repeated in his narration, shows that he had a presentiment of something great. Both dreams are expressive of his future elevation. In Egypt he becomes the fortunate sheaf-binder whose sheaf “stood up” during the famine. The second dream confirms the first, whilst presenting the further thought: even the sun and moon—that is, according to Jacob’s interpretation, even his father and his mother—were to bow before him. Rachel died some time before this. On this account the word mother has been referred to Bilhah, or to Benjamin as representing Rachel, or else to Leah. The brethren now hated him the more, not merely as recognizing in his dreams the suggestions of ambition, but with a mingled feeling, in which there was not wanting a presentiment of his possible exaltation—as their declaration, Genesis 37:20, betrays. In Jacob’s rebuke we perceive also mingled feelings. There is dissent from Joseph’s apparently pretentious prospects, a fatherly regard toward the mortified brethren, yet, withal, a deeper presentiment, that caused him to keep these words of Joseph in his heart, as Mary did those of the shepherds. As the naοvete of the shepherd-boy was evidence of the truthfulness of these dreams, so the result testifies to the higher origin of a divine communication, conditioned, indeed, by the hopefully presageful life of Joseph. These dreams were probably intended to sustain Joseph during his thirteen years of wretchedness, and, at the same time, to prepare him to be an interpreter. The Zodiac, as here brought in by Knobel, has no significance, nor the custom of placing a number of sheaves together. 2. The opportunity and the plot of murder (Genesis 37:12-20).—In Shechem.—There is no ground for supposing another Shechem, as some have done, on account of what had formerly occurred there. It is more likely that Jacob’s sons courageously returned to the occupation of the parcel of land formerly acquired by them. This very circumstance, however, may have so excited the anxiety of the cautious parent that he sent Joseph after them. That Joseph could have lost his way at Shechem is easily explained, since he was so young when his father lived there.—In Dothan—The Septuagint has Δωθαεΐμ, Jdt 4:6; Jdt 7:3; Jdt 8:3; Δωθαΐμ. 2 Kings 6:13, Dothan. It was a place above Samaria, towards the plain of Jezreel, according to Josephus and Hieronymus. “Thus it was found by Robinson and Smith in their journey of 1852, and also by Van de Velde, in the southeast part of the plain of Jabud, west of Genin. It is a beautiful green dell, always called Dothan, at whose south foot a fountain rises.” Delitzsch. Through the plain of Tell-Dothan a highway passes from the northwest to Ramleh and Egypt.—They conspired against him.—That Reuben and Judah were not concerned in this, is plain from what follows.—This dreamer cometh.—Spoken contemptuously—master of dreams, dream-man. The word δַ ?μָּ ?ζֶ ?δ does not express contempt of itself, as is seen from Genesis 24:65, the only other place in which it occurs. It denotes something unexpected and remarkable.—Into some pit.—Cisterns (see Winer: wells).—And we shall see.—They thought by their fratricide surely to frustrate his exaltation—a proof that his dreams alarmed them; but by this very deed, as controlled by God’s providence, they bring it about. 3. Reuben’s artful attempt at saving (Genesis 37:21-24). The text states directly that Reuben made his proposition in order to save Joseph. Knobel, by a frivolous criticism, would foist a contradiction upon the text, namely, that Reuben made the proposition in order to let him perish in the pit; since a bloodless destruction of life seems, to have been regarded as less criminal than a direct killing. But, then, the Reviser must have imparted to Reuben’s proposition a different interpretation, by means of an addition. Reuben, it is true, had to express himself in such a way that the brothers might infer his intention to let him perish in the pit; but this was the only way to gain their consent.—They stripped Joseph out of his coat.—The object of their jealousy and their wrath.—And the pit was empty.—So that he did not perish. His cries for mercy they remembered many years afterwards (Genesis 41:21). 4. Judah’s bold attempt to save him (Genesis 37:25-27).—And they sat down.—Through this apparent insensibility their inward agony is betrayed; it appears in their agitated looking out, so that they espy the Ishmaelites already at a great distance.—And behold, a company of Ishmaelites.—A caravan, ΰֹ ?ψְ ?ηָ ?δ (Job 6:19). “This caravan (as Robinson’s description shows) had crossed the Jordan at Beisan, and followed the highway that led from Beisan and Zerin to Ramleh and Egypt, entering the plain of Dothan west of Genin.” Delitzsch. In Genesis 37:25; Genesis 37:27-28, the merchants are called Ishmaelites, whilst in the first part of Gen 37:28 they are styled Midianites, and in Genesis 37:36 Medanites. Knobel, of course, regards them as different traditions (p. 293). Genesis 37:28, however, would seem to tell us that the Ishmaelites were the proprietors of the caravan, which was made up, for the most part, of Midianitish people. In a similar manner, probably, as Esau made a number of the Horites subject to him, so had the Ishmaelites also brought under them a number of the Midianites. One hundred and fifty years, the time that had elapsed since Ishmael’s departure from Abraham, would give a sufficient increase for this (see Keil, p. 244). As merchants, they were transporting costly products of their country to Egypt. Gum-tragacanth is found in Syria; the balm of Gilead was especially renowned, and was sold to Ph�nicia and Egypt; ladanum (myrrh), or the fragrant rose of the cistus, is found in Arabia and Syria, as well as in Palestine (see Schubert, iii. p. 114 and 174). Concerning the cisterns, or the artificially prepared reservoirs of rain-water, see the Dictionaries and geographical works. They might be full of water, or have mire at the bottom, or be entirely dry. They were frequently used as prisons (see Jeremiah 38:6; Jeremiah 40:15). Schrφder: “On his way to Damascus, Robinson found Khβn Jubb Jϋsuf (a kind of inn), the khan of Joseph’s pit, so called after a well connected with it, and which for a long time, both among Christians and Mohammedans, was regarded as the cistern into which Joseph was thrown.”—And Judah said.—“Then Judah began to use the language of a hypocritical self-interest,” says Delitzsch. This, however, seems to be not at all justified by Judah’s after-history. It must be presupposed that Judah was unacquainted with Reuben’s intention. The brethren were so much excited that Judah alone could not have hoped to rescue Joseph from their hand. The ferocity, especially, of Simeon and Levi, is known to us from former history. Judah, therefore, could think no otherwise than that Joseph must die from hunger in the pit. As in opposition to this, therefore, and not as a counteraction of Reuben’s attempt at deliverance, is his proposal to be judged. He lived still, though a slave. There was a possibility of his becoming free. He might make his escape by the caravan routes that passed south through his home. Reuben, in his tenderness, had made a subtle attempt to save him. In the bolder policy of Judah we see that subtle attempt crossed by one more daring. No doubt both had some ill-feeling towards Joseph, and were, therefore, not capable of a mutual and open understanding. That both, however, preserved a better conscience than the rest, is evident from the later history. The unity of our story is not disturbed by Knobel’s remark, “that a further tradition is given, Euseb. Pr�p. Evang., ix. 23, to the effect that, in order to escape the snares of his brethren, Joseph besought Arabians, who were near, to take him along with them to Egypt; which they did; so that, in this way, are the patriarchs still more exculpated.” What Joseph says of himself afterwards, that he was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews (Genesis 40:15), does not contradict our narration. Was he to tell to the Egyptians the crime of his brethren? 5. Genesis 37:28-32. The crime, the beginning of mourning, and the concealment of the guilt.—Twenty pieces of silver.—Comp. Genesis 20:16. Twenty shekels of silver was the compensation that Moses appointed for a boy from five to twenty years old (Leviticus 27:5), whilst the average price of a slave was thirty shekels (Exodus 21:32).—And Reuben returned unto the pit.—His absence may easily be accounted for: it was impossible for him to eat with his brethren in his then state of mind; and he probably resorted to solitude to think out a plan of deliverance—And he rent his clothes.—The later custom (Matthew 26:65) originally sprung from vivid emotions of sorrow,—the rending as an expression of inward distraction. Afterwards came this rending of garments upon the others (Genesis 44:13).—And I, whither shall I go?—Not only as the first-born was he especially responsible for the younger brother, but his tender feelings for him, and for the unhappy father, made him the bearer of the agony of the guilty confederacy; and this to such a degree that he knew not what to do.—And they took Joseph’s coat.—One transgression gives birth to another. With the consciousness that tried to conceal their guilt, there mingles the old grudge concerning the coat of many colors, which here turns itself even against the father. Doubtless, in some degree, they thought themselves justified in the thought that the father had given them cause of irritation by providing such a coat for Joseph. Reuben and Judah are, moreover, burdened by the ban of silence. 6. Jacob’s deep grief, and Joseph’s apparent loss (Genesis 37:33-36).—It is my son’s coat.—Their deception succeeded. In his agony he does not discover the fraud; the sight of the blood-dyed garment led him to conclude: Surely an evil beast hath torn Joseph, and devoured him.—Sackcloth.—The sign of the deepest mourning (see Winer: Trauer-sack).—And mourned for his son.—Retaining also his garment of mourning.—And all his sons.—The criminals as comforters!—And all his daughters.—From this there arises the probability that Jacob had other daughters than Dinah, though the daughters-in-law may be so called.—For I will go down.—The λִּ ?ι is elliptical, implying, nothing can comfort me, for, etc.—Mourning unto my son.—There is, doubtless, something more here than grief merely for the loss; there is also self-reproach for having exposed the child to such danger.—Into the grave (sheol).—In this mournful mood of Jacob does this word sheol first occur. It was not the world beyond the grave considered as the gathering to the fathers, but the dark night of death and mourning. There are various derivations of this word. One that easily suggests itself is that which marks it from ωָׁ ?ΰַ ?μ, to demand—that place which inexorably demands all men back (Proverbs 30:15; Isaiah 5:14; Hebrews 2:5). [See Excursus below, especially p. 586 sq.—T. L.] Genesis 37:36. The word ρָ ?ψִ ?ιν, according to its original significance, denotes an eunuch; its later and more general interpretation is courtier.—Captain of the guard.—Literally a slayer, that is, an executioner (see 2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 39:9). For particulars, see Delitzsch, p. 531. On the chronology as connected with the remark that Joseph was sold when he was seventeen years old, see also Delitzsch, p. 532. Joseph’s history here suffers an interruption by the insertion of an incident in the life of Judah. Ch. 38 Delitzsch ascribes this to literary art on the part of the author, but of that we may doubt. It is, of itself, just the time that we should expect to learn something more about Judah. [Note on Genesis 37:35. The Primitive Conception of Sheol.—This is the first place in which the word occurs, and it is very important to trace, as far as we can, the earliest conception, or rather emotion, out of which it arose. “I will go down to my son mourning to Sheol,”—towards Sheol, or, on the way to Sheol,—the reference being to the decline of life terminating in that unknown state, place, or condition of being, so called. One thing is clear: it was not a state of not-being, if we may use so paradoxical an expression. Jacob was going to his son; he was still his son; there is yet a tie between him and his father; he is still spoken of as a personality; he is still regarded as having a being somehow, and somewhere. Compare 2 Samuel 12:23, ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιδֹ ?μֵ ?κְ ΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε, “I am going to him, but he shall not return to me.” The him and the me in this case, like the I and the my son in Genesis, are alike personal. In the earliest language, where all is hearty, such use of the pronoun could have been no unmeaning figure. The being of the one who has disappeared is no less real than that of the one who remains still seen, still found, to use the Shemitic term for existence, or out-being, as a known and visible state (see note, p. 273). The LXX have rendered it here εἰς̔ ?́Αδου, into Hades; the Vulgate, ad filium meum in infernum. It was not to his son in his grave, for Joseph had no grave. His body was supposed to be lying somewhere in the desert, or torn in pieces, or carried off, by the wild beasts (see Genesis 37:33). To resolve it all into figurative expressions for the grave would be simply carrying our meaningless modern rhetoric into ancient forms of speech employed, in their first use, not for the reflex painting, but for the very utterance of emotional conceptions. However indefinite they may be, they are too mournfully real to admit of any such explanations. Looking at it steadily from this primitive standpoint, we are compelled to say, that an undoubting conviction of personal extinction at death, leaving nothing but a dismembered, decomposing body, now belonging to no one, would never have given rise to such language. The mere conception of the grave, as a place of burial, is too narrow for it. It, alone, would have destroyed the idea in its germ, rather than have given origin and expansion to it. The fact, too, that they had a well-known word for the grave, as a confined place of deposit for the body (ΰֲ ?ηֻ ?ζַּ ?ϊχֶ ?αֶ ?ψ, a possession, or property, of a grave, see Genesis 23:9), shows that this other name, and this other conception, were not dependent upon it, nor derived from it. The older lexicographers and commentators generally derived the word ωְׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ (Sheol) from ωָׁ ?ΰַ ?μ (Sha-al), to ask, inquire, etc. This is a very easy derivation, so far as form is concerned; and why is it not correct? In any way the sense deduced will seem near, or far-fetched, according to our preconceptions in respect to that earliest view of extinct or continued being. Gesenius rejects it, maintaining that ωְׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ is for ωְׁ ?ςεֹ ?μ, and means cavity; hence a subterranean region, etc. He refers to ωֹׁ ?ςַ ?μ, hollow of the hand, or fist, Isaiah 40:12; 1 Kings 20:10; Ezekiel 13:19; and ωׁ ?εּ ?ςָ ?μ, the name for fox or jackal, who digs holes in the earth,—this being all that can be found of any other use of the supposed root from which comes this most ancient word, so full of some most solemn significance. There is a reference, also, to the German hφlle, or the general term of the northern nations (Gothic, Scandinavian, Saxon), denoting hole, or cavity; though this is the very question, whether the northern conception is not a secondary one, connected with that later thought of penal confinement which was never separable from the Saxon hell,—a sense-limitation, in fact, of the more indefinite and more spiritual notion primarily presented by the Greek Hades, and which furnishes the true parallel to the early Hebrew Sheol. Fόrst has the same view as Gesenius. To make ωְׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ and ωְׁ ?ςεֹ ?μ equivalents, etymologically, there is supposed to be an interchange of ΰ and ς, a thing quite common in the later Syriac, but rare in the Hebrew, especially the earlier writings, and which would be cited as a mark recentioris Hebraismi, if the rationalistic argument, at any time, required it. The ς has ever kept its place most tenaciously in the Arabic, as shown by Robinson in the numerous proper names of places in which it remains unchanged to this day. So it was, doubtless, in the most early Shemitic, though in the Syriac it became afterwards much weakened through the antipathetic Greek and Roman influence upon that language, and so, frequently passed into the more easily pronounced ΰ. It is improbable that this should have taken place in the most ancient stage of the language, or at the time of the first occurrence of this word in the biblical writings. Gesenius would give to ωָׁ ?ΰִ ?μ, too, the supposititious primary sense of digging, to make it the ground of the secondary idea of search or inquiry; but this is not the primary or predominant conception of ωΰμ; it is always that of interrogation, like the Greek ἐρωτάω, or of demand, like αἰτέω, ever implying speech, instead of the positive act of search, such as is denoted by the Hebrew ηχψ, to explore. Subsequent lexicographers and commentators have generally followed Gesenius, who seems to pride himself upon this discovery (see Robinson: “Lex. N. Test.” on the word Hades). Of the older mode of derivation he says: “Prior de etymo conjectura vix memoratu digna est.” By some it would be regarded as betraying a deficiency in Hebrew learning to think of supporting an etymology so contemptuously rejected. And yet it has claims that should not be lightly given up, especially as they are so intimately connected with the important inquiry in respect to the first conception of those who first used the word. “Was this, primarily, a thought of locality, however wide or narrow it may have been, or did the space-notion, which undoubtedly prevailed afterwards, come from an earlier thought, or state of soul rather, more closely allied to feeling than to any positive idea? This conception of locality in the earth came in very early; it grew naturally from something before it; but was it first of all? Lowth, Herder, etc., are, doubtless, correct in the representations they give of the Hebrew Sheol, as an imagined subterranean residence of the dead, and this is confirmed by later expressions we find in the Psalms and elsewhere, such as “going down to the pit” (compare ιεֹ ?ψְ ?γֵ ?ιαεֹ ?ψ and similar language, Psalms 28:1; Psalms 30:4; Psalms 88:5; Isaiah 14:19; Isaiah 38:10, etc.); yet still there is the best of reasons for believing that what may be called the emotional or ejaculatory conception was earlier than this, and that the local was the form it took when it passed from an emotion to a speculative thought. From what source, then, in this earlier stage, could the name more naturally have come than from the primitive significance of that word ωΰμ, which, in the Arabic ΣΗُ ?α, and everywhere in the Shemitic family, has this one old sense of appealing interrogation,—first, simple inquiry, secondly, the idea of demand? The error of the older etymologists, then, consisted, not in making it from ωΰμ, but in connecting it with this secondary idea, and so referring it to Sheol itself as demanding, instead of the mourning, sighing survivors asking after the dead. They supposed it was called Sheol from its rapacity, or unsatiableness, ever claiming its victims,—a thought, indeed, common in the early language of mourning, but having too much of tropical artifice to be the very earliest. It belongs to that later stage in which language is employed, retroactively, to awaken or intensify emotion, instead of being its gushing, irrepressible utterance. In support of this view, the text constantly cited, as the standard one, was Proverbs 30:16, ωְׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ--μֹ ?ΰωָׂ ?αְ ?ςָ ?δμֹ ?ΰΰָ ?ξְ ?ψָ ?δδεֹ ?ο, Sheol that is never satisfied, that never says, enough. See the old commentary of Martin Geier on the book of Proverbs. Corresponding to this is the manner in which Homer speaks of Hades, and its vast population: κλυτὰἔθνεανεκρῶν. So the dramatic poets represent it as rapacious, carrying off its victims like a ferocious animal (see the “Medea” of Euripides, 1108), inexorable, νηλεής, pitiless, ever demanding, but hearing no prayer in return. Hence it had settled into the classical phrase rapax Orcus (see Catullus, ii. 28, 29). But this, whatever form might be given to it, was not the first thought that would arise in the mind respecting the state of the departed. Instead of such an objective attribute of Hades, or Sheol, as a place demanding to be filled, it was rather the subjective feeling of inquiring wonder at the phenomenon of death, at the thought of the one who had disappeared, and of that inexplicable state into which even the imagination failed to follow him. Shadowy as all such language is, it is only the stronger evidence of that feeling of continued being which holds on so firmly through it all, as though in spite of the positive appearances of sense testifying to the departure, or the negative testimony arising from the failure of the eye to pierce the darkness (whence the Greek Hades, the unseen), or of the ear to gather any report from the silence into which the dead had gone. See remarks in the note before referred to, p. 273, on the idea of death as a state, a state of being, the antithesis, not of being, but of the active life “beneath the sun.” Now the idea of extinction, of absolute not-being, of a total loss of individual personality, would have excluded all questioning; it would never have made such words as Hades, or Sheol, according to either conception, whether of inquiry or of locality, whether as denoting a state or a place, whether as demanding or as interrogated, whether as addressed to the unseen, or to the voiceless and unheard. The man was gone, but where? According to a most ancient and touching custom, they thrice most solemnly invoked his name, but no answer came back. Their belief in his continued being was shown by the voice that went after him, though no responding voice was returned to the living ear. ωְׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ (the infinitive used as a noun), to ask, to inquire anxiously; he had gone to the land thus denoted, that “undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returned.” The key-text here is Job 14:10 : “Man dies, and wastes away; he giveth up the ghost (ιִ ?βְ ?εַ ?ςδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, yighwah ha-adam, man sighs, or gasps for breath), and where is he?” ιְ ?ΰַ ?ιֹּ ?εֹ, weayyo, O, where is he? See Zechariah 1:5 : The fathers! ΰַ ?ιֵּ ?δΞδֵ ?ν, where are they? Compare also Job 7:21, and other places of a similar kind, all showing how natural is the connection between the wailing, questioning weayyo, and the word Sheol so immediately suggested by it. The disappearance of Enoch from the earth was stranger than that of the ordinary death, but gave rise to the same feeling of inquiry, only in a more intensive degree. “He was not found,” οὐχεὑρίσκετο, says the LXX, and this gives the real meaning of the Hebrew ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?λּ ?εּ, not denoting non-existence, for that would be directly contrary to what follows, but that he was nowhere to be found on earth. Thus regarded, it is easy to see how the idea of some locality would soon attach itself to the primitive emotional conception, and in time become so predominant that the older germ of thought, that was in the etymology, would almost wholly disappear. Still the spirit of the word, its geist or ghost, to use the more emphatic German or Saxon, long haunts it after the conception has changed so as to receive into it more of the local and definite. Trench has shown how tenacious is this root-sense of old words, preserving them, like some guardian genius, from misusage and misapplication, ages after it has ceased to be directly conceptual, or to be known at all, except to the antiquarian philologist. Thus, although the cavernous or subterranean idea had become prominent in the Psalms and elsewhere, this old spirit of the word still hovers about it in all such passages; we still seem to hear the sighing weayyo; there yet lingers in the car the plaintive sheolah, denoting the intense looking into the world unknown, the anxious listening to which no answering voice is returned. That Sheol, in its primary sense, did not mean the grave, and in fact had no etymological association with it, is shown by the fact, already mentioned, that there was a distinct word for the latter, of still earlier occurrence in the Scriptures, common in all the Shemitic languages, and presenting the definite primary conception of digging, or excavation (χαψ, kbr, krb, βψα ,λψα, grb, grub, grav). There was no room here for expansion into the greater thought. The Egyptian embalming, too, to one who attentively considers it, will appear still less favorable. It was a dry and rigid memorial of death, far less suggestive of continued being, somehow and somewhere, than the flowing of the body into nature through decomposition in the grave, or its dispersion by fire into the prime elements of its organization. In the supposed case, however, of Joseph’s torn and dismembered corpse, there was nothing from any of these sources to aid the conception. Yet Jacob held on to it: I will go mourning to my son, ΰֶ ?μαְּ ?πִ ?ι, not ςַ ?μ, or ΰֶ ?μ for ςַ ?μ, on account of my son, as some would take it. Had Joseph been lying by the side of his mother in the field near Bethlehem Ephratah, or with Abraham and Sarah, and Isaac and Rebekah, in the cave of Machpelah, or in some Egyptian sarcophagus, embalmed with costliest spices and wrapped in aromatic linen, the idea of his unbroken personality would have been no more vivid, Joseph himself (his very ipse) would have been no nearer, or more real, to the mourning father, than as he thought of his body lying mangled in the wilderness, or borne by rapacious birds to the supposed four corners of the earth. I will go to my son mourning, sheolah (ωְׁ ?ΰֹ ?μָ ?δ, with δ of direction), Sheol-ward,—on the way to the unknown land. This view of Sheol is strongly corroborated by the parallel etymology, and the parallel connection of ideas we find in the origin and use of the Greek Hades. Some would seek its primary meaning elsewhere, but it is clearly Greek, and no derivation is more obvious than the one given long ago, and which would make this word ̔ ?́Αιδης (Homeric ’Αΐδης, with the mild aspirate) from α privative and ἰδεῖν to see. We have the very word as an adjective, with this meaning of invisible or unseen, Hesiod: “Shield of Hercules,” 477. It denotes, then, the unseen world, carrying the idea of disappearance, and yet of continued being in some state unknown. The analogy between it and the Hebrew word is perfect. So is the parallelism, all the more striking, we may say, from the fact that in the two languages the appeal is to two different senses. In the one, it is the eye peering into the dark; in the other, it is the ear intently listening to the silence. Both give rise to the same question: Where is he? whither has he gone? and both seem to imply with equal emphasis that the one unseen and unheard yet really is. Sometimes a derivative from the same root, and of the same combination, is joined with Hades to make the meaning intensive, as in the “Ajax” of Sophocles, Genesis 607: τὸνἀπότροπονἀΐδηλον̔ ?́Αιδαν— The awful, unseen Hades. From this use has come the adjective ἀΐδιος, rendered eternal, but having this meaning from the association of ideas (the Hadean, the everlasting), since it is not etymologically connected with αἰών (see Judges 6, δεσμοῖςἀϊδίοις, where the two conceptions seem to unite). In truth, there is a close connection between these two sets of words (’Αΐδης and αἰών, ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν and ωΰεμ), one ever suggesting the other,—“the things that are seen are temporal (belong to time), the things that are unseen are eternal.” Hence we have in Greek the same idiom, in respect to Hades, that we have in Hebrew in relation to Olam (ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν), the counterpart of αἰών. Thus, in the former language we have the expressions, οἶκος̔ ?́Αιδου—δόμος̔ ?́Αιδου, etc., corresponding exactly to the Hebrew αֵּ ?ιϊςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, the house of eternity, poorly rendered his long home, Ecclesiastes 12:5. Compare the οἰκίαναἰώνιον, the “house eternal,” 2 Corinthians 5:1. Compare also Xenophon’sAgesilaus, at the close, where it is said of the Spartan king, τὴνἀΐδιονοἴκησινκατηγάγετο, “he was brought back, like one who had been away, to his eternal home.” Sec, too, a very remarkable passage, Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. Genesis 51, respecting the belief of the most ancient Egyptians: “The habitations of the living they call inns, or lodging-places, καταλύσεις, since we dwell in them so short a time, but those of the dead they style οἴκουςἀϊδίους, everlasting abodes, as residing in them forever, τὸνἄπειρονἀιῶνα.” See also Pareau: De Jobi Notitiis, etc., on the early Arabian belief, p. 27. Why should not Jacob have had the idea as well as these most ancient Egyptians? That his thought was more indefinite, that it had less of circumstance and locality, less imagery every way, than the Greek and Egyptian fancy gave it, only proves its higher purity as a divine hope, a sublime act of faith, rather than a poetical picturing, or a speculative dogma. The less it assumed to know, or even to imagine, showed its stronger trust in the unseen world as an assured reality, but dependent solely for its clearer revelation on the unseen God. The faith was all the stronger, the less the aid it received from the sense or the imagination. It was grounded on the surer rock of the “everlasting covenant” made with the fathers, though in it not a word was said directly of a future life. “The days of the years of my pil grimage,” says Jacob. He was “a sojourner upon earth as his fathers before him.” The language has no meaning except as pointing to a home, an ἀΐδιονοἴκησιν, an eternal habitation; whether in Sheol, or through Sheol, was not known. It was enough that it was a return unto God, “his people’s dwelling-place (ξָ ?ςεֹ ?ομָ ?πεּ, see Psalms 90:1) in all generations.” It was, in some way, a “living unto him,” however they might disappear from earth and time; for “he is not the God of the dead.” His covenant was an assurance of the continued being of those with whom it was made. “Because he lived they should, live also.” “Art thou not from everlasting, Jehovah, my God, my Holy One? we shall not (wholly) die.” “Thou wilt lay us up in Sheol; thou wilt call and we will answer; thou wilt have regard to the work of thy hands.” The pure doctrine of a personal God, and a belief in human extinction, have never since been found conjoined. Can we believe it of the lofty theism of the patriarchal ages? Hades, like Sheol, had its two conceptual stages, first of state, and afterwards of locality. To the Greek word, however, there was added a third idea. It came to denote, also, a power; and so was used for the supposed king of the dead, ’Αΐδης, ̓ ?́Αις, ’Αϊδωνεύς,—ἄναξἐνέρων (Iliad, 20:61); and this personification appears again in the later Scripture, 1 Corinthians 15:55, O Hades, where is thy victory? and in Revelation 6:8; Revelation 20:13-14, where Hades becomes limited to Gehenna, and its general power, as keeper of souls, is abolished.—T. L.] AND ETHICAL1. Jacob’s fondness for the younger son forms the other extreme to Isaac’s predilection for the first-born. He had, it is true, better reasons than Isaac; for Joseph is not only the son of his beloved Rachel, but also the Nazarite (the consecrated or separate one) among his brethren,—a fact to which he testifies upon his death-bed (see Genesis 49:22). But then he began to see clearly that Judah surpassed Joseph in what pertained to the future. The struggle between his predilection and his love of justice appears in more than one instance. Joseph must enter service as a shepherd’s boy; nevertheless, his father provides for him a showy garment, and keeps him at home longer than the others. He ventures his favorite upon a distant and dangerous mission, and this is a reason why he refuses to be comforted at his loss. He rebukes him for his apparently presumptuous dream, but feels compelled to keep the presaging omens in his vaticinating heart. 2. The Scriptures make no palliation of the sins of the twelve patriarchs—the fathers of the very people to whom they are sent. This shows their super-earthly origin. 3. By his dreams Joseph gets into misery, and by their interpretations he is delivered from it. The first fact would give him occasion to think closely on the ground-laws that regulate the symbolic language of dreams; and both he, and the New-Testament Joseph, are witnesses to the fact that there is a significance in them. Elsewhere have we shown the circumstances favorable to this that were possessed by both. 4. The simplicity with which Joseph relates his dreams, reminds us of Isaac’s naοve question on the way to Mount Moriah: but where is the lamb? It stands in beautiful contrast with that moral earnestness which had already, in early age, made him self-reliant in presence of his brethren. 5. Here, too, in the history of Joseph’s brethren, is there an example showing how envy passes over to animosity, animosity to fixed hatred, and hatred to a scheme of murder, just as in the history of Cain, and in that of Christ. The allegorical significance of our history, as typical of that of Christ, appears in the most diversified traits. 6. As the murderous scheme was prevented by Reuben’s plan of deliverance, and modified by Judah’s proposal, so, in the life of our Lord, the scheme of the Sanhedrin was changed more than once by arresting circumstances. Thus providence turned the destructive plots to a beneficent end. It was the chief tendency of these schemes to promote the highest glory of the hated one, whose glory they aimed to destroy. 7. Concerning the way in which these plans of Reuben and Judah cross each other, see the Exegetical and Critical. We have no right to suppose that Reuben behaved as he did in this case in order to appease his father for the wrong done in the case of Bilhah. The weakness, which, according to Genesis 49:4, was the great reproach of his character, had also its good side. Equally false is the supposition that Judah maliciously frustrated Reuben’s good intentions. Both remind us of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who did not consent to the sentence of the Sanhedrin; but they were less inclined to the right, and their half-measures remind us of Pilate’s attempt to save, though they had not, like him, the power in their hands; since being implicated by their former animosity towards Joseph, they could only weakly oppose their angry brethren. 8. The “coat of many colors” dipped in blood, reminds us of the deception that Jacob, in Esau’s raiment, practised upon his father. Yet it must not be overlooked, that Jacob became reconciled at Peniel. Had he been sanctified, indeed, as well as reconciled, he would not, after such bitter experience, have repeated his father’s error of an arbitrary preference of one son to another. And, in this respect, he even now atoned for a sin which had been already pardoned. 9. Jacob’s mourning shows how deeply his peace was shaken. The self-examination occasioned in pious souls, in consequence of the loss or sufferings of dear ones, especially of children, becomes a grievous self-condemnation. From this there arises a longing after death. But here, too, there must be an unconditional surrender to God’s grace. We see here, also, how “the congregation of the fathers” beyond the grave becomes a Sheol to the pre-Christian consciousness through the feeling it gives of death, of his power, of the effect of mourning as extending even to the other world. Luther has frequently translated Sheol by Hell (we find it also thus in Apost. Symb.); but a careful distinction should be made between Sheol and Gehenna. 10. These Ishmaelitish-Midianitish merchantmen are the first Ishmaelites with whom we become acquainted. They remind us of the caravan of Mohammed, that most renowned of all Ishmaelitish merchants. They testify to the outward increase and spiritual decrease of the descendants of Ishmael. They are witnesses to a heart-rending scene, but coolly pay their twenty pieces of silver, reminding us of the thirty paid by Judas, then go their way with the poor lad, who passes his home without hope of deliverance, and is for a long time, like Moses, David, and Christ, reckoned among the lost. 11. Jacob’s house shaken, burdened with a curse, given over, apparently, to destruction, and yet wonderfully saved by God’s grace and human placability (see Genesis 50). 12. Joseph’s character. Presageful of the future, like a prophet; simple as a child; the extraordinarily prudent son of the prudent Rachel and the prudent Jacob, yet noble-minded, and so generous that he becomes a type of New-Testament love for enemies,—God-fearing in a distant land, and yet so liberal in his universalism that he can reconcile himself to Egyptian culture, holding himself free, even to bitterness, in respect to home remembrances (see the name he gave his son Manasseh (make to forget, oblivioni tradens), and yet, at last, homesick after Canaan,—renowned for chastity, and yet not without ambition, full of high-minded and proud anticipations, and yet prepared to endure all humiliations by which Jehovah might aim to purify him. Calumniated by many, by others hastily canonized as a saint. A man of spirit and a man of action in the highest sense. AND The whole chapter. Joseph sold. The sins of men and the providence of God. The character of our narrative. The chain of circumstances. The significance often of things apparently small. 1. Of Jacob’s weakness (in the case of the coat); 2. of Joseph’s dreams; 3. of his thoughtlessness; 4. of Reuben’s absence; 5. of the appearing of the Ishmaelites.—Man proposes, God disposes.—“My thoughts are not your thoughts,” etc. The sublimity of the divine decrees as compared with human schemes. Section First. (Genesis 37:1-12.) Starke: Although Jacob had his reasons for specially loving Joseph, yet he did not act prudently in allowing it to become noticed. Parents should guard against it. Ambrose: Jungat liberos equalis gratia quos junxit (�qualis natura. Envy is a diabolical vice (Wis 2:24).—Hall: Suffering is the road to honor.—The same: When we are loved by our Heavenly Father, and weep over our sins, we will be hated by our brethren in the flesh (1 Peter 4:4).—Bibl. Tub.: Do not unnecessarily tell your enemy what may be for your advantage.—Calwer Handbuch: Genesis 37:2. No malicious information was it, but coming from an innocent free-heartedness and a dutiful abhorrence of evil.—Lisco, on the contrary: A child-like and injudicious tale-telling.—Gerlach: As a spoiled child, he accuses his brethren to his father. [The boundary between the malicious and the dutiful here may be drawn with difficulty; yet it is to be observed, that Joseph told the father what was already spoken of by the people, that is, when it had already become an ill-fame.]—Schrφder: Luther says, that Joseph narrated his dreams “like a child,” not from malice, but in simplicity and innocence.—Richter: Mark it; young Joseph saw in his dreams only his exaltation, not the humiliation that preceded it.—Heim (“Bible Studies”): The difference between the two dreams. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONJudah’s temporary separation (probably in sadness on account of the deed). His sons. Thamar. Genesis 38:1-301 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down, from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah [noble, free]. 2And Judah saw there the daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah [cry for help]; and he took her, and went in unto her. 3And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er [ςֶ ?ψ, watcher]. 4And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his 5name Onan [strength, strong one]. An she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah [peace, quietness, shiloh?]; and he was at Chezib [delusion], when she bare him. 6And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, whose name was Thamar [palm], 7And Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. 8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his [of his own name]; and it came to pass, that when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also. 11Then said Judah to Thamar his daughter-in-law, Remain a widow in thy father’s house, till Shelah my son be grown; (for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did); And Thamar went and dwelt in her father’s house. 12And in process of time the daughter of Shuah, Judah’s wife, died; and Judah was comforted, and went up to his sheep-shearers to Timnath [possession], he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13And it was told Thamar, saying, Behold, thy father-in-law goeth up to Timnath, to shear his sheep. 14And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place [literally, gate of two eyes] which is by the way to Timnath: for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. 15When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. 16And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law); and she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? 17And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock; and she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? 18And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thy hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her; and she conceived by him. 19And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood. 20And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman’s hand: but he found her not. 21Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot that was openly by the way-side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place. 22And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also other men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place. 23And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed; behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her. 24And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told to Judah, saying, Thamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her 25be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, By the man whose these are, am I with child; and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. 26And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I because that I gave her not to Shelah my son; and he knew her again no more. 27And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that behold twins were in her womb. 28And it came to pass when she travailed, that the one put out his hand; and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. 29And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out; and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee; therefore his name was called Pharez [breach], 30And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand; and his name was called Zarah [going forth, sun-rising]. GENERAL REMARKSThe story here narrated is not, as Knobel supposes, an insertion in Joseph’s history, but a parallel to it, considered from the one common point of view as the story of the sons of Israel. According to the previous chapter, Joseph (that is, Ephraim) appeared to be lost; here Judah, afterwards the head tribe, appears also to be lost. But as in the history of the apparently lost Joseph there lay concealed the marks of a future greatness, so must we look for similar signs in the history of Judah’s apparent ruin. Parallel to Joseph’s spiritual ingenuousness, patience, hopeful trust in the future, appears Judah’s strong and daring self-dependence, fulness of life, sensuality combined with strong abstinence, besides the sense of justice which leads him to acknowledge his guilt. Examine it more closely, and we cannot fail to trace a strong feature of theocratic faith. It is a groundless conjecture of Knobel, that the object of this narrative was to show the origin of the levirate law among the Jews, that required the brother of a husband who died without issue to take the widow to wife, and that the firstborn of this connection should stand in the toledoth, or genealogical lists, in the name of the deceased, Deuteronomy 25:5; Matthew 22:23; Ruth 4. See Winer on “Levirate Marriage.” The law in question is of a later date, and needed no such illustration. The custom here mentioned, however, might have existed before this time (see Delitzsch, p. 534). But why could not the idea have originated even in Judah’s mind? Besides this, Knobel presents chronological difficulties. They consist in this, namely, that in the period from Joseph’s abduction to Jacob’s migration into Egypt—about twenty-three years—Judah had become not only a father, but a grandfather by his son Pharez (according to Genesis 46:16). Now Judah was about three years older than Joseph, and, consequently, not much above twenty at his marriage, provided he had intended it at the time when Joseph was carried off. On account of this difficulty, and of one that follows, Augustine supposes that Judah’s removal from the parental home occurred several years previous. But this is contradicted by the fact of his presence at the sale of Joseph (see Keil, p. 246); whilst the remark of Delitzsch, that “such early marriages were not customary in the patriarchal family,” is of no importance at all, besides its leaving us in doubt whether it was made in respect to Judah’s own marriage, or the early marriage of his nephews. “Jacob,” he says, “had already attained to the age of seventy-seven years,” etc. In reply to this, it may be said, that early marriages are evidently ascribed to other sons of Jacob (Genesis 46), though these children, it is probable, were for the most part born in Egypt. Between the patriarchs and the sons of Israel there comes a decisive turning-point: earlier marriages—earlier deaths (see Genesis 50:20). Nevertheless, the twenty-three years here are not sufficient to allow of Pharez having two sons already at their close. Even the possibility that Pharez and Zarah were born before the migration to Egypt, is obtained only from the supposition that Judah must have married his sons very early. Supposing that they were seventeen or eighteen years old, the reason for so early a marriage may have been Judah’s knowledge of Er’s disposition. He may have intended to prevent evil by his marriage, but he did not attain his object. The marriage of Onan that resulted from this was but a consequence of the first; and, in fact, Onan’s sin seems to indicate a youthful baseness. Judah, however, might have made both journeys to Egypt whilst his own family was still existing. With respect to Judah’s grandchildren, it is an assumption of Hengstenberg (Authentic, p. 354), that they were born in Egypt, and that they are considered to have come to Egypt, as in their fathers, together with Jacob (Delitzsch, p. 538). According to Keil, the aim of our narrative is to show the three principal tribes of the future dynasties in Israel, and the danger there was that the sons of Jacob, through Canaanitish marriages, might forget the historic call of their nation as the medium of redemption, and so perish in the sins of Canaan, had not God kept them from it by leading them into Egypt. It must be remarked, however, that, in this period, it was with difficulty that such marriages with Canaanitish women could be avoided, since the connection with their relations in Mesopotamia had ceased. Undoubtedly the beginning of corruption in Judah’s family, was caused by a Canaanitish mode of life, and thereby the race was threatened with death in its first development; but we see, also, how a vigorous life struggles with, and struggles out of, a deadly peril. AND 1. Judah’s separation, his marriage, and his sons (Genesis 38:1-5).—And Judah went down.—He parted from his brethren at the time they sold Joseph. It was not, as in the case of Esau, the unbridled impulse of a rude and robust nature that prompted him prematurely to leave his paternal home, though he showed thereby his strong self-reliance. On account of his frank disposition, Judah could not long participate in offering, as his brethren did, false consolations to his aged father (Genesis 37:35). It weighs upon him that he cannot tell the true nature of the case without betraying his brethren; and it is this that drives him off, just as his grudge against those who had involved him in their guilt separates him from their company. Besides, a bitter sadness may have come upon him on account of his own purpose, though meant for good. Thus he tries to find peace in solitude, just as a noble-minded eremite or separatist, leaves a church that has fallen into corruption. Like his antitype, the New-Testament Judas, but in a nobler spirit, does he try to find peace, as he did, after having sold his Lord. In a similar manner did the tribe of Judah afterwards keep its ground against the ten tribes in their decline and ruin. The question now arises, whether Judah went down from the Hebron heights in a westerly direction towards the Mediterranean Sea, to the plain of Sarepta, as Delitzsch and Knobel suppose, or eastward toward the Dead Sea, where, according to tradition, the cave of Adullam lay (1 Samuel 22:1), in which David concealed himself from Saul. Chezib (Genesis 38:5) was situated east from Hebron, if it be identical with Ziph of the desert of Ziph. Timnath, according to Josephus 15:57, was situated upon the heights of Judah, and could be visited as well from the low country in the east, as from that of the north. If, according to Eusebius and Hieronymus, Adullam lay ten Roman miles, or four leagues, east of Eleutheropolis (Beitdschibrin), this statement again takes us to the mountains of Judea. It is, therefore, doubtful. Still it is worthy of note that David, like his ancestor, once sought refuge in the solitude of Adullam.—And turned in to, etc.—“εַ ?ιֵּ ?θ and he pitched, namely, ΰδμε, his tent, Genesis 26:25, close by (ςַ ?γ) a man, belonging to the small kingdom of Adullam (Joshua 12:15) in the plain of Judah (Joshua 15:35).” Delitzsch. This settlement indicates friendly relations with Hirah. No wonder that Hirah gradually yields himself, as a servant, to the wiser Judah. Here Judah marries a Canaanite woman. This should be noted in respect to Judah, who became afterwards the principal tribe, as also in respect to Simeon (Genesis 46:10), because it would be least expected of him, zealous as he was for the Israelitish purity in the murder of the Shechemites. Without taking into view the unrestrained position of Jacob’s sons, this step in Judah might be explained from a transient fit of despair respecting Israel’s future. In the names of his three sons, however, there is an intimation of return to a more hopeful state of mind.—Er, Onan, Shelah (see 1 Chronicles 2:3).—The place of Shelah’s birth is mentioned, because there remained of him descendants who would have an interest in knowing their native district. 2. The marriage of the sons with Thamar. It may, at least, be said of Thamar, that she is not expressly called Canaanitish. If we could suppose a westerly Adullam, she might have been of Philistine descent. By the early marriage of his sons, Judah seems to have intended to prevent in them a germinating corruption. That he finds Thamar qualified for such a state, that beside her Er appears as a criminal, whose sudden death is regarded as a divine judgment (then Onan likewise), and all this, taken in connection with the fact that, after the death of both sons, she hoped for the growing-up of the third, Shelah, seems to point her out as a woman of extraordinary character.—Till Shelah my son be grown.—According to Knobel (Delitzsch and Keil), Judah regarded Thamar as an unlucky wife (comp. Tob 3:7), and was, therefore, unwilling to give to her the third son, but kept putting her off by promises, thus causing her to remain a widow. This, however, is inconsistent with Judah’s character, and is not sustained by the text. It is plainly stated that Judah postponed Shelah’s marriage to Thamar becaused he feared that he might die also. It was not superstition, then, according to the analogy of later times, but an anxiety founded on the belief that the misfortune of both his sons might have been connected with the fact of their too early marriage, that made the reason for the postponement of his promise.—In her father’s house.—Thither widows withdrew (Leviticus 22:13). 3. Judah’s crime with Thamar (Genesis 38:12-16).—And (when) Judah was comforted.—After the expiration of the time of mourning, he went to the festival of sheep-shearing at Timnath upon the mountains, in company with Hirah.—And it was told Thamar.—The bold thought which now flashed across the mind of Thamar is so monstrously enigmatical, that it takes itself out of the range of all ordinary criticism. Mere lust would not manifest itself in such a way. It might have been a grieved feeling of right. She seemed to herself, by Judah’s command and her own submission to it, condemned to eternal barrenness and mourning widowhood. To break these barriers was her intention. A thirst, however, for right and life, was not her only motive for assuming the appearance of a harlot, the reproach of legal incest (for the intimation of Er’s baseness and of Onan’s conduct leaves it a question whether it was so in reality), and the danger of destruction. Like the harlot Rahab, she seems to have had a knowledge of the promises made to Israel. She even appears to cling, with a kind of fanatical enthusiasm, to the prospect of becoming a female ancestor in Israel. See the Introduction, p. 81. Ambrosius: “Non temporalem usum libidinis requisivit, sed successionem gratias concupivit.” According to Keil, Judah came to her on his return. Since the sheep-shearing festivals were of a jovial kind, this assumption might serve for an explanation and palliation of Judah’s sin; still it cannot be definitely determined from the text.—And sat in an open place.—Lange translates: And sat in the gate of Ennayim (Enam, in the low country of Judah, Joshua 15:34).—Which is by the way to Timnath.—“She puts off from her the common garments of a widow, which were destitute of all ornaments (Jdt 10:3; Jdt 16:8), covers herself with a veil, so as not to be recognized (comp. Job 24:15), and wraps herself in the manner customary with harlots.” Knobel. “Thamar,” says the same, “wishes to appear as a kedescha” (a priestess of Astarte, the goddess of love). This, however, could hardly have been her intention, as appearing before Judah. The proper distinction may be thus made: According to Genesis 38:15, he thought her to be a zona (ζεֹ ?πָ ?δ), but in Genesis 38:21 the question is asked, according to the custom of the country: Where is the kedescha? (δַ ?χְּ ?γֵ ?ωׁ ?δ). As a son of Jacob he might have erred with a zona, but could not have had intercourse with a kedescha, as a devotee of the goddess of love. Still the offence is great; though there is to be considered, on the one side, the custom of the times, together with Judah’s individual temperament, and the excitement caused by the sheep-shearing, whilst, on the other, there is to be kept in mind the enigmatical appearance of the transaction, behind which moral forces, and a veiled destiny, are at work. This giving of the seal-ring, the cord, and the staff, shows that Judah has fallen within the circle of a magical influence, and that it is not fleshly lust alone that draws him. These pledges were the badges of his dignity. “Every Babylonian, says Herodotus, carries a seal-ring, and a staff, on the top of which there is some carved work, like an apple or a rose. The same custom prevailed in Canaan, as we see here in the case of Judah.” Delitzsch. To this day do the town Arabians wear a seal-ring fastened by a cord around the neck (Robinson: “Palestine,” i. p. 58). “The he-goat appears also as a present from a man to his wife (Judges 15:1).” Knobel.—Lest we be shamed.—These words characterize the moral state of the country and the times. In his eager search for the woman and the pledges (which probably were of far more value than the kid), Judah shows himself by no means so much afraid of moral condemnation, as of mocking ridicule. 4. Thamar and her sons (Genesis 38:27-30).—And let her be burnt.—By this sentence the energetic Judah reminds us again of David, the great hero of his family. With a rash and angry sense of justice he passes sentence without any thought that he is condemning himself, just as David did when con fronted by Nathan, 2 Samuel 12:5. There are ever in this line two strong natures contending with each other. “In his patriarchal authority, he commanded her to be brought forth to be burned. Thamar was regarded as betrothed, and was, therefore, to be punished as a bride convicted of unchastity. But in this case the Mosaic law imposes only the penalty of being stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:20), whilst burning to death was inflicted only upon the daughter of a priest, and upon carnal intercourse both with mother and daughter Leviticus 21:19; Leviticus 20:14). Judah’s sentence, therefore, is more severe than that of the future law.” Keil. The severity of the decision appears tolerable only upon the supposition that he really intended to give to Thamar his son Shelah; besides, it testifies to an arbitrary power exercised in a strange country, and which can only be explained from his confidence in his own strength and standing. How fairly, however, does Thamar bring him to his senses by sending him his pledges. The delicate yet decisive message elicits an open confession. But his sense of justice is expressed not only in the immediate annulling of the decision, but also in his future conduct towards Thamar. The twin-birth of Rebecca is once more reflected. We see how important the question of the first-born still remains to the Israelitish mother and midwife. In the case of twins there appears more manifestly the marks of a striving for the birth-right. Pharez, however, did not obtain the birth-right, as Jacob sought it, by holding on the heel, but by a violent breach. In this he was to represent Judah’s lion-like manner within the milder nature of Jacob. According to Knobel, the midwife is supposed to have said to Pharez: A breach upon thee, i. e., a breach happen to thee; and this is said to have been fulfilled when the Israelitish tribes tore themselves away from the house of David, as a punishment, because the Davidian family of the Pharezites had violently got the supremacy over its brethren. AND ETHICAL1. Judah’s beginnings as compared with those of Joseph.—A strong sensual nature; great advances, great offences—strong passions, great self-condemnation, denials, struggles, and breaches. 2. Judah as Eremite, or Separatist, in the noblest sense; the dangers of an isolated position. 3. Hirah, from a valuable comrade, becoming an officious assistant,—a witness to Judah’s superiority. 4. The sons of Judah. The failure of his well-intended experiment to marry his sons early. 5. Onan’s sin, a deadly wickedness, an example to be held in abhorrence, as condemnatory, not only of secret sins of self-pollution, but also of all similar offences in sexual relations, and even in marriage itself. Unchastity in general is a homicidal waste of the generative powers, a demonic bestiality, an outrage to ancestors, to posterity, and to one’s own life. It is a crime against the image of God, and a degradation below the animal. Onan’s offence, moreover, as committed in marriage, was a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong. The sin named after him is destructive as a pestilence that walketh in darkness, destroying directly the body and soul of the young. But common fornication is likewise an unnatural violation of the person, a murder of two souls, and a desecration of the body as the temple of God. There are those in our Christian communities who are exceedingly gross in this respect; a proof of the most defective development of what may be called, the consciousness of personality, and of personal dignity. 6. The Levirate law. Its meaning and object. The theocratic moral idea of the levirate law is ascribed in the Calwer Handbuch to the desire of imperishableness. Gerlach remarks: “An endeavor to preserve families, even in their separate lines, and to retain the thereby inherited property, pervades the laws of the Israelites,—a feeling that doubtless came down from the patriarchs. The father still lived on in the son; the whole family descending from him was, in a certain sense, himself; and, through this, the place among the people was to be preserved. From the remotest antiquity, so much depended upon the preservation of tradition, upon the inheritance of religion, education, and custom, that these things were never regarded as the business of individuals, but of families and nations. When afterward the house of Jacob became a people, this duty of the levirate law necessarily made trouble, and the brother-in-law was no longer forced to it; but even then he was publicly contemned for his refusal (Deuteronomy 25:5; Rth 4:7; comp. Matthew 22:23).” The first motive for the patriarchal custom, or for Judah’s idea, comes, doubtless, from a struggle of faith in the promise with death. As the promise is to the seed of Abraham, so death seems to mar the promise when he carries away some of Jacob’s sons, especially the first-born, before they have had offspring. Life thus enters into strife with death, whilst the remaining brothers fill up the blank. The second motive, however, is connected with the fact, that the life of the deceased is to be reflected in the future existence of their names in this world. Israel’s sons are a church of the undying. There is a third motive; it is to introduce the idea of spiritual descent. The son of the surviving brother answers for the legitimate son of the dead, and thus the way is prepared for the great extension of the adoptive relationship, according to which Jesus is called the son of Joseph, and mention is made of the brothers of Jesus. The institution, however, being typical, it could not be carried through consistently in opposition to the right of personality. A particular coercive marriage would have been at war with the idea of the law itself. 7. Thamar’s sin, and Thamar’s faith. 8. The Hierodulai. Female servants of Astarte, Aschera, or Mylytta (see Delitzsch, p. 536). The he-goat sacred to Astarte. 9. Judah’s self-condemnation and confession. 10. Judah’s (Thamar’s) twins; Isaac’s (Rebecca’s) twins. AND See Theological and Ethical. It is only with great caution, and in a wise and devout spirit, that this narrative should be made the ground of homiletical discourses.—Judah’s solitude.—The apparent extinction of the tribe.—God’s judgments on the sins of unchastity.—The danger arising from feasts (such as that of the sheep-shearing.—The keeping of promises.—Self-condemnation.—The fall and the recovery in our narrative.—Apparent extinction, and yet a new life, through God’s grace, in Judah’s uprightness and sincerity. Section First. Genesis 38:1-5. Starke: Hall: God’s election is only by grace, for otherwise Judah never would have been chosen as an ancestor of Christ.—Bibl. Wirt.: Pious parents can experience no greater cross than to have vile and godless children (Sir 16:1).–Gerlach: This marriage of Judah is not censured, since it was impossible that all the sons of Jacob should take wives from their kindred in Mesopotamia.—Schrφder: Genesis 38:5. Chezib; meaning delusion, on account of the delusions connected with this place.—The false hope of Judah—afterwards of Thamar.—Then again of Judah. Section Second. Genesis 38:6-11. Starke: This Thamar, very generally regarded as a Canaanite, though by some of the Jews very improbably called a daughter of Melchizedek, has received a place in the Toledoth of Christ (Matthew 1:3), to show that he is also the hope of the heathen. [The Jews might, in two ways, have suggested to them this strange hypothesis of Thamar’s being the daughter of Melchizedek: 1. Through ancestral pride; 2. From conclusions derived from the law. They reasoned thus: If Judah intended to burn Thamar, she must have been the daughter of a priest. If she was the daughter of a priest, then probably the daughter of Melchizedek.]—Hall: Remarkably wicked sinners God reserves to himself for his own vengeance. Genesis 38:11. Judah spake deceitfully to his daughter-in-law. Judah may also have thought that his sons’ early marriages hastened their death, especially if they were only fourteen years of age (?); and it may be that on this account he did not wish his son Shelah to marry so young.—Hall: Fulfilment of promises is the duty of every upright man, nor can either fear or loss absolve him.—Schrφder: The seed has the promise of salvation—the promise on which the fathers grew. The levirate law was but a peculiar aspect, as it were, of that universal care for offspring which formed the Old-Testament response to God’s covenant faithfulness. Onan’s sin a murder. It is as if the curse of Canaan descended upon these sons from a Canaanitish woman.—Schwenke: The sin of Onan, unnatural, destructive, of God’s holy ordinance, is even yet so displeasing to the Lord that it gives birth to bodily and spiritual death.—Heim (“Bible Studies”): 1 Corinthians 6:11. Why is it that the Holy Ghost mentions first in this chapter the sin of Onan, and then points us so carefully to the Saviour of the world as descending from the incest-stained Judah and Thamar? Here only may we find salvation, forgiveness, the taking away of all guilt, and the curse that rests upon it. Section Third. Genesis 38:12-16. Hall: Immodesty in dress and conduct betrays evil desires.—Cramer: Widower and widow are to live lives, of chastity. That Thamar desired Shelah to be given to her was not unreasonable; but her course in thus avenging herself is by no means approved, though some of the Christian fathers (Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret) praise her on this very account, and ascribe her design to a peculiar desire to become the mother of the Messiah. Genesis 38:24. It is not agreed whether he spoke these words as judge or accuser. He was here among a strange people; but as he has never subjected himself to them, he would be judge in his own affairs.—Calvin: Severe as Judah had been against Thamar, he judges now indulgently in his own case.—Lisco has a remarkable view, namely, that Judah himself, after the death of his wife, was under obligation to marry Thamar, if he was not willing to give her to his son. The same view is entertained by Gerlach, undoubtedly from a misunderstanding of the later levirate law.—Schrφder: Harlots only, in contrast with virtuous and domestic women, frequent the streets and markets, lurking at every cornerstone (Proverbs 7:12; Jeremiah 3:2; Joshua 2:15). Section Fourth. Genesis 38:27-30. Starke: Ver 30. In Christ’s birth-register, too, great sinners are found.—[Osiander: These two children signified two people, namely, the Jews and the Gentiles. For the Jews, though seeming to be the first to enter eternal life, have become the last; whilst those of the Gentiles who heard the gospel of Christ have gone before them and become the first (according to Val. Her berger.)]—Schrφder: Zarah, according to some, means brightness, as a name given to him on account of the scarlet color of the thread upon his hand. According to others, it means the sun-rising, as indicative of his appearing first.—Luther: Why did God and the Holy Ghost permit these shameful things to be written? Answer: that no one should be proud of his own righteousness and wisdom,—and, again, that no one should despair on account of his sins, etc. It may be to remind us that by natural right, Gentiles, too, are the mother, brothers, sisters of our Lord. Footnotes:[Genesis 38:14.—αְּ ?τֶ ?ϊַ ?ηςֵ ?ιπַ ?ιִ ?ν. Rendered, in our translation, an open place; margin, door of eyes, more literally, with reference to Proverbs 7:12. The LXX. have taken it as a proper name, ταῖςπύλαιςΑἰνάν, which has led some to regard it as the same with Enam mentioned Joshua 15:34, and referred to by Hieronymus as situated in the tribe of Judah, and called, in his day, Beth-enim. See Rosenmόller. The dual form here is expressive of something peculiar in the place. It means two eyes, or two fountains, probably the former, denoting two openings, that is, two ways, a place where she was certain to be seen. This corresponds to the Vulgate rendering, in bivio itineris. So the Syriac, ܒ ?ܦ ?ܠ ?ܫ ?ܬ ? ܐ ?ܘ ?ܪ ?ܚ ?ܬ ?ܐ ?; Arabs Erpenianus the same, ΥέαΗαΨγΟνή. The idea of there being a city there, at that time, or of her taking her place by the gate of a city, is absurd. Aben Ezra says it was a place so called because there were two fountains there. This was an early use of the Hebrew ςιο, the eye, arising from the beautiful conception that springs, or fountains, were eyes to the earth, as the herbs, in some places, are called ΰεֹ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ, lights coming from the earth.—T. L.] THIRD SECTIONJoseph in Potiphar’s house and in prison. His sufferings on account of his virtue, and his apparent destruction. Genesis 39:1-231 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard [life-guardsmen, executioners], an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites, which had brought him down thither. 2And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. 3And his master saw that the Lord was with him, and that the Lord made all that he did to prosper in his hand. 4And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him; and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand. 5And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had in the house and in the field. 6And he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand; and he knew not aught he had save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly person, and well-favored 7[see Genesis 29:17]. And it came to pass, after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and Hebrews 9 hath committed all that he hath to my hand; There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back anything from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? 10And it came to pass as she spake to Joseph, day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her. 11And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. 12And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out [of the house]. 13And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, 14That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to he with me, and I cried with a loud voice: 15And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me and fled, and got him out. 16And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home. 17And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: 18And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice, and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out. 19And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. 20And Joseph’s master took him, and put him into the prison [stronghold] a place where the king’s prisoners [state-prisoners] were bound: and he was there in the prison. 21But the Lord was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. 22And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph’s hand all the prisoners that were in the prison; and whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it. 23The keeper of the prison looked not to anything that was under his hand, because the Lord was with him, and that which he did, the Lord made it to prosper. GENERAL REMARKS1. The three chapters, 39–42, form a distinct section by themselves. Joseph in Egypt—in his misery and in his exaltation; first, himself apparently lost, afterwards a saviour of the world. Ch. 40 presents the transition from his humiliation to his exaltation. 2. In the section from Genesis 39-42, Knobel recognizes the elements of the original text, mingled with the additions of the Jehovist. It is a matter of fact, that the elohistic relations predominate, but in decisive points Jehovah appears as the ruler of Joseph’s destiny. 3. If the preceding chapter might be regarded as a counterpart to ch.37, then the present chapter forms again a counterpart to the one before it. Both chapters agree in referring especially to sexual relations. In the former, Onan’s sin, whoredom, and incest, are spoken of; in the one before us, it is the temptation to adultery. In the former, however, Judah, on account of sexual sins, seems greatly involved in guilt, though it is to be considered that he intended to restrain the unchastity of his sons, that he upholds the levirate law, that he judges severely of the supposed adultery of one betrothed, and that he purposely and decidedly shuns incest. Nevertheless, he himself does not resist the allurement to unchastity, whilst Joseph persistently resists the temptation to adultery, and shines brilliantly as an ancient example of chastity. His first trial, when he was sold, was his suffering innocently in respect to crime, and yet not without some fault arising from his inconsiderateness. His second and more grievous trial was his suffering on account of his virtue and fear of God, and, therefore, especially typical was it in the history of the kingdom of God. 4. Our narrative may be divided into three parts: 1) Joseph’s good conduct and prosperity in Potiphar’s house (Genesis 39:1-6); 2) Joseph’s temptation, constancy, and sufferings (Genesis 39:6-20); 3) Joseph’s well-being in prison (Genesis 39:21-23). AND 1. Joseph’s good behavior and prosperity in Potiphar’s house (Genesis 39:1-6).—And Potiphar bought him (see Genesis 37:36).—As captain of the “executioners,” he commanded the guard of the palace, or Pharaoh’s body-guard, who were to execute his death-sentences, and was named accordingly. Concerning this office among other ancient nations, see Knobel, p. 303. The name eunuch also denotes a courtier in general; but Knobel, without any ground, would regard Potiphar as really such; though these were frequently married.—And the Lord was with Joseph.—Here the name Jehovah certainly corresponds with the facts. Joseph was not only saved, but it is Jehovah who saves him for the purposes of his kingdom. His master soon recognizes in him the talent with which he undertakes and executes everything entrusted to him. As by Jacob’s entrance into Laban’s house, so by Joseph’s entrance into Potiphar’s, there comes a new prosperity, which strikes Potiphar as something remarkable. He ascribes it to Joseph as a blessing upon his piety, and to his God Jehovah, and raises Joseph to the position of his overseer. In this office he had, doubtless, the management of an extensive land-economy; for in this respect there was, for the military order, a rich provision. It was a good training for the management of the trust he afterwards received in respect to all Egypt. Upon this new influence of Joseph there follows a greater prosperity, and therefore Potiphar commits to him his whole house.—Save the bread which he did eat.—Schrφder: “There appears here that characteristic oriental indolence, on account of which a slave who has command of himself may easily attain to an honorable post of influence.” Save the bread, etc. “This,” according to Bohlen, “is an expression of the highest confidence; but the ceremonial Egyptian does not easily commit to a stranger anything that pertains to his food.” Besides, the Egyptians had their own laws concerning food, and did not eat with Hebrews. 2. Joseph’s temptations, consolations, and sufferings (Genesis 39:6-20).—And Joseph was a goodly man.—His beauty occasioned his temptations.—His master’s wife cast her eyes upon him.—His temptations are long continued, beginning with lustful persuasions, and ending in a bold attack. Joseph, on the other hand, tries to awaken her conscience; he places the proposed sin in every possible light; it would be a disgraceful abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his master; it would be an outrage upon his rights as a husband; it would be adultery, a great crime in the sight of God. Again, he shuns every opportunity the woman would give him, and finally takes to flight on a pressing occasion which she employs, notwithstanding he is now to expect her deadly revenge. Knobel: “The ancients describe Egypt as the home of unchastity (Martial, iv. 42, Genesis 4 : nequitias tellus scit dare nulla magis), and speak of the great prevalence of marriage infidelity (Herod, ii. 111; Diod. Sic. i. 59), as well as of their great sensuality generally. For example, the history of Cleopatra, Diod. Genesis 51. 15.” For similar statements respecting the later and modern Egypt, see Keil, p. 251, note.—To lie by her.—An euphemistic expression.—That she called unto the men.—Lust changes into hatred. She intends to revenge herself for his refusal. Besides, it is for her own safety; for though Joseph himself might not betray her, she might be betrayed by his garment that he had left behind. Her lying story is characteristic in every feature. Scornfully she calls her husband he (“he hath brought in,” etc.), and thereby betrays her hatred. Joseph she designates as “an Hebrew,” i. e., one of the nomadic people, who was unclean according to Egyptian views (Genesis 43:32; Genesis 46:34). Both expressions show her anger. She reproaches her husband with having imperilled her virtue, but makes a show of it, by calling the pretended seductions of Joseph a wanton mockery, as though by her outcry she would put herself forth as the guardian of the virtue of the females of her house.—Unto me to mock me.—Her extreme cunning and impudence are proved by the fact that she makes use of Joseph’s garment as the corpus delicti, and that in pretty plain terms she almost reproaches Potiphar with having purposely endangered her chastity.—That his wrath was kindled.—It is to be noticed that it is not exactly said, against Joseph. He puts him into the tower, the state-prison, surrounded by a wall, and in which the prisoners of the king, or the state criminals, were kept. Genesis 39:10. Delitzsch and Keil regard this punishment as mild; since, according to Diod. Sic. i. 28, the Egyptian laws of marriage were severe. It must be remembered, however, that Potiphar decreed this penalty without any trial of the accused, and that his confinement seems to have been unlimited. At the same time, there is something in the opinion, expressed by many, that he himself did not fully believe his wife’s assertion, and intended again, in time, to reinstate Joseph. It may, therefore, have seemed to him most proper to pursue this course, in order to avoid the disgrace of his house, without sacrificing entirely this hitherto faithful servant. The prosperous position that Joseph soon held in the prison seems to intimate that Potiphar was punishing him gently for appearance sake. 3. Joseph’s well-being in the prison (Genesis 39:21-23).—Favor in the sight of the keeper.—This was a subordinate officer of Potiphar; and “thus vanishes the difficulty presented by Tuch and Knobel, that Joseph is said to have had two masters, and that mention is made of two captains of the body-guard.” Delitzsch. The overseer of the prison also recognizes Joseph’s worth, and makes him a sort of sub-officer; though he does not, by that, cease to be a prisoner. AND ETHICAL1. Gerlach: The important step in the development of the divine plan is now to be made: the house of Jacob was to remove from the land of the promise into a foreign country, as had been announced to Abraham many years before (Genesis 15:13). Jacob’s numerous family could no longer remain among the Canaanites, without dispersion, loss of unity and independence, and troublesome conflicts with the inhabitants of the country. “Further on it is said: They were to become a people in the most cultivated country then known, and yet most distinctly separated from the inhabitants.” 2. Jehovah was with Joseph. The covenant God victoriously carries forward his decrees through all the need, sufferings, and ignominy of his people. Joseph, so to say, is now the support of the future development of the Old-Testament theocracy; and on the thread of his severely threatened life, as one above whose head hangs the sword of the heathen executioner, there is suspended, as far as the human eye can see, the destiny both of Israel and the world. God’s omnipotence may, and can, make its purposes dependent from such threads as Joseph in prison, Moses in the ark, David in the cave of Adullam. Providence is sure of the accomplishment of its object. 3. Joseph suffering innocently, yet confiding in God: a. a slave, yet still a free man; b. unfortunate, yet still a child of fortune: c. abandoned, yet still standing firm in the severest temptations; d. forlorn, yet still in the presence of God; e. an object of impending wrath, yet still preserved alive; f. a state-prisoner, and yet himself a prison-keeper; g. every way subdued, yet ever again superior to his condition. In this phase of his life, Joseph is akin to Paul (2 Corinthians 6), with whom he has this in common, that, through the persecutions of his brethren, he is forced to carry the light of God’s kingdom into the heathen world,—a fact, it is true, that first appears, in the life of Joseph, in a typical form. 4. Joseph, as an example of chastity, stands here in the brightest light when compared with the conduct of Judah in the previous chapter. From this we see that the divine election of the Messianic tribe was not dependent upon the virtues of the Israelitish patriarchs. We should be mistaken, however, in concluding from this a groundless arbitrariness in the divine government. In the strong fulness of Judah’s nature there lies more that is undeveloped for the future, than in the immature spirituality and self-reliance of Joseph. It is a seal of the truth of Holy Scripture that it admits such seeming paradoxes as no mythology could have invented, as well as a seal of its grandeur that it could so boldly present such a patriarchal parallel to a people proud of its ancestry, whose principal tribe was Judah, and in which Judah and Ephraim were filled with jealousy toward each other. 5. Joseph’s victory shows how a man, and especially a young man, is to overcome temptation. The first requirement is: walk as in the all-seeing presence of God; the second: fight with the weapons of the word in the light of duty (taking the offensive, which the spirit of conversion assumes according to the measure of its strength); the third: avoid the occasions of sin; the fourth: firmness before all things, and, if it must be, flight with the loss of the dress, of the good name, and even of life itself. 6. The curse of adultery and its actual sentence in Joseph’s speech and conduct. 7. The accusation of the woman a picture of cabal, reflecting itself in all times, even the most modern. The first example of gross calumniation in the Sacred Scripture, coming from an adulterous woman, presenting a picture, the very opposite of Joseph’s virtue, as exhibiting the most impudent and revengeful traits of vindictive lying. Thus, also, was Christ calumniated, in a way that might be called the consummation of all calumny, the master-piece of the prince of accusers. 8. Potiphar’s wrath and mildness are indications that he had a presentiment of what the truth really was. It is also an example showing how the pride of the great easily inclines them to sacrifice to the honor of their house the right and happiness of their dependants. AND See Doctrinal and Ethical. Joseph’s destiny according to the divine providence: 1. His misfortune in his fortune. As formerly the preference of his father, his variegated coat, and the splendid dreams, prepared for him misfortunes, so now his important function in Potiphar’s house, and his goodly person. 2. His fortune in his misfortune. He was to go to Egypt, assume the condition of a slave, enter prison, and all this in order to become a prophetic man, an interpreter of dreams, an overseer of estates, lord of Egypt, a deliverer of many from hunger, a cause of repentance to his brethren, and of salvation to the house of Jacob.—Taube: The promise of suffering, and the blessing of godliness: 1. Its use: “godliness is profitable unto all things; ” 2. its sufferings: “all that will live godly shall suffer persecution; ” 3. its blessing in its exercise: “exercise thyself unto godliness.” Section First. (Genesis 39:1-6). Starke.: There is no better companion on a journey than God. Blessed are they who never forget to take this society with them wherever they go.—Bibl. Tub.: God’s blessing and grace are with the pious everywhere, even in their severest trials.—Cramer: Where God is present with his grace, there he will be soon known through his word, and other tokens of his presence.—Osiander: Pious servants should be made happy in their service; they should be loved as children, and elevated to higher employments.—Lange: A beautiful bodily form, and a disposition fundamentally enriched, both by grace and nature! how fitly do they correspond.—Schrφder: In Egypt Jacob’s family had a rich support during the famine; there could it grow up to a great and united people; there it found the best school of human culture; there was the seat of the greatest worldly power, and, therefore, the best occasion in which to introduce those severe sufferings that were to awaken in Israel a longing after redemption, and a spirit of voluntary consecration to God (Hengstenberg).—God’s being with Joseph, however, is not a presence of special revelations, as with the patriarchs, but a presence of blessing and success in all things (Baumgarten).—Joseph happy, though a servant.—Among the implements of agriculture delineated on the Egyptian tombs, there is often to be seen an overseer keeping the accounts of the harvest. In a tomb at Kum el Ahmar there is to be seen the office of a household steward, with all its appurtenances. Section Second. (Genesis 39:7-20). Starke: Luther: Thus far Satan had tempted Joseph on his left side, i. e., by manifold and severe adversities; now he tempts him on the right, by sensuality. This temptation is most severe and dangerous, especially to a young man. For Joseph lived now among the heathen, where such sins were frequent, and could, therefore, more easily excite a disposition in any way inclined to sensual pleasure. The more healthy one is in body, the more violent is this sickness of the soul (Sir 14:14), The more dangerous temptations are, or the more difficult to be overcome, so much the more plausible and agreeable are they. Nothing is more alluring than the eyes. “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.” Genesis 39:9. Musculus: In all cases he who sins, sins against God,—even then when he is wronging his fellow-men. But he most especially sins against God who injures the forsaken, the miserable, the “little ones,” and those who are deficient in understanding. For God will protect them, since they cannot be wronged without the grossest wickedness.—Augustine: Imitentur adolescentes Joseph sanctum, pulchrum corpore, pulchriorem mente.—Lange: Since by nature shame is implanted in women to a higher degree than in men (in addition to the fact, that in consenting and transgression she is exposed to more danger and shame), so much the more disgraceful is it when she so degenerates as not only to lay snares secretly for the other sex, but also impudently to importune them.—The same: The fear of God is the best means of grace for avoiding sin and shame.—Hall: A pious heart would rather remain humbled in the dust then rise by sinful means. Genesis 39:12. He preferred to leave his garment behind him, rather than a good conscience.—Lange: In a temptation to adultery and fornication, flight becomes the most pressing necessity. Genesis 39:18. Cramer: The devil will be true to his nature; for as he is an unclean spirit, so also is he a liar.—Hall: Wickedness is ever artful in getting up false charges against the virtues and good works of others (Acts 16:20). We must be patient toward the diabolical slanders of the impious; for God finally comes and judges them.—Beware of the act itself; against the lie there may be found a remedy Genesis 39:19-20. He who believes easily is easily deceived. Magistrates should neither be partial, hasty, nor too passionate. Schrφder: “Joseph was a goodly person.” With literal reference to Genesis 29:17, Joseph was the reflected image of his mother. They in whose hearts the Holy Spirit dwells, are wont to have a countenance frank, upright, and joyful (Luther).—The love of Potiphar’s wife was far more dangerous to Joseph than the hatred of his brothers (Rambach).—Now a far worse servitude threatens him, namely, that of sin (Krummacher).—Joseph had a chaste heart, and, therefore, a modest tongue (Val. Herberger). Unchaste expressions a mark of unchaste thoughts. On the monuments may be seen Egyptian women who are so drunk with wine that they cannot stand. Of a restriction of wives, as customary afterwards in the East, and even in Greece, we find no trace.—Joseph lets his mantle go, but holds on to a good conscience. Joseph is again stripped of his garment, and again does it serve for the deception of others.—Sensual love changes suddenly into hatred (2 Samuel 13:15).—Calwer Handbuch: Such flight is more honorable than the most heroic deeds. Section Third. (Genesis 39:21-23). Starke: Osiander: To a pious man there cannot happen a severer misfortune than the reputation of guilt, and of deserved punishment therefor, when he is innocent (Romans 8:28).—Cramer: God sympathises with those who suffer innocently (James 1:3). God bringeth his elect down to the grave, but bringeth them up again (1 Samuel 2:6). Whom God would revive, can no one stifle. Whom God favors, no misfortune can harm. Schrφder: Those who believe in God must suffer on account of virtue, truth, and goodness; not on account of sin and shame (Luther). Exaltation in humiliation, a sceptre in a prison, servant and Lord—even as Christ.—God’s eyes behold the prison, the fetters, and the most shameful death, as he beholds the fair and shining sun. In Joseph’s condition nothing is to be seen but death, the loss of his fair fame, and of all his virtues. Now comes Christ with his eyes of grace, and throws light into the grave. Joseph is to become a Lord, though he had seemingly entered into the prison of hell (Luther). Joseph’s way is now for a time in the darkness, but this is the very way through which God often leads his people. Thus Moses, David, Paul, Luther; so lived the Son of God to his thirtieth year in Nazareth. Nothing is more opposed to God than that impatience of the power of nature which would violently usurp his holy government.—Stolberg justly commends “the inimitable simplicity of Joseph’s history, narrated in the most vivid manner, and bearing on its face the most unmistakable seal of truth.” Footnotes:[Genesis 39:20.—αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?ρֹּ ?δַ ?ψ. Literally, the round house, so called from its shape, which was different from the common Egyptian architecture—thus constructed, perhaps, as giving greater strength. Aben Ezra expresses the opinion that the word is Egyptian; but it occurs in Hebrew, as in Son 7:3 (ρַ ?δַ ?ψ), where it evidently has the sense of roundness, and is so rendered in the ancient versions. This is confirmed by its near relationship to the more common ρηψ, to go round, from which the Syriac has its word ܒ ?ܩ ? ܫ ?ܫ ?ܖ ?̇ ?ܬ ? ܐ ? for tower or castle. Although Joseph, for policy, used an interpreter when speaking with his brethren, yet there must have been, at this time, a great affinity between the Shemitic and the old Egyptian tongue. Very many of the words must have been the same in both languages. The LXX. have rendered it, ἐνὀχυρώματι, in the stronghold; Vulg., simply in carcerem.—T. L.] FOURTH SECTIONJoseph as interpreter of the dreams of his fellow-prisoners. Genesis 40:1-231 And it came to pass after these things that the butler of the king of Egypt, and his baker, had offended their lord the king of Egypt. 2And Pharaoh was wroth against two of his officers, against the chief of the butlers, and against the chief of the bakers. 3And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound. 4And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them; and he served them; and they continued a season in ward. 5And they dreamed a dream, each man his dream in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, which were bound in prison. 6And Joseph came in unto them in the morning, and looked upon them, and, behold, they were sad. 7And he asked Pharaoh’s officers that were with him in the ward of his lord’s house, saying, Wherefore look ye so sadly to day? 8And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you. 9And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, In my dream, behold, a vine was before me. 10And in the vine were three branches: and it was as though it budded, and her blossoms shot forth; and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes: 11And Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand. 12And Joseph said unto him, This is the interpretation of it: The three branches are three days: 13Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thine head, and restore thee unto thy place; and thou shalt deliver Pharaoh’s cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast his butler. 14But think on me when it shall be well with thee, and shew kindness, I pray thee, unto me; and make mention of me unto Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house: 15For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews; and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon. 16When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said unto Joseph, I also was in my dream, and behold, I had three white baskets on my head; 17And in the uppermost basket there was of all manner of bakemeats for Pharaoh; and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head. 18And Joseph answered and said, This is the interpretation thereof: The three baskets are three days: 19Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee. 20And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants; and he lifted up the head of the chief butler, and of the chief baker among his servants. 21And he restored the chief butler unto his butlership again; and he gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand; 22But he hanged the chief baker; as Joseph had interpreted to them. 23Yet did not the chief butler remember Joseph, but forgat him. REMARKSThe contents of this chapter may be denoted, the silent preparation for the great turning in Joseph’s destiny. In itself considered, however, our narrative shows us how the religious capacity of suffering for the Lord’s sake develops itself, like a germ, in the people of God. Joseph’s spiritual life shines resplendent in his prison. There may be distinguished the following sections: 1. The imprisonment of the two court-officers, and Joseph’s charge over them (Genesis 40:1-4); 2. their dejectedness, and Joseph’s sympathy (Genesis 40:5-8); 3. the dream of the chief butler, and its interpretation (Genesis 40:9-15); 4. the dream of the chief baker, and its interpretation (Genesis 40:16-19); 5. the fulfilment of both dreams. AND 1. Genesis 40:1-4. The imprisonment of the two court-officers, and Joseph’s charge over them.—The chief of the butlers and the chief of the bakers.—According to Genesis 40:2 they are the chiefs in their respective departments of service. The oriental kings, as those of the Persians (Xenoph., Hellenica, viii. i. 38), had a multitude of butlers, bakers, and cooks. The office of chief butler was very honorable with the kings of Persia (Herod., iii. 34; Xenoph., Cyroped. i. 3, 8). It was once filled by Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:11; Nehemiah 2:1).—In the house of the captain of the guard—i. e., in the house of Potiphar. The house of the captain of the guard was connected with the state-prison, and denotes here the prison itself.—Charged Joseph with them.—Here Potiphar again mingles himself with Joseph’s fortune (and that by way of mitigating it) in the recognition of his talents. By this distinguished charge, he shows favor, at the same time, to Joseph and to his fallen colleagues. 2. Genesis 40:5-8. Their dejectedness and Joseph’s sympathy.—According to the interpretation.—Both had dreamed—each one a different dream—each one a significant dream, according to the anticipated occurrence upon which it was founded, and also according to its interpretation. Joseph’s conversation with the sad and dejected prisoners, proves his sagacity as well as his kindly sympathy. It shows, too, how misfortune equalizes rank, and makes the great dependent on the sympathy of those who are lower in position.—And there is no interpreter of it.—An expression showing that the interpretation of dreams was much in vogue, and that it was one of the wants of persons of rank to have their dreams interpreted.—Do not interpretations belong to God?—He admits that there are significant dreams, and that God could bestow on men the gift of interpretation when they are referred back to him. He rejects, indirectly, the heathen art of interpreting dreams, whilst, at the same time, giving them to understand that it was, perhaps, imparted to himself. First, however, he is to hear their dreams. Knobel is inexact when he speaks in general terms of “the ancient view concerning dreams.” Doubtless the field of revelation admits dreams as sent by God, but these coincide with dreams in general just as little as the prophetic mode of interpreting them coincided with that of the heathen, though, according to Egyptian views, all prophetic art comes from the gods (Herod, ii. 83), Knobel. 3. Genesis 40:9-15. The dream of the chief butler and its interpretation.—In my dream, behold a vine.—A lively description of a lively dream. The first picture is the vine, and the rapid development of its branches to the maturity of the grapes. On the vine in Egypt, see Knobel, p. 307. In the second picture, the chief butler beholds himself in the service of Pharaoh, preparing and presenting to him the juice of the grapes. “The vine was referred to Osiris, and was already well known in Egypt. See Psalms 78:47; Psalms 105:33; Numbers 20:5. The statement, Herod., ii. 77, is, therefore, to be taken with limitations. Nor is it true that in the time of Psammeticus fresh must only was drank, while fermented wine was prohibited. Knobel has shown that Plutarch, De Iside, vi. 6, says just the contrary. The people drank wine unrestrained; the kings, because they were priests, only so much as was allowed by the sacred books; but from the time of Psammeticus even this restriction was abolished. The old monuments show great variety of wine-utensils, wine-presses at work, topers tired of drinking, even intoxicated women.” Delitzsch. “Wine had been prohibited before the time of Mohammed (Sharastani, ii. p. 346). The grapes he allowed (Koran, xvi. 11, 69). They evaded his prohibition by pressing the grapes and drinking the juice of the berries (Schultz, Leitungen, v. p. 286). Such juice of grapes the Egyptian king drank also in Joseph’s time. He was a ruler of the Hyksos (?), who were an Arabian tribe.” Knobel. The same: The dream-interpreter Artemidorus classes the vine with plants that grow rapidly, and regards dreams concerning it as having a quick fulfilment. Joseph’s interpretation.—Three branches, three days.—Since Pharaoh’s birth-day was at hand, and was known, perhaps, as a day of pardon, this presentiment may, to some degree, have been affected by it.—Lift up thine head.—To replace, again, in prosperity and honor, especially to bring out of prison (2 Kings 25:27).—And show kindness, I pray thee, unto me.—Joseph is so sure of his interpretation that he employs the opportunity to plead for his own right and liberty.—I was stolen.—An expression of innocence. They took him away from his father, but how it was done, his feelings do not allow him to relate; enough that he came to Egypt neither as a criminal, nor as a slave, rightly sold. With the same caution he speaks about his imprisonment without exposing the house of Potiphar. 4. Genesis 40:16-19. The dream of the chief of the bakers, and its interpretation. The striking resemblance of his dream to the one previously interpreted, caused the baker to overlook its ominous difference; he, therefore, hopes also for a favorable interpretation. The interpreter, however, shows his discernment in recognizing the birds that did not eat the bakemeats out of the basket upon his head, as the main point. He differs also from the heathen interpreters in announcing the unfavorable meaning plainly and distinctly. Knobel: “In Egypt men were accustomed to carry on their heads, women upon their shoulders. In modern Egypt women bear burdens upon their heads.” “Even at this day in Egypt kites and hawks seize upon articles of food carried upon the head.” The criminal to be put to death was fastened to a stake, to increase thereby the severity of the punishment (Deuteronomy 21:22; Joshua 10:26; 2 Samuel 4:12). This custom was also prevalent among other nations, especially the Persians and Carthaginians. 5. Genesis 40:20-23. The fulfilment of both these dreams. The kings of antiquity were accustomed to celebrate their birth-days. “According to Herodotus, this was the only day on which the kings of the Persians anointed themselves, and gave presents to their subjects. In like manner the Hebrew kings, on joyous occasions, exercised mercy (1 Samuel 11:13).” Knobel. Joseph is forgotten by the butler, apparently for ever; God, however, has provided for his exaltation, not only through the destiny denoted in the dreams, but also by the clearing up of the truthfulness of the interpreter. AND ETHICAL1. The manner in which the divine providence quietly and secretly makes the most insignificant things, apparently, the occasion and the cause of wonderful changes, appears very visible, in our narrative. It would appear simply fortuitous that Pharaoh should have thrown into prison his two officers on account, perhaps, of some very trifling offence; still more accidental would it appear that Joseph should have had charge of them, and that both should have had alarming dreams, and finally, how extraordinarily fortuitous that Joseph, on entering, should have observed their depression in their countenances! But all this apparent chance was made a prerequisite, in the course of God’s providence, for Joseph’s exaltation, and Israel’s redemption. “The Lord finds a thousand ways where reason sees not even one.” 2. The occurrences of the heathen world, the affairs of courts, their crimes, cabals, intrigues, are all under the divine control. A country in which the wisdom of the world seems to have emancipated itself from all regard to the government of a divine providence, is just the one whose administration shows the most failure, and most frequently experiences an ironical disappointment of its plans. 3. Prisons, too, with their dark chambers, dungeons, sorrows, secrets, are under the control of God. At all times have they enclosed not only criminals, but the innocent,—oftentimes the best and most pious of men. Christ says: I was in prison, and ye came unto me; and he speaks thus, not of faithful martyrs only; even among the guilty there is a spark of Christ’s kinsmanship,—i. e., belonging to him. 4. How mightily misfortune takes away the distinction of rank. Joseph has not only the heart’s gift of sympathy for the unhappy, but also that open-hearted self-consciousness that fits him to associate with the great. Even when a child did he run before his mother in meeting Esau. 5. The night-life with its wakefulness, as with its dreams, enters into the web of the divine providence (see Book of Esther, Daniel, Matthew 2; Matthew 27:19; Acts 16:9; Psalms 132:4). Dreams are generally so unmeaning that they should never cause men to err in obedience to the faith, in duty, or in the exercise of a judicious understanding. Their most general significance, however, consists in their being a reflection of the feelings, remembrances, and anticipations of the day life, as also in the fact, that all perceptions of the body give themselves back in the mirror of the nightly consciousness, as imaged speech or picture. The spirit of God may, therefore, employ dreams as a medium of revelation. He can send dreams and bestow the gift of interpretation. But, in themselves, the most significant dreams of revelation never form ethical decisions, though they may be signs and monitors of the same. Their higher significance, however, is sealed by their great and world-historic consequences for the kingdom of God. 6. Joseph very definitely distinguished between his own and the heathen mode of interpreting dreams; and this he owes to his Israelitish consciousness as opposed to the heathen. The divine certainty of his interpretation is seen in the fact, that, notwithstanding the greatest similarity in both dreams, he immediately recognizes the point of dissimilarity, and dares to make the fearful announcement in the assurance that the issue of the affair would be in correspondence. The apparent severity of such frankness could not make him falter in the feeling of what was due to truth. To narrate how he may have sought to mitigate it, by expressions of sympathy, lay not within the scope of this narration. 7. The joyous feasts of the great are sources both of life and death. 8. A man in prosperity soon forgets the companions of his former misery, just as the chief butler forgot Joseph. God’s memory never fails, and it is, at the same time, the chief quickener of the memories of men. God keeps his own time. The ray of hope that shone for the prisoner at the release of the chief butler went out again for two years. When all hope seemed to have vanished, then divine help comes in wonderfully. AND See Doct. and Eth. Joseph’s disciplinary trials. His preparation for his great calling of saviour and ruler: a. by sufferings; b. by works of his vocation!—Traces of God in the prison: 1. Divine light; 2. holy love; 3. divine monitions; 4. hope of deliverance.—God’s government in its great issues: 1. Of the smallest things; 2. of the proudest events; 3. of the most fallible judgments of men; 4. of the darkest prisons; 5. of the nightly life; 6. of hopes and fears in human need. First Section. Genesis 40:1-4. Starke: Genesis 40:1. In what the offence consisted is not announced. The Rabbins, who pretend to know all things about which the Scriptures are silent, say that the butler had permitted a fly to drop into the king’s cup, and that a grain of sand was found in the bread of the baker. The conjecture of Rabbi Jonathan has more probability; he thinks that both had conspired to poison the king. Joseph was thirteen years in a state of humiliation, and the last three (?) in a prison. Schrφder: Information concerning the Egyptian wine culture and representations of it upon the monuments (according to Champollion and others, p. 576),—also concerning the modes of baking, which was quite an advanced art among the Egyptians. The Egyptians had for their banquets many different kinds of pastry.—The offices of chief butler and chief baker were in high honor, and sometimes that of field-marshal was connected with them.—In the East the prisons are not public buildings erected for this sole purpose, but a part of the house in which the prison officer resided. Second Section. Genesis 40:5-8. Starke: Cramer: There are different kinds of dreams: divine dreams (Genesis 28:12; Genesis 41:17; Daniel 2:28); diabolical dreams (Deuteronomy 13:2; Jeremiah 23:16; Jeremiah 27:9); natural dreams (Ecclesiastes 5:2). We must, therefore, distinguish between dreams, and not regard them all alike (Sir 34:7). The godless and the pious may get into the same troubles, and have similar sufferings; yet they cannot look upon them with the like dispositions and emotions. Schrφder: They may have been dreams suggested by their official position. Both of them may have gone to sleep with the number three upon their minds because of the thought that Pharaoh was to celebrate his birth-day within three days. No wonder that their imagination overflowed from the abundance of their hearts; and who can tell how much their consciences were concerned in these dreams. The culture and the character of the Egyptians Was every way mystical, or rather symbolical; the less they are able to account for an occurrence the more divine it seemed. Night they considered as source of all things, and as a being to which they paid divine honors. The whole ancient history of this wonderful people has a nocturnal aspect about it. One might call it the land of dreams, of presentiments, enigmas. Joseph’s destiny in respect to this country begins in dreams, and is completed by them (Krummacher). It is not every one that can read the writing of the human countenance; this power is given to love only (Baumgarten). He preached in prison as Christ did (Richter). Third Section. Genesis 40:9-15. Starke: Genesis 40:14. The Jews charge that Joseph in this request demanded pay for his interpretation, and allege that, on this account, he had to remain in prison two years longer. There is, however, no ground for such an imputation; but though he had the assurance of the divine presence, and that God would deliver him from the prison, he had, nevertheless, a natural longing for liberty. Besides, he did not ask anything unfair of the butler (1 Corinthians 7:21).—Cramer: Ordinary means are from God, and he who despises them tempts God.—The same: We may assert our innocency, and seek deliverance, yet still we must not, on that account, speak ill of those who have injured us ( Matthew 5:44). Schrφder: The dream of the chief butler, no doubt, leans upon the business of his life and office, but, on the other hand, it also has the imaginative impression of “the poet concealed within every man,” as Schubert calls it.—Calwer Handbuch: Genesis 40:15. A mild judgment upon the act of his brethren, whom he would not unnecessarily reproach. Fourth Section. Genesis 40:16-19. Starke: Bibl. Wirt.: Whenever the word of God is to be expounded, it should be done in the way the Holy Spirit presents it, and according to the word itself, no matter whether the hearers are disturbed, alarmed, or comforted.—Schrφder: (Calvin:) Many desire the word of God because they promise themselves simply enjoyment in the hearing of it.—Calwer Handbuch: In Hebrew, “to lift up the head,” is a play upon words. It means to restore to honor and dignity, or to hang upon the gallows, or decapitation (taking off the head), or crucifixion (lifting up upon the cross). Fifth Section. Genesis 40:20-23. Starke: Bibl. Wirt: Godless men in adversity, when they receive help from the pious, make the fairest of promises, but when prosperity returns they forget them all. Be not, therefore, too confiding. High station changes the manners, and usually makes men arrogant.—Lange: How easily is a favor forgotten, and how seductive the courtier life!—Schrφder: These are times when men, through the prestige of birth, or by money, or human favor, may reach the summit of honor and wealth, without any previous schooling of adversity; still such men are not truly great, whatever may be the greatness of their title and their revenues. They are not the instruments that God employs in the accomplishment of his great purposes. Thus to Joseph, who was to become Lord of Egypt, the house and prison of Potiphar, in both of which he bore rule on a lesser scale, were to be his preparatory school. The wisdom he was to exercise in greater things begins here to show itself in miniature. Such a heart-purifying discipline is needed by all who would see God, and who would be clothed with authority for the world’s benefit. Without this there is no truly righteous administration. It never comes from passsionate overhastiness, sensual sloth, needless fear, selfish purposes, or unreasoning obstinacy. On the contrary, Joseph was purified, in prison, by the word of God; so was Moses in Midian, David in exile, Daniel in Babylon. Thus became they fit instruments in the hand of God (Roos). Therefore is it that the pious Joseph was crucified, dead, and buried, and descended into hell. Now comes the Lord to deliver him, honor him, make him great (Luther).—Heim (Bible Studies): It was Joseph’s single ray of hope in the prison—that which lighted him to freedom—that he could commend himself to the intercession of the chief butler. When this went out, according to every probable view, there seemed nothing else for him than to pine away his whole life in prison; and yet the fulfilment of the dreams of the court officers might have strengthened him in the hope of the fulfilment of his own dreams in his native home. Footnotes: [Genesis 40:11.—εָ ?ΰֶ ?ωְׂ ?ηַ ?θ. I pressed. The word occurs only here, yet its meaning is sufficiently obvious from the context, and from the cognate Chaldaic ρδθ. It is onomatopic, representing the emission of the juice. It is allied to ωηϊ with its sense of waste and destruction. LXX., ἐξέθλιψα; Vulg., expressi.—T. L.] [Genesis 40:22.—ϊָּ ?μָ ?δ. It does not here denote suspension from, like hanging from a gallows. The preposition ςַ ?μ is opposed to that, and shows that it denotes crucifixion.—T. L.] FIFTH SECTIONJoseph the interpreter of Pharaoh’s dreams.Genesis 41:1-571 And it came to pass, at the end of two full years [lit., days], that Pharaoh dreamed; and, behold, he stood by the river. 2And, behold, there came up out of the river seven well-favoured kine, and fat-fleshed; and they fed in a meadow [bulrushes, the grass on the bank of the river]. 3And, behold, seven other kine came up after them out of the river, ill-favoured 4and lean-fleshed, and stood by the other kine upon the brink of the river. And the ill-favoured and lean-fleshed kine did eat up the seven well-favoured and fat kine. So Pharaoh awoke. 5And he slept and dreamed the second time; and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good. 6And, behold, seven thin ears, and blasted with the east wind, sprung up [in single stacks] after them. 7And the seven thin ears devoured the seven rank and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold, it was a dream. 8And it came to pass in the morning, that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians [scribes: skilled in hieroglyphics] of Egypt, and all the wise men [magicians] thereof; and Pharaoh told them his dreams; but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh. 9Then spake the chief butler unto Pharaoh, saying, I do remember my faults this day. 10Pharaoh was wroth with his servants, and put me in ward in the captain of the guard’s house, both me and the chief baker; 11And we dreamed a dream in one night, I and he; we dreamed each man according to the interpretation of his dream. 12And there was there with us a young man, an Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams; to each man according to his dream he did interpret. 13And it came to pass, as he interpreted to us, so it was; me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged. 14Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon [pit]; and he shaved himself, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh. 15And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it; and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it. 16And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace. 17And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, In my dream, behold, I stood upon the bank of the river; 18And, behold, there came up out of the river seven kine, fat-fleshed, and well-favoured; and they fed in a meadow; 19And, behold, seven other kine came up after them, poor, and very ill-favoured and lean-fleshed, such as I never saw in all the land of Egypt for badness; 20And the lean and the ill-favoured kine did eat up the first seven fat kine; 21And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill-favoured, as at the beginning. So I awoke. 22And I saw in my dream, and, behold, seven ears came up in one stalk, full and good; 23And, behold, seven ears, withered, thin, and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them; 24And the thin ears devoured the seven good ears. And I told this unto the magicians; but there was none that could declare it to me. 25And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one; God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do. 26The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years; the dream is one. 27And the seven thin and ill-favoured kine, that came up after them, are seven years; and the seven empty ears, blasted with the east wind shall be 28seven years of famine. This is the thing which I have spoken unto Pharaoh; what God is about to do, he sheweth unto Pharaoh. 29Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt; 30And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt; and the famine shall consume the land; 31And the plenty shall not be known in the land, by reason of that famine following; for it shall be very grievous. 32And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and 33God will shortly bring it to pass. Now, therefore, let Pharaoh look out a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt. 34Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years. 35And let them gather [lay in store] all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities. 36And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine. 37And the thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of all his servants. 38And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is? 39And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art; 40Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled; only in the throne will I be greater than thou. 41And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. 42And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain upon his neck; 43And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee; and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. 44And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. 45And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-paaneah [gave him the title of Savior of the world; preserver of life, &c.]; and he gave him to wife Asenath [consecrated to Neith (the Egyptian Minerva)], the daughter of Potipherah [same as Potiphar; near to the sun], priest of On [light: sun; Heliopolis]. And Joseph 46went out over all the land of Egypt. And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt. And Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh, and went throughout all the land of Egypt. 47And in the seven plenteous years the earth brought forth by handfuls [armful upon armful]. 48And he gathered up all the food of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities; the food of the field which was round about every city, laid he up in the same. 49And Joseph gathered corn as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering; for it was without number. 50And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came; which Asenath, the daughter of Poti-pherah, priest of On, bare unto him. 51And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh [the one that causes to forget; viz., Jehovah]; For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. 52And the name of the second called he Ephraim [Fόrst: fruits; Delitzsch: double fruitfulness]; For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction. 53And the seven years of plenteousness that was in the land of Egypt were ended [εַ ?ϊִּ ?λְ ?μֶ ?ιπָ ?δ]. 54And the seven years of dearth began [εַ ?ϊְ ?ηִ ?μֶּ ?ιπָ ?δ] to come, according as Joseph had said; and the 55dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. And when [also] all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread; and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do. And the famine was over all the face of the earth; And Joseph opened all the store-houses, and sold unto the Egyptians; 56and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. 57And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands. REMARKSContents of this section: The dreams of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:1-7); 2. The Egyptian interpreters of dreams and Joseph (Genesis 41:8-16); 3. The narration of the dreams and their interpretation (Genesis 41:17-32): 4. Joseph’s counsel in the employment of his interpretation; 5. Pharaoh’s consent and appointment of Joseph as overseer (Genesis 41:37-45); 6. Joseph’s management during the seven years of plenty, and God’s blessing him with children (Genesis 41:46-53); 7. The seven years of dearth, the famine, and the buying of the corn in Egypt (Genesis 41:54-57). AND 1. Genesis 41:1-7. The dreams of Pharaoh.—At the end of two years (ιξιν).—This shows Joseph’s long imprisonment.—By the river (Lange translates: By the Nile).—The Nile, as is well known, is the condition on which Egypt’s fruitfulness depends. Its overflowing fertilizes the soil, and when it does not occur, the crops fail.—Seven well-favored kine.—On the one hand was the male kine, a symbol of the Nile (Diod. Sic. i. 51), and especially sacred to their god Osiris, who invented agriculture (Diod. i. 21). The bullock was a symbol of Osiris, whose name was also given by the Egyptian priests to the Nile (Plutarch:De Iside, 33, 39, 43). On the other hand, the female kine, in the Egyptian symbolical language, was the symbol of the earth, of agriculture, and of the sustenance derived from it (Clemens Alex.Strom. v. p. 567). This agrees with the representation of Isis, who was worshipped as the goddess of the all-nourishing earth (Macrob. “Saturn,” i. 20), or of the earth fertilized by the Nile (Plutarch:De Iside, 38). The cow was specially sacred to her, and she was pictured with horns (Herod. ii. 41). Her symbol was the kine. “Isis was, at the same time, goddess of the moon which determined the year. In hieroglyphic writing, her picture denoted the year.” Knobel. Seven well-favored kine rising out of the Nile were, therefore, pictures of a seven-fold appearance of the soil made fruitful by the Nile.—Seven other kine came up, ill-favored.—Lit., thin (Genesis 41:19), lank, lean-fleshed. They follow these well-favored ones, and appear right by their side—a typical expression of the fact that the years of famine are to follow close upon the years of plenty.—And dreamed the second time.—“According to the ancient art of dream-interpretation, dreams that tare repeated within a short time have the same meaning; the repetition was to awake attention and secure confidence (Artemidorus:Oneirocrit. 4, 27). Knobel.—Seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk.—According to Knobel, the coming up upon one stalk is to denote the immediate connection of the respective heptades. But then the same thing would have been mentioned in respect to the seven thin ears. The plentiful branching of the principal stalk into separate spears and ears, is, however, an immediate appearance of fertility, whilst, on the contrary, the thin crop does not spread, but comes up in separate and slender stalks.—Blasted with the east wind.—With the southeast wind coming from the desert—the wind called chamsin.—It was a dream.—It was obvious to Pharaoh from both dreams that there was in them something very important; but the imagery had been so vivid that he awakes with conscious surprise at finding it a dream. Knobel: “A beautiful series of symbols: the Nile the source of fertility, cows as representing fertility itself, and ears of corn as the result.” 2. Genesis 41:8-16. The Egyptian interpreters of dreams, and Joseph.—That his spirit was troubled (Comp. Daniel 2:2). There was something painful in the thought that though there was some evident monition to him as a sovereign, the interpretation was wanting; and the pictures were the more painful since their termination was apparently so terrible.—And called all the magicians.—The ηψθξιν from ηֶ ?ψֶ ?θ, a writing stile, were the ἱερογραμματεῖς, belonging to the order of the priests, and occupied with the sacred sciences, such as hieroglyphical writing, astrology, dream-interpretation, fortune-telling, magic, and sorcery. They were regarded as possessors of the secret arts (Exodus 7:11), or, in other words, the philosophers, or wise men of the nation. Keil. More particularly concerning their magic art, see Knobel, p. 311. As interpreters of dreams the Egyptian priests are also mentioned by Tacitus: “Hist.” iv. 83. See Delitzsch, p. 544, and Hengstenberg.—But there was no one that could interpret them.—“Though the roots of the dream, and of its interpretation, were given in the religious symbolical science of Egypt,” as Keil remarks, they failed to find its meaning; but then ho calls to mind what Baumgarten says: “It is the doom of this world’s wisdom to be dumb where its knowledge might avail, or dependence is placed upon it (Job 12:20).” This incapacity, however, must naturally be increased in cases where the interpretation to be brought out is evidently of a fearful nature; for the heathen court-prophets were doubtless flatterers, too, just as afterwards the false prophets in the courts of the Jewish kings.—I do remember my fault.—The chief butler, too, is called to the council; for together with the magicians the wise men generally were summoned to attend. The declaration of the chief butler is referred, by Knobel and Keil, to his offence against the king (Genesis 40:1), and, at the same time, to his forgetfulness of Joseph (Genesis 40:43). At all events, the unpleasant recollection of his former punishment was the principal cause.—And they brought him hastily.—A vivid representation of the turning of his fortune, caused by the rising court favor.—And he shaved himself.—Joseph met the excitement of his liberators with grace and dignity. “He changed his garments, as is done by one who is to participate in some sacred act (see Genesis 35:2). The Egyptians let the beard and hair grow, in mourning (Herod, ii. 36). So Joseph had done in the mournful time of his imprisonment. He observes the Egyptian custom. The Hebrews, on the other hand, cut off their hair and beard on such occasions.” Knobel. According to Wilkinson, the Egyptian painters represented with a beard any one whom they would designate as a man of low caste, or life.—To interpret it.—Pharaoh draws bold inferences from the statement of the chief butler, but in a manner perfectly consistent with that of a despot who is impatient to have his expectations realized. Not even, however, the flattering words of the king, can discompose Joseph. He gives God the glory (as in Genesis 40:8). But he also hopes for divine light, and courteously invites the king to narrate his dream. 3. Genesis 41:17-32. The narration of the dreams, and their interpretation. The narration agrees perfectly with the first statement, and it only brings out more distinctly the subjective truthfulness of the account, that the king, in the description of the ill-favored kine, mingles something of his own reflections.—What God is about to do he showeth unto Pharaoh.—Joseph puts in the front the religious bearing of the dream, and in this most successfully attains his aim. Whilst unhesitatingly professing his belief that these dreams came from God, he at the same time keeps in view the practical aspect. God would inform Pharaoh, through Joseph’s interpretation, what he intends to do, in order that the king may take measures accordingly. The certainty and clearness of the interpretation are to be so prominently manifested as to remove it far from comparison with any heathen oracles. Knobel will have it that the Elohist and the Jehovist assume here different positions in respect to dream-revelations. 4. Genesis 41:33-36. Joseph’s counsel in respect to the practical use of the interpretation. The candid advice of Joseph shows that his high gift did not intoxicate him; but rather, that he himself was greatly struck by the providence revealed in the dreams. It is a great delivery from a great and threatening destruction. The first demand is for a skilful overseer, with his subordinates. Then there is wanted the enactment of a law that the land shall be divided into five parts during the seven plenteous years; so that they were to give the fifth instead of the tithe (or tenth), as may have been customary; and that the royal storehouses should be built in the cities of the land, in order to be filled with corn. We have no right to say that Joseph meant in this to recommend himself. It would seem rather that he is so struck with the foresight of the great coming famine, that he cannot think of himself. Besides, the office which his counsel sketches is much less important than that which Pharaoh afterwards confers on him. There is still a great difference between a chief of the taxgatherers and a national prime minister. 5. Genesis 41:37-45. Pharaoh’s consent and Joseph’s appointment.—And the thing was good.—The correctness of the interpretation and the certainty of its fulfilment are both here presupposed. By the rules of Egyptian symbolism their correctness could not be questioned; their certainty, however, lay in the belief that the dreams of Pharaoh were sent by God. The stress, therefore, lies upon the approbation with which Joseph’s advice was received. And this was so conformable to the object in view, that even had the fulfilment been doubtful, it would have been a wise measure of political economy. But Pharaoh goes farther; from the divine illumination that appears in Joseph he concludes that he is just the man to carry out the plan.—Thou shalt be over my house.—What follows is the direct consequence: And according to thy word.—Knobel explains the Hebraism in this language (εְ ?ςַ ?μτִּ ?ικָ ιִ ?ωַּׁ ?χλָּ ?μςַ ?ξִּ ?ι), lit., upon thy mouth every one of my people shall kiss), according to 1 Samuel 10:1 and Psalms 2:12, as referring to the custom of expressing homage by a kiss, or throwing the kiss with the hand. Keil disputes this on verbal grounds; but even if the language admits it idiomatically, such an act would not be appropriate in homage paid to princes. It would be better to give πωχ here its primary significance: to attach, to unite oneself. So Joseph is nominated as Pharaoh’s Grand Vizier. Knobel infers from this that it is a Jehovistic insertion, and that, according to the Elohist, Joseph was made a state officer, and not a royal minister. Does he derive this from an acquaintance with the Egyptian state-calendar of those days? Before Pharaoh’s explanation (Genesis 41:41), Knobel’s twofold distinction of the highest dignities falls to the ground.—His ring from his hand.—After the concession of the dignity, he confers on him its insignia. The first is the seal-ring, “which the grand vizier or prime minister held, in order to affix it to the royal decrees (Esther 3:10; Esther 8:2).” Keil. So also was it among the Turks (Knobel, p. 314). The second is the white byssus-robe (made out of fine linen or cotton), worn by the priests, and by which he was elevated to a rank corresponding to the dignity of his office. The third mark of honor was a gold chain about his neck, to denote distinction, and as a special mark of the royal favor. “According to Ζlian and Diodorus, it was the usual mark of distinction in the personal appearance of the judges, like the golden collar, as seen pictured upon the monuments.” Delitzsch. In this dignity Joseph is now to be presented to the people; the king, therefore, makes him ride in procession through the city, in his second chariot, i.e., in the one that came immediately after the royal chariot, and caused the customary announcement of the dignity conferred to be made by a herald. “The exclamation: ΰַ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?κְ i.e., bow down, is an Egyptian word formed from αψκ by means of Masoretic vowels which make the Hiphil and Aphel conjugation.” Keil. Gerlach: Out of the, Coptic word “bow the head,” a Hebrew is made, bow the knee.—I am Pharaoh.—He again repeats the reservation of his royal dignity, but with the same definiteness he appoints him overseer of the whole land, with the consciousness that he was committing the salvation of his people to the favorite of Deity. Therefore he says: And without thee shall no man, etc.—Yet for the Egyptians’ sake he must be naturalized. Pharaoh, therefore, first gives him an Egyptian name (the Sept.: ψονθομφανήχ; for the various interpretations of which, see Keil, p. 256; Knobel, p. 314). Bunsen interprets it, creator of life. In its Hebrew transformation the word has been rendered revealer of secrets; Luther:secret counsel. In its stateliness the name is in accordance with the oriental feeling,—especially the Egyptian,—yet it simply expresses Pharaoh’s feeling acknowledgment that Joseph was a man sent by God, and bringing salvation. In him, first of all, was fulfilled the word of that prophecy: In thy seed shall the nations of the earth be blest. Next, the king gives to him an Egyptian wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potipheres (LXX, πεντεφρῆ, ille qui solis est), priest at On, which was the vernacular name for Heliopolis (LXX, ̔Ηλιούπολις, city of the sun). “This city of On (ΰεֹ ?ο, changed by Ezekiel, Ezekiel 30:17, derisively into ΰָ ?εֶ ?ο) was a chief city, devoted to the worship of Ra, the sun-god.” Delitzsch. “According to Brugsch (‘Travels,’ etc.), its name upon the monuments was Ta-Rβ, or Pa-Ra, house of the sun. Here, from the oldest times, has been a celebrated temple of the sun, with a company of learned priests, who took the first stand in the Egyptian colleges of priests (comp. Herod, ii. 3; Hengstenberg, p. 30).” Keil. The same remarks: “Such an extraordinary promotion of a slave-prisoner is to be explained from the high importance which antiquity, and especially Egyptian antiquity, ascribed to the interpretation of dreams, and to the occult sciences, as also from the despotic form of oriental governments.” As a parallel case, ho refers to Herod. ii. 121, where Rhampsinitus is represented as promoting the son of a mason to be his son-in-law, because, as “the Egyptians excelled all men, so this one excelled all the Egyptians themselves, in wisdom.” The priest rank was esteemed the highest in Egypt, as it was the caste to which the king himself belonged. Knobel (p. 315) attempts to do away the difficulty which this temple of On makes to the assumption that the Israelites were the same as the Hyksos, who are said to have destroyed the Egyptian temples. This ancient On was situated in lower Egypt, about two leagues northeast from the present city of Cairo. The situation of Heliopolis is marked by mounds of earth, now enclosing a flat piece of land, in the centre of which stands a solitary obelisk. In the vicinity is the city of Matarieh, with the well of the sun, and a sycamore-tree, under which, according to the tradition, the holy family is said to have rested. 6. Genesis 41:46-53. Joseph’s management of the harvest during the seven years of plenty, and his blessing of children.—And Joseph was thirty years old.—The summary account, Genesis 41:45, and Joseph went out, is here given more specifically. Knobel does not seem to know what to make of this mode of Biblical representation, in which it resumes a former assertion for the purpose of making specifications. He calls upon the reader to note “that this had been already said, Genesis 41:45.” As the dreams are fulfilled, so Joseph fulfils his calling. His mode of proceeding is clearly stated. In the cities of the different districts storehouses are built, in which is to be laid up the fifth part of the harvest.—Manasseh.—In this name is expressed the negative effect of his exaltation: God has freed him from the painful remembrance of his sufferings, and from all angry recollections of his father’s house. The name Ephraim expresses, on the contrary, the positive consequence. It is a double happiness on a dark foil, as though he had said: In the land of my wretchedness there is first, deliverance, second, a raising to honor. 7. The seven years of dearth, the famine, and the selling of the grain. On the frequent occurrence of famines in Egypt and the adjacent northern countries, see Keil, p. 258. For particulars see Hengstenberg, and extracts by Schrφder, p. 590.—And all countries.—The countries adjacent to Egypt, and especially Palestine. Aside from the fact that Egypt, in early times, was a granary for the neighboring countries, and that they, therefore, suffered also from every famine that came upon it, it is a thing to be noticed that the rain-season of these lands, as well as the rising of the Nile, was conditioned on northern rainy winds. AND ETHICAL1. Joseph’s exaltation: 1) Considered in itself. Grounded in his destiny. Accomplished by his innocent sufferings and his good conduct (Philippians 2:6). Carried out by God’s grace and wisdom as a divine miracle in his providentia specialissima. Its principal object the preservation of Israel and of many nations. Its further object, Israel’s education in Egypt. Its imperishable aim the glory of God, and the edification of the people of God by means of the fundamental principle: through humiliation to exaltation. 2) This exaltation, in its typical significance: the seal of Israel’s guidance in Egypt, of the guidance of all the faithful, of the guidance of Christ as the model of our divine instruction. 2. Joseph’s sufferings from his brethren so turned by God’s grace that they become sufferings for their own good. Thus Joseph’s sufferings become a turning-point between Abel’s blood crying for vengeance, and the death of Christ reconciling the world. The contrast here is no contradiction. The blood of Abel was crying for vengeance in no absolute or condemning sense, whilst, on the other hand, Christ’s reconciliation is connected with an inward and spiritual judgment. And thus, also, Joseph’s brethren were to be led through a hell of self-knowledge to peace of conscience, just as Joseph individually attained, by degrees, to a complete victory over himself. 3. Pharaoh’s dreams, like Nebuchadnezzar’s, became, through the divine providence, factors in the web of the world’s history. The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; as the rivers of water he turneth it (Proverbs 21:1). As the high priests (John 11:51) were to utter words of significance unconsciously, and unwillingly, so kings are made to serve God in acts having a significance beyond immediate intentions. Its roots, however, extended down into the dream of life. Gerlach calls attention to Nestor’s words concerning Agamemnon’s dream (Iliad, ii. 80). Heim (“Bible Hours”) is full on the same thought. 4. The memory of the chief butler. Forgetfulness of the small—a sharp remembrance in the service of the great. The memory as exercised in the service of God: forgetting all (that hinders)—remembering all (that promotes). The change from darkness to light, from night to day, in the landscape of history. 5. Joseph as opposed to the Egyptian interpreters of dreams, Moses as opposed to the Egyptian sorcerers, Christ as opposed to the Scribes and Pharisees, Paul as opposed to heresies, etc.; or, in other words, the contrast between divine wisdom and the wisdom of this world—a contrast that pervades all history. 6. God conducts every nation by its special characteristic, by its religious forms, according to the measure of piety that is in them. Thus he ruled the Egyptians through the night-life and the world of dreams. 7. The Egyptian symbolism in the dreams of Pharaoh. “These and similar thoughts, no doubt, occurred also to the Egyptian scribes, but Joseph’s divinely-sealed glance was necessary in assuming the responsibility of the fourteen years, as well as in the interpretation of the dreams, which afterwards appear very simple and obvious.” Delitzsch. The ethical point, that divine courage is necessary for prophecy, is not to be overlooked. It was a perilous undertaking to announce to the Egyptian despot a famine of seven years. It is not correct, as Knobel states, that among the Hebrews, false prophets alone referred to dreams; and still more groundless his allegation of a difference between the “Elohist” and the “Jehovist” in this respect. Roos speaks of the gift of interpreting dreams which Joseph possessed, as a gift of prophecy, inferior, however, to that manifested by Israel and Jacob when they blessed their sons. For the dream interpreter has a handle given to him by the dream; whilst in the case of Isaac, Jacob, and other prophets, everything is dependent on direct divine inspiration. But the prophets mentioned, even those that prophesied immediately, had historic points of departure and connection. We can only say, therefore, that there are different forms for the manifestation of the prophetic spirit. Divine certainty is the common mark of all. 8. The universalistic aspect of the Old Testament appears also from the fact that our narrative, without any reserve, informs us how pious Joseph becomes incorporated in the caste of Egyptian priests. “Jehovah’s religion,” says Delitzsch, “enters into Egyptian forms, in order to rule, without becoming lost in it. Strictly speaking, it was the assuming of Egyptian customs by one devoted to the religion of Jehovah. Compare the indulgence shown by Elisha to Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings 5:17-19). 9. Delitzsch: “How, then, asks Luther—how is it Christian in him to glory in having forgotten his father and his mother?” This, however, is not the case; for when Joseph speaks of having forgotten his father’s house, he has surely some memory of the injuries of his brethren, and the name Manasseh is to remind him constantly of this noble resolution to forget his wrongs. Luther thus answers his own question: He intended to say, I now see that God meant to take away from me the confidence which I had in my father; for he is a jealous God, and is not willing that the heart should have any other ground of rest than himself. “It is remarkable,” says Knobel (p. 288), “that Joseph gives no timely information of his existence, and of his exaltation, to a father who so loved him, and whom he so loved in turn, but permitted a series of years to pass, and even then was led to it by the coming of his brethren.” The proper solution of this scruple, already entertained by Theodoret, we find in Baumgarten. “With steadfast faith he renounced all self-acting in respect to God’s decree, which pointed to a further and more glorious aim. The first consequence to be traced was the verification of his prophecy, that his power might be placed on a stable foundation.” To this there must be added the consideration that Joseph could not make himself hastily known to his father without leading to the discovery of the guilt which weighed upon his brethren. A precipitate disclosure of this dark secret might, perhaps, ruin Jacob’s house irrecoverably. And, finally, it must be considered that Joseph, especially during the first years, had a call to active duties of the most stringent and pressing nature.—Schrφder: Since Joseph first mentions his adversity (in the declaration respecting the name Manasseh), he must have referred to his father’s house only in its mournful reminiscence as the scene of his misery. In view of the present as something evidently controlled by God, his whole past vanishes away, as comparatively of no consequence. It is the confidence of rest in God’s providence. Calvin, it is true, imputes it to him as a sin; whilst Luther calls it a wonderful declaration. Afterwards, at Ephraim’s birth, as Schrφder remarks, Joseph held in, so to speak, his former exuberance of joy. The words, in the land of my sorrows (meaning Egypt), reveal a mournful longing for Canaan. AND See the Doctrinal and Ethical. Pharaoh’s character. A good king a blessing to his country. Pharaoh’s dream a mark of his care for his people, therefore, also of God’s care for him. Fruitful and unfruitful years; great means in the hand of God’s providence. Joseph’s deliverance beyond expectation: 1. Late beyond expectation; 2. early beyond expectation; 3. great beyond expectation; 4. entirely different from what he thought in his longing for home. Joseph’s deliverance and exaltation a typical order in God’s kingdom: 1. Every true exaltation presupposes a deliverance; 2. every true deliverance is followed by exaltation.—Joseph and the other personages in our narrative. Joseph the Hebrew slave standing in royal dignity before the throne of Pharaoh: a. In his quiet preparation for audience; b. in his humility and his faithful confidence; c. in his fearless interpretation of the dreams according to their truth; d. in his wise counsel. Joseph, like Moses, an Egyptian prince, and yet a prince in the kingdom of God.—Joseph’s political economy.—His economy on a grand scale the type of all lesser economies. Joseph and his sons.—The years of blessing.—God’s care for men through the commercial intercourse of different lands.—How sure the divine decrees! (the brethren of Joseph must come). Taube: Through humiliation to exaltation.—The history of Joseph’s exaltation: 1. When in the deep, how confidently may we suffer God to guide us; 2. when on the mount, how surely from the deep does the blessing draw its verification. First Section (Genesis 41:1-7). Starke: (Plin.: “Hist.” v. 9). “There is famine in Egypt when the Nile rises only twelve ells; there is still suffering if it does not exceed thirteen; if it rises to fourteen, there is great rejoicing.”—Cramer: Whom God means to raise to honor, he suffers to remain, for a time, under the cross.—Schrφder: At the expiration of two years of days.—Luther: Joseph, oppressed with cares, counted on his fingers all the hours, days, months, whilst deeply sighing for deliverance. For the anticipation of the future the soul of man shares with that of the animal, except that in the former, by its connection with spirit, or that higher principle which constitutes humanity, such a faculty becomes perceptible in dreams, whilst in the animal it is confined to the waking state (Schubert). The number seven represents the religious element in the case. The thin ears are said to be blasted with the east-wind, which, when directly east, occurs in Egypt as seldom as the directly west. The southeast wind, however, is frequent (Hengstenberg). Second Section (Genesis 41:8-16). Starke: The wisdom that God reveals excels that of the world: therefore the latter is to be confounded by the former (Romans 8:28).—Cramer: A Christian is not to judge the gifts according to the person, but the persons according to the gifts, and must not be ashamed to learn even from the lowest. A Christian should study decorum towards all, especially towards those of high rank. Serving and suffering are the best tutors for those maturing for the ruler’s station (Psalms 113:7-8).—Hall: How are God’s children rewarded for their patience! How prosperous are their issues! A true Christian does not boast of the talents confided to him, but ascribes everything to God. Third Section (Genesis 41:17-32). Starke: Bibl. Wirt.: Even to the heathen and to infidels, God sometimes reveals great and secret things, to the end that it may become known how his divine care and providence may be traced everywhere within and without the Church.—Cramer: When God repeats the same things to us, the repetition is not to be regarded as superfluous, but as an assurance that it will certainly come to pass. Schrφder: In prison, and upon the throne, the same humility, the same joyous courage in God.—Joseph marks his God—consciousness more distinctly before Pharaoh, by saying Ha-Elohim, thus making Elohim concrete by means of the article. Fourth Section (Genesis 41:33-36). Starke: Men generally make a bad use of abundance. The people, doubtless, imitated Joseph’s example, and provided for the future. Careful in earthly things—much more so in heavenly things. Schrφder: God’s true prophets did not merely predict the future; they also announced means of relief against the approaching evil (Calvin).—He who takes counsel is the one to be helped (the same). Fifth Section (Genesis 41:37-45). Starke: Cramer: “He that handles a matter wisely shall find good” (Proverbs 16:20).—[The Egyptian linen, on account of its snowy whiteness, and its great excellence, was so costly that it was thought equal to its weight in gold.]?—Schrφder: The king’s conclusion shows how greatly Egypt esteemed the higher knowledge; since it confirms the opinion which made this nation so renowned for wisdom among the ancients.—Liberation was not Joseph’s only want when in prison; afterward, however, he received what he did not, at first, understand (Luther). Sixth Section (Genesis 41:46-53). Starke: Wise rulers fill their granaries in time of famine, and thus teach prudence to the poor. The saving hand is full and beneficent; the squandering hand is not only empty, but unjust.—Schrφder: Information from Hengstenberg on the monuments and tombs, serving to elucidate our narrative.—Schrφder: Now is the time of exaltation, when he is to become the instrument of God’s great purposes (Krummacher). Seventh Section (Genesis 41:54-57). Starke: Cramer: It is in accordance with Christian charity that the surplus of the one shall relieve the deficiency of the other. How gloriously does God compensate Joseph for his former unhappiness. (The hate of his brothers; the favor of the king; abuse and derision, reverence; imprisonment in a foreign land, exaltation; the work of a slave, the seal of the king; stripped of his coat of many colors, clothed in white vesture; iron bands, a golden chain.) Footnotes:[Genesis 41:2.—ΰָ ?ηεּ. A pure Egyptian word, say most of the commentators and lexicographers; and yet no reason can be given why it is not, at the same time, Shemitic. Its occurrence, Job 8:11, is as good proof of the latter supposition, as Genesis 41:2 is of the former. The thing signified, a reedy pasture, was more common in Egypt than in Judea or Arabia, and, therefore, it became better known in the early Egyptian tongue. The same may be said of ιְ ?ΰֹ ?ψ.—T. L.] [Genesis 41:8.—ηַ ?ψְ ?θֻ ?ξֵּ ?ι . Here is a word used of a thing most peculiarly Egyptian, and yet there can hardly be a doubt of its root being Shemitic. It is from ηֶ ?ψֶ ?θ, stylus, a writing or graving instrument. They were the sacred scribes. See Gesenius, and Bochart, Hieroz. ii. p. 408. Comp. ηψυ.—T. L.] [Genesis 41:16—αִּ ?μְ ?ςָ ?γָ ?ι: Beside me, or some one else than me. The LXX have rendered it, ἄνευτοῦθεοῦοὐκἀποκριθήσεταιτὸσωτήριονΦαραώ, “as though they had read μֹ ?ΰιֵ ?ςָ ?πֶ ?δ,” says Rosenmόller. But there is no need of this to explain the interpretation. The LXX have given the general sense correctly, since there is a negative or excluding force in αμςγι. Not me—no one but God can answer to Pharaoh’s satisfaction. The famous Hebraico-Samaritan Codex has the negative particle, and there could not be a better proof of its having followed the LXX; keeping its apparent error without its general correctness in this passage.—T. L.] [Genesis 41:43.—ΰַ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?κְ. It is not easy to see why there should have been so much pains to make out this to be a pure Egyptian word, or to deny its Shemitic origin. Some make it from OΥΒΕΡΕΧ, inclinate contra. See Jablonsky as cited by Rosenmόller. Others would make it equivalent to A—ΠPE—XEK, a rege cinctus. The word is almost identical with δַ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?κְ, the Hiphil imperative of αψκ, and its Hebrew sense, bow the knee or kneel (just as we make the verb from the noun) would seem the meaning, of all others, best adapted to the context. The slight variation confirms this. Had it been simply dressing up a pure Egyptian word in a Hebrew form, there is no reason why the writer should not have employed the proper Hebrew Hiphil. The word at this time, doubtless, belonged to both languages, but its solemn and public pronunciation in the shouting procession made the narrator prefer to keep the broader Egyptian sound of ΰ for δ.—T. L.] [Genesis 41:45.—φָ ?τְ ?πַ ?ϊτַּ ?ςְ ?πֵ ?ηֵ, Zophnath-paeneah. This word is doubtless Egyptian, as there can nothing be made of it in Hebrew. LXX, Ψονθομφανήχ. The latter part of the compound is, doubtless, a Coptic word, equivalent to the Greek αἰών, and the whole is rendered caput seculi or mundi. Vulg., salvatorem mundi. It is worthy of note as showing, that at this early day, and in this early language, a time word (age, period, cycle, etc.) was used for world, like the later use of the Hebrew ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, and of αἰών, for mundus in the New Testament.—T. L.] SIXTH SECTIONRetributive Discipline. The Famine and the First Journey to Egypt. Joseph’s struggles with himself. The repentance of the Brethren. Joseph and Simeon. Genesis 42:1-38.1Now when Jacob saw there was corn in Egypt, Jacob said unto his sons, Why do ye look one upon another? 2And he said, Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt; get you down thither, and buy for us from thence; that we may live, and not die. 3And Joseph’s ten brethren went down to buy corn in Egypt. 4But Benjamin, Joseph’s brother, Jacob sent not with his brethren; for he said, Lest peradventure mischief befall him. 5And the sons of Israel came to buy corn among those that came; 6for the famine was in the land of Canaan. And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land; and Joseph’s brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth. 7And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them, and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan, to buy food. 8And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him. 9And Joseph remembered the dreams which he dreamed of them, and said unto them, Ye are spies; to see the nakedness of the land ye are come. 10And they said unto them, 11Nay, my lord, but to buy food are thy servants come. We are all one man’s sons; we are, true men; thy servants are no spies. 12And he said unto them, Nay, but to see the nakedness of the land ye are come. 13And they said, Thy servants are twelve brethren, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and, behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one is not. 14And Joseph said unto them, That is it that I spake unto you, saying, Ye are spies; 15Hereby ye shall be proved; By the life of Pharaoh ye shall not go forth hence, except your youngest brother come hither. 16Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you; or else, by the life of Pharaoh 17surely ye are spies. And he put them all together into ward three days. 18And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God: 19If ye be true men, let one of your brethren be bound in the house of your prison; go ye, carry corn for the famine of your houses; 20But bring your youngest brother unto me; so shall your words be verified, and ye shall not die. And they did so. 21And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us. 22And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required, 23And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter. 24And he turned himself about from them, and wept; and returned to them again, and communed with them, and took from them Simeon, and bound him before their eyes. 25Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man’s money into his sack, and to give them provision for the way; and thus did he unto them. 26And they laded their asses with the corn, and departed thence. 27And as one of them opened his sack to give his ass provender in the inn, he espied his money; for, behold, it was in his sack’s mouth. 28And he said unto his brethren, My money is restored, and, lo, it is even in my sack; and their heart failed them, and they were afraid, saying one to another, What is this that God hath done unto us? 29And they came unto Jacob their father unto the land of Canaan, and told him all that befell unto them, saying. 30The man, who is the Lord of the land, spake roughly to us, and took us for spies of the country. 31And we said unto him, We are true men; we are no spies; 32We be twelve brethren, sons of our father; one is not, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan. 33And the man, the lord of the country, said unto us, Hereby shall I know that ye are true men; leave one of your brethren here with me, and take food for the famine of your households, and be gone; 34And bring your youngest brother unto me; then shall I know that ye are no spies, but that ye are true men; so will I deliver you your brother, and ye shall traffic in the land. 35And it came to pass, as they emptied their sacks, that, behold, every man’s bundle of money was in his sack; and when both they and their father saw the bundles of money, they were afraid. 36And Jacob their father said unto them, Me have ye bereaved of my children; Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away; all these things are against me. 37And Reuben spake unto his father, saying, Slay my two sons, if I bring him not to thee; deliver him into my hand, and I will bring him to thee again. 38And he said, My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he is left alone; if mischief befall him by the way in the which ye go, then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave. REMAKES1. It appears uncertain to Knobel which narrator (the Elohist or the Jehovist) tells the story here. Many expressions, says he, favor the original Scripture, but some seem to testify for the Jehovist, e. g., land of Goshen (Genesis 45:10), thy servant instead of I (Genesis 42:10). Very singular examples truly! Yet the language, it is then said, is rich in peculiarities. This part the Jehovist is said to have made up from his first record. A very peculiar presentation this, of the ἅπαξλεγόμενα of different authors, as obtained by such a combination. The ἅπαξλεγόμενα (words or expressions occurring but once) are always forth-coming from behind the scene. Such is the dead representation of that spiritless book-making, or rather that book-mangling criticism, now so much in vogue with those who make synopses of the New Testament. 2. The history of Joseph’s reconciliation to his brethren extends through four chapters, from Genesis 41-45 It contains: 1) The history of the chastisement of the brothers, which, at the same time is a history of Joseph’s struggles; 2) of the repentance of his brothers, marked by the antithesis Joseph and Simeon (Genesis 42); 3) the trial of the brothers, in which appears their repentance and Joseph’s reconciliation, marked by the antithesis of Joseph and Benjamin (Genesis 43:1; Genesis 44:17); 4) the story of the reconciliation and recognition, under the antithesis of Judah and Joseph (Genesis 44:18; Genesis 45:16); 5) the account of the glad tidings to Jacob (Genesis 42:7-28). 1. The contents of the present section: 1) The journey to Egypt (Genesis 42:1-6); 2) the rough reception (Genesis 42:7-17); 3 the tasks imposed and the arrangements made by Joseph (Genesis 42:18-34); 4) The voluntary release, the return home, the report, the dark omen (Genesis 42:25-35); 5) Jacob’s lament (Genesis 42:36-38). AND 3. Genesis 42:1-6. The first journey of Joseph’s brethren to Egypt.—When Jacob saw.—It is already presupposed that the famine was raging in Canaan. Jacob’s observation was probably based upon the preparations of others for buying corn in Egypt. The word ύύ‬ ?‬ ?‬ ?‬ ?ωαψ is translated corn, but more properly means a supply of corn (frumenti cumulus, Gesen., Thesaur.), or vendible or market corn.—Why do ye look one upon another?—Their helpless and suspicious looking to each other seems to be connected with their guilt. The journey to Egypt, and the very thought of Egypt haunts them on account of Joseph’s sale.—And Joseph’s ten brethren.—They thus undertake the journey together, because they received corn in proportion to their number. For though Joseph was humanely selling corn to foreigners, yet preference for his own countrymen, and a regard to economy, demanded a limitation of the quantity sold to individuals.—But Benjamin.—Jacob had transferred to Benjamin his preference of Joseph as the son of Rachel, and of his old age (Genesis 37:3). He guarded him, therefore, all the more carefully on account of the self-reproach he suffered from having once let Joseph take a dangerous journey all alone. Besides, Benjamin had not yet arrived at full manhood. Finally, although the facts were not clearly known to him, yet there must be taken into the account the deep suspicion he must have felt when he called to mind the strange disappearance of Joseph, their envy of him, and all this the stronger because Benjamin, too, was his favorite—Rachel’s son, Joseph’s brother.—Among those that came.—The picture of a caravan. Jacob’s sons seem willing to lose themselves in the multitudes, as if troubled by an alarming presentiment. Knobel thinks the city to which they journeyed was Memphis. According to others it was probably Zoar or Tanais (see Numbers 13:23). By the double δεּ ?ΰ the writer denotes the inevitableness of their appearing before Joseph. Having the general oversight of the sale, he specially observed the selling to foreigners, and it appears to have been the rule that they were to present themselves before him. Such a direction, though a proper caution in itself, might have been connected in the mind of Joseph with a presentiment of their coming. He himself was the ωַׁ ?μִּ ?ιθ. The circumstance that this word appears otherwise only in later writers may be partly explained from the peculiarity of the idea itself. See Daniel 5:29. Here Daniel is represented as the third ωμιθ (shalit) of the kingdom. “It seems to have been the standing title by which the Shemites designated Joseph, as one having despotic power in Egypt, and from which later tradition made the word Σάλατις, the name of the first Hyksos king (see Josephus: Contra Apion. i. 14).”—Keil—And bowed themselves.—Thus Joseph’s dreams were fulfilled, as there had been already fulfilled the dreams of Pharaoh. 2. Genesis 42:7-17. The harsh reception. Joseph recognized them immediately, because, at the time of his abduction, they were already grown up men, who had not changed as much as he, and because, moreover, their being all together brought out distinctly their individual characteristics. He was, besides, familiar with their language and its idioms. They, on the contrary, did not recognize him because he had attained his manhood since in Egypt,—because he appeared before them clad in foreign attire, and introduced himself, moreover, as an Egyptian who spoke to them through an interpreter. Add to this, that he had probable reasons for expecting his brethren, whilst they could have had no thought of meeting Joseph in the character of the shalit.—But made himself strange unto them.—By speaking roughly unto them. It is a false ascription to Joseph of a superhuman perfection and holiness, when, with Luther, Delitzsch, Keil, and others (see Keil, p. 259), we suppose that Joseph, with settled calmness, only intended to become acquainted with the disposition of their hearts, so as to lead them to a perception of their guilt, and to find out how they were disposed towards his hoary sire, and their youngest brother. Kurtz is more correct in supposing it a struggle between anger and gentleness. Their conduct to himself may have even made it a sign of suspicion to him that Benjamin did not accompany them. True it is, that a feeling of love predominates; since the humiliation foretold in his dreams was already, for the most part, fulfilled, and he might, therefore, expect the arrival of his father, and of his brother Benjamin, who would, at the same time, represent his mother. His future position towards them, however, must be governed by circumstances. The principal aim, therefore, of his harsh address, is to sound them in respect to their inner and outer relations. According as things should appear were they to expect punishment or forbearance. Finding them well disposed, self-renunciation becomes easier to him; whilst his harsh conduct is to them only a wholesome discipline.—Ye are spies.—That such a danger was common, in those ancient days of emigration and conquest, is clear from various instances (Numbers 21:32; Joshua 2:1, etc.). See also Knobel, p. 321. Moreover, Egypt was exposed to invasion from the North. Supposing, too, that Joseph had already a presentiment of how the affair would turn out, he might term them spies, with something of an ironical feeling, because their coming was undoubtedly a preliminary to their settlement in Egypt.—The nakedness of the land—its unfortified cities, unprotected boundaries, etc. Afterwards Joseph himself becomes to them the gate through which they enter Egypt.—Nay, my Lord.—Their answer shows a feeling of dignified displeasure.—We are all one man’s sons, we are true men.—Yet their mortified pride is restrained by fear and respect. Joseph repeats his charge, and so gets from them the further information, that his father is still alive, and that Benjamin was well at home.—And one is not.—From this expression Keil concludes that they did not yet feel much sorrow for their deed. But are they to confess to the Egyptian shalit? If, however, their distress alone had afterwards drawn from them a sudden repentance, it could hardly have been genuine.—That is it that I spake with you.—Joseph’s great excitement shows itself in his wavering determinations quickly succeeding and correcting each other. They gravitate from severity to mildness. In Genesis 42:14, we have his positive decision that they are spies, and are, therefore, to expect death. In Genesis 42:15, it is made conditional. As a test of their truth they are to be retained until the arrival of their brother.—By the life of Pharaoh.—The Egyptians, as the Hebrews afterwards, swore by the life of their kings (see Knobel, 322). Joseph thus swears as an Egyptian. His main solicitude, however, appears here already: he must know how Benjamin does, and their disposition towards him. In Genesis 42:16, he expresses himself more definitely: one of them is to go and bring the brother, the others are to remain in confinement. A change follows in Genesis 42:17, they are confined for three days, probably on account of the expression of their unwillingness to fetch Benjamin. Pit for pit (see Genesis 37:24)! These three days, however, were to Joseph a time for reflection, and for the brothers a time of visitation. They all seemed now to have fallen into slavery in Egypt, even if they had not incurred the death of criminals. How this must have made them remember Joseph’s sale! One ray of hope has he left them: on Benjamin’s appearance they could be released. 3. Genesis 42:18-24. The hard terms imposed; Joseph’s arrangement and the repentance of the brothers; Joseph’s struggle; Simeon in prison.—This do and live.—Joseph now presents the charge in its conditional aspect. The motive assigned: For I fear God.—This language is the first definite sign of peace—the first lair self-betrayal of his heart. Agitated feelings lie concealed under these words. It is as much as to say: I am near to you, and to your faith. For them, it is true, the expression meant that he was a religious and conscientious man, who would never condemn on mere suspicion. It is an assertion, too, on which they are more to rely than on the earlier asseveration made: by the life of Pharaoh.—Let one of your brethren he bound.—Before, it was said: one shall go, but the others remain; now the reverse, and more mildly: one shall remain, but the others may go. This guarantees the return with Benjamin, and leaves them under the impression that they are not yet free from suspicion. Joseph sees the necessity of the others going, for his father’s house must be supplied with bread.—And they did so.—A summary expression of what follows, but anticipatory of their readiness to comply with Joseph’s request.—We are verily guilty.—Not: “we atone for our brother’s death” (Delitzsch); for thus there would be effaced the thought that the guilt was still resting upon them. The expiation is expressed in what follows.—Therefore is this distress come upon us.–Knobel translates it atoning, and makes the trivial remark: “All misfortune, according to the Hebrew notion, is a punishment for sin.” Joseph’s case itself directly contradicts him.—When he besought us.–Thus vividly paints the evil conscience. The narrator had not mentioned this beseeching. Thus are they compelled to make confession in Joseph’s hearing, without the thought that he understands them. But their open confession, made, as it was, before the interpreter, betrays the pressure of their sense of guilt.—And Reuben answered.—A picture of the thoughts that “accuse or excuse one another” (Romans 2:15). Reuben, too, is not wholly innocent; but, as against them, he thought to act the censurer, and what he did to save Joseph he represents in the strongest light. We may, indeed, conclude that his counsel to cast him into the pit was preceded by unheeded entreaties for his entire freedom.—For he spake with them by an interpreter.—Knobel here has to encounter the difficulty that Joseph, “as an officer of the Hyksos” (to use his own language), assumes the appearance of not being able to speak Hebrew.—And he turned himself about from them.—Overcome by his emotion, he has to turn away and weep. This is repeated more powerfully at the meeting with Benjamin (Genesis 43:30) and finally, in a most touching manner, after Judah’s appeal (Genesis 44:18, etc.). The cause of this emotion, thrice repeated, and each time with increasing power, is; in every instance, some propitiating appeal. In the first case, it is the palliating thought that Reuben, the first-born, intended to save him, and yet takes to himself the feeling of the guilt that weighed upon them. In the second case it is the appearance of the young and innocent Benjamin, his beloved brother, as though standing before the guilty brethren. In the third instance, it is Judah’s self-sacrifice in behalf of Benjamin and his father’s house. The key-note of Joseph’s emotion, therefore, is this perception of atoning love, purifying the bitter recollection of injustice suffered. A presentiment and a sentiment of reconciliation melt the heart which the mere sense of right might harden, and becomes even a feeling, at the same time, of divine and human reconciliation. Only as viewed from this definite perception can we estimate the more general feelings that flow from it: “painful recollection of the past, and thankfulness to God for his gracious guidance.”—And returned to them again.—Joseph’s first emotion may have removed his harsh decisiveness. His feeling of justice, however, is not yet satisfied; still less is there restored his confidence in his brethren, especially in reference to the future of Benjamin. But before adopting any severer measures, he communed with them, doubtless in a conciliatory manner. Then he takes Simeon, binds him, or orders him to be bound, that he might remain as a hostage for their return. That he does not order Reuben, the first-born, to be bound, explains itself from the discovery of his guiltlessness. Thus Simeon, as standing next, is the first-born of the guilty ones. He did not adopt Reuben’s plan of deliverance, though he did not especially distinguish himself in Joseph’s persecution, as might have been expected of him from his zealous disposition shown in the affair of Shechem,—a fact the more easily credited since neither did Judah, the next after him, agree with the majority. 4. Genesis 42:25-35. The voluntary release; the return; the report; the dark omen.—To fill their sacks.—λְּ ?μֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, receptacles or vessels, in the most general sense.—To restore every man’s money with his sack.—Joseph would not receive pay from his father, and yet he could not openly return the money without betraying a particular relation to them. Therefore the secret measure, one object of which, doubtless, was to keep up the fear and excitement, as it also served to give them reasons for expecting something extraordinary.—Provisions for the way.—To prevent the decrease of their store, and to make unnecessary the premature opening of their sacks.—One of them opened his sack.—At the place of their night-quarters. It could not have been what we now call an inn. Delitzsch supposes that, at that time, already, there were shed-like buildings, caravanseras, existing along the route through the desert (Exodus 4:24). Keil doubts this. The fact of the separate opening of his sack by one of them, demands no explanation. He might have made a mistake in the sack, or the money might have been put in a wrong one; but even this circumstance is so arranged as to increase the fear of their awakened consciences.—What is this that God hath done unto us?—They are conscious of no deception on their part, and they cannot understand how the Egyptians could have done it. Whether it were an oversight on their side, or a cunning trick of the Egyptians to arrest them afterwards for theft—at all events, their aroused consciences tell them that they have now to contend with God. They see a dark and threatening sign in it, now that a sense of God’s judgments is awakened in them.—And they came unto Jacob.—The story of their strange intercourse with the terrible man in Egypt, is confirmed by the fearful discovery made when all the sacks are opened. Joseph’s intimation, which they report, that they might traffic again in Egypt, provided they fulfilled the imposed condition, is a ray of light, which, in their present mood, they hardly knew how to appreciate. 5. Genesis 42:36-38. Jacob’s lamentation.—Me have ye bereaved of my children.—The pain of Simeon’s apparent loss, grief for Joseph here renewed again, and the anguish concerning Benjamin, move Jacob greatly, and cause him to express himself, hyperbolically indeed, but still truthfully, according to his conception, as a man overwhelmed with misfortune, and losing his children, one after the other. So little thought the wise and pious Jacob how Dear was the joyful turning-point in the destiny of his house. His reproach: me have ye bereaved of my children, as addressed to those who might have formally contradicted it, is more forcible in its application than he could have thought. Or had he a presentiment of something he knew not? In regard to Joseph he could only knowingly charge that he had once sent him to them, and they had not brought him back. In respect to Simeon he could only reproach them with having told too much to the governor of Egypt respecting their family affairs (see Genesis 43). Respecting Benjamin he could only complain that they should ask to take him along. The aroused consciences of his sons, however, told them that truly all the threatening losses of Jacob were connected with their removal of Joseph; for they themselves considered the present catastrophe as a visitation on account of it.—And Reuben spake.—With a clearer conscience, he has also more courage; but his offer to leave his sons as hostages, so that Jacob might slay them if he did not return with Benjamin, is more expressive of a rude heroism than of true understanding; for how could it be a satisfaction to a grandfather to slay both his grandchildren! It can only be understood as a tender of a double blood-vengeance, or as a strong expression of assurance that his return without Benjamin was not to be thought of. Knobel thinks it strange that Reuben speaks of two sons, since at the time of the emigration to Egypt, according to Genesis 46, he had four sons. And yet he was quite advanced in years, according to the Elohistic account!—With sorrow to the grave (see Genesis 37:35; 1 Kings 2:6; 1 Kings 2:9). AND ETHICAL1. A chapter showing the unfailing fulfilment of the divine decrees, the power of a guilty conscience, the righteous punishment of guilty concealers as visited by suspicion on all sides, the certainty of final retribution, the greatness of moral struggles, the imaginations of an evil conscience, the presentiments of misfortune as felt by a gray-haired sire in a guilty house, and, with it all, the change from judgment to reconciliation and salvation in the life of the now docile sons of the promise. 2. They came at last; late indeed, but come they must, even if it had been from the remotest bounds of the earth. Joseph’s brethren were to come and bow themselves down before him. God’s decrees must stand. It is not because Joseph saw it in a dream, but because in the dreams there was represented the realization of God’s decrees as already interweaving themselves with the future of the sons in the innermost movements of their most interior life. So sure is the fulfilment of the divine counsels,—so. unfailingly grow the germs of destiny in the deepest life of man. 3. Why do the sons of Jacob look so helplessly one upon the other? Why does it not come into their minds that corn is for sale in Egypt, and that a caravan of travellers is making preparation in their vicinity,? To their guilty conscience, Egypt is a foreboding name, threatening calamity. If they must go, however, they would rather go all together, that, in the multitude, they may find mutual encouragement. They have to explain why they come ten strong, and are thus driven to speak about Joseph; but with what embarrassment do they pass hastily over one who is no more! And now, terrified by the prospect of imprisonment, and threatened with death, they are unable, even in Joseph’s presence, and within the hearing of the interpreter, to suppress their self-accusation: “We are verily guilty concerning our brother.” And now, again, how vividly come to their minds the prayers of that brother, in vain beseeching them for mercy. So truthful is the memory of conscience. The money, too, found again in the sack of one of them, becomes another fearful sign that the divine judgments are at last to descend upon them. The last discovery of it in the sacks of all of them, fills up the measure of their fears. All favorable signs are gone: the twofold mitigation of Joseph’s purpose; his assurance: I fear God; his explanation that Benjamin’s appearance would satisfy him; the voluntary release; the finding again of their money. Reuben, too, though having a better conscience, shares in their feelings; he sees coming down upon them the full visitation of their blood-guiltiness; even the pious father has a foreboding, becoming even more distinct, that somehow, through the crime of his sons, a dark doom is impending over his house. Therefore is he not willing to trust his Benjamin, for so long a journey, to these sons, who seem, for some reason, to have a guilty conscience,—it may be in relation to Joseph. 4. Ye are spies. Though Joseph’s suspicion was unfounded, it expresses a righteous judgment: that guilty men who conceal a crime demanding an open atonement, must ever encounter suspicion as the reflex of their evil secret. Even when trusted they cannot believe it, because not yet true to themselves. To Joseph it must have appeared strangely suspicious that they came without Benjamin. 5. By regarding Joseph as a saintly man, who, from the very first, and with a freely reconciled spirit, was only imposing a divine trial upon his brothers, and leading them to repentance through a soul-enlightening discipline, we raise him above the Old-Testament stand-point; to say nothing of the fact that Joseph could not at first have known whether these, his half-brothers, were not also the persecutors of Benjamin, and with as deadly a hatred, perhaps, as they had shown to him. Neither had he any means of knowing whether or not he could ever be on friendly terms with them. But that he is to pass through a great religious and moral struggle with himself, is evident from his wavering decisions, from the time he takes for consideration, and especially, from the fact that he postpones the trial even after they had brought Benjamin to him. He adopts a course in which both his aged father and his beloved Benjamin are exposed, temporarily, to the greatest distress. Decidedly, from the very beginning, does he take a noble position, but by severe struggles is he to attain to that holy stand-point of complete forgiveness; and for this purpose his brothers’ confession of their guilt, and especially the appearance of Reuben, Benjamin, and Judah, are blessed to him, just as his own conduct assisted the brothers in bringing on their struggles of repentance and self-sacrifice by faith. 6. The turning of judgment into reconciliation. A principal point in this is the involuntary confession of the brethren in Joseph’s hearing, the discovery of Reuben’s attempt to save him, the atonement made by the proud-hearted Simeon, the melting of the brothers’ obduracy, and, through it, of Joseph’s exasperation. Above all, the recognition that God’s searching providence is present throughout the whole development. “Whatsoever maketh manifest is light” (Ephesians 5:13). Thus under the light of Christ’s cross the entire darkness of the world’s guilt was uncovered, and only in such an uncovering could it become reconciled. 7. Even now there already dawns upon Joseph the wonderful fact that his exaltation was owing mediately to the enmity of his brethren, and that they were together both conscious and unconscious instruments of God’s mercy and of his providential design to save much people alive (Genesis 45, 50). 8. Jacob feels the burden of his house, and his alarming presentiments of evil become manifest more and more. We must imagine this to ourselves, if we would clearly understand his depression. He is not strengthened by the spirit in his household, but put under restraint and weariness. He feels that there is something rotten in the foundation of his house. 9. Here, too, death is not denoted as a descending into Sheol, but as the dying from the heart’s sorrow of an uncompleted life. Opposed to it is the going home to the fathers when the soul is satisfied with the life on earth, and its enigmas are all solved. AND See Doctrinal and Ethical. The brethren appearing before Joseph. Thus the world before Christ, the oppressors in the forum of the oppressed, the wicked at the judgment-seat of the pious.—Joseph and his brethren as they stand confronting each other: 1. He recognizes them, but they do not recognize him; 2. the positions of the parties are changed, but Joseph exercises mercy; 3. the judgment must precede the reconciliation; 4. human and divine reconciliation go together. We are verily guilty concerning our brother: 1. This language considered in their sense; 2. according to Joseph’s understanding; 3. in the sense of the spirit. The guilty conscience terrified, at first, by signs that were really favorable. Jacob’s lamentation as the seeming curse of his house becomes gradually known. At the extremest need help is near. Benjamin’s dark prospects (his mother dead, his brother lost, himself threatened with misfortune), and their favorable issue. Taube: The hours of repentance that come to Joseph’s brethren: 1. How the sinner is led to repentance; 2. how repentance manifests itself; 3. the relation of the Lord to the penitent sinner. First Section (Genesis 42:1-6). Starke: The utility of commerce. The different products which God has given to different countries, demand mutual intercourse for their attainment. A believer must employ ordinary means, and not tempt God by their refusal. Nothing can hinder God’s decrees in behalf of the pious.—Schrφder: The guilt of Benjamin’s brothers in respect to Joseph seems to weigh upon the father’s heart as a kind of presentiment.—Calwer Handbuch: Joseph’s brethren are they called, because Joseph stands here in the foreground of history, and the destiny of the family is connected with him. The very ten by whom he was sold must bow themselves before him, and receive the righteous and higher requital.—Heim: The expression sons of Israel, instead of sons of Jacob, points to Israel the man of faith, whose children they were, who accompanied them with his prayers, and for whose sake, although he knew it not, this journey to Egypt, so dark in its commencement, became a blessing to them all. Second Section (Genesis 42:7-17). Starke: Formerly they regarded him as a spy—now are they treated as spies in turn. Genesis 42:15. This expression is not an oath, but only a general asseveration. The first Christians, though making everything a matter of conscience, did not hesitate thus to affirm by the life of the Emperors, but they were unwilling to swear by their divinity. Juramus sicut non per genios C�sarum, ita per salutem eorum qu� est augustior omnibus geniis. Tert. Apol.—Hall: The disposition of a Christian is not always to be judged by his outward acts.—Gerlach: Genesis 42:9. Nothing is more common than this reproach upon travellers in the East, especially when they would sketch any parts of the country.—Schrφder: He who was hungry when they were eating, now holds the food for which they hunger. To him (Joseph) there was committed, for some time, the government of a most important part of the world. He was not only to bless, but also to punish and to judge; i.e., become forgetful of all human relations and act divinely. [Krummacher: Still Joseph felt as man, not as though he were Providence.] Joseph plays a wonderful part with his brethren, but one which humbles and exercises him greatly. A similar position God assumes towards believers when in tribulation; let us, therefore, hold assuredly that all our misfortunes, trials, and lamentations, even death itself, are nothing but a hearty and fair display of the divine goodness towards us (Luther). Joseph’s suspicion, though feigned in expression, has, nevertheless, a ground of fact in the former conduct of his brothers towards him. Third Section (vers 18–24). Starke: God knows how to keep awake the conscience. Genesis 42:18. The test of a true Christian in all his doings, is the fear of the Lord.—Bibl. Tub.: How noble is religion in a judge!—Lange: Chastisements as a means of self-examination. There may be times when sins, long since committed, may present themselves so vividly before the eyes as to seem but of yesterday.—The same: God’s wise providence so brings it about, that though a guilty man may escape the deserved punishment for a time, the visitation will surely come, even though it be by God’s permitting misfortunes to fall upon him through the guilt of others, when he himself is innocent. Fourth Section (Genesis 42:25-35). Starke: Simeon may now let his thoughts wander back, in repentance for his murderous deeds at Shechem, in weeping for the grief he had caused to Joseph, and in imploring God’s forgiveness. God does not bestow the blessing of the gospel on the sinner in any other way than in the order of the law, or in the knowledge of his sins. A frightened conscience always expects the worst (Wis 17:11).—Schrφder: Simeon is bound; probably because the leader at Shechem was also the prime mover against Joseph (Baumgarten. Fifth Section (Genesis 42:35-38). Starke: He “who wrestled with God (and man) and prevailed, shows here great weakness of faith. Yet he recovers, and again struggles in faith, like Abraham his grandfather.—Cramer: When burdened with trials and temptations, we interpret everything in the worst way, even though it may be for our peace.—Gerlach: Jacob’s declarations betray a feeling that the brothers were not guiltless respecting Joseph’s disappearance. He knew their jealousy, and he had experienced the violent disposition of Simeon and Levi.—Schrφder: There is nothing so restless or so great a foe to peace as a frightened heart, that turns pale at a glance, or at the rustle of a leaf (Luther). He had long suspected them in regard to Joseph (see Genesis 42:4); the old wound is now opened again. Reuben is once more the tender-hearted one. He offers everything (Genesis 42:37) that he may prevail with his father. “But it is out of reason what he offers.” Luther.—Heim: Jacob’s painful language. There breaks forth now the hard suspicion which he had long carried shut up in the depths of his own heart. Footnotes:[Genesis 42:4.—ΰָ ?ρεֹ ?ο. A rare Hebrew word, occurring only here, in Genesis 42:38, and in Exodus 21:22-23. Gesenius would connect the root with the Arabic Ηδμ, others with the Arabic ٱ ?ΣΗ and the Syriac ܐ ?̃ ?ܣ ?ܐ ?, which means to heal. The first comes nearer to it in sense, but a much closer agreement, both in form and significance, exists between it and the Arabic ٱ ?Σμ, to be in grief or pain, and its noun ٱ ?Σً ?μ, pain, affliction. It occurs in the Koran, v. 29, 72; vii. 91; lvii. 23, in the very sense here demanded by the context.—T. L.] [Genesis 42:28.—εַ ?ιֵּ ?φֵ ?ΰμִ ?αָּ ?ν, and their heart went out. LXX, ἐξέστηἡκαρδίααὐτῶν. Hence the Greek ἔκατασις, ecstasy. It may denote rapture, astonishment, overwhelming sorrow—any condition of soul in which the thoughts and affections seem to pass beyond the control of the will. The heart goes forth, the mind wanders, the soul loses command of itself. It is the same imagery, and nearly the same terms, in many languages. Corresponding to it are the expressions for the opposite state. Compare the Latin exire de mente, ratione, etc., to be or go out of one’s mind, and the opposite, colligere se, to take courage, to recover one’s self. So the English, to be collected, or composed. There is a similar usage of the Greek συναναγείρεσθαι and ἀθροίζεσθαι, to collect, gather back the soul. See the Phζdo, 67 c. Vulgate, obstupefacti sunt.—T. L.] [Genesis 42:15. ηֵ ?ιτַ ?ψְ ?ςֹ ?δ. Literally, by the lives of Pharaoh; but the primitive conception, whatever it may have been (see note, p. 163, 2d. column), that gave rise to the plural form of this word, had probably become dim or lost, and there is intended hero only the one general sense of life. There is, however, a remark of Maimonides on this phrase, in this place, that is worthy of note. His critical, as well as most philosophical, eye observes a difference in this little word ηι, and the vowel pointing it has in the Scriptures according as it is used of God or man. Thus in the Hebrew oath, ηַ ?ιιְ ?δεָֹ ?δεְ ?ηֵ ?ιπַ ?τְ ?ωְׁ ?κָ (comp. 1 Samuel 20:3; 1 Samuel 25:26; 2 Kings 2:2; 2 Kings 2:4; 2 Kings 2:6; 2 Kings 4:30; and other places), which is rendered, as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, he notices what has escaped most critics, viz., the change of vowel in the word ηι; so that the rendering should be, as the Lord liveth, or by the living Jehovah, and by the life of thy soul. The reasons of this he thus states in the Sepher Hamada, or Book of Knowledge, the first part of the great work entitled Yad Hachazakah, ch. ii. sec. Genesis 14 : “In Genesis 42:15, it is said, ηֵ ?ιτַ ?ψְ ?ςֹ ?δ, by the life (lives) of Pharaoh; so in 1°Sam. Genesis 1:26, ηֵ ?ιπַ ?τְ ?ωְׁ ?κָ, by the life of thy soul, as also in many other places. But in the same connection it is not said ηֵ ?ιιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ (chei), but ηַ ?ιιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ (chai), in the absolute form instead of the construct or genitive, because the Creator, blessed be he, and his life are one, not separate, as the lives of creatures or of angels. Therefore, he does not know creatures by means of the creatures, as we know them, but by himself (ξηξϊςφξεֹ), because all life leans upon him, and by his knowing himself he knoweth all things—since he and his knowledge also, as well as he and his life, are one. This is a matter which the tongue has not the power of uttering, nor the ear of hearing, nor can the mind comprehend it; but such is the reason of the change, and of its being said ηֵ ?ιτΞςδ, by the life of Pharaoh, in the construct state, since Pharaoh and his life are two.” Again, sec. xi. and xii.: “All things beside the Creator, blessed be he, exist through his truth (or truthfulness) and because he knows himself, he knows everything. And he does not know by a knowledge which is without (or outside, ηευξξπε), to himself, as we know, because we and our knowledge are not one; but as for the Creator, blessed be he, both his knowledge and his life are one with himself in every mode of unity. Hence we may say that he is, at the same time, the knower, the known, and the knowledge itself, all in one.” Or, as he tells us in the beginning of this profound treatise, ch. i. sec. Genesis 1 : “God’s truth is not like the truth of the creatures, and thus the prophet says (Jeremiah 10:10), Jehovah God is truth, and God is life (plural ηιιν lives; compare πατὴρτῶνφώτων, James 1:17), he is the ξμκςεμν the king of eternity, the king of the world.” That is, he is, at the same time, the truth, the life, the everlasting law. Compare, also, Maimonides, Porta Mosis, Pococke edition, p. 256.—T. L.] SEVENTH SECTIONThe second journey. Benjamin accompanying. Joseph maketh himself known to his brethren. Their return. Jacob’s joy. Genesis 43-45A. The trial of the brethren. Their repentance and Joseph’s reconcilableness. Joseph and Benjamin. Genesis 43:1 to Genesis 44:171 And the famine was sore in the land. 2And it came to pass, when they had eaten up the corn which they had brought out of Egypt, their father said unto them, Go again, buy us a little food. 3And Judah spake unto him, saying, The man did solemnly protest unto us, saying, Ye shall not see my face, except your brother be with you. 4If thou wilt send our brother with us, we will go down and buy thee food; 5But if thou wilt not send him, we will not go down; for the man said unto us, Ye shall not see my face [again], except your brother be with you. 6And Israel said, Wherefore dealt ye so ill with me, as to tell the man whether ye had yet a brother? 7And they said, The man asked us straitly of our state, and of our kindred, saying, Is your father yet alive? have ye another brother? and we told him, according to the tenor of these words; could we certainly know that he would say, Bring your brother down? 8And Judah said unto Israel his father, Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go; that we may live, and not die, both we, and thou, and also our little ones. 9I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him; if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever; 10For except we had lingered, surely now we had returned this second time. 11And their father Israel said unto them, If it must be so now, do this; take of the best fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts, and almonds; 12And take double money in your hand; and the money that was brought again in the mouth of your sacks, carry it again in your hand; peradventure it was an oversight; 13Take also your brother, and arise, go again unto the Man 1:14 And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved. 15And the men took that present, and they took double money in their hand, and Benjamin, and rose up, and went down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph. 16And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the ruler of his house, Bring these men home, and slay, and make ready; for these men shall dine with me at noon. 17And the man did as Joseph bade; and the man brought the men into Joseph’s house. 18And the men were afraid, because they were brought into Joseph’s house; and they said, Because of the money that was returned in our sacks at the first time are we brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our asses. 19And they came near to the steward of Joseph’s house, and they communed with him at the door of the house. 20And said, O sir, we came indeed down at the first time to buy food; 21And it came to pass, when we came to the inn, that we opened our sacks, and, behold, every man’s money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full weight; and we have brought it again in our hand. 22And other money have we brought down in our hands to buy food; we cannot tell who put our money in our sacks. 23And he said, Peace be to you, fear not; your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks; I had your money. And he brought Simeon out unto them. 24And the man brought the men into Joseph’s house, and gave them water, and they washed their feet; and he gave their asses provender. 25And they made ready the present against Joseph came at noon; for they heard that they should eat bread there. 26And when Joseph came home, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and bowed themselves to him to the earth. 27And he asked them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake? Is he yet alive? 28And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed down their 29heads, and made obeisance. And he lift up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said, Is this your younger brother, of whom ye spake unto me? And he said farther [without waiting for an answer] God be gracious unto thee, my son. 30And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother; and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber and wept there. 31And he washed his face, and went out, and refrained himself, and said, Set on bread. 32And they set en for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves; because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews: for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians. 33And they sat before him, the first born according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth; and the men marvelled one at another. 34And he took and sent messes unto them from before him; but Benjamin’s mess was five times so much as any of their’s. And they drank, and were merry with him. Genesis 44:1 :And Joseph commanded the steward of his house, saying, Fill the men’s sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put every man’s money in his sack’s mouth. 2And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack’s mouth of the youngest, 3and his corn-money. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken. As 4soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their asses. And when they were gone out of the city, and not yet far off, Joseph said unto his steward, Up, follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore 5have ye rewarded evil for good? Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth? Ye have done evil in so doing. 6And he overtook them, and he spake unto them these same words. 7And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing; 8Behold, the money which we found in our sacks’ mouths, we brought again unto thee out of the land of Canaan; how then should we steal out of thy lord’s house silver or gold? 9With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord’s bondmen. 10And he said, Now also let it be according unto your words; he with whom it is found shall be my servant; and ye shall be blameless. 11Then they speedily took down every man his sack to the ground, and opened every man his sack. 12And he searched, and began at the eldest, and left at the youngest; and the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack. 13Then they rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass, and returned to the city. 14And Judah and his brethren came to Joseph’s house; for he was yet there; and they fell before him on the ground. 15And Joseph said unto them, What deed is this that ye have done? Wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine? 16And Judah said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants; behold, we are my lord’s servants, both we, and he also with whom the cup is found. 17And he said, God forbid that I should do so; but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get you up in peace unto your father. B. The narrative of the reconciliation and the recognition. Judah and Joseph. Chap. Genesis 44:18 to Genesis 45:2818 Then Judah came near unto him, and said, O my lord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord’s ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy servant; for thou art even as Pharaoh. 19My lord asked his servants, saying, Have ye a father, or a brother? 20And we said unto my lord, We have a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother, and his father loveth him. 21And thou saidst unto thy servants, Bring him down unto me, that I may set mine eyes upon him. 22And we said unto my lord, The lad can not leave his father; for if he should leave his father, his father would die. 23And thou saidst unto thy servants, Except your youngest brother come down with you, ye shall see my face no more. 24And it came to pass when we came up unto thy servant my father, we told him the words of my lord. 25And our father said, Go again, and buy us a little food. 26And we said, We can not go down; if our youngest brother be with us, then will we go down; for we may not see the man’s face, except our youngest brother be with us. 27And thy servant my father said unto us, Ye know that my wife bare me two sons; 28And the one went out from me [and did not return], and I said, Surely he is torn in pieces; and I saw him not since; 29And if ye take this also from me, and mischief befall him, ye 30shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave [sheol]. Now, therefore, when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us, seeing that his life is bound up in the lad’s life; 31It shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is not with us, that he will die; and thy servants shall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave. 32For thy servant became surety for the lad unto my father, saying, If I bring him not unto thee, then I shall bear the blame to 33my father for ever. Now, therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad, a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren. 34For how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father. Genesis 45:1 Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. 2And he wept aloud; and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard. 3And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him; for they were troubled at his presence. 4And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye 5sold into Egypt. Now, therefore, be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me thither; for God did send me before you to preserve life. 6For these two years hath the famine been in the land; and yet there are five years in the which there shall neither be earing nor harvest. 7And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity 8in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God; and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. 9Haste ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him, Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Egypt; come down unto me, tarry not; 10And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen [East district of Egypt; the name is of Koptic origin. Uncertain: district of Hercules], and thou shalt be near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children’s children, and thy flocks, and thy herds, and all that thou hast; 11And there will I nourish thee; for yet there are five years of famine; lest thou, and thy household, and all that thou hast, come to poverty. 12And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you. 13And ye shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt, and of all that ye have seen; and ye shall haste and bring down my father hither. 14And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck. 15Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them; and after that his brethren talked with him. C. The glad tidings to Jacob, Genesis 44:16-28. 16And the fame thereof was heard in Pharaoh’s house, saying, Joseph’s brethren are come; and it pleased Pharaoh well, and his servants. 17And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren, This do ye; lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan; 18And take your father, and your households, and come unto me; and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land. 19Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come. 20Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours. 21And the children of Israel did so; and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way. 22To all of them he gave each man changes of raiment; but to Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver, and five changes of raiment. 23And to his father he sent after this manner; ten asses laden with the good things of Egypt, and ten she-asses laden with corn, and bread, and meat for his father by the way. 24So he sent his brethren away, and they departed; and he said unto them, See that ye fall not out by the way. 25And they went up out of Egypt, and came into the land of Canaan unto Jacob their father. 26And told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob’s heart fainted, for he believed them not. 27And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them; and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived. 28And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive I will go and see him before I die. REMARKSContents: a. The trial of the brethren. Their repentance and Joseph’s forgiveness. Joseph and Benjamin. Genesis 43:1 to Genesis 44:17 : 1. Judah as surety for Benjamin unto his father, Genesis 43:1-14; Genesis 2. Joseph and Benjamin, Genesis 43:15-30; Genesis 3. the feast in honor of Benjamin, Genesis 43:31-34; Genesis 4. the proving of the brethren in respect to their disposition towards Benjamin, especially after the great distinction shown to him, Genesis 44:1-17 b. The story of the reconciliation, and of the recognition, as presented under the antithesis of Judah and Joseph, Genesis 44:18; Genesis 45:13. 1. Judah as surety and substitute for Benjamin, Genesis 44:18-34; Genesis 2. Joseph’s reconciliation and making himself known to them, Genesis 45:1-5; Genesis 3. Joseph’s divine peace and divine mission, Genesis 43:5-13; Genesis 4. the solemnity of the salutation, Genesis 43:14-15. c. The glad tidings to Jacob, Genesis 43:16 to Genesis 28:1. Pharaoh’s message to Jacob, Genesis 43:16-20; Genesis 2. Joseph’s presents to Jacob, Genesis 43:21-24; Genesis 3. the return of Joseph’s brethren; Pharaoh’s wagons and Jacob’s revivification, Genesis 43:25-28. AND CRITICALa. The proving of the brothers. Their repentance and Joseph’s forgiveness. Joseph and Benjamin, Genesis 43:1; Genesis 44:17. 1. Genesis 43:1-14; Judah as surety for Benjamin unto the father.—Buy us a little bread.—In death and famine a rich supply is but little; so it was especially in Jacob’s numerous family, in regard to what they had brought the first time.—And Judah spake.—Judah now stands forth as a principal personage, appearing more and more glorious in his dignity, his firmness, his noble disposition, and his unselfish heroism. He, like Reuben, could speak to his father, and with even more freedom, because he had a freer conscience than the rest, and regarded the danger, therefore, in a milder light. Judah does not act rashly, but as one who has a grand and significant purpose. His explanation to the wounded father is as forbearing as it is firm. If they did not bring Benjamin, Simeon was lost, and they themselves, according to Joseph’s threatening, would have no admittance to him—yea, they might even incur death, because they had not removed from themselves the suspicion of their being spies.—Wherefore dealt ye so ill with me?—Knobel: “His grief and affliction urge him on to reproach them without reason.” Unreasonable, however, as it appears, it becomes significant on the supposition that he begins to read their guilty consciences, and, especially, when, with the one preceding, we connect the expression that follows: Me have ye bereaved of my children.—The man asked us straitly.—[Lange translates the Hebrew ωָׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μωָׁ ?ΰַ ?μδָ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ literally, or nearly so: er fragte und fragte uns aus; or, as it might be rendered, still closer to the letter, he asked to ask; or, if we take the infinitive in such cases as an adverb, he asked inquisitively, and then proceeds to remark]: This expressive connection of the infinitive with the indicative in Hebrew must not be effaced by grammatical rules; we hold fast to its literalness here. They did not speak forwardly of their family relations, but only after the closest questioning. By this passage and Judah’s speech (Genesis 44), the account in the preceding chapter (Genesis 43:32) is to be supplemented. They owed him an answer, since the question was to remove his suspicion; and, moreover, they had no presentiment of what he wanted.—Send the lad with me.—ΰִ ?ϊִּ ?ι (with me) says the brave Judah. He presents himself as surety; he will take the guilt and bear the blame forever. The strong man promises all he can. To offer to the grandfather his own grandchildren, as Reuben offered his sons, that he might put them to death, was too unreal and hyperbolical to occur to him. We become acquainted with him here as a man full of feeling, and of most energetic speech, as Genesis 43:3, and Genesis 33 had before exemplified. He eloquently shows how they are all threatened with starvation. The expression, too: Surely now we had returned the second time, promises a happy issue.—If it must be so now.—Jacob had once experienced, in the case of Esau, that presents had an appeasing effect on hostile dispositions. From this universal human experience there is explained the ancient custom, especially in the East, of rendering rulers favorably disposed by gifts (see 1 Kings 10:25; Matthew 2:11; Proverbs 18:16; Proverbs 19:6).—Of the first fruits of the land.—(Lange translates: Of that which is most praiseworthy.) Literally, of the song; i.e., that which was celebrated in song. The noblest products of nature are, for the most part, celebrated and symbolized in poetry. In presents to distinguished persons, however, the simple money-value of the things avails but little; it is the peculiar quality, or some poetic fragrance attached to them, that makes them effective. Delitzsch doubts this explanation, but without sufficient reason. They are especially to take balm, the pride of Canaan, but in particular of Gilead. Then honey. Knobel and Delitzsch suppose it to be the honey of grapes, Arab., dibs. “Grape syrup; i.e., must boiled down to one third, an article, of which, even at the present day, there are sent yearly three hundred camel-loads from Hebron’s vicinity to Egypt.” Delitzsch. But this very abundance of the syrup of grapes would lead us to decide rather for the honey of bees, were it not for the consideration, that in the Egypt of to-day great attention is given to the raising of bees, and that it is no wine country, although not wholly without the culture of the vine (Genesis 40:10).—Spices.—(Lange, tragacanth-gum.) A kind of white resinous medicament (see Winer, Tragacanth).—Myrrh.–Frankincense, salve medicament (see Winer, Ladanum).—Nuts.—The Hebrew word αָּ ?θְ ?αִ ?ιν occurs here only, but by the Samaritan translation it is interpreted of the fruit of the Pistacia vera, “a tree similar to the terebinth—oblong and angular nuts of the size of a hazel-nut, containing an oily but very palatable kernel, which do not, however, grow any more in Palestine (as is stated in Schubert’s ‘Travels in the East,’ ii. p. 478; iii. 114), but are obtained from Aleppo (comp. Rosen., in the ‘German Orient. Magazine,’ xii. p. 502).” Keil.—Almonds.—(See Winer, Almond-tree.) On the productions of Palestine in general, see CalwerBibl. “Natural History,” etc.—And take double money.—(Lit. second money. They are not to take advantage of the mistake, even though no unfavorable construction should be put upon it, or it should occasion them no harm.—And God Almighty.—Here, when some strong miraculous help is needed, he is again most properly designated by the name El Shadai.—If I be bereaved of my children.—Be it so. An expression of resignation (Esther 4:16). As his blessing here is not a prayer full of confidence, so the resignation has not the full expression of sacrifice; for Jacob’s soul is unconsciously restrained by a sense of the ban resting upon his sons. He is bowed down by the spiritual burden of his house. 2. Genesis 43:15-30. Joseph and Benjamin.—And stood before Joseph.—Knobel justly states that the audience they had with Joseph did not take place until afterwards. The meaning here is that they took their place in front of Joseph’s house, together with Benjamin and the presents, and so announced to him their arrival.—Bring these men home.—With joy had Joseph observed Benjamin with them, and concludes from thence that they had practised no treachery upon him, through hatred to the children of Rachel, the darlings of their father. Benjamin’s appearance sheds a reconciling light upon the whole group. He intends, therefore, to receive them in a friendly and hospitable manner. His staying away, however, until noon, characterizes not only the great and industrious statesman, but also the man of sage discretion, who takes time to consult with himself about his future proceeding.—And stay.—Bohlen’s assertion that the higher castes in Egypt ate no meat at all, is refuted by Knobel, p. 326.—At noon.—The time when they partook of their principal meal (Genesis 18:1).—And the men were afraid.—Judging from their former treatment they know not what to make of their being thus led into his house. If a distinction, it is an incomprehensibly great one; they, therefore, apprehended a plan for their destruction. Some monstrous intrigue they, perhaps, anticipate, having its introduction in the reappearance of the money in their sacks, whilst the fearful imagination of an evil conscience begins to paint the consequences (see Genesis 43:18). “A thief, if unable to make restitution, was sold as a slave (Exodus 22:3).” Therefore they are not willing to enter until they have justified themselves about the money returned in their sacks. They address themselves, on this account, to Joseph’s steward, with an explanatory vindication.—When we came to the inn.—In a summary way they here state both facts (Genesis 42:27; Genesis 42:35) together. For afterwards they might have concluded that the money found in the sack of one of them was a sign that that money had been returned in all the sacks.—In full weight.—There was, as yet, no coined money, only rings or pieces of metal, which were reckoned by weight.—Peace be to you.—It can hardly be supposed that the steward was let into Joseph’s plan. He knew, however, that Joseph himself had ordered the return of the money, and might have supposed that Joseph’s course toward them, as his countrymen, had in view a happy issue. In this sense it is that he encourages them.—Your God and the God of your father.—The shrewd steward is acquainted with Joseph’s religiousness, and, perhaps, has adopted it himself. He undoubtedly regards them as confessors of the same faith with Joseph. Knobel: “His own good fortune each man deduces from the God he worships (Hosea 2:7).”—Has given you treasure.—Thus intimating some secret means by which God had given it to them; but for all this they still remain uneasy, though sufficiently calmed by his verbal acknowledgment of receipt: I had your money, but more so by the releasing of Simeon. It is not until now that they enter the house which they had before regarded as a snare. Now follow the hospitable reception, the disposition of the presents, Joseph’s greeting, and their obeisance.—And he asked them of their welfare.—This was his greeting. See the contrast, Genesis 37:4. For the inquiry after their father’s welfare they thank him by the most respectful obeisance, an expression of their courtesy and of their filial piety. They represent their father, just as Benjamin represents the mother, and so it is that his dream of the sun and moon fulfils itself (Genesis 37:9). If we suppose Benjamin born about a year before Joseph’s sale, he would be now twenty-three years of age. Knobel does not know how to understand the repeated expressions of his youth (πַ ?ςַ ?ψ, etc.). But they are explained from the tender care exercised towards him, and from the great difference between his age and that of his brothers.—And he said.—It is very significant that Joseph does not wait for an answer. He recognizes him immediately, and his heart yearns.—My son.—An expression of inner tenderness, and an indication, at the same time, of near relationship.—And Joseph made haste.—His overwhelming emotion, the moment he saw his brethren, like Jacob’s love of Rachel, has a gleam of the New-Testament life. It is not, however, to be regarded as a simple feeling; it is also an emotion of joy at the prospect of that reconciliation which he had, for some time, feared their hatred towards Rachel’s children might prevent, and so bring ruin upon Benjamin, upon Jacob’s house, and upon themselves. No emotions are stronger than those arising from the dissolution of a ban, with which there is, at the same time, taken away the danger of a dark impending doom, and the old hardening of impaired affection. 3. Genesis 43:31-34. The banquet in honor of Benjamin.—And he washed his face.—A proof of the depth of his emotion. It was still hard for him to maintain a calm and composed countenance.—And they set on for him by himself.—Three tables, from two different causes. Joseph’s caste as priest, and in which he stood next to the king, did not allow him to eat with laymen. And, moreover, neither Joseph’s domestics, nor his guests, could, as Egyptians, eat with Hebrews. Concerning the rigidness of the Egyptian seclusion, see Knobel, p. 328. Besides, the Hebrews were nomads (Genesis 46:34). On the Egyptian castes, see Von Raumer, Vorlesungen όber die alte Gesch, i. p. 133.—And they set.—They were surprised to see themselves arranged according to their age. But the enigma becomes more and more transparent; whilst strange presentiments are more and more excited. The transaction betrays the fact that they are known to the spirit of the house, and that it can distinguish between their ages. The Egyptians sat at table, instead of reclining; as appears from their pictures.—And he took and sent messes.—They were thus distinguished by having portions sent to them; whilst, as yet, they were hindered by no laws from eating of Joseph’s meat.—But Benjamin’s mess.—This is a point not to be overlooked in the proving of the brethren; it is an imitation, so to say, of the coat of many colors. It would determine whether Benjamin was to become an object of their jealousy, just as his father’s present had before been to him the cause of their hatred (so also Keil, p. 264). His mess is five times larger than the rest. “Such abundance was an especial proof of respect. To the guest who was to be distinguished there were given, at a meal, the largest and best pieces (1 Samuel 9:23; Hom.Il. vii. 321, etc.). Among the Spartans the king received a double portion (Herod, vi. 57, etc.); among the Cretans the Archon received four times as much (Heraclid. Polit. 3). Five was a favorite number among the Egyptians (Genesis 41:34; Genesis 45:22; Genesis 47:2; Genesis 47:24; Isaiah 19:18). It may be explained, perhaps, from the supposed five planets.—And they drank and were merry with him.—Intoxication is not meant here (see Haggai 1:6), but a state of exhilaration, in which they first lose their fear of the Egyptian ruler. Benjamin was sitting as a guardian angel between them, and it was already a favorable sign, that the distinction showed to him did not embitter their joy. Nevertheless, whether Joseph had reached the zenith of an inexpressible rapture, as Delitzsch says, may be questioned. In all this happy, anticipation, we may suppose him still a careful observer of his brethren, according to the proverb invino veritas. At all events, the effect of the present to Benjamin was to be tested, and their disposition towards him was to undergo a severe probing. 4. Genesis 44:1-17. The trial of the brothers’ disposition towards Benjamin, especially after his great distinction.—And he commanded the steward of his house.—The return of money does not belong to this trial, but only the cup in Benjamin’s sack. Knobel is incorrect in calling this also a chastisement. So also is Delitzsch, in holding that a surrender of Benjamin by his brethren loses all authentic support, in the fact that in all the sacks something was found that did not belong to them. Rather is Benjamin the only one who must appear as guilty, and as having incurred the doom of slavery (Genesis 44:17).—Up, follow after the men.—The haste is in order that they may not anticipate him in the discovery, and so defeat the accusation by their voluntary return. The steward is to inquire only for the silver cup.—And whereby indeed he divineth.—“In Egypt, the country of oracles (Isaiah 19:3), hydromancy also was practised, i. e., to predict events from appearances presented by the liquid contents of a cup, either as standing or as thrown. This mode of divination is still practised. It was called πִ ?ηֵ ?ωׁ, lit., whispering (in magic formulas or oracles), divinare.” Delitzsch. Compare also Knobel, p. 329. The indicating signs were either the refraction of the rays of light, or the formation of circles on the water, or of figures, or of small bubbles, whenever something was thrown in. According to Bunsen, however, the aim was, by fixing the eyes of the diviner upon a particular point in the cup, to put him into a dream-like or clairvoyant state. Concerning this kulikomancy, or cup-divination, see Schrφder. The cup is, therefore, marked, not only as a festive, but also as a most sacred, utensil of Joseph; and, on this account, to take it away was considered as a heinous crime. Knobel, in his peculiar way, here tries to start a contradiction. “According to the Elohist (he says), Joseph gets his knowledge of the future from God (Genesis 40:8); whilst here he derives it from hydromancy, as practised by one received into the caste of the priests.” So, too, did he swear, in all earnestness, by the life of Pharaoh; and the older exegetes would relieve us from the apprehension that in so doing he might have taken a false oath! In a vigorous denial, and with eloquent speech, do the accused repel the charges of the steward and give strong expression to the consciousness of their innocence.—With whomsoever it be found, let him die.—Whilst consenting to their proposal, the steward moderates it in accordance with the aim of the prosecution. The possessor of the cup alone is demanded, and he, not to die, but to become Joseph’s slave. He presents this forthwith, so that the discovery again of the money may not be taken into consideration, and that temporary fear of death may not harm Benjamin. Benjamin only is to appear as the culprit, and this is in order to find out whether or not his brethren would abandon him. For these reasons the money found in the sacks is not noticed at all.—And began at the eldest.—This was in order to mask the deception.—They rent their clothes.—This was already a favorable sign; another, that they would not let Benjamin go alone, but returned with him to the city; third, that they put themselves under the direction of Judah, who had become surety for Benjamin; and fourth, that they, together with Benjamin, prostrated themselves as penitents before Joseph.—Wot ye not?—Joseph’s reproach was not so much for the vileness, as for the imprudence, of the act; since he intends to conduct the severe trial as sparingly as possible. The Hebrew πַ ?ηֵ ?ωׁ, etc., denotes here a divinely-derived or supernatural knowledge, to which Joseph lays claim, not only as a member of the caste of priests, but as the well-known interpreter of the dreams, owing his reception into this caste to his remarkable clear-sightedness.—That such a man as I.—He puts on the appearance of boasting, not to represent them as mean persons, but only as inferior to himself in a contest of craftiness. Thus he meets the supposed improbability that he could still divine although the cup was taken from him.—And Judah said, What shall we say?—Judah considers Benjamin as lost, and without inquiring how the cup came into his sack, he recognizes in this dark transaction the judgment of God upon their former guilt. This appears from his declaration: We are my lord’s servants.—Benjamin, it is true, had no part in that old guilt; neither had Reuben and Judah directly, but concerning this no explanation could be given in the court of the Egyptian ruler. In a masterly manner, therefore, he so shapes his speech ambiguously that the brethren are reminded of their old guilt, and admonished to resign themselves to the divine judgment, whilst Joseph can understand it only that they are all interested in the taking of the cup, and he especially, as the one confessing for them. I, above all, am guilty, says the innocent one, in order that he might share the doom of slavery with the apparent criminal. In this disguised speech the reservatio mentalis appears in its most favorable aspect. For his brethren he utters a truth: Jacob’s sons have incurred the divine judgment. For Joseph his words are a seeming subterfuge, and yet a most magnanimous one. Thus the two noble sons of Jacob wrestle with each other in the emulation of generosity, one in the false appearance of a despot and boaster, the other forced to a falsity of self-accusation that seems bordering on despair.—And he said, God forbid that I should do so.—Here is the culmination of the trial. Benjamin is to be a slave; the others may return home without him. Will they not be really glad to have got rid of the preferred and favorite child of Rachel, in such an easy way? But now is the time when it comes true: “Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise” (see Genesis 49:8). b. History of the reconciliation, of the recognition, and of their meeting each other again under the antithesis of Judah and Joseph, Genesis 44:18 to Genesis 45:15.—1. Genesis 44:18-34. Judah as surety and substitute for Benjamin before Joseph. Judah’s speech is not only one of the grandest and fairest to be found in the Old Testament (connecting itself, as it does, with an increased significance, to those of Eliezer and Jacob), but, at the same time, one of the most lofty examples of self-sacrifice contained therein.—Then Judah came near unto him and said.—Peclus facit disertum, the heart makes eloquent. Necessity, and the spirit of self-sacrifice, give the inspiring confidence (παῤῥησία).—In my lord’s ears.—He presses towards him, that he may speak the more impressively to his ear and to his heart (Genesis 50:4; 1 Samuel 18:23). And yet, with all his boldness, he neglects not the courteous and prudent attitude.—For thou art as Pharaoh.—In this Judah intends to recognize the sovereignty which could not be affronted with impunity. For Joseph, however, there must have been in it the stinging reminder that the acme of severity was now reached. The vivid, passionate style of narration, as the ground of treatment in the cases presented, is ever the basis of all Bible speeches.—And his brother is dead.—Joseph has here a new unfolding of the destiny to which God had appointed him; especially does he begin to perceive its meaning in relation to his father Jacob (Genesis 44:28). This language strengthens what is said about Benjamin, as the one favorite child of an aged father—doubly dear because his brother is dead.—And we said unto my lord, The lad cannot leave his father.—From this it appears why Joseph confined them three days in prison. They had refused to bring Benjamin. It appears, too, that they had consented to bring him only because Joseph had especially desired it, and had intimated a favorable reception (“that I may set mine eyes upon him,” see Jeremiah 39:12). Judah gently calls his attention to this as though it were a promise. And, finally, they are brought to this determination on account of the pressure of the famine. It had cost them, too, a hard struggle with the father. The quotation of Jacob’s words (Genesis 44:27-29) shows how easily they now reconcile themselves to the preference of Rachel and her sons in the heart of Jacob.—That my wife.—Rachel was his wife in the dearest sense of the word, the chosen of his heart. Therefore, also, are her two sons near to him.—And the one went out from me.—Here Joseph learns his father’s distress on his own account. His mourning and longing for him shows how dear Benjamin must be, now the only child of his old age.—When he seeth that the lad is not is with us.—With the utmost tenderness Benjamin is sometimes called the youngest child, sometimes the lad. Out of this a frigid criticism, that has no heart to feel or understand it, would make contradictions. If Joseph has his way, Jacob will die of sorrow. And now Judah speaks the decisive word,—one which the mere thread of the narration would not have led us to anticipate, but which springs eloquently from the rhetoric of the heart.—For thy servant became surety for the lad unto my father.—Therefore the passionate entreaty that Joseph would receive him as a substitute of the one who had incurred the sentence of slavery. In all this he makes no parade of his self-sacrifice. He cannot, and will not, return home without Benjamin. He would even regard it as a favor that he should be received in his place. He would rather die as a slave in Egypt, than that his eyes should behold the sorrows of his father. So stands he before us in his self-humiliation, in his self-sacrifice, equal in both with Joseph, and of as true nobility of soul. 2. Genesis 45:1-5. Joseph’s reconciliation and making himself known.—Then Joseph could not refrain.—The brethren had not merely stood the trial; Judah’s eloquence had overpowered him. Reconciliation never measures itself by mere right; it is not only full but running over. Thus is it said of Israel: “he wrestled with God and prevailed.” We must distinguish, therefore, between two elements in Joseph’s emotion: first, his satisfied reconciliation, and, secondly, his inability to restrain any longer, though in presence of all the beholders, the strong agitation of his swelling heart. See a full representation of this as given by Delitzsch (p. 558). When, however, he says, that Benjamin’s brothers, do not press him (Benjamin) with reproaches, notwithstanding they had reason to regard him as guilty, and as having, by his theft, plunged them into misfortunes, there must be borne in mind their earlier suspicions as expressed Genesis 43:18. Doubtless they now conjectured that they were the victims of some Egyptian intrigue; still they recognized it as a divine judgment, and this was the means of their salvation. In their resignation to suffering for Benjamin’s sake, in their sorrow for their father’s distress, Joseph saw fruits for repentance that satisfied him. He beheld in them the transition from the terror of judgment to a cheerful courage of self-sacrifice, in which Judah offers himself as a victim for him, inasmuch as he does it for his image. This draws him as with an irresistible power to sympathize with their distress, and so the common lot becomes the common reconciliation.—Cause every man to go out from me.—He wished to be alone with his brethren at the moment when he made himself known to them. The Egyptians must not see the emotion of their exalted lord, the deep abasement of the brethren, and the act of holy reconciliation which they could not understand. Neither was the theocratic conception of the famine, and of his own mission, for Egyptian ears.—And he wept aloud.—With loud cryings he began to address them; so that his weeping was heard by all who were without, and even by the people in the house of Pharaoh. It follows that Joseph’s dwelling must have been near the palace; “his residence was at Memphis.” (Knobel.)—I am Joseph.—This agitating announcement, for which, however, their despair may have prepared them, he knows not better how to mitigate than by the question: Doth my father yet live?—He had already heard this several times, yet he must ask again, not because he doubted, but that, in the assurance of this most joyful news he may show them his true Israelitish heart, and inspire them with courage. Nor are we to forget that Judah’s words had vividly pictured to him the danger that the old man might die on account of Benjamin’s absence, and that it now began painfully to suggest itself to him, how much he might have imperilled his father’s life by the trial of his brethren.—For they were troubled.—In their terror they seem to draw back.—Come near to me, I pray you.—I am Joseph your brother whom ye sold into Egypt.—It seems as if he had to confess for them the thing they most dreaded.—Now therefore be not grieved.—Seeing their sorrow and repentance, he would now raise them to faith. The one portion of them, namely, those who were conscious of the greater guilt, must not mar this favorable state of soul, and render faith more difficult by their excessive mourning, nor should the guiltless (Reuben, Judah, Benjamin) produce the same effect by angry recriminations.—To preserve life.—To this they are now to direct their attention. 3. Genesis 45:5-13. Joseph’s divine peace, and divine mission.—To preserve life did God send me.—What they had done for evil God had turned to good. And now, having repented and been forgiven, as God had shown to them in his dealings, they are now in a state to understand his gracious purposes. A closer explanation of these words, which would require the giving of his whole history, he, for the present, discreetly waives.—And yet there are five years.—This shows already the point towards which his mind is aiming—to draw them down to Egypt.—Neither earing nor harvest.—A vivid representation of the years of famine.—Before you to preserve you.—The preservation of Jacob’s house seems now of more importance than that of the Egyptians, and the surrounding peoples.—By a great deliverance.—The question was not one of assistance merely, however great, but of deliverance from death and famine. It may, however, be so called in reference to the great future, and as containing in it the final deliverance of the world.—So now it was not you,—but God.—Here he makes a pointed contrast: not you; in this is contained: first, his forgiveness; secondly, his declaration of the nullity of their project, and its disappearance before the great decree of God. Thrice does he make these comforting declarations. But in what respects was it God? He made him, first, a father unto Pharaoh, that is, a paternal counsellor (2 Chronicles 2:12; 2 Chronicles 4:16). “It was an honorary distinction of the first minister, and which also existed among the Persians (Appendix to Esther 2:6; Esther 6:10), and the Syrians (1 Maccab. Genesis 11:32).” Knobel. These words also refer to the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, and the advice connected with it. The consequence was, that he obtained this high position which he can now use for the preservation of his father’s house.—Come down unto me.—The immediate invitation given without any conference with Pharaoh shows his firm position; but it was, nevertheless, a hazardous undertaking of his agitated, yet confident heart.—In the land of Goshen.—(Genesis 47:11).—Raamses.—A district of Lower Egypt, north of the Nile, and very fruitful (Genesis 47:6; Genesis 47:11), especially in grass (Genesis 46:34). “Even at this day the province of Scharkijah is considered the best part of Egypt (Robinson. ‘Palζst.,’ 1:96).” Knobel. See The same, p. 333, and the Biblical Dictionaries. See also Bunsen.—And there will I nourish thee.—The expression τֶּ ?οϊִּ ?εָּ ?ψֵ ?ωׁ may mean, that thou mayest not become a possession, that is, fall into slavery through poverty, and thus Knobel interprets it with reference to Genesis 47:19, etc.; but it may also mean, that thou mayest not be deprived of thy possessions, so as to suffer want,—an interpretation which is to be preferred.—And behold your eyes.—If their father in his distrust (see Genesis 45:25) should not credit their testimony, he will undoubtedly believe the eyes of Benjamin.—All my glory.—He perceives that his aged father, oppressed by sorrows, can only be revived again through vivid representations (see Genesis 45:27). 4. Genesis 45:14-15. The solemnity of the salutation.—And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck.—Benjamin is the central point whence leads out the way to reconciliation.—Kissed all his brethren.—The seal of recognition, of reconciliation, and of salutation.—And wept upon them.—Delitzsch: “While he embraced them.” But of Benjamin it is said, he wept upon his neck. Benjamin would seem to remain standing whilst the brothers bow themselves; so that Joseph, as he embraced, wept upon them.—And after that his brethren talked with him.—Not until now can they speak with him,—now that they have been called, and been forgiven, in so solemn and brotherly a manner. The joy is gradually brought out by an assurance, thrice repeated, that he did not impute their deed to them, but recognized in it the decree and hand of God. c. The joyful message to Jacob. Genesis 45:16-28.—Pharaoh’s commission to Jacob.—And the fame thereof was heard.—At the recognition Joseph was alone with his brethren; now that he has made known their arrival, he avows himself as belonging to them.—And it pleased Pharaoh well.—Recognitions of separated members of the same family have an extraordinary power to move the human heart, and we already know that Pharaoh was a prince of sound discernment, and of a benevolent disposition. But what was pleasing to Pharaoh was also pleasing to his courtiers, and his servants. Besides, Joseph had rendered great service, and had, therefore, a claim to Egyptian sympathy. Thus far a dark shadow had rested on his descent; for he had come to Egypt as a slave. Now he appears as a member of a free and noble nomadic family.—And Pharaoh said unto Joseph.—First, he extends an invitation to the brethren agreeing with Joseph’s previous invitation. Then follows a commission to Joseph, the terms of which bear evidence of the most delicate courtliness.—The good of the land.—This is generally taken as meaning the best part of the land, that is, Goshen (Raschi, Gesenius, and others). Knobel, according to Genesis 45:20; Genesis 45:23, interprets it, of the good things of Egypt: whatever good it possesses shall be theirs. The connection with the following: the fat of the land, would seem to point to a leasing of possession, but, of course, not in the sense of territorial dominion. It is not an argument against this that the leasing of places is afterwards asked for (Genesis 46:34; Genesis 47:4). On the contrary, the petition there made rather rests on a previous general promise.—Now thou art commanded.—Pharaoh had refrained from using the form of command towards Joseph, but now in adopting it, in a case of his own personal interest, it must be regarded as, in fact, a refined courtesy. It is the very strongest language of authorization.—This do ye.—He regards the cause of Joseph, and his brethren, as one and inseparable. The sense, therefore, is not: cause thy brethren so to do (Knobel); for they, of themselves, could not take wagons from Egypt.—For your little ones.—“Egypt was rich in wagons and horses; they are not mentioned among the nomadic Hebrews.” The small two-wheeled wagons of the Egyptians “could be also used on the roadless wastes of the desert.” Keil.—Also regard not your stuff.—They should not grieve over the articles of furniture they would have to leave behind; since they would have everything abundantly in Egypt.—The children of Israel.—A decisive step for the house of Israel.—Joseph gave them wagons—and provision for the way.—Changes of raiment.—Lange: Lit., festival habits (holiday clothing) as a change for the usual dress.—But to Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver, and five changes of raiment.—He makes amends to this guiltless brother after the well-meant alarm which he had given him.—And to his father.—In these presents love seems to surpass the measure of its aim, since Jacob had been invited to come speedily to Egypt; but there might possibly be hindrances to the journey. Besides the ten asses were for the common transportation, and the occasion of their dismission is employed to send along with them costly things of various kinds from the land.—See that ye fall not out by the way.—The old explanation: do not quarrel by the way, is held by Knobel, Delitzsch and Keil, in opposition to Michaelis, Gesenius, and others, who make it an admonition: fear not. But the language, and the situation, both favor the first interpretation. The less guilty ones among them might easily be tempted to reproach the others, as Reuben had done already.—Joseph is yet alive.—In this message his heart lost its warmth and joy. He had not full trust in them. It was by no means the incredulity of joy (Luke 24:44), because the news seemed too strangely good to be true; rather had his suspicion, in its reciprocal working with their long consciousness of guilt, made him fundamentally mistrustful. And now that dreadful shalit of Egypt turns out to be his son Joseph! Even Benjamin’s witness fails to clear up his amazement.—And when he saw the wagons.—Not until they had told him all the words of Joseph, and added, perhaps, their own confession—how they had sold him, how Joseph had forgiven them, how he had referred them to the divine guidance—is Jacob able to believe fully their report; and, now, in connection with all this, there come the Egyptian wagons, as a seal of the story’s truth, as a symbol of Joseph’s glory, a sign, in fact, from God, that the dark enigma of his old years is about to be solved in the light of a “golden sunset.”—It is enough.—His longing is appeased, he has as good as reached the goal.—I will go.—The old man is again young in spirit. He is for going immediately; he could leap, yes, fly. “Now purified at last, with hope revived, For life’s new goal he starts.” (See the close of the �dipus Coloneus.) Delitzsch: “Thus Jacob’s spirit lives again.—And Israel said.—It is Israel now that speaks. How significant this change of name.” AND ETHICAL(Genesis 43:1 to Genesis 44:17) The great trial: 1. Its inevitableness; 2. its need; 3. its apparent end (the banquet); 4. its acme; 5. its glorious issue. 1. The pressure of want, and its power in the hand of providence: 1) How inexorable in its demands. Jacob is to deliver up Benjamin. 2) How full of grace in its designs. By it alone can Jacob’s house be delivered from the burden of deadly guilt. 2. Judah’s confidence. “A lion’s whelp” (Genesis 49:9). This confidence he would not have had, if he had not formerly proposed to sell Joseph in order to save him, or had be not been willing to sacrifice himself for Benjamin’s safe return: The spirit of self-sacrifice is the great source of courage. 3. It is in the name of Israel that Jacob treats with his sons in the giving up of Benjamin. His reproach, too (Genesis 43:6), is in the name of Israel. It seems to come, indeed, from Jacob’s weakness, and to be, therefore, wrongly used; but behind the mere sound there lies the hidden announcement of a suspicion that they were dealing unfairly with the sons of Rachel. We now recognize Israel’s character, especially in the following traits: 1) Not to his other sons does he entrust Benjamin, not even to Reuben, whose weakness he knows, but only to Judah, whose frankness, honesty, and strength seem to inspire him with confidence. 2) He again employs the old weapon, the giving of presents to a threatening antagonist; yet well knowing that the Egyptian would not, like Esau, look to the quantity so much as the quality of the things offered, and so he sends him the most highly prized or celebrated products of the land. 3) With a severe uprightness does he require his sons to return the money found in their sacks, and thus disarm the suspicion of the Egyptian. 4) He entrusts to them Benjamin as their brother. 5) He commits himself to the protection of Almighty God, i. e., the delivering and protecting God of the patriarchs, who wrought miracles on their behalf. 6) He resigns himself to God’s providence, even at the risk of becoming entirely childless. 4. The prized fruits of the land of Canaan. In Jacob’s words there appears an objective poetry, or the poetry of the lands, as it may be called. First of all, it consists in their noblest products, not as they serve the common wants of life, but rather its healing, adornment, and festivity. When he selected them, however, Jacob could have had but little thought how mighty the influence these noble gifts of Canaan’s soil would have upon the great Egyptian ruler,—how they would impress him as the wonders of his youth, the glories of his native land. 5. Joseph’s state of soul at the appearance of Benjamin: 1) His joy; 2) his deep emotion; 3) his doubt, and the modes of testing it: a. the feast; b. the cup; c. the claim to Benjamin. If at the first meeting with his brethren Joseph had to struggle with his ill-humor, he now has to contend with the emotions of fraternal love. 6. The agitating changes in the trial of Joseph’s brethren: 1) From fear to joy: 2) from joy to sorrow; 3) and again from sorrow to joy. 7. Their negotiation with the steward, or the delusions of fear. They are innocent (respecting the money), and yet guilty (in respect to their old crime). Having once murdered confidence, there lies upon them the penalty of mistrust, compelling them to regard even Joseph’s house as a place of treachery. They could have no trust whilst remaining unreconciled. 8. The steward. Joseph’s spirit had been imparted to his subordinates. 9. Good fortune abounding (the money given to them; Simeon set free; the honorable reception; the banquet; the messes); and yet they had no peace, because the pure foundation for it was not yet laid. 10. Joseph’s deep emotion, a sign of reconciliation. 11. The banquet, and Egyptian division of castes. (The distinction of caste is here recognized as custom interpenetrated by dogma, and this gives the method of the struggle. Joseph sends messes from his table. The true tendency of the caste doctrine is to absorb everything into that of the priesthood.) Egyptian forms (honorary dishes; the number five). An Israelitish meal. As the banquet of Joseph’s joy, of his hope, of his trying watch. As the feast of reviving hope in Joseph’s brethren; their participation without envy in the honoring of Benjamin. As an introduction to the last trial, and a preparation for it. 12. The successful issue in the fearful proving of Israel’s sons. (Genesis 44:18 to Genesis 45:16. Joseph and Judah.) 1. Judah’s speech. Delitzsch: “Judah is the eloquent one among his brethren. His eloquence had carried the measure of Joseph’s sale; it had prevailed on Jacob to send Benjamin with them; and here, finally, it makes Joseph unable to endure the restraint which he wished to put upon himself.” The end, however, is attained, not more by his touching eloquence than by his heroic deed, when lie offers himself as surety for Benjamin, and is willing to sacrifice himself by taking his place. 2. And I said. This citing of Jacob’s language, in Judah’s speech, must have had something especially agitating for Joseph,—all the more so because the speaker is not aware of the deep impression it must have made upon him. In this citation of Jacob’s last words in respect to that old event, there is reflected, as Schrφder rightly remarks, Jacob’s doubt. I said, that is, I thought at that time. 3. The moral requisites of reconciliation, whether human or divine, are quite obvious in our narrative. Reuben represents the better element in the moral struggle, Benjamin the innocent party, Judah the surety, who takes upon himself the real guilt of his brethren and the factitious guilt of Benjamin. Repentance, faith, and the spirit of sacrifice, severally appear in these representatives. Through three stages do these elements prepare the reconciliation to Joseph’s heart and to the brethren as opposed to him. It has for its foundation a religious ground, though only in an Old-Testament measure. The thrice-repeated declaration of Joseph: Ye have not sent me, but God has done it, is the strongest expression of restored peace and forgiveness. As Benjamin, so to speak, had taken his place, the conclusion avails: Whatever ye have done to him, ye have done it even unto me. 4. It is an especial New-Testament trait in Joseph’s mode of thinking, that he so fully recognizes how the sin of his brethren, after having been atoned for, is entirely taken away; the divine providence having turned it to good. This truth, which he so promptly read in his mission, many Christians, and even many theologians, are yet spelling out in the letter. Joseph, however, recognizes, as the central point of the divine guidance, his mission to save Israel’s house from starvation, and to preserve it for a great deliverance. In this thought there lies enclosed the anticipation of a future and an endless salvation. For this end the treachery of the brethren is first turned away, as guilt expiated, and then, under the divine guidance, turned to good. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ EIGHTH SECTIONIsrael’s emigration with his family to Egypt. The settlement in the land of Goshen. Jacob and Pharaoh. Joseph’s political Economy. Jacob’s charge concerning his burial at Canaan.Genesis 46, 471And Israel took his journey with all that he had, and came to Beer-sheba, and offered sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac. 2And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said Jacob, Jacob. 3And he said, Here I am. And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation: 4I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again; and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes. 5And Jacob rose up from Beer-sheba; and the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives, in the Wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. 6And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed with him: 7His sons, and his sons’ sons with him, his daughters, and his sons’ daughters, and all his seed brought he with him into Egypt. 8And these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob’s first-born. 9And the sons of Reuben; Hanoch [initiated or initiating, teacher], and Phallu [distinguished], and Hezron [Fόrst: blooming one, beautiful one], and Carmi [Fόrst: noble one, Gesen.: vine-dresser]. 10And the sons of Simeon; Jemuel [day or light of God], and Jamin [the right hand, luck], and Ohad [Gesen.: gentleness; Fόrst: strong], and Jachin [founder], and Zohar [lightening one, bright-shining one], and Shaul [the one asked for] the son of a Canaanitish woman. 11And the sons of Levi; Gershon [expulsion of the profane?], Kohath [congregation of the consecrated?], and Merari [harsh one, severe one, practiser of discipline?]. 12And the sons of Judah; Er [see Genesis 38:3], and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zarah: but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Pharez were Hezron [see Genesis 5:9], and Hamul [sparer? gentle one, delicate one]. 13And the sons of Issachar; Tola [worm, cocus-worm, one dressed in crimson cloth, war-dress], and Phuvah [=Phuah, utterance, speech, mouth], and Job [= ιָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?α, see Numbers 26:29; 1 Chronicles 7:1, returner], and Shimron [keeping, guarding]. 14And the Sons of Zebulun; Sered [escaped, salvation], and Elon [oak, strong one], and Jahleel [waiting upon God]. 15These be the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padan-aram, with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three. 16And the sons of Gad; Ziphion [beholder, watchman, the seeing one], and Haggi [Chaygai, the festive one], Shuni [the resting one], and Ezbon [Gesen.: devoted; Fόrst: listener], Eri [watchman], and Arodi [descendants], and Areli [heroic]. 17And the sons of Asher; Jimnah [fortune], and Ishuah [like], and Isui [alike, one to another? twins?], and Beriah [gift], and Serah [abundance], their sister; and the sons of Beriah; Heber [company, associate], and Malchiel [my king is God]. 18These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter, and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls. 19The sons of Rachel Jacob’s wife; Joseph and Benjamin. 20And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim [see chap. 1, etc.], which Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah priest of On, bare unto him. 21And the sons of Benjamin were Belah [see Genesis 14:2, devourer], and Becher [young camel? youth], and Ashbel [sprout], Gera [=βψδ, fighter?], and Naaman [loveliness, graceful], Ehi [brotherly], and Rosh [head], Muppim [adorned one, from ιτδ], 22and Huppim [protected], and Ard [ruler? from ιψγ]. These are the sons of Rachel, which were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen. 23And the sons [the son] of Dan; Hushim [the hastener]. 24And the sons of Naphtali; Jahzeel [alloted by God], and Guni 25[hedged around, protected βπο], and Jezer [image, my image], and Shillem [avenger]. These are the sons of Bilhah, which Laban gave unto Rachel his daughter, and she bare these unto Jacob; 26all the souls were seven. All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six: 27And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. 28And he sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct his face unto Goshen; and they came into the land of Goshen. 29And Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father, to Goshen, and presented himself unto him; and he fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while. 30And Israel said unto Joseph, Now let me die, since I have seen thy face, because thou art yet alive. 31And Joseph said unto his brethren, and unto his father’s house, I will go up, and show Pharaoh, and say unto him, My brethren, and my father’s house, which were in the land of Canaan, are come unto me: 32And the men are shepherds, for their trade hath been to feed cattle; and they have brought their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have. 33And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation? 34That ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle from our youth, even until now, both we and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians. Genesis 47:1 Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brethren, and their flocks and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen. 2And he took some of his brethren, even five men, and presented them unto Pharaoh. 3And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh, Thy 4servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers. They said, moreover, unto Pharaoh, For to sojourn in the land are we come; for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks; for the famine is sore in the land of Canaan: now therefore, we pray thee, let thy servants dwell in the land of Goshen. 5And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee: 6The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle. 7And Joseph brought in Jacob his father, and set him before Pharaoh: and Jacob blessed Pharaoh. 8And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou? 9And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage. 10And Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from before Pharaoh. 11And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses [Ramses, son of the sun. The name of several Egyptian kings], as Pharaoh had commanded. 12And Joseph nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his father’s household with bread, according to their 13families [Bunsen: “To each one according to the number of his children”]. And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt, and all the land of Canaan, fainted by reason of the famine. 14And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. 15And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth. 16And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail. 17And they brought their cattle unto Joseph; and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for their flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses; and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. 18When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not aught left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands: 19Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh; and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate. 20And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s. 21And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. 22Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: where fore they sold not their lands. 23Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day, and your land, for Pharaoh; lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. 24And it shall come to pass, in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. 25And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants. 26And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s. 27And Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly. 28And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years; so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years. 29And the time drew nigh that Israel must die; and he called his son Joseph, and said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and truly with me; bury me not, I pray thee, in Egypt: 30But I will lie with my fathers, and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying-place. 31And he said, I will do as thou hast said. And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head. 1. The transplantation of the house of Israel to Egypt under the divine sanction in the genesis of the people of Israel, and under the protection afforded by the opposition to each other of Egyptian prejudice and Jewish custom; this being with the definite reservation, confirmed by an oath, of the return to Canaan. Such is the fundamental idea of both chapters. 2. Knobel finds a manifold difference in the history contained in chapters 46–48, “between the ground scripture as it is accepted by him, and the amplification of the later editor.” According to the Elohist (he says), Manasseh and Ephraim are said to have been youths already, whilst here, that is, in the “amplification,” etc., they appear as boys (Genesis 48:8-12). In the narrative of the Elohist, Jacob’s request respecting his burial is directed to all his children, whilst here it is made to Joseph only (Genesis 47:31). And this is held up as a discrepancy! See another specimen of this critical dust-raising, p. 336. Here again Knobel knows not how to take the significancy of his ἅπαξλεγόμενα. Even δֵ ?ο, Genesis 47:23, must answer as proof of a second Jehovistic document. 3. Ch. 47 and 48 are taken by Delitzsch as belonging to the superscription, as containing Jacob’s testamentary arrangements. 4. The contents: 1) Jacob’s departure, Genesis 46:1-7; Genesis 2) Jacob’s family, Genesis 46:8-27; Genesis 3) the reunion and mutual salutation in the land of Goshen, Genesis 46:28-34; Genesis 4) introduction of Joseph’s brethren and his father Jacob to Pharaoh; grant of the Goshen territory; the induction and settlement of the house of Israel, Genesis 47:1-12; Genesis 5) Joseph’s administration in Egypt, Genesis 48:13-22; Genesis 6) Israel in Egypt and the proviso he makes for his return to Canaan, even in death, Genesis 48:27–31. AND 1. Jacob’s departure (Genesis 46:1-7).—And Israel took his journey.—Even as Israel he had a human confidence that he might follow Joseph’s call to Egypt. But as a patriarch he must have the divine sanction. Until this time he might have doubts. When he halted at Beer-sheba (“the place of Abraham’s tamarisk tree, and of Isaac’s altar”) he offered sacrifice to the God of his fathers—a peace offering, which, in this case, may also be regarded as a thankoffering, an offering of inquiry, or in fulfilment of a vow. It must be remembered that Isaac once had it in view to journey to Egypt, had not God forbidden him. And so, in the last revelation that Jacob received, in the night-vision, there comes to him a voice, saying, Jacob, Jacob; just as Abraham had to be prepared by a decisive prohibition in the repeated call, Abraham, Abraham, Genesis 22:11, so, in a similar way, must Jacob here be prepared for going onward to Egypt. The revelation which Abraham had, Genesis 15, might seem dark to him. Its import neither held him back nor urged him forward on the journey. The transplantation of his house to Egypt was a bold undertaking. On this account the God of his fathers, the Providence of his fathers, reveals himself to him as God El, the powerful one, with whom he may safely undertake the journey, notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency that he is leaving the land of promise. The main thing in the divine promise now is, that he is not only to become a mighty people in Egypt, but that he shall return to Canaan. The latter part might be fulfilled in the return of his dead body, but this would be as symbolic pre-representation of the fact that Israel’s return to Canaan should be the return of his people. The firmness of the departure appears in the fact that Israel, with wives and children, allows himself to be placed on Egyptian wagons, and that they took with them all the movable property that they possessed in Canaan. The picture of such a migration scene upon the monument of Beni Hassan is described by Hengstenberg, “Moses and Egypt,” p. 37, etc. “Jacob is now to die in Egypt; this death, however, in a foreign land, is to have the alleviation that Joseph shall put his hand upon his eyes. This last service of love was also customary among other ancient nations (comp. Hom. II. xi. 453, etc.).” Knobel. Concerning the wagons, see Delitzsch, p. 562. 2. Jacob’s house (Genesis 46:8-27). Three things are here to be considered: 1) The number 70; 2) the enumeration of the children and grandchildren who may have been born in Egypt; 3) the relation of the present list to the one given Numbers 26, and 1 Chronicles 2. The numbering of the souls in Jacob’s household evidently points to the important symbolic number 70. This appears in its significance throughout the history of the kingdom of God. It is reflected in the ethnological table, in the 70 elders of Moses, in the Jewish Sanhedrin, in the Alexandrian version of the LXX, in the 70 disciples of our Lord, in the Jewish reduction of the heathen world to 70 nations. Ten is the number of the completed human development, seven the number of perfection in God’s work; seventy, therefore, is the development of perfection and holiness in God’s people. But between the complete development and the germ there must be a correspondence; and this is the family of the patriarch, consisting of seventy souls. “The number seventy is the mark by which the small band of emigrants is sealed and stamped as the holy seed of the people of God.” Delitzsch. On the mariner in which the number 70 is formed out of the four columns, Leah, Zilpah, Rachel, Bilhah, see Delitzsch, p. 563; Keil, p. 270. It is to be observed that Dinah, as an unmarried heiress, constitutes an independent member of the house, just as Serah, daughter of Asher (Genesis 46:17); whilst it may be supposed, in respect to the other daughters and granddaughters, that by marriage they became incorporated with the families and tribes that are mentioned. The fact that a son of Simeon is specially mentioned as the son of a Canaanitish woman, shows that it was the rule in Jacob’s house to avoid Canaanitish marriages, though the “Ishmaelitish, Keturian, and Edomitic relationship still stood open to them.” Keil. The ancient connection, however, with Mesopotamia, Laban had impaired, if not entirely interrupted. A similar enumeration, Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22; whilst the LXX, and, after it, Acts 7:14, presents the number 75, by counting in the five sons of Ephraim and Manasseh according to 1 Chronicles 8:14 (see note by Keil, p. 271), an enumeration by which the persons named are still more distinctly set up as heads of families. As to what farther relates to the sons of Pharez, the sons of Benjamin, etc., it is clear that when it is said of Jacob, that he brought all these souls to Egypt, it must have the same meaning as when it is said of his twelve sons, that he brought them out of Mesopotamia, though Benjamin was born afterwards in his home. The foundation of the Palestinian family state was laid on the return of Jacob to Canaan, whilst the formation of the Egyptian family state, and of its full patriarchal development, was laid when he came to Egypt. The idea goes ahead of the date. Baumgarten urges the literal conception; but the right view of the matter is given by Hengstenberg. For a closer discussion of the question see Keil, p. 271, and Delitzsch, p. 564; especially in relation to the difficulties of Knobel, p. 340. Keil: “It is clear that our list contains not only Jacob’s sons and grandsons already born at the time of the emigration, but besides this, all the sons that formed the ground of the twelve-tribed nation,—or, in general, all the grand-and great-grandchildren that became founders of mischpa-hoth, or independent, self-governing families. Thus only can the fact be explained, the fact otherwise inexplicable, that, in the days of Moses, with the exception of the double tribe of Joseph, there were, in none of the tribes, descendants from any grandson, or great-grandsons, of Jacob that are not mentioned in this list. The deviations in the names, as given in Numbers 26, and in Chronicles, are to be considered in their respective places.” We refer here to Keil, p. 272; Delitzsch, p. 565. 3. Their re-union and greetings in the land of Goshen. Genesis 46:28-34.—And he sent Judah.—Judah has so nobly approved himself true and faithful, wise and eloquent, in Joseph’s history, that Jacob may, with all confidence, send him before to prepare the way. Judah’s mission is to receive Joseph’s directions, in order that he himself may be a guide to Israel, and lead him unto the land of Goshen. Joseph, however, hastens forward to meet his father in Goshen, and to greet him and his brethren.—And he presented himself to him.—Keil: “πִ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ otherwise generally thus used in speaking of an appearance of God, is here chosen to express the glory in which Joseph went to meet his father.” But surely it was less the external splendor, in itself considered, than the appearance of one beloved, long supposed to be dead, but now living in glorious prosperity.—Now let me die.—This joyful view of death is not to be overlooked; it is opposed to the common notion respecting the Jewish view of the life beyond the grave. Such language shows that Jacob recognizes, in Joseph’s reappearance, the last miraculous token of the divine favor as shown to him in this world.—I will go up to Pharaoh.—Knobel explains the expression from the fact, that the city of Memphis, being the royal residence, was situated higher than the district of Goshen. Keil explains it ideally as a going up to court. This view becomes necessary if we regard Tanais as the capital, which is, however, rendered somewhat doubtful by the expression itself, if it is to be taken literally.—That ye shall say, thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle.—This instruction shows Joseph’s ingenuousness, combined with prudent calculation. His brethren are frankly to confess their occupation; Joseph even sets them the example before Pharaoh, although, according to his own explanation, shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians, that is, an impure caste. By this frankness, however, they are to gain the worldly advantage of having given to them this pastoral district of Goshen, and at the same time, the theocratic spiritual benefit of dwelling in Egypt, secured, by this distinction of castes, from all impure mingling with the Egyptians themselves. Knobel lays stress upon the word φΰο, in distinction from αχψ, because sheep and goats were not generally used for sacrifice by the Egyptians, because their meat did not belong to the priestly royal dish, and because wool was considered by the priests to be unclean, and was, therefore, never used for the wrapping of the dead. But the conclusion drawn from this, that keepers of sheep and goats had been especially ϊּ ?εςֵ ?αָ ?δ (a thing tabooed), cannot be established. This, in a very high degree, was the case only with herdsmen of swine (Herod. ii. 47), who, nevertheless, together with the herdsmen of cattle, were numbered in the seven castes (Herod. ii. 164), and both together called the caste of shepherds, (Diod. i. 74). The name βουκόλοι is only a naming a potiori (from the better part).” Delitzsch. According to Grant (“Travels,” ii. 17), the herdsmen are represented on the monuments, as long, lean, distorted, sickly forms—a proof of the contempt that rested upon them. Joseph’s theocratic faithfulness preferred for his people contempt to splendor, provided that under the cover of this contempt, they might remain secluded and unmixed (see Hebrews 11:26). For the cause of this dis-esteem, see Keil, p. 274; Knobel, p. 341. 4. The presentation of Joseph’s brothers, and of his father, to Pharaoh. The grant of the land of Goshen. The induction and settlement. Genesis 47:1-12.—Some of his brethren.—(ξִ ?χְ ?φֶ ?δ) This has been interpreted as meaning some of the oldest, and some of the youngest, or, in some such manner; but there is no certainty about it; since the expression may mean any part as taken (cut off) from a whole. As Joseph could not present all his brethren to Pharaoh, he chooses five, a number of much significance to the Egyptians (see Genesis 43:34). Pharaoh again shows himself, in this case, a man of tact and delicacy. Of the young men he asks the nature of their occupation; of old Jacob he inquires his age. Especially well does he manage in not immediately granting to Joseph’s brethren their petition to be allowed to settle in Goshen, but leaves it to Joseph, so that he appears before his brethren in all his powers, and their thanks are to be rendered unto him instead of Pharaoh. Joseph, at the same time, receives full power to appoint proper men from among them as superintending herdsmen (magistros pecoris).—See Knobel, who thinks “that this petition was more suitable for the chief of the horde (sic).” Yet he quiets himself by the fact that in other places the narrator brings forward the sons of the aged father; as though this were not an obviously proper proceeding. Still he will have it that the ground Scripture, as he calls it, reports but one introduction of Jacob.—And Jacob blessed Pharaoh.—When he came into his presence and when he left him. There is something more here than a mere conventional greeting. Jacob had every inducement to add his blessing to his thanks for Joseph’s treatment, for the stately invitation, and for the kind reception. Besides, an honorable old age is a sort of priesthood in the world.—Of my pilgrimage.—Jacob’s consciousness of the patriarchal life, as a pilgrimage in a foreign land, must have developed itself especially in his personal experience (see Hebrews 11:13, etc.).—Few and evil.—That is, full of sorrow. Jacob speaks of his life as of something already past. This is explained from his elevated state of soul. He is ready to die. In such presentiment of death, however, he is mistaken by almost seventeen years; for he died at the age of one hundred and forty-seven. His father, Isaac, also had thought to make his testament much earlier (see Genesis 27:1, etc.). In fact, the age of Jacob fell much short of that of Abraham (one hundred and seventy-five), and that of Isaac (one hundred and eighty).—In the land of Rameses.—(Heroon-polis.) Genesis 45:10, it is called Goshen. It is here named after a like-named place in Goshen (Exodus 1:11); and thus we are already prepared for the departure afterwards, which started from Rameses (Exodus 12:37; Numbers 33:35). Concerning the country of Goshen, see Keil, p. 276; Delitzsch, p. 572. 5. Joseph’s administration of the affairs of Egypt (Genesis 47:13-26). This proceeding of Joseph, reducing the Egyptians, in their great necessity, to a state of entire dependence on Pharaoh, has been made the ground of severe reproach; and, indeed, it does look strange at first. The promotion of earthly welfare, and of a comfortable existence, cannot excuse a theocratic personage in bringing a free people into the condition of servants. But the question here is whether Joseph really acted in an arbitrary manner. He was not a sovereign lord of the storehouses, but only Pharaoh’s servant. As such, ho could not demand of Pharaoh views that in their aspect of liberality lay beyond his horizon; besides it is to be considered that the people themselves desired to save their lives at the price of their freedom. The point we are mainly to look at is that Joseph was not at liberty to give the corn away, and, to say nothing of Pharaoh’s right, he might thereby have opened so wide the door of a wasteful squandering, as to have produced a universal famine. We are also to suppose that Joseph was urged, step by step, to these measures, by the pressing consequences of the situation; but that he tried to mitigate, as much as posible, the dependence that necessarily followed, by an assessment of the fifth part, leaving four-fifths to them. The principal aim of the narrative is to show, in the first place, the advantages of the Israelites in comparison with the Egyptians; how splendidly the former were provided for. Again, Joseph might have yielded to the urgency of the circumstances, all the more freely from the consideration, that the future of Israel would be more secure by thus having a favorable position among a depressed, rather than a haughty and oppressive people. But, at all events, even in this relation, divine retribution surpasses, in its severity, the measure of human understanding. When afterwards the Israelites were held in bondage by the Egyptians, it may remind us of the fact, that, through Joseph, the Egyptians themselves had been made servants to Pharaoh, however pure may have been his motive.—Herds of cattle.—The expression ξχπδδαδξδ shows that the fair value of the cattle is here kept prominently in view; since ξχπδ denotes property acquired.—And as for the people they demanded.—Concerning the different readings, Genesis 47:21, where the LXX and the Samaritan, and others, with Knobel, read δֶ ?ςֱ ?αִ ?ιγ instead of δֶ ?ςֱ ?αִ ?ιψ, see note, Keil, p. 277. We must not, however, suppose, with Delitzsch, a translocation of the people from one place in Egypt to another in its remotest part, but the distributing of the present crown peasants into the different towns of their respective districts throughout the whole land. The ground of this was that, for the present, they must get their sustenance from their granaries in the cities, and that, afterwards, these became the places in which they were to deliver the fifth part.—Had a portion assigned them.—We understand this of the land of the priests, not of their portion of the provision which is mentioned afterwards.—Ye shall give the fifth part.—This was no heavy tax; and there was a benefit in it, that it tended to produce an habitual carefulness in respect to the unfruitful years. That a provision, in such cases, had heretofore been wanting in Egypt, is evident from the destitution of the people. Joseph may, therefore, be looked upon, in all this, as a wise man striving with the necessities of famine, so sore an evil in ancient times.The accounts which Herodotus (ii. 109), and Diodorus (i. 73), have given concerning the national economy of ancient Egypt, seem to refer to dispositions of a later date, at whose basis, nevertheless, may have lain these measures of Joseph, even as the latter may have been grounded on still older relations and peculiarities. The main view to be taken in respect to this economy is, that the king, in connection with the priest and warrior castes, possessed the land (Diod. Sic.), whilst the peasants and tradesmen had land subject to rent. Now if Joseph changed the feudal system, formerly existing, into one of servitude, it is to be remembered that the former was not so favorable, nor the latter so unfavorable, as that which existed in still later times. The feudal peasant was already under an absolute authority, and was obliged, e.g., at the beginning of the seven years of plenty, to give the fifth part; whilst the servants, as they are afterwards called, were only persons put under a more definite direction in the management of their economic relations. For more on this, see Keil, p. 278, on the tax relations of the East, and also Knobel, p. 346. Gerlach maintains that the Egyptians did not become bondsmen in this transaction, but were only brought into a feudal relation to Pharaoh. It is said, however, expressly, that Joseph bought not only their land, but themselves, their bodies. It is true, a distinction may be made between this, and an entire bodily subjection; and, therefore, may it be called servitude or dependence. 6. Israel in Egypt. His proviso. His return in death to Canaan. Genesis 47:27-31.—And they had possession therein.—Personal appropriation and outward extension.—And Jacob lived.—The narrative prepares us very circumstantially for Jacob’s death, as an event of great moment to his people.—Put thy hand under my thigh.—See Genesis 23 Joseph is to confirm by an oath his promise to bring his remains home to Canaan. Because Jacob exacts this of all his sons collectively (see Genesis 49), Knobel, as usual, discovers a discrepancy. It is, however, the same determination, only more fully developed in the latter passage. After Joseph’s promise, Jacob prays upon his bed. The fulfilment of his last wish has been secured.—And Israel bowed himself.—We must think of him as sitting up in his couch; it is, therefore, incorrect when Keil says, he turned towards the head of the bed, in order to worship, while lying with the face turned towards the bed. The Vulgate which Keil quotes, says the reverse: adoravit Deum conversus ad lectuli caput. The idea is, that, kneeling, he bows himself in the bed, with his face turned towards the head. The LXX seems to have read δַ ?ξַּ ?θֶ ?δ for δַ ?ξִּ ?θָּ ?δ (ham-mat-teh for ham-mit-tah) caused by a mistake of the vowels to the unpointed consonants, and the consideration that Jacob is not represented as sick and confined to his bed until the next chapter. By this LXX interpretation: προσεκύνησεν ’Ισραὴλἐπὶτὸἄκροντῆςῥάβδουαὐτοῦ (which we also find in the Syriac, the Italian, and Hebrews 11:21), there is suggested the rich and beautiful thought, that Jacob celebrates the completion of his pilgrimage (Genesis 47:9) in prayer and thanksgiving. If we take it in the other sense, having no greater evidence, and less significance, the turning to the bed’s head in a kneeling posture is the one natural to the body, if we imagine the bed’s head to be the higher part. At the same time, it seems here expressed that Jacob, in praying, turns away from the world, and from men to God, as the facing and turning of the priest at the altar expresses the same idea symbolically. Von Bohlen maintains that the question has nothing to do with praying. It means, he says, that Jacob was sinking back upon his pillow, as David, 1 Kings 1:47, whilst Joseph put his hand under his thigh. For such an occasion, however, the word εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηεּ (generally denoting adoration) would seem unhappily chosen, and is easily misunderstood. Delitzsch takes the two representations together (as denoting in one the act of prayer and the oath ceremonial). AND ETHICAL1. Jacob’s halt at Beer-sheba furnishes a proof again of the distinction between human certainty, and that derived from the divine assurance. Thus John the Baptist knew already of the Messianic mission, before his baptism, but it was not until the revelation made at the baptism that he received the divine assurance which he needed as the forerunner of Christ. In our day, too, this distinction is of special importance for the minister of the gospel. Words of divine assurance are the proper messages from the pulpit. 2. The God of Israel is also the mighty God of Jacob—the same God who commanded the one to stay, the other to go. 3. Not until Jacob had again made sure and sealed his patriarchal covenant-relation with God, is he able to set forth, with joy and confidence, on a journey, with his whole family, into a strange and dangerous world. 4. Exegesis, as in other places, hastens too rapidly over the significance of these Biblical names. Though some are quite doubtful, others have an unmistakable importance, opening, by their connections, a view revealing the spirit of the respective families, and of their fathers. Thus the names of Reuben’s sons express a sanguine hope (initiated, distinguished, etc.). In the names of Levi’s sons, we may recognize the three leading traits of hierarchical rule. And so in many other cases. 5. Dinah had to atone for her former freedom, and the fanatical severity of her brothers, by a joyless single life. But she has the honor, along with Serah, of being reckoned among the founders of the house of Israel in Egypt. Together with the development of the theocracy, there is unfolded the gradual elevation of woman. The idea of female inheritance here presents itself. 6. Judah, the father’s minister to Joseph. By his faithfulness, strength, and wisdom, he has risen in the opinion of his father, and thus it is that Jacob’s divine illumination shows itself especially in respect to the tribe of Judah,—becoming a revelation full and clear in the blessing pronounced Genesis 49. 7. Jacob’s and Joseph’s reunion, full of unspeakable emotion expressed in tears and in embraces. To Jacob, Joseph appears as one who had come from the realm of the dead. 8. Jacob’s declaration: now let me die, presents another aspect in the contemplation of death and Hades, different from that which is usually raised through the more common speech respecting it in Old-Testament times. The men of the Old Testament describe Sheol as a gloomy region; but this comes from their fear of descending into it before they hare seen the full tokens of grace, or have received that peace of the Lord which giveth rest. When they have had a sight of these, they die willingly; it is then a lying down to sleep,—a going home to the fathers. In general, however, it is true that this terrified legal consciousness of death predominates over the Old-Testament evangelical consciousness of unconditional resignation in hope. 9. The instructions that Joseph gives his brethren show us that this ancient statesman clearly comprehended the truth, that the highest ingenuousness, and the purest frankness, is, at the same time, the highest wisdom (see the instructions of Christ to the apostles, Matthew 10). This wisdom of Joseph, it is true, was not the wisdom of this world. It was a divine wisdom, that he thus placed the house of Israel in Egypt under the protection of Egyptian contempt. By thus giving them a lowly position, he secured their worldly welfare, whilst promoting their theocratic prosperity. 10. Pilgrim in youth, pilgrim in age, always a wrestler,—Jacob just touches upon his sufferings, as far as it is meet for Pharaoh to hear. The feeling of his wonderful deliverances shows itself movingly in his blessing upon Joseph’s sons. The idea of the spiritual pilgrimage of believers upon earth appears very distinctly in this picture of Jacob’s life, which he sketches before Pharaoh. 11. The last thought of Jacob, erstwhile in Mesopotamia, and now in Egypt, is that of going home. There he wishes to return, even in death itself. And yet Canaan was not his true and proper home; though it was for him the type and pledge of the everlasting rest (see Hebrews 11). 12. The transplantation of Israel had for its aim the negative and positive advancement of the people of God. Negatively: It must be transplanted from Canaan if it would escape being ruined spiritually by mingling with the people of the land, or bodily, through premature wars with them. Positively: In Egypt they were parted from heathenism by a double barrier, namely, their foreign race, and their reputation as a caste impure; but here they found sustenance and room for their enlargement as a people upon its fertile soil; at the same time, they were drawn out, through the Egyptian culture, to development of their mental powers. In Egypt were they prepared for their transition from the nomadic to the agricultural state. AND See Doctrinal and Ethical. Jacob’s last pilgrimage.—Jacob’s house.—Jacob and Joseph’s reunion.—Jacob’s joy in death.—Jacob before Pharaoh.—Israel in Goshen.—Taube (Genesis 47:7-10): Jacob’s life: 1. As a mirror of the miseries of human life in general; 2. as a mirror especially of a true and blessed pilgrimage. First Section. (Genesis 46:1-7.) Starke: This departure to Egypt is often spoken of; Numbers 20:14-15 : Joshua 24:4; Psalms 105:23; Isaiah 52:4; Jeremiah 31:2; Acts 7:15.—This is the last appearance with which God favored Jacob. Genesis 46:3. Jacob might be afraid: 1. On account of his personal safety (advanced years); 2. on account of the prohibition to Isaac (Genesis 26:2); 3. on account of his descendants (Egypt a heathen country); 4. on account of servitude threatening them (as predicted Genesis 15:13); 5. on accouut of leaving Canaan, the promised land; 6. Abraham’s experiences, Genesis 12:12 (see Jacob’s declaration Genesis 45:28).—A Christian should enter upon his journeys with God accompanying.—Bibl. Tub.: God guides his people on their ways.—Cramer: Jacob an example of the fortune and pilgrimage of believers.—Schrφder: The answer of God is in reply to his distressing anxiety,—to his flesh and blood, as we may regard it; therefore does he call him by his more human name: “Jacob! Jacob! Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes;” the last service of love that the nearest kindred could perform to the dying (Tob 14:15). See Robinson on the halting of the wagons at Beersheba. Second Section. (Genesis 46:8-27.) Starke: The use of this accurate catalogue of the children of Israel; it shows the separation of the tribes, and marks the tribe of the Messiah. It gives a clearer view of the people’s increase, and thus shows the fulfilling of the divine promise.—Ohad, Numbers 26 and 1 Chronicles 4:21, not counted here; probably died without issue.—(Genesis 46:15. The numbers do not sum up to more than thirty-two. The Rabbins remove the difficulty by saying, God must be counted in, since he said that he would go down with them. But this is not necessary. It would be better to say, Jacob and his children, etc.) Genesis 46:21. On the difference between this and 1 Chronicles 8:6, and Numbers 26:38-39, in respect to Benjamin’s children, see the explanation in the respective places. The genealogies are important.—Bibl. Wirt.: The true church of God is a small number, but let no one stumble thereat. God takes good care of his elect, and knows all their names.—Schrφder: The fact that Egypt is the hiding-place for Israel, shows that the relation was not one-sided only; if Israel was something for the heathen, it is also clear that the heathen, on the other hand, had their mission for Israel (Baumgarten).—The full people of Israel consisted of twelve sons, and seventy souls, and the Christian church consisted of twelve apostles, and seventy disciples (Roos). Third Section. (Genesis 46:28-34.) Starke: (In the land of Goshen; after several weeks spent on a journey of forty or fifty miles).—John 16:20.—Was Joseph’s joy great when he saw again his father, how great will be the joy of God’s children when they meet each other again in glory!—Schrφder: Now the patriarch is ready to die, for in Joseph he beholds the fulfilment of all the promises. Genesis 46:33. To be sure, is to win. Right ahead, is the motto of the good rider (Valer. Herb.). The pride of the world makes small estimate of what God regards as highest (Baumgarten). Thus began already in the house of Jacob, at its entrance into Egypt, that reproach of Christ which Moses afterwards esteemed greater riches than the treasures of Egypt (Roos). This antipathy of the Egyptians towards the shepherd-people was a fence to them, such as was afterwards the law of Moses (Roos). Fourth Section. (Genesis 47:1-12.) Starke: Genesis 47:1. Joseph does not ask particularly for Goshen, yet he knows in what manner to arrange it, that Pharaoh may readily perceive how much he would be obliged to him for the grant of that district.—(Genesis 47:2. ξχφδ; some translate it from the extremes, that is from the oldest and the youngest; others understand it as referring to those who were of least account. Their idea is that Joseph meant to prevent Pharaoh’s employing them as soldiers.)—Calvin: Se quis aliter pure Deo servire non potest quam si mundo se f�tidum reddat, hic omnis facessat ambitio. A Christian must not be ashamed of the humble condition in which God may have placed him.—Muscul.: Pharaoh does not inquire after Jacob’s piety, religion, and godly walk, but only after his age.—Seventeen years. As long as he had sorrowfully cared for Joseph, so long Joseph, in return, cared for him. Earthly benefits God repays by spiritual blessings; 1 Corinthians 9:11.—Cramer: God bestows much on the man who has many children.—Schrφder: Very proper that they remain in the border district until everything is settled. In the midst of the Egyptians, the Israelites are ever as strangers in the land.—Heim: The patriarch standing before Pharaoh. The patriarch and the priest of God’s church before the king of the mightiest and most civilized state at that time in the word. Fifth Section. (Genesis 47:13-26.) Starke: Genesis 47:13. A divine punishment of the Egyptians. (They would not otherwise have regarded Joseph’s example in the sparing use of the corn; some, perhaps, would have scouted his predictions). Genesis 47:16. Joseph said: Fidelity to Pharaoh requires that I should not let you have the corn for nothing.—Freiburger Bibel: Slavery is against the law of nature.—Our daily bread, a great proof of the divine beneficence.—(Genesis 47:22. Circumstances sometimes excuse. If Joseph favored the heathen priests it was in obedience to the express commands of Pharaoh.)—Schrφder: Concerning Goshen. It was for the most part a prairie country, adapted to the grazing of cattle, and yet there were fertile agricultural portions (Hengstenberg).—See Robinson’s account of Goshen, or the province Surkijeh, p. 620.—In the enumeration of Egyptian herds, horses come first, Exodus 9:3; for their raising was especially proper for the country.—Sheep, “held sacred by the Thebans.”—Asses, were sacrificed to Typhon.—The fifth, a religious political revenue, whose relation to tithes (double fifths) is obvious. The tax of a fifth is small in a fertile land like Egypt, where harvests are from thirty to a hundred fold.)—(Robinson compares Joseph’s conduct with that of Mohammed Ali (p. 623), who made himself sole owner of all the property in Egypt; but the great difference between them is obvious.)—The double tithe in Israel was probably a Mosaic imitation. “As Pharaoh provides by a fifth for the sustenance of the priests, so also Jehovah” (Hengstenberg). Sixth Section. (Genesis 47:26-31.) Starke: Bibl. Tub.: It is right that a certain part of what the land produces should be given to the lord.Genesis 47:30. Thus Jacob testifies to the resurrection of the dead, as one who awakes from sleep.—Schrφder: Jacob dies as the last of the patriarchs, and his death is the conclusion of this historical introduction, or history of the beginning. He dies, moreover, in a foreign land. That makes it the more important and conclusive event. (In the expression: have found grace, there comes into consideration: 1. That it has not the same weight, nor the same subordinate sense, as it would have in occidental speech; 2. that Jacob here asks a favor of Joseph which might seem to him as coming in collision with his Egyptian duty.)—Heim: Jacob had reached a lovely evening of his wearisome and troubled life; but it might be said of him: Forgetting the things that are behind, I reach forth unto the things that are before. [Note on the Interview between Jacob and Pharaoh—the Patriarchal Theology—the Idea of the Earthly Life as a Pilgrimage.—Commentators have bestowed much study upon the genealogical register in the preceding chapter, the meaning of its proper names (in most cases not easily determined), and the question, whether all the descendants of Jacob there mentioned were born before the migration. This is valuable, indispensable, it may be said, to a right knowledge of the Scriptures; but it has led many to pass very slightly over those scenes of touching beauty, and most exquisite tenderness, that are presented in Joseph’s meeting with his father (already alluded to in the note, p. 633), and in the interview between Jacob and Pharaoh, Genesis 47 : “And Joseph brought in Jacob his father, and set him before Pharaoh.” What a picture of life and reality have we here! The feeble patriarch, leaning upon the arm of his recovered son, is led into the presence of the courteous monarch, who receives him, not as an inferior, nor as a dependent even, but with all the respect due to his great age, and with a reverent feeling that in this very old man, the representative, as it were, of another age, or of another world, there was something of a sacred and prophetical character. “And Jacob blessed Pharaoh.” It is probable that Pharaoh asked his blessing. At all events, there is something in the kindliness of his reception that induces Jacob to bestow his patriarchal benediction upon him; and doubtless the king received it, not as a formality, or with a mere feeling of courtly condescension, but as something that had a divine value for himself and his kingdom. Throughout this narrative of Joseph there is a life-likeness in the character of Pharaoh that shows him to us as one of the most veritable objects presented in history. And what an air of reality in all these scenes here so exquisitely portrayed! What a power of invention do they exhibit (if we concede to them no higher excellence); what skill in the art of pictorial fiction,—that peculiar talent so cultivated in modern times, and which, it is supposed, has only reached its perfection in our own day. It is this,—inconsistent as it may seem with all we know of the most early writings,—or it is the most natural and exact drawing from the very life. There is something here in the internal evidence which the sound mind intuitively perceives, and on which it confidently relies. It is no invented tale. The picture stands out vividly before us; age has not dimmed its colors; remoteness of scene, and wide diversity of life and manners, cannot weaken its effect. It produces a conviction of reality stronger than that which comes, often, from narratives of events close to our own days, or even cotemporary. Away over the chasm of time we look directly into that old world. We see the figures distinctly moving on that far-off ancient shore. It is brought nigh to us in such a way that we could almost as well doubt our senses, as think of calling it in question. At all events, no mythical theory can explain it. We are shut up to a very sharp issue, a very stringent alternative: It is the very truth, the very life, in the minutest feature of its close limning, or it is the most monstrous, as it is the most circumstantial, and consciously inventive, lying. No “higher criticism,” as it is called, can ever make satisfactory, to a truly thoughtful mind, the comparison sometimes drawn between these “Bible stories” and the cloudy fables that characterize the early annals of other ancient nations. Study well the striking contrasts. The lives of the pilgrim patriarchs, so clear in their lifelike portraitures, the wild Scandinavian legends, the wilder Hindoo myths, presenting not simply the supernatural, for there are connections in which that is most credible—more credible even than its absence—but the unnatural, the horrible, the monstrous, the grotesque; what affinity between these? The clear, statistical story of Joseph, the picture of the veritable Pharaoh,—the shadows of Ion, of Dorus, of Cadmus, that flit across the dim page of the earliest Hellenian history; what sane mind can trace any parallel here? There is no escaping the issue, we may say again. It is sharp and decisive. The reasoning is curt and clear. Absolute fiction in these Bible stories, with a skill surpassing that of Defoe, Scott, or Thackeray,—absolute forgery, with a conscious intent to deceive in every particular, or absolute truth, self-verifying, is the only alternative. It is not such a forgery; it is not such an artful fiction; the most extreme rationalist shrinks from affirming this; it is, therefore, the truth, and nothing but the truth. We may reverently use the imagination in attempting to fill up some parts of the picture, but we may not disturb the graphic outline. How very clear it is in the passage, specially before us. Imagination needs no help. We can almost see them, the stately monarch, the very aged man, the beloved son now in the strength and glory of manhood,—they stand out as vividly as anything now on the canvas of our present history. We may as well doubt of Cζsar and Alexander, yea of Napoleon and of Washington, as of Jacob, Joseph, and Pharaoh. “And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?” The English translation here, in departing from literalness in the question, has marred the effect of the answer, the peculiar language of which is suggested by it, or, at least, strictly connected with it. The Hebrew is, λַּ ?ξָּ ?διְ ?ξֵ ?ιωְׁ ?πֵ ?ιηַ ?ιֶּ ?ικָ which we have reason, from what Diodorus says of their views of life (lib. i. 51), to regard as an Egyptian as well as a Shemitic idiom—“How many are the days of the years of thy life” (or, lives)? It is a drawing out of the phrase to make it intensive. It suggests the long years of the earthly sojourning, enhanced by the thought of the many days of which they are composed—or days taken in that indefinite way so common in the early languages to denote times or periods. In what perfect harmony with this is the answer? We see in it the old man’s garrulousness (using the term in its most innocent and natural sense), the feeling of personal importance which the very old exhibit, and rightly exhibit, in view of their surpassing length of years. They love to dwell on it, and to state it minutely, extending their words as though in some proportion to the long time through which memory looks back. How strongly we are reminded here of the Grecian Nestor, except that there is a holiness and a moral grandeur about Jacob, to which the old Homeric hero, in his garrulous worldliness and boasting, makes no approach. They are alike in the senile reduplication of their words. Not, however, like the frequent Nestoric prelude, εἴθ’ ὣςἡβώοιμι, “O that I were young again,” but in a prolonged strain of solemnity and sadness comes the slow reply: “The days of the years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the lives of my fathers, in the days of their pilgrimage.” We can see the old man as he says this, leaning on his staff, and supported by his son; we can almost hear the tones of his trembling voice, the pauses of his slow utterance, the seemingly tautological yet most emphatic sound of his repetitions. “Few and evil;” alas! how ancient is this style of speech! How from the very beginning dates this wailing language so full of the feeling that some great evil has befallen humanity, and that our earthly life, in its best condition, is but a pilgrimage of sorrow. It has not come from the world’s later experience. The farther we go back, even into what would seem to be the very youth of our race, the louder and clearer is the voice. It is not confined to t he Scriptures. It meets us everywhere in the earliest heathen writings, but without the placid resignation that is so evident in the most striking Biblical examples. Compare the Odyssey, xviii. 130. οὐδὲνἀκιδνότερονγαῖατρέφειἀνθρώποιοπάντων, ὅσσατεγαῖανἔπιπνείειτεκαὶἕρπει—Sophocles, �dipus Tyrannus, 1186, ἰὼγενεαὶβροτῶν ·τίςγὰρ, τίςἀνὴρπλέοντᾶςεὐδαιμονίαςφἐρει, ἢτοσοῦτονὅσονδόκειν, καὶδόξαντ’ ἀποκλῖναι. So Pindar’s σκιᾶςὄναρἄνθρωπος Pyth. viii. 99. Compare Job 7; Job 14; Psalms 103:15; Genesis 18:27 (“who am but dust and ashes,”); the same, Job 30:19; Job 42:6; Sir 10:9 (“why is dust and ashes proud”); and other passages too numerous for quotation. Among the most natural and truthful things in this narration is the respect shown by Pharaoh to Jacob. It might be accounted for by that courteousness and sense of justice which seems so characteristic of this monarch, as also by his great friendship for Joseph. But there is something more in the case, and having a deeper ground. It is a feeling of reverence which makes him desire the patriarch’s blessing. Respect for age was more felt, and more lauded as a virtue, in the ancient world, than in the modern, although it still holds, and nothing but a most dissolute civilization can break it up. There is, moreover, something of awe with which we look upon a very old man, a centenarian or upwards, one who has gone far beyond the ordinary limit of human life. It affects us as a strange spectacle. There seems to be something unearthly about him, superhuman, almost supernatural—as though he belonged to another age, or world. So to the young Telemachus appeared the aged Nestor who had survived three generations of men (Odyss. iii. 246), ὥστεμοιἀθάνατοςἰνδάλλεταιεἰσοράασθαι, “like an immortal, as I gaze, does he stand out before me”—like one seen in vision, to give the full force of that peculiar word ἰνδάλλεται—or as something transcending the ordinary humanity. This feeling was heightened by the fact that the Egyptians, as compared with the nomadic patriarchs, were not a long-lived people. Jacob, although he bad “not attained unto the days of the years of the life of his fathers,” was to them a remarkably old man. Pharaoh had, probably, never before seen a case of such extreme longevity. Herodotus (iii. 23) learns, from the Egyptians, of an Ζthiopian people, among whom some reached the age of one hundred and twenty years, but the manner in which it is narrated shows that it was regarded as remarkable and exceptional, confirming the idea that such advanced age was unknown among the Egyptians themselves. The matter however, of deepest interest, and most worthy of note in this answer of Jacob, is its pilgrim tone: “The days of the years of my pilgrimage—few and evil have they been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers, in the days of their pilgrimage.” Who can deny the fairness of the apostle’s reasoning (Hebrews 11:14): “Now they who say such things declare plainly (ἐμφανίζουσιν, make it very manifest) that they seek a country—that they long (ὀρέγονται) for a better country, even a heavenly—confessing themselves to be strangers and sojourners upon earth” (ξένοικαὶπαρεπίδημοι, men away from home). “Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God (not of the nonexistent, or the perished, Matthew 22:32), for he hath prepared for them a city”—“a city which hath foundations,” stable, enduring, that “passeth not away.” This language of pilgrimage is not resolvable into the unmeaning, like a worn-out modern metaphor, or a mere poetical sentimentality. Such use of words would be wholly inconsistent with the character of the patriarchs, and their stern ideas of reality. It was not a pilgrimage simply in respect to the old home “whence they came out;” for thither, as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews most pertinently observes (Genesis 11:14), they could, at any time, have returned. That certainly was not “the better country” they were seeking. No going back to Mesopotamia, the region of the fire-worshipping idolatry; rather go down to Egypt, the land of dreams and symbols, yea, down to Sheol even—ever pressing on their pilgrim-way with unabated confidence in the covenant God. He would be with them wherever they went. Into whatever regions they might pass, known or unknown, there would be the ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ δַּ ?βֹּ ?ΰֵ ?μ, the “angel Redeemer,” to “deliver them from all evil.” It was no metaphor except as a transfer from a lower to a higher sense. The true pilgrim idea is inseparable from the term constantly employed. No word in the Hebrew language maintains a more clear and emphatic sense: ξָ ?βεּ ?ψ, a sojourning, a tarrying, a pilgrimage, from βεψ, to turn aside by the way, to tarry as a stranger, ever denoting a temporary instead of a settled residence. It is a staying in a land which is not one’s home. So, to the patriarchs, even Canaan is called ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υξְ ?βֻ ?ψֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, the land of their pilgrimages. To their descendants, or to the Israelitish nation taken collectively, as a corporate historical entity, it was a κληρονομία, a settled earthly inheritance, but to them, individually, it was not “the rest provided for the people of God,” and this language was ever to remind them of it. Their only inheritance was the promise, of which the Canaanitic κληρονομία was the type, and of this they became “heirs through faith”—διὰπίστεωςκληρονομούντωνΤΑΣ ’ΕΠΑΓΓΕΛΙΆΣ, Hebrews 7:12. For examples of such use of βּ ?εּ ?ψξָ ?βεּ ?ψ, and βֵּ ?ψ, see Genesis 17:18; Genesis 28:4 (“the land in which thou art a stranger”), Psalms 119:54; Psalms 39:13; 1 Chronicles 29:15; Leviticus 17:22 (“the stranger dwelling in the midst of you”), Deuteronomy 5:14; Deuteronomy 24:14, and many other places. The idea is ever present, that of a stranger tarrying in a strange land; and this language of the patriarchs has been taken up by later writers, thus becoming predominant among the grave pictures of the Old-Testament saintly life. See 1 Chronicles 29:15; Psalms 39:13, “strangers before thee, and sojourners as all our fathers were.” The words are also used of lodging in an inn, or dwelling temporarily in a tent, and this calls up the passage before quoted from Diodorus Siculus (Excursus on Sheol, p. 587), showing that some such an idea of life being a pilgrimage was not altogether unknown to Pharαoh, and to the early Egyptians. The other conception of life, as a transient dwelling in a tent, gives an inexpressible sublimity to some of the Old-Testament declarations, evidently accommodated to it, and intended to denote the security of the everlasting rest: “From the ends of the earth do I cry unto thee” (from this distant earth, this remote and foreign land); “O that I might dwell in THY tabernacle of the eternities (αְּ ?ΰָ ?δָ ?μְ ?κָ ςεֹ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν), O that I might find shelter under the covert of thy wings,” in the “secret place of thy presence!” Psalms 61. As Canaan was not “the rest,” so neither was Sheol, whether regarded as the grave merely, or some strange state of continued being, lying beyond. No mere sentimentality about the sepulchre as a place of repose from life’s weariness could answer to these grave declarations of grave men, much less that monstrosity of conception which would connect the ideas of rest and utter non-existence. Sheol lay in the road of their pilgrimage. Through this unknown region—so very dark then, so obscure even yet,—they had to pass; but only as a part of their appointed journey. The “city which had foundations,” lay still beyond. But why, it may be asked, as it often has been asked, did not the patriarchs, and the pious Bible writers who followed them, say more about this better country, instead of only, now and then, giving a glimpse of it in some pious ejaculation? It may be answered, that perhaps their hearts were too full of it to say much about it. They had the pilgrim’s reticence in the midst of frivolous and unsympathizing strangers. These old “men of faith” had that precious thing so pleasing unto God as the only root of any true human virtue, and which made these uncultivated Old-Testament heroes, imperfect as they were in some things, fairer in His sight than an Epictetus, a Seneca, or an Antonine, with all their lauded and refined morality. They had “this precious faith,” but they did not weave it into dogmas, or construct from it systems of heartless ethical speculation. They did not talk of their spirituality; and yet, even in the few things they said, what approach is made to them by the modern rationalist, or our flippant litterateur, who calls them gross, and pronounces their views so defective as measured by the later progress in all elevated and refined thinking? Who hears, or expects to hear, from critics of this class, the utterance of any longing desires for the better country? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ NINTH SECTIONJacob’s sickness. His blessing of his grandchildren. Joseph’s sons. Genesis 48:1-221 And it came to pass, after these things, that one told Joseph, Behold, thy father Isaiah 2 sick; and he took with him his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim. And one told Jacob, and said, Behold, thy son Joseph cometh unto thee; and Israel strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed. 3And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz [Bethel] in the land of Canaan, and blessed me. 4And said unto me, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and I will give this land to thy seed after thee, for an everlasting possession. 5And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, that were born unto thee in the land of Egypt, before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. 6And thy issue, which thou begettest after them, shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance. 7And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath; and I buried her there, in the way of Ephrath; the same is Beth-lehem [reason for enlarging the descendants of Rachel]. 8And Israel beheld Joseph’s sons, and said, Who are these? 9And Joseph said unto his father, They are my sons whom God hath given me in this place. And he said, Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them. 10Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. And he brought them near unto him, and he kissed them, and embraced them. 11And Israel said unto Joseph, I had not thought to see thy face; and, lo, God hath shewed me also thy seed. 12And Joseph brought them out from between his knees [Jacob’s], and he bowed himself with his face to the earth. 13And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand towards Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand towards Israel’s right hand, and brought them near unto him. 14And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh’s head, guidinghis hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the first born. 15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 16The angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. 17And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; and he held up his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head unto Manasseh’s head. 18And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father; for this is the first-born; put thy right hand upon his head. 19And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. 20And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim, and as Manasseh; and he set Ephraim before Manasseh. 21And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die; 22but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. Moreover, I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow. REMARKS1. To the distinction of Judah, in the history of Israel, corresponds the distinction of Joseph, namely, that he is represented by two tribes. This historical fact is here referred back to the patriarchal theocratic sanction. In this Jacob authenticates the distinction of Rachel no less than of Joseph. The arrangement is of importance as expressing the fact that the tribe of his favorite son should be neither that of the priesthood (Levi), nor the central tribe of the Messiah (Judah). Only through divine illumination, and a divine self-renouncement of his own wisdom, could he have come to such a decision. It was, however, in accordance with his deep love of Joseph, that he richly indemnified him in ways corresponding, at the same time, to the dispositions of the sons and to the divine determination; and that, in this preliminary blessing, he prepared him for the distinguishing blessing of Judah. If we regard the right of the firstborn in a three-fold way: as priesthood, princehood, and double inheritance (1 Chronicles 5:2), then Jacob gives to Joseph, by way of devise, the third part, at least, namely, the double inheritance. Thus this chapter forms the natural introduction to the blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49 Neither of them can be rightly understood without the other. 2. Contents: 1) The distinguishing blessing of Joseph, especially the adoption of his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, Genesis 48:1-7; Genesis 2) the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, Genesis 48:8-16; Genesis 3) the precedence of Ephraim, Genesis 48:17-19; Genesis 4) The preference of Joseph, Genesis 48:20-22. AND The adoption of Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 48:1-7). Delitzsch. “We must call it an act of adoption, although, in the sense of the civil law, adoption, strictly, is unknown to Jewish antiquity; it is an adoption which may be compared to the adoptio plena of the Justinian code (adoption on the side of the ascendants, or kinsmen reckoned upwards).” The theocratic adoption, however, has, before all things, a religious ethical character, though including, at the same time, a legal importance.—After these things.—Jacob’s history is now spiritually closed; he lives only for his sons, as testator and prophet.—And he took with him.—The sons of Joseph must now have been about twenty years old. They were already born when Jacob came to Egypt, and he lived there seventeen years.—And Israel strengthened himself.—Delitzsch: “It is Jacob that lies down in sickness; it is Israel that gathers up his strength (compare a similar significant change of these names Genesis 45:27 : Jacob recovers from his fainting; it is Israel that is for going straight to Egypt).”—God Almighty appeared unto me.—Jacob makes mention first of that glorious revelation which had shed its light upon the whole of his troubled life. He makes prominent, however, the promise of a numerous posterity, as an introduction to the adoption.—They shall be mine.—They shall not be two branches, merely, of one tribe, but two fully-recognized tribes of Jacob and Israel, equal in this respect to the firstborn Reuben and Simeon.—Shall he thine.—The sons afterwards born shall belong to Joseph, not forming a third tribe, but included in Ephraim and Manasseh; for Joseph is represented in a two-fold way through these. After this provision, the names of the other sons of Joseph are not mentioned; it was necessary, however, that they should be contained in the genealogical registers, Numbers 26:28-37; 1 Chronicles 7:14-19 (Joshua 16:17).—As for me, when I came from Padan.—The εΰπι here makes a contrast to Joseph. The calling to mind of Rachel here would seem, at first glance, to be an emotional interruption of the train of thought. In presence of Joseph, the remembrance of the never-to-be-forgotten one causes a sudden spasm of feeling (Delitzsch). But the very course of the thought would lead him to Rachel. She died by him on the way to Ephrath (ςμι would mean, literally, for him; she died for him, since, while living, she shared with him, and for him, the toils of his pilgrimage life, and through this, perhaps, brought on her deadly travail. She died on the way to Ephratah, that is, Bethlehem, after she had only two sons. And so must he make this satisfaction to his heart’s longing for that one to whom he especially gives the name of wife (see Genesis 44:27), his first love, that there should be three full tribes from these two branches of Rachel. And thus, through their enlargement, is there a sacred memorial, not only of Joseph, but also of the loves and hopes of Rachel and Jacob. Knobel rightly remarks that the descendants of Joseph became very numerous, inferior only to those of Judah (Numbers 1:33; Numbers 1:35), and even surpassing them, according to another reckoning Numbers 26:34; Numbers 26:37); so that, as two tribes, they were to have two inheritances (Numbers 1:10), a fact which Ezekiel also keeps in view for the Messianic times (Ezekiel 47:13; Ezekiel 48:4); although (Deuteronomy 33:13) they are put together as one house of Joseph. Knobel, however, will have it that it is the narrator here who must be supposed to make this explanation instead of allowing that the patriarch himself might have foreseen it.—Padan.—Put here for Padan-aram.—Bethlehem.—An addition of the narrator. 2. The blessing of the sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:8-16).—Who are these?—“The old, dim-eyed patriarch interrupts himself. He now perceives, for the first time, that he is not alone with Joseph, and asks, Who are these here? Here again Knobel puts us in mind, in his presumptive way, that the narrative follows the old view, that the uttered blessings of godly men have power and efficacy” (a view which has not wholly died out), and remarks that these young persons ought to have been well known to Jacob. In the Elohistic time-reckoning, therefore, the question was an improbable one (he would say). Then, too, ought the old, and almost blind Isaac to have been able to distinguish his two sons, Jacob and Esau !—And he brought them near.—The emotion of the grandfather grows stronger as he calls to mind, how God had given him joy beyond his prayers and anticipations. He had not even expected to see Joseph again, and now he beholds not only him, but his two children.—And Joseph brought them out.—Jacob, in his embrace, had drawn them between the knees, and to his bosom; for we must think of him as sitting. This would suggest the idea of boys, or of children in the arms, a thing which Knobel has not overlooked; and yet it is self-evident that even as grown-up children, they might stand between the knees of Jacob. The blessing was a religious act, and in receiving it, they must take another and more solemn attitude. Therefore does Joseph draw them back, and kneels down himself, to prepare the sons, and himself with them, for the patriarchal blessing. Hereupon he brings them in the right positions before Jacob. If Jacob would lay his right hand upon Manasseh, Joseph must present him with his left, and, with like cure, must Ephraim be placed before the left hand of Jacob. Among the Hebrews the right hand was the place of precedence (1 Kings 2:19). But Jacob crosses his expectation.—Guiding his hands wittingly.—Delitzsch and Knobel are in favor of the LXX interpretation, with which agrees the Vulgate and the Syriac, he changed, crossed his hands; Keil disputes it. The expression denotes a conscious and well-understood act. This is the first mention, in the Scriptures, of the imposition of the hands in blessing (Numbers 27:18; Numbers 27:23).—And he blessed Joseph.—In his blessing of Manasseh and Ephraim, “who are also comprehended as Joseph in the blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49) and Moses” Knobel.—God before whom.—The μτπιε here is not to be disregarded (see Genesis 48:16). It is the God who reveals himself to the fathers through His Presence the angel of His Presence, ξַ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ τָּ ?πָ ?ιε Isaiah 63:9).—Who fed me.—Led me, guided me, as my shepherd, Psalms 23.—The angel.—Compare Isaiah 63:9. The word δַ ?ξַּ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ has no Wau conversive. Delitzsch explains this as showing “that the separate self-existence of the God-sent angel mentioned Numbers 20:16, is inconsistent with the idea of his being a medium and mediator of the divine self-witnessing” This is evidently a mingling of the divine and the creaturely which the Old Testament does not recognize. A creaturely angel cannot stand in connection with God as a fountain of blessing (but see Keil, p. 281). It is inconsistent when Delitzsch would here, too, regard the Logos as represented by this angel. It is worthy of notice, that along with this threefold naming of God (which would seem to sound like an anticipation of the trinity; see Keil, p. 281), there is, at the same time, clearly presented the conception of God’s presence, of his care as a shepherd, and of his faithfulness as Redeemer—all, too, in connection with the laying on of hands. We have, therefore, in this passage, a point in which the revelation makes a significant advance.—From all evil.—Jacob could tell of many seasons of sore pressure, in which the prospect of deliverance had almost vanished. They are connected with the names Esau, Laban, Shechem, Joseph, and the famine. The most grievous calamity was the ban of unrevealed guilt, that, for so many years, lay as a burthen upon his house, and which threatened to carry him away into a death-night of anguish; for here, along with evil there is also wickedness, and so the first ground laid for that last prayer “Our Father (deliver us from evil).”—Bless the lads.—“There is expressed here, in the singular, the threefold denotation of God in the unity of the divine being” Keil. And so also in the unity of the divine government,—And let my name be named on them.—The blessing divides itself into a spiritual and an earthly aspect. Here, the first rightly precedes; for the words are not at all nota adoptionis (Calvin), in which case not only would the name of the fathers be unsuitable, but the extinction of Joseph’s name would be altogether out of place; much rather are they to be acknowledged as genuine children of the patriarchs, and so prove themselves to be, notwithstanding their mother was the daughter of an Egyptian priest. The remembrances and the promises of salvation are to be sustained by them and through them. The name of the fathers is the expression of the life of the fathers, and the thus becoming named denotes the realization of that which is verified in these names, that is, the faith of the fathers, as well as the recognition, which, by virtue of them, becomes their portion. To the predominant spiritual blessing there is added the predominant earthly, or, rather, the human, with like force.—And let them grow into a multitude.—The verb γβδ is from γָּ ?β with relation to the extraordinary increase of the fishes. And truly shall they so multiply themselves in the midst, that is, in the very core of the land. 3. The precedence of Ephraim(Genesis 48:17-19).—When Joseph saw.—Joseph looks to the natural right of the first-born. He supposes that his father has made a mistake, and this, all the more, from the pains he had taken in the proper presentation of the sons.—I know it, my son, I know it.—Joseph, with his merely natural judgment, stands here in contrast with the clear-seeing and divinely imparted wisdom of the prophet, who knows right well that, by his crossed hands, he is giving the precedence of the birthright to the younger son. From his interposition he takes occasion to announce to the father the future relations of the two. True it is that a rich blessing is bestowed upon Manasseh, but Ephraim shall be the greater.—“This blessing begins to fulfil itself from the days of the Judges onwards; as the tribe of Ephraim in power and compass so increased that it became the head of the northern ten tribes, and its name became of like significance with that of Israel; although, in the time of Moses, Manasseh still outnumbered Ephraim by twenty thousand (Numbers 26:34; Numbers 26:37).” Keil. 4. The preference of Joseph(Genesis 48:20-22).—In thee shall Israel bless.—This rich expression of benediction shall, in its fulfilment, become proverbial, in Israel.—And he set Ephraim before Manasseh.—These words close the preceding narrative, but they belong here, as denoting that Ephraim is preferred only in the sense that Manasseh, too, was to be a great people. It was, moreover, a single tribe that again branched into two great districts, having separate inheritances on each side of Jordan.—And God shall bring you again.—This was, for Joseph and his children, a great promise and dispensation: Notwithstanding their Egyptian relations they are not to complete their history in Egypt.—Moreover, I have given unto thee one portion.—Joshua 17:44. We may well suppose that ωְׁ ?λֶ ?ν is a play of words upon Shechem, which lay in the district of Joseph (Joshua 21:11), and where, at a later day, the bones of Joseph himself were interred in the field purchased by Jacob (Genesis 33:19). This is to be inferred from the great importance that Shechem attained in the later history of Israel; but not at all, as Von Bohlen and others suppose, that there is reference here to an actual occupation of Shechem, on the ground that Jacob had afterwards appropriated to himself the act of his sons. The perfect, μָ ?χַ ?ηְ ?ϊּ ?ι, is used in a prophetic sense. Keil: “The words cannot be referred to the purchase at Shechem (Genesis 33:19), for a forcible taking by sword and bow cannot be called a purchase; much less can they relate to the wicked robbery perpetrated by Jacob’s sons (Genesis 34:25); for Jacob could not possibly take to himself, as his own act, this evil deed for which he lays a curse upon Simeon and Levi (Genesis 49:6)—to say nothing of the fact that the robbery had, for its consequence, not the occupation of this city, but the withdrawal of Jacob from the country. Moreover, the conquest of that district would have been in entire contrariety to the character of the patriarchal history, which consists in renunciation of self-willed human works, and in resigned believing hope in the God of the promise (Delitzsch)” Nevertheless, this connection of Jacob’s prediction with the time then present, is not without significance. There appears here, in an isolated form, the first indication that the Israelites, in their return out of Egypt (when the iniquity of the Amorites shall have become full, Genesis 15:16), should acquire lands by conquest with sword and bow. This foresight of Jacob, however, may have had its suggestive origin in the thought, how two of his sons, in a religious yet unholy zeal, had once conquered the entire city of Shechem. In the germinal fanaticism of such “sons of thunder,” the prophetic eye discerns the seed of a future purer heroism. Thus regarded, the private acquisitions of the patriarchs in Hebron, and especially in Shechem, are a kind of symbolical occupation of the land, in which the promise of God is typically realized. Beyond all, in this respect, is the designation of Canaan as the home of Israel, and the strengthening of its home-feeling, as that by which, at a later day, the march of Israel, after the migration from Egypt, is directed. And so, too, the prediction of Jacob becomes the first established point for the future partition of Canaan, causing that Joseph’s children, especially the Ephraimites, would, at all events, be pointed by a well-understood indication, to the land of Shechem. On this account, too, might it have been said, in later times (John 4:5), that Jacob had given his field at Shechem to his son Joseph. That pointing, however, must have exerted an influence in the whole partition of the land of Canaan among the twelve tribes.—The Amorite.—A poetical name for Canaanites generally. AND ETHICAL1. In the decline of life, the believer looks cheerfully back upon his entire experiences of the grace of God, that he may thereby quicken his hopes and prospects for the future, and for eternity. 2. The adoption had for its aim not only to incorporate into the people of Israel the sons of Joseph who had been born in Egyptian relations—not only to honor and glorify Rachel in her children—not only to assign to Joseph the double inheritance as the third part of the birthright—but also to keep full the tribes to the number twelve. By the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh, there is also, already, introduced the spiritual distribution of the tribe of Levi among all the tribes; although this turn of things can only indicate such a dispersion (Genesis 49). The historical compensation between the line of Leah and that of Rachel, is indicated in this blessing, as in later times there appears the contrast between Ephraim and Judah. The Messiah, indeed, is to come from the tribe of Judah; but the first elements of his Church, to say the least, came out of Galilee, the district of the ten tribes, and Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. 3. The crosswise position of Jacob’s hands has been interpreted allegorically of the cross of Christ. On this account has the occasional appearing of the cross figure been regarded as momentous; and yet, without reason, unless there is kept in view the general idea, namely, that one direction, or determination, has been thwarted by an opposing one; as here the natural expectation of Joseph in respect to Manasseh. In the symbolical sense, the form of the blessing here carries with it no theocratic destiny of sorrow. 4. Here first appears the imposition of hands in its great significance for the kingdom of God. The evident effect, outwardly, is that Jacob makes a difference in the value of the blessing for both sons. It is, in the first feature, a symbolic of the blessing, through the symbol of the hand, especially the right. Then there is a theocratic inauguration and investiture. The grandchildren of Jacob are raised to the condition of sons. Thus, afterwards, does the imposition of hands denote a legal consecration, Numbers 27:18-23; Deuteronomy 34:9. The impartation thereby of an actual power of blessing, appears already in the Old Testament, in its typical beginnings; but in the New Testament it comes forth in its full significance, Matthew 19:13; Acts 6:6. The idea in common of the different applications of the imposition of hands, is the transfer, or traduction, of the community of life through the hand. Through this, the animal offerings became symbolical resignations of human life, and so, inversely, the sick were restored to health. See the article “Imposition of Hands,” Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedia; also Keil, p. 281. On the significance of the hand see also the citations from Passavant by Schrφder. 5. On the great place of Ephraim in the life and history of Israel, compare the History of the Old Testament. 6. The blessing of Joseph’s sons is throughout denoted as a blessing of Joseph himself in his sons. We cannot say that this was because Joseph had become an Egyptian. Such service had no more taken away his theocratic investiture, than the foreign position of Nehemiah and Daniel had done in their cases. Even Joseph’s bones still belonged to Israel. 7. It is incorrect to regard the effect of Jacob’s benediction as a representation merely of Hebrew antiquity; and so is it also when we regard the prophetic significance and power of the benediction alone, as a positive addition to the authority of the divine promise. The divine promise reveals itself even in the human life germs. Ephraim’s future lay in the core of Ephraim’s life, as laid there by God. 8. The elevated glow of Jacob’s spirit, as it lights up on the hearth of his dead natural life, his eagle-like clairvoyance with his darkened eye-sight, reminds us of the similar example in the blessing of Isaac. The fact of a state of being raised high above the conditions of old age, meets us here in even a still stronger degree. The possibility and inner truth of such a contrast, wherein the future life already seems to present itself, is confirmed by manifold facts in the life of old men when pious and spiritually quickened. 9. In the threefold designation of God in the blessing of Jacob, Keil, without reason, finds an anticipation of the trinity (p. 281). But, in fact, this is the first place in which the previous duality of Jehovah and his angel begins to assume something of a trinitarian form. That, however, which is to be regarded, in its general aspect, is the unfolding of the revelation consciousness in the blessings before us, especially the appearance of that conception of deliverance from all evil. 10. The prophetic bestowment of territory on Joseph, at the close of the blessing, is the first indication that Israel shall conquer Canaan by the sword and the bow. The allusion to Shechem can only be regarded as the crystallization-point for the whole Israelitish acquisition. If Shechem is to be a portion for Ephraim, Judah must be transferred to the south, and find its point, of holding (its habendum et tenendum) in the grave of Abraham. These determinations have others for their necessary consequences. AND The benedictions of Jacob.—Jacob almost blind, yet with an eagle glance in the light of God—Joseph left out in the numbering of the brethren, yet obtains his blessing before them.—Joseph’s double inheritance.—The settlement of the birthright in Israel: 1. In correspondence with the facts, or the diverse gifts of God; 2. as a prevention of envy on the one side, or of pride on the other; 3. an indication of the divine source of the true, or spiritual, birthright; 4. a preparation for the universal priesthood of the people of God.—The blessing of Jacob as given to Ephraim and Manasseh: 1. The names; 2. the fulness; 3. the certainty. 1. The adoption of Joseph’s sons (Genesis 48:1-7). Starke: Here, for the first time, is Ephraim preferred to Manasseh.—Herewith, therefore, is the first privilege of the birthright, namely, the double inheritance, taken from Reuben and given to the two sons of Joseph, in the same manner as the princehood, and the magisterial power, is given to the tribe of Judah, and the priesthood to Levi.—The duty of visiting the sick, of ordering one’s own household, of remembering kindred and friends when dead.—Calwer Handbuch: Observe how the names of Israel and Jacob are changed.—When the spirit is elevated and strong, the sick body gets a new power of life, especially for the transaction of high and holy duties. Genesis 48:3. Canaan; ever Canaan. Egypt was only his transition-point, and so it must be for Joseph.—Schrφder: They who are blessed of God can bless in turn. 2. The blessing of the sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (48:8-16). Starke: The laying on of hands in the various applications. Among others, in the condemnation of a malefactor (Leviticus 24:14; Hist. Susanna, Genesis 48:34.) [As far as concerns this kind of hand-imposition, it expresses merely that the witnesses feel themselves stained with the guilt of the accused, and this guilt, with its stain, they would lay upon his head (see Leviticus 5:1). A still deeper comprehension of this act of laying on the hands, makes it an acknowledgment of human community in the guilt, and a symbolical carrying over of a penitent guilt-consciousness to the guilty, as that which can alone impart to punishment a reconciling character. On the meaning of Goel (βּ ?εֹ ?ΰֵ ?μ), see the Dictionaries.]—Christians are called that they may inherit the blessing.—Calwer Handbuch: Though born in a foreign land, they are engrafted into the patriarchal stem.—Schrφder: Ha-Elohim, who fed me, or was my shepherd; a form of speech dear to all the patriarchs, and, in the deepest sense, to Jacob on account of his shepherd life with Laban (Psalms 119:176).—Heim: He is my redeemer (or, who redeemed me), my goel. It is the word that Job uses (Job 19:25), when he says, “I know that my redeemer liveth” 3. The precedence of Ephraim (Genesis 48:17-19). Starke: How God sometimes prefers the younger to the elder, we may see in the case of Shem who was preferred to Japheth, in the case of Isaac who was preferred to Ishmael, of Jacob who was preferred to Esau, of Judah and Joseph who were preferred to Reuben, of Moses who was preferred to Aaron, and finally, of David, who was preferred to all his brethren. God set thee: a form of speech to this day in use among the Jews. As they greet with it men and their young companions, so it is also said to wives and young women: God make thee as Sarah and Rebecca.—Cramer: Human wisdom cannot, in divine things, accommodate itself to the foreknowledge, the election, and the calling of God; but must ever mingle with them its own works, character, and merit. Genesis 48:10. Cramer: When God speaks, the deed must follow.—Schrφder: He fancies that the dimness of his father’s eyes may deceive him, even as he once deceived his father Isaac. 4. The preference of Joseph (Genesis 48:20-22). God distributes his gifts as he wills; in so doing he wrongs no man. Genesis 48:22. Citation of various interpretations (some hold that sword and bow mean merely the impressions on the coin with which he bought the field at Shechem. Rashi explains the bow as meaning prayer. There is also an interpretation of it as prophetic).—My God, let me set my house in order in due season, Psalms 90:12.—Schrφder: Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite. With prophetic boldness, he uses the past for the future. The prophetic impulse, as it appears in this language, prepares us for that which immediately follows. [Interpretation of the words Goel, Malak Haggoel, Redeemer, Angel Redeemer. Genesis 48:16.—In the Homiletical and Practical, just above, the reader is referred to the Dictionaries for the meaning of these words. Their great importance, both in the patriarchal and the Christian theology, makes proper a more extended examination of them. The primary sense of the root βΰμ is that of staining, or being stained, with blood. Then it is applied, metaphorically, to the one who suffers a brother’s or kinsman’s blood to go unavenged, on the ground that he himself is stained with it,—polluted by it, as the idea is afterwards applied to the land, or civil community, that takes the place of the individual Blutrδcher in the ancient law. Then it is given to him officially, and he is called from it δַ ?βֹּ ?ΰֵ ?μ, or the one who removes the stain by taking vengeance. Hence it becomes a name for the next of in himself, and, later still, it is applied to him as one who redeems the lost inheritance,—being a transfer, as we may say, from the criminal to the civil side of jurisprudence. See Leviticus 25:25; Rth 4:4; Rth 3:12; Numbers 5:8. This civil sense could not have been the primary, as it could only come in after the establishment of property and civil institutions. Gesenius, in making it first, is illogical as well as unphilological. His referring it to the later Hebrew, Hebraismo sequiori, has no force. The word is found, in this sense of polluted, in Isaiah, and in the Lamentations of Jeremiah. There having been a few occasions for such use in Malachi and Nehemiah, decides nothing as to the earlier senses of the word. The land-redeeming idea, at all events, must be secondary. It is not difficult to explain, too, how the primary sense might come out in the vivid language of the prophets, whilst the secondary meets us oftener in the less impassioned historical portions of Scripture. Both transitions are clear. The next of kin who avenges, and the next of kin who redeems (buys back) the lost inheritance, is the same person. It is redemption in both legal aspects, the criminal and the civil, as said before. And so the shadow of the word, and of the idea, is preserved in the legal nomenclature of later times. Thus in the Greek judicial proceedings, whether in a criminal or a civil action, the plaintiff was called διώκων, the pursuer, the defendant φεύγων, the fleeer. We find it still in our most modern law language. The words prosecutor and pursuer (the latter used in the Scotch law) are remnants of the old idea, though redeemer has no counterpart. The term Goel is applied to God, or to an angel representing God, and this makes the derivation from blood-staining, as above given, seem harsh and unsuitable. It has led Olshausen, and others, to reject it when given in the interpretation of Job 19:25, where Job says βֹ ?ΰֵ ?μֻ ?ιηָ ?ι, “I know that my Goel, my redeemer, liveth.” It is an appeal there to some one as an avenger of his cause, of his blood, we may say, as against a cruel adversary. Comp. Job 16:18, “O earth, cover not thou my blood,” and the appeal, in the next verse, to “the witness on high” (ωָׂ ?δֳ ?γִ ?ιαַּ ?ξְּ ?ψεֹ ?ξִ ?ιν, the same etymologically with the Arabic Τَ ?Ηِ ?Υαٌ ? the attesting, or prosecuting angel on the day of judgment, Koran xi. 21). Whom could Job have had in mind but that great one who was believed on from the earliest times, and who was to deliver man from the power of evil. He was the antagonist of the ἀνθρωποκτόνος or “man-slayer from the beginning” (John 8:44), who plays such an important part in the introduction to this ancient poem, or Jobeid, as we may call it. It is this Deliverer that meets us, in some form, in all the old mythologies. He is the great combatant by whom is waged the μάχηἀθάνατος, the “immortal strife” between the powers of good and evil,—“war in Heaven, Michael and his angels fighting with Satan and his angels.” He was to be of kin to us. The theanthropic idea can be traced in most of the old religions, and especially was it an Oriental dogma. All this points to that ancient hope that was born of the protevangel, Genesis 3:15, whatever form it may have taken according to the varied culture or cultus of mankind,—whether that of warrior, legislator, benefactor, or of the more spiritual Messiah as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. This Deliverer of humanity was to be αֶּ ?οΰָ ?γָ ?ν, Son of man, and, at the same time, one of the benι Elohim, Sons of God, or chief, or firstborn, among them. The patriarchs knew him as δַ ?ξַּ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κδַ ?βֹּ ?ΰֵ ?μ, the avenging or “redeeming angel.” The first, or rescuing aspect, however, is earliest and most predominant. The other, or the redeeming idea, in the more forensic sense, came in later. In modern times it has become almost exclusive. In the patristic theology, however, the avenging, or rather, rescuing aspect of the Redeemer’s work, had a conspicuous place. He appears more as a militant hero who fights a great battle for us, who delivers us from a powerful foe, when we “had become the prey of the mighty.” Redemption consisted in something done for us, not forensically merely, but in actual contest, in some mysterious way, with the great Power of evil, who seemed to have a claim, or who asserted a claim, to our allegiance, and whom the Redeemer overcomes before the forensic work can have its accomplishment. From the two ideas have come two sets of figures, the forensic and the warlike, as we may call them, both clearly presented in the Bible, but the former now chiefly regarded. Hence the ideas of debt, of satisfaction, of inheritance lost and recovered. These are most true and Scriptural, but they I should not have been allowed to cast the others into the shade. Much less should they have led any, as has been lately done, to speak of the patristic view, in which these figures of rescue are most prominent, as “the devil theory of the atonement.” The redemption is explained by both: it is the ransoming of the captive taken in war; it is the paying of the bankrupt’s heavy debt. We owed ten thousand talents without a farthing to pay; but we were, none the less, prisoners to a “strong one” who had to be bound and despoiled of his prey,—or who had shed our blood, and who was, therefore, to be pursued and slain. The forensic language undoubtedly abounds in the New Testament, but there is there, as well as in the Old, much of the other imagery. Thus Colossians 1:13, “Who hath rescued us from the power of darkness”—the strong Homeric word ἐῤῥύσατο, so often used of deliverance on the field of battle. Compare also Colossians 2:15, “Having spoiled (stripped of their armor) principalities and powers,”—evil spirits (see Ephesians 6:12; John 12:31). The Redeemer did a work in Hades. It is clearly intimated as a fact, 1 Peter 3:19, though the nature of it is veiled from us. He made proclamation (ἐκήρυξε) in Sheol, not a didactic sermon, but an announcement of deliverance. “Thou wilt call,” says Job, “and I will answer” (Job 14:15). The patriarchs waited there for the coming and the victory of the ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κδַ ?βֹּ ?ΰֵ ?μ, the angel Redeemer. In 1 John 3:8 it is said that the Son of God came, ἵναλύση, that he might unbind the works of the devil, that is, free his captives. In Romans 11:26, he is called ‘ΟΡΥΟΜΕΝΟΣ; “there shall come forth from Zion the Deliverer.” It is the LXX rendering of βεֹ ?ΰֵ ?μ, Isaiah 59:20, as in Isaiah 48:20, and other places. The petition in the Lord’s prayer is ῥῦσαιἡμᾶςἀπὸτοῦπονηροῦ, “rescue us from the evil one” The rendering deliver would be well enough if the old sense of the word were kept, but probably to most minds it suggests rather the idea of prevention, of keeping safe from, than that of rescue from a mighty power by which we are carried captive; and thus the weaker sense given to ῥῦσαι obscures the personality that there is in τοῦπονηροῦ, the evil one. These ideas are as much grounded on the Scripture as the others, and it will not do to treat them lightly, as “specimens of patristic exegesis,” to use a phrase that has been sneeringly employed. John Bunyan may have known little of patristic interpretations, but he was deeply read in the Scripture, and impressed with the significance of its figures. This militant view of the Redeemer’s work is, therefore, the ground conception of his greatest book, the “Holy War, or the Battle for the Town of Mansoul, between Immanuel and Satan.” Such a view, too, is necessary to give meaning to some of the Messianic titles in the Old Testament, besides that of the Goel or Redeemer. Especially is it suggested by the El Gibbor (ΰֵ ?μβִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψ) the hero God, or divine hero, of Isaiah 9:5, who “poured out his soul unto death, and divided the spoil with the strong,” Isaiah 53:12. It may be said, too, that this militant idea is predominant in Christian feeling and experience, although the forensic is more adapted to formal articles of faith. Hence, while we find the one prominent in creeds, as it ought to be, the other especially appears in the hymns and liturgies of the church, both ancient and modern. For striking examples of βֹּ ?ΰֵ ?μ (Redeemer, in the sense of rescuer or avenger), see such passages as Isaiah 49:26, “Thy Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob;” Isaiah 43:1, “Fear not, for I have redeemed thee;” Exodus 15:13, “thy people whom thou hast redeemed;” Exodus 6:6, “Redeemed you with a stretched-out arm;” Psalms 19:14, “My rock and my Redeemer;” Psalms 78:35, “the Most High their Redeemer;” Psalms 77:16; Psalms 103:4, “who re-deemeth thy life from corruption; “Psalms 119:154, “contend for me in my conflict and redeem me;” Jeremiah 50:34, βֹּ ?ΰֲ ?μָ ?νηָ ?ζָ ?χ, “their Redeemer is strong, Jehovah of Hosts is his name;” so Proverbs 23:11, “come not nigh to the field of the orphans, for their Goel is strong.” Compare also Hosea 13:14, “I will ransom them from Sheol, ξִ ?ξָּ ?εֶ ?ϊΰֶ ?βְ ?ΰָ ?μֵ ?ν, from Death will I redeem them; I will be thy destruction, Sheol;” Isaiah 35:9, “the redeemed shall walk there;” Job 19:25; Isaiah 44:22; and many other similar passages.—T. L.] Footnotes: [Genesis 48:1.—εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ. An ellipsis of δָ ?ΰεֹ ?ξֵ ?ψ or δַ ?ξִּ ?βִּ ?ιγ one who told. The construction is rare in the singular. It is probably used here, not impersonally, or passively, as some grammarians say, but emphatically, by way of calling attention to it—denoting, perhaps, a special messenger. Rashi gives it as the opinion of the Rabbins that it was Ephraim who was the messenger, and that the same is the subject of εַ ?ιִּ ?βֵּ ?γ Genesis 48:2.—T. L.] [Genesis 48:7.—ξֵ ?ϊָ ?δςָ ?μַ ?ι. Died by me. It cannot here denote simply nearness of position; for Joseph need not have been informed of that. There is an emotional tenderness in the preposition. On account of me, for my sake;—as Lange intimates, she had borne for him the hardships of the journey in her delicate state, and that had brought on the deadly travail. Or it may be used like μοι redundant, as it is wrongly called, in Greek—Rachel to me, or my Rachel, more emphatic than the genitive would have been. Very near to it, would he Luther’s rendering, starb mir Rachel. The LXX and the Vulgate both omit it, but the LXX adds, Rachel thy mother, which has much, internally, in its favor; since it would seem strange that Jacob, in speaking to Joseph, her son, should call her Rachel merely, just as he would speak of Leah. λִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊ, rendered a little way. Rashi makes it a thousand cubits, or the same as the ϊηενωαϊ, the limit of a sabbath day’s journey.—T. L.] [Genesis 48:12.—εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηεּ. And he bowed. The LXX render it in the plural, καὶπροσεκύνησαναὐτῷ and they bowed, or kneeled down before him, that is, Manasseh and Ephraim; as if they had read ειωϊηεε which is given in the Samaritan Codex. The reading is also followed by the Syriac, and has much internal probability on its side.—T. L.] [Genesis 48:14.—ωִׂ ?λֵּ ?μΰֶ ?ϊιָ ?γָ ?ιε Literally, he made his hands intelligent, that is, did not go by feeling only, in aid of his dim eyes. The LXX rendering, ἐναλλὰξτὰςχεῖρας his hands crosswise, and the Vulgate, commutans manus, is merely inferential, and requires no change in the Hebrew test. See Glassii Phil. Sacra, 1629.—T. L.] [Genesis 48:15.—δָ ?ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινδָ ?ψֹ ?ςֶ ?δΰֹ ?ϊִ ?ι—the God who fed me. It is the pastoral image. The God who was my shepherd,—or, in a more general sense, my tutor, guide, or guardian ruler. Compare the frequent Homeric ποιμήν, ποιμαίνει, to express the kingly relation.—T. L.] [Genesis 48:22.—ωְׁ ?λֶ ?νΰַ ?ηַ ?γ, See what is said on this in the Exegetical and Critical. See also the very same phrase Zephaniah 3:9 (.with one shoulder, that is, with one consent, or shoulder to shoulder), though its usage there does not shed much light on this passage. Glassius (Phil. Sacra, p. 1985) gives it as an example of the Biblical enigma. The conjecture of Gesenius seems very probable. He regards it as the common word for shoulder, taken metaphorically for a tract of land, from some supposed resemblance, like the Arabic Σَ ?δΗَ ?μΘٌ ? So the English word shoulder is used in architecture. See Webster.—T. L.] [It is, however, so called in the language of the English common law. According to Littleton and Blackstone, purchase (to which the Hebrew χπδ and ξχπδ well correspond) is any mode of getting, or acquiring, lands, or other property, except by descent. Such also is the wide sense of the Greek κτῆσις, κτῆμα.—T. L.] TENTH SECTIONJacob’s blessing of his sons. Judah and his brethren. Jacob’s last arrangements. His burial in Canaan. His death. Genesis 49:1-331 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days. 2Gather yourselves together, and 3hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father. Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: 4Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest 5up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch. Simeon and 6Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O, my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united; for in 7their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in 8Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise; thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down 9before thee. Judah is a lion’s whelp; from the prey, my son, thou art gone up; he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? 10The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 11Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his 12clothes in the blood of the grapes. His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk. 13Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea, and he shall be for an haven 14of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon. Issachar is a strong ass, couching down between two burdens. 15And he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute. 16Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel. 17Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. 18I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord! 19Gad, a troop shall overcome him; but he shall overcome at the last. 20Out of Asher his bread shall be fat, and he shall 21yield royal dainties. Naphtali is a hind let loose; he giveth goodly words. 22Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well, whose branches run over the wall. 23The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: 24But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob: (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:) 25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts and of the womb: 26The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors, unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate 27from his brethren. Benjamin shall raven as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the 28prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil. All these are the twelve tribes of Israel: and this is it that their father spake unto them, and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them. 29And he charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite; 30In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field of Ephron the Hittite for a possession of a burying-place. 31There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah. 32The purchase of the field and of the cave that is therein was from the children of Heth. 33And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people. [There is quite a number of rare Hebrew words and phrases in this 49th chapter; but as it is difficult to separate the philological and textual consideration of them from the more general interpretation, the reader is referred to the places in the Exegetical and Critical where they will be found discussed, and to marginal notes subjoined.—T. L.] REMARKSIn this most important and most solemn closing prophecy of Genesis, there come into consideration: 1. The prophetic development generally; 2. the character of its contents: 3. its poetical form; 4. its origin; 5. the analogies; 6. the literature; 7. the points of particular interest. 1. The prophetic development. The blessing of Jacob forms the close, the last full bloom of the patriarchal prophecy, or of the theocratic promise of the patriarchal time. The seed of the protevangel passes, in its unfolding, through the blessing of Noah, through the promises given to Abraham (especially the closing one of Genesis 22), and, finally, through the blessing of Isaac, and the promises made to Jacob, to become, at last, the prophetic form of life, as it is manifested in the future of the twelve tribes. Thenceforth, in respect to its tenor, is the Messianic germ more distinctly unfolded than in the promises hitherto; whilst the poetic form, which is so peculiar a feature of the Messianic predictions, attains in them to the full measure of its bloom. We shall mistake the meaning of this blessing, unless we estimate it according to the theocratic degree of its development, or, if we do not bear in mind that it stands midway between the blessing of Isaac and the Mosaic promises. In respect to the fundamental ideas contained in these benedictions, it may be said that the blessing of Judah forms evidently its central point, to which that of Joseph makes a corresponding contrast. The spirit of Israel finds its corresponding expression in the one, the heart of Jacob in the other. The others group themselves around these, not as isolated atoms, but in significant relations. The declarations made in respect to Reuben, Simeon, Levi, link themselves together, and have a direct view to the distinction of Judah. In those of Zebulun and Issachar, who, as sons of Leah, are placed before the sons of the handmaids, there is a reversal of the natural order of succession, since Zebulun, the younger, precedes. There seems to have been a motive here similar to that which led to the preference of Ephraim to Manasseh. Zebulun’s preference seems to consist in this, that he has place between two seas, extending from the Galilean sea to the Mediterranean, an indication of a richer worldly position. Dan closes the group which, like a constellation of seven stars, forms itself around Judah. Then follows the ejaculation (Genesis 49:18), in which there seems to be again a sound of Judah’s destiny. In the natural order, Naphtali would have come next; but the blessing includes both the two sons of Leah’s handmaid, Gad and Asher, between the sons of Rachel’s handmaid, Dan and Napthali. It is not easy to see the reason of this, unless it was somehow to reinforce the line of Rachel through Naphtali; or we may suppose that the position of the three named before Joseph led to Joseph and Benjamin. Gad is like Joseph an invincible hero in defensive war. Asher makes the prelude to the rich blessing of Joseph in natural things. Naphtali ranks with Benjamin in impetuousness and decision of character. It is strictly in accordance with the spirit of prophecy, that the picture here given of the future of Israel’s tribes should have its light and shade, its broad features, and its mere points of gleaming, and that it should be just as indeterminate in its chronology. In respect to the nature of its contents, Knobel maintains that this portion of Scripture is incorrectly called the blessing of Jacob. The blessing of Moses, Deuteronomy 33, is rightly so designated, because it contains only good for the tribes; whilst this, on the contrary, has much that is to their disadvantage. “Judah and Joseph, as the most important, are treated in the most favorable manner; Naphtali, also, is spoken of favorably in respect to deeds of heroism, and poetic art, as Asher for his productive territory. To a tolerable degree the same may be said of Gad, who, indeed, is overcome, but overcomes at last; whilst it is not saying much for Zebulun that he shall dwell by the seas. What is declared of Issachar, that he yields himself to labor like an ass, or concerning Dan, that like a serpent he lurks in the path, or of Benjamin, that he shall be like a ravening wolf, contains, at least, a mingling of disapprobation,” etc. This shows but a poor comprehension of the prophetic forms of speech. If, in a good sense, Judah is a lion rampant, why, in the same sense, may not Benjamin be a wolf, especially a victorious one, that “in the evening divides the spoil?” And why should not Dan, who is judge in Israel, be compared with the serpent in view of his strategical cunning? Along with Naphtali, the swift-footed deer may also be named, in no unfavorable way, the strong-boned ass Issachar, who, in his comfortable love of peace, devotes himself to peasant service, and to the transport of burdens between the Galilean sea and the southern regions. Next to these animal figures, whose characteristics are to be regarded according to the oriental usage, and not moralized upon in our occidental way, comes the figure of the plant: Joseph the fruitful vine, supplemented by the human figure: Joseph, the archer, or mark for the archer’s arrows. Less developed is the figure of Asher, the royal purveyor, or of Zebulun the shipper, or that of Reuben drawn from the instability of water. Is it an evil doom pronounced upon Reuben, pointing, as it does, to his sin, that he should be deposed from the birthright? Rather, according to the Scripture, is it a misfortune when a man embraces a calling to which he is unequal, as, for example, Saul and Judas. The prince of the twelve tribes must be something more than an unstable vapor. It was, however, by this determination that Reuben was guarded from his own destruction. He remains the first below the first-born, and, from this state of forbearance and protection he may still develop the more moderate blessing pronounced Deuteronomy 33:6. Simeon and Levi have not, like Reuben, so repented of their old guilt, that it may not be again charged upon them, with a malediction of the deed that may yet become a blessing, if it is the occasion of chastising, warning and purifying them. How their dispersion in Israel, which is imposed upon them as a penalty, may be transformed into a distinction, is shown in the position of Levi, and in the blessing later pronounced upon him, Deuteronomy 33:8. Through this dispersion, Simeon, indeed, disappears as a tribe, but he becomes incorporated with Judah, the best of the twelve (Judges 1:3). Benjamin, “the ravening wolf,” becomes, in the blessing of Moses, a protector of the beloved of Jehovah. Zebulun is praised for his maritime position; Issachar, the broad-limbed peasant, rejoices in his tents. Gad, the fighter in Genesis, becomes, in the blessing of Moses, a lion like Judah; and so Dan is a young lion, ready to spring, as before he was compared, in a similar manner, to a darting serpent. Naphtali is still described as full of grace, though in more expressive language. Asher, who, in Genesis, is full of bread, is changed, in the Mosaic blessing, to the “abounding in oil.” We need not wonder therefore, that Joseph, who is ever praised, is compared, in the blessing of Moses, to the ox and the buffalo. In the later benediction, the blessing of Judah becomes more mysterious, more individual, more spirituous, whilst yet there is a falling back of the rich development presented in Genesis. This designation, therefore: the blessing of Jacob, is well grounded, besides being expressly confirmed in Genesis 49:28. In regard to the relations, or the perspective of this prophecy, it is incorrect to say, as Baumgarten and Kurtz do, that the seer here looks at the time of the Judges as giving the fulness of his picture. Thus to limit the prophecy in the olden time, is to divest it of its character as true prediction, and make it a mere presaging. Each prophecy, indeed, has its own provisional points of aim and rest, belonging to the time in whose forms and colors it clothes itself, yet still, in its last aim, ever points to the perfection of the kingdom of God. This, moreover, is here expressed in the very letter, “αΰδψιϊδιξιν, literally, at the end of the days, that is, in the last time, ἐπ’ ἐσχάτωντῶνἡμερῶν (LXX)—not the future in general, but the closing future, in fact, the Messianic time of the completion,” etc. (Keil, p. 284). True it is, that the period from the time of the Judges to that of David appears as the determinate foreground view of the seer, but this is, itself, a symbolic configuration, in which he looks through, and beholds the whole Messianic future, even to its close, though not in its perfectly developed features. Just so does the protevangel point already to the end, but only in its most general outlines as the salvation of the future. 2. The blessing, in the character of its contents. In each prophecy we must distinguish three capital points: 1) Its basis in the present, or its point of departure; 2) its nearest form of the future; 3) the symbolical significance of the same for the wider fulfilling of the redemption history. And so here Israel is at the standpoint of promise as hitherto unfolded; in the prophetic clearness of its illumination, he sees the characters of his sons, and the real prophetic as it lies in their individuality. What is more clear than that Judah already reveals the lion nature, Joseph that of the fruitful tree, or that Reuben, Simeon, and Levi do already show clear points of distinction in their lives. But in the character of the sons he sees, too, the first unfolding of the tribes in Canaan, even as it reveals itself from the time of the Judges to that of David. Then Reuben is no more the first-born, yet still well provided for in a way corresponding to his impatient nature. The dispersion of Simeon and Levi has already begun. The tribe of Judah advances more and more towards the royal dignity. Zebulun has his position, so favorable for worldly intercourse, between the Galilean and the Mediterranean seas. Issachar has drawn his lot in the rich regions of the plain of Jezreel, etc. But now one would go entirely out of the prophetic sphere, if he should mistake the theocratic redemption idea, as it shines through these outlines and colors, or their symbolical character. This character comes clearest into view in Judah. 3. The poetic form. With the sacred appearance of the people of God, the people of the new world, comes the speech of the new world: that is its poetry, perfectly developed. There is already the rhythmical song, the beautiful parallelism, the exuberance of figures, the play upon names (Genesis 49:8; Genesis 49:13; Genesis 49:16; Genesis 49:19-20; Genesis 49:22; according to Knobel also 15 and 21), the play upon words (Genesis 49:8; Genesis 49:19), the peculiar forms of expression, the elevation of spirit, the heart feelings; and all these form a poetry corresponding to the greatness of the objects as well as to the character of the speaker, who shows so many traits of the human heart in his deep emotion, and in the grandeur of his faith in God. 4. The last remark takes us to the subject of origin. The reckless inclination of our times to disconnect the choicest productions of genius from the names with which they are associated, and to ascribe them, in any and every way, to some unknown author, finds a special occasion for its lawless criticism in the passage of Scripture now before us. Nevertheless, the reference of it to Jacob, and in the form in which it stands, still finds its many and able supporters. Those who now best represent this view are Delitzsch, Baumgarten, Diestel, Hengstenberg, Keil, and others. On the other hand, the ascription to Jacob is wholly rejected by De Wette, Schumann, Bleek, Knobel, and others. This is due, in part, to the spirit of rationalism, a fundamental assumption of which is that prophecies must have arisen after the events they are supposed to predict. Governed by this, Knobel transfers the origin of the passage to the time of David, and is inclined, with Bohlen and others, to ascribe it to the prophet Nathan. Knobel deems it a weighty objection, that a “simple nomade” could never have produced anything of the kind, especially an enfeebled and aged one. This may be carried farther, so as to deny generally that the patriarchal nomades could have carried with them anything of the spirit of the Messianic future; which would show that this confident assumption of the critic runs clear into absurdity. In respect to the last ground see the Analogies. As far as concerns the objection of Heinrich and others, namely, if the patriarch could foretell the future at all, why did he not go beyond the Davidian period, it may be said that it is too narrow, too limited in its scope, to demand attention. On the question, whether the poem is to be ascribed to the Elohist, or to the Jehovist, see Knobel, p. 335. As it will not exactly suit either the Elohist or the Jehovist, Knobel has to betake himself to his documentary storehouse that he keeps ever lying behind the scenes. As to what concerns the age and authority of our document, a writer who lived at the time of the first formation of the Aaronic priesthood, would have hardly ventured to place the tribe of Levi in so unfavorable a light as that in which it here appears. And so, too, the tribes of Reuben and Simeon would never have allowed any Hebrew song-writer to make such a representation of their ancestors. In respect to its character, the poem claims for itself not only a patriarchal age, but also a patriarchal sanction. Nevertheless, a distinction may be safely made between the patriarchal memorabilia (whose safe-keeping was doubtless attended to by Joseph) and a canonical recension which did not venture to change anything essential. 5. The analogies. The dying Isaac (Genesis 27), the dying Moses (Deuteronomy 32), the dying Joshua (Joshua 24), the dying Samuel (1 Samuel 12), the dying David (2 Samuel 23), in the Old Testament, the dying Simeon, the dying Paul, and the dying Peter, in the New, prove for us the fact, that the spirit of devoted men of God, in anticipation of death, soars to an elevated consciousness, and either in priestly admonitions, or prophetic foreseeings, attests its divine nature, its elevation above the common life, and its anticipation of a new and glorious existence. The testimony of antiquity is harmonious in respect to such facts,—even heathen antiquity. So declared the dying Socrates, that he regarded himself as in that stage of being when men had most of the foreseeing power (Plato: Apologia Socratis). Pythagoras taught that the soul sees the future, when it is departing from the body. In Cicero, and other writers, we find similar declarations. (See Knobel, p. 49.) Knobel, however, presents it, as a grave question, whether the narrator means to assert a direct gift of prophetic vision in the dying Jacob, or whether there is not rather intended an immediate derivation of knowledge from God. This is just the way in which orthodox interpreters oftentimes place the divine inspiration in contrast with, and in contradiction to, their human preconditionings; whereas a rational comprehension of life sees here a union of natural human states (consequently a more fully developed power of anticipation in the dying) with the illuminating spirit of revelation that shines through them. 6. The literature of the passage, see the Introduction, p. 120. The Catalogue, by Knobel, p. 356. Note in Keil, p. 286. See Marg. Note, p. 661. 7. The division: 1) The introduction (Genesis 49:1-2); 2) the group of Judah, or the theocratic number seven, under the leading of the Messianic first-born (Genesis 49:3-18): a. The declarations that are introductory to Judah, Reuben, Simeon, Levi (Genesis 49:3-7); b. Judah the praised, the prince among his brethren (Genesis 49:8-12); c. the brothers associated with Judah, as types of the Jewish universalism, of the Jewish ministry, and of the Jewish public defence: Zebulun, Issachar, Dan (Genesis 49:13-18); 3) the group of Joseph, or the universalistic (Egyptian) number five, under the leading of the earthly firstborn (Genesis 49:19-27): a. the tribes that are introductory to Joseph’s position, the culture tribes: Gad, Asher, Naphtali (Genesis 49:19-21); b. Joseph, the devoted, as the Nazarite (or the one separated) of his brethren (Genesis 49:22-26); c. Benjamin, the dispenser and the propagator of the universal blessing of Israel (Genesis 49:27); 4) the closing word, and connected with it, Jacob’s testamentary provision for his burial (Genesis 49:28-33). [Excursus.—Jacob’s Dying Vision of the Tribes and the Messiah.—There is but one part of the Scripture to which this blessing of Jacob can be assigned, without making it a sheer forgery, and that, too, a most absurd and inconsistent one. It is the very place in which it appears. Here it fits perfectly. It is in harmony with all its surroundings; whilst its subjective truthfulness—to say nothing now of its inspiration, or its veritable prophetic character—gives it the strongest claim to our credence as a fact in the spiritual history of the world, or of human experience. There is pictured to us a very aged patriarch surrounded by his sons. He has lived an eventful life. He has had much care and sorrow, though claiming to have seen visions of the Almighty, and to have conversed with angels. His sons have given him trouble. Their conduct has led him to study closely their individual characteristics. He lives in an age when great importance is attached to the idea of posterity, and of their fortunes, as the sources of peoples and races. This is more thought of than their immediate personal destiny. It is, of all ages, the farthest removed from that sheer individualism, which, whether true or false, is now becoming so rife in the world. Men lived in their children, for the future, as they looked back “to be gathered to their fathers,” in the past. The idea of a continued identity of life in families, tribes, and nations, making them the same historical entities age after ago, is in no book so clearly recognized as in the Bible, and in no part of the Bible is it more striking than it is in Genesis, though we are presented there with the very roots of history. Along with this were the ideas of covenant and promise, which, whether real or visionary, were most peculiar to that time, and to this particular family. In such a subjective world, the patriarch lives. At the approaching close of his long pilgrimage of one hundred and forty-seven years, he gathers around him his sons, and his sons’ sons, to give them his blessing, or his prophetic sentences, as they were regarded in his day. This is, in itself, another evidence of inward truthfulness. He had derived from his fathers the belief, that, at such a time, the parental benediction, or the contrary, carried with it a great spiritual importance. It was not confined to this family; such a belief was very prevalent in the ancient world. It was a partial aspect of a still more general opinion, that the declarations of the dying were prophetic. How much of this do we find in Homer. It is still in the world. The most sceptical would be cheered by the blessing, and made uneasy by the malediction of a departing acquaintance, much more, of a dying father. Besides this, Jacob had specially inherited the notion, and the feeling, from his grandfather Abraham and his father Isaac. Thus affected, he would no more die without such a benedictory close, than a loving and prudent father, at the present day, could leave the earth without making his testament. Keep all this in vew, and think how much more impressive is the scene from its being in a foreign land, whither they had been driven by famine, and from which, as the firmly-believed promise assured them, they were eventually to go forth a great people. Having thus placed before us the accessories of the vision, we may ask the question, was it real? that is, subjectively real, if the term is not deemed a paradox. Were these utterances merely formal sentences? Was it all a ceremony with the dying old man,—a solemn one, indeed, but requiring only certain usual benedictory formulas. Or did he see something? that is, was there corresponding to each of these utterances an actual state of soul, visionary, ecstatic, clairvoyant—call it what you will,—the product of an excited imagination, the movement of a weak or shattered brain, a delirious dream, or a true psychological insight, dim indeed, irregular, flitting, fragmentary, yet real as an action of the soul coming in close view of the supernatural world, and by the aid of it, seeing something, however shadowly, of the successions and dependencies in the natural and historical? Think of it as we may, all that need be contended for here, as most important in the letter interpretation, is the inner truthfulness of such a vision state, and its harmonious connection with the whole subjective life that had preceded it. This granted, or established, the outward truth these visions represent, or are supposed to represent, may be safely trusted to the credence of the serious thinker. Such a vision, with such antecedents, and such surroundings, compels a belief in higher realities connected with them; though still the vision itself, if we may so call it, is to be interpreted primarily in its subjective aspect, leaving the inferences from it to another department of hermeneutics as belonging to theology in general, the analogies of Scripture, and what may be called its dogmatic, in distinction from its purely exegetical interpretation (see Excursus on the Flood, p. 315 and marginal note). It may be conceded that commentators have been too minute in their endeavors to trace in this imagery a connection with particular events in subsequent history; as though Jacob had before him the historical event itself, just as it took place, and invented the imagery as a mode of setting it forth. Better to have left it as it was, with no attempt to go beyond what may be supposed to have been actually seen by the dying man—flitting images of his sons, as individual persons in some future aspects of their genealogical history,—these images reflected from his own spiritual experience of their characteristics,—truly prophetic, but not getting far out of their individual traits, as so well known to him by their conduct. Though all the pictures are thus more or less prophetic, they are still subordinate to one that stands out in strongest light—the vision of one coming from afar, the Shiloh prophecy, wherein is unfolded the Messianic idea inherited from his father,—a sight he catches of the Promised Seed, the one “in whom all nations should be blessed,” the “one to whom the gathering of the peoples (ςַ ?ξִ ?ιν, in the plural, the Gentiles) should be.” This is the central vision, coming from the central feeling, and around it all the rest are gathered. They are to it as the historical frame to the picture. All their importance comes from it. Judah is more closely connected with this central vision than all the rest. Joseph we would have thought of, though Judah’s late noble conduct had done much to draw the father’s heart towards him; but here comes in the thought of something controlling the merely natural subjective state. The main thing, however, is the Messianic idea regarded by itself, and for this the history of Jacob and his father, the feelings and belief in which he had lived, that ever-vivid idea of a covenant God, that other conception of a Goel, or “Redeeming angel” delivering from all evil,—the very name suggesting the idea of some human kinsmanship—afford an ample ground. He calls this one who is to come by the mysterious name of Shiloh. Commentators have given themselves unnecessary trouble about the exact objective point indicated by the word. It may refer to the great Deliverer, or to the great deliverance that would characterize his coming. The closest examination of this anomalous form shows that, in some way, there enters into every aspect of it, whether as proper name, or as epithet, the idea of peace, stillness, gentleness, and yet of mighty power. It is perfectly described, Isaiah 42:2 : “He shall not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the streets; a bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking wick he shall not quench; but he shall bring forth righteousness victoriously.” Why does the dying man speak this unusual word Shiloh? Unusual then,—perhaps before unuttered,—unusual since in the form it takes, although the verbal root is more common. A reason can hardly be given for it. It was, most likely, a strange, if not wholly unknown, name to those who then heard it uttered. We can trace it to no antecedents. It was a wondrous, a mysterious name. A startling dream-like character pervades the whole chapter, with its sudden transitions, its rapt outpourings, its quick changes of scene, defying all the canons of any mere rhetorical or poetical criticism; but this vision aspect appears especially in the unexpected coming in of this remarkable word Shiloh, and the extraordinary use that is made of it. It suggests the mysterious τִּ ?μְ ?ΰִ ?ι (rendered secret) of Judges 13:18, the Wonderful, τֶּ ?μֶ ?ΰ of Isaiah 9:6, and the incommunicable one, Genesis 32:30, who says, “why inquirest thou after my name? “The patriarch himself, perhaps, could not have explained, how or why he used it, or in what way it came to him, whether by some conscious association, or as having its birth in a sudden arresting of the mind by some new and wondrous thought, like that which prompted the strange ejaculation in verse 18. It was intended to be mysterious (we may reverently, say who believe in the prophetical character of the vision), that men might ponder much upon it, and be the better prepared to understand its glorious import, when it should be fully realized upon the earth. The whole vision is like other prophecy in this, that it is the remote appearing strangely as seen from a present standpoint, and through intervening historical scenes regarded as more or less near. We cannot reduce the perspective to chronological order. We can only seize the prominent point of view in the picture, and feel that the other parts, with their greater or lesser degrees of light and shade, are all subordinate. So, too, there must not be pressed too closely, in our exegesis, what is said about Judah, and the sceptre, and the ξְ ?ηֹ ?χֵ ?χ, the ruler’s staff, or as otherwise rendered, “the law-giver, from between his feet.” We cannot square it with the monarchy of Herod, or any precise historical change of magistracy. We cannot make out, as indicated by it, a Jewish royalty to a certain period, or a Jewish independence, general or partial, to some other period. But when we view it as expressing chiefly the relation of Judah to the other tribes, his surviving as a tribal name, and giving the name Jews (Judζi) to the whole Israelitish people, after the other tribes had lost their historical identity, and when we remember about what time even this ceased to be, and the Jews (Judζi) became utterly denationalized politically, whether as an independent or a subject people, we see a light and a power in the picture which is unmistakable,—a point of view which we may suppose to have flashed upon the seer’s mind, without regarding it as occupied with any precise historical dates or dynasties, contemplated merely in their political aspects. Until here (ςַ ?γλּ ?ι) means unto and then ceasing, or unto and not after. Judah shall survive them all, but he too shall disappear when Shiloh comes, and the “gathering of the people” takes place. Then was to be fulfilled that ancient prayer which was sung by the whole Israelitish nation before they lost the world-idea founded on the patriarchal promises, and the later narrow, exclusive spirit took full possession of them: “That thy way may be known in the earth, thy saving health among all nations,—let the peoples praise thee, O God, let all the peoples praise thee.” See Psalms 67:3-4, and other similar passages. What, then, was the historical date of this writing, and of the vision it records, whether subjective or objective, genuine or forged? There has been a strenuous effort to assign it to a later period. And why? Because it assumes to prophesy, and all prophecy must have been written after the events. This is the canon, the bare dictum rather, to which everything else must yield. Take it, however, out of its place in Genesis, and the thoughtful mind cannot avoid seeing that there is no other which does not destroy its subjective character, obliterate all the marks of its inward truthfulness, and make it not only a lie, a forgery, but a most unmeaning one. Had it been made up at any other time, it would have had more distinctness of historical reference. What it told us, whether it had been more or less, would have had a more unmistakable application. Had it been all a fiction, made after the supposed events, they would never have been left in such a dream-like, shadowy state, unless on the hypothesis of such a style being carefully imitated, with a skilful throwing in of the antique coloring, and that, for reasons elsewhere given (see p. 637), would have been incredible, we might almost say, inconceivable. There would have been no such irregularities as we find, no such shadows; the dim perspective would have been filled up; for in any such case it would have been a sheer forgery, a conscious lie in every part, with every word and figure showing design. It would have given evidence of its being the language of art rather than of emotion which uses words simply as the vehicles of its utterance, rather than with any studied aim of conveying precise conceptions, whether true or false. The metaphors which, even in their incongruities, fit so well into the picture of the patriarch’s dying condition, with its antecedents and surroundings, would have been made more suggestive of the known historical than of those individual traits on which they are so evidently grounded. The young lion, the lioness, the foal bound to the vine, the strong ass between his two burdens, the serpent by the way, the adder in the path, the hind let loose and giving goodly words, the ravening wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at night dividing the spoil—all these would either have been entirely left out, or they would have been made to mean more, in their particular applications, as well as in their general bearing. They are far more truthful in the supposed vision of the dying man, than they would be in such a conscious forgery, even though we might regard the former as only a dream of delirium. The picture, too, of the future power to whom “the gathering of the peoples should be,” would have been painted in more gorgeous splendor, instead of being left like a far-off light, guiding to a sublime hope, and yet giving so dim a view of the Messianic royalty. Thus to speak of it is not to disparage its true excellence as viewed from the place it occupies in the earliest Scripture. It is, indeed, the whole of it, a divine vision, with its central glory, yet irregularly refracted and reflected to us from a broken and uneven human mirror. This central light has grown brighter in the trance of Balaam (Numbers 24:17); how much clearer still has it become, and higher in the prophetic horizon, as it appears in the nearer visions of the evangelical Isaiah: “Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah is rising upon thee.” Again, when we regard the record in question as the forgery of a later date, its moral aspect wholly changes. It is strange that they who talk of prophecies made after the event do not see what a moral stigma they cast upon the supposed makers. It is usual for this “higher criticism” to speak, or affect to speak, with great respect of the Hebrew prophets as very sincere and honest men, upright, professing a stern morality, in advance of their age, etc.; but what are they, on this hypothesis, but base liars, conscious, circumstantial liars,—yea, the boldest as well as the most impious of blasphemers! It is no case of self-deluding prognostication, or of a fervid zeal creating in the mind a picture of the future, which the seer honestly believes as coming from the Lord. They know that the events are not future, but that they themselves have falsely and purposely put themselves in the past. They have simply antedated, or forged an old name, turning history into prediction, and greatly confusing and exaggerating it to keep up the imposture. And then the daring impiety of the thing for men professing such awe of Jehovah, the Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth, with his immutable truth, his everlasting righteousness,—the God who especially abhors falsehood, “who is of purer eyes than to behold evil,—that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh the diviners mad, that turneth wise men backward and maketh their knowledge foolishness,—that confirmeth the word of his servants, and performeth the counsel of his messengers.” Take, for example, the prophecies of “the later Isaiah,” as this “rational school” are fond of styling him, and whom they so greatly praise for the loftiness of his morality. He lives after the events he assumes to predict, he knows that they have come to pass, and yet with what bold blasphemy he throws himself upon Jehovah’s prescience as the attestation of his prophetic power, and challenges the ministers of false religions to produce anything like it in the objects of their worship: “Let them bring forth and show us what shall happen; let them show the former things, and things to come, that we may know that ye are gods; who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and before the time, that we may say, He is true? Behold the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them.” See how this impostor who pretends to predict a captivity that is past, represents God as specially challenging to himself foreknowledge, and proclaiming it to be the ground of trust in his messenger: “I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done; calling from the East the man that executeth my counsel, from a far country; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass.” The absurdity and difficulty of such a hypothesis become still more striking when considered in reference to this patriarchal document. Had it been a concoction of later times, some things in it would certainly not have appeared as they actually do in the vision as it has come down to us. Lange has well shown this in what he says, p. 650, about the tribes of Levi and Simeon, and those condemning utterances, which, neither in the times of the judges nor of the kings, would the tribes of Reuben and Dan, much less the proud Levitical priesthood, have ever borne. Above all does such a view become incredible when this pretended ancient prophecy is ascribed to Nathan, as is done by Bohlen, Knobel and others. Who was Nathan? and what is there recorded of him that can be supposed to have made him the fit instrument for such an imposition. We have but little about him, but that is most distinct. See 1 Chronicles 17 where he brings to David the message concerning the Lord’s house, and 2 Samuel 12. The latter passage, especially, presents an unmistakable character, warranting a most intense admiration of the man. He is no mere theoretical moralist. Seneca wrote some of the choicest ethical treatises, containing sentiments which some have represented as vying with, or even surpassing, those of Paul; and yet he was more than suspected of conniving at some of the worst crimes of his imperial master Nero. How different the character, and the attitude, of the old Hebrew prophet! How sternly practical was he, as well as theoretically holy. The king had covered over his adultery by marriage. Had Seneca been there, or some philosophical courtier of his class, he would have pronounced it well, whilst of the murder, and the manner of it, he would have thought himself, perhaps, not called to speak; seeing that such events were not strangers to thrones and palaces, and a prudential, respect for authority might justify silence, when speech, perhaps, might be useless as well as dangerous. The Hebrew seer was of another school. He appears before the king, now in the height of his power, Rabbah fallen, and all his enemies subdued. He addresses him in that parable of the poor man and his lamb, which has ever challenged, and must continue to challenge, the admiration of the world. Not by ethical abstractions, but by a direct appeal to the conscience, lying oft below the individual’s consciousness, yet most mysteriously representing to him the voice of God, he uncovers the strange duality of the human soul, and brings out the monarch’s sentence, yea, even his malediction, upon himself: “As Jehovah liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die.” Every reader of the Bible is familiar with the scene. The prophet’s interview with the self-forgetting king is unsurpassed by anything in the world’s literature, historic, epic, or dramatic. The human soul never appeared purer or loftier than in that wise, that gentle, and, at the same time, most powerful, rebuke of royal unrighteousness. This is what we have of Nathan. And now to think of such a man deliberately sitting down to fabricate a lie, to personate the character of old Jacob, the revered father of his nation, treating with contempt the old records or old traditions of his day, making no scruple of rejecting them, or of altering them in any way to suit his purposes, making them falsely seem prior to events already past, and with all this, most absurdly as well as dishonestly, assuming to foist upon his cotemporaries, at that later day, what they had never before heard of as connected with the sacred ancestral name. Think of him minutely forging the scene presented by the dying old man, and the sons surrounding his bed, racking his invention, like some modern Chatterton or Defoe, to find figures, and speeches, and antique idioms, to put into his mouth, conscious all the time of lying in the whole and every part—such inconsistent, unmeaning lying, too—and then palming it off as an old prophecy! Incredible! We could not believe it of the most scoffing Sadducee of Jacob’s race, how much less of the truthful, incorruptible, holy Nathan, in name and character so like the one whom our Saviour pronounced “an Israelite in whom there was no guile.” There is no need of going farther in this to meet the rationalist. The same mode of argument, and from the same point of view, may be applied to all their hypotheses of pseudo Jacobs, pseudo Isaiahs, apocryphal Moses, and personated Jeremiahs. The later they bring down this patriarchal document, especially, the greater becomes the wildness and the absurdity. Their theories of prophecy after the event, it will bear to be repeated, are utterly inconsistent with any moral respect for these old Jewish lights, whom they affect to admire as far-seeing men, most patriotic, most humanitarian, elevated in their views of reform, rising above the prejudices of a dogmatic legal tradition, righteous beyond the formal worship and superstitions of their times, but not to be regarded as veritable seers of the future, or as specially inspired by God in any way different from all “lofty-minded men,” or as assuming to be such, except in a rhetorical or poetical way. Most pious are they, most reverent, yet have they no scruple about announcing in the name of Jehovah events as foretold which they knew to be past at the time of the announcement, or to be utterly false as assumed divine messages. There were, it is true, some men of old who did this, but in what abhorrence they were held we learn from Jeremiah 23:25-32, and 1 Kings 22:19-20. There arises here a sharp issue, as has been already said, but it cannot be evaded. There is no honest middle-ground of compilation and tradition mixed together. The Bible statements are of such a nature as not to allow the supposition. They are so peculiar, so linked together, they form such a serial unity, that we must believe it all a forgery, Nathan, David, as well as Jacob and his blessing, or we must give credence to it as being, all together, a coherent, chronological, consistent history. (See p. 99, introduction, and marginal note.) It is, throughout, delusion, imposture, forgery, nonentity, or it is the most serious and truthful chapter in all this world’s history. If the former view staggers even the most sceptical,—if, in itself, it is more incredible than any supernatural events recorded in such forgeries, then must we come back heartily to the old belief,—the Bible a most truthful book,—all true (allowing for textual inaccuracies)—all subjectively true, at all events, although admitting of human misconceptions in respect to the science and mediate causalities of things narrated, or that which often comes to the same thing, human imperfections necessarily entering into the language employed as the medium of their record. In other words, everything is honestly told, and believed by the writers to be just as they have told it. Whether it be narrative, description, statistical statement, precept, sentiment, thought, devotional feeling, pious emotion of any kind, moral musing, sceptical soliloquizing, as in Ecclesiastes, passionate expostulation, as in Job, prophetic announcements grounded on visions or voices believed to come from the Lord,—all is given just as it was experienced, known, or believed to be known, heard, received from accredited witnesses living in or near the very times, conceived, felt, remembered seen by the eye of sense, seen in the ecstatic trance, dreamed in the visions of the night, or in any way present to their souls as knowledge, thought, memory, or conception, most carefully and truthfully recorded. There is no fiction here, no invention, no art, no “fine writing,” no mere aiming at rhetorical effect,—no use of metaphors, images, or impassioned language, except as the expression of inward vivid and emotional states that imperatively demanded them as the best medium for their utterance. We must choose between this or the grossest forgery. The more the issue is distinctly seen, the more certain, for every thoughtful mind, the only decision it allows. This human, so appearing, demands the superhuman and divine. This natural, subjective truthfulness once admitted, thoroughly and heartily admitted, the supernatural cannot be excluded. It must come in somewhere in both its forms,—whether it be the objective supernatural which the Scripture itself records, or the inward, spiritual supernatural, still more wonderful, connected with the very existence of such a book in such a world.—T. L.] AND 1. Genesis 49:1-2. The introduction.—That I may tell you.—He has called them to his dying bed; but its highest purpose is that he may tell them how he himself lives on in them.—That which shall befall you.—According to their dispositions and character, which he has long known. He announces to them the destiny which shall befall them as a consequence of their characters as shown in the events of their lives, but this as seen in the divine light.—In the last days, αΰηψιϊδιξιν.—The expression is used in reference to the world time as a whole, and denotes, especially, the Messianic time of the completion (Isaiah 2:2; Ezekiel 38:8, and other places; see Keil, p. 284).—Ye sons of Jacob, hearken unto Israel your father.—Sons of Jacob are they predominantly; sons of Israel must they evermore become. From nature and from grace, from human disposition and from divine guidance is their future to be formed. 2. Genesis 49:3-18. The group of Judah. a. The blessings that are introductory to Judah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi.—Reuben, thou art my first-born.—My strength. The meaning of first-born explained. He is the first fruits of his vigor spiritually as well as bodily.—The excellency of dignity and the excellency of power.—A reference to the dividing of the birthright into two rights. In the dignity there lie together the priesthood and the double inheritance. The power is the germ of the warlike chieftainship. Further on Jacob disposes of the power in favor of Judah; the double inheritance he gives to Joseph. The priesthood does not here specially appear; and it is this feature that speaks for the antiquity of the blessing.—Unstable as water.—The verb used here denotes literally the bubbling and exhalation of boiling water. Spiritually it denotes a rash and passionate impulsiveness, LXX, ἐξύβρισας. For other interpretations see Knobel. This trait of character is immediately explained:—Because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed (see Genesis 35:22).—This impulsiveness shows itself likewise in his offer of his two sons as hostages. Later it shows itself, in the tribe, in the insurrection of Dathan and Abiram, who desired a share in the priesthood—a claim which, doubtless, had reference to the lost birthright of their father. At a still later period, the tribe of Reuben, and that of Gad, desire to have their inheritance specially given them together in the conquered district, on the other side of Jordan, Numbers 32:1; in which case their request was granted on condition that they should help fight out the war for the conquest of Canaan. Through this Reuben gets an isolated position on the southwestern border, in the pasture land over the Arnon. Again, in the erection of the altar at the Jordan, on their return (Joshua 22), there manifests itself the same old impetuosity, which might have occasioned a civil war, had they not sufficiently excused it.—Thou shalt not excel (that is, thou shalt not have the dignity). See 1 Chronicles 5:1. Joseph has the double inheritance, and, so far, the αְּ ?λֹ ?ψָ ?δ (or birthright); whilst Judah became prince. To a certain degree, therefore, as Delitzsch remarks, the first-born of Rachel comes into the place of the first-born of Leah. “In order that God’s righteous ruling here may not be arbitrarily imitated by men, the law forbids (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) that any preference should be shown to the first-born sons of a beloved wife, over those born of one less favored.” Delitzsch. The good will, and fraternal fidelity, which belonged to Reuben’s character, appear in the history of the tribes. Points of interest in the character of this tribe: the victory, in connection with the Gadites, over the Amorite king Sihon; also over the Gadarenes (1 Chronicles 5:8-10). The less significant blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33:6), simply indicating the danger of transgression. A reproach cast upon them (Judges 5:15) for their divisions, etc., in the nation’s peril.—He went up to my couch.—Jacob speaks indirectly (of him) in the third person. Was it because he turned away from him in displeasure? We may rather suppose that he turns himself to the other sons in order to fix their attention upon his sentence.—Simeon and Levi.—True brothers in their disposition, as it appeared in their treatment of the Shechemites. Therefore it is, that they are included in one declaration. Its most obvious aim is to revoke for them also their leadership.—Instruments of cruelty.—They must have been something else than swords. Clericus, Knobel, and others, understand ξְ ?λֵ ?ψֹ ?ϊֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν as denoting malicious and crafty purpose, marriage proposals, etc., an explanation that seems not easy.—Into their secret.—As he would clear himself from their fanaticism, so also, in respect to the prophetic destiny would he clear his people, and the Church of God. It is the very nature of a secret plot, or of a factious conspiracy, to make itself of more importance than the community, and thus to produce disunion.—Unto their assembly, mine honor.—My life, or my soul (Psalms 7:6; Psalms 16:9). The expression here is well chosen. The believer cannot trust his personality, with its divine dignity, to a congregation in which secret conspiracies, and fanaticism, are allowed to be the ruling powers. So, too, is the expression χδμ significantly chosen, as also the verb ιηγ. There is no union, no communion, between the soul of Israel, and the companionship of such fleshly zeal.—They slew a man.—Man is taken collectively.—A wall .—They cut the sinews of the hinder foot of the cattle in order to destroy them. This was done after the manner of war mentioned Joshua 11:6; Joshua 11:9; 2 Samuel 8:4, with relation to the horses of the Canaanites and Syrians. According to Genesis 34:28, they could not have done it to any cattle that they could carry off with them; and this, therefore, must be taken as a supplemental account.—Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce (Lange, violent).—They were not personally cursed, but only their excess and their angry doings; neither are they reproved for simply being angry.—I will divide them.—A prophetic expression of divine authority. So speaks the spirit of Israel, giving command for the future, as the spirit of Paul, though far absent in space (1 Corinthians 5:3). This dispersion was the specific remedy against their insurrectionary, wrathful temper. In the first place, they could not dwell together with others as tribes, and, secondly, even as single tribes must they be broken up and scattered. Thus it happened to the weakest of these two tribes (Simeon, Numbers 26:14), in that it held single towns, as enclosed territory, within the tribe of Judah (Joshua 19:1-9) with which it went to war in company (Judges 1:3-17), and in which it seems gradually to have become absorbed. In the days of Hezekiah, a portion of them made an expedition to Mount Seir (1 Chronicles 4:42). In the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33), Simeon is not named. Levi, too, had no tribal inheritance, but only an allotment of cities. At a later day, by reason of his tithe endowment, he is placed in a more favorable relation to the other tribes; nevertheless, he lacked the external independence, and because of the privations they suffered, they yielded themselves sometimes, as individuals, to the priestly service of idolatry. The turning, however, of Levi’s dispersion to a blessing, threw an alleviating light upon the lot of Simeon, who, together with Benjamin, came into closest union with Judah. b. Judah (Genesis 49:8-12).—Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise.—Luther happily remarks that Jacob says this as one who hitherto had been in vain looking about for the right one: Judah, thou art the man. For the history of Judah and the literature pertaining to this blessing, see Knobel, p. 362.—Shall praise.—A play upon the name Judah, as meaning one who is celebrated. At a later day this name (Judea, Jews) passes over to the whole people. Originally it is the name of one for whom thanks are given to God.—Thy hand shall be upon the neck.—The enemies flee or bow themselves; as victor, or lord, he lays his hand upon their necks. His power in peace corresponds to his greatness in war; a contrast which, further on, appears still more strongly.—Shall bow down before thee.—He, the foremost and strongest against the foe, shall, therefore, be chief among his brethren. “That he should be a πָ ?βִ ?ιγ, a prince, among them (1 Chronicles 5:2), is his reward for the part he took in that blessed turn which the history of Israel received through Joseph.” Delitzsch.—Thy father’s children.—All of them; not merely thy mother’s sons, but all thy brethren.—A lion’s whelp.—βּ ?εּ ?ψ is to be distinguished from λְּ ?τִ ?ιψ as quite a young lion. The expression denotes, therefore, the innate lion-nature which Judah had shown from his youth up, not only Judah personally, but the tribe especially. His faults were no malicious ones; on the contrary, he early withstood his brethren in their evil design, and, at a later period, became their reconciling mediator before Joseph.—From the prey, my son, thou art gone up.—By Knobel and others this language is interpreted of the lion seizing his prey in the plain, and then carrying it up to his abode in the mountains (Son 4:8), which seems especially applicable to Judah, as dwelling in the hill-country. We prefer, however, the interpretation of Herder, Gesenius, and others, who understand the word of growing, advancing in strength and size, and especially because it is said ξִ ?θֶּ ?ψֶ ?σ, from the prey, in the sense of through, or by the means of, the prey; since it is with the prey that the lion goes back to the hills. At the same time, growth, in warlike deeds of heroism, forms a contrast to the quiet yet fearful ambush of the lion. The old lion is stronger than the young one; and more fearful still is the lioness, especially in defence of her young. So lies down the strong-grown Judah; who shall venture to attack, or drive him up for the chase? This prophetic lion-figure was especially realized in the royal and victorious dominion of David; although even in the wilderness, the tribe of Judah marched before the other tribes—a figure of the young lion.?—The sceptre shall not depart from Judah.—The sceptre is the mark of royal power. The ruler’s staff, ξְ ?ηֹ ?χֵ ?χ, seems, from the parallelism, to express the same thing. The word denotes that which establishes, makes laws; hence the ruler’s staff. Here, however, is meant the staff or mace of the warrior chief; and so it would be the ducal, or field-marshal’s staff. In correspondence with this the term ψַ ?βְ ?μָ ?ιε (at his feet) would seem like an allusion to the army that follows the chieftain, although the expression would primarily present the figure of the chief sitting upon his throne, with his sceptre between his feet. In respect to the sceptre, and representations of princes with the sceptre between their feet, see Knobel, p. 364. If we had to choose, we should prefer the interpretation of Ewald and others, according to which ψβμιε here, according to the connection, must mean the people or army. For other explanations see Knobel. Judah is not merely to possess the sceptre, but also command with it, and rule with vigor.—Until Shiloh come.—[Lange translates, until he (Judah) comes home as the restgiver.] The expression ςַ ?γΞλּ ?ι does not denote the temporal terminus where Judah’s lordship ceases, but the ideal terminus where it reaches its glorious perfection. According to the first supposition, the place has been, in various ways, interpreted of the Messiah. With the dominion of Herod did the sceptre depart from Judah, and, therefore, then must the Messiah, or Shiloh, have made his appearance. The different interpretations of the word Shiloh do not require of us here a more copious exegesis; we may simply refer to the commentaries. There are, 1. The verbal prophetic Messianic interpretations, that ωִׁ ?ιμֹ ?δ is the abstract for the concrete (see the verb ωׁ ?μδ), and denotes the author of tranquility, the Messiah. This is the old Jewish, the old Catholic, and the old Protestant interpretation. Those who still hold it are Hengstenberg, Schrφder, Keil and others, as also Hofmann, according to his later view. Modifications: a. It is from ωִׁ ?ιμ filius, and εֹ, and so means his son (see, on the contrary, Keil); b. the word stands for ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψμεֹ = ωֶׁ ?μּ ?εֹ; until he comes to whom it belongs; namely, the sceptre. This interpretation is made to depend upon a false application of the passage Ezekiel 21:27. In a similar way the LXX, ἕωςἂνἔλθῃτὰἀποκείμενααὐτῷ, or ᾧἀπόκειται (according to Aquila and others); the Vulgate, qui mittendus est, from the supposition of another verb (ωׁ ?μη); 2. unmessianic interpretations: a. Shiloh is the same as Shalomo, king Solomon himself (Abusaid and others).—Shiloh denotes the place Silo (Shiloh), where the ark was set up after the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 18:1); and in the sense until he come, that is, generally, until they came (Herder and Tuch); b. Knobel’s view: until they rest (ωֶׁ ?μֶ ?δ) comes, and to it shall the obedience of the people be; 3. typical interpretations: a. Until he comes to rest (Hofmann’s earlier view); b. until he comes to Shiloh, but in the sense that Shiloh is the type of the city of the heavenly rest, the type of that into which Christ has entered; c. to these we add our interpretation: until he himself comes home (namely, from his warlike career) as the Shiloh, the rest-bringer, the establisher of peace. Suggestions in opposition to the preceding interpretations: 1. That of the personal Messiah. The idea was not fully developed in the time of Jacob. Moreover, by placing him along with Judah, the connection is interrupted. Keil charges Kurtz with presumptuously determining how far, or how much, the patriarch should be able to prophecy; but he himself seems to acknowledge no regular development in the prediction. 2. Shiloh, as a place. That would be, in the first place, a geographical prediction, from which the mention of Sidon greatly differs; in the second place, until the conquest of Canaan, Joshua, of the tribe of Ephraim, was leader, so that the sceptre did not belong to Judah. This explanation would be more tolerable if taken in the typical sense of Delitzsch; only we would have to regard Shiloh as the ideal designation of the city of rest, transcending altogether the conception of Shiloh as a place. But now Keil shows us that Shiloh can be no appellative, but only a proper name, originally ωִׁ ?ιμεֹ ?ο. 3. There is finally the interpretation ΰωψμε, which is verbally doing great violence to the expression by taking it as an abbreviated or mutilated form.—Other interpretations demand from us no attention. The grounds of our own interpretation: 1. That Shiloh, as concrete, may denote not only one who rests, but also one who brings or establishes rest (see Keil, p. 290); 2. αּ ?εֹ ?ΰ denotes often a returning home, or forms a contrast to a former departure from home; 3. an analogy in favor of our view, according to which we take ωμδ as in apposition with the subject Judah, may be found in Zechariah 9:9 : “Thy king cometh unto thee, just” (a righteous one), ιָ ?αεֹ ?ΰμָ ?κְ φַ ?γִּ ?ιχ—that is, in the attribute of righteous rule; 4. this explanation alone denotes the degree of unfoldment which the prophecy had received in the patriarchal age. First, the Messiah is implicitly set forth in “the seed of the woman,” then with Seth and Shem, then with Abraham and his seed, afterward with Jacob and Israel, and, finally, here with Judah. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECTIONJoseph’s mourning. Jacob’s burial in Canaan. The brothers’ dread of Joseph. His word of peace and trust for them. Joseph’s last provision for his own return home to Canaan after death, similar to the provision of his father. Genesis 50:1-261 And Joseph fell upon his father’s face, and wept upon him, and kissed him. 2And Joseph commanded his servants, the physicians, to embalm his father: and the physicians embalmed Israel. 3And forty days were fulfilled for him; for so are fulfilled the days of those which are embalmed: and the Egyptians mourned for him threescore and ten days. 4And when the days of his mourning were past, Joseph spake unto the house of Pharaoh, saying, If now I have found grace in your eyes, speak, I pray you, in the ears of Pharaoh, saying, 5My father made me swear, saying, Lo, I die; in my grave which I have digged for me in the land of Canaan, there shalt thou bury me. Now, therefore, let me go up, I pray thee, and bury my father, and I will come again. 6And Pharaoh said, Go up, and bury thy father, according as he made thee swear. 7And Joseph went up to bury his father: and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, 8and all the elders of the land of Egypt. And all the house [attendants, servants] of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father’s house; only their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen. 9And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen; and it was a very great company. 10And they came to the threshing-floor of Atad [buckthorn], which is beyond Jordan, and there they mourned with a great and sore lamentation; and he made a mourning for his father seven days. 11And when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the floor of Atad, they said, This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians; wherefore the name of it was called Abel-mizraim, which is beyond Jordan. 12And his sons did unto him according as he commanded them. 13For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a burying-place, of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre. 14And Joseph returned into Egypt, he and his brethren, and all that went up with him to bury his father, after he had buried his father. 15And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will peradventure hate us, and will certainly requite us all the evil we did unto him. 16And they sent a messenger unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he died, saying, 17So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee, now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil; and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father. And Joseph wept when they spake unto him. 18And his brethren also went, and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we be thy servants 19[literally, and more pathetically, Behold us, thy servants]. And Joseph Said unto them, Fear not, for am I in the place of God? 20But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. 21Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them. 22And Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his father’s house; and Joseph lived a hundred and ten years. 23And Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph’s knees. 24And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die; and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. 25And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. 26So Joseph died, being a hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him; and he was put in a coffin [a sarcophagus] in Egypt. REMARKS1. As the fundamental idea of the preceding chapter denoted, with solemn foresight, the future appearance of Israel in the promised land, so, in the closing chapter before us, the actual return of Israel to Canaan is settled, by way of anticipation, in the burial of Jacob in Canaan, and by the oath which Joseph gives to his brethren. The spirit of the theocratic home-feeling in its higher significance, and of the assurance of their return, breathes through this whole chapter. In this, Genesis points beyond, not only to the exodus of the children of Israel, but away beyond this also, to the eternal home, as the goal of God’s people. 2. According to Knobel, merely Genesis 50:12-13 belongs to the ground Scripture, while all the rest is an enlargement made by the Jehovist; but then the Jehovist must be supposed to follow the first document (see p. 377, Knobel). As respects this criticism, now, must things themselves be allowed to speak, especially such things as the strong presence of Joseph, and other facts of a similar kind! 3. Contents: 1) The mourning for Jacob’s death, and the preparation of his dead body in Egypt, Genesis 50:1-6.—2) The mourning procession to Canaan, Genesis 50:7-13.—3) The breaking out of an old wound. The fear of Joseph’s brothers, and his declaration that their guilt has been expiated under the government of God’s grace, Genesis 50:14-21. 4. Joseph’s life and death. His provision exacted from them by an oath: that he should be carried home to Canaan at his death, Genesis 50:22-26. AND 1. Genesis 50:1-6.—And Joseph fell.—An inimitably touching expression of his soul’s deep emotion.—And the forty days were fulfilled.—For forty days did the process of embalming continue. Then follow thirty days, which make the full three-score and ten days—the time of mourning for a prince. “The embalming of the body was an Egyptian custom, practised for pay by a special class of skilled artists (ταριχευταί), to whom the relations gave the body for that purpose. According to Herodotus, ii. 86, there were three modes of proceeding, of which the most costly was as follows: they drew out the brain through the nostrils, and filled the cavity in the head with spices; then they took out the viscera, and filled the space with all kinds of aromatics, after which they sewed it up. The next step was to salt the body with natron, and let it lie seventy days, or longer. Then they washed it off, wrapt it in fine linen, and smeared it with gum. Finally, the relatives took it back, enclosed it in a chest, and kept it in a chamber for the dead. We derive the same information from Diodorus Sic., i. 91, and, moreover, that the taricheutists (the embalmers) were held in high honor, and ranked in the society of the priests. In the several districts they had particular places for their business (Strabo, xvii. p. 795). They used asphaltum which was brought from Palestine to Egypt (Diod., xix. 99; Strabo, xvi. p. 764). From thence, too, they obtained the spices that were employed (see Genesis 37:25; Genesis 43:11). The intestines they put in a box and cast into the Nile; doing this because the belly was regarded as the seat of sins, especially those of gluttony and intemperate drinking. (Porphyr. Abstin., iv. 10.) See more on this subject in Friedreich (Zur. Bibel, ii. p. 199). See also Winer, Realwφrterb., ‘Embalming.’ Jacob was prepared as a mummy. Joseph in the same manner, Genesis 50:26. This is related of no other Hebrew. The embalming mentioned later among the Jews was of a different kind (John 19:39).” Knobel. The mourning for Aaron and Moses was observed thirty days.—Speak in the ears of Pharaoh.—On an occasion so peculiar he lets others speak for him; moreover it was unseemly to appear before the king in mourning.—The grave which I have digged for me.—This is not at variance with the supposition that Abraham had previously bought the cave. In this cave of Machpelah Jacob had, at a later time, made a special preparation of a grave for himself. It is a conjecture of Von Bohlen, with Onkel and others, that λψδ here, should be rendered bought; but there is no need of it. 2. Genesis 50:7-13. The great mourning procession of the Egyptians here proceeded, on the one hand, from their recognition of Joseph’s high position, and, on the other, from their love of funeral festivity (Hengstenberg).—Threshing-floor of Atad.—So called from ΰָ ?θָ ?γ, thorn, because, perhaps, surrounded by thorn-bushes.—Seven days.—The usual time of mourning. The place is called by Hieronymus, Bethagla. Concerning the late discovered traces of the place, lying not far from the northern end of the Dead Sea, see Knobel, p. 379. It is this side of Jordan, though the account says beyond Jordan. The expression is explained, when, with the older commentators, we take into view that the traditionary mention arising from the old position of the Israelites, had become fixed. Bunsen would remove the seeming difficulty by maintaining that αְּ ?ςֵ ?αֶ ?ψδַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?γֵּ ?ο actually means this side of Jordan. Delitzsch and Keil suppose that the place denoted is not identical with Bethagla, but actually lay on the other side of Jordan. There probably did the Egyptian mourning-train remain behind, after having gone round the Dead Sea; whilst the sons of Jacob, according to Genesis 50:13, actually entered Canaan proper. The difficult question, why the mourning-train did not take the usual direct way from Egypt to Hebron, is answered by saying, that on the usual route they would have to guard themselves against encounters with warlike tribes; and this is supported by the fact, that the children of Israel, likewise, at a later day, had to avoid the direct route on the western side. Moreover, the march was in some respects typical, presenting an anticipation, as it were, of the later journey. Even at that time the Canaanites attentively watched the mourning procession; but they had no presentiment of its significance for the later time, and were especially quiet as they looked on during this “grievous mourning of the Egyptians.” 3. Genesis 50:14-21.—And when Joseph’s brethren saw.—The father had stood as a powerful mediator between them and Joseph; and now conscience again wakes up. In their message to him they appeal to their father’s words, and there is no ground for what Knobel says, that this was a mere pretext. Joseph’s weeping testifies to an elevated and noble soul. Once they had sold him for a slave, and now they offer themselves as his servants. This is the last atonement. Joseph’s answer contains the full reconciliation. Am I in the place of God? Can I by my own will change his purposes? God has turned the judgment into a deliverance, and in this must they find peace and reconciliation. God has forgiven them; and, therefore, he himself can no longer retain their sins; nor would he; since that would be to put himself judicially in the place of the forgiving God.—What he says, Genesis 50:20, gives us the grand golden key to his whole life’s history—yea, it is the germ of all theodicy in the world’s history. 4. Genesis 50:22-26.—The third generation.—That is, great-grandchildren. The dead bodies were placed in chests of sycamore wood, and kept in the chambers of the dead. So Joseph’s body was kept. In the exodus of Israel it was carried along (Exodus 13:19), and laid in the field of Jacob at Shechem (Joshua 24:32). AND ETHICAL1. We have denoted this chapter as the chapter of the home feeling. It is a trait that breathes through it. Canaan the home-land of Israel—type of the heavenly home. 2. Joseph’s disposition, mourning, and truthfulness. 3. With wonderful propriety does Joseph unite in his own person the Israelitish truthfulness with that which was of most value in the Egyptian customs and usages. 4. The mourning-train of Jacob, a presignal of Israel’s return to Canaan. 5. As God makes Genesis glorious in the beginning, by the account of his creation,—so here, at the end, by a display of his providence (Genesis 50:20). 6. The admonitions of conscience. 7. Perfect love casteth out fear. Joseph’s word of peace for his brethren. 8. Joseph’s provision an act of faith. Pointing to the exodus. AND Consecrated death.—Consecrated mourning. The consecrated mourning usage. The pious mourning procession. The divine sighing for home. The dead Jacob draws beforehand the living Israel to Canaan. Before all is the dying Christ.—The way of our future wonderfully prepared: 1. In the mourning-train; 2. in the exodus of the spirits; 3. in the going forth of the heart in its longing and sighing for home. First Section. (Genesis 50:1-6.) Starke: Extract from Herodotus ii. 85, 86, on the Egyptian mourning usages, and the embalming of the dead.—Bibl. Tub.: The bodies of the dead are rightly honored, when they are buried in the earth, with the common usages, when they are not superstitious; but they are not to be exposed for spiritual reverence, or carried about for that purpose, or have ascribed to them any miracle-working power. Though we may weep for the dead, it must not be with us as it is with the heathen, who have no hope.—Calwer Handbuch: Egypt swarmed with physicians, because there was one specially for each disease. Second Section. (Genesis 50:7-13.) Starke: Thus was there almost royal honor done to Jacob in his death; since for the dead Egyptian kings they used to mourn for seventy-two days.——Schrφder: In this there was fulfilled the promise made Genesis 46:4 : Jacob was literally brought back from Egypt to Canaan; since for his body did God prepare this prophetic journey. Third Section. (Genesis 50:14-21.) Starke: Attendance upon the dead to their place of rest is a Christian act. Genesis 50:16. They sent a messenger, saying; It was probably Benjamin whom they sent.—Hall: To one who means good, there can be nothing more offensive than suspicion.—The same: The tie of religion is much stricter than that of nature. Genesis 50:20. Lange: The history of Joseph and his brethren an example of the wonderful providence of God.—Bibl. Tub.: The wicked plots of wicked men against the pious, God turns to their best good. Gerlach: The revelation of the most wonderfully glorious decree of God’s love and almighty power, which man cannot frustrate, yea, even the transformation of evil into blessing and salvation—this appears to have been fulfilled throughout the entire life of Joseph. His feeling, so greatly removed from the revenge which his brothers still thought him capable of, goes far beyond them. He speaks to their heart. His words drop like balm upon a wound. It is a beautiful pictorial expression which elsewhere occurs.—With an act of faith of the dying Jacob, connecting the first book of Moses with the second, this history closes, and thereby points to the fulfilling of the promise that now follows.—Schrφder: As we have one father, they would say, so have we one God, our father’s God; forgive us, therefore, for God’s sake, the God of our father. They make mention of servitude as their deserved punishment, with reference to their evil deed to Joseph (Baumgarten). Fourth Section. (Genesis 50:22-26.) Starke: It is not probable that, at that time, the brothers were all living. [In that case the meaning would have reference to the heads of families.—To the wood out of which the coffins of the dead were made, there seems to have been ascribed the property of being incorruptible?—Comparison of Joseph with Christ in a series of resemblances.]—God does not suffer fidelity to parents, or love and kindly deeds to one’s own people, to go unrewarded.—Bibl. Wirt.: God is wont, sometimes, even in this life, to recompense to believers their cross and misery. That is the best thought of death, to remember the promise of God and his gracious redemption.—Schrφder: It all ends with the coffin, the mourning for the dead, the funeral procession, and the glance into the future life. The age of promise is over; there follows now a silent chasm of four hundred years, until out of the rushes of the Nile there is lifted up a weeping infant in a little reed-formed ark. The age of law begins, which endures for fifteen hundred years. Then in Bethlehem-Ephratah is there born another infant, and with him begins the happy time, the day of light, and quickening grace (Krummacher).—Calwer Handbuch: His place as prime minister of Egypt had not extinguished Joseph’s faith in the divine promise. He shared in the faith; he is to be a coheir, a sharer in the inheritance.—Lisco: And so speaks Joseph yet, through faith, unto his people, though he has long been dead, and in his grave.—Heim: Joseph closed his life with an act of faith. Footnotes: [Genesis 50:2.—ηπθ occurs only here, and in Son 2:13, where it is applied to the ripening of the fig. The Arabic ΟάΫΨ has also both these senses of ripening and of embalming. The LXX have rendered it ἐνταφιάσαι, to bury, putting a part of a proceeding for the whole—to prepare him for burial. Vulgate—ut aromatibus condirent.—T. L.] [Genesis 50:17.—ωָׂ ?ΰ, forgive; literally, lift up. The figure may be either the lifting up the supposed prostrate face, or the lifting off the burden of remembered guilt. It is most expressive either way.—T. L.] [Genesis 50:21.—εַ ?ιְ ?γַ ?αֵּ ?ψςַ ?μμִ ?αָּ ?ν. Rendered, and he spake kindly unto them. Literally, he spake unto their heart, and so the LXX have rendered it. He did not merely use good oratorical forma of encouragement, but spoke words coming from the heart, and which the heart immediately understood. It was the language of deep emotion. Compare the same expression, 1 Samuel 1:13, and Isaiah 40:2, rendered in the latter place, speak ye comfortably—literally, speak to the heart of Jerusalem. It is to be regretted that such intensive expressions of the Hebrew had not been more generally preserved in our English version. Some of them might have sounded strangely at first, but time would have naturalized them, and given them a place among the choicest idioms in our language.—T. L.]