■».

>T*%.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

'- IM 1 2.5

0^ 1^ IIIII22

<u ... niHi

Mig

1 1

1.25 j ,.4. ,,.6

►

Hiotographic

Sciences

Corporation

♦\

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO

(716) 873-4503

^o" .^ ^^^U

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICIVIH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Inttituto for Historical IMicroraproductiont

■nstitut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas

1980

Tttchnical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notaa tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa

Tha inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat
original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia
copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua,
which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha
raproduction, or which may aignif icantiy changa
tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaclcaid balow.

D
D

Colourad covara/
Couvartura da couiaur

I I Covara damagad/

Couvartura andommagAa

Covara rastorad and/or laminatad/
Couvartura raatauria at/ou pailiculAa

Covar titia misaing/

La titra da couvartura manqua

I I Colourad maps/

Cartas g^ographiquas en couiaur

Colourad ink (i.a. other than blua or blacit)/
Encre da couiaur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Piartchas at/ou illustrations en couieur

Bound with other material/
ReliA avac d'autres documents

Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion la long da la marge int6rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes
tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans la texte,
mais, lorsque ceia Atait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6tA fiimies.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplAmentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm* la maillaur exemplaira
qu'il lui a *t* poaaibia da aa procurer. Lea details
da cat axamplaira qui aont paut-Atre uniquaa du
point da vue bibliographiqua, qui peuvent modifier
une image raproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mAthoda normala de filmaga
aont indiqute ci-dassous.

I I Colourad pages/

Pagaa da couiaur

Pagea damaged/
Pages endommagAes

Pages reatored and/oi

Pages restaurAas at/ou palliculAes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxei
Pages d*color*es. tachatAes ou piquAas

Pages detached/
Pages d*tach6es

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prir

Qualit* indgaia de I'impreasion

Includes supplementary matarit
Comprend du matAiial supplimentaire

Only edition available/
SeulB Mition diaponibia

I — I Pagaa damaged/

I I Pages reatored and/or laminated/

r~pi Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

I I Pages detached/

|~7| Showthrough/

I I Quality of print varies/

I I Includes supplementary material/

I I Only edition available/

Th
to

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Lea pagaa totaiement ou partiallement
obacurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une peiure,
etc.. ont At* fiimtes A nouveau de fapon A
obtanir la meilleure image possible.

Th
po
of
fill

Or
be

thi
sic
oti
fin
sio
or

Th
shi

Tir

wli

Ma
dif
eni
be

rig]
rec
ma

This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film* au taux da reduction indiqui ci-daaaous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here hae been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

National Library of Canada

L'exempleire film* f ut reproduit griee k la
g4n*rositA da:

BibliothAque nationate du Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications. ^

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
othf . original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Les images suivantes ont MA reproduites avec le
plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition at
de la nettet* de I'exemplaire film*, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrst de
filmage.

Les exemplalres originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimAe sont filmAs en commen^ant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplalres
originaux sont filmte en commen^ant par la
premiAre pege qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la
derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols —^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbols y signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, ch^ v^ ^tc. may be filmed at
different reduction .?*«o<. Those too large to be
entirely included in one >. xposcre are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as man\y frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent l^tre
filmte A des taux de reduction diffArents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul clich6, 11 est film* A pertir
de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche it droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mithode.

. _

•«0f ol<
Tkjr b«D<

]\V.^ 'v- '^f^^ry'-.'^^^'V.^ ^^..-if^^-mfr ^-^^-'r ■'-"■r-ir-^- -....^^.^|

vji/^^^m^w

BIBLICAL EXPOSITOR

AXD

PEOPLE'S COMMENTARY.

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS.

JACOB M. HIRSCHFELDER,

LaonrBXK nr Obikmtal Litkratukk, Univebsitt (Tolligk, Tobomto. Author

or " RiPLT TO Bishop CoLENao," "Essay on the Spirit and Chakao-

TBBisncs or Hebrew Poetry," "Trbatisb ov the Ihmobtauty

ot the Soul," " Critioai. Lbotubes on Qbmbsis I.," ka.

VOL. XL

•* Of old hut Thou Ikid the fonndktion of the earth ; and the heaTena or* the work of
Tky haBdi.'*>-PaAui oil. 2fi.

if/

TORONTO:
ROWSELL & HUTCHISON.

188S.

I' I j'niumpfii.

wmm^

Emtkbbd according to Act of Parliament of CanMla, in the year of our Lord,
one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, by Jacob Mair Hibschfkldkb,
in the Ot&ce of the Minister of Agriculture.

lOKOXTO , niNTBD BT Br/WSH.L AMD BOTCHirOR.

K»«(S«^.' :-»Iff,»1?If»- i

■i

INTRODUCTION.

The original names of the five books of Mosed are merely
derived from the principal word of the first verse of each booK.
Thus, the first book is called tl^^Mia {Bereshith), i. «., in the
beginning, which is the first word of the book. When the
Greek version was executed, the translators gave names to the
books expressive of the chief event recorded in each book.
Thus they called the first book Genesis, i. e., generation or
production. The second book they named Exodus, i. e., depar-
ture, the principal event related in the book being the departure
of the Israelites from Egypt The third book they named
Leviticus, as it contains chiefly the laws relating to the priests
and Levites. The fourth book they called ApiOfioi {Arimmoi),
and in the Vulgate it bears the name Numehi, which is a literal
translation of the Greek word, and hence the name Numbers
in our version. It is so called in reference to the numbering
of the children of Israel as related in chapters i., ii., iii., and
xxvi. The fifth book they called Deuteronomion, i. e., tlie
second law, because it contains a repetition of the laws given
to Moses, with the exception to what pertains to the priest-
hood ; and hence the name Deuteronomy in our version.

The book of Genesis, although only containing fifty chapters,
yet comprises the history ranging over 2,369 vears, according
to the common computation, or 3,6 IM years according to the
Septuagint, which is also adopted by Bishop Hales, who, how-
ever, stands alone in this respect.

Some writers suppose that Moses wrote the book in the land
of Midian, when he tended the flocks of his father-in-law in the
wilderness ; but it is far more likely that it was not written
until after the promulgation of (he law in the wilderness; this
is, however, a matter of no consequence.

The Mosaic authorship and inspiration of the book of Genesis
has never been doubted by the imcient Jews. It was by them
received with a full conviction of its truth, on the authority of
that inspiration under which the sacred historian was known
to act. Indeed, the book itself bears incontrovertible evidence
of beiujg written under inspiration — as we shall hereafter point
out — since we find things recorded in it about the nature of
which Moses must at that time have been perfectly ignorant,
and could not possibly have obtained the information otherwise
than by inspiration. The sacred authority of the book is also

iv.

INTRODUCTION.

established by its being so frequent./ cited in the New Testa-
ment. See Matt. xxiv. 37. 38 ; Luke i. 55 ; xvii. 28, 20, 32 ;
Acts vii. 2-lG; Rom. iv. 1-3; Gal iii. 8; James ii. 28. On account
of the sacredness and dignity of the subject, and the seriou.s
attention which it demnnds, the reading of Ihe beginning of
Genesis, among the ancient Jews, wns not allowed until they
had attained tlic sacerdotal age of thii-ty years.

The historical portions of tne book bear the stamp of truth-
fulness by the manner they are related. The events aic
described as they occurred, and the characters as they appeared,
there is not the slightest desire evinced to shield from olamo,
or to conceal any wrong doing. Whether we view the book of
Genesis from a religious point of view, or from a secular stand
point, language fails in adequately describing the importance of
the information it contains. Here we leai*n the fundamental
truth that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it
contains, that —

"The heavens declart' the glory of God,
And the firmament show for',h the works of his hands."

Psalms xix. 2 ; Faig. Vera. v. 1.

Here we learn further, that man is not the outcome of a long
and gi-adual development from an inferior creature, but a
creature created in the image of his Maker, possessing an
immortal soul ; and that the human race, irrespective of colour,
sprang fram one primitive pair, and are all alike protected and
guided by the care of a Heavenly Father. Here too, ia
furnished the eU important information, how sin and the
consequent evils it entailed upon the human race, entered into
the world. The sacred narrative, after having given these
fundamenttil truths, which, form the basis of all Scriptural
doctrine, describes the multiplication of mankind, the progres.s.
of impiety, the preservation of Noah and his family from
amidst the general destruction by the flood. The sacred
narrative next proceeds to give a brief, but authentic record of
the descent, the difl'usion, and progress of the various nations
that inhabit the earth. It furnishes, also, the important
information of the confusion of tongues, which, although it
may not altogether solve the difficult problem as to the
origin of the many diiferent languages now spoken upon the
globe, yet, it will, at least, afford a key to it which no human
being, or ingenuity could ever have discovered. The Biblical
naiTative next gives an account of the solemn covenant made
with Abitiham, which may be regarded as the beginning of the
theoci'ocy, and also records the most important events in the
lives of the Patriarchs, especially those that were best calcu-
lated to illustrate the dealings of God with man and His

■I

INTRODUCTION.

iudgments, and concludes with . the beautiful and interesting
history of Joseph, and the settlement of the Israelites in
Egypt. Thus we have in the book of Genesis a concise, but
clear history of the first ases of the human family, which
profane writeiv* would never nave been able to rescue from the
shades of antiquity. A writer has well said that " the views
set forth in the book of Genesis have not only become the
foundation of the culture of the Hebrews, but, through them,
of a large portion of mankind." Most of the statements made
in Genesis have, however, not been wllowed to go unchallenged.
Indeed, modern criticism has cho.sen the book as the battle-
field upon which the warfare against the authenticity of the
Pentateuch is chiefly to be carried on. Any one acquainted
with modern Biblical literature must know tnat the battle has
been severe, and is by no means yet ended. The miraculous
events are held to set forth impossibilities, whilst many of the
histoiical statements are pronounced to be unreliable. The
use of the different names of the Deity in certain portions of
the book are laid hold of to prove that those portions were
written by different authors, and at long intervals between
them. It is of no use evading the objections of modern
critics, they must be met in a fair and unbiased manner.
Most, if not all Biblical critics belonging to the rationalistic
school are eminent scholars, and, no doubt, sincerely believe to
be correct in their conclusions. No one either can, for a moment,
charge them with writing their commentaries for mercenary
purposes, they are, evidently, actuated by a higher motive,
namely: a love for the subject. I have, therefore, always been
CJireful in controverting any argument, never to use hai'sh,
much less, offensive language, like some writers have done. It
will be my earnest endeavour, in the following pages, to care-
fully examine all the objections urged by modern critics against
various portions of Genesis, and to controvert them by sound
arguments and common sense reasoning, and leave the intelli-
gent and unbiased reader to judge whether I have been
successful in my endeavours. Should I, in the opinion of
some of my readers, not have entirely succeeded in clearing up
all the difficulties which necessarily beset subjects so profound,
and of such a mysterious nature as ax^ contained in Genesis, I
trust they will ascribe it rather to my inability to do so, and
not to the sa-fired narrative as containing anything adverse to
the teaching of the natural sciences or to the dictates of reason.
Those of my leaders who are not acquainted with Hebrew,
will naturally feel anxious to know whether the 7iew render-
ings given in the " Revised Version" are an improvement upon
the Authorized Version. It is, therefore, my intention, as soon
as that version is published, to notice all the changes that have

Tl.

mTRODUCTION.

beon made, and to express my opinion whether in approval or
otherwise, stating, at the same time, my reaion for favouring
one rendering in preference to the other.

I may repeat here the statement already made in the intro-
duction, that vhe translation is directly made from the Hebrew,
but I have carefully avoided deviatm^ from the Authorized
Version, except where I thought it absolutely necessary.

Such portions as are correctly translated, and do not call for
any explanation are passed over.

In the present advanced state of Biblical criticism, it is impos-
sible to write a satisfactory commentary without frequently
quoting the original. The reader will, however, find the
Hebrew words in no way to interfere with the reading, as they
are invariably expressea in Engli.sh character. Those of my
renders, who are not acquainted with the Hebrew, will, in some
cases, in order to understand the arguments, have to pay par-
ticular attention to the Hebrew words expressed in English.
Thin is especially the case where the dei'ivation of words are
give^x.

I have always made it a practice to make the Bible as much
as possible its own interpreter, that is to say, wherever the
sense of a phrase, or the meaning of a word is doubtful, to
endeavour to find the true sense or meaning in other places,
where the same phrase or word occurs. Many of the mistrans-
lations in the Authorized Version would have been avoided had
the translators strictly adhered to this practice. In the Old
Testament there are many words which occur only once, in all
such cases I have always resorted to the cognate languages or
the Rabbinical writings, in order to trace the true import.

I have spared no labour to render the work in every respect
both Uiseful and interesting ; but how far I may have succeeded
in these endeavours, remains for the reader to decide. In a
work of this kind, it can hardly be hoped to give general
satisfaction; what may please one, may displease another.
Pope has justly said, in his " Essay on Criticism," —

" Tia with oar judgments as oni watches ; none
Go jost alike, yet each believes his own."

This is quite true, judgments once formed are not always so
easily relinquished, preconceived opinions become often so
deeply rootc^l that they are with difficulty eittdicated; still,
when facts prove these to be wrong, there is no other alterna-
tive than to ofier them on the shrine of truth.

But whatever the public verdict regarding the work may be,
I have at least the satisfaction of knowing, that my whole
endeavours have been to perform the by no means easy task to
thie best of my abilities, and with the strictest impartiality.

J. M. H.

COMMENTARY.

" O'er the wide nnirene no atom etir'd.
Silence and gloom in awfnl ({randear reign.
The world was theira : —One limitleaa domain,
Till earth'a Oreat Builder gave the forming word,—
Tro' bonndleaa ohaoa waa the mandate heard, —
Creation anapt ita adamantine chain,
And aprantf mto bein^. On the new bom plain
Alternate changes Deity conferred."

QENESIS I.
1. " In tfte beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

The sacred writer begins his narrative by setting forth the
igrand fundamental truth, that "Qod in the beginning," or
more literally rendered "in beginning," created the whole uni-
t^'ae; for this is in reality the meaning of the expression
"heaven and earth" according to the Hebrew idiom, and in
this sense it is used by the other sacred writers throughout the
Old Testament. Thus Melchizedek in blessing Abram said :
"Blessed be Abram of the most High Qod, possessor of heaven
and earth;" i. «., of the whole universe. (Gen. xiv. 19).

This at once affords a conclusive argument against the allega-
tion made by some modem writers that "Moses, in using the
expression in question, betrays an ignorance which is not con-
stonant with that of an inspired writer, inasmuch as he
mentions the earth separately, whilst in reality it forms a
ODmponent part of the planetaiy system, and, therefore, is
already included in the term heaven." The sacred writer,
however, made use of the only mode of expression that the
Hebrew language afforded, had he invented a term for it, no
one would have undei stood him. Moses combats here also the
extiuvagant notions that prevailed amongst the ancient pagans
iu regard to the origin of the world, and especially the widaly
spread theory among the ancient sages of the eteimity of
heaven and earth.

That Moses must have received the information by Divine
inspiration is self-evident, since the human mind could not
possiblv have conceived such an idea, it being altogether
oeyond the grasp of the human understanding to conceive how
anything could be created out of nothing. It declares quite
the opposite to what was held by the most learned heathen
philoeophers, who laid down the doctrine, "ex nihilo nihil fit**

PBUPLJs 00MMB2CTABY.

i. e., "out of Twthing — nothing eornes." If, then, it must he
admitted, that the Suit vene waa written under Divine
inspiration, it follows that the remaining |K)rtion of the narra-
tive must have likewise been so written, since it equally speaks
of creations out of nothing. The Uuiguage, too, which MoHes
employs, stamps his record with the Liviue signet, "and God
said," "and Ood saw," "and God called," are expressions which
would not have been employed by the holy and meek lawgiver
<if the Hebrews, without having Divine authority to do so.
It is, therefore, simply impioas to xay tliat the Bible merely
*' furnishes here the history of creation, such as it was able to
give, without regard to the possible future discoveries in
physical sciences." (See Kalisch, Commentary on Genesis,
p. 61).

The names* of the Deity employed in the Old Testament are
expressive of the different attributes of God, as self-existence,
might, rule, or govermnent ; the term used throughout thin
chapter is Q'^nb^ (Klohim) which expresses the attribute of
might, and is evidently designedly used oy the sacred writer,
since in the creation of the universe God pre-eminently dis-
played His almighty power.

But our verse does not only teach that God is the Creator of
the universe ; and therefore, also the Author of the laws
that govern the universe, but it implies further that He
is self-existing, eternal, omnipresent; in fact the declaration
<?ontained in it embraces a subject so vast, that the human
mind staggers in its attempt to grasp it, and yet, it is conveyed
to us in the original in seven words, and in language so simple
that even the most uneducated may i-eadily comprehend its
meaning, so far as God intemled that so profound a mystery
should be understood by finite lieings. Men who endeavour to
pass the boundary set by the Almighty, would do well to
ponder on the words of Eliphaz, the Temanite :

" He taketh the wise in their own cniftineaa :
And the counsel of the cunnins >> precipitate.
In the day time they meet with darkness (therefore fmitleM,)
And grope at noonday as in the d»rknCTi>"

Jobv. 13, 14.

Some writers, and among them Professor Lewis, of Union
Oollege, in his work entitled " The Six Days of Creation, or
the Scriptural Cosmology," have argued that the verb " j^^a ''
(hara) "created" employed in the tirst ver.se,does not necessarily
denote to create out of nothing, since it is also used in the sense
to heiv, to cut down, as Josh. xvii. 15 and to form as Ezek. xxi. 24
(Eng. vers. 19). This is no doubt quite true; but Moses had to

* These will be more folly ex^ained herMftsr.

PBOPLK'B CX)1IMICNTAKT.

use mome word which would sonvey the meaninf^ to crenle mil of
nothing ; Mid I maintain, that thiH is the only word he could

Cibly have employed, aa there is no other in the Hebrew
^iiage which would have afforded that sense. Why did
theMe nuthors not point out what verb the sacred writer could
have used which would have been more suitaVile ? It is, how-
ever, ({.lite evident, that the argument is nut forward without
any regard to the usage of the verb in Scripture. The verb
8^13 ('•<«'"«0 in the primary conjugation Kal, is only employed
in the sense to create, and only in reference to Divine creation.
Hence this verb is always employed when Qo<l is spoken of as
creating a netv tliinff such as never before luul any existence.
Thus we read. Numb. xvi. 30, " But if the Lonl fti^.^i n»'''na
(JberinU yivra) will create a new (or unheard of) thing." Those
who are acquainted with Hebrew, will perceive that the noun
itself is derive<l from the same verb, so that the literal render-
ing of the passage in reality is, v/ill create a evented thing.
So also Jer. xxxi. 22, " For the Lord had created a new thing
in the earth." Is. Ixv. 17, " For, behold I am creating a
new heavens and a new earth." And hence the participle of
this cfinju^tion, is useil substantively in refeicnce to Gori as
Creatoir, " Remember Tft^ma (hoi'eecfia) thy Creator." (Eccl.
XII. 1.)

It is only in the derivative conjugation Piel that the verb, in
a few instances is used in the sense to cut, to hew, to form, but
even in those cases the preexisting material is also mentioned.

In 2 Maccab. vii. 28, occur the following words : ' I beseech
thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that
is therein, and consiaer that Qod made them of things that do
not exist,*' L e., from nothing previously existing. St. Paul,
Hebrews xi. 3, says: " By faith, we understand that the worlds
were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are
seen, were not made from those which do appear." Indeed, no
other meaning was ever attached to Genesis 1. 1, by the ancient
Jewish Church, than that given by St. Paul. Many of the most
eminent Rabbis have rendered the verse: God, in the beginning,
created the substance of the heaven, and the substance of the
earth."*

The first verse then distinctly sets forth two fundamental
truths, that the universe hath both a beginning and a CrecUoi',
but as to when that beginning was, or what length of time
elapsed between that creation, and the beginning of the Mosaic
six flays' creation, in which the earth was rendered fit for the

* The Babbis who render the verse in that way, have taken ^^ (tth), which
we regard aa the tign of the. aeeiuatice as a noun in the sense of nuhtttutre. Com
Dare EbenEm; Kimehi, io his "Book of Roots,'' and Buxdorf '■ Talmndie
Le»icoo.

people's commentart.

reception of mankind, and was again replenished with various
plants and animals. God has not vouchsafed to inform us.
riaturalists say, myriads of years are required to form the
various st-^.ta: be it so, the sacred writer does not say one word
to the contrary. Kurz, a well-known and esteemed German
writer, very pertinently remarks, that : " Between the fii-st and
second, and between the second and third verses of the Bibli-
cal history of the creation, revelation leaves two great white
pages, on which human science may write what ii will, in order
to fill up the blanks of natural history which revelation omitted
itself to supply, as not being its office."

" Of each of these carte blanche revelation has only given a
superscription, a summary table of contents. The first runs :
" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," * *
The second carte blanche has the summary inscription : " the
earth was void and waste, and the spirit of God was brooding
on the face of the waters." (Kurz, Biebelj and Astronomic, p.
433.) I beg to draw the readers' particular attention to the
above remarks of Kurz, as they will greatly assist in the illus-
tiation ot this most difficult of all Biblical subject?.

Dr. Harris, President of Chestnut College, remarks : " From
a careful consideration of the subject, my full conviction is,
that the verse just quoted," (i. e., Genesis i. 1,) " was placed by
the hand of inspiration at the opening of the Bible, as a Divine
intention to affirm by it, that the material world was primarily
originated by God from elements not previously existing, and
that this oHginating act vxm distinct from the acta included
in the six natural day 8 of the Adamic creation.* And so a
host of most eminent writers might be adduced who expressed
similar views.

And this opinion cannot be said to have originated with
modern writers, it has already been held by St. Gregory
Nazianzen, Justin Martyr, St. Basil, St. Ceesarius, Origen,
Augustine, Theodoret, Episcopius ; all these maintained " the
existence of a long interval, between the creation spoken of in
the first verse of Genesis, and that of which an account is
given in the third and following verses, "f*

Taking it for granted, then, that the first verse forms *' a
distinct and independent sentence" — a theory which certainly
cannot fail to recommend itself at once to our favourable
consideration, for it furnishes, on the one hand, lavishly as
much time as the naturalists require, whilst, on the other hand,

* The Preadamite Earth, p. 75,

t See Cardinal Wiseman'o Lectures on the connection between Science and
Revealed Religion, vol. I. p. 288, 4th Ed. Also, note in Buckland's Bridge-
water Treatise, by Dr. Pusey, who refers to Petavius, Lib. C, ch. 11, sec. 1-8,
and Dr. J. Pye Smith's Scripture and Geology, pp. 179, 180.

PEOPLES COMMENTART.

given a

t runs :

>» » «

it tends to harmonize the Mosaic account without imposing
forced constructions on the very plain language of the sacred
writer — as will become more and more apparent as we proceed
with the explanation of the chapter — we may next inquire
what science has levealed to inscribe on the first carte blanche
of which that verse merely forms " a superacription."

Now it is an admitted fact by all naturalists, that " the vast
geological scale divides itself into three great parts, and that in
each part or master division we find a type of life so unlike
that of others that even an unpractised eye can detect the
difference." Or, as the great French naturalist, M. D'Orbigny,
has described it, 'twenty-nine creations separated one fiom
another by catastrophes which have swept away the species
existing at the time, so that not a single species survived the
last catastrophe which ended the tertiary period." The reader
will thus perceive, there is nothing, either in the vegetable or
animal kingdom which, in any way, connects the tertiary period
with the fourth period, which I shall call the human peinod, as
being preeminently distinguished from the preceding ones by
the creation of the human family.

As every successive period had its peculiar types of beings,
hence it follows that there must have been, from time to time,
new creations. But it will probably be asked, is that Scrip-
tural ? The question is best answered with the words of
Christ, who himself declared, " My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work." (St. John v. 17.) There is no inactivity on the
part of God, for as the Psalmist says :

" Behold, He slumbers not, and He sleepethnot,*
i ; The Keeper of Israel." ■,- ; ..

(Ps. cxxi. 4.)

Who can tell what new creations may not daily, hourly, nay
momentarily, take place in the waters, upon the ground, or in
space ? We have already seen that new planets spring into
existence, whilst others disap[)ear from the astronomical chart.
And the reader will, no doubt, remember the stinging sarcasm
with which Keppler, one of the greatest astronomers of all
ages, has treated the Epicurian theory as to the chance origin
of these netu planets. (See Introd. p. Ixxxiii.)

If, then, it must be admitted that new creations must have
taken place from time to time, for there is no other rational
mode of accounting for the origin of the new types in the
different geological periods, there can no longer be any objec-
tion on that score of applying Gen. 1 to the creation of the
living things only which now inhabit our globe.

• The verbs are in the fut-^e which is always used to express a custom, prac-
tice, or continued action.

.12

people's commbntabt.

2. " And th6 <M(r</i urns "deaolcUe and void; and darkness was upon
the /ace of the deep. And the Spirit of Ood moved upon the face of the
waters"

As we have alread)' stated, this verse fonns the superscrip-
tion of the second carte blanche. It represents to us the dis-
mal condition of our globe at the time when the Mosaic
account of the creation commences. Every living thing in
the animal and vegetable kingdom, had, been swept away by
the last catastrophe} that ended the tertiary period, the whole
earth had become a vast sea upon which darkness reigned
supreme. How this globe had become submerged, and how
long it had remained in that condition, the Almighty has
not vouchsafed to inform us ; such information, no doubt, might
gratify the inquisitive, but forms no essential part of the nar-
rative which follows, and the sacred writer, therefore, men-
tioned merely so much as was necessary to form a link to his
account, in order to show why a new creation had become
necessary.

Dr. Sumner has very pertinently remarked, "The account in
Genesis may be briefl}' summed up in these three articles :
first, that God was the original (Creator of all things; secondly,
that at the formation of the globe we inhabit the whole of its
materials were in a state of chaos and confusion ; thirdl}^ that
at a period not exceeding 5000 years ago (5400) — whetlier we
adopt the Hebrew or Septuagint chronology is immaterial —
the whole earth underwent a mighty catastrophe, in which it
was completely inundated by the immediate agency of the
Deity. ("Records of Creation," vol. ii. p. 344). Quoted also
by Cardinal Wiseman in his Lectures on "The Connection
between Science and Revealed Religion, (vol. i. p. 280).

We must not omit to mention here, that the phrase flTlT
QTlbK {ivei'uack Elohim) "and the Spirit of God" has by some
writers been rendered by "a might3' wind," in accordance with
a Hebrew idiom, by which a superlative fove is frequently
obtained by using one or other of the appellations of the Deity
with a noun, which thus attributes to it the idea of the highest
excellence, as I3">nbi^ !S<"''fl3D (nesie Elohini) lit. a prince of God,
i. e., "a mighty prince." Gen. xxiii, 8). b?* '^Tlfi^ (arae El)
lit. tke cedars of God, i. e. "the finest cedars." (Psalm Ixxx.
11 ; Eng. vers. v. 10). Jiin"' "'SJ i^^^^ Jehovah) lit. the trees of
Jehovah, i. e., "the finest trees." (Ps. civ. 16). The word nil
{rudch) too, denotes both wind and spirit; so that the reader
will perceive that the rendering "a mighty wind" is not an
arbitrary translation. But the phrase in question is never
usfcd idiomatioilly in Scripture to denote a great or strong

* See explanation given in the Introduction, p. xlix.

people's comhentabt.

wind, in that case the adjective grettt is always employed, as-
Job i. 19; Jonah i. 4. Besides the rendering mighty wind
would be altogether unsuitable with the verb tlfi)n")?a (mcjvt
chepheth) which denotes a gentle hovering or brooding over,,
such as is made by birds whilst hatching their eggs, or foster-
ing their young, as Deut. xxxii. 11, where God is represented
as lovingly watching over Israel's welfar' "as an eagle flutter-
eth over her young." The true meani ^ of the passage, no
doubt is, that the quickening Spirit of God brooded over the
waters, to quicken the lifeless mass by His creative Spirit,
which is the principle of all life. Hence the Psalmist says,
'By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made; and by the
breath of His mouth all their host." (Psalm xxxiii. 6). Milton
has beautifully paraphrased the passage in question :

* ♦ ♦ •• Thou from the first
Wast present, and with mighty wing, outspread.
Dove like, eatst brooding on the vast abyss,
And madest it pregnant. " * • •

The celebrated Rabbi Nachmane, in his Hebrew Commentary,,
entitled "Bereshith Rabba," interprets the phrase "this is the
spirit of the King Messiah."

There is no doubt that in most of the eastern legends regard-
ing the origin of the world, there are indications that some
portions have been derived from the Mosaic account, although
in a more or less disguised form. This is especially the case in
the Hindoo cosmogony, according to which the oHginal soul of
the universe said, "I will create worlds," therefore the water
was called into existence, into which the Spirit deposited a.
germ which developed itself into an egg of beautiful lustre,
and in this egg the supreme being or Brahman created him-
self; the waters were called (Nara) Spirit of God, and as they
were the first place where he had moved, he was designated
(Narayana) moving on the tvatera. (Asiatic Researches, i. 244.)'

3. " And God said, Let there be light : and there teas light."

With these words the work of the six days of creation com-
menced, for it will be seen by glancing over the chapter, that
the beginning of each days creation is likewise distinctly
marked by the words: " And God said,"* that is, Go<i willed, for
as Bishop Hall has very properly remarked, " God's speaking is
His vdlling, and His willing is His doing. We need not
therefore suppose that the words were actually uttered. The

• The Hebrew verb IjQlJi (amar) is frequently used in the sense to purpose
to think. Thus for example Kxod. ii. 14 "iTJi^ nUHfi^ (attah ortier) " dost,
thou purpose to kill me ? See also 2 Sam. xxi. 16. And so in other places.

people's commbntabt.

sacred writers in speaking of the acts of Qod, merely employ
ordinary language in order to make their communications more
readily understood by all

The expression "i^jj^ irT'T "il» TT' {yehi or vaihi or) " Light
be, and light was, " is exceedingly sublime ; God merely com-
mands, and it is. Hence the Psalmist says :

" For he spake and it waa ;
He commanded, and it stood." (Pa. xzxiii. 9.)

Which is more fully expressed in the sixth verse :

" By the word of the Lord the heavens were made ;
And by the breath of His mouth all their hosts."

Luther, too, has beautifully said, " The words of God are not
mere sounds, but essential objects." Even Dionysius Longinus,
one of the most judicioas Greek critics, and who is celebrated
over the civilized world for a treatise entitled llepi vyjrov^
concerning the sublime ; who although himself a heathen, yet
speaks of this passage in the following terms : " So likewise
the Jewish Lawgiver (who was no ordinary man) having con-
ceived a just idea of the Divine power, he expressed it in a
dignified manner : " Let there be light ! and there was light.
Let there be earth ! and there was earth." (Longin. Sect. 8,
Edit. 1662.)

The term "i^j^ (or) light which is employed in thi.s verse
denotes the element light, and is quite a different word from
that used in verse fourteen, by which the luminaries or orha
are expressed. The expression " light be," is merely equivalent
to let light appear ; had the sacred writer wished to convey the
idea that light was then first created, he would have written
Ood creaied the light. The darkness which reigned at the time
upon the vast expanse of water, was the natural result from
the absence of the light of the sun which was then not visible
on account of the aqueous and aerial fluids by which our globe
was surrounded. We shall hereafter show that the luminaries
already existed, and hence it follows that the element light
must have existed likewise, and, therefore, is not spoken of as
being created. So, likewise, the waters that covered the earth
are spoken of as already existing, there is no mention made of
their being then created. At tne command, " light be," the
light burst through the darkness, though the sun did not
become visible yet until the fourth day, when every obstacle
to its shining forth in unclouded splendour was removed.

4. "And God $ato the light that it was good : and Ood divided
between the light and between tlie darkness."

people's commentabt.

The meaning of the words in the first cl&use is, that Qod
impreHsed the seal of perfection upon the light. The Hebrew
adjective '2^Xi (^} denotes not only good, but also beautiful,
pleaifiat, cheerful.

Hitherto, there had been only darkness upon the face of the
earth, but now "God separated between the light and the
darkness," that is, henceforth, light and darkness were to
succeed each other again in regular rotation of the earth
around its axis. This, of course, would have been impossible
unless the sun had already existed, and performed its natural
functions.

5. And God c<Med the light Day, and the darknesa He called Night.
And it w<u evenitig, and it was morning, 07ie dag."

The reason why " the light " was called ^')i (yom) day must
evidently be looked for in the etymology of the word. Unfor-
tunately the derivation of the word cannot now be traced
with any certainty. Very probably the term t3T' (yom) may,
as Gesenius has suggested, be merely a softened form of tDFlT'
{yocham) ; in that (»se it certainly would be derived from the
verb (yacham) to be warm, to glow with heat, and the suitable-
ness of the designation would at once become apparent.

V^hether this supposition, however, is correct or not, certain
it is that some etymological rea.son existed why it was so
called. There are many Hebrew words occurring in the Bible
of which the derivation cannot now be traced with any degree
of certainty. Words in languages will become obsolete, and
that such should have been the case in a language of such
high antiquity as the Hebrew is certainly nothing wonderful.

Why " the darkness " was called Tib'^b (laylah) is even still
more difficult to account for at present, as I am not aware of
any existing root in Hebrew or its cognate languages which
would afford a suitable derivation. The lo.ss of these roots
indicate the great antiquity of the Hebrew language. " And
it was evening, and it was morning ;" the evening is naturally
first mentioned, as darkness preceded the light. Hence the
Hebrews have always adopted this mode of reckoning the
day of four-and-twenty hours, from evening to evening. In
Leviticus xxiii. 32, it is distinctly commanded, " from evening
to evening shall ye keep your Sabbath," and so all the festivals
began from sunset ©f the previous evening.

The Hebrew term for evening is ^U {erev), from which the
Greeks, no doubt, derived their Ep€/3o<i (Erebus) by adding the
Greek ending o^, which they deified, and made with night the
parent of all things. Hence, also, the name of tlie Cartha-
genian deity Herebue, whom they invoked as the god. of dark-

■m

people's ccmmuntart.

Tiees. The Hebrew word is derived from the verb 5^5 (arav),
to grow dark, in Syriac and Arabic the verb denotes also to
set, and is used in reference to the setting of the sun. The
tei-m, thtsrefore, properly denotes that part of time which
intervenes between sunset and utter darkness. In the passage
before us, however, it evidently embraces the time from sunset
to break of day. The Hebrew term "ipa (boke^') denotes a
breaking forth, i. e., when the light breaks through the dark-
ness, hence morning, but here employed to denote the time
that intervenes between the breaking of day and the setting
of the sun. Hence the Jews always divide the day into even-
ing and morning. From the evening being mentioned before
the morning, may have originated the custom ; aong some
tribes of reckoning the time after nights ; and our expressions,
sennight, (seven-nights) fortnight, (fourteen-nights) probably
have had their origin from such a custom,

I would also draw the readers attention to the peculiarity
that in the original, the article in the enumeration of the days
of ci'eation, is only used with the sixth day, the absence of the
article with the other days seems to mark the creation as one
creative act, though the work was spread over six days. In
the original it reads: "one day," " second day," &c., and not
" the fiist day," " the second day,' except with the sixth day,
when it is said : 'I And it was evening, and it was morning
the sixth day."

6. "And God said, Let titers be an expanse in the midst of the
toatera, and let it he a dividing between t/te waters and the waters.^'

Though the light had burst through the darkness which had
hitherto obscured it, still the waters yet held their dominion
over the earth, nor had the sky yet become visible. It is, of
course, impossible to form, even in the slightest degree, any
adequate idea of the state of the atmospheie of that time. The
aqueous atmosphere, and the 'vaters which covered the earth,
forn^ed, as it would appear, one undivided mass, and it was the
dividii?g of this mass which constituted the creative woik of
the second day.

The Hebrew term ynp"! (rakia), rendered in our version by

" firmament," properly denotes " expanse," something beaten or
stretched out, hence the sky, which consists of condensed clouds,
but assufnes to the eye the appearance of a •solid substance. So
Plato, speaks of the ethereous heaven under the notion of Ta<ri<f,
i. e., extension from reivm, to extend, which corresponds to the
Hebrew yipi (rakia), expanse, from Jpi (raka), to expand, to

beat out. I would impress on the mind of the reader, that it
is the usage of Scripture throughout the sncred volume to

people's comhbntary.

(lescribe things as they appear to the eyes, so as to bring them
within the limits of the most humble understanding. Hence
Mos&s represents, in verse 14, the sun, moon, and stars, as set
in the expanse or firmament, although they are removed far
beyond it, but simply because they appear so to the eyes of an
observer from our globe. But it is simply absurd to charge
Moses, or any other sacred writer, with ignorcncc, because they
made use of such expressions. As well might we say that the
world-renowned astronomer Herschel was ignorant of the first
principles of astronomy because he made use of the phrases :
" the sun rises," " the moon sets." These phrases are constantly
made use of by every person, and originated no doubt from
these orbs appearing to the eye to rise and to aet. They are
convenient expressions, and are readily understood by the most
ignorant.

As the sacred writer wishes to convey the idea that the
design of the " expanse," was to separate between the waters
which are above, and those which are below, the Hebrew
word tr^fia (bethoch), is evidently here used in the sense of
betwesn. The Hebrew word has different shades of meanings,
as midst, vdtldn, betiveen, but between conveys here a more
accurate idea, both of the situation and use of the " expanse."

" And let it be a dividing," the rendering in the English
version, " and let it divide," is a free translation, which might
lead to the supposition that the dividing process w&s then
finished. The original, on the contrary, by employing the
participle, conveys the idea of a process constantly cooing on
as implanted in nature. The participle in Hebrew, whon used
as a substantive, implies continued action ; ^73^ (lomed), teach-
ing, hence also one who constantly teadies, and thus a teacher.

By the Divine act of " dividing between the waters and the
waters," one portion of the watery mass was made to rise into
the atmosphere, and held in solution, or made to float in the
form of clouds, whilst the other portion was forced down in
contact with our globe.

7. " So God ordained (or constittUed) the expanse, and caused to
divide between the waters which are under the expanse, and between
the waters which are above the expanse : and it was so."

This verse is a mere continuation of the preceding verse, as
much as to say, in this manner Qod constituted the "ex))anse,"
and caused the waters to divide themselves. The conjunction
T {wav) and, is often used in the sense of «o or so then with
subordinate clauses. Thus, for example, in verse 26. "And God
said, let us make man," &c.; hence verse 27 which is a con-
tinuation of the preceding verse begins. "So God created man,"

people's oommemtabt.

where it will be seen the ^ (tuav) conjunction is rendered in the
English version by "So." In Hebrew the verb to be, when used
as a copula is not expressed, hence it is so frequently printed
in italics in the English version. In this verse it is better
therefore to supply are, and read, "which are under the
expanse," and "which are above the expanse," instead of were
as in the English vei-sion, for the "expanse" could not have
been the first means of dividiuj; the waters, if a portion had
already been above and another below.

The expression, "the waters which are ubove the expanse,'*
does not refer to a eelettial ocean, as Qesenius and other writers
hold, but refers merely to the waters which float in the atmo-
sphere; they are here only described in popular language to be
"above the expanse," although strictly speaking, mey are at
no great elevation from the earth, still they are above that part
of space in which birds fly.

"And it was so," that is, it was just as God willed it to be,
perfect in overy respect.

8. "And God calkd the expanse Heaven. And it toaa evening, and
it was morning ; second day.'^

The term Qi^^" (Shximayim) heaven, is merely another name
by which the expanse is designated ; it denotes in faot, the
whole visible expanse, including the regions of the stars, which
as already hinted, are merely said to be set in it, because they
appear so to the eye, as well as the space in which vapours
float, and clouds are formed. Hence the birds that fly in it are
called "the fowl of the heaven," in verse 26. In it also the rain
and the dew are formed, and hence we have the very frequent
expressions, "the dew of heaven," Gen. xxvii. 28; and "the
rain of heaven," Deut. xi. 11. The root of the word, although
not now existing in Hebrew, is still found in the Arabic
(shamad) to be high, the word therefore, denotes a height. The
Hebrew word has tlie dual form, which probably may indicate
its twofold meaning, namely, our atmosphere, and the solar
system.

9. **And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered into
one place, and let the dry land appear : and it was so."

The earth, which, up to this time, had been covered by a
vast mass of water, was now to be rendered fit to receive its
inhabitants, and this formed part of the third da3''8 creative
work. What means the Creator employed in reclaiming a
large portion of our globe the sacred writer does not inform us,
he meraly gives the bare results, without entering upon a descrip-
tion how ^e result was achieved. The language itself, how-

PBOPLB'8 OOMMIlfTABT.

ever, implies that like all the other acts of creation it was
affected oy the mere will of Qod. Hence the Psalmist, in
referring to this mighty work of Qod, says :

6. "Thon hut covered it," (I. e. the earth), "with the flood m with a

garment.
Alrare the moantaina atood the watera :

7. " At Thy rabake they fled ;

At the voice of Thy thauder they haated away —

8. *" lliey go up by the mountaina, they so down by the valleys —

Unto the place Thou haat appointed for them.

9. " A bound Thon hast set them which tliey aay not paaa over,

They may not return again tc cover the earth. (Pa. civ. 6-9.)

The sacred writer, in his narrative, says, that the waters were
" gathered into one place," and is it not so ? The Atlantic, the
Pacific, the Indian, and other oceans constitute in fact but one
body of water, although parts of it are designated by different
names. Now how could Moses have known this, unless he
had received this knowledge by inspiration. What was there
known of navigation in his time ? The early Egyptians,
although they apparently made use of some kinds of snips, yet
their commerce on the water seems not to have been extensive,
nor have we any account of them having ventured to any
distance on the seas.

10. " And God called the dry land Earth ; and the gathering of the
waters He called Seae : and God saw that it was good.

Here again we have to lament our inability in not being
able to trace the etymological reason why " the dry land '

* Luther, in hia (German* version, and some of the modem oommentatorit
and among them Ewald ana De Wette, have rendered verse 8 thus :

" Mountains rise up, and valleys sink down —
Unto the place Thou hast appointed them."

This rendering certainly afibrds a beautiful panoramic view such as would
have presented itself to an eye-witness gazing at the receding waters, seeing the
mountains gradually rising out of the deep, and the depressions of the vuleys
by degrees becoming more and more distinctly defined. And it is but rieht to
add, that the original perfectly admits of this renderiusr. Still, in my opmion,
the rendering above given, and which is also that of the English version and
of the Qerman authorized Jewish version, by Rabbi Solomon Hakkohen, which
makes the wators the subject of the whole passage, is much more natural, and
accords better with the context. The sixth verse refers to Gren. i. 1, when the
waters covered the earth as with a garment. The seventh and eighth verses
depict how the waters fled to their appointed places at the will of God. And
the ninth verse declares that God set a limit to these waters which they may
not pass over, and submerge the earth again in water. Thus the watera form
the subject to all the verbs in the passage. But if we make the " mountains"
and " valleys" the subjecta of the verbs in verse 8, then we must supply after,
" a bound thou hast set," in verse 9, to the watera, otherwise, " mountains'' and
"valleys" would form also the subject of the verba in verse 9 as being the
last mentioned, and which certainly would make no sense.

pboplk's oommintabt.

was called ipw ("ftU) " earth " as the root of the word does

not now exist in Hebrew or its cognate lanmiages, thoogfa no
doubt su^h a root was once in use. The Hebrew term Q^Tgi
(yammim) " neas " includes all collections of water, whether
oceans, lakes, or rivers. In the singular the noun is sometimes
applied to a large river, aa Is. xix. 5, the Nile, Jer. li. 36, the
Euphrates, and the plural noun even to branches of rivers as
Ezek. xxxii. 2. The Nile and Euphrates being in Scripture
sometimes spoken of under the term of sea, may be accounted
for from their periodical overflowing and thus assuming the
appearenoe of a large expanw of water. So the Egyptians
from the most ancient times have called and still call the Nile
(el Bohr) the sea. The sea is, in Hebrew, termed Qi (yam),
from its tumultuous motion by winds or tides. Hence the
prophets compare the wicked to a troubled sea, (Is. Ivil 20,)
or to a large body of people in a restl&ss state of commotion,
(Jer. 11420

11. " And God $aid, Let tKe earth bring forth grcut, the herb yield-
ing reed, and the/ruit tree yielding fruit after it$ kind whose $eed is
»n Ueelff upon the earth : and it voae so.

The earth having now been divested of its watery cover,
aiid rendered fit again for the reception of its inhabitants, was
not allowed to remain long an empty waste but the same day
was adorned with all the various species of plants and trees
such as do now exist.

*' All T^B^etatioiu complicftted Bcheme,
W«a formed from nothiug, like a dream."

Moses here aptly divides the whole vegetable kingdom into
three main dales', namely {sCQ}'! {deake) grass, which some
of the most eminent Jewish commentators understood to em-
brace those grasses which ffrow spontaneously without the care
of man. The term probably includes all such plants which are
propagated rather by the division of their roots than by seeds;
and hence the plants denoted by the term, it will be seen, are
not like those of the other two classes represented as bearing
seed. Hence, too, this term is genemlly employed in speaking
of vegetation that clothes the field, as Ps. xxiii. 2, " He maketh
me to lie down in pastures j^^Qj*^ (deshe) of gi'ass." (English
version^ " in green ps^stures "). So 2 Sam. xxiii. 4, " as the
grass springing out of the earth from the shining of the sun
after rain. '

The secortd division called i^tS!? (esev) herbs, embraces all
kinds of seed, bearing plants, whether wild or cultivated ; in
fact all plants between grasses and trees, serviceable as food
both for man and beast.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

The third division yy (ets) treei, embraces all hard- wooded

plants, in contradistinction to herbage, which have a softer
texture. The noun is derived from the verb n^5 (atsah) to
make firm, or to shut in ; probably so called from the bark
forming a covering t-o the tree. The German naturalist, Hioro.
Bock or Bouc, but more jjenerally called Tragus, who flourished
in tile sixteenth centur}', also divided plants into three clasaea.
The Rev. Mr. Goodwin, in his Essa.y (which forms one of the
" Essays and Reviews ") pp. 247, 248, objects to this part of the
Mosaic account, on the ground " that nothing is said of herbs
and trees which are not .serviceable as food for man and
animals." This is a very frivolous obiection, hardly to bo
expected from such a learned man. The three terms men-
tioned in the text, include all, since every plant or tree is of
some use either to man or to animals, otherwise they would not
have been created. Hence when they are appointed for food
for man and beast, in verses 29, 30, it means they are appointed
for general use, whether for the purpose of food or medicine,
or any other purpo.se. What may be looked upon in one part
of the world as useless or even troublesome, would be looked
upon in another part as useful and even a blessing. A ntrikiuij
example we have in the tvild portuUicca, which with us is such
a troublesome weed in our wardens, especially those having a
sandy soil ; in Arabia and other eastern countries it is ex-
tensively used by the common people as a salad, although, from
its insipidness, it is called by them " the silly weed."

14. *^ And God said. Let tfiere be luminaries in the expanse of the
heaven, to divide between the day and between tlie night ; and let them
be for signs and /or seasons, and/or dxiys and years."

" Let there be luminaries," that is, let the luminaries now
shine forth in their full splendour, and continue to do so. It
will be seen there is here no mention, made of the luminaries
being created, but like the ^natter light in verse 3, they are
merely called upon to appear. The dense mass of clouds and
vapours which up to now had still surrounded the earth and
intercepted the rays of the sun, at the mandate of God now
cleared away, and as the atmosphere became pure and serene,
the sun shone forth in his full power and splendour.

In verse 3 the sacred writer employed the word "n^ {or),
which denotes tlie element light, but here he employed the word,
jrniK?3 (meoroth) which means luminaries oi- light dispensers,
m fact lamps upon a gigantic scale, having no lights of their
own, but being merely disjiensers of it. The luminaries were
from henceforth again " to divide between day and night," in
order that the distinction between day and night may be again

pboplb'm oommkntart.

iP !

(liHiinctly inarkeil. " And they mIiaII bo for HignN." The
Hubruw word p{^» {(AhoUt) denotes alw) vmrka by which any-
thing i.s known. The.se luminaries were to serve as marks or
sigiiM to form epochs of general reckoning, for indicating the
(liHurent quarters of heaven, to aid the mariner in navigation,
and to guide the hasbandman in his various pursuits. They
were further also to serve as signs portending extraordinary
events or miraculous manifestations. Thus it is said :

" And I will aheir woodera in the heavens and in the earth,
Bloml, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
The aun shall be tarned into darkneaa.
And the moon into blood.*
Before the dav of the Lobd oome.
The great and the terrible."

Joel ill. 3, 4 ; Eng. Vera. oh. ii. 30, 31.

'* And for nppointed times ; " the luminaries were also to
mnrk the seasons of the year, and the various festivals and
religious solemnities which were afterwards to be appointed.
They were further to mark the seasons which influence the
animals and birds, kc. Hence the prophet Jeremiah says :

" Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times ;
And the turtle-dove and crane and swallow observe the time of their coming."

Jer. viii. 7.

" And for days and years," it is, as signs for marking the
division of days and years.

15. ^'And let tfiem he for Ituninaries in tlie hf-avens to give light upon
the earth ; ami it vaat so."

This most important office of the luminaries, although
already included in the preceding verse, is here especially
mentioned, in order to mark the climax of the importance
and utility of these luminaries.

IP "And God constituted (or ordjtined) tJte two great luminaries ; the
greater luminary fnr the ruling of the day, and the lesser luminary for
the ruling of the night : and He apitointed the stars also."

It is the rendering of the Hebrew verb WS'*^ (waiyads), by
" and he made " in the English version, instead of " and he con-
stituted or ordained," which has chiefly led to the supposition
that these luminaries were actually created on the fourth day.
Now, this is not exactly a mistranslation, but rather an un-
fortunate selection from the varioas meanings which the verb
has. Had the sacred writer intended to convey the idea that

* It is into the colour of Uood. The intense brightness of the san shall be
turned into darkness, and the paleness of the moon into deep red.

pkoplk'h commbntabt.

ihene luminaries vnive created on tho fourth day, he would
ui/doubUMlly have uiiipluyud tlio verb 5^13 {fHiru), he created,
wli'rch is UHotl in verse 1, and again in vor»e 21, " And Qod
created the great sea monstei-s." The primary meaning of the
verb TYSjS {ttsd/i) no doubt is, to make, to work, yet it is over
and over again used also in tho sense to constitute, to appoint
just as we often use the verb to make in the seitsc to appoint
or constitute. As, for example, 1 Sam. xii. 6, " It is the Lord
who ntD!? (asah) appointed Moses and Aaron." (Eng. vers.,
" advanceil Moses and Aaron.) Again, 1 Kings xii. 31, " And
he made an house of high places JS^"^^ (wai-yaas), &nd appointed
priests of the lowest of tho people." (Eng. vers., " anu made
priests." And so in many other places.

The sun and moon are not in the passage before us called
" the greater " and " the lesser," from an astronomical point of
view, but in reference as to their appearance to the inhabitants
of the earth, since Moses, througliout his narrative, aims to
describe things just as they would have appeared to any one
had he been present. The fact that many stars far surpass in
Tiiagnitude both the sun and moon, is, therefore, not in the least
affected b^' the above declaration. As the de8ij,.,ations " greater"
and "lesser" unmistakably point to the sun and moon, their
names are here omitted. The sun is, however, in Hebrew
called XDTyO (shemes/i) i. c, one that ministers, so called from
its ministering light and heat to the earth, whilst the moon
is call.^ ni"' {yaveach) i. e., the pale orb, from its paleness, and
sometimes in poetry nj^jb (levanah) i. e., the white orb. " For
the iiiling," it is, to regulate day and night by their rising and
setting. " And the stars," it is, God ordained the stai*s also to
perform their various ottices. It will be seen, the phrase " and
the .stars" is very abruptly intro<luced, as if it were by
parenthesis: the words oi'dained also do not occur in the
original. The abruptness of the expression may probably be
accounted for by the stars being merely regarded as companions
of the moon, to replace in some measure the absence of the
light of the moon when that luminary is not visible. Under
the term Q'»lDn3 (cochavim) i. e., stars, the Hebrews compre-
hended all the celestial orbs, except the sun and moon ; hence
the Psalmist says :

Praise ye Him sun and moon :
Praise Him all ye stars of light."

(Ps. cxlviiL

shall be

17. " So God constituted them in t/ie expaiise of Iteaven to give liglU
upon the earth."

This verse being a mere continuation of the preceding, the
1 conjunctive is here again better rendered by so. As regards

people's commentary.

the Hebrew verb 1fi5 (nathan) here employed, which, in the

English version, is rendered by "set": "And God set them in
the firmament of heaven," I have already shown in the intro-
duction, p. liii., in reference to the rainbow, that this verb, in
common with most Hebrew verbs, has several shades of signi-
fication, namely, to give, to set, to constitute, to appoint, to make,
&c., and there can therefore, not be the least objection to
render it " constituted," as I have done above. Numerous
passages may be adduced, where this verb is used in the sense
to constitute, to appoint. Thus, in Genesis xvii. 5 : " For a
father of many nations I have constituted thee." English
version, (I have made thee). So again Exodus vii. 1, " See, I
have appointed thee a *go<:l to Pharaoh." (English version, "I
have made thee.") Hugh Miller, seeing the impossibility of
plants created on the third day, passing through a long period
of darkness, as they necessarily must have done, according to
the theory that the six days of creation are six indefinite
periods of time, had to acknowledge in order to get over the
difficulty, that the sun, moon, and stars, may have been created
long before, though it was not until the fourth day of creation,
that they became visible from the earth's surface. (Test,
page 134.)

But that the stellar system existed even before the foun-
dation of our globe, the Scriptures themselves afford evidence.
Among the numerous questions which God showered down
upon Job, illustrative of His omnipotence in the formation and
disposition of the works of creation, are the following ones :

" Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth T > " "
Declare, if thou hast understanding,
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest ?
Or who hath stretched out the line upon it ?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened ?
"'■■" Or who laid the comer-stone thereof ? ' • ; : ■'l.-'f'

Wlien the morning stars sant; together.
And all the sons ol God shouted for joy ? "

(Job xxxviii., 4-7).

This passage clearly proves that the stellar system was not
created on the fourth day of the Mosaic account of the

* The somewhat peculiar expression : " I made (or appointed) thee a god to
Pharaoh," has proved not a little preplexing to the commentators. Oukelos,
in his Chaldee version, renders it " a master to Pharaoh." Peeudo Jonathan,
in his Chaldee version, translates " formidable as if thou wert his God." The
oe'ebrated commentator, Eben Ezra, rendered "an Angel to Pharaoh," by
which he of course means an authorized messenger of God. Rashi, a very
favourite Hebrew commentator, paraphrased the pas9.ige, "a superior ^nd
master, authorized to punish him with plagues and afflictions. "

The passage evidently belongs to that class o;' construction termed comtrtictio
prvegtiann, that is, where the language employed implies more than is actually

people's commentary.

creation, but that they ah*eady existed when God laid the
foundation of the earth. There is no getting over this passage,
tl>e language is too plain, and it must oe remembered also, that
tlie words are not the words of Job or of his three friends, but
of God Himself.

It may, perhaps, be argued, that in the fourth commandment
it is distinctly stated, that "in six days the L D made heaven
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." (Fxod. xx. 11).
Preciseh' so n"C3? («.sa) ordered or fashioned, b, it does not
S'l^y 15^13 (hara) created, hn it does in Gen. i. 1, which latter
verb would no doubt have been employed by the sacred writer
if the primary creation of the universe were referred to. As
the fourth commandment depends on Genesis i., hence it must
be explained by that chapter, for there is evidently only so
much of the creative work referred to in the commandment as
relates directly to the institution of the Sabbath, namely, in
Hix da J/8 God perfected Ida creative work, as related in chai)ter i.
from verse three to the end of the chapter, "and rested on the
seventh <lay : wherefore the Loud blessed the Sabbath day and
hallowed it" Dr. Davis justly remarks, "It is a violation of
an essential rule of sound interpretation to infer the meaning
of an author from a condensed sentence, introduced incidentally,
instead of deriving it from his more direct, connected, and
ample statements on the SAme subject." (Pre-Adamite Earth,
p. 278). As an example of the tinith of the foregoing remark
v/e may instance the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not
kill." Now, it would surely not be sound interpretation to
infer that becau.se this commandment is worded in the same
manner as the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."
therefore the murderer ought not to be more severely pun-
ished than he who steals ? The sixth commandment is a
condensed sentence of Gen. ix... 5, G, by which it must be
interpieted.

I hope enough has been .said to show that there is nothing
in the Mosaic account to warrant tlie supposition that the
planetaiy s^'stem was actually created on the fourth day, but
that on the contrary, everything tends to prove that the lumi-
naries liad their existence before the Mosaic account of the
creation commences.

expressed, ..amely, "I have constituted thee an authorized embansador o/Ood to
Fhuraoh ; and Aaron, thy brother, shall bo thy propliet," {i.e., Bpokcsnian).
The etymological meaning of J^^^J {navi) is n gpokeamati, from ^^^5 or
5?i5 ("""'*)• '"^ pour out words. Hence one who utters what God has disclosed
to nim, thus a prophet This precisely agrees with what we read : eh. iv. 16,
" And he shall si^ak for thee to the people, and he shall indeed Iks to thee
mstead of a mouth," (i.e., spokesman,) "and thou shalt be to him instead of
God. " It is, he shall receive all Divine communications through thee.

2fi

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

I'
if-

20, Aiul God sauI, Let the waters swarm with moving creatures, with
living beings, and fowl shall jly above the earth, upon tfie face of the
expanse of lieaven, i. e., in the opeu firmiiment of heaven.

The replenishing of the waters and the air with their respec-
tive inhabitants constituted the creative work of the fourth day.
The Hebrew verb vytH {sharats) denotes to multiplt/ abund-
antly, to siuarm, and is applied to all kinds of living creatures
whether inhabiting the waters or dry land, which are remark-
able for their rapid increase. It is only in a few instances used
by the sacred writer in reference to tlie increase of the human
species, as for example. Gen. ix. 7, when God blessed Noah and
his sons. Also, Exod. i. 7, where it is most appropriately used
in reference to the extraordinary increase of the children of
Israel in Eg3'pt. The term yi»5 (skevets) moving creatures,
or creeping creatures, which is derived from the foregoing
verb, therefoie, is generally used in reference to those creatures
which are remarkable for their fecunditj', such as is pre-
eminently the case with the finny tribes, and such creatures as
are accustomed to move about in swarms. Here the sacred
writer adds another term n^H ©S3 (^ephesh chaiyah) living
beings, a term far more comprehensive in its meaning, and
including all kinds of water animals, small and large, and like-
wise reptiles.

The rendering in the English version, "Let the waters bring
forth," rather leads to the supposition that "the waters" were
made the agent in the production of their inhabitants. Such,
however, will be seen from the literal rendering, is not the
case; they were called into existence by the mere fiat of
God. And God said, "Let the waters swarm \vith
creatures."

According to the pointing in the English version, and the
insertion of the word that, it makes it appear as if the fowl
were brought forth fiom the water also. It reads, " And God
said. Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving crea-
tures that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth."
This is at variance with what is said in ch. ii. 19 : •' And the
Lord God formed from the ground every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the heavens." The apparent discrepancy
which the rendering of the English version gives rise to, has
not escaped the notice of some English adverse critics. The
Rev. (J. W. Goodwin, M. A., in his essay on the Mosaic Cosmo-
gony, draws attention to it. He remarks: " On the fifth day
the waters are culled into productive activity, and bring forth
fishes and marine animals, as also the birds of the air." And
in a note on the bottom of the page he says : •' It> the second
narrative of creation, in which no distinction is made, the

movnig

people's commentary.

Gen.

birds are said to have been formed out of the gi'ound.
ii. 19." (Essaj'^s and Reviews, p. 248.)

The Rev. Mr. Goodwin evidently did not consult the orignal —
it is to be supposed that he at least had some knowled^^e of
Hebrew, or he would not have presumed to criticize the Mosaic
account in the way he has done — or he would have at once
perceived that the discrepancy altogether arose from not having
closely enough adhered to the Hebrew text. On re'ierring to
the Hebrew Bible it will be seen that the word n^P (cJiaiyah),
" living," has the pause accent athrach, which is equal to our
colon, and the word that is not in the original. Let, now, the
reader turn back to my rendering of the vei'se, and he will
find that the foivla were not brought forth by the waters, but
merely commanded to fly above the earth. The sacred writer
here merely alludes to the creation of the fowl and the element
assigned to them in which they were to move, without stating
how they were created ; which information is given in ch. ii.
19. The same is precisely the case with the creation of man,
Avhich, in ch. i. 26, 27, is merely spoken of as having taken
place. A fuller account is recorded in ch. ii. 7.

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature
that moveth, with which the waters sioarm, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after its kind : and God saw t/iat it was good.

This verse gives merely a recapitulation of what is stated in
tlie preceding verse, just as verses 17 and 18 form a recapitula-
tion of verses 14, 15, 16. The rendering, " great whales," given
in the English version, is too restricted ; the Hebrew term
D3''Dn (tanninim) literally means large stretched out animals,
hence all kinds of sea monsters. In later times, the term was
even applied to large land animals, and in some instances the
desert is assigned as their place of habitation. In some passages
the word is rendered in the English version by " dragon." Moses,
evidently used the word here in the sense of sea monsters, and
mentions them particularly to show that they were included
in the term VTQJ (shcrets) " moving creatures" employed in the

preceding verse. I may here remark that the sacred writers
in general have frequently to labour under great difficulties in
expressing certain objects, owing to the paucity of specific names
in the Hebrew language. In such cases they select such terms
as they consider would best convey their ideas, and not un-
frequently, they are guided in their use of words by the
derivation. It is, therefore, highly necessary for the student
of the Bible to pay particular attention in doubtful cases both
to derivation and context.

From what htis been said above, we may sum up the work

people's commentary.

of the fifth clay's cveatfon to have comprehended all inhabitants
of the waters, the fowl of the air, including winged insects.

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after
their kiiul, cattle^ and reptiles, and beasts of tlte earth after their kind :
and it vxis so.

As the watei's were made to teem with living creatures, and
the air filled with winged birds and insects on the fifth day, it
remained now onlv to furnish the land with its inhabitants to
complete the work of creation. Hence, on the sixth day, at
the fiat of Jehovah, the eai'th brought forth all kinds of living
land animals by which, however, must not be understood that
any creative power was delegated to the earth, no more than
when it is said, verse 20, " Let the waters swarm with moving
creatures," &c., the language in both cases simply implies that
the creatures were to begin to exist. Hence the sacred writer
adds, verse 25, " And God made the beasts of the earth," &c., to
show that God created them.

To be more precise, Moses specifies these under three classes,
namely, n)3n3 (bchemah), a term which is generally applied to
domestic animals, though in later times its meaning became
gradually extended so as sometimes to include also all cjrass-
fiitivtj quadrupeds, whether tame or wild. The second class is
called tD73"l {yemes), which includes the smaller land animals
which move either without feet or with feet which are so small
that they are scarcely percejitible ; insects, reptiles, worms.
The inoviny things spoken of, in verse 21, as being created on
the fifth day, are inhabitants of the water, and hence it is dis-
tinctly stated, " which the waters brought forth abundantly,"
whilst the movl)ig things created on the sixth day are in verse
2G particularl}' specified as " moving things that move upon
the earth," the sacred writer was particulaily careful that the
two .should not be confounded with one another. The third
cla.ss is denoted by the term yij^ in^n {chayetho erets) literally

beasts of the earth, that is, such as roam freely about upon the
f.ice of the earth, which we genei'ally call toild beasts.

I may mention here that the term n^H (c/taiya/t) only means
a living animal according to its derivation, although this
term, no doubt, is generally applied to wild beasts in contra-
distinction to n)3nS {behemah) domestic animals. Hence we
find that term sometimes qualified as n3?T HTl (chaiyah raah)
"an evil beast," (Gen. xxxvii. 33) or nDD tTTT (chaiyath *kaneh)
" a beast of the reeds," it is, such a one as lurks in the reeds,
as the cj'ocodi/e. (Ps. Ixviii. 31.) But the Hebrew word does

n3p (kaneh) ; Greek, Kwva ; Latin, canna ; English, emu.

people's commentary.

ihabitants
nsects.

tturea after
their kind :

tures, and
fth clay, it
ibitants to
bh day, at
.8 of living
stood that
more than
th moving
aplies that
ired writer
th," &c., to

ree classes,
applied to
Qg became
) all fjrass-
?nd class is
[id animals
,re so small
es, ^vorm>i.
created on
;e it is dis-
undantly,"
ce in verse
lOve upon
il that the
The third
s) literally

upon the

Lnly means
lough this
|in contra-
[ence we
\yah raah)
th *kaneh)
\ the reeds,
rord does

not actually imply any vorpcity in the nature of these
animals, and it is, therefore, very probable that at the time of
their creation, and before the fall of man, although these
animals, no doubt, were endowed with different natures, some
being more or less adapted to be brought under the control of
man, still, I say, there is nothitig in the signification of the
Hebrew woi-d which would imply that they were at that time
as fierce and ravenous as they are at present. Indeed, the fact
that even the most ravenous of the wild beasts may be tamed
at least to some extent, if not altogether, strongly argues in
favour of their not having possessed that fierceness from the
beginning. Hence, Isaiah, in his vivid prophetic declaration,
ch. xi., 6-9, speaks of the happy time that shall be ushered in
when sin shall have ceased again from man, and tlie peaceful
kingdom of the branch that cometh out of the root of Jesse
shall have been established as one of universal peace and amity
between beasts and beasts, and beasts and man, implying, as it
were, that the same amity shall again reign as existed before
sin entered the world.

We come now to the crowning act of the creation, namely,
the creation of onan. The Fourth feriod was to bo preemi-
nently distinguished from the three previous geological periods
by the addition of the human family among the newly created
inhabitants of the earth. It is an admitted f xct, that there
never has been found a single fossil remain belonging to a,
human being, not even in the newest Tertiary beds, except
those nearest to our present surface. This conclusively proves
that the human species never existed before the Scriptural
account of creation.* ^ -. , i ^ / , , , ; > •::

* It is proper to mention here one I'ecorcled case of human skeletons
imbedded in a solid limestone rock, discovered on the shore of (iuadaloupe.
One of these skeletons is preserved in the British Museum. These fossil
remains are some times alluded to, and much stress laid upon them as if they
were of great antiquity, whilst, in reality they are comparatively of only recent
formation. According to General Ernouf : "The rock, in which the human
bones occur, is composed of consolidated sand, and contains also, shells of
species now inhabiting the adjacent sea and land, together with fragments of
pottery, arrows, and ha.tchets of stone. The greater number of bones are dis-
persed. One entire skeleton was extended in the usual position of burial ;
anotlier, which was in softer sandstone, seems to have been buried in a sitting
position, customary among the Caribs. The bodies thus differently interred,
may have belonged to two different tribes." General Krnouf also explains
'* thn occurrence of different scattered bones, by reference to a tradition of a
battle and massacre on tliis spot of a tribe of Gallibis by the Caribs, about the
year 1779, A. D. These scattered bones of the Gallibis were probably covei-ed
by the action of the sea with sand, which soon afterwards became converted
into solid rock." It is, however, admitted by all geologists, that the rock in
which these skeletons occur is of very recent formation. " Such kind of
stones," says Mr. Buckland, " are frequently formed in a few years from sand
banks composed of similar materials on the shores of tropical seas." (Sec Lin.
Transactions, 1818. Vol. xii., p. 53. Also Buckland's Geology and Mineralogy,
Vol. i. pp. 104, 105.)

people's COMMENTARlf.

Sir Charles Lyell, in his celebrated work, " Principles of
Geology," says : " But in none of these formations, whether
secondary, tertiary, or ' "luvial,. have the remains of man, or any
of his works, been discovered, and whoever dwells upon this
subject must be convinced that the present order of things, and
the comparatively recent existence of man as master of the
globe is as certain as the destruction of a former and a differ-
ent order, and the extinction of a number of living forms which
have no type in being." (Vol. i. p. 147.)

Professor Silliman, of Yale College, New Haven, Conn., in
his introduction to the American edition of Martell's "Wonders
of Geology," remarks : " It may, however, serve to engage the
attention of those to whom geology is a terra incognita, if we,,
in this place remark that no field of science presents more
gratifying, astonishing, and (but for the evidence) incredible
results. It strikes us that man has been but a few thousand
years a tenant of this world ; for, nothing which we discover
in the structure of the earth, would lead us to infer that he
existed at a point more 'remote than that assigned to him by
the Scriptures. Had he been contemporary with the animals
and plants of the early geological periods we should have
found his remains, and his works entombed along with them."
(Eng. edit., -vol. i. p. 16.)

There are, indeed, a few writers who, in their anxiety to
impugn the veracity of the Mosaic account of the creation,
appealed to Kent's Cavern of Torquay, as affording proof that
man must have existed at a much more remote period than that
which is assigned to him in Scripture. It appears that in that
cavern some human bones and flint of human workmanship
were found, together with the bones of extinct cavern animals,
beneath a bed of stalagmite deposits, which it is alleged must
have occupied a far greater i)eriod in forming than 6000 years.
Indeed, they pretend to calculate the time to such a nicety as
if they had been sitting there all the time with a chrono-
meter in their hands. Not having seen the famous cavern
myself, I am not in a position to express an opinion on the
subject, but I will appeal to authorities whose statements will,
I am sure, not for a moment be questioned. Milner, in his
work, entitled " The Gallery of Nature," (p. 252,) gives the fol-
lowing account : " Kent's Cavern in the limestone of North
Devon, about a mile from Torquay. It is said to be nearly six
hundred feet long, varying in width from two to seventy feet,,
and in height from one to six yards. The bones of extinct
animals are found to be buried in a mass of mud, covered over
with a crust of stalagmatic formation. From certain appear-
ances in this cavern, it seems to have been in former times the
habitation of man, perhaps the bandits' home."

people's commentary.

Maiiell, a well known and esteemed writer, in speaking of
Kent's Cave, near Torquay, remarks in his beautiful work,
" Wonders of Geology,' (vol. i., p. 182) : "But this cave is
invested with additional interest on another account which we
will briefly explain. The principal fissure extends 600 feet in
length, and there are several lesser lateral ones. The lower
part of the cave is filled up to a thickness of 20 feet, with
reddish sandy loam full of fossil bones. This is covered by a
layer of stalagmite from one to four feet thick, which fonns
the floor of the cave. Upon this is a slight covering of earthy
tnatter, with here and there patches of charcoal, a few human
bones, and fragments of coarse ancient potteiy have been
observed. Upon breaking through the sparry floor the ossifer-
ous earth is exposed, and imbedded with the fossil bones,
several flint knives with arrow and spear heads of flint, havo
been discovered. These stone instruments are of the same kind
as those found in the tumili of the early British tribes, and
unquestionably belong to the same period. This fact has given
rise to much curious speculation ; but the arguments which I
shall presently bring forward, when speaking of a similar
collection of works of art and human bones with those of
extinct cavern animals will, I conceive, show that the data
hitherto obtained, do not warrant the inference that these
relics were contemporary." And a little further on Martell
remarks: " When Kent's Cave was accessible, and before the
formation of the floor of stalagmite, some of the wandering
tribes of the early Britons may have crawled into the recess,
or occasionally sought shelter ; and stone implements, bones, or
any other hard substance left in the cave, would soon sink a
few feet in the soft ossiferous mud and become hermetically
sealed up, as it were, by the stalagmite deposits."

Buckland, in his " Geology and Mineralogy, published among
the Bridgevvater treaties (vol. vi. p. 104,) remarks : " The
occasional discovery of human bones and works of art in any
stratum within a few feet of a surface, affords no certain
evidence of such remains being co-eval with the matrix in
which they are deposited. The universal practice of interring
the dead, and frequent custon of placing various instruments
and utensils in the ground with them, offer a ready explanation
of the presence of bones of men in situations accessible for the
purpose of burial." And, at p. 105, he observes : " Frequent
discoveries have also been made of human bones, and rude
works of art, in natural caverns, sometimes inclosed in stalac-
tite, at other times in beds of earthy materials, which are
interspersed with bones of extinct species of quadrupeds.
These cases may, likewise, be explained by the common prac-
tice of mankind in all ages, to bury their dead in such

people's commextarv.

\n
ill

convenient repositories. The accidental circumstances, that
many caverns contained the bones of extinct species of other
iinimals dispersed through the same soil in which human bodies
may have been buried, affords no proof of the time when these
remains erf men were introduced." Buckland then goes on to
say: "Many of these caverns have been inhabited by savage
tribes, who, for convenience of occupation, have repeatedly
disturbed portions of soil, in which their predecessors may
have been buried. Such disturbance will explain the occa-
sional admixture of fragments of human skeletons, and the
bones of modern quadrupeds with those of extinct species,
iiitroduced at more eariy periods, and by natural causes."

There are, too, not a few cases on record, where fossil bones
of animals have been mistaken for human bones. Thus
Schemhzer, a physician, in the year 1726, desorited a schistus
rock from Peringen on the Rhine as containing an impression of
a man, and actually wrote a dissertation upon the subject
entitled Horao Dlluvii testis. In another work of his he main-
tains, " that it is indubitable, and that it contains a moiety, or
nearly so, of the skeleton of a man : that the substance even of
the bones, nay more, of the tiesh, are tiiere incoi'porated in tlie
stone: in fact, that it is one of the raj est relics which we
possess of that cursed race which were overwhelmed by the
Avaters of the Noachian flood." Now, it was rather cruel for
Cuvier to deprive this ancient relic of its interest by declaring
it to be nothing more than " a great salamandar." The femur
of the bear has sometimes been mistaken for the human thigh-
bone, to which it seems to bear a great resemblance. Any
number of eminent writers might be quoted, who distinctly
held that no traces of the human species, or of his works have
yet been found in the strata of the earth, or as some express
it, " below di-ift."

It may probably be convenient for naturalists to class man
with the animal kingtlom ; it is, however, plain the sacred
writer has regarded him as a far loftier being. Man, as far as
the structui'e of his body is concerned in many respects, no
doubt, bears a strong resemblance to the animal ; yet, on the
other hand, he possesses so many distinct characteristics which,
I think, fairly entitle him to a higher position. Even heathen
writers have not overlooked this important fact. " Many things
are mighty, but nothing is mightier than man," says the great
tragic poet Sophocles. And Ovid, one of the finest poets of
the Augustan age, beautifully and graphically describes the
ijuperiority of man in the following manner :

*' A crcatare of a more exalted kind
Was wanting yet, and then was man designed :
Conscious of thought, of more capacious bidast.

For empire formed, and fit to rule the rest :

• ♦••»•«•♦

people's COMMENTAllY.

Ithings

great

|)et3 of

|es the

Thus, while the whole creation downward beud
Their sight, and to their earthly mntlier teud,
Man looks aloft, and, with erected eyeii,
Beholds his own hereditary skies. "

(Dryden's Ovid, Met. I., 67, 77, 84-86.)

Aristotle also excluded man from the domain of the animal
kingdom, and his example has been followed by ft ho.st of
modern writers, who have more or lesa strongly protested
against " his introduction into an arrangement of the brute
mammalia." Man possesses yuch great and peculiar distinc-
tive characteristics which will ever defy any attempt to trace
his origin from the lower creation. Naturalists are accustomed
to appeal to resemblances, but take care not to touch upon the
real distinctive characteristics, such as intellectual and moral
endowments and the use of speech. Mr. Swainson has very
justly observed, "No w,'the very first law by which to be guided
in arrangement is this, that the object is to be designated and
classified by that property or quality which is its most distinc-
tive or peculiar characteristic. This law, indeed, is well under-
stood, and has only been violated by systematists when they
designate man an animal. Instead of classing him according
to his highest and most distinguishing property — Reason —
they have selected his very lowest qualities whereby to decide
upon the station he holds in the scale of creation." (Swain-
son on the Natural History and Class of Quadrupeds, pp. 8-10.

The sacred writer introduces the creation of man by repre-
senting God as taking counsel with Himself.

26. And God said, Let Ua make tJ^j^ (Admn) man in Our image,
after Our likeness : and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over tliefowloj heaven, and over t/te cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

" Let us make man," Moses couM not possibly have set forth
more forcibly the importance of the creation of man, than by
representing the Almighty after having by His mere fiat called
all things into existence, now first takes counsel with Himself
before He enters upon the act of the creation of man, for the
very idea of taking coun.sel in itself presupposes importance,
and it is undoubtedly the importance of the event that the
inspired writer wishes to convey by the statement. " And let
them have dominion." It was not to Adam alone that the power
of subduing the animals was given, but to his descendants like-
wise. But whilst man was invested with such great power, it
surely does not imply that he at any time is permitted to
misuse that power and unnecessarily inflict torture. Animals,
it should be borne in mind, are endowed with thf, sense of
6

FKOFLES COMMKXTAKY.

feeling as well as human beings, and, hence, to cause pain
unnecessarily to any of God's creatures is no less repi-ehensible
than to torture a human being. It is upon the principle of
causing as little pain in killing animals for domestic use, that
some of the rules in the Mishna (Treatise Cholin) are founded.
Whether these humane laws of the Mi>*hna exercise any influ-
ence upon the Jewish mind in general, I cannot sa^', but cer-
tain it is, the torturing of animals among the Jewish people is
of very rare occurrence either among the young or old,

Altfiough many animals greatly surpass man in courage, in
size and strength, yet by the possession of reason, with which
the Almighty has endowed him, all created beings are brought
under his rule.

27. "Anil God created man iii His image, in the image of GoeT
created He him; a male ami a female created He them."

This vei-se presents to us the momentous question, namely,
in what respect can man be said to bear the image of Grod ?
Surely not in respect to his body, for that, according to
Genesis ii., 7, was formed "of the dust of the ground;" and in
this respect man can claim no superiority over the beasts of
the field and the fowl of the air, which, according to vei-se 19,
were similarly formed. In what, then, does this resemblance
exist ? The answer to this question is afforded in the same
verse which informs us of the low origin of our body, for it
likewise tells us that God, after having foi'med man of the dust
of the ground. He "breathed into his nostrils (D^Tl £17303 nish-
math cfiai-yim) the spirit of life." It is by this act of God's
breathing in the nostrils of Adam "the spirit of life," that man
became the image and likeness of God. The reader will please
to notice, too, that man did not become "a living creature" by
God merely breathing upon him, but lie having "the spirit of
life" breathed "into his nostrils." Hence Daniel speaks of his
body as the sheath of his spirit: "I, Daniel, was grieved in ray
spirit in the midst of my (nDlD nidneh) sheath," (Eng. vers,
"body"; but in the margin the literal rendering "sheath" is
given). Hence, too, St. Paul says, "Know ye not that ye are
the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you?" (1 Cor. iii., 16.) The body is the temple, the spirit is
the dweller.

It is related of an ancient philosopher, who was slighted by
Alexander the Great, on account of his ugly face, to have
answered the monarch, "The body of a man is nothing but the
scabbard of a sword, in which the soul is put up." (See the
Herbelot, Biblioth. Orientale, p. 842).

The following beautiful staiizas on the soul, are taken from

people's commentary.

rhich

id by

have

|ut the

e the

from

the " Critica Biblica," the author's name in not given. (Vol. ii.,
p. 2C3).

"Hail ! everlasting spirit— breath iHvine

Of the Almiuhty — Heaven's bright offspring, hail I

When BUD, and moon, and stars shall cease to shine,
Anil earth, and air, and ocean's waters fail,

Thou still siialt be — immortal figure thine,
Their history dhall be unto thee a tale

Of times so distant, ages so long past,

Thou would'st forget them, could thy knowledge wusu.

Hail ! thou bright effluence of the Eternal Mind 1

Made in his image, form'd for his delight ;
Onlain'd to triumph in the unconfined,

And blissful presence of the infinite —
Yes, thou shaft live, shalt really live, and find,

Age, sickness, sorrow, pain, death, vauish'd (|uite —
Unless thou now thy proncr'd gootl refusest.
And earthly pleasure for thy portion chooseat.

Man having become the image and likeness of God, hence it
is, that the crime of murder was by Divine commandment to
be punished with death : " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God made he
man." (Gen. ix. 2.) For he that taketh man's life effaces by
that act the image of God. It is for this reason, also, that the
Psalmist says: "And yet thou hast made him," (i.e., man), a little
lower than the angels." (Ps. viii. 6 ; Eng. v. 5.) Ziegler, an
eminent German writer, has also very pertinently remarked
on this passage : " The breath of God became the soul of man ;
and the soul of man, therefore, is nothing but the breath of
God. The rest of the world exists through the word of God ;
man through his peculiar breath." Hence, Solomon also said
that " the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Eccl.
xii. 7.)

Some of the Greek and Roman writers seem to have become
forcibly impressed with this Bible doctrine, and many of their
expressions regarding the nature of man even bear a strong
similarity to those employed in Scripture. Lucretius says :
" The earth is properly called our mother ; that which conies
from the earth, returns again into the eai th ; and that which
was sent down from the regions of the sky, the regions of the
sky again receives when carried back to them." (ii. 997-1000.)
Euripides observes: "The body returns to the earth from
whence it was formed, and the spirit ascends to the ether."
(Suppl. 532-534.)

The ancient Egyptians too, considered the soul to be essen-
tially distinct from the body, and only connected with it
through the link of life. Its nature was divine, and after death
it passed to the great judgment hall where its future destiny is

peuplk: s commentary.

determined by Osiris. The soul is soinetitnes represented ia
hieroglyphical writings as a casket of fire, the cnsket syinboli-
zing the uody, and the fire the apint.

As the doctrine of the immortality of the soui has within
some few years past been especially attracting a great deal of
attention, and the lecture room, the pulpit, as well as the pen,
have been made the vt: ' .l*^ for promulgating some very
erroneous ideas concenung it, even by pei*sons who should
think themselves greatly insulted to be classed among those
belonging to the rationalistic school, it may perhaps not 1^
uimcceptable to my rea«lers if I enter here somewhat more
iully upon the description of this highly important subject.

The Sadducees, who rejected the vital doctrine of the immor-
tality of the soul, held by the Jewish Church, as a consequence
denied also the existence after death. In modern times the
views of the Sadducees have been s<jmewhat modified, so as
not to appear altogether in quite such a repulsive form.

Most of my readers are no doubt aware that of late years
a theory has been gaining ground, that man possesses no
immoi'tal spirit, but that immortality is a gift after death as a
rewanl for a pious life, whilst the wicked, on the contrary,
cease to exist after death, or in other words, are whoHy annihi-
lated. It will, I think, be no difficult task to show that this
theory is altogether unscriptural.

I have above shown, th.it man bears the image of God only
in as far as he poss«'sses QT»n t172TOD {nishmath chai-yim)
" the spirit of life," which the Almighty breatlied into his
nostrils. The rendering of the English version, " breath of
life," does not convey the proper meaning of the original, for
the Hebrev.' word nJ3D3 {neshamaJi), I maintain, denotes
According to Scripture usage Gwl'a oivn spirit, and not the
oi'dinary breath. In order to make this important point clear
to the reader, it is necessary to observe, that there are two
other words in Hebrew, namely, XDB'2 {nepliesh) and nil
{ru-ach), which are in our authorized version also sometimes
rendered by breath, so that from that version it would be
impossible to know which of the three words is employed in
any given passage. But these two words have, in common
with other Hebrew words various shades of meanings, and are
used in reference to animals, which is not the case with the
term (iTatDD (neshamah), which, I hold, is only applied to God,
and to man as possessing a soul, w^hich is the spirit of God.
As this is a very impoi-tant point, I will adduce a few examples,
and ask the reader to pay particular attention to the Hebrew
terms. And fii-st, the term XDB'2^ [nephesh), is applied to all
.kinds of animals, as Gen. i, 24, "Let the earth bring forth

pkople's commentary.

nephpsh chaiyah living creutnrcs aftor their kintl, cattle, arul
creeping things, and Iteasts of the earth after their kind." So
also chapter ii. 10, and in many other places.

It is also freciuently employed to express the j^ersonal pro-
nounn, as Numbera xxiii. 10 : " Let "tUBS {'>i(tj>slti) ine die the
death of the righteous." So Job xxxii. 2, "against Job was
his wrath kindle<l, because he justitied IITBS {ndphtiho) himself
i-atlier than God."

It is fm-ther used sometimes to denote life, as Exodus xxi.
23: "And if any mischief follow, thou shalt then give ©Bl
^£3 nnn {neptie>*h tachdth iwpesh) life for life." Nay more,
it is even used to denote the. (le<«l, or de<ul Inulij, as Lev. xxi. 1 :
"There .shall none be defiled tDB5b {lencphesh) for the dead
among his people." So again, verse 11 : " Neither shall he go
to any fiTa niTBD {naphskath meth) dead body." The word
is, however, unquestionably .sometimes u.sed to denote the
sjtirH or Hoid, OH hr instance, Gen. xxxv. 15: "And it came
to pass that when nttEO (wipshah) her soul was in departing."
Again, P.s. xvi. 10: "For thou wilt not leave '''QJBD {i^uphshi)
my noul in hell." So again Ps. cxlvi. 1, "Praise the Lord
"rSD {naphshi), my sou/."

In like manner the word ni"! (ru-ach) has various shades of
m*»aning, Thu.s, it denotes the »2^iint of God, as Gen. i. 2,
" And rm (ru-ach) the spirit of God moved upon the face of
the waters," Again it is used to denote the wind, as Gen viii.
1,'And God cau.sed riTl {ru-ach) a wind to pass over the^
eaith." In Eccles. iii. 19, it is applied to man and Ijeasts ;
" yea, they have all one ^'\'\ (ra-och) hre<ith." And so again,
Chro. V. 21. The word n?2®D (veahamah) on the contrary, as^
we have stated, is only applied to God and man. Let us.
ex.-unine a few passages where it occurs. In Deut. xx. 16, we
read: " But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thj-
Gol doth give thee for an inheritance, thou .shalt not save
alive any MTa^J (neshamah) human being," i.e., any one that
lias (neshamah) the spirit of God within him. The render-
ing of the English version, " nothing that breathed," is a free
rendering, and might lead to the supposition that it included
also the animals, but the following verse distinctly shows that
the terra {neshamah, only refei-s to human beings: " But thou
shalt utterly de.stroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the
Aniorites," &c In accordance with this command we read
Josh. X. 40, that Joshua " left none remaining, but utterly
destroyed every (neshamah) human being. (English version
again, " all that breathed,") See also 1 Kings xv. 29, xxvii. 17-

It will thus be seen that m these passages human beings arfr
designated by the very term which is employed in pen. il 7-

.38

PEOPLES (JOMMESTAUY.

:'i I

as having been breathed into the nostrils of Adam by which
he became " a living creature."

But further, Isaiah speaks of man as having this (neahamah)
spirit with him,

" Cease ye from man whose {rwiliamah) spirit is in his nostrils." — (Is. ii. 22.)

It is, desist from putting your confidence in man whose
spirit is in his nostrils which has only been given to him, and
may, at any time again be taken from him.

And the book of Psalms closes with the beautiful exhorta-
,tion :

" Let every (hanneshamali) hnman being praise the Lord."
Eng. version, " Let everything that hath breath."

In Jol>. xxxiii. 4, the term neshamah is spoken of as the
:8pirit of the Almighty that giveth life :

*' The spirit of God (ru-ach el) hath made me,
And (nishmalh ahaddai) the spirit of tJie Almighty hathjgiven me life."

Here the reader will observe Job draws the distinction, it is
.not the (ru-ack) that gave him life, but the (neahamah) which
was breathed into the nostrils of Adam.

Besides the passages above quoted the term nTStCU (neshamah)
occurs only in the following places in the Old Testament,
namely : Gen. vii. 22, 2 Sam. xxii. 15, Job iv. 9, xxvi. 4,
xxvii. 3, xxxii. 8, xxxiv. 14, xxxvii. 10, Ps. xviii. 16 (Eng. vers.
v. 15) Fiov. XX. 27, Is. Ivii. 16, Dan. v. 23, x. 17.* The reader,
on referring to these pas.sages, will find that the term (neaha-
mah) in everj'^ instance, is either applied to God or man. In
Gen. vii. 22, at first sight, it is apparently also extended to the
animals ; but on a closer examination of the passage, and when
taken in com f>ction with the preceding verse, it will be found
that such is jiot the case. The passage, beginning at verse 21,
reads : " And 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." Then verse
22, goes on to say: "All in whose nostrils was nil fTS'^JS
C^TI (nismath ru-ach chai-yim) the breath of the spirit
of life, of all that was in the dry land died." The ex-
pression, "in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit
of life," evidently is only explanatory of "every man" at the
end of verse 21, for the destruction of the animals has already
been described in the former part of verse 21. The sacred

•The above quotations are taken from Furst's " Hebrew Concordance," the
most perfect Concordance published.

PEOPr.ES COMMENTARY.

thing
verse

nrit

ex-

spiiit

it the

ready

kacred

le,"the

■writer, having stated that all inferior animals had perished,
then goes on to say : " and every man : Every one in whose
nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life "; and then, in older
to give additional force to his declaration, he adds: "of all
that was in the dry laud died." We may remark, too, that in
the original the phrase, " and every man," at the end of verse
21, is sepai'ated from what i)recedes by one of the two greatest
•disjunctive accents in the language, which shows that the
phrase was regarded as forming an independent sentence. In
the English vei^sion it is punctuated by a comma, instead of a
colon or temicolon, which are the proper equivalent to the
Hebrew accent.

I have rendered, as the reader will have perceived, the term
n?3tCD (neshamah) by huvum being, to show that it refers
exclusively to man, as the rendering " living creature," or living
being Jis given in the Lexicons, or " every thing that hath
breath," as rendered in the English version, might be taken as
including the animals also.

From the foregoing remarks it will be seen that the term
n)aT2J3 (neshamah), according to scriptural usage is a special
term for designating the spirit of God and the rational soul of
man, which at once indicates the close affinity of man with his
Creator ; and it is the possession of this spirit which so im-
measurable exalts man above all other creatures. Hence the
Psalmist exclaimed, ,

Wha h man, that thou art mindful of him ?
And the son of man, that thou shouldst visit him ?
And yet thou hast made him only a little lower than the *angels ;
- And hast crowned him m -th glory and honor.

(Ps. viii. 5, 6, Eng. vers. 4, 5.)

Dr. Tupper .seems to have been fully impressed with the force
and importance of the words, " and he breathed into his no.stiils
the .spirit of life," when he penned the following graphic and
beautiful lines, on the immortality of the soul :

"Gird up thy mind to contempl.ition, trembling habitant of the earth : j^.j

Tenant of a hovel for a day, thou art heir of the universe for ever!

For neither the congealing of the grave, nor gulfing w.aters of the firmament,

Nor exp.insive airs of Heaven, nor discipative tires of Gehenna,

Nor rust of rest, nor wear, nor waste, nor loss, nor chance, nor change,

Shall avail to quench or overwhelm the spark of soul within thee!

* It is proper to state here that the word rendered "angels" in the above
passage, in the original is Qin^^ (Elohim) Oai-!, one of the appellations of the
Deit}', and is precisely the same which is employed in Grn. i. 26: "And
(Elohim) God said, let us make man." It is, however, quite evident that the
term was sometimes used in the sense of angels, for the Septuagint, Chaldee,
and .Syriac versions, and also St. Paul in qu ting this passage, Heb. ii. 7, have
rendered it in that manner. Still many modern critics, and among them
Geseiiius, Ewald, and De Wette, persist in translating, " thou hu£t made him
a little hiwer than God "

■H9H

people's commentary.

Thou art an imperishable leaf on the evergreen bay-tree of existence ;

A word of Wisdom's mouth, that cannot he unspoken ,

A ray of Love's own light ; a drop in Mercy's sea ;

A creation, marvellous and fearful, begotten by the fiat of Omnipotence.

I, that speak in weakness, and ye, that hear in charity.

Shall not cease to live and feel, though flesh may see corruption ;

For the prison gates of matter shall l^ broken, and the shackled soul go free."'

Scripture declai-es this n^atfii (neshamah) also to be the seat
of understanding, " the candle of the Lord " which kindles
the intellectual powers of man.

*' The spirit (tl^StUD neshamali) of man is the candle of the Lord ;
Searcliing all the chambers (i.e., the inmost parts) of the *body.

(Prov. XX. 27.)

" I thought days (t.«., age) would speak ;
And multitude of years show forth wisdom,

But it is (m"l ru-ach) the spirit in man,

Ever (iTO InTStCD nishviath nhad(lai) the breath of the
Almighty t/ial giveth them understanding."

(Job xxxii. 7-8.)

It is neither from length of days nor multitude of ye.irs, that
understanding is to be expected, it is the spirit, which God
bieathed into the nostrils of man, that gives it.

Although the intellectual powers vary greatly in capacity
among individuals and races in the human family, yet they
are in no case entirely wanting. Mr. Otway, in speaking of
the instincts of animals, in his work on " The Intellectuality
of Animals," justly observes : " I find no development whatso-
ever of the religious principle — not a spark of the expectation
of another life." With man we see in the lowest of his specie*
an expansiveness in the intellectual and moral structure, that
})roduces longings for immortality ; and within the most
darkened of the human race you can light up the aspirations,
the hopes, and fears connected with another world. Compare
in this way the lowest of the human family — the Bushmen of
South Africa, whom Captain Harris, in a recent work describes
as follows : — '• They usually reside in holes and crannies in
rocks ; they possess neither flocks nor herds ; they are unac-
quainted with agriculture ; they live almost entirely on bulbous
roots, locusts, reptiles, and the larvte of ants ; their only dress is^
a piece of leather round their waist, and their speech resembles

* English Version : " Inward parts of the belly," but "ItDS (beten) belly, is-
sometimes metaphorically used in the sense of body, or that part oftlw. body which
the SebreMTS regarded as tlie seat of thought or of affection, namely, the heart, or
reitu. As, for example, Job xv. 35 :

Thei/ conceive in mischief, and bring forth iniquity.

Their heart (t35t3lll bitjiam, lit., their belly) prepared deceit."

PEOPLES COMMENTAKY.

lies m
lunac-
Ubouf*
i-ess if^
Lnbles

pelly, is-
f which
\art, or

rather the chattering of monkej's than the language of human
beings. Now there is little or nothing here better than what
is found airongst the inferior animals. But, let us take &
young Bushman, and put his mind under a right educational
process, and we shall soon excite in him what we must ever
fail to do in the young monkey, or dog, or elephant. We can
communicate w him the expressiveness that belongs to any heir
of immortality ; within him are the germs of faith, hope, and
religious love, which do not exist in inferior animals."

" A male and a female created he them." The rendering of,
the passage in our Authorized Version, " male and female
created he them," has been construed by some moilern natural-
ists and physiologists — more especially among those of the
United States — as indicating a plurality of createtl races of
men. Of the most eminent of those who espoused this theory,
we may mention Professor Agassiz, Dr. Morton, Dr. Nott, Dr.
J. C. Warren, Professor Gibson, Dr. Kneeland. All these take
the ground that " the received opinion that all human beings
arc descended from one pair — Adam and Eve — is not supported
by the Mosaic record." This positive as3ertion can only have
been grounded on the rendering of the English version, for
the original unmist ikably teaches quite the opposite, since the
teims "i3t (sachar) a male, and nipD (nekevah) a female, are

nouns and not adjectives, and. therefore, should have been
rendtred as I have done, " a male" and " a female." Had the
sacrod writer wished to indicate that more than one pair had
been created, the nouns would not have been used in the
singular, but with a plural form. In Gen. vii. 3, these very
terms occur again where they are correctly rendered in our
version " of the fowl of the air b}'- sevens, nnp3l "IDT (sachar
imvhvah) the male and the female. But even if the terms
were adjectives they would still require the plural form, for in
HlIhow, contrary to what obtains in the English language,
plural adjectives assume, like nouns, a plural form.

Ill the second chapter, where the creation of Adam and Eve
is more fully described, they are spoken of as "ujij^ {ish) man,
and n'pi^ {ish-sha) xuoman. There is nowhere the slightest
indication that originally more than one human pair had been
created. Even the infidel writers Voltaire, Rousseau, Peyrcre,
Gibbon, Paine, and Lord Kames, insisted upon that " the
unity of the human races is everywhere taught in the Bible ;"
but it was not in order to uphold the veracity of Scripture vliat
they insisted upon this, but rather that they might use it as a
weapon against it, for they persistently maintained " that there
are distinct species — that they could not have sprung from a
single pair — that in all the varieties there are impassable lines,
and that the Bible, therefore, can: jt be true."

people's commentauy.

rlHiv

m II

The writers, however, who reject the doctrine of the unity
of racevS, are perfectly insignificant, both in talent and number,
as compared with those who maintain it. A list of names
affords no very interesting reading, still as the subject is a
highly important one, affecting as it does a vital scriptural
doctrine, the reader, I am sure, will bear with me in giving a
list of the most eminent writers at least whose opinion on this
point is entirely in accord with the Bible teaching.

And here deserve first to be mentioned such renowned
.scholars as Cardinal Wiseman, Archbishop Sumner, Chevalier
Bunsen, Faber, Stanhope, Locke, Stillingfleet, Sir Walter
Kaleigh, Sir James Mackintosh, Archbishop Whately, Lord
Bacon, and Dougald Steward, who remarks: " The cai)acities
of the human mind, have in all ages been the same, and the
diversity of phenomena exhibited by our species is the result
merely of the different circumstances in which men are placed."

Of very great importance is the testimony afforded by such
eminent Medical Men as Prichard, Abernethy, Carpenter,
Rush, McCulloch, Combe, Sir Charles Bell, Tiedemann, Sir
John Uichardson, Boerhave, and Johannes Muller, said 1
have been one of the greatest anatomists of our age.

Of the most eminent Naturalists w^ho maintained the unity
of races, we may mention Humboldt, Lyell, BufFon, Blumen-
bach, Darwin, Cuvier, Leichenbach, Ernleben, Linnjeus, Audu-
bon, Sir William Hooker, Professor Buckland, and Professor
Owen, who says : " I am not aware of any modification of form
or size in the negro's brain, which would support the inference
that the Ethiopian race would not profit by the same influences
favouring mental and moral improvement, which have tended
to elevate the primitively barbarous white races."

The unity of races has likewise been maintained by such
eminent Ethnoouaphers and Linguists as Count de Gebelin,
Frederick Schlegel, Abel Remusat Niebuhr, Herder, Hamilton,
Count Goulianotf, Professor Vater, Sir William Jones, Gallatin,
Hodgson, Sharon Turner, Grotius, Grimm, Ritter, Reicshen-
berger, and Barrington.

To these we might add the Academy of St. Petersburg, the
Fiench Academy of Science, the Encyclopedia Metropolitana,
and Brande's Encyclopedia. In order not to exhaust the reader's
patience, I have selected only a few names from the long list of
authorities that I have lying before me.

One of our most prominent citizens forwarded to me a book
entitled " The Negro, what is his Ethnological Status ?"
asking my opinion as to the correctness of the definitions given
of the Hebrew terms, upon which the ivriter and his reviewer
based their arguments to prove that the negro is not a
human being at all. The gentleman, in his note, stated that a

people's commentary.

friend of his had been influenced by the arguments put forward
in the book, and felt anxious to know whether these Hebrew
terms really admitted of such an interpretation. As this is a
suitable place, I will now fulfil my promise by furnishing my
reply. I may at the outset say, that as the book is written
under the fictitious name "Ariel," that alone is sufiicient to
render the book univovthy of any notice. A writer who pro-
mulgates such a startling theory as " that the negro belonged
to the beast creation," (p. 4), and professes to found his out-
rageous theory upon Scripture, ought, in all fairness, to have
written under his proper name, and not, in a cowardly manner,
endeavour to shield himself from the lash of criticism behind
the shelter of an assumed name. It is indeed but a lame excuse
to say : " We have written over a fictitious signature because
the facts and the truths are all of God, and belong to God."
Why then be afraid when certain of having such a solid
foundation ? Ariel, w^ho professes to be so learned in Scripture,
ought to have remembered the Scriptural saying : " If God he
for us, who can he against us ?" After having gone over the
book, however, I must say, the only sensible thing that I could
discover in the whole book is, the withholding of the author's
name. The book, from beginning to end, displays such an
amount of ignorance and vulgarity, that one can hardly bring
oneself to believe that it has been written by a person in his
proper senses. I feel quite certain the reader will be of the
same opinion, by the time I have done with Ariel.

Hear this great teacher, he says: "Let me correct the ortho-
graphy of this word negro : In Hebrew it is nlggar ; in Syro-
Chaldaic it is nig'ar; in Latin it is niger; in Portuguese and
other modern languages it is negro." (p. 37.) Now as to the two
first-mentioned langunges, the man must renily be joking, for
there is no such word to be found in any Hebrew or Syro-
Chaldaic Lexicon. The only word in Hebrew that approaches
even in sound is the verb "^53 {nagar) tojiow.

In the Old Testament the people of hlack colour are always
spoken of as D'^IDllS (Cashim) Ciishitcs, which, in our version,
is always rendered by " Ethiopians." Hence we have the
expression :" Can the I'QJ^S (Gushi) Cushite change his skin?"
(Jer. xiii. 23.) Now the Cushites were descendants of Cush,
the eldest son of Ham, and grandson of Noah. It is altogether
erroneous to limit the Cushites to Ethiopia, as is done in our
version, for it would involve some })assnges of the Old Testa-
ment into utter confusion. Thus, in Gen. ii. 13, the river Gihon
is said to encompa.ss "the whole land of Cush," rendered in our
version, " the whole land of Ethiopia," which is an impo.saibility
if the river Gihon is one of the four rivers that is.sued from the
garden of Eden. " The land of Cush," here spoken of, was a

PEOPLES COMMENTAllY.

ii,

■■-!>f

mi;

tract of country in Arabia. In fact, the descendants of Cush
apparently inhabited countries widely separated from each
other. And thus we can understand how it was that Zipporah,
the daughter of Jethnj and wife of Moses, is, in Numb. xii. 1,
called a " Cushite," (Eng. vers. " an Ethiopian.")

Ariel's next essay in Hebrew philology is, his definition of
Hebrew words, which will rather startle the philologists of the
present day. He remarks : " We set out with some four Hebrew
words, Adhavi, ha Adam, designating the son of God, the ivhite
man, and iah, designating the negro or black " man." Enosh
designating the mulatto, the first-cross of white nnd black, and
anshnj, designating the further cross of the white with the
mulatto." (p. 97.)

This definition of the four Hebrew words is quite the oppo-
site to what has ever been held by Hebrew critics without a
single exception. They have always regarded the term ish to
be expressive of a higher rank than the term Adam. But
Ariel calls upon his readers not to mind what Gesenius and
other Hebrew philologists say, but what the Bible says. Well,
as he appeals to the Bible, to the Bible we will take him, and
prove to the entire sati^^faction of the reader, that according to
Ariel's definition of the Hebrew words all the ancient Hebrews,
from Adam to Malachi, were all negroes.

Let us now commence with Adam. In Gen. ii. 23, we read :
"And (Haadam) the man said, this is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh, on this account, she shall be called
{inh-shah) woman, because out of {ish) man she was taken."
Here, it will be seen, Adam calls himself ish, and his wife ish-
shnh, which is onl}' the feminine form of ish, because she had
been taken out of man. According to Ariel's definition then,
of ish, Adam was a negro, and, therefore, called his wife a negress.

Let us now go a step further. In ch. iv. I, we read : " And
Adam knew Eve, his wife ; and she conceived, and bare Cain,
and said, I have gotten (ish) a man from the Loud. According
to Aiiel then, Cain was a negro. Let us now go on to Noah.
In ch. vi. 9, we read ; " These are the generations of Noah :
Noah was a righteous (ish) man, and perfect he was in his
generations." This righteous and perfect Noah, according to
Ariel, was a negro also.

in Gen. xxxix. 2, it is said of Joseph, "And the Lord was
with Joseph, and he was a prosperous (ish) man " ; not an
Adam, but an ish, therefore he must have been a negro also.
In Exod. iv. 10, Moses speaks of himself as an ish : " And Moses
said unto the Lord, my Lord, I am not (ish) a man of
■words," (i. e., an elegant speaker).

In Deut. xxxiii. 1, Moses is spoken of as ish Haelohim, " the
man of God," so according to Ariel's definition Moses also was
a negro, and not a ^vhite man.

PKOPLES COMMKNTAUY.

In 2 Chron. viii. 14, David is also called ish Haelohim. " the
man of God." So David must have been a negro also. There
is really no use of quoting any more passages, for, as I have
stated, if ish is a term applied to the negro, then there is no
other conclusion that we can come to, but that the people of
Israel belonged to the tiegro race.

Ariel is no more fortunate in his definition of the other two
Hebrew words. "Enosh," he observes, designates the "mulatto."
Why, if Ariel's definitions are correct the white man is nowhere.
By his making ish to designate the negro, he has made negroes
of all the ancient Israelites including all the holy men and
prophets ; and now by making enosh to designate " the mulatto,"
he makes mulattoes of the rest of the human family. The term
enosh is seldom used in the sense of the singular, but more
commonl}' collectively for the whole hnman race. Thus Pssdm
vii. 5 :

" What in {enosh) man, that thou art mindful of him ?
And the son of (Adam) man, that thou shouldst visit him ?"

This verse contains what is in Hebrew poetry termed a
synonymous parallelism, namely, where an idea is expressed
in the first clause of the verse, and the same idea is repeated
again, but in other words, in the second clause. " Enosh" and
" Adam" in the verse are, therefore, synonymous terms, mean-
ing one and the same thing. And yet the enosh, who Ariel
would not allow as much as to be human beings, are in the
next verse spoken of as being made only " a little lower than
the angels."

Job uses similar language regarding the 67108^. _.,

^ "What »■» {enosh) man, that thou shoulds't magnify him ?

And that thou shouldst set chine heart upon him. " — (Ch. viL 7. )

"We come next to the term " anshey," which Ariel says,
" designates a further cross of the white with the mulatto." In
making this statement he displays an amount of ignorance
which would be unpardonable even in a Hebrew student of
only six months' standing. The word i'05i^ " anshe" is merely
the genitive forme — or as it is in Hebrew grammar called the
construct form — of the plural noun d'TJDi^ (anashim) men,
which is the form commonly used as the plural of 'gj'i^ ("ish,")
a man, which Ariel says designates "the negro." so that, accord-
ing to his own definitions, the singular noun ish denotes " the
negro," and the same noun in the plural " the mulatto." Now,
we have clearly shown that if "ish" denotes "the negro,"
the Hebrews must all have been negroes, we will now equally
as clearly show that if "anshe" d-^notes " the mulatto," the
Hebrews must all have been mulattojs.

PEOPLES COMMENTAUV.

?! ■ *

In 1 Samuel vii. 2, we read : " And the men of Israel (aushe
Yitfruel) sent out of Mizpeh," according to Ariel it should read
the muhitloea of Israel. This expression, and the expression
(anHlui Yehudah) meii of Judak, occur very frequently in the
OKI TestaTuent.

We have now done Avith Ariel, and we must say, it has
happily never fallen to our lot to meet with such wilful and
barefaced misconstruction of Scriptural passages as are found
in Ariel's book. The whole stj'le, however, betrays his gieat
animosity towards the colouied race, and it is easily perceived,
that the book was evidently designed to inflame the mind of
the American people against it ; and in order to gain his object
the writer did not scruple to have recourse to the most out-
rageous statements. What staggers me is, that such a miserable
production should have required a second edition. Surely,
there is no accounting for some people's tastes.

The language which Moses employs in verse 27 unmistakably
speaks of the creation of one wan only; and God created
Clfi^n (liaddam) the man in his own image. In the precedi ig
verse the term tj^j^ (Adam) was used to designate the human
species, " and God said let us make t]lJS< (Adam) man," it is
'inankind, in this verse the same term is applied to its type
the fii-st man. The translators have : " So God created man,"
omitting, in a most unaccountable way, the article which, in
Hebrew, is sometimes employed with a common appellative
noun, in order to restrict its application to a particular object
which is pre-eminent over all others of its class. Thus "inSH

(hah-kohen) the priest, i. e. the high priest. Lev. xxi. 21.

"ItsiU (Satan) an adversary, but ntofen (hassatan) the adversary,

i. e. Satan. (Job. i. 6.) So in the passage before us dlfi^iT
(haddam) " the man," the article is emplo3'ed by way of pre-
eminence to indicate that Adam was " the man" who was
created by the immediate act of God Himself. And so again,
eh. ii. 7, "and the Lord God formed tn&^H (haddam) the man
of the dust of the ground." In a similar manner the translators
have omitted the article in Isa. vii. 14, and rendered : " Behold
HTabjn (hadlmah) a virgin," instead of " the virgin," namely,
" the virgin" of whom Immanuel was to be born.

We have seen that God Himself had bestowed the names on
things after they had been called into existence, and so accord-
ing to Gen, V. 11, the name Adam was likewise given by God
Himself " A male and a female created He them, and blessed
them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were
created." The term d;j^ (Adam) can therefore not be a mere
meaningless name : let us then inquire what may be its
import.

PKOPLfc.S COMMENTARY.

A great many critics havo derived the term CTJ^ (/-darn)
from nTaiii {Adamah) the (jvoaiid, in reference to Adam hav-
inij been formed of tlie dust of the ifrouiid. This, at first sight,
soetns to he a very plausible derivation, and no wonder that it
has been adopted by so many commentators. And, yet, there
are two great objections to deriving the word in this manner.
In tlie first place, the term Adam in that cnse woidd be as
applicable to " tlie beast of the Held," and " the fowl of the air,"
which were likewise formed from the ground, according to
Gen. ii. 10, and hence, would form no distinctive appellation of
the Imman ^pecieH. Further, and I beg to L^raw the reader's
particular attention to this point, in the account of the creation
oi nmn, hitf earthly origin is not so much dwelt upon as Jiis
heavenly origin. Tn Gen. i. 27, where the creation of man is
spoken of, his earthly origin is not even alluded to. It is only
in ch. ii. 7, where the creation of man is more fully described,
that his earthly origin is mentioned.

la the second place, it is quite against the genius of the
Hebrovv language to derive viascidinc from feniinine nouns.
In the Hebrew the mji.sculino nouns have the simplest form,
and froui them the corresponding feminine names are formed
hy mhWngiXiQ feminine endinj. Thus we have 'ttjij^ (is/i) a
man, nffli< (ish-shah) a woman. 13?3 {nadr) a hoy, (na-drah)
a f//r/, but not vice versa, this peculiarity seems to intin)ate the
fact of the priority of man's creation. Now as HTDli^ (adamah)
the (jroxind, is a feminine noun ; it would be altogether agains*.
this rule to derive the term a^5^ {Adam) which is masculine,
irom it. ,, ;^,'.„ i^;;/ •,; '

Seeing these objections, by far the more numerous writers
have fallen back upon the more common mode ot deriving
nouns, namel3%from the verb, and hence, have derived the term
0^55 {Adavi) from the verb QTJ^ (adam) to be red or ruddy, in
reference to the ruddy or flesh tint of the countenance peculiar
to the ('aucasian race. ' Now, whilst there cannot be the slight-
est objection urged to such a derivation on philological grounds,,
still, there is this great objection, as the term is a generic term
of the human species, it would, therefore, not be an appropriate
one to a very large portion of the human family. Indeed,
we would here have to light a battle with the Chinese, for they,
in ord«r to suit their complexion, insist upon man having been
foi-med from yellmv earth. For my part — even leaving the
objections which I have mentioned altogether out of the ques-
tion — I have always regarded that the word mj^ {Adam)
would be more suitably derived from the verb nTST {damoJi)
to resemble, to he alike, because 9?ia/i was created Qinbjj^ tn^nil.
{bidinuth Elohim) " in the likeness of God," (Gen. v. 1,) the
Hebrew word for likeness being also derived from the verb
»l?ai (dttmah), to be alike.

people's commextarv.

Some Hebraists may probably ask me to account for the
letter 55 in the word 2155 (Adam) if derived from rjTai {dauuili).
I answer, that it must Ije taken as ((formative letter emplojed
sometimes in forming nouns from the verb as n3155 (arln-k) a
locunt, from nai {ravah), to mxdtiply. nipS^ {ekdach) a sptirk-
ing gem, from nip {Icadach) to kindle.

29. A nd God said. Behold, I have given to you every herb bearing
$eed, which is upon tlte lohole/ace 0/ the earth, and every tree, in vohidk
is tlie fruit of a tree yielding seed ; to you it shall be for food.

30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of heaven, ami
to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I liave
given every herb for food ; and it was so.

From these two verses it appears that at first God appointed
the fruits and herbs only as food both for man nud beast. Man
was to subsist upon seed bearing plants and the fruits of trees,
whilst the animals were to feed upon herbs anrl the gi-ass of
the fields. There was to be no destroying of life, but peace
and concord wa^ to reijjn amontr all creatures. And a.«» it was
at fii-st before sin, and with it all other evils entered the world,
so it shall be in the happy and glorious time of the Mes-
siah, when sin shall again disappear, and universal peace .shall
be restored to all creatures. Then the wolf and the lamb,
and the leopard and the kid, will again lie down together, and
the lion, like the ox, will again eat straw, as at the time when
they were created. When the little child shall lead them ; and
the sucking child, without fear of harm, may ])lay on the hole of
the deadly asp : and the weaned child may lay his hand upon
the viper's den. (See Isaiah xi. 8 )

The ancient philosophers, Plato, Pythagoras, and his followers,
regjirded it as a great crime to kill animals for food. They
considered the earth brought forth an abundance of vegetables,
so that there was no necessity for killing harmless creatures
merely to gratify the appetite of man. One of the five gi-eat
laws of the Buddhists likewise forbids the destruction of any
living creatures. In modern times Swedenborg, Rousseau,
Schelly, and many other eminent men likewise maintained that
vegetivbles and fruits constituted the proper food for man, con-
taining, as they affirm, all the ])rinciples necessaiy for the
sustenance of life. They further hold, that an entire vegetable
diet is even conducive to longevity, and rendei"s life more enjoy-
able ; that the brain becomes more vigourous under such a diet,
and the bodj' less susceptible to disease, whilst the strength
necessary for manual labour is no less than with an animal
diet. This beinrj the case, the vegetarians consider it unneces-
saiy and cruel to kill innocent animals. In 1S4-7, a society waa

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

foraied ill England whose object it was to promote vegetarian-
ism in that country, and a few years later a similar society was
estahlished in the United States. The general opinion of
physiologists is, however, not favourable to vegetarianism, and
almost all medical men declare in favour of a mixed diet.
Much, no doubt, depends both on the custom and the climate.

From the expression, in eh. vii. 3, " and behold I will destroy
them with the earth," it is evident that the earth was also to
suffer on account of the great wickedness of man. The flood,
whilst it swept away eveiy living thing except those preserved
in the ark, was also to bring destruction upon the eatth itself.
In what manner and to what extent the earth's condition
became changed, it is impossible to say, since we liave no infor-
mation as to its state before the flood. We may, however,
rea onably infer, that as the permission to use animal food was
given to Noah immediately on his coming out of the ark, the
changed condition of the earth, rendered such food at least
beneficial if not altogether necessary. And this circumstance
furni.shes another proof of God's ever merciful and gracious
dealings with men.

lole of
UDon

any
sseau,

that

cou-
the
stable
njoy-

diet,
ingth

51. *' And God saw evertf thing that he had made, and behoh!, it was
very good. And the evening and the morning loere the sixth day.

The work of creation being now finished, the sacred writer
represents God as surveying all He had made, and declaring it
perfect in every respect, all things answering the end for which
they weie designed. The completion of the work of creation
on " the sixth day " is also indicated by the use of the article
with that day, whilst with the other days it is omitted in the
original, although it is given in the English version. Literally
rendered it would read " first day," " second day," &c.,but here
we have " the sixth day," as much as to say, the day on which
the work of creation was completed. I have already had occasion
to state that in Hebrew the artich is sometimes employed with
an object to give it prominence a'love its kind, and so heie, the
article distinguishes "the sixth day," above the other days.

But, it may probably be asked, why was the work of creation
spread over six days, when the Almighty might have affected
all in a moment ? To this may be answered, one reason
apparently was — though there may be other reasons unknown
to us finite beings — to lay the foundation for the institution of
the Sabbath as a day of rest, and to be religiously observed.

The six days of creation are to serve an example to mankind
that he is not to .<»pend his daj's in idleness, but in useful occu-
pation, in fact, the work of God should be the type of the work
of man. And as God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified
8 ^

I'KOI'I.K S COMMENTAHY.

bii'

it, althoii(;h He requiifs no rt'Mt, for He " is never fatigued nov
wem y (Isn xl. 21); ; >4o iiiaii shuiild rest from his work on that
day, and iceep it hoU*.

lietbre entering on the scfond chapter, it is hut right to refer
to a theory which has not onU* lH!en a(h)pted hy nmny natu-
ralists, liut Hkewise hy many coinnientatois, and whose opinion
has heen also esp<msed hy many of their readers. The theory
in (jtiestion is genei-aliy known as the peyiod theory, tmdholdn,
that " the six days" mentioned in Ue i., are nothinir less

than "six indetinit*; perifnls of tinie,"eiMh iiig millions of years.

Now, it is hy no means «liflicu]t to understand why this tlieory
should have found so many a<lvocates among naturalists, they
ret|uire indefinite agcrs for the formation of the ditt'erent strata,
and this theory wouUl entirely furnish — though not more
lavishly than the theory %yhich we have advance<l — the required
time. Then, again, it is an easy moile of getting over the
difficulty, without ap|M»rently casting a shadow of douht upon
the veracity of the Mosaic acc»)unt. It recjuires hut a change
of the word <lay into pcnwl, and to all appearance the difficulty
is overcome. It is, of course, hardly to be expected that natu-
ralists would stop to enquire whether the Hehrew word Qii
(yoiii) day, admits of .sucli an interpretation, much less is it to
be expected that they would carefully ex!'->»ine whether such a
renderinjj would Ihj suitable to the cor' , or how it would
afl'ect other pas.sages of Scripture. Fj -atuialists, I .say,

such an impiir}- could hartlly be expected, out I must confess
that it is somewhat suiprising that this theor}' .should have
found so much favour among commentators, whose cliief aim
should be to harmonize, and not to create confusion, to explain,
and not to perplex, and to reconcile without violating the com-
mon usHge of language.

In order to ^how the utter fallacy of this theoiy, or as Dr.
Kalisch.in his Commentary, remarks regarding it, how "readily
it crumbles to pieces at the mere touch," I propose to examine
it in a threefold aspect. It will show to my readers, that I do
not treat the theories of otlier writera, who may differ from me,
in an off-hand manner ; but, on the contrary, show them the
fullest respect.

In the first place, then, we will inquire whether this theory
would, after all, remoye all ilifficulties in reconciling the Mosaic
account with the discoveries ma*le in geology. Secondly,
whether the substituting of the term period for d'ly is suitable
to the context. And tliirdly, whether the rendering of the
Hebrew woi*d QT» iy^"^) by peviod is authorized by Scriptural
usage.

As the choice apparently lies between this theory and the
one which I have given in my comments on the cha])ter, I

PEOPLK H Cf »MM KNTARY.

crave the icailer's paiticulnr attention to the following
renin iUh:

Acconling to the Mosaic iiarnitive all plants nn«l trees were
created on tlie (liini cidf/. The creatures inhaltitin^ the waters,
ami tlie fowl )f tlio air, on tlio Jijtii day ; whilst the creatures
inhaliitiiig the dry ground were not created until the h/.i7/i day.
Now we are tohl by geologists that animals are found as deep
in the rocks as vegetables; indeed it would appear that shells,
fishes, and reptiles existed long before the pericMl of plants
which are compressed in the carboniferous beds. Let us hear
what the distinguished geologist, the late Hugh Miller, says on
the sultject: All geologists agree in holdintr that the vast geo-
logical scale naturally divides into three great parts. Tliero
are many lesser divisions — divisions of systems, formations,
deposits, beds, strata, but the master divisions, in each of which
we find a typo of life so unlike that of others, that even the
unpractised eye can detect the difference, are simply three —
the paheozoic, or oldest fossiliferous division, the .secondary or
middle fossiliferous division, and the tertiary or latest fo.ssili-
ferous division. In the first the pahi'ozoic division, we find
conds, crusUiceans, mollusks, fishes ; and, in its later formation
a few reptiles. But none of these classes give its leading,
character to the palaeozoic; they do not constitute its prominent
feature, or lender it more remarkable as a scene of life than
any of the divisions which follows. That which chiefly dis-
tinguished t) i»ali\3oz<>ic from the second and tertiary periods
wAn its gorge vn(' flora.' In like manner lie describes graphi-
cally the other two great divisions. The middle divi.sion he
characterizes " as an egg-bearing animals, winged ami wingless.
Its wonderful whales, not, however, as new of mannnaiian, but
of reptilian class." In speaking of the tertiary period, he
remarks, that it has also " its prominent class of existencies."
Its flora seems to liave been no more conspicuous than that
of the present time ; its reptiles occupy a very subordinate
place, but its beasts of the field were by far the most wonder-
fully developed, both in size and numbers, that ever appeared
on earth." (Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 135, IG!).)

Now, at first sight, these three giaiid divisions certainly
appearin a raea.sure to agree with the third, the fifth, and thesixth
days of the Mosaic account, but on a closer examination they
will be found to present such dirticulties as render a reconcilia-
tion with the Biblical account utterly impossible. According
to the Mosaic account, on the third day nothing but plants were
created ; but Hugh Miller says, and he afllirms that all geologists
agree in it, " the first graml division, the paloBOZoic," which is
supposed to answer to the third day's creation, contains also
jrniea and reptUes, which, according to the BiVjlical account, were

i i

PEOPLES (JOMMENTARY.

only created on the fifth de.y, so that, according to the period
theory, tiuo indefinite ages of thousands and thousands of years
must have elapsed between the creation of plants and that of
ftshen and reptiles, during wliich time the constant formation of
these strata were steadily proceeding, and, the first grand
division, ought, therefore, to contain only fossils of the vegetable
kingdom, and not a single fossil of oiiher fishes or reptiles should
be found there.

Then, again, it appears from the above extracts, that it is an
admitted fact, that " in each of the master divisions there is to
be found a type of life so unlike that of the others, that even
an unpractised eye can detect the difference." Now new types
presuppose new creations, M. D'Orbigny the eminent French
naturalist has distinctly asserted, that " not a single species of
the preceding period survived the last of these catastrophes ;
which closed the Tertiary period and ushered in the Human
period." (See Essays and Reviews, p. 263.)

Where then, I would ask, have all the creatures that inhabit
our globe now come fi*om, unless they had been created by the
Alniighty, as is recorded in Genesis 1. So far, then, from the
Bible narrative teaching anything adverse to geology, geology
itself becomes an undoubted witness of the truthfulness of the
Mosaic account.

Now, if it is a certain fa6t that new creations must have
taken place from tirae to time in order to replace these plants
and animals that have previously perished by catastrophes, we
may well ask, what advantages does the period theory afford,
even supposing there were no philological or other objections to
it? Is it not, by far more reasonable to suppose, that the Mosaic
account describes merely the commencement of the Fourth or
Human per ^od., commencing with a brief description of the
state of our globe as it existed when Moses commenced his
narrative, namel}'', that " the earth was void and waste, and
darkness was upon the face of the deep ; and the Spirit of God
moved upoii the face of the deep," and then proceeding to inform
us how^ the earth was again replenished with plants and ani-
mals, and, above all, how man was ci'eated? I would again
remind the reader of the admitted fact that there has never
yet been found either a single fossil of any of the now exist-
ing species which could possibly connect our period with that
of the tertiary period of the geologists, or a fossil remain
belonging to the human species, except those already alluded
to, and which, as we have shown, are of but recent formation.
If we take this view of the subject, surely there is nothing in
the first chapter of Genesis which tan be said to teach any-
thing adverse to the discoveries which have been made in the
natural sciences. There is not even an allusion made in the

PEOPLES COMMENTARY,

chapter to any of the preceding periods, except what is con-
tained in the general statement in the first verse.

But there is yet another difficulty which the period theory
presents, which, alone, ii' there were no others, is altogether
fatal to it. According to the sacred narrative the vegetable
kingdom was created on the " third day," and if that really
means a geological period or age, then it must have been a sun-
less, moonless, and starless age, since these were only created
on the fourth day ; and it follows, that the term "evening"
must then mean a long period of uninterrupted darkness,
whilst the term " morning " must, on the other hand, mean an
e({u&l\y long period of uninterrupted light. Such a state of
things would soon have been fatal to vegetable life, no plants
or trees could possibly have survived such an ordeal. Any
one Avho has ever tried to keep alive a few plants in a dark
place during a few winter months may form some notion how
utterly impossible it would be for plants to exist through, per-
haps, thousands of years of uninterrupted darkness. And yet
such must inevitably have been the case according to the
period theory.

The celebrated botanist, J. H. Balfour, in his " Class Book of
Botany," a work used in many colleges, says : " If a plant is
kept in darkness it soon becomes dropsical, because the roots
continue slowly to absorb moisture, while the leaves have no
power to exhale." (See page 450.)

And yet we find that the grass and herbs, created on the
"third day," were, on the " sixth day," appointed for food, both
for man and animals, which clearly demonstrates that they
could not have been subjected to guch an ordeal.

Hugh Miller evidently perceived this ditiiculty, and endeav-
oured to get over it, by supposing the sun, moon, and stars to
have been created long before. He says : " Let me, however,
pause for a moment to mark the peculiar character of the
language in which we are first introduced, in the Mosaic narra-
tive to the heavenly bodies, — sun, moon, and stars. The moon,
though absolutely one of the smallest lights of our system, is
described as secondary and subordinate to only its greatest
light, the sun. It is the apparent, then, not the actual, which
we find in the passage, what seemed to be, not what wafi : and,
as it was merely what appeared to be the greatest that was
described as the greatest, on what grounds are we to hold that
it may not also have been what appeared at the time to be
made that has been described as made ? The sun, moon,
and stars, may have long been created before, though it
was not until the fourth day of creation that they became
visible from the earths surface." (Testimony of the Rocks,
p. 134.)

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

Precisely so, it is just what I said, when commenting on Gen.
i. 14. If these luminaries were created long before, though not
visible until the fourth day of creation, it follows that our globe,
which forms a part of the planetary system, must likewise have
been created long before the first day of creation, and, there-
fore, the account contained in Gen. i. does not furnish a cosmo-
gony '^ the earth further than what is contained in the first
verse of that chapter, and there is, therefore, nothing to be
gained by adopting the period theory, even if it were admissible.

From the foregoing remarks, it will no v be seen that how-
ever plausible the period theoi'y may at fii'st sight appear, on
closer examination, as Dr. Kalisch very justly has remarked, "it
crumbles to pieces."

Then, when we come to examine this theory, as to its agree-
ment with the context, and its eflfeot on other passages of
Scriptuie, we are met at every step with such insurmountable
difficulties that one begins to wonder how such a theory could
over have been seriously advanced. Let any one sit down, and
write the sentence, "There luas evening and there ivaa morning
the first pet iod, and calmly look at it, and I feel persuaded he
will at once come to the conclusion, that no writer would ever
use such a phrase in conveying an idea which he wishes to be
readily understood. We use the ))hrase " morning and evening
of life " figuratively for youth and old age, but such a phrase
as evening and morning of a period, we unhesitatingly assert
has never been ])enned by any writer in any known language.
But even if the terms evening and morning were suitable
terms to be used in connection with period, surely the proper
way of expressing it wou\i be morning and evening of a
period — for in such a connection morning could onl}'^ be used
instead of beginning, and evening instead of end — otherwise we
would have the end befoi'e we have tlte beginning of a j^eriod.
No such difficulty arises in the ex])lanation we have given in
the Commentary, where we have shown that the mentioning
of evening before vxorning accords well with the existing state
of darkness before the light was made to appear.

Then, again, we are met with the stubborn fact — and which
I hold in itself to be altogether fatal to the period theory —
that if the six days of the creation are six periods, the seventh
day must likewise be an indefinite period. Then, what
becomes of our Sabbath? Is that likewise an indefinite period?
If so, what becomes of the fourth commandment ? (Exod. xx.
9, 10, 11.) Let any one read that commandment, and substi-
tute period, for day, and he will find that it .s rendered utterly
incomjirehensible. Yet that commandment cannot possibly be
.separated from the six days of creation, for the last verse
assigns the reason why the Sabbath should be kept holy,

people's commentary.

h-lM

namely, " For in six days the LouD made (ordered or fashioned)
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on
the seventh day, and hallowed it." Then, again, in Exod. xxxi.
12-18, we have this commandment enlarged upon, and the
punishment for not keeping it assigned, namely, " every one
thatdefileth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doth
ayiy work therein, that so'd shall be cut off fiom among his
people." — (v. 14.) And, ii. the following verse, ' whosoever
doth <iny work on the iSabbath (\&y, shall surely be put to
death." Now, how could the Israelites have kept the Sabbath
day, if it meant an indefinite period of rest ? In Acts i. 12,
" Mount Olivet " is said to be " from Jerusalam a Sabbath day's
journey." W hat would that mean if the day meant an indefinite
period ?

I may add here, that from the six days of creation and the
seventh d«y of rest, the numeral seven obtained a special
significance throughout the Scriptures. Thus, we have the
gift of "seven " animals in making a covenant, (Gen. xxi. 28,
29, 30) : " seven lamps " in the golden candlestick, (Exod. xxx.
23); the blood was sprinkled "seven times." (Lev. iv. 6) It
a.lso used to express a round indefinite number, as Isa. iv. 1 ;
and seven women shall lay hold on one man in that day."* It
is a large number. So Prov. xxvi. 25, - - • -

, . , , , V , " When he apeaketh fair, believe him not ;

' . For //tere are seven abomination in his heart."

It is, a great many ahomimitions. ^ '

It is even emplcyed to express a climax, &s Job v. 19:

"In six troubles he will deliver thee.
Yea in seven no evil shall touch thee."

That is, no evil shall befal time at any time.

See also Ps. xii. 7: (Eng. vers. v. G.) There is no number
which is so frequently employed in Scripture as the number
seven.

Will any one, after giving the above remarks an impartial
consideration, still hold there are no objections on Scriptural
ground to rendering the term q^i (yovi) day, by i^eriod in
Genesis i. ? I can hardly think there is. And yet, this is not
all. When we come to examine the period theory from a
philological stand point, we find that the language employed
equally presents insurmountable diffic\ilties to its adoption. In

•This passage can onl}' be understood when taken in connection with the
Prophet's declaration at the close of tlie preceding chapter, that the number of
slain in the land shall bo so great, that there shall be only one man left to a
large number of women.

people's commentary.

Iff

order to sliow this conclusively, let us examine the very pas-
sages that have been appealed to by the period theorists as
favouring their hypothesis.

It is maintained that the Hebrew term Q^i (yom) day, is-
often used not strictly in a sense of a day, but sometimes'
indefinitely, and the first passage referred to is Gen. ii, 4, where
it is said : " In the day that the Lord God made the earth and
the heavens." It is urged here that the term UVZ (beyom),
"In the day." is here used to denote the whole six days of cre-
ation. Now, any one that has but a moderate acquaintance
with Hebrew idioms must know that Hebrews, in speaking of
a time when an action took place, always expressed it by UVIl
(beyom) in the day, and is, in that case, only equivalent to the
adverb when, which, in all cases, would make just as good
sense, namel}', " when the Lord God made the earth and the
heavens." The word " that " is not in the original, and ought
to have been given in italics in our version. So again in verse
17, litei-all}' : " For in the day of thy eating of it thou shalt
surely die." It is, " when thou eatest of it thou shalt surely
die." Also Exod. x, 2H : " See my face no more ; for ii» that
day thou seest my face," it is, " when thou seesL my face again
thou shalt die." On referring to a concordance any number of
such examples may be found. But I maintain, that in not &
single instance in the prosaic writings is the term t)T' (yom)
day used in an indefinite sense without the preposition (3) w^-
To biing forward such a common idiom of the language in,
supi)ort of their theory is certainly exemplifying the old pro-
verb : " A drowning man will catch at a straw."

Again, Ps. xc. 4, has been appealed to, where it says, " For a
thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is
past, and as a watch of the night." It is proper to state, that
in the original it is " as a day of yesterday," that is, a day gone
by. Surely any one can see, that this passage merely describes
the eternity of the Deity as having no limits. It expresses a
comparison, and if the preposition (3) " as" were removed, it
would make no sense at all. So the passage in 2 Peter iii. 8 :
" One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day." It is, " one day " is in the sight of the
Lord as " a thousand years," and " a thousand years" are in the
sight of the Lord as " one day." These passages, so far from
arguing in favour of their theory, actually argue against it, since
in both passages the word " day " necessarily means a natural

''**2/- . ... ' , , , ,^";

Again, Job viii. 2, has been referred to, where the term ^yf

{yom) day, is said to be used to denote at least a part of the

human lite. The passage reads : "They that come after him

shall be astonished at his day." The term •\)y\'\ (yomo) " hivS^

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

day " is here poetically used " for his day of calamity," namely,
that of the wicked spoken of in verse 5, and belongs, therefore,
to the same catagory of figurative expression, such as " the day
of their misfortune," Deut. (xxxii. 35) ; " the day of Jerusalem,"
i. e.,the day when Jerusalem was taken, (Ps. Ixxxvii. 7) ; "day
of darkness," i. e., day of destruction awaiting the wicked, (Job
XV, 23) ; " the day of salvation," (Isa. xlix. 8). So also, the
expression so frequently employed " in that day," (Isa. xxii. 12.)
Such expressions like the above, are merely Biblical metaphors,
and are altogether restricted to the poetical and prophetical
portions of Scripture, and even there not in a single instance
can they possibly give rise to conjecture, for their meaning is
invariably rendered clear by the context. To bring forward
such passages as the above in support of the theory that the
word QT1 (yom) day in Genesis i. may mean an indefinite
period of time, is simply the height of absurdity.

The Hebrew word Qin (yom) day, is, in the prosaic books of
the Old Testament, used about 140 times, but not in a single
instance is it used in any other sense than a natural day,
when it stands in its simple form like it does in Genesis i.,
without p. preposition or suffix. Nor is it used in any other
sense than that, in any of its cognate languages, the Chaldee,
Syridc, or even the Arabic, which is still a widely spoken
language.

I repeat, therefore, in the Mosaic account of the creation,
which is a plain, simple, and purely historical naiTative, the
word QT? (yom) day, cannot possible be taken in any other
sense, than that of a natural day, defined too, as it is, by the
words " evening " and " morning."

But further it may reasonably be asked, why should Moses
have»used the ambiguous term day, when he meant a period,
in Hich an important narrative, which was intended to be
readily understood by all classes of readers ? Is it not more
reasonable to suppose, that in that case he would rather have
used the words fT'tti^l (reshith) beginning, and yp (kets) end
and j^5 (eth) time, and would have written, and the beginning
tvas and Hie end was time one. Or the sacred writer might
have used the term Dbl3? {olani) which, from its derivation,
denotes a hidden or indefinite period of time, of which the
beginning and end is uncertain, and is used in the sense of a
long period or long time in Isa. xlii. 14. It cannot, therefore,
be said, that the sacred writer had no words at his command to
express an indefinite period of time, which would at once have
been more intelligible and more suitable had he intended to
convey that meaning in Genesis i., but not having used any of
these terms cleai'ly shows, by using the term tlT^ {yom) day,
he meant that that word should be taken in its proper sense.

'r'

people's commentary.

I have now, and hope fairly, examined the ^^eriod tlieory in
the tliree difi'erent aspects, and have, I think, clearly shown,
that not in any one of them will it stand the slightest test.
Whether the arguments which I have adduced are deemed
sufficiently conclusive, is for the reader to decide.

For my part, I have never seen any difficulty in the natural
day theory which I have advanced in the Commentary, yet I
do by no means insist upon that it is the only possible explana-
tion: there ma3'^ be another one, but whatever that one may be,
I feel certain, it is not the one afforded by the period theory.

'.(''■i:''irt

.,„,(,

" i

CHAP. II.

11 ^\

i i

«!

1. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of
them."

Uhis verse appi'opriately connects the chapter with the pre-
ceding one, of which it is a continuation, and at the same time
serves as an introduction to the institution of the sacred day of
rest. Tlie term 5^|2^ (tsava) primarily denotes a host or army
j)roperly marshalled for battle, but is also applied to the angelic
liost which surrounds the throne of God. And as the heavenly
bodies move in regular order, hence it is also sometimes metapho-
rically used in reference to them. "And the host of heaven shall
be dissolved." (Isa. xxxiv. 4.) In the verse above, " and all the
host of them," it is figuratively applied to all that the earth,
the waters, and the air contains. Hence, as God is the Creator
of all things. He is sometimes spoken of as " the God of Hosts,"
" the Lord God of Hosts."

2. "And God had finished His work on the seventh day which He luul
tnade, and He rested on the seventh day from all His woi'k which He
had made." , ., i ,, -,.

The rendering of the verse in our version is very ambiguous :
" And on the seventh day God ended His work." According
to this translation God ended His work on the seventh day, and
yet rested on that day. The Septuagint, the Syriac, and Sama-
ritan versions read : "And God ended on the sixth day," instead
of " on the seventh ; " but there is not the slightest authority for

people's commentary.

the substitution of the six^ instead of • the seventh. Von Bohlen,
and other critics of the same school, get over the difficulty
in their usual ready manner by regarding it an inaccuracy.
But where is the difficulty of rendermg as we have done, " and
God had finished His work " ? The existence of a pluperfect
tense in the Hebrew language is fully established by other
passages, although some modern grammarians deny its existence.
If we turn to Exod. xii. 15, we shall find quite an analogous
case : " Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread ; even on the
first day ye shall have put away leaven out of your houses." It
is attain incorrectly rendered in our version, " even on the firat
day ye shall put away," for it is distinctly commanded in verse
IG, that no work was to be done on " the firat day," and on
" the seventh day" » * " except that which every man must
eat." And, further, in verse 18 it is plainly stated that the
eating of unleavened bread was to begin "at even" of the
" fourteenth day of the month," so that on the fifteenth which
is the first day of the passover, the leaven must have already
been removed. (See also 2 Chron. xxix. 17.) >

3. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it ; for on it He
rested from all His work which God created and made. i ;

Surely those who would make light of the observance of
the Sabbath day can hardly have fully considered the import
of this verse. None of the festivals afterwards instituted have
such a sacred foundation : the Sabbath of God is the type of
the Sabbath of man. The importance of the sacred day of
rest is further indicated by being the first of all religious
observances given to man. The Scriptures, as a writer has
well observed, " make the Sabbath the corner stone of the
moral world."

Some writers have indeed laboured to prove, that because
there is no special mention made of the observance of the
Sabbath among the patriarchs, and the Israelites in Egypt, it
was first appointed with the Decalogue on Mount Sinai, and
that it is merely mentioned here by anticipation. But the
very reading of the fourth commandnunt shows that it already
existed as an established law. " Remember the Sabbath day,"
these words are equivalent to, do not neglect the Sabbath day.
Besides, we find already, in Exod. xvi, 25. 26, whilst the Israel-

* Some commentators, and among them Dr. Adam Clark, have supposed that
the word sixth might easily have been changed into seventh, if letters were used
in ancient times to express numerals, the letters ^ (toav) six, X (zat/i) seven, being
almost similar in form. But it is not at all likely that tetters were used in
expressing numerals in the ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament, for if
sueh had been the case they would have been retained, as the Jews regarded
the original text too sacred to ineddle with it.

people's commentary.

J'' V

ites were yet in the wilderness of Sin, before they had arrived
at Mount Sinai, Moses forbade them to gather Manna on the
Sabbath : " And Moses said, Eat that to day ; for to day is a
Sabbath unto the Lord ; to day ye shall not find it in the
field. Six days ye shall gather it ; but on the seventh day,
which ia the Sabbath, in it there shall be none." Let the
reader mark the languas^e here employed. Moses does not say,
thn seventh day which will hereafter be appointed a» the Sab-
bath ; but " the seventh day, ivhich ia the Sabbath," already
instituted. Then when, notwithstanding the prohibition, some
of the people went out to gather Manna, but found none, God
was angry at their disobedience, and said unto Moses : " How
long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws. See,
that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath." — (v. ?8, 29. Not
will give you the Sabbath.

These commentators who regard the passage in Gen. ii. to be
proleptical, have so far failed to assign any reason why the
sacred historian should assert thatGod had set apart the seventh
day to be kept holy 2,500 years before He really intended it
to be observed. What object could Moses have had in refer-
ring to the institution of the Sabbath at all at such an early
date, when generations were to pass away before its actual
promulgation as a law ? Until a satisfactory answer is given
to this question, the antiquity of the Sabbath may fairly be
argued from the statement contained in the second chapter.

But incontestible proof of the observance of the seventh day
as a sacred day from the very beginning of time, may be drawn
also from the religious ceremonies and practices of the ancient
heathens. Archbishop Usher observes : " That the heathen
had their knowledge of God and of the Sabbath from the first
fathers who lived before the dispersion." — (Disc, on the
Sabbath, p. 73.) Newton, in his Dissertations, remarks : " It
cannot be doubted that our first parents religiously observed
so solemn an ordinance (the Sabbath), though no express men-
tion is made of it after in the history of Moses, and from hence,
in the most early ages, was derived the practice of reckoning
their time by weeks. Computing and calling the days after
the number and names of the planets was an invention of a
later date, when some progress had been made in the. study of
astronomy, and when idolatry had prevailed, and the sun and
stars were worshipped."

Linus, a cotemporary with Orpheus, who is said to have
lived in the 13th century before the Christian era, speaks of
" a seventh day observed among the devout." Hesiod, one of
the earliest Greek poets of whom we possess any information,
born about the 8th century B. C, calls the seventh day, " The
illustrious light of the sun " ; and Homer, who probably flour-

people's commentary.

ished about two centuries befoie Solomon, .«»ays : " Then came
the seventh day, which is sacred and holy. " Tiie eminent
poet and critic, Callimachus, who flourished about the middle
of the third century B. C, speaks of the Ethnics, a very ancient
sect of philosophers, as observing the seventh day as a sacred
and holy day. Later, Aulus Gellius, a Latin author, who
flourished about the third century of the Christian era, like-
wise states that " the Ethnics gave public instruction on the
seventh day." In the Ai'kite temples sacred cukes were
offered on the seventh day. The Arkite worship was extremely
ancient. Lucian says, that on the seventh day scholars were
permitted to relax from their studies. Aristotle insinuates,
that seven is the number of which the world (that is, the
system,) is composed. Alexander Aphrodisiensis declared that
the number seven is perfect in its own nature, because God
governs the earth by the seven planets. Macrobius and a
number of other writers declared that seven is a religious
number. The Saturnalia among the Romans, were days set
apart in December for the rites of Saturn, and were in number
seven, Eusebius also states, that not only the Hebrews, but
almost all the philosophers and poets acknowledged the
seventh day as more holy than the rest. Josephus against
Apion remarks, that " in his time there was not a city of the
Grecians, nor any Barbarians, nor » ly nation whatsoever,
where the Jewish custom of resting on the Sabbath day had
not reached." He speaks of it as if the custom had been
adopted from the Hebrews, but it is by no means likely that
the heathens who hated the Jews and their religion, would
adopt any of their customs or rites. Philo Judaius was
certainly not of opinion that the heathens had derived the
custom from the Israelites, for he says: " The Sabbath is not a
festival peculiar to any one people or country, but it is couunon
to the whole woi'ld." Grotius shows at some length, that not
only throughout the East, but even among the Greeks, the
Italians, the Celtse, the Sclav i, and even the Romans them-
selves, the days were divided into weeks, and that the seventh
day was held in extraordinary veneration.

Now, the almost universal practice of dividing time into
weeks among the civilized and uncivilized nations, not
excluding even the Ashantees, a nation inhabiting a large
district of Western Africa, and than whom scarcely can be found
a more barbarous people ; and the hardly less prevailing
custom of ascribing more or less sanctity to the seventh day,
and paying great reverence to the number seven, furnish, in
ray opinion, incontestible proofs of the observance of the
Sabbath from the beginning of time as I'ecorded by the sacred
historian. Such a universal custom must have had its com-
10

PEOPLES COMMENTAUY.

ill

I'*

luencement when mankind were yet united in one common
centre, at some period before the dispersion, and, if so, it will
not \Hi difKeult to trace it back to Noah and his family.

But, we are asked, how is it to be accounted for, if such a
hehdonvuhd rest had at all time been observed from the begin-
ning of time, that not so much as an allusion to it can be
found until the Israelites arrived in the wilderness of J-in ?
The simple answer is, that the sacred historian did not find it
necessary to notice it He mentions the fact, that God had
solemnly set a|»art the seventh day to be kept holy, and the
pious patriarchs having, no doubt, strictly observed the day as
a sacred day of rest, no special reference to it was rendered
necessary. There is nowhere, I believe, any allusion made to
the Israelites having observed the Sabbath during the first
four hundred years after their ent»'ance into the land of
Canaan, yet our opponents would hardly argue from this
circumstance, that it had not been regularly and strictlj*
observed during this long period. There are likewise but few
direct allusions to the indispensable duty of prayer throughout
the whole of the Pentateuch, yet no one ever doubted that this
duty wj^si regularly and cheerfully attended to.

There is, however, a statement in Gen. iv. 26, of which our
opponents seem to have taken no notice whatever, although it is
vciy important in the discussion of the antiquity of the Sabbath.
We read there : " And to Seth, to him also there was born a
son ; and he called his name Enos : then began Tnen to invoke
the name of the Lord." (Eng. vers., "to cal' upon the name of
the Lord.") From the frequent occurrence of the phrase " to
invoke the name of the Lord," its true import evidently Is, the
offering up of prayer either in private or in public assemblj.
(See Gen. xii. 8 ; xiii. 4 ; Ps. Ixxix, 6 ; cv. 1 ; Is. xii. 4.) At
first when the human family consisted only of a few persons,
the worship of God naturally would assume the form of family
l>rayer ; but when the families became numerous, and began to
take up their abode at a distance from one another, congrega-
tions would be formed who would meet together at stated times
for the purpose of public supplication and religious instruction.
Now it appears to me that Moses here refers to the be^nning
of public worship at stated times — for Adam and his ofispring,
had, no doubt, before this offered prayers in their families —
and the public worship itself would naturally imply the keep-
ing of the Sabbath. We must bear in mind, that the account
contained in the Pentateuch runs over a period of 2553 years,
according to Calmet's chronological table, or according to that
of Hales, over a period of 3803 years ; hence, many occurrences
would necessarily be but slightly touched upon, leaving any
further information on these subjects to be gathered from the

people's commentary.

context Thus, for example, the wife of Cain is merely inci-
dentally alluded to (ch. iv. 17), without giving her name, or
telling who she was, but from the context it is evident that she
must nave been his sister, and though inter-marriages of near
kinship were under the Mosaic code accounted incest, yet in
the beginning such intermarriage of the nearest kinship could
not possibly be avoided, as the human family sprung fynu >ne
primitive pair.

In verses 23, 24, we have the address of Lamech to his two
wives abruptly introduced without any connection with \ .at
precedes or follows, and without the slightest hint as to what
gave rise to the animated speech. And so we might ^ > on
enumerating many other subjects which are merely uiiefly
touched upon. It is, therefore, altogether faUacioiis to argue
from the mere absence of a direct mention of the keeping of
the Sabbath by the patriarchs, that it must have been insti-
tuted at a later period.

In the last part of verse 3 we have a beautiful Hebrew idiom
which is entirely lost in translation. It is rendered in our
version, *' which God created and made," but, according to the
Hebrew idiom, its meaning really is, "which God created in
the most perfect vianner."

It appears from other passages, that the infinitive of the
verb T\Wy (fl-^dh) to make to do, is sometimes used after another
verb to indicate that ohe action expressed by the preceding
verb is done in the most perfect manner. In Eccl. ii. 11, we
have a beautiful exampie of this idiom : "And I looked on all
my works that mv haiids have wrought, and on the labour
flTbyb Tlb^syil) {she-ail I al-ti la-asoth) that I laboured to do,
(i. «., in the moat perfec' manner) and behold, all tvas v inity
and vexation of spirit." For other examples, see Hebrew
Bible, Judg. xiii. ! > Ps cxxvi. 2 ; Joel ii. 20, 21.

4. This is the account c/ tite heavens and the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Commentators do by no means agree as regards the appli-
cation of this verse, for whilst some take the verse as referring
to the account of the creation recorded in chapter i., others,
and especially among the more recent writers, regard it as
forming the heading of what follows, and as implying the
development and further progress of the world. Now, as
chapter ii. is merely a continuation of chapter i., and affords
a more detailed account of some of the subjects that had been
but briefly touched upon in the first chapter, whilst at the
same time it continues to develop the history of man, it
Appears to me more reasonable to consider the verse as refer-

pfople's commentary.

ring both to what precedes aiul f<»llows, which, in fact, form
but one account. I cannot comprehend how Keil and Delitzsch,
among others, can persiitt in holding that the verse forms " the
heading of what IoIIowh," (see vol. 1 p. 70,) and yet maintain
that " The account in chapter ii. 5-25, is not a second,
complete and independent history of the creation." (See p. 76.)
If it is not " an independent history of the creation," it must
form pail of the history contained in chapter i., and if so, the
words, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth," &c.,
cannot possibly be restricted merely to that portion of the
creation contained in chapter ii.

It is maintaineil that the phrase finnblf) nb&^ {elleh tholedoth)
this ia the account or history, wherever it occura forms a head-
ing to what follows, this is, no doubt, true, but in all the other
pas-sages it is u.sed in a diflerent sense to what it is here. The
primary meaning of (tolcdoth.) and in which it is generally
used is, generations, as Gen. x. 1 : " These are (toledoth) the
generations of the sons of Noah." It is, however, also used
sometimes in the more restricted sense of family history, as
Gen. vi. 9, " This is {toluloth) the family history of Noah," and
again chapter xxxvii. 2, " This is (toledoth) the family history
of Jacob," rendered in the English version, "these are the
generations," a rendei-ing which is not suitable to the context
in these two passages.

In the passage under consideration the sacred writer uses
the word in a more coiii|)rehensive sense, and applies it to the
account of the origin of the heavens and the earth, as recorded
in ch. i. and ch. ii. The rendering of the English version:
" These are the generations of the heavens and the earth," is
not only ambiguous but also unsuitable, as generations applies
rather to persons than things. Rabbi Sol. Hakkohen, in his
German version printed in Hebrew characters, has rendered
" Dies ist die Entstehungsgeschichte, i. e., This is *the history
of the origin, and so likewise Delitzsch, Gesenius, and most
modern commentators.

We must, in the next place, notice ♦he v iliar expression at
the end of the verse, " the eartl th av( iis." As in the

physical arrangement of tli, s he earth is depend-

ent upon the heavens, 1 T vem- e always mentioned

before the earth, but a. the l .ts i. the narrative which
follow transpired upon ti^ curth ' ue sacred writer very appro-
priately gives it here special 'oniinence by mentioning it
before the heavens. This unusual mode of expre.^ 'on occurs

•The word t^^'^b^n (toledoth) always occurs in the plni- .Ithongh, as
we have above seen, it is sometimes used with a singular sigi ion — since a

history or an account ia uade ap of different events.

people's commentart.

only once more in Scripture, namely, Ps. cxlviii. 13, where the
Psalmist uses it in calling upon all that the earth contains
to praise the Lord.

" Prniso ye the mime of the LoRu ;
For His name nione is excellent,
Hia glory it above the earth and heaven."

The sacred historian, the reader will perceive, introduces in
the verse under consideration, also a new title, {Jehovah
Khthim) i. e., " LoRD God," and which is retained throughout
this and the following chapter. This brings iis face to face with
the now famous " Elohistic and Jeliovistic controversy," which
for so many years past has raged with undiminished tierceness
in Germany, and at last made its way into England and
America. The controversy has giver rise to a literature per ae,
and has led to the adoption of the most daring opinions in
regard to the authorship of a great portion of the Old Testa-
ment. The subject, therefore, is too important to be passed
over in silence — althougli I fear the consicleration of it may not
prove altogether interesting to the general reader — I will, how-
ever, endeavour to be a.s clear and as brief with my remarks as
the subject will admit of.

In order to make the new tlieory sot up by the 'modem
school of criticism intelligible to those of my readers who are
not acquainted with Hebrew, it is necessary to remark at the
outset that in the Old Testament the Deity is spoken of under
different titles which are not so apparent in a translation.
Thus we have tlie name Elohmi rendered always in our ver-
sion " God " ; Jehovah rendered " Lord," printed in capital
letters ; Adonai also rendered by " Lord," but in order to dis-
tinguish it from the former it is not printed in capitals. Then
again, the two first names often occur together as Jehovah
Llohim rendered in our version " Lord God." Of these titles,
Elohim and Jehovah are by far of most frequent occurrence.

Now, we venture to say, that millions of attentive Bible
readers have never dieamed of any difficulty lurking behind
the use of the different titles, no more than they would have
su-spected an}' peculiarity in reading a secular history in the
author applying different titles to a person. Not so, however,
with a host of our modern critics, they discover in the use of
the different names of the Deity , different hands of aidhorship,
and classify the portions into Elohistic documents and Jeho-
vistic documtnts.

The employment of the differoii^ Divine names in Genesis
did not escape the notice of some of the early Fathers of the
Christian Church. Tertullian, who flourished in the second
century of the Christian era, made reference to it in his treatise

PEOPLES COMMENTARY,

iiV

i' I

against Hermogenes (Tom. II., p. 61). In the fourth century
Chrysostom drew attention to it in his 14th Homily on Genesis.
(Tom. II., p. 119). Tertullian thinks the different names were
used designedly, whilst Chrysostom regards the names Elohim
and Jehovah as apparently of the same meaning, and used
indiiferently without any design.

Many of the mo»t celebrated Jewish writers have likewise-
more or less treated on the distinction of the terms employed
by Moses to designate the Deity. Rabbi Judah Hallevi, in the
twelfth century, in his work Cosiil, treats at some length on
the designations Elohim and Jehovah. The renowned Rabbi
Maimonides, also, in his philosophical work, More Hannevo-
CHIM, {Guide of the Erring), notices the use of the different
terms employed by Moses in designating the Deity. And so
likewise other writers in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth
centuries. None of the eminent Hebrew scholars and profound
critics, however, discovered any difficulty in the use of the
term Elohim in some portions of the Scripture, and that of
Jehovah in others. They very justly concluded that Moses
was guided in the employment of th"^ different terms by their
respective signiHcatior., which would render the use of the
term Elohirti more suitable in some places, whilst the more
sacred name Jehovah would be more fitly employed in others.
The sign ificat 1071, unquestionably, as we shall hereafter show,
furnishes the true reason for the varied use of the Divine
names, in many portions at least, though in some portions it
may not be quite so apparent.

The theory of two distinct author < being engaged in the
composition of Genesis is altogether oi modex'n origin. Up to
the eighteenth century, we can positively assert, it was not even
being hinted at by any Jewish or Christian writer, and the
reader will be somewhat amazed when he is told, that thi»
theory, which has shaken Germany to its very centre, and has
been productive of so much mischief in other countries, was
first promulgated by a French physician named Astruc in hi»
work entitled " Conjectures sur lea Memoirs originaux du
Livre de la Genhse," published at Paris, 1753. In this work
he maintains that one ot" the writers always employs Elohim,
and never Jehovah, whilst the other employs Jehovah, though
not altogether to the exclusion of Elohim. He further asserts
that there are traces of no less than ten different memoirs
which Moses made use of in compiling the book of Genesis.
He altogether denies its Divine authority, and considers the
book to be disfigured by useless repetitions, disorder, and con-
tradictions.

When Astruc first sprung this theory upon the world, it
attracted but little or no attention. It was probably thought^

people's commentary.

that he was more capable of forming a correct diarjnosia of a
dise&se than of a Biblical subject. Rationalism, too, was yet in
embryo in Germany, so that the gi'ound was not yet prepared
even for the taking of root much less for the flourishing of
such a poisonous weed. For nearly fifty years the theory was
buried in oblivion when about tne end of the last century,
♦Eichhorn again brought it forward in his " Introduction to the
Old Testament," witn quite different results. Eichhorn was
tden Professor of Oriental Literature in the University of
Gtittingen, he was one of the most eminent scholars of
Germany, a man of varied knowledge, but especially distin-
guished as an Oriental scholar and Biblical critic. The
theory in the hands of such a man would naturally be more
profoundly handled, whilst his opinion could not fail to com-
mand respect. Hence, as f Hengstenberg observed, " it met
with general acceptance, and spread with amazing rapidity, so
that only a few eminent scholars remained, who refused to do
it homage." (Heng.sten berg, vol. i. 221.)

Eichhorn, however, greatly modified the theory of Astruc, by
rejecting the hypothesis of Moses having employed ten memoirs
in the compilation of the Pentateuch, and concentrated all his

•Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born at Dorinzimmern, in the Principalitj'
of Hohenlohe, Oohringen,'in 1752, and received his education at Gottingen. He
was a volumnious writer. His works on Biblical subjects are : (Jnirerinil
L'thrarii of Biblical Litf.ralure, 10 vols., Lvipz'nj. Introduction to the Old Ttnta-
me7it,5v6\a,, Gottingen. Introduction to the Apocri/phal writings of the Old
Testament. Primitive Hbitory, 2 vols. This work is conspicuous for its bold
criticism of the Pentateuch. Eichhorn died in 1827, being then 75 years old,
and Btill holding his Professorship.

tErnest Wilhelm Hengstenberg was born at Froudenberg, in Westphalia,
in 1802. He was the son of a clergyman, who gave him his preliminary educa-
tion before entering the Univernity of Bonn, n'liere ho devoted himself chiefly
to the Oriental and philosophical studies. Wliilst at this University he was
rather sympathizing with the rationalistic movement, but after having pursued
his studies further at Basel, to which city he had removed, he over afterwards
became a devoted defender of the authenticity of the Scriptures. Hengstenberg
hail hard battles to fight, such men as llgen, Vater, Stalielin, Hartuiann, Vou
Bohlen, Gesenius, Ewald, Do Wette, Wegscheider, and a host of other eminent
men belonging to the rationalistic school were no iisignificant opponents. But
he fought well and bravely, both as editor of the "Evangelistic Kirchenzei-
tung, " and as author of several highly learned works on Biblical criticism;
and although b.' may not have been successful in convincing many confirmed
sceptics and rationalists of the unsoundness of tlieir position, yet there is no
doubt that his sound arguments carried conviction to the heart of many who
hatl already began to be harassed with doubts, whilst they Btreugthoned othera
i'..' their belief in the authenticity of Holy Writ-

The writings of Hengstenberg display great research, deep study, a sound
judgment, and a kindly feeling towards his opponents. It affords me
great gratification to have an opportunity to pay tliis humble tribute to the
MEMORY of this truly good and learned writer ; of whom it may well be said :
"Well done, faithful servant." His principal works are : ChriMologie des Alten
Tettaments ; Beitrage zur Einleitnnq in A. T. ; Commentar uber den Psalmen ;
Die Oeschichte Bileams und seiner Weisagung ; Das Hoheli-d Solomonia Ausyeleyt.
Egypt and the Book of Moses, and some other works.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

efforts upon the two distinct document theory, by endeavour-
ing to show, that, besides these documents being respectively
characterized by the use of the names J'ihovah and Elohim,
they each possessed also a peculiar phraseology and peculiar
ideas. He gives Moses indeed credit for having compiled the
books that bear his name partly from these two document's,
and any portion not so derived, to have been written by him-
self, but he denies, like the physician Astruc, that Moses was
inspired.

Every-day experience abundantly demonstrates that when
persons are become fascinated with some pet theory, there is
often no limit to the exti*avagant fancies they will indulge
in, and probably there could not be found a more striking
example of this, than that which is furnished by this very
document theory; reason and sound judgment seem all of a
sudden to have left the modern critics, and the wildest and
most extravagant views gi-eedily laid hold of. In order to
give the reader some idea of the absurd notions entertained
by our modern critics, we will adduce the opinions of a
few of the principal writers on this subject.

*De Wette, in his " Critical and Historical Introduction to
the Old Testament," speaks of the sources which the author of
the Pentateuch made use of as follows :

" It is incontestable that the Elohistic author had access to
the most ancient sources. But the uniformity of his style does
not allow us to suppose that he inserted the original documents
touching the Mosaic histor}^ strictly and without alteration.
If such documents were in his hands, he worked them over
new. Besides, he may have drawn from tradition, for he lived
jiliout four hundred years after Moses, and one thousand after
Abraham."

*De Wette w.as born 14th January, 1780, at Ulla, near Weimar, and
studied at the University of Jena. He was appointed Professor of Philosophy,
At Heidelberg, in 1807 ; and two years afterwards Professor of Theology. In
1810 he removed to Berlin, being appointed to a chair in the University of that
city. He was very popular, and soon made himself a name also as a critic. In
1819 he was deprived of his chair on account of a letter of condolence which he
wrote to the mother of the assassin of the great German dramatist Kotzehue,
Soonjafterwards, howe'•^r, he obtained the Professorahip of Theology in the Uni-
versity of Basel. Here also his lectures and sermons gained him great popu-
larity, and the grand council of the city showed the esteem in which they
held him by making him a member of the Council of Education, and by grant-
ing him the freedom of the city in 1829. A still greater honor was conferred
on him in 1849, when he was created rector of the University, an honor which
he, however, did not long enjoy, for he died in the same year. De Wette was
a voluminous writer, and some of his works are translated into English. His
principal works are : ContrihuthiiH to an I iit rod art ion to the 0. T. 2 vols.
Halle — A Commentary on the Pmilms : A Critical and Historirnl Introduction
to the Canonical Scriptttren of the O. T. 2 vols. Christian Ethica ; Compen-
dium of Christian Dogmatics ; The Essence of Christian Faith, cfcc. ^

people's commentary.

r, and
losophy,

'gy- In
of that
tic. In
hich he
>tzebne,
he Uni-
t popu-
ch they
grant-
ferred
which
te was
His
2 vols.
ttction
mpeu'

" The Jehovistic author refers to Mosaic documents :" Exod.
xvii. 14. "Jehovah said unto Moses, wW^e this fur a memorial
in a hook, repent it in the ears of Joshua." "Moses wrote all
the words of Jehovah :" ch. xxiv. 4. But the legal passage,
Ex. xxi-xxiii., which he probably would give us as Mosaic,
may rather be ascribed to this author himself." There is no
trace of ancient sources in his writings, except in Num. xxi."
The reader will please specially to note this statement, as I
purpose hereafter to show quite the contrary to be the case.
De Wette goes on to say : " The author of Deuteronomy, as. it
appears, would have us regard his whole book as the work of
Moses ; so he makes Moses speak of " the Book," (xvii. 18, 19 ;
xxviii. 58. 61 ; xxix. 20, 21, 27.) But the obscurity and unfit-
ness of these claims deprive them of all value as proofs. He
derived his historical statements entirely from the institutions
prevalent at his time. Besides, he treated both with great
freedom." (Vol. 2 p. 159, sec. 1G2.)

As extravagant as the opinions above set forth are, tliey are
even surpassed in wild conjecture by those entertained by the
celebrated Oriental scholar, Ewald. He holds, that besides the
Book of Jasher mentioned. Josh. x. 13, and the Book of the
Wars of the Lord spoken of, Num. xxi. 14 ; there existed also
a book of the victory over the Amalekites, (Exod. xvii. 4,) a
book of Covenanti;, and a life of Moses, and that from these
books the Elohistic author composed a Book of Origins. At
a later period a Jehovistic writer compiled an early Instory of
the Hebrews for the Ten Tiibes, whilst another Jehovistic
writei', compiled a similar history for the Kingdom of Judah,
and that these three books were afterwards combined into ono
by some pious Hebrew who lived in Uzziah's or Jotham's
reign. Such was, according to Ewald,* the origin of the fi 'st
four Books of Moses, and the Book of Joshua. As for f\\e

*Heinrich Ewald was born November, 1S03, at Gottingen, and is regarded
as one of the greatest Orientalists of this century. He studied at the univer-
sity of his native town, and from his early youth, displayed great fomlness for
Oriental literature. Whilst yet a student, he wrote a work on the " Com-
position of Genesis." In 1823 he ooiunieuced his labours as a teacher at the
v'oii mhflttel Gymnasium, but in 1827 he was, by his own university, called to
the chair of philosophy, which he, however, exchanged in 1835, for that of
Oriental literature. After the death of Eichborn the important department of
critical exegesis of the Old Testament was also added to his chair. Ewuld is a
voluminous writer. His principal works are, A Critical Grnmm.ir of the Heb-
rew Latujuagt, The Poetical Book* of the Old Testament, The Prophets of the
Old Testament, A Work on the (,'antides, A Work on the HiMory of the People
if Israel to the Time oj Christ, (4 vol.,) and a subsidiary volume on the Antiqui-
tics of the People of Israel, History of Christ and. His Time, History of the Apo9-
tolic Age, and some other works on ancient literature. EwJd was very opin-
ionative, and the literary warfare carried on between him and Gesenius was not
in such a friendly spirit as might be expected from two eminent scholars. It
is not easy to say to what party Ewald lielonged, for he at times denounces the
Lutherans, and at others, the Catholics, and sometimes even the Rationalists.
II

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

Book of Deuteronomy, according to this learned Professor, it
was only ushered into existence a hundred years later by aa
Israelite refugee in Egypt.

A poet has indeed well said : •' > i,,

*' Error is a hardy plant ; it flourishes in every soil :
In the heart of the wise and ^^ood, alike with the foolisi. and wicked."

But when he goes on to say : '

'' " For there is no error so crooked, but it has some lines of truth."

we can sr^fely bring forward Ewald's theory of the origin of
the Pentateuch as a i)ro(»f of the fallacy of the poet's assump-
tion, for w«' can confidently assert there is not a single line of
truth in his whole statement. It has, even by rationalists
themselves, been stigmatized as a " tissue of arbitrary fictions."

Such is the teaching concerning the origin of the five books
of Moses that has been, and still is, emanating from the prin-
cipal universities of Germany ; and how can it be otherwise
but that infidelity, scepticism, and rationalism should be so
prevalent in that country, when some of its most eminent
scholars vie with one another as to v/ho can deal the most
destructive blow at the authenticity of the Scriptures. I say
of the Scriptures, for the Pentateuch is the foundation of the
Bible, and with it, it must stand or fall.

From Germany this precious theory was soon transplanted
into Enghind by Avriters of thr.t country, who had either studied
in Geimany — evil communications corrupt goci' manners — or
had become fascinated with the theory by the deceptive argu-
ments of German critics. The theory in its English garb
presents, however, the same appearance: there is no mistaking
it, for the English writers meiely adopted either one or the
other modified form. The late Bishop Colenso, for example, was
satisfied with the n ore moderate theory of Eichhorn, of only
tivo ilistind documents, whilst Dr. Davidson apparently adopted
the theory of Professor Plupfeld, of Halle, which ascribes the
origin of the Pentateuch to no less than five sources. These
sources he enumerates as follows :

1st. The primitive ^.lohist who wrote after the Caiiaanites
had been driven out jf Palestine. His peison must always
remain unknown ; it is probable that he lived in the tribe of
Judah, and that he was a Levite. PTe formed the ground work
of the narrative from ancient docun:nnts and traditions.

2nd, The Jehovist who was posterior to the Elohist, and is
set down as having written in the first half of the eighth
centurj' B. C, he also incor{)orated fragments more or less into
his own documents, though tradition was the principal source.

people's commentary.

3rd. The junior Elohist, who is supposed to have lived in
the time of Klisha (about 880 R C), who also compiled from
existing documents a luirrative, which in many particulars
bears an analogy to the Elohist, but in still more to the
Jehovist.

4th. The Redactor, who lived still later, and who bound
together the three documents, and in performing this work r
" acted with considerable independence, adding occasionally &
connecting link, omitting what seemed to stand in the way of .
connection, abridging in diflerent modes, and transposing piecea
according to his own way."

6th. The Deuteronomist who wrote the book of Deuter-
onomy during the second half of Manasseh's reign about 050
B. C. (See Dr. Samuel Davidson's Introduction to the Old
Testament, pp. 47 to 51, and pp. 120. 183.)

No doubt my readers will be astounded at reading the above
account of the origin of the Pentateuch which they have been
accustomed to reverence as containing the inspired word of
God, but wliich they are now told is the work of no less than five
persons whose names are not even known, and the time of
their writing altogether uncertain.

But in order that the reader may see what absurdities this
theory will give rise to, we will give here Gen. xxv., being one
of the chapters given in Dr. Davidson's " Introduction," pp. 58,
59, and portioned out as follows :

To the Elohist are assigned verses 7 to 11 to the word 153
(beao) his son, included, verses 17, 20, 26, from the word pn!2''"i.

To the younger Elohist is ascribed verses 11 from the word
^^i*) to the end of the verse.

To the Jehovist are allotted, verses 1 to 6, 12 to 16, 18, 19,
21 to 26, to the word ^pj?"'.

To the Redactor are ascribed verse 26, the names in the
Elohist left out, and verses 26 to 34.

Here, then, we not only have a plain historical chapter
portioned out to five difterent an.Uiox's, but even some of the
verses are cut in two, and the parts assigned to different sources.

The 11th verse is divided as follows : " And it came to pass
after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac " ;
this is ascribed to the Primitive Elohist, whilst the remaining
portion, " and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahai-roi," is assigned to
the Junior Elohist, Now what possiLle reason jan there be
advanced for supposing that this verse is the work of two
distinct writers separated from one another by several centu-
ries. Surely there is nothing peculiar in the language employed
in the original that would in the least favour such a supposi-
tion, and there is certainly nothing in the sense, for the two

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

Earts harmonize perfectly one with another. The narrative,
aving first stated that the blessing of God after the death of
Abraham descended on Isaac being heir to the promise, goes
on to say : " And Isaac dwelt bj'^ the well Lahai-roi," that is, he
continued to dwell in that place where he had before taken up
his abode.

Verse 26 is cut in two in a similar manner, as follows : "And
after that his brother came out, and his hand took hold of
Esau's heel ; and his name was called Jacob " ; this part is
ascribed to the Jehovist, "whihi the remaining part of the verse,
" And Isaac rvas sixty years old when they were born," is
assigned to the Elokist. Here again we would in vain search
for any peculiarity either in the language or in the sense that
would indicate a twofold authorship. It surely cannot be
regarded as anj'thing remarkable in the narrative giving the
age of Isaac when his two sons were born ; and as regards the
language itself employed in the verse in the original, the most
fastidious critic could not possibly detect the slightest peculi-
arity that would indicate it to be derived from two distinct
sources. Even the use of the different appellations of the
Deity cannot be brought forward as an argument for dividing
those two verses, for neither of the names of the Deity happen
to occur in them. And in a similar manner many other chapters
and verses are dealt with, they ai-e mercilessly cut up just
according to the fancy of this or that critic, and this work of
destruction is called higher criticism.

And yet, it is quite evident from the multifarious views
entertained by the modern critics themselves in respect to the
docmneat theory, that they in reality had no sound basis upon
which such a theory could be constructed. Mr. Rawlinson has
very justly remarked, in his " Bampton Lectures," (p. 47),
" Having to assign a time for the introduction of the forged
volume (the Pentateuch), they have varied as to the date,
which they suggest, by about a thousand years, while they
differ also from one another in every detail with which they
venture to clothe the tran.saction."

In order to show the reader what shifting sand this modem
docurmnt theory is built upon, we will just adduce a few
examples out of the many which we have at hand.

Bishop Colenso, w^ho, as we have stated, adopted the views
of one class of German critics, refer.s (Part ii., p. 176) to three
instances in which the differences in style and language clearly
indicate two difi'erent writers.

In the first place, " the Elohist," he observes, " uses the
expression nTQJ 55^ (El Shuddai), God Almighty, Gen. xvii.
1 ; xxviii. 3 ; xxxv. 11 ; xliii. 14; xiviii. 3, and xlix. 25 ; which
the Jehovist never employs." In the last quotation the Bishop

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

has evidently mistaken the reading, for it is iTQD fli^T (weeth
Shaddai) " and the Almighty" The reader will please to
notice the positive expression " never."

Now if we turn to " the Table of the Elohistic and Jehovistic
sections," as given in Dr. Davidson's " Introduction," (p. 59),
we find two of the above passages actually assigned to the
Jehovist, namely, xliii. 14 ; and xlix. 25. Let it be remem-
beied that Dr. Davidson represents the views of another set of
German critics.

In the second place, "the Elohist," observes Colenso, " uses
Israel Q,s & personal name for Jacob, xxxv. 21, 22; xxxvii. 3,
13; xliii. 6,8,11; xlv. 28; xlvi. 1, 2,29,30; xlvii. 29, 31 ;
xlviii. 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21 ; xlix. 2 ; 1. 2, the Jehovist never."

If v;e again turn to Dr. Davidson's " Table," we find out of
the twenty-three passages here cited only seven ascribed to the
Elohist, the others to the Jehovist and the Redactor. Here
again we have one set of critics controverting the theory of
another set.

In the third place, it is urged that " the Elohist always desig-
nates Mesopotamia as Padan, or Padau-aram, and the Jehovist
as Aram-naharaim."

The objection is founded on the supposition, that these are
two ditierent names of one region, where, in reality, according
to the best authorities, they are names of diflferent districts of
Mesopotamia. The etymological meaning of the names itself
indicates that such is the ca.se. Aram-naharaim, denotes
Syria of the Two Rivers, i. e., Mesopotamia. The two rivers
which enclose Mesopotamia are, the Euphrates and the Tigris.
It is, however, very uncertain whether Aram-naharaim em-
braced the whole of that tract of country, or only the northern
portion of it. Padan-aram, denotes the Plain of Syria, and
according to an Assyrian inscription lately discovered, Padan-
aram was situated on the op2)osite side of the Euphrates to
Aram-naharaim.

The utter uncertainty that prevails in the ranks of the
nodern critics in regard to the age and authorship of the Pen-
tateuch in itself is quite sufficient to show that no confidence
can be placed in their theoiies, and should make persons pause
before they embark in a vessel so mercilessly tossed upon the
ever changing waves of doubt, with no safe haven, far or near.
Indeed, the more closely we look into the various arguments
put forward against the authenticity of the Pentateuch the
more glaring becomes the fallacy of their reasoning.

We have shown to what absurdities the document theory
leads to in cutting up chapters and even verses, and represents
that centuries intervened between the compositions of the dif-
ferent portions. We will now proceed to examine the founda-
tion itself upon which the theory is constructed.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

The principal argument brought forward in support of the
document theory is, the use of the different appellations of the
Deity. Now, after all, what is there so very remarkable in all
this that our modern critics should lay so much stress upon it.
Do we not constantly find modern writers, in speaking of per-
sons having several titles, sometimes use one title and sometimes
another ? Supposing the reader were to find in a historj' or
biography of a nobleman who had filled the ofiice of a governor
general or viceroy being sometimes spoken of by earl, and
sometimes by lord, and again, sometimes by viceroy or governor
general, would the thought ever enter into his mind that the
book on that account must have been written by difterent
persons ? Surely not ? Why then should not the same liberty
be extended to the sacred writers which is so freely accorded
to a secular author ? But whilst secular writers are altogether
at liberty in employing the various titles according to their own
fancies, the sacred historian, on the contrary, was frequently
restricted in his use of OTie or the other, as will plainly appear
from the following remarks, to which I would now direct the
readers particular attention.

The Hebrew appellations of the Deity are expressive of the
different attributes of the Deity, and accordingly the sacred
writer would naturally be guided, in many instances, if not in
all cases, in his choice by the context, using the one which is
most suitable to the passage. Thus the term Qinb>^ (Eluhim)
expresses the attribute of might, poiuer,* and hence we find
the sacred writer having very appropriately used this appella-
tion altogether throughout Gen. 1, as in the creation the mighty
power of God is pre-eminently displayed ; and on referiing to
other passages in 'vhich Elohim is employed it will be found
that it is chiefly where the plenitude of God's power is set
forth. It is, however, necessarj-^ to observe, in order to show
the marked difference between the use of Elohim and Jehovah,
that the former is sometimes used in reference to false gods as
ClS^a ""nbi^ {Elohe mitarayim) " the gods of the Egyptians,"
Exod. xiii. 12, and so in other places, but Jehovah is only used
in reference to the true Ood. Further, Elohim is employed in
reference to angels, as Ps. viii, 6 ; at least it has been so ren-

* According to many Hebrew critics, and among them Gesenius and Delitzsch,

the appellation t3"^ni!j^ {Elohim) is derived from the root bl!S^ («') '<' '"^ drong,
mighty, and hence denotes the Mighty Being. Some other Hebrew scholars pre-
fer to derive it from the root Jlbi^ (alah), to worship God, to be seized with fear.
There exists at present no Buch root in Hebrew, but it is still in uae in Arabic,
from which it may be inferred that it was formerly also in use in Hebrew, and
has become obsolete like many other words. According to the latter deriva-
tion, it denotes the Being whom men worship and regard with reverential fear,
as performing wonderful and migJUy deeds. It is, therefore, immaterial from
which of the two roots Elohim is derived. It is generally allowed that the
name denotes strength or poiver.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

dered in that place by many ancient and modern interpreters.
Again, Elohim apparently is sometimes applied to judges, as
Exod. xxi. 6, xxii. 7, (Eng. vers. v. 8), and is so rendered in
the Chaldee version, the English version, and by almost all
interpreters. Michaolis endeavours to account for Elohim
obtaining this signification by supposing t^''t the Hebrews
reverenced the judges like gods in the same Manner as the
Egyptians did. But this is merely a conjecture, for which there
is not the least authority. The learned Rabbi AV>arbani'l sup-.
posed that the judges were sometimes called F'ofiim, l)ecause
they administered justice in holy phiccs, where God was en-
throned. But the judges did not always periurm the duties
of their office in sacred places, but sometimes in the gates of
the city. See Job v. 4; Deut. xxi, 19; Prov. xxi. 21. It is,
therefore, more likely that they were calleil Elohim because
their judgments were delivered in the name of God.

The name iDHi^* (Adonni) Lord, expresses the attribute of
rule and government, as being the Ruler and Governor of the
universe.

The sacred name mn'' (Jehovah) Jehovah expresses the
attribute of self -existence, and presents God to us as the Inmvi-
tahle. Eternal Being. The name is unquestionably derived from
the verb niH"'* {hawa) a more ancient form of riTl {hayah) i.e.,
to, be or exist, hence He who is or subsists. In giving this
etymological origin of the Divine name, we are not left to mere
conjecture, but the Word of God itself furnishes an unerring
guide. When Moses was about to be sent as a messenger from
God to the enslaved Israelites, he asks : "' If they say unto me,
What is liis name ? What shall I say unto them ? And God
said to Moses, I am that I am, and he said. Thus thou shalt say
to the children of Isi-ael, I am hath sent me to you." Exod. iii.
13, 14.) It is, the Eternal Being without beginning or end has
sent me. Some writers, and among thera Rabbi Bechai,
Leusden, Groiius, Galatinus, have regarded the sacred name
mn"' (Jehovah) to be composed of the preterite mn (hawah)

T T

he tvas, the participle niH (hoiveh) being, and the future nin''
(yahiveh) he will be.

According to the Jewish tradition, the sacred name Jehovah
could only be \)ronounced once a year by the High Priest, on the
day of atonement, when he entered the Holy of Holies to make
expiation for the sins of the people, and accordingly the Jews
at the present day regard the name too sacred to pronounce it,
but always substitute 137^5 (Adonai) Lord for it, even in re»d-

* From the root 'l!\'^ {dun) to jiulge, to rule.

' + The jPorm HTrf (liaioah) is still the common form in Chaldee and Syriac, and
there exist yet traces of it in Hebrew ; see Gen. xxvii. 29, Job xxxvii. 6.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

ing the Scriptures, or in their most solemn prayers. According
to Philo, tliose OTily whose ears and tongues were purged by
wisdom was it lawful to hear and utter this awful name, (see
Vit. Mos. iii., p. olO). Josephns, too, says: " Whereupon God
declared to him {Moses) his holy name, which had never been
discovered to men before ; concerning which it is not lawful
for me to say more," (Ant, ii. ch. xii sec. 4). And again (book
iii. ch. V. sec. 4), he says that Moses wrote the Ten Command-
ments on two tables ; " which it is not lawful for us to set down
directly, but their import we will declare." According to
Maimonides, one of the greatest Rabbinical writers," alter the
death of Simon the Just, the nnme '^Snjj^ (Adovui) was substi-
tuted even in the temple instead of mri'' {Jehovah). The
Samaritans in reading the Pentateuch ahvayp used Shima,i.e.,
" the nuvie" instead of it, and in the Rabbinical writings, it is
always .spoken of as the name, the iiurtie of four letters, or the
great or terrible name. Upon tablets found at Palmyra some
of the inscriptions read : " To the bles.sed Name, reverence for
ever."

The tradition in lespect to the proiiunciati(»n of the sacred
name is founded on Lev. xxiv. 16, " And he that curses the
name of the Lord, .shall surely be put to death." Most Jewish
writers have taken the verb '2p'2 {fioker) in the passage in the
sense to name or pronounce, and so indeed, it is rendered also
in the Septuagint, iTrovofidaat ... to ovofia * But the verb is
evidently used there in the sense to curse or b aspheme, and sa
it is rendered in the Vulgate, and by most of the modem com-
mentators.

Whilst the sacred writers, therefore, employ the name
Elohim in pjvssages where the poiver of God is set forth, they,
on the contrary, employ the holy and immutable name Jehovah
in connection with I'eligious rites and solemn subjects in
genei-al. ^^^len the sacred writers .speak of the only true God,
they employ Jehovah, and He also is the only object of true

*In the Hindoo sacred books much has been borrowed from the Scriptures,
and it is by no means unlikely that they adopted or imitated also some of the
customs of the ancient Hebrews. The Hindoo Mystics profess to have a
monosyllable U' M, which is of very profound impmrt, and so sacred that it
cannot be guiltlessly pronounced even by a priest. It must b^ contemplated und
recited mentally. It is supposed to be a name or emblem of the Deity. This
awful syllable is composed of the three Sanscrit letters A U M, but in compo-
sition the A and U are made to coalesce in O. The first letter is supposed to
be symbolical of Brahma, the creative power, the second of Vishnu, the pre-
server, and the third of Siva, the destroyer or renovator, for the Hindoo
philosophers maintain that destruction is only production in another form.
The great importance of this monosyllable is fully set forth in the institutes of
Manu. One of the directions given is as follows : " A Brahman beginning &
lecture must always pronounce to himself the syllable 0' M, for unless he does
■o, his learning wUl slip away from him, and uinless it follows, nothing will be
long retain^^' (Ch. ii. 74. )

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

According
purged by-
name, (see
upon God
lever been
lot lawful
ain (book
'omniand-
► set down
^rding to
' after the
as substi-
h). The
hima, i. e.,
ings. it is
e»«, or the
lyra some
jrence for

he sacred
;urses the
4 Jewish
ge in the
lered also
le verb is
le, and so
em com-

le name
"th, they,

Jehovah
ejects in
rue God,

of true

Scriptures,
ouie of the
to have »
«d that it-
plated »ud
sity. This
in compo-
uppo9ed to
i, the pre-
le Hindoo-
ther form.
Btitutes of
eginning &
38 he does
ng will be

worship. To Jehovah alone are Hacrifices offered, and the
Israelites were commanded to keep the laws of Jehovah.
Thus too, we have the phrases, " to serve Jehovah" " the con-
gregation of Jehovah." Again the Israelites am the people of
Jehovah, and their King is spoken of as the anointed of
Jehovah, &c. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the sacred
writers were guided, in a great measure, in the employment of
the Divine names by their signification, selecting the one
which they considered as most suitable to the connection in
which it was to be used. It is not our intention to take up
space here by quoting a numl>er of passai,'es in support of the
foregoing stJitement, as we can illustrate the use of the Divine
names with greater clearness as we go on with our interpreta-
tion, but we may briefly refer here to the occurrence of these
names in the tliree first chapters of Genesis to show that there
is a peculiar appropriateness and significance in the manner
the sacred writer has employed them.

We have already stated inasmuch as Elohim expresses the
attvibiUe of might, and thus presents God to us in the fulness
of His power, hence that Divine name is employed throughout
the first chapter in connection with the creating and perfect-
ing of everything by the fiat of the Almighty Being. Man
was created in the image of {Elohim) God (v. 26), he could
not have been created in the image of Jehovah for that holy
name, as we have seen denotes the self existent eternal God,
and exclusively belongs to Him. In the three first verses of
the second chapter, we have a brief summing up of the crea-
tion, and hence we find in verse 3, still Elohion employed :
" And {Elohim) God blessed the seventh day," In verse 4,
however, the sacred writer introduces the Divine names
DTlbfi^ mn*' {Jehovah Elohim) " Lord God " together, and
these names are so used throughout the chapter. Now, why
is this ? Our rationalistic writers would answer, " because this
portion was written by a different writer and at a different
period," but we say because the subject requires it. The
sacred narrative enters now on the most momentous and most
solemn theme recorded in the Old Testament, namely, the
planting of the garden of Eden as the happy abode of the
parents of the human family, indicating the great love and
care of God for the beings He had created; the Fall of
Man, and the consequent miseries entailed upon the human
family and the world at Large ; and the promise of a future
restoration at the coming of the Messiah. No wonder, then,
that the sacred writer should have employed the most holy
and most exalted name of all the Divine names in connection
with a theme of such.a solemn nature. But it may be asked,
why employ both Divine names together ? To this we may
12

people's commentary.

ili:f

reply, that the sacred writer evidently did thi.s to shove that
Jehovah is the Elohim, the Creator of the world, not a tlifferent
Being, but only expressive of a different attribute. Ha<I the
sacred writer eniplojed Jehovah for the first time by itself,
thei-e might have l)een a doubt as to whether Jehovah did
not designate a different Beino to that denoted by Elohim,
and it w&s to guard against such a misapprehension or misap-
plication that Moses used both names together. Who can tell
what theories modem critics would have founded upon it had
the name Jehovah been used alone ? As it is, some are insi.st-
ing upon an Egyptian or Chinese origin.

We would now draw the reader's particular attention to the
manner in which the Divine names are employed in the begin-
ning of chapter iii. In the first part of the first verse, where
the sacred writer continues the narrative setting forth that
"the serpent was more subtle than all the beasts which (Je/iovaJi
Elohim) the Loud God had made," he still continues to employ
the two names together, but not so in the second part of the
veiTse, when the serpent commences his seductive address,
" And he said unto the woman : Is it even so that (Elohim)
God said ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden " ? Here
the reader will perceive " Elohim " is only used, the serpent
dare not make use of the sacred name Jehovah ; nay more, he
dare not even hear the holy name ; hence, throughout the con-
versation with the serpent the woman only employs {Elohim)
" God." When we come to verse 8, however, where the sacred
writer speaks of " the voice of {Jehovah Elohim,) Lord God
resounding (not " walking," as in the English Version), both
names again are employed together, and so throughout the
remainder of the chapter.

The identity of Jehomh and Elohim having now been fully
established, Moses after this discontinued to use both names
together, and employs either one or the other as most suitable
to the context. Only once more throughout the whole of the
Pentateuch do we find the two names employed together, and
that is, Exod. ix. 30, where Moses seems to have used them
together in order to impress upon Pharaoh th/it JJooi,uJ: and
Elohim, are names of one God, and not of two different Beings,
as the king apparently had supposed. In verse 28, Pharaoh
says : " Intreat (Jehovah) the Loud, for it is enough that
there be no more {koloth Elohim) voices of God (i. e.,
thunder), and hail ; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay
no longer." It will be seen, that Pharaoh asked Moses to
entreat Jehovah namely, the God whose messenger he said he
was, but he speaks of the thunder as the " voices of Elohim,"
not that of Jehovah, but of some deity. So also the magicians
when they were unable to produce " gnats " by means of their

people's commentary.

liirMcn arts, said it is the " finger of {Elohim) God," as much as
to say it was not Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, who
intiieted this plague, but one of the deities.

Now let the reader mark the reply which Moses gives to
Pharaoh's request to pray to the LoitD that the thunder and
hail might cease : "And Moses said to liim, when I am gone
out of the city, I will spread out my hands unto the Lord and
the voices (i e., the thunder,) shall cease, and there shall be no
more hail, that thou niayest know that the earth is the Lord's.
But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye do not yet
fear {Jehovah Elohim) the Lord Gwl." As much as to say :
ye do not fear Jehovah who is Elohim the only true God, to
whom alone worship and honour is due. (Compare 2 Sam. vii.
22). The reader will now perceive that here also the use of
Jehovah Elohim can be satisfactorily accounted for.

We repeat, then, that there can l)e no doubt that Moses was
Lfuided in the use of the Divine nanu-s by their meaning, &H ho.
regarded one more appropriate than the other tf> the context,
though we may possibly not now in every instance be able to
assign a conclusive reason.

But there is yet another important circumstance which must
I e noticed in connection with the use of the Divine names, and
which will at once account for whj' Elohim is emjiloyed in
nmny places and not Jehovah. The form of the sacred name
mn'' Jehovah is immutable, under no circumstance is it
allowed to be altered. Hence it cannot be used with the ijeni-
tive* (construct) for that would neeessitate a change of the
final letter rt (f^^) ', neither can it be used with a j^oaaesaive
pronoun, for these are suffixed to the noun in Hebrew, and
would also necessitate a change in the final letter, for such
phrases, therefore, as God of Israel, my God, our God, d-c,
Moses had no alternative but to use Elohim.

We may now dismiss this subject, which has already taken
up a great deal of space. The few passages we have been ex-
amining ought, we think, to be sufficient to convince any unpre-
judiced mind that the use of the Divine names by the sacred
writer admits of a more reasonable and satisfactory solution
than that which is afforded by the document theory of our
modern critics which ascribes parts of chapters and even parts
oi . ^'-ses to different authorships, and supposes them to have
been wriit?n at long intervals of iime from one another. It is,
indeed, marvellous that such an extraordinary theory should
have met with so much favour among the most highly educated
in Europe. But, as we have already said, prejudice is a power-
ul agent in shaping our opinions.

*Th« expression fl1fc<I2S mrT^ (Lord of Hosts) Gesenius justly main^
tJUM to be elliptical for rilfe^lS "^nblS^ mPI"' {Jehovah God of Hosts) aa
Jer. T. U. Amos It. 14.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

^m:

I f if:

But, we may well ask, where was the necessity to have re-
course to such an extreme theory which at once strips the
whole Pentateuch of its genuineness, and represents the sacred
writers who mentioned Moses as the author ot it as altogether
mistaken in doing so. Tf, indeed, the peculiar manner in
which the Divine names are used in the Book of Genesis neces-
sarily implies different authorship, why not suppose that Moses
may have availed himself to a certain extent of some older
documents ? We have already remarked, p. 28, that Moses, in
giving the multifa -ious and complicated ages ot the antedilu-
vians, may have drawn some of his information from existing
genealogical record;^. To such a limited use of existing docu-
ments few, I think, would seriousl}' object, for it would in no
way detract from the authenticity of the Pen tp.teuch, since, as
an inspired writer, he was under the guidance of the Spirit of
God, under whose infallible direction he was preserved from
making use of any erroneous statements that may have existed
in the documents which he consulted. The reader will, there-
fore, not be surprised when I tel) him that many eminent and
devout writers, whom no one wouiti for a moment suspect of
being tainted with heterodoxy, have espoused the view that
the Book of Genesis " may be based on documents contempor-
ary, or nearly contemporary, with many of the events narrated.
Documents from the hand of Abraham, from the hand of even
some " man of God," who lived before the flood, may have been
before Moses, and been embodied by him in the volume he
wrote. (See Rev. VV. Wilkes's Reply to Bishop Colenso, p. 119).
Vitringa, the eminent Oriental scholar and commentator, many
years before the document controversy had been thought of,
e.\pressed the opinion that the patriarchs had no doubt com-
mitted to writing the principal facts of the early history of the
world, and that " Moses collected, arranged, embellished, and
(where necessary) completed ancient memoirs and records."
(Obs. Sac. i., c. 4, p, 36).

Calmet, the learned Benedic ■ uae monk, whose exegetical
writings have been held in high esteem both by P«<oman Catho-
lics and Protestants, and who is so widely known from hi.«
Historical and Critical Dictionuicy cf the Bible, expresseo simi-
lar views to those of Vitringa.* (Cointn. Lit., Tom. i., p. 13.)
Bishop Cleig, tvjo, in his edition of Stackhouse's History of the
Bible (vol. 1, p. 21), and Home (Introd. 1, p. rr2) speak approv-
ingly of the hypothesis of Vitringa and Calmet. We might go
on mentioning many more highly esteemed writers who adopted

• Campogius V itriiiga was born at Leuwanleii, iiK Friesland, 16th May,
.1(J69, and died Marcli 2l8t, 112'?.. He st'idujii at the universitiea of Frunecker
and Leyden. In 1G81 he was appointed Prot'esaor of OiiiMital Literature, and
afterwards ho occupied the chair of Theology. He left a number of excellont
and erudite works, most of them commsntariiia, which are constantly quoted.

people's commentary.

inner m

the same opinion, but we shall only quote the very sensible
remarks on this siibject of the Rev. J. Ayre, in his recent edi-
tion of the second vohime of " Home's Inttoduction," (pp 5H7,
588.) " It is very po.ssible that a student, after' diligent research,
may be jiersuaded that he sees traces of more than one hand
in the Pentateuch. The question is confessedly intricate. And
if the varied use of the Divine name, and any perceptible dif-
ference of action, incline the mind to the conclusion that the
most reasonable mode of accounting for the phenomena is to
believe that previous documents were worked up into the com-
position as we hpve it, the present writer is far from censuring
such a conclusion. Ibis is nothing more than what we have a
thousand examples of * * Secular writers have largely availed
themselves of the labours of those who produced them, and his-
torians especially have often literally transcribed into their
narratives events related by older annalists. It is no charge
against the author of. the Pentateuch to suppose that he has
done the same. It does not inteifere with the belief in his
iiispii-ation, for inspired writers were to employ all diligence
in acquiring information. The Divine superintendence guided
their faculties, but did not supercede the exercise of them. It
preserved them from erroneously using the Ifnowledge they
anywise acquired, so tliat what they have left on record i.s the
very word of God."

" To the belief, tlien, in the existence of the so-called Elohini
and Jehovah documents there is no theological objection. The
question is not of vital interest. But it becomes of vital
importance when men not only distinguish, but set one against
the other, v.'hen they imagine contradictions, and argue that
each author .respectively described, events, not as they occurred,
but according to his oiun fancy, and the jirevalent opinion of
his times, an«l thus degrade the sacred l)Ook. * *

'" It is here, then, that a stand must be made. The documents
used — il: separate documents there were — in the composition
of the Pentateuch (and it is in Genesis chiefly that they would
be used), were in 'perfect harmony. If information was found
only in one. it was not denied, though not reconlod, by the
other. And the facts obtained from both were disposed with
unerring faithfulness in the fittest place to make a Text-book
OF Holy truth for Gods Church for ever."

To whatever extent, hov/ever, Moses may have availed him-
self of older documents in the composition of tlv' Book of
Genesis, we are convinced that in employing the Divine names,
he was not influenced by any documents he may ha\e con-
sulted, but dimply seh cfced the one which he considered as
most appropriate to the subject. The passages we have
examined clearly .'show that there was a design in the manner
13

\fm/mm

PKOPLES COMMENTARY.

in which Jehovah and Jehovah Elohim are employed in thos^
passages, and I hope as we proceed with our explanations, we
shall be able to show that at least in most cases, if not in all, a
sound reason may be assigned for their respective use.

i). A}vl no shrub of the field xvas yet on tite earth, mid no herb of
th^^ field did yet sprout forth : for the Lord God had not ciused It to
rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.

This verse merely recapitulates that God called into exist-
ence every shrub and every herb before they existed upon the
earth, and before any of those requirements existed which are
indispensable to the ordinary mode of propagation and* culture.
They were called into existence in their full perfection before
there had been any rain, and before man had been created.
The whole vegetable kingdom is here spoken of under two
grand divisions, namely, n^tD (sidch) nhrab, which is here
uslmI in a more comprehensive sense as to include all hard-
w^ooded plants, shrubs, and trees ; and '212^ (ese?;) which here
embiuces all other classes of vegetation.

6. And a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground.

The vegetation which had been called into existence was not
allowed to languish for want of moisture, a mist went up from
the earth which watered the whole surface of the ground, to
refresh and to produce growth by natural means. The ascend-
ing of the mist, however, may set before us also another
creative act of God, by v/hich the wonderful formation of rain
was established ; for it is hardly reasonable to suppose that
there was no rain upon the earth during the 1650 years that
elapsed between the Creation and the Flood.

Elihu, in his sublime address, beautifully alludes to the won-
derful display of God's power, as shown in the formation of
rain :

For He ((rofi) dr.iwcth up the waterdrops, («. e., the mist or vapour which

afterwards descends in rain.)
They trickle rain instead of His mist (t. <•., the drops of walier come down

in rain instead of the mist from which they had been formed.)
Which the clouds drop down (». e., the rain), and distil up>m many men.

(Job xxxvi. 27, 28. )

Thomas Scott has beautifully paraphrased thi passage :

" Refin'd by Him tVie wat'ry atoms rise,
Run into clouds, and flow along the skies ;
And diBtilling in benignant ram
Swell the brown harvest of the shouting swain."

Rabbi Saadias, who flourished in the early part of the tenth
century, rendered the verse in his Arabic Version : " Nor had

people's commentary.

f mist ascended from the earth." This rendering would form
ii continuation of the preceding verse, and imply, that not only
had there as yet not been any rain, but not even a mist had
gone up to pro 'uce vegetation. A similar rendering is given
by Emmanuel Treraellius and Franciscus Janius. in their Latin
translation, and has also been adopted by Bay, Boothroyd, and
favoured by Bush, and other commentators. As the Hebrew
'", {^vav) conjunctive is in the English Version often rendered
" nor," and in the German Version by " noch," {i. e., nor), when
the preceding sentence is negative, as, for example, Exod. xx.
4 : " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor
(Hebrew, and) any likeness." There can, therefore, iie no
objection to this rendering on philological grounds, and it
certainly accords well with the context. Still, we think, the
rendering, " and a mist went up," is here the correct one, for
tsvo reasons. In the first place, if the saci'cd writer had wi.shed
to convey the idea that even no mist ivent up, it would have
been more suitablj^ introduced immediately after the state-
ment, " th(^ Lord God had not caused it to rain upon tlie
earth," in the jirecoding verse. Secondly, as we have already
stated, we consider the ascending of the mist as one of the
creative acts of God, from which clouds were to be formed.

7. .471*^ the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
b)eat/ied into his nostrils t/te spirit of life ; and man became a liviny
being.

In ch. i. 27, the creation of man had been only briefly
alluded to, that " God created man in his own image " ; this
general statement might have given rise to misconception as
to what extent man bears the image of God, the sacred writer,
therefore, gives here a more detailed account of thv> creation of
man, and mentions two distinct acts ; first, the forming of the
body " dust of the ground" ; hence, so far as the body is con-
cerned, it is merely dust ; and therefore it is said, ch. iii. in :
" For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return." The
other direct act is, the breathing into his nostrils the .spirit of
life, which is immediately followed by the words, " and mati
becatne a living being," thereby not only indicating that it
was the .spirit of life which animated the body, but also, that
it has nothing in common with the body, the two being entirely
distinct. Hence Solomon, in speaking of the extinction of
human life, says : " Then shall the dust return to the earth
as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave
it." (Eccles. xii. 7.) It was not beoau.se man became! " a
'iVH'^'B'^inephesh chahjah) livivfj being" that he holds such
a lofty position above all other created creatures upon earth,
tor this term is also applied to the smallest insect, but he holds

ITr

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

IS:

i-i

this distinguished position through the means by which he be-
came " a living being," namely, "the Q'lT! £l)a'©'3 (nishmath
chaiyim) spirit of life" which God breathed into his nostrils.
This constitutes the whole greatness and superiority. This
enables him to reason, to plan, to cairy out, or to relinquish
gigantic undertakings, and to discern between good and evlL
And it was this that enabled the Psalmist to exclaim : " '•'

"And yet Thou causeat him (j. «., mai)) to lack but a little f rom angels^

(i. e.. Thou has made man but a little lower than the angels,)
"And with honour and glory hast Thou crowned him."

We have already stated, that in order to bring the acts of
God, and His dealings with man, more readily under the com-
prehension of human understanding, the sacred writers repre-
sent God as actually performing acts which are merely affected
by His Will. There is, therefore, no necessity of tiiking the
phrase, "the Lord God formed* man," in a literal sense, that the
Almighty actually formed a human figure from the dust, all
that the language intends to convey is, that at the Will of the
Almighty the dust was shaped into a human form, and then
He breathed into his nostrils " the spirit of life."

8, And, the Lord God planted a garden in Eden eastward / and
there tie placed the man whom. He had formed.

9. And the Lord God caused to grow out of the ground every tree
that is pleasant to t/ie sight, and good for food ; and tlie tree of life in
tJie midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Man, who had been created an immortal being, was also
designed b}' his Maker to enjoy the most perfect peace and
felicity. God, therefore, Himself, prepared an abode for him,
which at once implies that it was in every way perfect for the
enjoyment of undisturbed happiness. There was nothing
wanting to gratify both the sight and taste. The Hebrew
word p (gan), garden, merely denutes an enclosed, protected

place, there existed at that time no more suitable word in the

* The orthographical peculiarity of the verb 1^'^''T {waiyitaer) and he
formed occurring only in this place written in full with tiuo yods, in connection
with the formation of man, instead 6f with one yod "\^1T as in all other places,
has attracted the attention of some of the Hebrew sages, who discovered &
number of hidden meanings concealed in the two yods. Thus, for example,
they are supposed to imply that man was formed for this and the future world :
that he combines in himself the earthly and the heavenly, &c. We. of course,
have no sympathy with such mystica,! iiitei pretations. There are a number of
similar orthographical peculiarities to be met with in other verbs, which cannot
be accounted for in any other way, than as being mistakes which originated
through the carelessness of the tranncribers. It is, however, a strange coinci-
dence that this fidl form should just have occurred in connection with the
formation of man. In verse nineteen, in connection with the formation of the

beasts of the field it will be seen, the form "l^^'^T witli one yod occurs.

pfople's commentary.

ebrew

rotected

in the

er places,
severed &
example,
e M orld ;
course,
umber of
h cannot
riginated
e coinci-
with the
n of the

language. In the Septuagint Version it is rendered by
irapaZiKTo'i, 'paradise, a very suitable rendering, for it denotes
a plcaMire ground or ^xt^'Z;, planted with the choicest plants
and fruit trees, and upon which the greatest care was bestowed.
The palaces of eastern monarchs were generally surrounded
by such pirks, and are spoken of by travellers that, on entering
one of them, it is like being transported into fairy-land, and
altogether baffles description. But not only was the garden in
itself beautiful, it was also situated in y-\'; {Eden), it is in a
delightful region, and hence it was afterwards called the gar-
den of Eden. The region or tract of country here called Eden,
probably was of considerable extent, whilst the garden itselt
occnpied only a small portion of it, hence it is here said to
have been planted DHp^ (milckedem) eastward, or in the east
of the region. Moses had evidently a design in thus particu-
larizing the situation, and we may justly suppose that it was
to indicai/e that it was the most delightful part. As the
Hebrew word Qlp^O (mikkedem) also denotes of old, from
ancient times, some of the Greek fathers have taken it here, in
this sense, and have founded upon it the belief that " paradise
was created, before the world " ; we need liardly say, that the
context altogether forbids such a supposition.

In the midst of the garden there stood two miraculous trees
differing altogether from the rest of the trees. The fruit of all
the other trees afforded merely transitory pleasure, but the
effects which the fruit of these two trees produced were lasting.
One of the trees was called " the tree of life," because its fruit
possessed the miraculous power of imparting eternal life, and
the other was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil,"
because its fruit possessed the power to impart to him who
partook of it, the knowledge to distinguish between good and
evil, As we have said, the trees were miraculous trees, for
immortality, and the knowledge o^' good and evil, are both the
gif cs of God. The expression " to know good and evil," in the
Sf^ripture language, denotes to understand the nature of good
and evil.

Some commentators have supposed that " the tree of know-
ledge," was so called, because it was by this tree our first parents
were to be tried whether they would obey or disobey the
commands of God. The tree would, therefore, afford the
Icnowledge by the result of the test as to their obedience or
disobedience to their Creator. But from ch. iii. 11, &c., it is
evident that the knovang of good and evil was the result from
their having eaten of the forbidden fruit, and we can, there-
fore, hardly come to any other conclusion, than that the tree
was so called from its fruit possessing the supernatural power
of imparting that knowledge.

O0'

people's commentary.

10. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden : and /rom
thence it was jmrted, and became into four fieads.

From the precise description that the sacred writer gives of
the locality of Eden, the region in which the garden was
situated, it is evident that he intended that there should be no
mystery as to its location. A river took its rise in Eden, and
in its course flowed through the garden to water it, and after-
wards divided itself into four Qi'D&^l (ranhi'm) heads, or chief
rivers, that is, into four separate streams. Now, of thr four rivers
mentioned, the two last named, namely, Hiddekel, (/. e., Tigris),
and Euphrates are well known, but such is not the case with
the other two, the Pison and the Cihon, there aie at present
no such rivers bearing these names. Hence some commen-
tators have indulged in the wildest conjectures in their
endeavour to identify these rivers, whilst others have adopted
a very short and easy mode of getting over the difficulty by
supposing that the deluge had efiaced all traces of the earthly
Paradise. That the locality in which Paradise was situated
may have undergone considerable changes either through the
Hood or subsequent causes is ver}' probalile, many well attested
changes have taken p'ace from time to time in various parts of
our globe, and no one would presume, at this distant time, to
fix the precise spot where the gaz'den of Eden was situated.
Moses himself only said, that " the Lord God planted a garden
eastward in Eden," he does not describe the situation of the
garden, but the situation of the region called Eden. Now%
whatever difficulty we may at present experience is discovering
the rivers Pison and Gihon, it is quite evident that they
existed in the time of Moses, for he is particularly careful in
laying down their geographical position, which was probably
rendered necessary from their not being well known, whilst in
naming the fourth river he merely said, " And the fourth river
is Euphrates," as this was a familiar river, no further description
was necessary. In our endeavour to discover the rivers Pison
and Gihon it is obviously necessary not to lose sight of the fact
that, according to the statement of the inspired writer, the four
rivers have one conmion source as their origin, or if not
originating from one source, at least have a confluence. This
distinct statement of Moses has, however, in a most unaccount-
able manner been altogether escliewed by many writers w^ha
have actually taken some of the rivers of Africa, Europe, and
India, as the Pison and Gihon. It would be simply a waste of
time and space to notice the many exorbitant theories that have
been seriously advanced in regard to the location of Edt.^n, some
of them hardly less extruvagent thflii the belief of the Mussul-
mans who hold that it was placed in one of the seven Leavens,.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY,

and that when Adam was driven out of it, he was thrown
down into the island of Ceylon, where he died.

Of all the theories put forward there are only two whieh are
really worthy of notice, namely, either that Eden was situated
in the elevated plateau of Armenia, near the sources of the
Euphrates and Tigris, or that it was located on the river
Shat-el-Arab, formed by the junction of the Tigris and
Euphrates, which afterwards divides itself again into two
branches before it falls into the Persian Gulf. Pison and
Gihon are held to be the ancient names of these two brai^ches

These two theories we will r jw biiefly examine, and we
think after we have done with our remarks, the leader will
have no difficulty in making his choice as to which of the two
he will ad(ipt or give the preference.

Moses describes the four rivers as follows :

11. The name of the. first 19, Pison: that in it which compasseth the
tpho/ii liind of Harilah, where there Ih the gold,

12. And thf gold of that land in good ; thei-e is the bdellium and the
onyx stone.

13. Awl tJte name of the second river is (iilimi : that is it which
cotnpasselh I he whole land ofCush, (not Ethiopia as in the J'Jni/lish

Version.)

14. And tlie name of the third ricer is Iliddekel : that is it which
Jioweth infropt of Assyria, (iwt towards the east). And the fourth
river, it in Euphrates.

The reader will perceive our rendering differs in two impor-
tant points from the rendering in the English Version, and the
reason will be pointed jut in course of our explanatioii.s. For
convenience sake, we will begin our remarks with the fourth
river.

As we have previously observed, the Euphrates being already
well known in the time of Moses, he merely gives its name
without anv further description. This river has two sources
in the Armenian mountains, which form two .streams, one called
Frat and also Kara See [i. c, the Black River), and the other
Muiad. These two rivers or l»ranches ai'terwards unite their
waters, which foim the Euphrates. At Kornah or Kuinah it
is joined by the Tigris, and the river takes now the name of
Shat-el-Arab, %. e., the river of the Arabs, which divides itself
again into two arms before it empties it.self into the Persian
Gulf, about 90 miles from Kornah. Wo beg the reader to bear
these remarks in mind, as it is on the river Shat-el-Arab where
we purpose to locate Eden. The name fiifi) {Phcrath), if of
Hebrew origin, would be derived from n"lS3 {i"'i'('fi), to he
fruitful, and so called from its fertilizing the land, by its
periodical overflowing like the Nile, when the snow nielts in

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

the mountains of Armenia. If the name is of Arabic origin it
would be so called from the sweetish taste of its waters. The
Persian name is Ufrata.

Hiddekel, the third river, is unquestionably the Tigris. Accor-
ding to Dan. X. 4, o, &c., Daniel saw a vision "by the side of
the great river, which is Hiddekel," It takes its rise in the
mountains of Kurdistan, within a few miles of the eastern bend
of the Euphrates. Moses describes it as flowing in the front
of or before Assyria, which, from the standpoint where
Moses wrote, was actually the case. The rendering of the
English version, "which gooth toward the east of Assyria,"
is not geographically correct, for the Tigris does not flow
toward the east of Assyria, but washes it on the west ; and
seen from Palestine or any western country it flows before or
in front of it. In Genesis the name ITCS^ (Anhshur) denotes
only tlie country which formed the ancient kingdom of Assyria,
of which Nineveh was the capital, and which was situated in
the east of the Tio-ris. As this river was not so well known
in the time of Moses as the Euphrates, he therefore gives a
more minute description of the former than he did of the latter.
If there were any more proof wanting to identify the Hiddekel
with the Tigris, we find it in the derivation of the name. The
name bpTH (CIdddekel) denotes a swift arrow, the Persians at
present call it Tir, which also signifies an arrow, and the river
was so called on account of its swiftness. Some of the Rab-
binic w^riters give the name as composed of the words ^pT Tn
(chad wekal) swift and light. Strabo (xi., p. 527), and Pliny
(Hist. Nat. vi. 27,) speak of the river having been so called
on account of its siviftness, the word Tigris meaning, in the
Me lo-Persic lanrjuasje, an arrotv.

Having now established the identity of the two last rivers, we
may next proceed to enquire what river is denoted by Gihon,
thf second river mentioned. It is here where the difference of
opinion connnences. Many ancient and modern writers main-
tain that Gihon is the famous river Nile. This idea seems to
have first originated from the word "nn"''© (Shichor) which is
the proper Hebrew name for the Nile, being rendered in the
Septuagint, in Jer. ii. 18, by Tr)(ov, i. e., Gihon. But this is only
one of the many generally acknowledged mistranslations that
are met with in the Septuagint, especially in the prophetical
writings. Josephus, too, says, " Geon runs through Egypt, and
denotes what arises from the east, which the Greek call the
Nile." It is difficult to say whether the brief account which
Josephus gives of the four rivers was intended to be taken
literally or allegorically, the latter is most likely the case, for
he also says, " Now the garden was watered by one river, which
ran round about the whole earth, and parted into four rivers."

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

(Antiq. B. 1 ch. 1, par. 3.) He also speaks of the Pison as
" runnino- into India, makes its exit into the sea, and ifj, by the
Greeks, called Ganges." Surely, Josephu? must have well
known, that the Ganges and Nile, could never have formed
branches of one river with the Euphrates and Tigris. Some of
the Fathers of the Church, either influenced by the rendering
of the Septuagint, or by the statement of Joseph us, have also
taken Gihon to be the Nile. And what is more astoni.shing,
that some modern writers as Berthcau. Kalisch, Bush, and
others, have espoused the same opinion. Gesenius regards it to
be the Ethiopian Nile. It is impossible to conceive how these
writers will reconcile their opinion with the plain and unmis-
takable language of the sacred writer, wliich plainly sets forth
that the four rivers are branches of one river, and as the
Euphrates and Tigris are certainly two of the branches, it is
impossible that the Nile can also be a branch of it, being
separated from the two by mountains and seas. Kalish, indeed,
does not attempt to reconcile it, but ascribes it to the deficiency
of geographical knowledge possessed by the Israelites in com-
mon with the other eastern nations. (Comment, on Genes,
p. 94.) It is quite possible that the ancient Hebrews were no
more advanced in secular knowledge than the other eastern
nations, but the question here is, not what the people knew,
but what Moses, as an inspired writer, knew. Would it be
consistent to suppose that Moses, as an inspired writer, was
ignorant of the fact that the Nile and Euplirates could not be
branches of one river ? It seems, however, to be a favourite
line of argument with some of the English writers to charge
Moses with ignorance. Bishop Colenso, in his attack upon the
Pentateuch, has had the audacity to do so ; (The Pentateuch
and the Book of Joshua, p. 53 ;) and so likewise the Rev. C. W.
Goodwin, in his Mosaic Cosmogony. (Essavs and Reviews, p.
278.)

But it may well be asked, if Moses had really meant the
Nile, how does it happen that he here employs the term "lirT^ri
(Gichon) Gihon, whilst in all other places where he has occa-
sion to speak of that river he always uses the Egyptian word
-15^1 (yror) i. e., river; (.see Gen. xli. 1, 2, 3, See ; Exod. i. 22, &c..
or a''"l^)a 1(15 (nehar Mitsrai/ka) i. e., ike river ofErf)/pt,{(Ji(in
XV. 18 ;) or a"i-|^)a briD (nackal Mltsrayim) i. e., the stream of
Efiypt. (Numb, xxxiv. 5.) Even the branch 's or canala of the
Nile are spoken of by the sacred writers merely by using the
Egyptian word -jj^i {yeor) river, in the plural. (See Ps. xx\'iii.
44 ; Is. vii. 18.) From the peculiarly dark muddy water of the
Nile, the Hebrews gave it the name '\'\tV'<^^{Shic1ior) i. e., the
muddy or black river ; but although it is very frequently men-
tioned in the Old Testament, it never is called Gihou: and there
14

III

PEOPLES COMMENTARY,

is not the sliglitest indication that it was known among the-
ancient Hebrews by that name.

As we have above stated, tlie idea of identifying CJihon with
the Nile had its inception in the niistrnnslation of tlie Hobiew
name "nrr^tb {Shh'lior) by Ti]Uiv, i. e. Gilioo in the Septungint,
and we have here only another example of the great niiscliief
mistranslations may give rise to in btiilding up false theories.

Far more re.isonable is the supposition that the Gihon is the
Aras, the ancient Arnxcs, a river of Armenia, which rises not
far from the Euphrates, and which in its coui-se is joined by
the large river Kur (the ancient C'ynis), and afterwards
empties itself" in the Cas])ian Sea. Among the eminent writej-s
who hold this opinion are Reland, Calmet, Bunsen, Kurz, Keil,
and Delilzsch. The writers who identify the Gihon with the
Araxes, take the Pison eitlier to be the Phasi.s or Cyrus, thus
finding all the four rivers in the high table Itinds of Armenia,
where they accordingly locate- Eden. The fact that the four
rivers do not now originate from one source, but from difi'erent
sources which can have no connection, does not, they maintain,
militate ngainst their theory, as the earth may have undergone
gieat changes since the creation of man ; changes produced
either by the Flood or from other causes. That sucli dianges
have taken place from time to time, we have already stated, is
admitted by the most emirunt naturalists, and is further .sus-
tained by ancient traditions.

But whilst the theory which locates Eden in the high-lands
of Armenia is quite plausible, yet it does not in many lesjiects
accord so well with the Mosaic record as the theory which
places the terrestrial Paradise on the Shat-el-Arab, the river
formed by the junction of the Tigris and Eiiphrates, and wliich
divides itself again into two arms before emptying in the
Persian Gulf, about ninety miles from Kornu. According to
this theory some regard the most easterly of these channels to
be the Pison. This ojtinion was maintained by Calvin, Scaliger,
and others. But Horetius on the contrary, proved beyond
doubt that the Pison was the westernmost of the two channels,
and Gihon the easterly channel. This view was also enter-
tained by the eminent and world-renowned Oriental scholar
Bochart, by Morinus, Prof. Schickhard, Father Kircher, Hop-
kins, Pressel, and the Rev. Edward Wells in his "Geography of
the Old and New Testament," and by many other eminent
scholars. Let us then briefly exaniine whether the two arms
of the Shat-el-Arab really answer to the geographical position
of the Pison and Gihon as given by Moses.

The etymology of the name 'iirT'3 {Gichon) Gihov, in itself
afiords no assistance in identifying the river, it signifies merely
a bt'eaking or hurstiig forth, and would, therefore, be a proper

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

appellation for many rivers. Indeed, in I Kin^s i. 33. and 2
Chron. xxii. 30. it occurs o-s tlio name of a fountain ui'ar Ji.-ru.sa-
lem, but which is more frequently called nbO (^hiloach) S'Ufxim,
i. e.', a sending forth. It is, however, a very suitable name for
any one of the two arms, as the tides are very violent at that
end of tlie Persian Gulf, and the river may have obtained
its name from its breaking over the banks, and in a similar
manner the other river received its name Pis(»n. The sacred
writer, however, describes its geographical position " that is
it which compa-sseth the whole land of Cush," winch was
evidently intended as a guide in identifying the river, and we
mu.st, therefore, endeavour to find out what tract of country
is here denoted by " Cush." Now, according to Gen. x. 6, Cush
was the eldest son of Ham, and after him were the countries
called which his descendants inhabited. It was also customary,
just asitiswith us now, of calling tho inhabitants by the name
of the country which they occupied, as {Caahi) a Cushite. In
the English version the Hebrew terms Cush and Cuah'i are
always rendered Ethiopia and Ethiopian, which certainly is
not suitable in all ca.ses. As for example, in Numb. xii. 1, it is
said that " Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of
the (Cushith) i. e. Cushite women (English version, Ethiopian
women) whom he had married."

If we now turn to P]xod. ii. 15 to 21, where the marriage
and circumstances attending it are recorded, it is evident that
Moses did not marr}' an Ethiopian woman from Africa, but a
Midianitish woman of Arabia, for it is allowed that Midian
was a country in Arabia situated on the east of the Red Sea.
In 2 Chron. xxi. 16, we read " that the Lord stirred up against
Jeroboam, the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians
that were near the Cushites." By " the Cushites," in this pas-
sage must certainly be understood a people inhab'ting the
Arabian peninsula. This is clearly indicated by the . xprtssion
" near;" for the Arabians could certainly not be said to be vear
the Ethiopians in Africa. There are other passages, besides
these we have mentioned, which clearly prove that the descen-
dants of Cush at one time inhabited a portion of Arabia. In
course of time some of the Cushites no doubt crossed the Red
Sea, and pUuited a colony in Africa. Hence, the Ethiopic lan-
guage belongs to the Shemitic family of languages. The name
Ethiopian is of Greek origin from aWco, toiurnySiTid atyfrjace,
hence XWio-^, an Ethiopian, i. e., sunburned, and was given to
them, or adopted by them, at a later period.

We have seen, that it is clear from Scripture that Gush was
also the name of a tract of country in Arabia, it will be neces-
sary, in the next pw.co, to show in order to establish the
identity of Gihon with the easterly channel, that the Arabian
Cush was washed by this river.

>^^^.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^Sf^^^ <'^^^,^'

1.0

I.I

Hi §22 |2.5
|5o "^^ R^H

US IM 12.2
2.0

Ni&

1.25 ||.4 1.6

►

^w*' «

"V*

o^ w.

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80

(716) 873-4303

■ <

people's comhentabt.

I ]

I, :

Susiana, a province of Persia, derived its name from Susa,
its capital. The territory of this province was enlarged by
Ptoloiny, so as to include also the large province of Elam
(Elyinais), which extends as far &s the coast of the Persian
Gulf ut the east of the mouth of the Euphrates. This territory
is now called Chazistan or Khuzistan, that is, the country of
the Cuahites, just as Hindoostan means the country of the
Hiiulooa. Some of the Arabian and other Oriental geogra-
pherscall itChurestan, but this slightchange in thf orthography
of the name has evidently originated in the carelessjiess of the
transcribers, as the Arabian and Persian letter z is merely
distinguished from the L'>tter r by having a do^c above it.
Lideed, according to some writers, the inhabitants c»f the coun-
try merely call it Chu8. In 2 Kings xvii. 24, the same region
is called " Cuthah," which is only the Aramaic form of the
Hebrew name Ciish. When Shalmaneser carried the ten
tribes into captivity, Cuthah was one of the countries from
which he transported a colony to repeople Samaria. There are
other circumstances besides those we have noticed which tend
to establish the identity of Khuzistan with the land of Cush
mentioned by Moses, and if so, we may rest satisfied that
the easterly channel of the Shat-el-Arab (or mouth of the
Euphrates, or of the Tigris, which comes to the same,) is the
river Oihon, which wa.shes or runs along the side of the
Province of Elyraais, whicl . as we have shown, fonns a part of
Khuzistan.

This point being settled, we think we shall have little
difficulty in proving the identity of the westerly channel of
the Stat-el-Arab with the Pison mentioned by Moses.

The river Pison being either less familiarly known, or wa«
intended to serve as a more exact guide in tracing the river
Gihon. its geographical position is dwelled upon at greater
length than at those of the other fhree rivers. " The name of
the first is Pison : that is it which compasseth the whole land
of Havilah, where there is the gold. And the gold of that land is
good : there is the bdellium and the onyx stone." (vv. 11, 12.)
The Hebrew name of the river is ^I'O'^B (Plshon), and

denotes a sytreading, and, like the river Gihon, was no doubt so
called from its overflowing the neighbouring country caused by
the high tides we have already spoken of. Jesus, the son of
Sirach, makes allusion to the overflowing of this river in
Ecclesiasticus, he says : " He (God) filleth all things with His
wisdom, as Pison." (ch. xxiv. 25.) This river is said to wash
the country Havilah, or rather, according to the Hebrew
orthography of the name, Chavilah, which received its name
from nb^in {Chavilah) one of the sons of Joktan mentioned
Oen. X. 29, and whose descendants inhabited a country near

people's commentart.

9»

the Persian Gulf. In Qen. xxv. 18, Moses speaks of the
descendants of Ishmael as dwelling " from Havilah to Shur,"
by which the sacred writer probably indicates that they
inhabited the whole extent of that portion of Arabia which lies
between Egypt to the west, and the Persian Gulf in the east
Niebuhr in his well known work " Description of Arabia,"
speaks of a town and district on the Persian Gulf called
Uliawlla. Pliny calls the people inhabiting that region
Chavelsei. And so, in the names given to the inhabitants of
that lomlity by other writers, the ancient name Havilah is
still discernible.

But the sacred writ(jr further describes the country as being
also famous for its pure gold. Many writers bear testimony
to the purity of the gold of Arabia. Diodorns states that in
Arabia vs as found natural gold, and of such bright colour, that
it resembled the brightness of fire, and so pure that it required
no purifying. (Lib. ii. cap. 14; Lib. iii. cap. 3.) The sacred
narrative states also, that in this region was found "the
bdellium," and " the onyx stone." Now here arises the
question, what are we to understand by the bdellium ? —
The Hebrew name is nblS {bed. '-^rh) but unfortunately its
etymology is doubtful, though Bo i^jk , -u other eminent wri-
ters conjecture that it means something . lected, precious as ir
derived from the verb ^13 (badal), to select Josephus, and
some of the Patristic writers, favour the supposiLion that it is
an aromatic gum, the fiBiWiov (bdellion), of the Greeks, which,
according to Pliny, is the gum of a tree common in Arabia^
Some modern writers have supposed it to be the gum of the
Balsamodendron Mukul or B. pubescens, belonging to the
order amyridacece, the Myrrh order. Many of the most emi-
nen*: Rabbinic writers, on the other hand, have taken the term
to denote pearls, and tbeir opinion has been espoused by far
the greatest number of modern writers, and certainly has much
in its favour, and altogether obviates the objections which may
be urged against the gum theory. As the bdellium is mentioned
in connection with pure gold and the onyx stone, it is natural
to suppose that it likewise denotes something precious, which
would not be the case if it meant a gum, which is very com-
mon in Arabia, and by no means costly. Then again, bdellium
occura only twice in the Scriptures, namely, in the pa.ssage
under consideration, and in Num. xi. 7, where Moses is describ-
ing the manna, he says that it was " as coriander seed, and the
colour thereof as the colour of bdellium." It was round like cori-
ander seed, but what was its coloui? The answer to this question
will be found in Exod. xvi. 14, where the manna is likened to
** the hoar-frost," which is white, and in verse 31 it is described
to be " like coriander seed, white." Both the form and colour
are suitable to pearls, but not to the gum.

people's commentary.

Now, both ancient and modern writers bear testimony to the
great quantity of pearls that are obtained in the Persian Qulf,
and that nowhere am finer ones to be found. Nearchus, who
conducted thu fleet of A'exander the Great, from the mouth of
the Indus to the Persian Qulf, 325 B.C., speaks of an island in
that gulf as abounding in pearls of great value. Pliny too,
after praising the pearls of the Indian seas, goes on to .say,
that those that are fished towards Arabia in the Persian
Gulf are worthy of the highest commendation. (Plin. lib. vi.
c. 26 ; lib. ix. c. 35). Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, in his notes
on foreign lands — originally written in Hebrew — expresses
the opinion that by the bdellium are meant pearls, and speaks
of having been an eye-witness to pearl fishing in the Persian
Gulf.

We have now only to notice yet the onyx stone which the
sacred narrative informs us to be a product of Havilah. The
Hebrew name of this gem is UTMD (nhoham) but unfortunately
the etymology of the word is doubtful, and the several pas-
sages of Scripture where it occurs, likewise throw no light upon
the subject as to what particular t^em is indicated by it. In
the Septuagint it is rendered here by 7rpdaiv6<}, i. e. the beryl,
but in Job xxviii. 16, it is rendered by Svv^, i. e the onyx.
Most of the ancient writers are in favour of the bend, but the
opinion among modern writers preponderates in favour of the
onyx. In Job xxviii. 16, it is spoken of as of great value,
and its preciousness may also be inferred from having formed
one of the twelve precious stones in the BR kast- plate of the
High Priest. The Greeks called the gem Svv^, i. e., nail,
whence the English term onyx, from its colour resembling the
tinge of the human nail, or the flesh undei' th<s nail. It is,
however, of no importance whatever whether we take the
shoham to be the beryl or the onyx, for both ancient and
modern writers testify that Arabia was once very famous for
its precious gems. Pitts, in his " Account of the Mahom-
metans," as an eye witness, tells us that precious stones
for rings and bracelets are even now brought from Arabia
Felix in great quantities, to the annual fair held at Mecca,
during the last ten or twelve days of the stay of the
pilgrims there (p. 142.) Stmbo states that the riches of
Arabia, which consists in precious stones, and excellent
perfumes, the tratle whereof brought a great deal of gold
And silver to the inhabitants. The gold of the country itself,
made Augustus to send ^Elius Gallus thither, in order to make
those nations his friends, and dfaw to himiielf their riches, or
to subdue them. Diodorus speaks also of the precious stones
of Arabia, and that they are nighly valued for thoir variety
And the brightness of their colours. ^'Uny too, assures us, that

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

•6

the precious stones that are brought from Arabia are most
highly valued. He also states, that the ancients believed, that
the onyx stone was only to be found in the mountains of
Arabia.

From the foregoing remarks, it will now be seen, that there
is a country near 'he Persian Gulf, called Havilah, and which
aboundid in all those products mentioned by Moses, we may
take it, therefore, for granted that the river which waters the
country is the river Pison.

The country <m each side of the Shat-el-Arab is spoken of
by ancient «nd modern writers to be exceedingly beautiful and
fertile. Although it very seldom rains there, yet on account of
the richness of the soil, and being well watered by the river,
the land is very productive.

As regards the order in wliich the four rivers are mentioned
by Moses, Wells has rightly accounted for it, inasmuch as
Moses wrote in Arabia Petrnea, or someplace near it. the river
Pison was the nearest to him, and hence is mentioned first,
then the Oilion Wing the cliannel that presented itself next, is
mentioned as the second river; then, passing over this river, and
turnin<r to the left hand to come back where Moses was
writing, we meet with the Tigri.s, and iience is mentioned as
the third river ; and so the Euphrates is naturally the fourth
river according to the method adopted by Moses in the naming
of the rivers.

From what has now been said, we may safely conclude that
Eden, the region in which the earthly Paradise was planted,
was situated on the river now called Shat-el-Arab, below the
confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, and that it was this
river which passed through the garden of Eden to water it.
In the time of Moses the river thus formed by the combined
waters of the Tigris and Euphrates apparently had no name,
hence the sacred writer merely says, " And a river went out of
Eden," the name Shat-el-Arab is comparatively modern.

15. And (fie Lord God took tfte nian, and placed him in the garden
of Eden, to keep it and to till it.

The sacred writer has already stated, in verse 8, that God put
the man in the garden which ho had planted ; but as the de-
scription of the locality of the earthly Paradise, which was
introduced by way of parenthesis, had in a measure interrupted
the strain of the narrative, it was necessary in resuming it
again to repeat that statement. There is, however, a marked
difference in the two statements which is not apparent in the
translation. In verse 8, where the sacred historian merely
states the fact that God put the man in the garden, he employs
the ordinary verb QtD^l {ivdi-yasem) and he put or placed, but

ill!

J. J;

people's commentary.

on inking up the strain of the narrative again in vei'*-'* 15 he
uses the far more comprehensive verb inn''5">T {wai-yavnickehu}
literally, and he catLfted him to rest, implying that not only did
Qod assign to him the garden as a place of abode, but th^t he
was also to lead a life of rest, peace, and contentment. There
was nothing omitted on the part of the Creator to render the
happiness of man complete. Created in God's image, endowed
with imniortality, a garden especially prepared for him by his
Maker for his abode, and placed there to lead a life of perfect
happiness. But the verse contains another very important
statement, not given in verse 8, and that is, man was* by his
own erertion to till and keep the garden. God designed man
to be perfectly happy, but not to lead an idle life; and it requires
yet to be proved that idleness in anywise contributes to human
happiness, but, on the contraiy, it is a prolific source from
whence spring mischief, crime, and miseiy. Mere labour itself,
in tilling the ground, was at first a pleasant recreation, toil
and the exhausting of strength in tilling the ground, as well
as the multifarious anxieties often attending agricultural pur-
suits, were the direct consequences of the curse pronounced
upon the ground on account of our first parent's sin : " cursed
be the ground for thy sake, in pain shalt thou eat of it all thy
life." (Ch. iii. 17).

But Adam was not only to till the garden, he was likewise
" to keep it." The Hebrew vei b 1^"0 {shamar) here employed
is very expressive, it denotes to keep, to preserve, to watch, to
guard ; Adam was to preserve it in perfect order, and in its
primitive beauty, and to guard it from the depredation of the
animals. As consummate order pei-vades all the works of
God, so we find that from the beginning the Almighty de-
signed that among men also industry and oi^der as twin
brothers should go hand in hand. We have in this verse
also the first institution of agricultural pursuit, thus having
the distinguished honour conferred upon it in being insti-
tuted by God Himself, and appointed as the occupation
of the first human being, ^o wonder, then, that it should
form throughout the world the most important occupation
upon which the welfare of nations chiefly depends. No
country under the most favourable circumstances could sustain
a large population, if the people had merely to depend upon
the chase or the natural productions of the ground.

16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of
the garden thou niayest freely eat.

17. But of the tree of t/ie knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it, for xn ths day thou eatest thereqfthou shalt surely die.

Although man at his creation was advanced to a high degree

people's commentary.

•T

of excellence and holiness, having been created in the image
and likeness of God.yet it was not to such a state of perfection as
to render it impossible for him to commit sin. Even the angels
are not absolutely perfect in the sight of Cod, they even may err.

"Behold" Bays Eliphaz " He puts no trust in His servants ;
And His angels He charges with folly." (Job vL 18.)

As much a.s to say, even those heavenly beings, who sur-
round the throne of God, and are His special chosen servants,
even they are not absolutely perfect, they may possibly err.

Yet man came from his Maker's hands an innocent and sinless
being, having the germ of holiness deposited in him, which he
was to develop by his own free resolution, as a free moral
agent, by doing God's Will. Now, the above two verses con-
tain the first commandment given to the parents of the human
race, designed to afford them an opportunity to enter upon a
course ot spiritual development. God's dealings with man are
always characterized by the profoundest wisdom, and the
strictest justice, and nowhere in the Old Testament is this more
strikingly apparent as in the test of obedience, which it pleiiaed
the Almighty to set to our first parents. The test was of the
simplest kind. It required neither labour, nor did it demand
any deprivation of pleasure. They were allowed to eat of every
tree of the garden which was plea.saut to the sight, and good for
food ; but the tree of knowledge of good and evil, according to
verse 9, was not one of these. There is nothing in the account
to indicate that the tree po.ssessed any outward charm. In
chapter iii. 0, it is indeed said, " and when the woman saw that
the tree was good for food, and that it wan pleasant to the
eyes," but this evidently was njere imagination produced by a
longing to eat of it. How could Eve see that the tree was
good for food ? It might have appeared pleasant to the eye,
and yet its fruit might have been most disagreeable, and even
poisonous. It was when she began to lust to cat of it, that she
imagined it was good for food. " When lust," it is said in the
Epistle of James, " hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin : and
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (General Epistle
ch. i. 15.)

Many writers have erroneously supposed that the creation of
Eve took place after the prohibition had been given to Adam,
but such is not the case. It is true, the formation of Eve
from the lib of Adam is recorded after the giving of the com-
mand, but the sacred writers do not always uarrute events in
the exact order as they happened. In verse nineteen it is
also said : " And out of the ground the LoiiD God formed
every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;" but
the creation of the fowl had already taken place on the fifth
16

P£0PLF/S commentaky.

^li

day, and that of tlje beasts on tlio .sixth day. And as regards
the creation of tli*^ first human pair, it is distinctly stated
eh. i. 27, 28, " a male and a female created he them. And God
blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful and
multiply," kc. From this language it is clear that the creation
of Eve took place immediately after the creation of Adam on
the sixth day. In the first* chapter, however, it is mep^Iy
stated that the fowl, the beasts, and first human pair wei*e
created, the sacred writer, therefore, supplements that account
by giving a more detailed account of tiieir respective creation.
In giving such supplementary statements, the sacred historians
evidently did not deem it necessary to give them in the exact
order of time, their sole object was to furnish additional infor-
mation. Thus also in 1 Kings vi. we have an account of the
building of Solomon's Temple, then ch. vii. commences with
the statement, that his own house took thirt<^en years in build-
ing, and after this follows a description of the " house of the
forest of Lebanon" which Solomon built, but at verse thirteen
is introduced the statement, " And King Solonion sent and
fetched Hiram out of Tyro," and the narrative then goes on to
say, that he was a widow's son, that he was filled with wisdom,
and a skilled workman, and that he came to King Solomon and
wrought all his work. Here then, if we were to insist urton
that tlie narmtive states the facts in regular i)r«ler as they
happened, then it would represent Solomon as sending for
Hiram thirteen years after the Temple " had been finished
throughout all the parts thereof." But what is here intro-
duced about Hirum and the work he did for Solomon is merely
intended to furnish additional information regarding the
structure of the Temple and its vessels, and especially as to by
whom the magnificent workmanship was executed. No doubt,
this statement would have been more appropriately connected
with chapter vi., but in criticising a book we mu.st make due
allowance for the existing customs of the time when it was
written, and as Scripture furnishes other examples of this
peculiar mode of recording events, it is evident that it was a
common style of narration among the Old Testament writera.
As to the command itself which God saw fit to impose in
order to test the obedience of man whom He had created, it
has indeed been frequently cavilled at by writers and lecturers.
The whole account of the fall of man has been pronounced as
" repulsive to man, derogatory to the Deity, and as altogether
absurd." From sceptics and neologists, considering their well
known views regarding Biblical subjects in general, such a
statement can hardly cause any sui-prise ; not so, however,
when coming from men who profess to preach Holy Scripture
as the inspired Word of God. It is simply imposing upon the

ill

pkople'h commentary.

credulity of tluir hearers or readers wlio may not l>e able to
judge of the soundness or unsoundness of their fine spun
argMinents, by telling thoni that the Mosaic account of the
Oeation, the Fall of Man, the l)ehi;i;e, the Confusion of
Languaj^es, oic, &c., "merely en) botly sonu; kind of allegorical
teaching, yet, this do".s in nowise aifeet tlio fundamental doc-
trines of the Hiltle." Ho not deceived, reader, by such ilelusive
argument, it is merely put forward as acov(U'ing to conceal the
fearful consecjuences that must inevitably result from such a
teaching.

To «|uestion the truthfulness of the ilosaic account of the
Fall of Man, means thediscarding of the most essential doctrines
of the Scri|)tures, or to s{)eak more ])l!viidy, the rejecting of the
whole Bible as an inspired book. If the narrative of the Fall
of Man is mere " fiction," as some writers assert, or " contains
merely an allegory," as others maintain, then man was not
created an innnoital being, death entered not into the world
on aecoimt of sin, the olf'ering of sacritioes was a meaningless
ceremony, and so forth.

But let us for a moment e.xami'ie the objections urged against
the pruliihitioii, by modrrn writers.

What has chielly called forth i]w fitsrce criticism, is the .slmpU
valai'e of tin' rom manil, (iiul the scir ri.fi/ of fhe punitthment.
It is maintained that the mere oatingof f.ie fruit of a tree, should
have brought about sucli a catastrophe affecting the whole human
r,u.'e, is against common sense, and connnon justice. That it is
also impossible to conceive, a holy, merciful, and just God should
visit a mere disobedient act which was harmless in itself with
such a fearful punishment. The objection at first sight seems
reasonable, and no wonder that when the subject is liandled by
men of eloquence, who possess the gift of clothing their state-
ments in fjuscinating language that many may become impressed
by their arguments, and though they may not in all cases
entirely fall in with their views, jj^et the seed of doubt is
sown in their minds which may sooner or later germinate and
develop into scepticism or infiilelity. Such, we regret to say,
has been the result from a lecture lately delivered in Toronto
by a well known preacher from the United States, who has
expressed his opinion on the subject in unmistakable language.
We cannot say whether his remarks on this subject were
applauded, like in some other cities where he had been deliver-
ing the same lecture, but this much we know^ that his remarks
tended to unsettle the minds of some of his hearers, for we
have been appealed to and asked whether " the Mosaic account
of the Fall of Man must necessarily be taken in a literal sense?"
For our part, we have never discovered the slightest difficulty
connected with the subject, so far as the human mind is capable

100

people's commentary.

•ip

of comprehending it. No doubt, there are some points con-
nected with it, which are beyond the com prehension of the
finite undei-standing of man ; but those mu8t, like other mys-
terioUH subjects of Scripture, be accepted an formini^ a part of
that Hcheme of redemption, a perfect knowledge of which will
only V)e revealed at its full consummation.

Our adverse critics in treating this subject, have at the out-
set fallen into the error by judging the prohibition given to
Adam by the same standard and merits as the other Bib.ical
commnndments, and present existing laws, ignoring the fact
that this prohibition is a commandment per ae, given for a
fpecial purpose, and suitable to special circumstances. When
viewed in this light all the objections which modern criticism
has conjured up against it will at once disappear. Man, as we
have stated, had ao his creation the genu of hollvesH implanted
in him, yet he was at the same time endowed with a. free iviU
in order that his reward might be greater if growing in holi-
Jiess more and more by his own free moral agency. Had the
will of man been constrained to do good only, he could have
had no claim to a reward, for in that case he would merely
have done what he was obliged to do. \^\ constituting him a
free agent, it called forth on his p.irt the exercise of judgment
with whi(rh Qod had endowed him. either to do, or to resist.
Mow it pleased God to put this free will of num to test, and
for this purpose He gave him a conimaiid. This command was
of such a character as to be suitable to the condition of the
newly created pair, and the situation in which tliey were then
placed. In teaching a child, the first lesson is naturally of the
simplest kind, so that it may not tax too much the untutored
mind. What more natural than that the first commandment
given to the first human pair should be of such a simple nature
as would require no great strain of mind on their part to
understand it. Then again, we must take into consideration,
that in the situation in which Adam and Eve where then
placed, none of the moral laws which were afterwards insti-
tuted, would have been in the least suitable in Paradise. Adam
and Eve were the only human occupants, so that any moral
commandment regarding the conduct of man towards man
would have been a dead letter. Why do not those who are so
loud in declaiming against this prohibition display their own
wisdom by showing what would have been a more suitable
and consistent commandment ? One which would satisfy all
the demands of modem criticism ? They well know that this
would involve an impossibility, for it would be a futile attempt
to satisfy the whims of modem critics. Had th« test been of
a more severe nature, it would have been pronounced unsuit-
able to the untutored mind of the newly created pair, and
declared arbitrary and tyranical.

people's commentary.

101

CMtics lay much stress upon the severity of the punishment
M compared with the inaignlticance of the deed. But we have
already stated that this commandment cannot be judged by
the standard of any other Scriptural commandment or secular
law. It is also inseparably connected with the Divine scheme
of redemption, and therefore, involves a mystery which is
beyond the limit of human understanding to comprehend fully
in this life. This much, however, is clearly revealed, that by
Qod's mercy, the sting of death has been removed by having
been made a way by which man may enter into sreater
happiness and glory than the earthly Paradise could have
afforded.

A writer has pertinently remarked, in speaking on the origin
of evil, 'Where, I ask, is any injustice, or even unkindness don»
to him by Deity 7 Where is any moral improbability that
such a traitor should be ; or any just inconsistency chargeable
on the attiibutes of God in consequence of such his being ?
Whom can he in reason accuse but himself for what he is f
And what misery can such an one complain of, which is not
the work of his own hands ? And lest the great offender
should urge against his Qod, why didst thou make me thus ?
Is not the answer obvious, I made thee, but not thus. And on
the rejoinder, why didst thou not keep me as thou madest me ?
Is not the reply just, I made thee reasonable, I led thee to
the starting place : I taught thee, and set thee going well in
the beginning ; thou art intelligent and free, and hast capa-
cities of Mine own giving ; wherefore didst thou throw aside
My Grace, and fly in the face of thy Creator ?"

Some have cavilled at the expression, "on the day thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,"* by asserting that Adam
and Eve did not die, but lived centuries after the fall. The
language simply means, that on the day they transgressed the
commandment, they shoiiH become mortal. When they sinned,^
they sowed the seed oi death ; it wa.s then that the process of
dissolution commenced, and ended in their returning to dust.

18. And the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone ;
I toill make for him an help meet for him.

God created man a social creature, with affections suitable

• In the original it is ^l)3|n ^1^ [moth lamuth, lit., to die thou shalt die.
The Hebrews express the certainty of the fulfilment of an action, or intenaity
of various kinds by using the injinitive before a preterite or future. As for

example '^fllpS 1p&(P«'i^<x^ pakatti) lit, to visit I have visited, i. «., I have
sorely visited.— (Exod. iii. 16.) In such passages where this construction i»
emjtloyed to express intenaity, the student must be guided by the context in
translating. Thus bD&^D bDbt {aeltol toehel) lit. to eat thou shall eat, i. «.»
thou mayest freely eat.— (Gen. il 16.)

102

people's commentary.

to H(x;ial intorcourse ; he stood therefore in need of a companion
in orrler to render his hnp])ineR8 complete. Thin want Qod
g'HciouHly determined to supply, " I will make for him an help
meet for him." The Hebrew word *\jy (ezer) admits of being
translated a hditer, and the more literal rendering of ^^li^J
(kenegdo) is, coi'responding to him, his counterpart, so that it
might bo rendered a fielper corre8pondiv.g tn him, which implies
that the woman is in every respect his etiual, and henoe, well

mnt " lilra Kim • nrifl an ftlart in fVta

rendered in the Septuagint " like him ;
Vulgate.

and so also in the

I 1

I M;

I: 11

REMARKS ON THE OHANQES MADE IN THE REVISED VERSION.

The last number was in the press when a copy of the Re-
vised Version came to hand. I, therefore, offer a few remarks
here. In commenting upon the changes made in the Revised
Version, or on passages which I consider ought to have been
changed, I shall endeavour to make ray remarks as plain as
possible, so that the reader will be able to judge for himself as
to their soundness. In accordance with my usual practice, to
make the Bible as much as possible its own interpreter, my
arguments will always be based upon Scriptural authority.
In diflScult philological questions the ancient and modem ver-
sions, and tne most eminent critics will be appealed to.

At the outset I must say, that I think it is a pity that the
division of the chapters and verses in the Authorized Version
was not adhered to. The mode adopted in the Revised Version
is not sufficiently distinct, and consequently not so convenient
for reference. There was no necessity of giving the contents
of the chapter : that was very properly omitted ; but there
should have been space left between each chapter, and the
number of it given. The revisers apparently adopted the
mode of some of the Hebrew editions of the Bible, as for
instance, that of Leusden; but the Hebrew letters used to
mark the chapters are very bold and readily attract one's
notice. The division of verses, too, is more plainly indicated in
the Hebrew Bible than it is in the English Bible. In the
latter the period is used for that purpose. But the period is
also used for division of sentences, and is, therefore, no distinc-
tive mark for division of verses. In the former, on the
contrary, the division of verses is invariably indicated by two
bold points, thus * called piog ayQ {aoph paauk) i. e„ end of

verse, and which never occur anywhere else. Tet, in most

people's commentart.

101

modern editions of the Bible, there i^ a large space left between
each chapter, with the number of the chapter. I have in my
library five ditforont editions, in four of which the division of
chapters is indicated in this manner.

Changes made in the rendering in Qen. i. and chap. ii. to
verse 17.

Chapter I.
Authorized Vfnion.

V. 2. " And the earth wan without
form aud void."

void.

And

Rfv'iMil Vettion.
the earth was waato

and

no doubt, the

The rendering of the Revised Version is,
correct one. It is the same as I have given.

The translation " without form" is not admissible for two
very obvious reasons. In the first place, the original does not
admit of such a rendering. The words ^T^'2^ ^T^t\ (thohu
tuavohu) signify deaolatenesa (or titanteneaii) and emptineaa, but
abstract nouns are often employed instead of adjectives, hence
" waste and void," but nowhere in the Bible, or in any other
Hebrew work, is any one of the two Hebrew words ever uned
in the sense " without form." In the second place it is logi-
cally incorrect, as it is impossible to conceive anything material
subsisting " without form."

Dean Swift has pertinently observed :

" Matter, at wiue logicians say,
Cannot without form Rubsiat,
And form, aay I, as well as they,
Must fail if matter brings no grist."

The translators, no doubt, used the expression "without
form," to convey the idea that the earth was a ahapeleaa maaa ;
but that is not the meaning which Mosea wishes to convey,
which is, rather, that the earth was at that time, waste and
empty, that none of those organized beings existed upon it,
before they were afterwards called into being or made by the
Creator. The rendering '* without form," is only found in the , . ^,
Enorlish Version, followed by the French "aana forme et vbde.'* >>vs^ X^C^

Authorixtd Vergion.

▼. 6. "And the erening and the
morning wer«i the first day."

Revised Veraion.
"And there was evening and there
was morning one day. "

The rendering of the Revised Version is the more literal one:
it is the same as I have given in the Commentary. Yet the
rendering of the Authorized Version is also admissible, as the
cardinal number ^^» {echad) one, is sometimes used as an
ordinal, as for example, Qen. viii, 5, 13.

Aulhoristd Version.
T. & '*The seoond day."

Revised Version.
'A second day."

ill

! i;;

104

people's gommemtart.

The reader, on referrinc to the Commentary, p. 16, will per-
ceive that I there drew his attention to the peculiarity, that in
the original the article in the enumeration of the days of
creation, is only used with the sixth day, and he will find there
also an explanation given, why the article is probably omitted
with the other days. The use of the indejinite article with the
second, third, fourth, and fifth days, end the definite article with
the sixth day in the Revised Version is awkward, in my render-
ing I have not expressed the article, except with the sixth day.

A uthorized Version.
20. ' ' And fowl that may fly above

Bevifed Vertion.
" And let fowi fly above the earth.'

the earth

The rendering of the Revised Version is the literal one, and
is the same cis I have given in the Commentary. The reader
on referring to my comments on the verse, p. 26, will perceive
that I there pointed out, that according to the Authorized Ver-
sion, the waters were also made the agent in bringing forth
the fowl, which is at variance with what is said in en. ii. 19. —
(See my remarks, p. 26.)

Revised Venion, *

Authorized Vernon.
V. 21. "And God created
whales."

gr^at

"And Ood created the great tea-
monsters."

The rendering of the Revised Version is the correct one. —
(See my remarks, p. 27.

Chapter IL

Authoriziid Version.
V. 2. "And on the seventh day God
ended his work which he had made;
and he rested on the seventh day."

Revised Version.
" And on the seventh day God
finished his work which he had made ;
and he rested on the seventh day."

The mere change of " finished" for " ended" is very trivial,
and I must confess that I feel disappointed that the ambiguity
which existed in the Authorized Version has not been removed.
According to both translations God " ended" or " finished" His
work on the seventh day, and yet rested on tJie seventh day.
I have translated : " And Ood nad finished His work on the
seventh day," and have given Scriptural authority that it is
admissible. — (See my remarks, pp. 58, 59.) But even if the
existense of a pluperfect tense in the Hebrew could not be
established, I maintain that the context alone would justify
the rendering which I h.ave given.

Authorized Version.
V. 13. "The whole laud of Ethiopia."

The revisers very properly retained the Hebrew term " Cush,"
as the rendering "Ethiopia" is certainly not suitable in all
places where it occurs in tne Old Testament, and such is the case
here. (See my remarks on the word in the Commentary, p. 61.)

Revised Vsrsion.
" The whole land of Cash."

people's commentary.

105

Authorued Version. Bevised Vernon.

T. 14. "That i» it which goeth to- "That is it which goeth in front of
m^theEaitof ABsyria." AHyria."

The rendering of the Revised Version is the correct one. I
have pointed out in my remarks on the verse (p. 88) that the
rendering in the Authorized Version is not geograpkieally
coi'tect.

All important changes will hereafter be noticed in their
respective places.

19. And the IiORD God formed out of ths ground every beaat of the
field, and every foiol of the air ; and brought them unto the man to see
what he wotUd call them ^^ (lit. : to each one) .• and whatsoever the
man called every living creature, tfiat was its ntme.

The creation of the fowl of the air and the beasts of the
iield is already spoken of as having taken place in ch. i., the
former on the fifth day, and the latter on the sixth day. But
the sacred historian evidently repeats it here again as a kind
of introduction to the naming of the animals, and at the same
time furnishes the important information as to the manner in
which they were created, " the Lord God formed out of the
ground." "And brought them," that is, caused them to come.
We have already stated that, according to Scripture language,
a person that causes a thing to be done, or oversees a work, is
spoken of as having done it himself. (See History of Hebrew
Literature, p. 51, et seq.) But the verb jj^^i (yave) being in
{Hiphil) tne causative conjugation, it may, therefore, be hero
translated, instead of " brought them," by " caused them to
come." The same verb is so rendered in Amos viii. 9 : "And it
shall come to pass in that day, said the Lord God, T^j^^m
(vehevethi), and 1 will cause the sun to go down* at noon." " To
see what he would call them." In ch. i. God gave the names
Himself to the objects which He created, but here God affords
Adam an opportunity to exercise the intellect with which He
had endowed him, — " And whatsoever the man called every
living creature, that was its name." The names which Adam
gave were so appropria*^.e that they renuired no change. When
we examine the names of animals and birds in the Hebrew, it
will be found that they are not mere meaningless names, but
expressive of habit or propensity, or are imitations of sou7id

* The verb jS^*))^ {bo) to conu, when used in connection with 1S7318 (afienuah)
sun, takes the signmoation, to go down, to att.

r;!i

106

people's commentary.

or cry. In some cases the meaning cannot now be traced, the
roots having become obsolete ; in most cases, however, there is
no difficulty in tracing the derivation. We may refer the
render to the History of Hebrew Literature, p. 13, et eeq.,
where we have already treated on this subject, and given a
few examples.

This portion of the Mosaic account has also been made the
subject of much cavil among modern critics and sceptics. They
assert that " the representations of all animals being brought
before Adam in the first instance, and subsequently of their
being all collected in the ark, if we are to understand them as
applied to the living inhabitants of the whole world are zoolo-
gically impossible." (Lawrence's Lectures on Physiology, ch. i.,
p. 130.)

We have here, in answer to this objection, to repeat again
what we have on a former occasion stated, that with the
Almighty there is nothing impossible. Surely it requires no
great stretch of imagination to suppose that the same Being
who could call the creatures into existence, could also sustain
them under any cii'cumstances. There is, however, nothing in
the passage before us, that requires us to believe that all the
animals and fowls that were created were brought to Adam,
but merely those that were in the garden of Eden. It is
evident that the sacred writer does not wish to convey the
idea that Adam named all the living creatures that were crea-
ted, for the inhabitants of the water are not at all mentioned.
The expression, " and whatsoever the man called every living
creature," simply means everi/ one that he named.

Keil and Delitzsch remark on our verso : " The time when
this took place must have been on the sixth day, on which,
according to chap. i. 27, the man and woman were created :
and there is no difficulty in this, since it would not have
required much time to bring the animals to Adam to see what
he would call them, as the animals of paradise are all we have
to think of." With regard to the animals collected in the ark,
that subject will be fully noticed when we come to treat on
the deluge.

The account of the sacred writer given above, of the creation
of the beasts of the field and fowls of the air, strikes at the
root of the evolution theory of modern scientists, which teaches,
thp;. every living thing originated "from some one primeval
foi *' ," by gradual development. It is by no means surprising
that this novel theory should have been so favourably received
by many, since novelties seem to possess peculiar charms, and,
as we have already shown, that even the most absurd theories
have found many ardent admirers even among the educated.
It is, however, very remarkable that we should find miniatera

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

107

bowing down to this new idol, and still more extraordinary in
their declaring to their congregations that the theory does in
nowise aflfect the veiity of the sacred narrative, or the doctrine
of the immortality of the soul. The Scriptures teach in
unmistakable language, that the "Lord God formed man ol \e
duHt of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the spirit of
life, and man became a living soul." (Gen. ii. 7.) They further
teach that man came from his Maker's hands a perfect and
immortal beiug, that he was gifted with speech, so that on the
very day of his creation he was enabled to give names to the
animals. Now what does the evolution theory teach ? It
teaches on the contrary, " that man has proceeded from a modi-
fication of some lower animal." (See Huxley on the Origin of
Species, p. 147.) According to this then, man became what ho
is only by a very long process of modification or dc\elopment,
for Darwin declares that " all changes are slowly afiected," and
the Scriptural account of the creation of man must, therefore
be only a myth. Let us next see what the evolution theory
teaches as to the origin of the j>oiver vf 8j)eech.

Huxley tells us, "that it may depend upon structural differ-
ences which shall be absolutely inappreciable to us with our
present means of investigation," (p. 149). If speech depends
upon " structural ditterences," then man, during the long period
that these " structural ditferences " occupied in perfecting, must
have been altogether without speech. Huxley, addressing his
audience, says: " 1 am speaking to you at this moment, but if
you were to alter in the minutest degree, the proportion of the
nervous forces now active in the two nerves which sup[)ly the
muscles of my glottis, 1 should become suddenly dumb." All
the time, then, that the change from monkey to man was
taking place there could have been no speech. It follows, then,
that the Scriptural account of the naming of the animals by
Adam must also be a myth. Deecher, in his Lecture;, on
Evolution and Revolution, delivered in the Pavilion in Toronto
last summer, told his large and intelligent audience that the
evolution theoiy did in nowise affect the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul. The Reverend gentleman made the
broad statement, without making the slightest attempt to
reconcile the Scriptural teaching with the evolution theory of
man's descent from a lower animal. A more outrageous state-
ment has never fallen from the lips of any man ; and I am
grieved to .see that other ministers shoukl have made the .same
statement. Every one, of course, has a perfect right to form
whatever opinion he likes upon any subject, but when it comes
to promulgating that opinion, especially when affecting a vital
doctrine, surely it is nothing but right that it should not go
forth into the world without being supported by sound and

¥f

!i ^H ^ 'I

|l Si ■ -'i

108

people's commentary.

incontrovertible arguments. Probably there were some at the
Pavilion, and among his audiences in other cities, where he
delivered this lecture, who were quite satisfied with the state-
ment — startling as it must have oeen — simply because it was
Beecher who made it. The fame of a person lends force to his
utterances ; but, 1 trust, that by far the largest majority of his
hearers did not allow themselves to be so easily influenced.
This matter admits of no compromise. If man merely
descended from a lower animal, then he was not directly
created by God, and God did not breathe into his nostrils the
Spirit of life, whereby he became an immortal being, and
would have remained so, if he had not sinned. " Let us make
man in our image — after our likeness." I beg the reader
particularly to mark the emphatic language here employed,
" our image," " our likeness." " So God created man in His
own image, in the image of God created He him ; male and
female created He thetn," is the ScHptural account of the
oiigin of man ; the Evolutionist* 8 account is, that by a gradual
change, which must have taken thousands and thousands of
years to effect, man originated from an inferior animal ; and
yet we are seriously told that these two accounts can be
reconciled. The man is not bom, and never will be bom,
who will be able to reconcile these two directly opposite
accounts.

Then, as regards the evolution theory itself, there are a
hundred knotty points to solve before its doctrine can be fully
accepted as an incontrovertible fact. There is, of course, no
difficulty in believing that closely allied species may have
originated from one common parent, as the plum, nectarine,
apricot trees, &c., and so likewise among animals, plants, fishes,
and fowls. But there is certainly some difficulty in believing
that man, the lion, the whale, and the eagle sprung from one
common parent, and one would require something more reliable
than mere " analogy," for Darwin himself admits that " analogy
may be a deceitful guide "* to confirm us in the belief.

Let us briefly glance at a few of these knotty points which
stand in the way of the theory, " that all plants and animals
have descended from some one prototype." And here, in the
first place, as regards man, let us for a moment take it for
granted that the structural differences between him and the ape
are not of such a character as to proclude the belief of his
descent from some lower order, it would yet require to be
shown how became possessed of his reasoning powers,

which so pi • luently distinguish him from all other created
creatures. V/'hoever heard an ape utter an intelligent word,

•Origin of Species, p. 48.

people's comhentabt.

109

much less an intelligent Bcnionce ? Why should this reasoning
power only be found in man, and not in any other creature, if
obtainable by a mer^: change in the structure of the body ?
Huxley says, if the equality of the two nerves which supply
the muscles of his glottis were in the minutest degree altered,
he would become suddenly dumb. This simply means he would
have no longer the powsr to express the ideas which arise in
his mind, he could, however, still convey them in writing. A
dum)) person who, on account of some derangement in his
organs of speech cannot express in language what he thinks,
yet can do so by signs. Scientists have so far failed to discover
no^^ man became possessed of his intellectual powers, and
Huxley himself admitted that " this functional difference is
vast, and unfathomable, and truly infinite in its consequences."
(Origin of Species, p. 149.) And that there is "a wide gulf in
intellectual and moral matters between man and the whole of
the lower creation." — (p. 147.) But ho thinks this functional
•difference " may depend upon siiueiural difFerenccs." " May !"
Surely in promulgating such a theory which altogether contra-
dicts the Scriptural doctrine, scientists should be able to give
something more substantial than a doubtful "may" in sustaining
their hypothesis. Some of my readers are perhaps not aware
that Darwin, in his work on the " Origin of Species," did not
say a word on the origin of man. It was Huxley who extended
Darwin's theory also to man. Let us next take an exanvple
from the animal kingdom, and here we may instance the diflter-
ence that exists between the harmless and poisonous serpents.
All serpents have a strong similitude of form to each other,
and yet some species have such strong distinctive characteris-
tics as to preclude altogether the supposition of common origin.
How will the evolution theory account for the possession of
the deadly poison in some species, whilst other species are
perfectly harmless ? How did these venomous creatures come
to be possessed of this poison ? It cannot be accounted for by
^' a modification of structure," for it is a substance which the
harmless serpents do not possess. We can, therefore, come to
no other conclusion but that these poisonous species are a
distinct creation. Providence has bestowed the poison for the
animals defence, and at the same time provided it with two
sharp fangs to readily inflict a wound through which the
poison is iiyected, whilst the species which are harmless are
■destitute of them. And here, as in all other creative acts, the
infinite wisdom of the Creator becomes strikingly apparent.
Without this defence the serpent above all other animals
would be the most defenceless, and constantly exposed to
destruction, being without strength for resistance, without
teeth to use as a weapon, and too large to find security in
17

li^i

I 1

110

people's commentary.

■mall holes like the worm. But being furnished with a deadly

e>i8on, both man and beasts stand in dread of them, and the
tter will never seize them but at an advantage. But not
only do^s the possession of this poison inspire a fear of
venomous snakes, but serves also as a kind of protection to the
harmless ones. The great similarity to one another excites
fear for them all, and as their enemies are not sure which of
them are possessed of the poison, they shun the whole tribe.
But although the serpent tribes are very numerous — Lacepede
has divided them into eight genera, and these are again sub-
divided into many species — not more than one-tenth of them
are venomous, thus Providence seems to have acted with
double precaution on bestowing the poison namely, to furnish
a general defence for all the snake tribes, but has bestowed the
poison on comparatively a small number of them, lest they
should become too powerful for the rest of living creatures.
Scientists probably will say, that this "may be" all mere
ohance, but I say it was so ordered by tlie allwise and merciful
Creator.

We may now take an example from the vegetable kingdom,
and as the evolution theorists laj' so much stress upon the
aimilaHty, I will select two objects which in appearance are
as much alike as well can be. If I were to hold a sprig of
willow {salix), and a sprig of ''^euphorbia jaquimjiora — a
tropical shrub with beautiful scarlet blossoms — before the
reader, he would not be able to distinguish one from the
other, they being so much alike ; but if he weie to pull a leaf
from the latter, a milky juice would exude, which is very acrid
and poisonous. Now this poisonous substance is the life of the
euphorbia, but would be the death of the willow ; how then
could one of these have originated from the other by a gradual
change ? The loss of the ruilky juice would have killed the
euphorbia long before it had a chance of becoming a iviUoiv,
whilst, on the other hand, the obtaining of the milky juice
T/ould have killed the ivillow long before it had a chance to
become a euphorbia. The immense differences that characterize
the various genera and species form a gulf which the evolution
theory will never be able to bridge over. The Scriptural
account alone can throw light upon the subject how those vast
varieties of forms and characteristics in the living bemgs
originated. Professor Thomas Rymer Jones, King's College,
London, very properly remarked : " To understand the laws
whereby even the human body is built up, lies not within the
power of human industry or human research ; much less to

EuphorbiacecB. — Plants belonging to this order are mostly acrid and poison-
OI18. The order received its name from an ancient celebrated Greek doctor,
who employed the juice for medicinal purposes.

people's commentary.

Ill

nee are

iprig of

lora — a

ore the

1 the

a leaf

r acrid

of the

• then

p-adual

ed the

comprehend the lengthy series of creation that extends from
man, the most exalted form of livings down to the apothetic
sponge fixed upon a rock seems equally deprived of sense and
motion."

20. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the foxol of the air,
and to every beast of the field ; hut for man* there wa" not found a help
meet for him.

The naming of the animals by Adam immediately after his
creation, clearly shows, as we have already stated, that the
power of communication by speech was the direct gift of God
implanted in the nature of man, and hence, the ancient Greek
poets very appropriately apply the epithet {/xepoy(r) sjieech gifted
to man, speech being the peculiar attribute of mankind. The
Chine.se ascribe the naming of objects to their first and most
revered king Fohi, and say that he performed the task so well
that " the names given were so appropriate, that the very
nature of the things was made known." The Chinese have
evidently adopted tnis idea from the Scriptural account. And
ancient phiIosophei"s regarded the invention of names for
objects an act of the highest human wisdom.

In the preceding verse no mention is made of the cattle hav-
ing been caused to come to man, but in this verse the HTanSl
(hchemah) " cattle," are distinctly mentioned among the animals
that were named, which seems to indicate that the n?an3
(behcmah) domestic animals must have been present of their
own accord ; they having been endowed with a more docile
nature, and do not shun the presence of man like the wild
beasts.

" But for man there was not found a help meet for him."
When the animals passed before Adam to receive their names,
he saw that they were rM supplied with mates, but among
them " there was not found " a mate suitable to him.

poison-
doctor.

21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon ths man
and he slept : and He took one of his ribs, aiul closed up the Jlesh in
its jdnce.

The creating a helpmate for Adam forms the closing scene
of the creation. The Hebrew word n)2Tli? {tardemah) is not
the ordinary Hebrew word for sleep which is nDtfi (slienah),
the former rather means a deep sleep as rendered in our version,
and so likewise in the German Jewish version of Rabbi

?S555?3 i^j {to matsa) literallj', he found not, but the rendering of the English
Version, "there was not found" is quite admissible, as verbs are often construed
impersonally to indicate the performance of an action without mentioning by
whom it was done.

112

people's comhentart.

■' :,'!

■ ■ i !:

Solomon Kohen, tie/en Schlaf " deep sleep," and by Aquila
Kara^pd deep sleep. Tet, as this sleep was caused in a super-
natural way, it is quite probable that the eminent Bibucal
scholar, Lightfoot, is correct in supposing, that the nature of
this sleep was such, that the whole scene of Eve's creation was
presented to his imagination, for according to verse twenty-
three, Adam was fully aware of the manner in which Eve was
formed, for he says, " this is now bone of my bones," &c.

In the creation of Eve we have another remarkable example
of the infinite wisdom which pervades all the acts of the
Almighty. All the living creatures were at once created in
pairs, but not so with respect i<) man. Why then this excep-
tion with the noblest being of the created creatures ? It was
evidently designed to teach Adam two important lessons. In
the first place, it was to teach him that although he had been
constituted a ruler over all the created beings, yet that he
himself was dependent for everything that may make life
happy upon his Creator. What could have inspired Adam
more with a sense of his utter dependence, and at the same
time have shown him the great love and care which God
evinces for His creatures, than a bestowal of a suitable com-
panion to increase his happiness ? Secondly, it was to teach
him the close relationship that should exist between man and
wife, that she was formed for an inseparable union and com-
panionship for life.

22. And thd Lord God built the rib which He had taken from man
tn<o a looman, and presented her to the man.

The rendering in the English version of the verb ^33 (handh)
by " made" docs not afford the proper meaning, though it
makes good sense. The literal meaning of the verb is, to ouUd,
to consti^uct, and hence our bodies are spoken of in Scripture aa
"houses;" — (Job iv. 9:) "How much less in them that dwell in
houses of clay." — (See also 2 Cor. v. 1.) The rendering in the
English Version " and brought her to the man," although not
«.n incorrect translation of the original, yet forms an incon-

f'uity, for we would in that case have to suppose that after
ve had been formed, she was taken away some distance and
"bi ought" back again. We have already .itated, that most
Hebrew verbs have different shades of meaning, and it is there-
fore necessary to select the one best suited to the context.
The verb nKS"^! (waivieha) is evidently here used in the sense
^' and presented here," and the act indicates the formal and
solemn giving away of Eve in the bonds of marriage ; and aa
this act was performed by God himself, hence the marriage
bond is spoken of as the covenant of God."

people's comhentabt.

11»

rom man

"Who foTtaketh the friend of her youth (i. e., herhasband,)
And foigets the ooreiuuit of her Ood. — (Prov. ii. 17.)

Archbbhop Lynch, in a sermon lately delivered on marriage^
has neither estimated too highly the sanctity and importance of
the marriage bond, nor denounced too severely the loose manner
in which this bond is now dissolved. Happily m Canada, reliffion
still spreads its guardian wing over the sanctity of the mamage-
bond, and divorce can only be obtained by an Act of Parlia-
ment, but the easy manner that marriage ties are dissolved ii^
many parts of the United States makes the evil also felt in this
country. A year's residence in that country, and a flimsy
grievance whether real or imaginary is all that is required to
annul a solemn vow made at the altar, it matters not what
miseries it may entail upon the deserted family. Surely, it ia
the duty of every right thinking person to lend a helping hand
to put an end to this outrage against morality and religion,
which daily brings so much misery, if not utter ruin upon
so many families.

23. And the man said, this is now bone of my bones, and JUsh of
my flesh : she shall be called Woman, for she was taken out of Man.

" This is now," the original is more expressive dJBn flKT
(zoth hap-pa-am) this is thia time or this (mce, as much as to
say, this is the only occasion that woman originated in this
manner. Some interpreters, however, regard the phrase merely
as expressive of joyous astonishment, on seeing so exact a
counterpart of himself; but the context certainly favours the
first explanation. " Bone of my bones," &c., expresses the close
relationship that exists between the husband and wife, and on
account of this inseparable unity he called her ntDK (iBh-aha)
woman, which is only the feminine of IS'^!^ (^) ftMn, and
hence Luther, in his German translation, has well rendered it
by Mdnnin, i. e., mannesa, if such a word were in use in the
!^glish language, and which would also precisely afford the
literal meaning of the Hebrew word isk-mah. Many of the
ancient versions have felt the force of the Hebrew term, and
have endeavoured to give as literal a rendering of it as possible.
Thus Symmachus employed avZpi<i (andria) the feminine form of
avTjp (a man.) The Arabic imrat, the feminine of imri, a man.
The Vulgate virago, the feminine form of vir, a man.

The Scriptural teaching of the close relationship existing
between man and wife has been adapted by some of the heathen
nations. The sacred books of the Hindoos and Persians declare
that " the bone of woman is united with the bone of man, and
her flesh with his flesh, as completelv as a stream becomes one
with the sea into which it flows." (Asiatic Researches, vii. 30.X

M .:iii|

5 m

114

people's commentary.

It is strange that, with such teaching before them, women
should hold 8uch a degraded position among those people.
According to the belief of the Griitnlanders, women sprang
from the thumb of man. (Granz, GronI, i., 262.)

As might be expected, the Biblical account of the creation
of Eve has been made the subject of much cavil aiuoiig moilirn
critics and sceptics, the latter frequently forgetting that offen-
sive language is no argument. From writers who deny the
existence of an Almighty Creator nothing better can be
expected, though they might show a little consideration for
those who differ from them by being more choice in their
language; but that critics who profess to believe in a God
should find any difficulty in accepting the narrative as trust-
worthy, is not easily comprehended. Surely the mighty Being
who could create man from the dust of the ground could by
the same power create a helpmate for him, as stated in the
narrative. Without supernatural agency both acts would be
impossible, with supernatural agency nothing is impossible.

25. There/ore shall a tnan leave hia father and his mother, and shaU
cling to his wife, and* tliey shall he one flesh.

These are not the wo/ds of Adam, who could not well have
spoken of father, mother, and a man leaving his parents ; but
they are the words of Moses, who in order to set forth still
more the sanctity and close relationship of the marriage tie,
declares that even the fondest associations of childhood must
be relinquished, and that however great the affection for
parents may be, henceforth the love for his wife must gain the
aaoendancy. In Matthew xix. 5, 6, the words of our verse are
evidently referred to as being a direct declaration of God.

The declaration in our verse lays also the foundation of
monogamy, a man was to cling to his wife and not wives, and,
although we find instances of polygamy mentioned in the Old
Testament, these must be ascribed to the state of civilization
existing at that time. There are, however, no indications that
polygamy was practised to any extent among the ancient
He Drews, but quite the reverse seems to have been the case.

25. And they toere both naked, tha man and his wife ; and thay
wtre not ashamed. .,

This verse sets before us briefly but vividly the perfect state

* The Samaritan, Septaagint, Syriao, Arabic, and Vulgate Veraions read
"they two" or "both of them," from which it would appear that the word
DH'^Dl]) («^n«A(m), i.e., both of them, must have been found in some of the
ancient Hebrew manuscripts. In the New Testament, too, wherever the
passage is quoted the word "twain " or " two " is expressed. See Matt. xix. 6 ;
Mark x. 8; 1 Cor. vL 16 ; Eph. v. 31.

people's commentary.

115

of childlike innocence that existed before nin had entered into
the world. Our firat parents came from their Maker's hands
sinless, and in this state of innocence such a sensation as shame
was unknown to them. No disgusting thoughts of any kind
disturbed the profound peace that reigned within their
hearts. But shame is the result of sin, and no sooner had they
eaten of the fruit of the tree of which they were commanded
not to eat than their eyes were opened, and " they knew that
they were naked," and inunediatoly a feeling of shame came
over them, and they hid them.selves. Their state of innocence
had now departed, and, with it, their peace of mind.

th^y

state

read
word

)f the
|r the
lix. 5 ;

CHAPTER III.

1. Now tfie serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the field
which the hovLD God had made. And he said to the woman: Ilath
God indeed said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of tfie garden.

The animal here spoken of under the term ffinS (nO'Chaah),
as the unhallowed instrument in the seduction of our first
parents, has both by Jewish and Christian writers in all ages
been regarded to have been a serpent. The word occurs
in other places of the Old Testament as a term for serpent,
and there are several passages in the New Testament,
which testify to its having been a serpent. It is, therefore,
somewhat incomprehensible that any attempt should have
been made to force any other signification upon the word.
Yet the eminent Biblical scholar, and well-known Commen-
tator, Dr. Adam Clark, has suggested that the original word
might denote a " creature of the ape or ouran-outang kind."
In support of this opinion, Dr. Clark adduced several argu-
ments which, however, crumble to pieces the minute they are
touched, as the following few examples will show. He
observes " They (serpents) have no organs of speech or any
kind of articulate sound : they can only hist. It is true that
an ass, by miraculous influence, may speak ; but it is not to be
supposed that there was any miraculous interference here.
God did not qualify this creature with speech for the occasion,
and it is not intimated that there was any other agent, that
did it." It is a wonder that Dr. Clark did not perceive that
this argument would weigh as much against the " ape" as the
serpent. Who ever heard an ape utter a single intelligent
word ? We are, however, not to suppose that it was actually
the serpent that spoke, but rather the evil spirit afterwarcu

116

people's commentary.

I 1 'Hi

! I

1"^

'.: ii.; "I

spoken of in Scripture under the name of nt3lsn (haasatan) i. e.

the enemy, the Devil, who had taken possession of the
serpent for the purpose of seducing the woman, and thereby
to affect the ruin of man. It is true, the text does not
distinctly state that such was the case, but the whole tenor
of the sacred narrative shows that it could not have been a
mere animal that brought about such a fearful catastrophe.
Man was so greatly exalted above all other creatures of the
earth, being created in the image of Qod, and having been
constituted a ruler over all the animals, that it is altogether
unreasonable for a moment to suppose that a creature so
inferior to him could have been capable of exercising such an
influence over him. In that case the animal would have
proved a ruler over man, and not man a ruler over the animah
The sacred writer merely gives the simple occurrence just as it
would have appeared to an eye witness, without entering into
any particulars, which is a striking proof of the truthfulness of
the narrative. A writer has well said, that, " As a narrator,
Moses makes a word or two do the work of pictures."

It has always been the universal belief of both Jews and
Christians, that the serpent was a mere agent employed by the
evil spirit Thus we read in the Apocryphal book: The
"Wisdom of Solomon, ch. ii. 23, 24 : " For God created man to
be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
Nevertheless, through envy of the devil came death into the
world : and they that do hold of his side find it" It was,
therefore, the devil that spoke, and not the serpent This is
also attested to in the New Testament as John viii. 44 ; 2 Cor.
xi. 3 ; Rom. xvi. 20 ; Rev. xii. 9. This doctrine is constantly
set forth by the Rabbinical writers, but one quotation must
suffice : " And, as a man possessed with an evil spirit, all the
works that he doeth, and all that he speaketh, are not, but by
reason of the evil spirit that is within him ; so the serpent, all
the works that he did, and all the words that he spoke, he
spoke not, neither did, but by reason of the devil."— Pirke,
Rahhi Eliezer, ch. 13.)

In many of the heathen religions we find also the evil spirit
represented by the serpent, and in most we can trace more or
less the principal ideas of the Mosaic narrative embodied.
This is especially the case in a most remarkable manner in the
account given of the first human pair in the sacred books of
the Persians. It is as follows : " The parents of the |iuman
race Meahia and Meshiane lived originally in perfect purity
and innocence. *Onnuzd, the creator of all things, prpmised

'Onimtd, the name of the sapreme deity of the ancient Persians, and accord
ing to the doctrine of Zoroaster, is the creator of the earthly and spiritual life
the lord of the whole universe, the source of light and wisdom, by whom al
things were created.

PEOPLK's C0MM£NTART.

117

them eveiiostin^^ happiness if they continued to live a virtuous
life. But *Ahriman, tho original source of evil, and chief of
the malignant Hpiritd, sent toe evil spirit Dev to them, who
suddenly made his nppuarancr in the form of a seroent, and
gave them tho fruit of a wonderful tree which had the power
of imparting immortality, and restoring the dead to life again.
No sooner had they eaten of the fruit than their moral excel-
lence was destroyed, and evil thoughts entered into thuir hearts.
Ahrlman himself then appeared to them in the form of a
serpent, and finished the work of seduction. Qy his artful per-
suasion they acknowledged him as tho creator of everything
good instead of Ormuzd, and thus forfeited for ever tho per-
petual happiness which had been promised to them. (Zend-
Avesta.) •^:' ...,.,..., a..,. ... ..r,..M

But Dr. Clark continues : " Nor can I find, that tho serpen-
tine genua are remarkable for intelligence. It is true, the
xvisdom of the serpent has passed into a proverb, but I cannot
see on what it is founded, except in reference to the passage
in question, where the nachaah which we translate serpent;
following the Septuagint shows so much intelligence and
cunning." Dr. Clark admits — indeed, it could not well be
denied — that the wisdom of the serpent has passed into a
proverb. Now a proverb expresses brielly and forcibly some
•practical truth which is generally accepted. Here then, the
serpent has again the advantage over the monkey, for notwith-
•' standing the great many stories told of monkeys according to
'.which they display a groat deal of intelligence, yet the wisdom
^f these animals has never passed into a proverb.
ill In the New Testament, Christ distinctly speaks of the saga-
" city of the serpent : — "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the
midst of wolves ; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harm-
less as doves." — (Matth. x. 16.) Christ did not say, as wise as
the serpent which in that case might have been taken to refer
. to the serpent which tempted Eve, but he says, " as sei'pents,"
which implies an inherent sagacity. Christ's declaration
agrees also with the declaration in our passage, " the serpent
was more subtle than all the beasts of the field," for he
evidently regarded the serpent as the most sagacious of all tho
animals, and doves the most gentle of the birds.

Aristotle, the chief of the peripatetic philosophers, and who
cannot be said to have been influenced in expressing his
opinion by anything that is set forth in Scripture, speaks of the
whole species of serpents an fioKiaaeTn^ovXo'i extremely insidiima.

'A^rimanis, according to the doctrine of Zoronater. the personification of
malignity. The original source of all moral and physical evil, the chief of the
evil spirits, the king of darkness and death, and the e\<emal enemy of Ormuzd
and lua kingdom of light.

1 g .iio»iRocj<)ii« A don« "loi'

i' I

it;

!■

|r'''

i ''.'I

118

PEOPLE'S COMMENTARY.

Cepede says : " The boiga is not only to be praised for its
beauty, but may be said to fulfil the old maxim of combining
the vdadom of the serpent 'with the hxirmleaaneaa of the dove" —
(Cepede's History of Oviparous Quadrupeds and Serpents.)

Naturalists have recorded many traits of the pru,dence aad
cunning of serpents. One example will suffice to give the
reader an idea of the sagacity of these animals. The boa con-
strictor, before devouring his prey, after which he falls into a
state of comparative torpidity, and remains so for several
weeks, takes the precaution to make a circuit of some miles
in order to discover whether there is any enemy near ; and as
a small kind of ant — which sometimes wholly devours him
when iu that torpid state — is his greatest enemy, he is particu-
larly careful in his search for them, examining every jungle
and mount in his journey.

But f urthar, the very etymological signification of the Hebrew
name implies tbe possession of sagacity. The term tSHD
{nachaah) is derived from the verb* ©piD {nachash), to acruti-
niae, to view attentively, and in a secondary sigaitication, to
practise augury. (Compare Gen. xliv, 5, 15 ; Lev. 19, 26 ;
1 Kings 20, 33.) The serpents are so remarkable for sharply
eyeing objects, that a serpent's eye became a proverb among
the Greeks and Romans, who applied it to those who view
things acutely.

Dr. Clark further remarks : " None of them (serpents) did
or ever can walk erect. The tales we have had of two-footed
and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious
naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit. The very name
serpent comes from serpo, to creep, and, therefore, to such it
sould be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies,
i. c, to creep on, as they had dene from their creation, and
must do while their race endures."

Dr. Clark ventures here the statement that serpents did
always creep upon their bellies from their creation, and strange
to say, the only argdment he brings forward in support of it
is, that the name serpent comes from serpo, to creep. But the
first name of the serpent is ©rO (nacham) which, as we have
shown, according to etymological signification, is descriptive of
mental powers, and not of fo'nn or Tnotion. Even the Greek
word o0t9,a serpent, is,according to etymological writers, derived
from owTo/uu, to see. — (See Martinii Lexic. Etymol. in Draco.)
Of what use is it, then, to bring forward a Latin derivation as
an argument when treating upon a Hebrew word ?

'QMenioB makes it an "onomatopoetio root," as " expressing a low, hissins
sound, to hiaa " ; but the verb is never used in that sense. There is no ground
for such a supposition.

people's commemtart.

119

The Doctor seems also to have entirely overlooked the
;ircumstance of the change that must have taken place in the
form of the animal, in consequence of the curse pronounced
upon him. The language, in verse fourteen, " upon thy belly
shalt thou go," clearly implies a change in the external form
and motion. To what extent the form of the serpent was
altered, it is impossible to say. There is, however, no necessity
to adopt the extreme view that the serpent, before the curse,
walked erect. But we may well ask, what would the language
mean as applied to the monkey tribe? Why, surely they
cannot be said to go on their bellies. The Doctor says, it may
mean upon all four, but that is not the case, as it is quite
evident from Lev. xi. 42, where both expressions occur:
" Whatsoever goeth n"in!k by (ai gdchon) upon the belly, and

whatsoever goeth 3?2"IJ* bl? {"^ a bd) upon all four." Even
the reader who does not understand Hebrew will see from the
original words expressed in English characters, that the two
expressions bear not the slightest similarity to one another,
and the former expression is precisely the same as is used in
Genesis ii. 14!.

But further, if 'jjnS {naxihaah)^ denotes a monkey in Gen.
iii. 1, it must have that signification in all other places in the
Old Testam^^t where it occurs, which would indeed lead to
some very curious results. Thus, for example. Gen. xlix. 17 :

M Dan shall be ilSnS (nac/tcuA) a serpent by the way,
A viper in the path.
That biteth the heels of the horses,
So that its rider falleth backward. "

Now, what would be the result if we were to adopt Dr.
Clark's theory? We would have the incongruity of Dan being
in the first line compared to a monkey, and in the second, to
one of the most venomous setyente, thus rendering altogether
meaningless the exquisitely beaatiful figure which predicts the
great cunning that the tribe of Dan will display in repelling
the attacks of more powerful enemies. Besides this the ape is
not a native of Palestine, it was first brought among the
curiosities in natural history by Solomon's ships from Ophir.

I am not aware that Clark's theory has been adopted by any
other writer, and no wonder, for whilst every thing argues
against it, there is really nothing that could be urged in its
favour. Hence, all translators and lexicographers, both ancient
and modem, have taken naahaah to mean a serpent.

As nashash is the generic term for serpents, it is impossible
to say what sort of serpent it was which Satan selected as his
agent, but as some of the species are very beautiful, no doubt
he chose from the most attractive, St. Basils 1:^ his book of

!! i:

1 4'

1 4

'■ ^ ■"!

li hi

ill'
ill f ^

1 *

i ■ ' ''

1 |; i ' il'

1 1 j ;|

! ■ i.

■ill!

■V\n

i il

120

people's commentabt.

Paradise (p. 627), observes, " it was not a frightful creature as
it now is, but mild and gentle." The famous Mr. Mede is of
similar opinion. (Discourse 38, p. 291, &;c.). And the same
opiiiion^is aet.forth in the wvit^ngs of som,e eminent Jiabbis.

2. And the woman said unto tfte serpent, We may eat oftlie/ruit oj
the trees of the garden :

3. But of tfte fruit of the tree which is in the midst of tlie garden
God haUt, said, Ye sftcll not eat of it, norsfuiU ye touch it, lest ye die.

The plan which the tempter adopted in bringing about the
• fall of our first parents was most cunningly devised. He
approached the woman knowing her to be the weakest oi the
two, and, therefore more easily persuaded. In addressing her,
he commenced with a question as a sure way to draw her into
conversation. The question was of such a nature as most
likely to elicit an answer, for he insinuated that God had for-
bidden them to eat of any tree of the garden, though he well
knew that was a lie. He is, therefore, appropriately called "a
liar, and the father of it." (John viii. 44.) '■" ^","

By the reply, contained in the above two verses, the attack
of the tempter is well repulsed. The answer is to the point, it
is not as you have insinuated, but on the contrary, we may eat
of every tree of the garden, there is but one of which God hath
said " Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it lest ye
die." In the reply Eve adds the words : " neither shall ye
touch it," which form no part of the original command, and
many writers have supposed that the poison had already
commenced to work. Thus Keil and Delitsch, in their Com-
mentary, observe : " She was aware of the prohibition, there-
fore, and fully understood its meaning ; but she added : ' neither
shall ye touch it,' and proved by this very exaggeration, that
it appeared too stringent even to her, and therefore that her love
and confidence towards God were already beginning to waver.
Here was the beginning of her fall." (Com. p. 95.) Kalisch
remarks: "The answer of the woman bears a certain vehe-
ment character, it is exaggerated, it contains the untruth, that
God hath forbidden even to touch the fruit of the tree of life ;
this is the fanaticism of passion and its self-deception ; it revolts
against the laws and restrictions ; it considers them as capricious,
conventional fetters, which it is meritorious and noble to break."
(Commentary, p. 119.) Other eminent commentators have
expressed themselves in a similar manner upon this subject. I
must say, that I cannot agree with the views expressed by those
commentators. It surely would be inconsistent to suppose that
the mere question which the tempter had asked, could have pro-
duced an evil influence on the mind of i^ve. Her answer
shows that such was not the case.

people's commentary.

121

It was with the actual eating of the fruit that the fall began.
It was by that act sin entered into the world, and man became
mortal. It appears to me more likely that Eve really believed
that the prohibition of eating of it included also the touching
of it, as the latter act must have preceded the former, and
made use of the expression " neither shall ye touch it," in order
to make her reply more emphatic. The reply of Eve, so far
from indicating any dissatisfaction with the command, rather
shows that she regaided it as merciful and just. God has

Eermitted us to eat of all the trees of the garden : there is
ut one of which we may not eat. Where is there any inj ustice
or hardship in all this ?

4. A-iid the serj)ent said unto the woman, Ye shall surely not die.

The tempter, when he first addressed Eve, made no allusion
whatever to the forbidden tree, he carefully left the mention-
ing of it to her so as not to arouse any suspicion as to his
design ; but Eve, having now herself spoken of its existence,
and the penalty in case they disobeyed the command by eating
of its fruit, the wily arch-enemy at once seized the oppor-
tunity to persuade her that her fears were groundless, by
directly contradicting God : " Ye shall surely not die." The
tempter, however, knew well that something more than a mere
contradiction of God's declaration would be necessary in order
to make the woman swerve from her obedience to God, he,
therefore, immediately adds : .

■ 5. For God doth know, thai in the day ye eat thereof, then your
eyes will he opened, and ye will he as God, knoioing good and evil.

As much as to say, it is not because the tree possesses any
evil properties that God has forbidden you to eat of it ; but it
is altogether out of selfish motives and envy, for He knows
that the moment you eat of it, you will become in evoiy
respect His equal. " Your eyes will be open." It is, you will
obtain God-like knowledge and wisdom, " knowing good and
evil." In the New Testament the expression, opening of the
eyes, is also employed in reference to obtaining a higher degree
of knowledge and wisdom. Thus Acts xxvi. 18 : " To open
their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light." In the
brief conversation of the tempter with Eve, as given in the
sacred narrative, we have exhibited to us a specimen of Satanic
audacity which causes one to shudder in contemplating it. It
presents to us in tlie most vivid light his intense animosit}'
towards the human race, and that he does not shrink from
adopting the most atrocious means to atlect its iniin. He not
only insinuated that God had told a direct falsehood, but that

r(i

122

PblOPLES COMMENTARY.

He did so to serve a selfish end. Truly he has most appro-
priately been called "itJQjn {Hassatan) *the enemy, i. e., the

greatest of all enemies.

" And 3'e will be as God," in our version rendered, " and ye
shall be as Gods." The translators very injudiciously followed
here the rendering of the Septuagint, &)9 0eoL, and that of the
Vulgate, sicut dii. Now, it is, no doubt, true, as we have
already stated before, that Qinbii (Elohim) is sometimes used
to denote the heqffien f/ods, but surely it cannot be used in
this sense here. What could our first parents in paradise have
known of heathen gods ; long before idolatry began to be
practised among men ? Nay, even before sin had entered into
the world. Onkelos, in his Chaldee Version, still more incor-
rectly renders liH"!!"! (Ravrevin) i, e., i^rincen, for which

there is not only no authority whatevei', but renders the
passage perfectly meaningless, for what could Adam and Eve
have known of princes, when they were then the only human
pair in existence ? In the Samaritan and Arabic Version, it is
rendered by angels, so likewise by Eben Ezra, Maimonides,
Bishop Patrick, and some other interpreters. This rendering
is certainly less objectionable than the renderings " gods" and
" princes," for Elohim seems sometimes to be used in the sense
oi angels, which is admitted both by many ancient and modern
interpreters. As for example Ps. viii. o:

Yet thou hast made him but a little lower ^"^(155570 (meelohim) than

angels,
And Iiast crowned him with honour and glory."

But the context does not admit even of the rendering, like
angels, for as we have above stated, the design of the tempter
was to make Eve believe that God gave the prohibition out of
jealousy to prevent them becoming like Himseif, so as to render
the temptation irresistible. This appears to be the very spirit
of the passage. In the Syriac Version it is correctly rendered
(eich eloho) like God. So in the German Version (wle Gott)
like God. And so likewise by Kalisch, Delitzsch, Geddes,
Dillmann, Rabbi Hirsch, and, indeed, by most modern trans-
lators and critics. So also in the Revised V^ersion, though
" gods " is given in the margin, which in this case was
unnecessary.

Throughout the preceding chapter God is spoken of by the
name D^tlbu^ iTin^ {Jehovah Elohim) Lord God, but the

* The Hebrew

reference to the evil
{'flaaitatan) i. e., the enemy.

term TtSffi {^o.tan) merely denotes an enemy, when used in
vil spint it always has the article prefixed as "It^tDH

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

128

tempter, in addressing the woman, only used the term QTlbi^
(Elohim) Ood as the name Jehovah was too sacred to be uttered
by such an imjnous being. It was even too sacred for him to
hear it, and therefore the woman, in replying to him, also only
makes use of (Elohim) God. That this supposition is correct,
is evident since in verse eight, where the sacred writer speaks,
he again employs [Jehmdi Elohim) " Lord God."

6. And wfien the woman saw that the tre^ wan good for food, and
that it was pleasant to the eyes,-.and a tree desirable to behold, she took
of its fruit, and ate, and she gave also to her husband with her ; and he,
did eat.

" And when the woman saw," the language evidently implies
that she gazed with longing eyes at the fruit which awakened
in her a desire to eat of it, and made the fruit appear to be
" good for food." We need not, therefore, suppose that there was
anything in the mere appearance of the fruit which indicnted
a pleasant taste. Lust makes every thing appear in a favoirr-
able light, and hence, as the apostle says : " Then when lust
hath conceived it bringeth forth sin : and sin when it is finished
bringeth forth death." (James i. 15.) " Pleasant to the eyes."
The literal rendering of the orig-inal is, " a desire or lust to the
eyes." " And a tree desirable to behold." There exists a difficulty
in rendering this passage, arising from the verb b'^SiSH {haakil)
admitting of the rendering to behold and to make icise. The
former rendering is given in the Septuagint, the Syriac, the
Samaritan, the Targum of Ankelos (Chaldee Version), and Vul-
gate. Also in the German Version of Kabbi Solomon Hak-
kohen — generally used by the German Jews — where it is ren-
dered " angenehm zmn betrachten," i. e, "pleasant to behold,"
and so likewise by Rabbi Hirsch. It is also adopted by many
modern commentators and critics, and among them, Gesenius,
Tuch, Kalisch, and VonBohlen. The latter rendering is given
in our Authorized Version, and Revised Version, also in Luther's
German Version, and adopted by many eminent commentators.
I have followed in my translation above the rendering of the
ancient versions, not that I consider it preferable to the ren-
dering given in our Authorized Version, but merely because by
far the greatest number of authorities favour it. Both trans-
lations make good sense, the question is, which of the two is
best suited to the context i* Those who render "desirable to
behold," say that the expression b''3bnb l?anD {'lechmad
lehaskil) is explained by the corresponding phrase Hi^lTab T^HD
(nechmad lemareh) '• pleasant to the sight." (Cli. ii. 9.)
I cannot see that there is much force in this argument, the
expressions it will be seen are not alike, and the latter expres-

m^^H^mmmmmmim

124

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

K J

sion is used in reference to all the trees in the garden, whilst-
the former is used in reference to one par*"2ular tree. Then
again they argue that Eve had no evidence as to the ability of
the tree "to make owe' wise," whilst, on the other hand, she
had the testimony of her senses as to the attractive qualities of
the tree. There is more force in this argument, yet it is by no
means conclusive. The tempter told her that by eating of it,,
their eyes of understanding would be opened, and they would
become like God, and the result shows that she believed his
words, and thus looked upon the tree as " desirable to make
one wise. The rendering in the Authoiized Version, therefore,
is quite as suitable as the other, if indeed not more forcible.
" And she gave to her husband with her ; and he did eat " : it
would appear from this language that Adam did not offer any
remonstrance, but readily yielded to the persuasion of Eve,
and thus the fatal act was consummated which brought
misery a^-.d death into the world. If we examine the naira-
tive of the fall, it becomes soon apparent that the three prin-
cipal factors in bringing about the dire catastrophe, were,.
unbelief, lust, and 2^'^"^'^^, and these have ever since been the
chief sources from which all the sins committed by their
descendants spring,

7. A nd the eyes of both of them were opened^ and they knew that tJiey
were naked ; avd they adjusted fig -leaves, and made themselves girdles.

" The eyes of both of them were opened." It is the eyes of
their minds, their childlike innocence, had now departed ; and
different ideas took possession of their minds from those they
had before their fall. They knew all the time that they were
naked, but in their innocent state they were not ashamed of it,
no more than a child before it comes to years of discretion ;.
but now a sense of shame came over them, and they felt it
necessary to supply by art a want of which they had not
known anything before. The material to supply this want
was at hand, they took fig-leaves, and made gii'dles of them.
The rendering of the verb nStT'1 {vaiyithi^eru) by " and they
sewed" is not a happy one, for it suggests the use of needles or
some impleTnent of sewing ; and sceptics, ever ready to find
discrepancies, have pointed to this as one of them, charging the
sacred writer with having I'epresented the use of implements
of sewing in Paradise which could not have been known yet.
But the primary signification of the verb 'iSiTl (taphary
evidently is to adjust, and in this sense it is undoubtedly used
in Job xvi. 15 *" Sackcloth Tl"lBvl (tapharti) I have adjusted
upon my skin," strangely rendered in the Authorized Version

* Sackcloth was used for mourning garments.

people's commentary.

125

and Revised Version, " I have sewed sackcloth upon ray skin."
In Luther's German Version it is rendered {aie flochten) i. e., they
plaited; and so in the German Version of Rabbi Solomon
Hakkohen ; likewis e by Rabbi Hirsch, and many others. After
the introduction of needles, the verb received the accessary
signification to sew. *" Fig-leaves," some writers have under-
stood riDi^n (tfieena) here to denote the Pisang-free, the leaves
of which attain the length of from ten to twelve feet, and are
about two feet broad, and are still used in Africa by some
savage tribes as aprons. (Danish Mission -Reports ii. p. 718.)
But the Hebrew word is in Scripture only used in the sense of
a Jig tree, which is very common in the East. Probably it was
the Jicus Indicus, which would be well adapted for this
purpose, the leaves being large and broad. " And made them-
selves girdles," rendered in the Authorized Version " aprons,"
which is altogether too definite a term; the Hebrew word
according to its etymology simply denotes a girdle, without
any reference to shape or form.

8. And they heard t/ie voice of the Lokd God resounding in the gar-
den in the cool o/ tfie day : And Adam and his wife hid themselves
from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of tfie garden.

So long as our first parents had remained in their original

holy state, the glorious presence of God inspired no fear, for

His familiar intercourse with them was like that of a loving

father with his obedient and affectionate children. They were

yet immortal, and could behold God, and yet live. But having

now broken the commandment of God, the voice of conscience

awakened them to a sense of the awful sin they had committed;

they can no longer bear the presence of God who had done so

much for them to make them happy ; and they hid themselves

among the trees of the garden, in the vain hope of concealing

themselves from the all-seeing eye of their offended Creator.

We are apt to say if a person has done something wrong, "this

man has no conscience," this is a fallacy, it would be more

proper to say, " this man has stifled the sense of his conscience,"

tor the same voice that has aroused our first parents to a sense

of their guilt, has ever since, and ever will make itself heard

after an evil deed done. The evil <loer may indeed try to hush

that voice, but still it is there. What a beautiful illustration

does the Psalmist furnish of this in Psalm x:

" The wicked through the pride of his countenance will not seek after Ood :
All his thoughts are There is no God."— v, 4.

* Instead of the singular noun T^b^ (ateli) the plural ^^y {alei) occurs in
some manuscripts, but the singular noun may either be taken as a collective
noun, or rendered by foliage.

I ■:

:! i

4
I

126

people's commentary.

Here the wicked, in order that ho may earn' out his evil
doings without compunction, persuades himself that there is no
God. Let us now turn to verses 10, 11 : ,

" Hg crouches, he bows down,
And the poor full in his strong ones, (i. e., in bis strong claws.)
lie suys in his heart God forgets :
He hides his face, he does not see for ever."

In verse 10 the wicked is compared to a lion lurking in his
den for his jirey ; but no sooner has he done the deed than his
conscience makes him sensible of his guilt, and no longer being
able to persuade himself that " there is no God," he flies to the
next subterfuge to quiet his troubled conscience by persuading
himself, that " God forgets ; " that He does not trouble Himself
about such things.

" And they heard the voice of the Lord God." This passage
has been explained in two different ways. In Scripture
thuvder is sometimes spoken of as " the voice of the Lord," or
" the voice of God." Thus, Job xxxvii. 5, it is said: " God
thundereth marvellously with his voice." Again Exod. ix. 28,
iDTlbi^ tibp {Koloih Elokim) lit. voices of God, i. e., thunders,

rendered in our version "mighty thunders." Other striking
examples we have in Psalms xxix. 3, and following verses.
Is. XXX. 30, 31, and in other pliices. Hence many commenta-
tors take our passage to mean, that, God appeared now to our
first parents in a tempest accompanied by thwnder out of which
He called unto them, in a similar manner as He addressed Job
out of a tempest. (Job xxxvii. 1.) Then, as regards the verb
jj5nt1?3 (wi7A/i«/^trA) rendered in our version by "walking,"
which is, no doubt, the primary meaning of it, yet when used
in connection with *bip (/oZ) voice, it assumes the signification
to sound or resound. This is quite evident from Exod. xix. 19:
"And when the voice of the trumpet 'nbin (hulech) sounded-"
and is so rendered in the English Version. There can, there-
fore, be no objection to render the verb likewise by resounding
in the passage under consideration.

Many other commentators, however, explain the phrase
" voice of the Lord God" to mean the sound made by His
footsteps. Thus Kalisch says, " the voice of God walking in
the garden is His footsteps," and refers, in support of his ren-
dering, to 1 Kings xiv. G : " When Ahijah heard the sound of
her feet." But in this passage it is distinctly stated that it
was the sound of feet. Other writei's appeal also to 2 Sam.
V. 24, but there also the sound is distinctly stated to be
Tl'lSI bip (^'oZ tseddah) lit. " the sound of a going." The first

• The word

iip

denotes both voice and sound.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

127

explanation appear.s to iiie the more consistent one, and more
suitable to the context. In verse 10, Adam says, "I heard thy
voice in the garden: and 1 was afraid;" liere the exjiression
"thy voice" can hardly be interpreted merely to mean the
sound of thy footstepf*, in the above quoted passngt;s, it will be
seen, the sound of fxttdeps is diiierently ex])ressed. Further,
the expression, " and I was afraid," seems to imply too, that the
voice, which they heard, was awe-inspiring ; {»nd what could
have been more so than loud peals of thunder for the first
time heard bj' Adam and his wife ?

" In the cool of the <lay," literally " in the wind of the day."
It is in that part of the day when cool breezes blow, which in
the East is generally towards evening. It is then that the
people generally leave their houses for a walk, or go to some
plaie of assembly, which was genei-ally in the gates of the city.
Thus when the two angels came to Sodom at even. Lot was
sitting in the gate of the city. (Ch. xix. 1.)

9. And the Lord God called unto the man, and said to hhii, IVhere
art thou f

As God is omnipresent nothing can be hid from His sight.
The question, therefore, " Where art thou ? " was not asked as
if God had been ignorant of Adam's hiding place, but to awaken
in him a still deeper sense of his guilt, and to bring him to an
humble confession of it. God did not charge Adam at once
with his sin, but afforded him an opportunity to repent, and
with a contrite heart acknowledge his disobedience. But
instead of humbling himself before his offended Creator, he has
recourse to the false and miserable subterfuge recorded in the
next verse.

10. And lie said, I heard Thy voice in ttw garden, and I teas afraid,
because I am nnlcd ; and I hid myself,

Adam had been naked from the day of his creation, but was
not ashamed, he had never before on that account shunned the
presence of God. He evidently endeavoured to hide the real
cause under a false semblance. This conduct of our fii-st parent
shows how naturally crime leads to prevarication and falseliood.
Sin invariably debases. Any one committing a wiong act will
never hesitate to cover it with a falsehood, in the hope of
escaping punishment. The phrase, ''D^jj^ ST^J? {eirovi anorhi), is
more correctly and suitably rendered " 1 am naked," than " I
Wds naked," as in the English Version and also in the Revised
Version. Correctly rendered in the German Version, " denn id
bin nackt" for I am naked.

128

people's rOMMKNTARY.

II'.
1^'

11. Awl Iff, mil, Who told thee that than art naked f Hast thou
eaten of the tree lohereof I commanded thee that thou shouldeat not eat t

■ The questions in this verso no longer admitted of prevarica-
tion. " Who told thee that thou art naked ? " It is by what
means hast thou found out that thou art naked ? Hast thou not
obtained this knowledge by eating of the tree whereof I com-
manded thee not to eat ? Driven now to give a direct answer,
which could only be in the affirmative, he next endeavours to
shield himself, by casting the blame upon his wife.

12. And the man said, The woman ivhom thou gaveat to be with me,
she f/ave me of tlie tree, and I ate.

" The woman whom thou gavest with me." The language
which Adam here uses im))lies more than merely laying the
blame upon the woman, it indirectly casts the biame also upon
the Almighty who had bestowed her upon him. This conduct
of Adam shows the fearful effects of sin. It drives away the
fear of God, it loosens all moral obligations, it deadens all natu-
ral afiections, and rends asunder the holiest ties of relationship.
Adam thought of nothing but his own escape from the impend-
ing punishment : he cared not what became of the woman of
whom he had but lately said, " this is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh."

13. And the Lord God said to the looman, What is thia that thou
hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me.

The woman could tnily say tliat she had been beguiled, her
excuse was therefore more reasonable than that of her hu.sband,
who as the apostle Paul declares, " Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1
Tim. ii. 14.) Adam was not persuaded into transgression: he
ate of the fruit because it was given to him. The narrative does
not indicate that he offered the least remonstrance. The
woman, however, like her husband, instead of expressing any
contrition for her disobedience, seeks to free herself from the
blame, by shifting it upon the serpent. Poor and miserable
excuses for breaking a command of such a simple nature, which
ir.'*"Ved neither hardship nor privation in keeping it.

14. And the Lord God said to tlie serpent, Becanse thou hast done
this, thou art cursed out of all cattle, and out of every beaat of the
field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the
days of thy life.

We have seen in the case of the man and woman, God did
not charge them at once with their guilt, but offered them an

riti f-'-i

■|l

people's commentary.

129

opportunity to repent and express a heartfelt sorrow for their
disobedience. It is, however, diflei-ent in the case of the
serpent : hero the sentence is at once pronounced, since the pai*t
which he took in bringinrj about the fall of nmn admitted of no
palliation. " Because thou hast done this," namely as the
instrument of the tonpter ; " thou art cursed out of all cattle,"
it is separate from all, or as distinfjuished from all other
animals. The Hebrew word ^3)3 (miJckid) which I have
rendered " out of all" has been rendered in different ways, to
which T would call the reader's attention. In our Authorized
Version, it is rendered by " above all," namely, " cursed art
thou above all cattle," giving the word a coinparative force,
which from a philological point of view is certainly admissil:)le.
But the reader will at once perceive that this rendering would
imply, that the curse was pronounced upon all the animals, and
that only a heavier curse was to rest upon the serpent, whereas
the language in the text clearly indicates that the curse was
only pronounced upon the serpent. It is true, the Apostle
Paul says that " the whole creation groaneth and travelleth
in pain together," (Rom. viii. 22,) but this was because " the
whole creation" was made to share the consequences of the
disobedience of our first parents. Death and misery came into
the world with the eating of the fi-uit, and in verse seventeen,
it is distinctly said, " cursed is the ground for thy sake."
Orthodox and heterodox writers are agi'eed that the other
animals had no share in the curse pronounced upon the
serpent, and hence most render the word ^^^(j (mikkol)
among, it is " thou dvt cursed among all cattle," which makes
good sense, but is a very free translation of the word. Some
commentators have rendered the word " from all," which is
certainly a very literal rendering, but altogether unsuitable
here, for the curse did not come fiom the animals, but from
God. Luther, in his German translation, renders vor allem
Vieh, it is " befoi-e all cattle," and so Keil and Delitzsch, in their
commentary on Genesis, but this rendering is very ambiguous.
The rendering, "out of," which I have given, affords a good
sense, and is quite in accordance \vith the use of the word in
other places of Scripture. As for instance Deut. xiv. 2: "And
the Lord had chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself
b3?a (mikkol) out of all the nations." " Upon thy belly thou
shalt go ;" as we have already .stated, those words clearly imply
a great change, though it is impossible even to conjecture as to
what extent the external form and motion of the serpent was
changed. The creeping upon the belly to which the serpent
was doomed, implies also great degradation. " And dust thou
shalt eat." These words, of course, must not be understood to
mean, that henceforth dust was to constitute its food, they
20

■' ')

\* i

i ■

;

IVi

130

people's commkntauy,

simply mean, that in eonso(|Ut>nce of its creeping upon the
ground it would nt-cesMiirily be subjected to .swallow dust.
And it is worthv of notice, that this state of detriiidation was
even to continue when the Hldenic peace and concord will be
restored again lurtweeii man and aniuuds, and among the beasts
themselves in the happy time of the Messiah.

" The wolf and liiml) shftU fceil togetlier,
» Anil till' lion hIiuII oiitHtriiw like tlio <i\ ;

But (()«/oc the serpent (lust /</"(// ^f lii8 fooil." — Ib. Ixv. 25. '

The expression eath^j ditsf, according to Scripture usage,
has, however, another meaning: it denotes to be reduced to a
condition of great shame and humiliation. Thus the prophet
Micah, in f\)rtel ling the utter overthrow of the nations, .says :
" They shall lick the dust like a serpent," that is, they shall be
debased and ma<le contemptible. (Micah vii. 17.)

The serpent, although not an accountable creature, and being
only en]ployed as the instrument of Satan, was banished
according to the .same law by which an ox that had injureil a
person so that he tlied, was to be put to death. (Exod. xxi. '2H.)
And the bea.st which had been made the in,strunient of an
unnatural crime was to be burned as well as the man. (Lev.
XX. 1.5.) It was by this mode of Divim; dispensation that
God showed in a UKjre forcible manner His detestation of the
action.

Whilst sceptic and rationalistic writers and lecturers have
had the audacity to pronounce the Mosaic account of the temp-
tation and fall of our first parents as unreasonable and absurd,
the narrative on the other hand receives ample attestation — if
such were indeed needed — in the widely prevailing serpent-
worship among the heathen nations throughout the whole of
the globe ; not excepting over the savage tribes in the interior
of Africa. It is no doubt, from the prominent part which the
serpent is represented to have taken in bringing about the fall
of man, that the heathens conceived the idea that the animal
was the real actor, and thus deified it, and ma<le it the object of
worship in various ways. It is said, that no worship is so
universal among the heathens over the whole globe as ophiola-
treia (serjjent- worship), excepting perhaps that of the sun.
Now no mere tradition or invented story would have obtained
such universal acceptance, and been made the object of such
wide spread .solemn worship. But although the serpent was
deified, it was chiefly worshipped as an evil demon, and the
religious homage it received was merely for the purpose to
avert evil. From the expression " upon thy belly thou shalt
go," the heathens no doubt concluded that before the curse it
had walked erect, and thus we find it represented in an erect

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

131

position in tlie Hculpturul and pictorial ivprcsentatioiiM of" tlie
temptation of our liist parents. In the temple of Osiris* at
PhilM;-f was found a most n-markaltle sculpture of high anti(|uity
representing the temptation of our first parents. Eve is .seen
presenting the fruit to her husliaml, a tiee is lietween them,
rnd near them stands the serpent in an erect posture.

Jiaron Hundtoldt in his work Ami;rican llesearehes, gives an
Azteck hieioglyphical maiiu.sciipt preserved in the lil>rary of
the Vatican. On IMate xiii. is " represented the celebrated ,ser-
pnit xvo')ii(tn Cihuacohuatl, also called t^uilaztli, tiviiian of our
flt'sh. The Mexicans considered her as the mother of the
human race; and ol'ter the god of the ccleslial l\i radlse.
Ometeuctli, she held the first rank among the diviidtie.s of
Anahuac ; we .see her always repieseiitetl with a great ser})ent."
(p 19').) The ser|ient in the plate, stands in the front of the
woman, in an erect position, apparently talking to lier. There
is no douht that the group is a representation of the serpent
tem[)tiiig Eve, It is remarkable too, that behind the serpent
tliere are two human figures in the attitude of contending with
each other, and Baron Humboldt goes on to say, that " The
serpent woman was considered in Mexico as the mother of two
twin children ; these naked figures are perhiips the cliildren of
Cihuacohuatl ; they rennnd us of Cain and Abel of Hebrew
tradition." (p. lOG.) In tlie British museum there is an an-
cient Babylonian seal upon which there aie two human figures
sitting one on each side of a tree, and holding out their hands,
and at the back of one lies stretched out a serpent.

North America furnishes, likewise, proofs of the serpent-
worship having at one time formed a part of the religious
observances among the aboriginals, if, indeed, it is not still
practised to some extent among some of the Indian tribes. hJquier
and Davis, in the " Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge,"
give a repiesentation and description of the (ji'cat serpent of
earthwork discovered in Adam's County, Ohio. It is said to be
"the most extraordinary earthwork thus far discovered in the
West. " Conforming to the curve of the hill," the description
goes on to say, " and occupying its very summit, is the serpent,
its head resting near the point, and its body winding back for
seven hundred feet, in graceful undulations, terminating in a
triple coil at the tail. The entire length, if extended, would
not be less than one thousand feet. The accompanying plan,
laid down from accurate survey, can alone give an adequate
conception of the outline of the work, which is clearly and

* Osiris (many eyed), a cele'urated Egyptian deity, worshipped throughout
Egypt, as the son of Ha, the sun, and sometimea identified with the sun or the
Creator.

+ P/iite, a celebrated island, situated in the midst of the Nile.

i ^

132

people's commentary.

'Ifii

boldly defined, the embankment being upwards of five feet in
height by thirty feet in base at the centre of the body, but
diminishing somewhat towards the head and tail. The neck
of the serpent is stretched out and slightly curved, and its
mouth is open wide as if in the act of swallowing or ejecting
an oval figure, which rests partially within the distended jaws.
The writer then goes on to say : " The serpent, separate or
in combination with the circle, egg, or globe, has been a
predominant symbol among many primitive nations. It
prevailed in Egypt, Greece, and Assyria, and entered widely
into the superstitions of the Celts, the Hindoos, and the
CI u icse. It even penetrated into America; and was conspicuous
in the mythology of the ancient Mexicans, among whom its
significance does not seem to have differed materially from that
which it possessed in the old world. The fact that the ancient
Celts, and perhaps other nations of the old continent, erected
sacred structures in the form of a serpent, is one of high
interest. Of this description was the great temple of Abury,
in England, in many respects the most imposing ancient monu-
ment of the British islands." (Vol. 1, plate xxxv. pp. 96, 97.)
Among the Druids, serpent worship also entered largely into
their Swlamn rites.

It is impossible to account for the origin of this universal
religious homage paid to the serpent all over the globe in any
other way, than from the prominent part the animal took in
bringing about the fall of the parents of the human race, and
the consequent evils it entailed upon all mankind.

15. And I will put emnitTj between thee ami between the looman,
and between thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, aiui tliou
ihalt bruise his heel.

This verse informs us, that there was to be a perpetual
eninit}'- existing between mankind and the w^hole serpent tribe,
and certainly nothing is more notorious than the universal
antipathy and aversion, not to say hatred, with which these
reptiles are everywhere regarded. And strange as it may
appear, it is nevertheless a fact, that although the serpent has
been deified among so many heathen nations, it was none the
less hated by them. In many of the Eastern religions, the
destruction of serpents is enjoined as a sacred duty, and in
some instances even solemn sacrifices were instituted for their
annihilation. (Frank Vyasa p. 139.) Thus we have the extra-
ordinary spectacle presented to us, that whilst some professed
believers in Scripture unblushingly pronounced the Mosaic
account of the fall of man as " unreasonable, childish, and
absurd," the heathens throughoiit our globe attest to its verity
in every particular.

people's commentary.

133

As Satan, the actual tempter, cannot be separated from the
serpent, the instrument in bringing about the fall of our first
parents, it follows, therefore, that he must also participate in
the curse. The mere constituting of enmity between the ser-
pent tribe and mankind would be a punishment altogether
disproportionate for a deed which was productive of such dire
results, not only to the human family, but the whole world.
Justice, too, demands, that whilst the instrument is punished,
the agent should not go free. The language in our verse,
therefore, has justly been regarded as conveying a higher
meaning, namely, a symbolical prediction of the continued
enmity that was to exist between Satan and man, and the final
overthrow of Satan's power when the Messiah shall come, who
is spoken of under the appellation of nb"''© (Shiloh), i. e., paci-
ficator, (Gen. xlix. 10), and tDlbtD "ItlJ ('Sictr Shalom) i. e., prince
of peace, (Is. ix. 5), who vrili, by crushing Satan's head, restore
again the original paradisiacal peace and happiness. Hence we
read: " And the God of Peace shall bruise Satan under your feet
shortly." (Rom, xvi. 20.) As an example of the implacable
enmity that exists between Satan and the seed of the woman,
the reader may only refer to the first and second chapters of
the book of Job. And a writer has well observed that it is
" A hatred so deep, so inctinguishable, that never has a single
individual of the seed plai d his foot within the threshold of
heaven, without having suffered from the stings and assaults
of Satan by the way. Never has one of that fallen woman's
fallen seed passed through the dry and deocrt land of his pil-
grimage, without receiving many a fiery dart, shot from that
serpent's brood, who for ever crawl and cluster round his path."
" Between thy seed and between her s(>ed." Seed is in Scrip-
ture often used for off-spring, " her seed," therefore, denotes
her posterity, including of course the Messiah, the greatest of
all her descendants. By the seed of the serpent, as applied to
the natural serpent, is to be understood the serpent race, and
as we have shown a perpetual and universal enmity exists
between it and the human race. And as applied to Satan —
frequently called 'l^?a^p^ lUnDn {hannachash hahkadvion), i. e.,

" the first seri^ent" in the Rabbinical writings — we must under-
stand tlte children of the devil, that is, those who are like him
in disposition, and thus including the incorrigiblu^ depraved
and wicked men, called " children of their father the devil."
and the evil angels.

The different modes of attack mentioned in our text, neces-
sarily arise from the nature of the combatants. As the serpent
crawls in the dust, its head is not only easily crushed, but is
at the same time the safest wav of attacking, as well as the

134

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

:;• m

easiest and surest mode of destroying it. The serpent, on the
contrary can attack that part of man only which is near the
ground. Some commentators explain " the heel " being parti-
cularly mentioned, as being the least vital part in the human
body, where an injury would be attended with less serious
consequences than in any other part, in contrast to " the head,"
which is the most, vital part of the serpent. But this argument
does not hold good, the bice of a poisonous serpent in the heel
would be just as fatal as a bite in any other place, as the poison
would soon make its way into the whole system. The word
I3p5 {ahcv) heel, is evidently here used for the ivhole foot, just
like the word p3 {kapli) the hollow or 'pabn of the hand, is
often used for the ix-'kole hand.

As in Hebrew there is no neuter gender the phrase 'SBTO'' S^lfl
(hti yeshuphecha), would be more literally translated "he shall
bruise thee," it is the offspring of the woman.

16. Unto the woman Tie said, I will greatly multiphj thi/ pain and
thy conception ; in jya,in thou shall hriny forth children, and to thy hus-
band shall be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee.

As the woman transgressed before her husband, so sentence
is also pronounced upon her before him. The punishment of the
woman was twofold, namely, great pain that was to attend
childbirth, and subjection to her husband. There is nothing
here said of a change from an immortal state to mortality, for
that has already been declared in unmistakable language,
would be the result of eating from the forbidden tree, " for in
the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The afflic-
tions mentioned in the above verse are additional sorrows that
were to attend her throughout life. And so in the sentence
passed upon her husband in the following verses. These sor-
rows were to remind them constantly of the great offence they
had committed against their heavenly Father. Yet terrible as
the punishment was, it had already been tempered by the
promise of the Messiah.

The pain attending childbirth became proverbial among the
ancient Hebrews, and hence sometimes employed l>y the sacred
writers to depict great tribulation and anguish. Thus the
prophet Isaiah, in his vivid description of the destruction of
Babylon by the Medes and Persians, in chapters xiii. and xiv.,
says of the inhabitants : . .

" And they shall ho confounded, pains and pangs shall seize them ;
As a woman in travail, they shall be in pain." — (Ch. xiii. 8.)

Compare also ch. xxi. 3, Mich. iv. 9. " And he shall rule over
thee ;" I fear that this passage has in too many cases been fear-

people's commentary.

135

fully misconstrued and taken to mean, that the husband may
rule over the wife in a tyrannical manner, and subject her to
all kinds of ill-treatment. Such an idea can only find a place in
a depraved heart, and the whole Bible teaching is against such
a monstrous supposition. Throughout Scripture the highest
regard is shown for female excellence, and in its pages are
found many proofs of the honourable position which the women
occupied among the ancient Hebrews. Most of my readers
are no doubt acquainted with what the Old Testament relates
of the wives of the patriarchs ; of Miriam, the sister of Moses ;
of the prophetess and heroine Deborah ; of the wife of Manoah,
who was honored even above her husband by having an angelic
messenger sent to her with the revelation that God would
grant her a son ; of the lovely character of Naomi, as set forth
in the book of Ruth, a character well according with her name,
'^aom\, i. e., pleasantness ; of the meek and pious Hannah;
of Miciial, the devoted wife of David ; of Abigail, the prudent
wife of Nabal, and after his death, the wife of David ; of the
prophetess Huldah (Chuldah), wife of Shalum ; of the hospi-
table Shunamite ; of the beautiful Queen Esther, as beautiful
in character as in person, and of the many pious women who
regularly served in the holy tabernacle. From the honourable
notice of these and many other noted women of Scripture we
learn the high position women occupied in the social scale
among the ancient Israelites. Our text, therefore, cannot con-
sistently be construed to mean anything more than to consti-
tute man the head of the family, to whom the wife should look
up to as her protector and counsellor. It is true, in the New
Testament, wives are commanded "to submit themselves unto
their husbands as unto the Lord ; for the husband is the head
of the wife." (Ephes. v. 22, 23.) But this is far from imply-
ing that the husband may domineer over his wife ; on the other
hand it is also said : " So ought men to love their wives as their
own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself." (Ephe.s.
V. 28.)

The degredatiou of women ha<l its origin in the debasing
practices of the heathens. From tliem it found its way into
Mosleism. In our times the ill treatment of women is the
result of bad habits and evil influences, and too often, alas !
from a greater love for the inebi-iating cup, than for the wife.

17. And to the man, He said, Because thou hast hearkened to the
voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of irhich I commanded
thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it : cursed is the ground for thy
sake ; in sorrow shalt tho , eat of it all the days of thy life.

We have already stated, that God, froir uhe beginning,
ordained that man .should not lead an idle i ":' Immediately
after his creation ho was placed in the garden " to till it, and

Si II

tin's

I' nil

• S'

If •!'

«,;

III i:

136

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

to keep it." But, before man, through sin, had become mortal,
and before this curso was pronounced upon the earth, labour
was not attended with any hardship or toil. So long as man
was immortal, his body was free from weakness, there was no
bodily fatigue attending any labour. The earth too yielded its
products freely. With the change of immortality to mortality,
man became a miserable weak creature, susceptible to all kinds
of infirmities ; labour, which before his fall, was a pleasure, on
account of the changed condition of his body, now becomes a
toil. Through the curse pronounced upon the earth, its fruit-
fulness was impaired, henceforth man was to gain his subsist-
ance only by drudgery, and attended with care and anxiety,
so that Job could truly say, " Man is bom unto trouble as the
sparks fly upwards." The labour and anxiety attending
agricultural pursuits ever attest to the verity of the sacred
narrative, x et Jesus, the son of Sirach, says, " Hate not
labourious work, neither husbandry, which the Most High had
ordained." (Ecclesiasticus vii. 15.) In Hebrew a husbandman
is called n)3^l5^n Ifi'^ls^ (i^h haddamah) lit. a 7)ian of the ground^
it is a man working the ground (See (Jen. ix. 20.) The
Septuagint and Vulgate Versions, instead "of thy sake," render
" in thy labour," it is in thy field labour, they must have read
instead SII^^Sl (badvurecha) '3TH5?31 (badvudecha) which
reading occurs also at least in one manuscript, the latter
reading evidently originated from mistaking the letter ^ (reah}
r for a '^ (daleth) d, the two letters being much alike. The
present rendering of the Hebrew text is, however, generally
adopted by the majority of commentators, and is no doubt the
correct one. Most likely the letter was indistinctly written in
the manuscript which the Seventy used in making their
translation. It is evident that the present reading of the
Hebrew text was the prevalent one when the Masorites made
the recension of the text, for they generally notice in their
marginal notes, if a different reading existed. " In sorrow shalt
thou eat of it," it is in wearisome and painful labour shalt thou
eat of the produce of the ground. Hence the Fsalmist speaks
of " bread of sorrows :" it is bread procured by hard labour and
anxiety.

18. Arul thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou
sJudt eat the herb of the field.

" Thorns and thistles " are employed by the sacred writers to
express all kinds of troublesome weeds. Compare Isaiah v. 6;
vii. 23. Hosea x. 8. " Thou shalt eat of the herb of the field,"
we have already stated that tho term 'yCOV (esev) embraces all
kinds of seed-bearing plants between grasses and trees. The

people's commentary.

lar

term, TMXD C««<^^'0. denotes both cultivated fields and pastures,,
the meaning of the passage therefore is, that henceforth man
should eat of the herb of the field obtained by toilsome labour,
for the herbs had already been assigned to man for food in ch.
1.29. The ditfei'ence consists in that what the earth before
yielded freely was now to be extracted from it by toil.

19. In the sweat of thy face sitalt thou eat bread, till thou retumeat
unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou art, and
to dust thou shalt return.

The Hebrew term Qpib {lechem) is frequently used for food
in general; thus Gen. xliii. 31 : "And he (Joseph) washed his
face and went out, and restrained himself, and said, " Set on
food," (Eng. Ver., " set on bread.") It is even used sometimes
in reference to animals, as Psalm cxlvii. 9 :

' "He giveth to the 'beast its food ;

And to the young ravens which cry."

The passage, " In the sweat of the face shalt thou eat bread,"
does not refer only to the husbandman, but to all men in what-
soever occupation they may be employed. Hence Job says :

" la there not appointed thard labour for men upon the earth ?
And are not his days like the days of a hireling ?"

But after sin had entered the world, the infliction of labour
as a punishment was a providential provision to keep man from
idleness, the source of all evil, and thus avert greater misery.
The man who works for his daily bread, no matter how hard
his labour may be, is infinitely more happy than the man who
spends his time in idleness and .sloth. St. Paul especially
admonished the Thessalonians to shun idleness : " For even
when we were with you," says the apostle, "this we commanded
you, that if any would not work neither should he eat." (2
Thess. iii. 10.)

Many of the Greek and Roman writers speak of the toil and
drudgery to which man is doomed, yet. heathens as they were,
they recognized the great importance of labour, as calling into
activity the mental powers, invigorating the body, and above
all as a safeguard from falling into evil habits. See, for instance,
leoTg. i. 121-124.

Virgil G

•The word HlOniS (^><^f^hemah) employed in the above passage, is generally
used in reference to clomesticated animals, but in the poetical writing likewise
ill reference to wild animals.

+The word &^JJ1|2 (ttava) employed in the above passage, literally denotes
tear/are, but is hgurati"ely also used for hard service or hard labour. ,.■_., .^

13S

PEOPLE'S COMMENTARr.

20. And the man called his wi/as name Eve; fur mhe became the
mother of all living. • j ■ . n

In ch. ii. 23, as we have seen, Adam had called his wife
niTS^ {'nfhshdh) wife, em indicating the close relationship in which
she stood to him , but here he bestows on her the name mn
(chav-wah), which denotes life, indicating her rcliitionship to
the whole human family, for as the text says, " she became the
mother of all living," not of the Caucasian race only, but " of
all living" human beings, irrespective of colour, and formation
of the head.

As no child had yet been born to Adam, the naint was
evidently given in anticipation, having full faith that the pro-
mise made in verse 15, that her seed should bruise the serpent's
head would be fulfilled. But it may well be asked why intro-
duce it Just here, seeing that it has no connection either with
what precedes or follows, and the name would certainly have
been more appropriately given after the first child had been
born ? It would Seem, that Adam gave the name immediately
after the curse was pronounced, to sliovv that the fall and
misery it entailed upon them, had in nowise weakened the
conjugal affections, but that on the contrary, since the promise
of a need she would in future stand in double relationship to
him, as wife and mother of his descendants. The curse too,
that henceforth he was to eat his bread in the sweat of his
face, would remind him also, that he would havo to look to his
wife to solace him in his drudger^-^ through life, and as a writer
has well said : " The wife was indeed, the only treasure which
Adam took with him from Paradise into the desert of life, to
remind him of a more than earthly happiness."

The foregoing remarks will, I think, satisfactorily account
for the abrupt introduction of the naming of Eve here, instead
of in ch. iv. 1.

21. And the Lord God made to Adam and his v)lfe cuats of skins,
and clothed them.

We have already stated that, according to Scripture lan-
guage, a person that oiders or prompts a thing to be done, is
said to be the doer of it, and in this sense must the expression,
" And the Lord God made," be understood, and !iot that the
Almighty had actually Himself made the garments for our first
parents and clothed them. Some of the modern critics, indeed,
insist upon taking the words in a literal .sense, and ascribe it
to the gross and imperfect conceptions which Moses had of the
Divine nature. Thus Berger, in his Practical Introduction
(Praktiache Einleitung) vol. i. p. 63. Kalisch, too, observes :
" Since garments had now become necessary by the aroused

people's commentary.

139

feelings of shame God Himself prepared them, and clothed the
first parents." We liave precisely the same expression in
ch. xxxvii. 3, "And Israel loved Joseph more than all his
children, beciiuse he ^vas a son of his old age : and he made
him a *long coat." Surely no reasonable person would infer
from this language that Jacob himself had made the coat, no
more than he would infer from history that Wellington had
all alone won the battle of Waterloo, because historians ascribe
the victory to him. We constantly say, such or such an
architect ert^cted this building, yet all he did was merely to
direct the work. Why then not allow similar freedom of
language to the sacred writers ? Why not extend to Scnp-
ture the same consistent mode of criticism as is usually
extended to secular writings ? In reading many of the modern
commentaries, one would suppose that the authors had hiid
aside all consistency in their mode of interpretation. The
language in our verse simply means, that God jirompted or
ordered our first parents to maka for themselves garments
made of skins and to clothe themselves with them, instead of
the fragile girdles of foliage. Garments at once more durable
and better adapted to their new occupations and the hardships
they would have to encounter outside of Paradise. They were
now about to be expelled from their happy home, wheie
miseiy, pain, and sorrow was unknown, and enter upon their
rough journey through life, their bodies needed now more pro-
tection than the mere girdles attbrded.

Our verse affords another striking example of Gf hI's merciful
dealings with mankind in prompting them to make for them-
selves a covering more suitable to their future ab(»de and
labour. God had just pronounced sentence upon them for
their disobedience, but still kept them under His fatherly care
and protection.

" Coats of skins." This implies the killing of animals; and it
is, therefore, generally believed, that we have in this verse —
although not directly expressed yet implied — the first institu-
tion of sacrifice. And, certainly, the closer we examine the
subject, the more will the correctness of the supposition
become apparent. In the first place we may remark, that it
is quite evident, that unless animal sacrifice ha-^ been directly
instituted by God, no human being could have t\ and out that
the shedding of the blood of a beast would be uvveptable to
•God, and make .satisfaction for sin. Now in ch. iv. 3, we reatl :
" And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and
of their fat. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his
•offering." The sacrifice of animals is here spoker. of as if it

•Suck lone and oostly robes were worn aa marks of distinction by wealthy or
•distinguisheu persons. They are still seen depicted on Egyptian monuments.

I ■

K H

M ■•

|*r ■ ,

p;«

pi '

ii..

1 ■ ' '

it
!■

1 1 ::

: i| i

1 ■:■!■

1 -ii

■ ! ''

1 ifi ' '

■■i'L

140

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

had then been already an established ordinance observed in hi»
family. The only reasonable conclusion, therefore, is, that
Adam must have received the ordinance of sacrifices by revela-
tion from God.

Secondly, we may observe, inasmuch as according to-
ch. i. 29, the herbs and fruits were appointed to man for food,
the akina could not have been of animals slain for food.
The grant oi animal food was not made until after the
flood to Noah's family. It is quite likely that animal food had
been used against God's will during the long period before the
flood, still it is altogether improbable that Adam killed animals
for food whilst in paradise.

Many writers have indeed raised the question whether the
the institution of sacrifices was of Divine origin, or merely
devised by the firat family of the human race. Against the
idea of its being a human device is, as we have above stated,
that no human being would ever have thought of such a thing
as that the shed<ling of blood would be acceptable to God, and
make satisfaction for sin. But further, in ch. iv., 3, 4, 5, there
is mention made of two different kinds of sacrifices — that of
Cain, consisting " of the fruit of the ground," and that of his
brother Abel, consisting " of the fii-stlings of his flocks." The
sacred narrative tells us that "the Lord had respect unto Abel,
and to his offering," whilst " unto Cain, and to his offering, he
had no respect." Now, upon what possible grounds could this
difference be accounted for, if sacrifices were merely of human
device ? Why should the one, involving^ the taking of the life
of a creature, be more acceptable to God than the harmless
ofl*ering of the produce of the ground ? The answer to this

2uestion is furnished in Heb. xi. 4: "By faith Abel otteied unto
Jod a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ;" this clearly show.s-
that sacrifice is a divinely instituted ordinance, and when pro-
perly observed is acceptable to God. Again, in ch. vii, 2, we
read : " Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thyself by
sevens, the male and his female, and of the beasts that are not
clean by twos, the male and his female." Here, the reader will
observe, there is already a distinction made between clean and
unclean animals, and the language implies that Noah already
knew how to distinguish the clean from the unclean. Now,
how did Noah obtain this information ? Surely there can be
but one reasonable answer to this question, and that is, that
when God instituted the ordinance of sacrifice. He at the same
time appointed also certain animals to be used. The distinction
of animals that were allowed to be eaten and those that were
forbidden under the Mosaic law was by direct* command of

* Lev. xi. ; Deut. xix. 4, et seq.

people's COMMENTARTf.

141

God, and so, no doubt, was the selection of certain animals to
be used for sacritice.

Of the unclean animals there were to to bo taken into the
ark onl) one pair of each, but of the clean seven of each,
namely, three pairs, and one odd one. Now why the odd one?
Evidently for sacritice. Hence we read ch. viii. 20 : " And
Noah built an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean
beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offering on
the altar." The importance and sacredness of sacrifices under
the Old Testament dispensation altogether forbids the idea of
their being original!}' of human origin. As from the sons of
Noah the whole earth was peopled,* this will account for the
oflfermg of sacrifice becoming so universally practised among
all the heathen nations over the globe, having been adopted by
them from the Hebrews, like many other customs. Among
many of the Aboriginals of America the dog was a favourite
animal for sacritice, and even to this day the Iroquois offer a
white dog at the feast called Gi-ye-wa-ne-us-qua-go— wa, i. e.,
the oriyinal faith, and say, that it was a covenant between
the Great Si)irit and their forefathers to observe it. And so
among all the heathens throughout the world, no matter how
far separated from one another, sacrifice was regarded as origi-
nally instituted by one or other of their gods.

But I must now pass on to notice another extravagant hypo-
thesis which has been even more widely entertained than the
one which we have just been controverting. One too, if per-
sisted in would raise such an insurmountable barrier as to
preclude the possibility of harmonizing the teaching of Scrip-
ture with the established facts in the science of geology. And
when I say " established facts," I wish the reader to understand
that I do not mean as asserted by merely a half a dozen of
eminent geologists, but by the unanimous voice of all the great-
eat scientists who have ever written on that subject. Now it
has been strenuously maintained by many commentators, and
thus widely promulgated, that " death came only into the tvoiid
ivith the fall of man," or in other words that death had no
existence until our first parents sinned in Paradise. If this
were the case, how are the fossil remains in the various strati-
fied rocks to be accounted for V

Dr. Kalisch observes: "The innumerable petrifactions in the
interior of the earth ])reach with a thousand tongues that
organic life was, by myriads of myriads, destroyed during
immeasureable ages before the existence of man."t The dis-
tinguished geologist, Hugh Miller, says on this subject : " All

* Gen. ix. 19.
+ Commentary, p. 130.

142

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

I I

1 ' ' '

1 ^Si

■■(".

1 ;

geologists agree in holding that the vast geological scale natu-
rally divides into three great parts. There are many lesser
(livisions — divisions into systems, formations, deposits, beds,
strata ; Init the master divisions, in er.ch of which we find a
type of life so unlike that of others, that even the unpractised
eye can detect the difference, are simply three — the pahvozoic or
oldest fossiliferous division, thesecondnry ormid<llo fossiliferous
division, and the tertiary or latest division. In the first or
paheozoie division, we find corals, crustaceans, molluscs, fishes,
and in its later formation a few reptiles." The middle division
he characterizes " as an age of egg-bearing animals, winged
and wingless. Its wonderful whales not, howevei', as now of
mammalian, but of reptilian class." " In speaking of the tertiary
period ho remarks, that it had also its prominent class of
existences. Its flora seems to have been no more conspicuous
than that of the present time ; its reptiles occupy a very
subordinate place, but its beasts of the field were by far the
most wonderfully developed both in size and numbers, that
ever appeare<l on earth."* These statements of Hugh Miller
are attested by all geologists without a single exception.
Now the geologists must either have been imposing on the
credidity of their millions of intelligent readers, or the
hypothesis that " death had no existence before the fall of our
first parents must fall to the ground. The teaching of geology,
in regard to the existence of the fossil remains, is so well
attested, that it admits of no doubt or possibility of being
controverted. It is quite possible that some scientists may
hold extravagant ideas as to the long periods of time that
must have elapsed during their slow and gradual formation,
but all geologists — and among them many devout Chiistians
and Jews — are agreed that animals existed and perished many
ages before the appearance of man upon the earth. If this
then is an indisputable fact, it surely becomes highly important
to examine whether the teaching of the Bible is in any way
in opposition to the teaching of science in regard to these
fossil remains.

The hypothesis of interpreters that " death only entered the
world with the fall of man," implies that all animals must have
been created imrnoytal beings as well as man. Now, we would,
indeed, in vain search the whole sacred Scriptures from the
first verse of Genesis to the last verse of Revelations to find
a single passage that ever hints at such a thing, much less
teaching it. The whole tenor of the teaching of Scripture is
quite the opposite to it. Man, like the animals, was formed
from the dust of the ground, so far then they stand in

*Hugh Miler's Testimony of tho Rocks, pp. 135, 169.

people's commentary.

14.3

\d the

have

[ould,

the

find

less

I'e is

jmed

|l in

equal relation. How, then, did man become the image
and likeness of God ? The answer is, that the Lord God
after He had " formed man of the dust of the {jjrouiul, he
breathed into his nostrils the spirit of life." It is by the pos-
session of the QiTI PlTUIDD (niskmath chai-yim) the spirit of
life, that man can only be said to be the image of God, and by
its possession only he became an immortal being. Thus it is
said in the apocryphal book. The Wisdonx of Solomon : " For
God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an
image of his own eternity." It is this possession that forms
the grand distinction between man and the animals. Then,
again, when God imposed the command Ujion the man not to
eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the
])nnislinicnt foi' breaking the coinmandment was, "for in the
day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" — " thou" —
it is ni)t said, (dhI all the animals. And hejice St. Paul
says : " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin ; and so death pa.ssed upon all men,
for that all have sinned." (Rom. v. 12.) The reader will
perceive that the apostle only says that "death passed upon
all men," and not upon all the other creatures also. Com[)aro
also, I Cor. XV. 21, 22. The Scriptures nowhere declare
that the animals had ever been exempt from death. Man
alone was created immortal ; he sinned, and this brought
death upon the human family. The teaching of Scripture is,
therefore, in perfect harmony with what science teaches in
regard to the fossil remains. But some conmientators, in a
most reprehensible manner, form very hasty theories without
considering them in tiieir various bearings, and fre(piently have
recoui-se to the most unreasonable arguments in order to sustain
them. A most striking proof of this we have in the absurd
argument brought forward that the petrijied animafs ])robably
never were rca/ livimj hcimjs, but that they are merely so in
appearance. This only shows how pertinaciously some writers
will cling to a pet theory, even at the risk of making them-
selves aj)pear lidiculous in the eyes of every enlightened reader.
The Hehnnv word Jn3ji3 {kothnofh), used in our verse,
denotes <i (jantient worn by males and females.

22. And the Lord Goil sniil, Behold the man is become as one of
ua, to know good and evil : and now, lest lie put Jorth his hand, and
take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

" Behold, man is become like one of us, to know good and
evil." Many interpreter^ have regarded the language in this
pas.sage to be ironical, as much as to say, behold what the
ambition of man to become like one of us resulted in ! See

144

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

W¥^

ft V-

what his listening to the voice of the tempter ended in, nothing
but misery. Before his transgreusion ho knew only what was
good, but now he has also by experience become acquainted
with evil and its effects. But the use of ironical language on the
part of God on such a solemn occasion seems to me altogether
out of the question. The meaning of the passage appears to me
to be rather that the vutn had attempted to become. Accor " "
to a common Hebrew idiom a person is said to do a thing, y
he mer(i]y piu'poses or attemptH to do it. Thus Gen. xxx.ii.
21, " And Reuben heard it, and he delivered him out of their
hands," but the words " delivered him," as the sequel clearly
shows, can only mean that he resolved to deliver him. So
Exod. viii. 14. (Eng. Vers., v. 18,) " And the magicians did so
with their enchantments," but "did so" can only mean they
tried to do so, for it is immediately afterwards stated, that
" they could not." Again in Josh. iv. I), it is said that " Balak,
the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose and warred against
Israel ; " but the words "nrose and warred " can only mean,
that, he purposed or prepared to do so, for it is nowhere stated
in history that Balak had actually fought against Israel. And
so by the same idiom the words " man is become," in our verse,
may be interpreted that man attempted to become. Lured '
the tempter's promise, " ye shall be as God," (v. 5), he wni
longt'i- satisfied to be created in the image of God, but lon^..
to become e(jual to God Himself. " And now, lest he put forth
his hand," the passage is evidently elliptical. " And now, care
7)iv ftt be taken lest he put forth his hand." The passage thus
completed harmonizes beautifully with the next verse: "There-
fore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden." Such
elliptical expression^, are very common in the Old Testament.
" And take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever,"
man having been created immortal, the tree of life could
impart no more than what he already possessed, he was, there-
fore, permitted to eat of it as long as he retained immortality
by being obedient to the command of God. But he having
now through sin become mortal, he could no longer be suffered
to remain in the vicinity of '* the tree of life," which afforded
him the means of regaining; again that which he had lost as a
penalty of his disobedience. The language, "and take also of
the tree of life, and eat and live for ever," clearly implies that
the tree of life " was endowed with aupernatural life-sustain-
inff properties, that it possessed the power to impart to the
body strength and vitality to preserve it for ever, and there-
foie the use of the tree was bari'ed, for it still retained its
life-sustaining properties. Delitzsch has indeed very properly
observed that, " Had he (man) continued in fellowship with
God by obedience to the command of God, he might have

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

145

eatt'n of it, for he wa« created to eterntil life. But after he
had fallen throuc^h niii into the powor of deuth, the fruit
which produced iinmortulity could only do hini hanu. For
iininortnlity in a state of sin is not the ^foij al(i)vio<i, which
(iod designed for man, but endless nnsery which the Scriptures
call the second death." Rev. ii. 11, xx. 0,14, xxi. 8). The
expulsion from Paradise, therefore, was a punishment inflicted
for man's good, intended whilst exposing him to temporal
death, to preserve him from eternal death." This harrier will
be removed again, and the tree will again be partaken of, and
man will be restored to a glorious immortality. "To him that
overc'ometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the
nndst of the paradi.se of God." (Rev. ii. 7). Many of the
Rabbis also held the opinion, that " after the resurrection men
would eat again of the tree of life." There was, however,
another reason why our parents could not be suffered to
remain any longer in Paradise. The garden which God had
planted, was a place of perfect bliss and peace, whereas man
Henceforth was to eat his daily bread in sorrow, and V)e subject
to sickness and pain. The perfect peace that reigned in the
garden was not to be broken by cries of woe, and the agony
of death.

2.3. Thnreforp. the Lord God aeul him forth from the (janfen of
Eden to till the ground from wheii lie had been taken.

The passage " from whence he liad been taken," docs not
mean as some writers have understood it, that God sent the
man outside of the garden from wlience he had been brought
after his creation, but from which he had been created. The
tilling of the ground was constantly to remind him of his
earthly origin. The cultivation of the ground was the primary
occupation designed for man, but as the human family
increased other occupations became necessary, but all attended
with toil. Still, on the produce of the ground man's sustenance
depends. If the earth does not yield her produce, famine and
death would be the natural results. Hence Solomon says:
" Moreover, the profit of the earth is for all : the King himself
is served by the field.""^ (Eccl. v. 8, Eng. Ver. verse 9.)

•We may safely say there are few passaj^ea in the Scriptures of which so
many different renderings and explan.ationa have l)eeu given as of the one above
quoted. Some of them are very far fetched, whilst others are bordering on the
absurd. The rendering above given which is the same as in the Authorized
Version, is, in my opinion, the most consistent, and at the same time the most
literal rendering of the original. Kabbi Herzfeld, in his Commentary on Eccle-
siastes, has given a similar rendering, and so has the celebrated Rabbi Samuel
ben Meir ; and Rashi, the most esteemed of all the Jewish commentators, has
given the following explanation of the passage : " For even if one is a king,
one is subject to the field, if the earth yields produce, then he has something
to eat, if not, he must die of hunser."
88

., ;!ii.

V--W

|ri^:ini!

til-

'■ I

r- ' i

146

people's commentary.

* 24. So He drove out the man ; and He caused to divM at the'
east of the garden of Eden the C/ierubvn, and tfie flame of t/te swm'd-
that turned i^se^/' coutinuaUy, to keep the way of the tret of life.

In the preceding verse, the sacred writer employed the verb-
nbllJ (sh(uach) which simply signifies to send, without carrying
with it the idea of displeasure. In this verse which concludes'
the account of the fall of man and its fearful consequences, he
employs the verb '52)-i5 (garash) to drive out, to expel, the use
of the stronger language here may probably be accounted for,
in order to show God's great displeasure at man's transgression
in everv way possible, and to the very end of the account of
the falf.

"The Cherubim!" The etymology of the Hebrew terni'
D''STl3 {chernbiin) is doubtful, unless there existed at one-
time a verb J^i^j (caniv) to draw near, synonymous to the
verb ;21p {/''(irac) to draw near, now in use. In that ease,
these heavonlv heinous would be so called as drawinj; near to,
or standing b(!f()ve, the throne of God to minister. Such inter-
changes of letters belonging to the same organs are by no-
means uncommon. As a striking example of this we may
instance the name of a city, 1"i^^T (Dihon), situated in the

borders of Moab (Isa. xv. 2) ; but in v. 9 of the same chapter
this very city is called Dlmon. Every Hcibrew scholar knows
that such interchano-es of letters are often met with. As
regards what they represented, it is very ditKcult to decide, for
they appear under ditt'erent forms in Scripture. According to
Exod. XXV. 20, each had one face and two wings. In Ezek. i.
.5-10 tl..y arc rei)r('sented as having the form of a man, eacli
having tour faces, namely, of a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle,
which some interpreters explain as symbolizing reason, power,
strength, and penetration ; whilst otliers regard them as repre-
senting love, constancy, ^lu-^gnatiimity, and subliniity. The for-
mer explanation is the (-ne commonly adopted, and seems to be
most plausible. They are also represented as having four
wings. In Ezek. xli. 18, 19, the Cherub is described as having
two faces, that of a man and a lion. Josephus says that "they
resembled no animals ever seen by man, and no one knew their
form. (Ant. b. ill. ch. vii. jiaf. o.) In this Josephus is no
doubt correct. As the appearance of the cherubim was always
symbolical, this will at once account for the ditlerent forms
which they are in Scripture represented to have assumed. In
Exod. XV. 19, 20, it is not stated what the face of tl\e Cherub
resembled, but it is generally believed to have been the likeness
of man. This is a very reasonable supposition, since the twO'
Cherubim on the e.rk, with their outstretched wing.s, symbolized
the Divine presence of God, and man being created in the
image of God.

_j< ■

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

147

We may here draw the reader's attention to Psahn xviii. 11
(Eng. Vers. 10) :

" Ami He rwlo upon a cherub and did fly,
And moved swiftly on the wings of the wind."

The first clause in this verse must not be taken in a literal
sense as representing God riding upon a Cherub. Such an idea
would have hardly entered the mind of the Psalmist. The
word Cfwruh is here metaphorically employed for the clmids
in a tliiiiKlrrstorrii, which accords with what is said in the
second clause. " and he moved swiftly x\\w\\ the wings of the
wind." As the Cherubim are the servants of God, so are also
the elements. God is in other places of Scripture represented
as riding upon the cloiultt, as Isaiah xix. 1. " Behold the Lord
riding upon a swift cloud." Compare also eh. Ixvi. 15. Nahum
i. 3. ^

We have here to combat a wide spread notion entertained
among ninny modern writers that Moses took the n\odel of the
Cherubim from the Egyptian sphinxes. This is simply
absurd. Surely tlte sacred writer who had receivi^d from the
mouth of (lod the connnandment, " Thou shalt not make unto
thee any graver image, or auj'' likeness of nnytltiun that /.s- in
heaven jibove, or that is in the earth beneath," wcidd not him-
self break tlie commandment. Besides, Moses was by God
Himself directed as to the form of the Cherubim on the
mercy -seat, and it is certainl}' not likely that He would borrow
any adornment of His sanctuary from the heathens. 'J'hrou.gh-
out the ilosaic laws the greatest care is taken to prohil)it *'very
thing that approaches heathen practices. If, therefore, there
exists any resemblance in the Cherubim to the Kgypfian
sphinxes or the winged bulls of the Assyrians, it is more rea-
sonable to suppose tliat the heathen nations deiived their ideas
■from Hebrew sources. It is, indeed, surprising to tind such a
judicioris and orthfxlox writer as Hengstenberg, the great
champion in the defence of the authenticity of the Old Testa-
ment himself favouring the absurd idea of the EgyptiaJi origin
of the Cherubim. He observes: '.'The athnity of the Cherubim
with the P]gyptian sphinxes is more doubtful, yet it is so only
just so long as we consider the thing merely by itself, and leave
out of the account the niimerous other points of contact betwen
the Pentateuch and Egypt. If these are taken in view, the simi-
larity is sufficient to warrant here also an alliance." (Egypt and
the books of Moses, pp. IGl, 162.) And at piige KUi, he remarks:
" We are especially guided to the P^gyptian (jrigin of the
Cherubim, since of all the people with whom the Israelites in
ancient times were clo.sely connected, only among the Egyi)tians
are compound animals found in history." To admit that the

148

PEOPLE S CX)MMBNTARY.

w-i

^:, 4

l-»

li;

% ;

Hebrews adopted anything in their religious seivices from
those of the neathen, would simply make the Scripture to
contradict itself. Many of the Mosaic laws as we have
shown in Vol. i. pp. 266-271, were instituted to guard against
the adoption of henthen practices among the Israelites, and to
isolate them as much as possible from the surrounding idola-
trous nations. As for instance the commandment, " Neither
shall a garment mingled with linen and woollen come upon
thee." Or the law, " Thou shalt not sow thy tield with mingled
seed." (Lev. xix. 19.) How then will these writers reconcile
Scripture laying down such precautionary laws, and at the
same time imitating Egyptian and Assyrian sculptured idols
in modelling the Cherubim on the mercy seat after them ;
seeing that such would be a direct violation of the second
commandment.

It is surprising how often commentators will jump at con-
clusions without for a moment considering the fearful conse-
quences that may result from their hasty action. They thereby
furnish the opponents of Scripture with weapons, and strengthen
their position. No doubt Hengstenberg is an eminent writer,
and has done great service in defending the authenticity of the
Old Testament, we must, how^ever say, that his " Egyptian
references in the Keligious Institutions of the Books of Moses,"
contained in chapter vi., pp. 152-208, are no credit to him.

There is nothing whatever in the passages in which the
Cherubim are mentioned which would warrant the conclu-
sion that Moses derived the model of them from the sphinxes* ;
it is altogether an unfounded supposition.

In our passage in Genesis where they are for the first time
spoken of, the form of these beings is not at all specified. But it
would appear that the Israelites w^ere well acquainted with it,
for when Moses was ordered to make the Cherubim of the
Tabeinacle, no directions were given or sought how they were
to be executed. (See Exod. xxv. 18, 19, 20.) We may there-
fore, justly conclude that Moses constructed them after the
form of the angelic beings that were placed to guard the way
to the tree of life. Jamieson supposes that the configui'ation
of the Cherubs was, by the tradition of the patriarchs, handed
down from those that were placed before the Paradise. Hence
many writers, and among them Mr. Wesley, Dr. Doddridge, and
Dr. Mant, consider them as hieroglyphics of the angelic nr.Dure.
The next passage where the Cherubim are mentioned' is 1
Kings vi. 23-27, where it is stated that Solomon maae two

* The sphinxes are of the form having the body of a lion and a hu' lan head,
and supposed to symbolize w'uulom and »tren<jth. They are common y found at
the entrance of a temple. In Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptionF the sphinx
bears the name Neb, t. t,, hrd and Akar, i. e.. intelligetice.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

149-

'ices from
•ipture to

we have
'd against
38, and to
ing idola-

" Neither
)me upon
h mingled
I reconcile
id at the
ired idols
er them ;
he second

ip at con-
ful conse-
sy thereby
trengthen
(it writer,
jity of the

Egyptian
of Moses,"

him.

vhich the
e conclu-

)hinxes* ;

Ifirst time

But it

[l with it,

|in of the

ley were

ly there-

ifter the

I the way

juration

handed

Hence

\\ge, and

nr.cure.

2t' is 1

Lie two

^an head,

found at

ie sphinx

Cherubim of olive wood, and overlaid them with gold. These
two differed only from those which Moses made, they being ■
of a much larger size, and only overlaid with gold, whilst the
others were of solid gold. Thus in the most holy place in the
Temple of Solomon there were four Cherubim, Solomon having
added the two for the greater glory and ornnmentation of God's
house. It will thus be seen that with the exception of each
of the '^Ljrubim having two wings, there is nothing whatever
to indif;*<^te tlie slightest resemblance to sphinxes which always
have the body of a lion.

In the vision of E/ekiel the Cherubim appear each having
four symbolical faces, whilst the sphinxes never are seen with
more than one head, so here also ther® can be no comparison
drawn. I should not have devoted^^so much space to the
discussion of this subject, had it not been that Hengstenberg,
in common with mnny other commentators, endeavours to
prove that in many of the Mosaic institutions may be traced
an Egyptian model , and his work, " Egypt and the Books of
Moses," having a large circulation.

In speaking of the Cherubim, Dr. Kalisch very properly
observes : " Mysterious, as in the Holy of Holies, is their pre-
sence before the garden of Eden. Great is the resemblance in
both instances, but greater is their difference. An internal
connection between them is obvious. They guard, in both
cases, an inestimable boon ; they are the types of the provi-
dence and proximity of God; and they are necessary on accoimt
of the sin of man. But the Chercbim of the Paradise are the
effects of the alienation of men from God, those on the inetcv-
seat symbolize their conciliation: the former guard the treasure
which is forever denied to man, the latter one which was \no-
claimed to all nations as their common inheritance; the former
are, therefore, armed with a fearful weapon, resembling the
terrific flashes of lightning, the others look lovingly down
upon the ark, overshadowing it with their protecting wings ;
the one typifying a covenant destroyed, the others a covenant
concluded : and instead of the tree of life, of which the one
deprives the humrn families, the others point to a treasure
which is also ' a tree of life to those who cling to it' (Prov. iii.
18) ; and instead of the life on earth which was lost, a spiritual
life, beautifying the heart and gladdening the soul, is promised
and granted." (Com. p. 131.)

"And the flame of the sword that turned itself continualbj"
that is, a flame assuming the shape of a sword issued from the

*Iu the Authorized Version they are always called " Cherubims," the addition
of the letter « is unnecessary as the word already has the Hebrew plural form.
The same is the case with the word "Seraphims." In the Revised Version
the 6 is very properly omitted.

150

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

illll

• Cherubim, keeping up a constant rapid motion, and thus struck
terror into any one who mi^ht attempt to enter the garden.
From the rendering in the Authorized Version " and a flaming
swoid which turned every way," many commentators have
suppos d that the Cherubim had been armed with flashing-
swords wliich they brandished in every direction. Kahsch
renders, " the Cherubim, with the flame of the coruscant sword,"
and explains to mean, a " ra])idly turning sword, wliich thus
produces a coruscant brilliancy." But it is hardly consistent
to suppose that the Cherubim were armed with flaming or
bright swords which they braJidished every way. The expla-
nation which I have given appears to me to be the most
reasonable one. A jiame of fire is sometimes spoken of as
1255^ "ITttfb (femhon esk) a tongue of fire, from its motion and
shape. (See Isa. v, 24.) In the Revised Version the passage is
rendered in the same manner as I have rendered it.

The Cherubim being placed to guard the way to the tree of
life, shows that the garden was neither destroyed nor removed
immediately after the expulsion of Adam and Eve, but as to
how hmg its site remained known to any human being after
that, is impossible to say, as the Scriptures are altogether
silent on that subject.

In the *Book of Adam it is related, that when Adam and
Eve were driven from the garden of Eden, and saw the strange
country stretched out before them, they trembled with fear,
and sank on the ground weeping bitterly. Then God took
pity upon them and sent His word to strengthen them, He
said to Adam, Behold, I have ordained days and years upon
this earth upon which thou must live. But at the end of

*" The Book of Adam" is originally written in Ethiopic, and is held in
great esteem by the churches in the East, especially by the Abyssinian Church,
hence it is often called ** the Christian book of Adam." In the Syrian Church
it bears the name " the Struggle of Adam and Eve," though it is sometimes
also calKnl "The Treasure Cave." The book, according to its contents, may
be divided into three parts, Tlie first, which occupies more space than the
other two parts, treats on the struggles of Adam and Eve from their expulsion
from the gardeii of Eden unto Adam's death. The second part is taken up
with the succession of the families in the line of Seth to the death of Noah ;
and the third part takes in the time to the birth of Christ. The d<3scriptions
continued in the second and third parts are very brief. In the first part, much
space is taken up with the cunning devices of Satan in his constant endeavours
to seduce Adam and Eve. The book is interesting from its containing many
ancient traditions, some of which are also mentioned by the Fathers of the
Christian Church, and likewise by the Rabbinic writers. Some of these tradi*
tions, will even assist in illustrating some passages of Scripture — the meaning
of which is at present not clear — if they could be depended upon. We will,
however, when an opportunity offers quote some of them, without vouching
for their truth, leavmg it to the iit;. celligeut reader to form his own opinion
regarding them. The book was translated from the Ethiopic into German
by A. Dillman, Professor in the University of Tubingen, and from which I
have taken the above extracts.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

151

those years and days, I will send my word, the same that has
created thee, and which thou hast disobeyed, and which has
.driven thee out of the garden, and wlien thou didst sink to
the ground, did raise thee up, the same will also redeem thee
in five and half days. When Adam heard these words and
could not understand them, and thought there were only five
And a-half days to the end of the world, he wept, and prayed
God that He might explain them, then God, in His mercy
towards Adam, whom He had created in His likeness,
explained to him that the jive and a-half days signify Jive
thousand and Jive hundred years, when He would come and
redeem him and his seed. God appointed also a cave on the
west side of the garden, wherein our first parents wei-e to
dwell. This cave is called " the cave of treasures." The book
also states that Adam and Eve constantly prayed that God
would fori(ive their sin, and that he would still protect them,
And that their prayers were heard, and God shielded them
from all danger, and the constant assaults of the devil ; that
they lived, in this cave, near the garden during the vvhole of
itheir life, and that Adam was buried in the cave.

CHAPTER IV.

1. And Adam knew his wife ; and she conceived and bare Cain, and
Miid I have gotten a man from the Lord,

In this verse the histor}' of the human race is advanced a
step in the birth of the first child. Deej), indeed, must have
been the sorrow of our first parents on being expelled from
their happy abode in the garden of Eden, and the drudgery of
their daily occupation would constantly remind them of the
great treasure they had lost. But now a ray of joy lighted up
their gloomy hearts, a son is born to them, and tlu; mother
in the gladness of her heart exclaimed : " I have ''otten or
obtained a man from the Lord," and hence the child was
called lip (Kayiv), Cain, i. e., a possession. It became after-
wards quite a common practice among the Hebrews to bestow
names which are expressive of some particular events. Thus
the patriarch pnS"' {Yitschak), l&axic was so called because

152

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

his parents laughed when the divine promise of a son was-
given them. Isaac called his son Jacob, which denotes a heel-
catcher, and also a 8upplanfer, in reference to his having taken
hold of his brother's neel at his birth (Gen. xxv. 26) ; and also-
in having supplanted him in his birth-right* (Ch. xxvii. 36.)

Sim[)le indeed as the hinguage appears to be in the phrase
mn'' ri6^ tU^i^ ■'tr'Dp {himtki iah eth Jehovtih) rendered in the
English V^ersion, " I have gotten a man froin the Lord," trans-
lators have yet been a good deal puzzled in rendering it. The-
difficulty exists in the preposition from not being in the original,,
and the literal rendering of the |)as.sage therefore would be, " I
have gotten or obtained a man, the Lord." And so indeed it
has been lendered by Luther, in his Gernian Version ; by J. A.
Osiandri, (Comm. in Pentat. ;) l>y Seb. Munster ; A. Varenii ;
J. Gernhardi ; Seb. Schmidt ; (Annotat, 8uper Mosis L. i.;) and
other commentators. Those who adopt this rendering
explain it, that Eve on the bii'th of her son became now
so fully persuaded of the truth of the promised seed who
ohould bruise the serpent's head, and although she may not
herself see him in person, yet possessing him in faith, the
delighted mother gave utterance to the pious and gratt^ful
exclamation, "I have gotten a man, the Lord." A somewhat
similar rendering is given in the Targum of Jonathan (a
Chal dee Version), "I have obtained a man, the angel of Jehovah,"
i.e., the Messiah, who in the later period of the Jewish Church
was spoken of under the appellation of " angel of the Lord."

This rendering is objected to on the ground, that the
promise in ch. iii. 15 did not convey to our first parents the
information that the conqueror of the serpent would be of
divine nature, and might be Jehovnh. The Apostle Paul, how-
ever, furnishes a complete answer to this objection. After
having spoken of the faith of the patriarchs, he goes on to say:
" These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but
having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and
embraced them."

In tlie Septuagint it is rendered 8ia rov Oeov, by God, i. e., by
the aid of God ; in the Vulgate, " per Deum ; " in the Targum
of Onkelos (Chaldee Version) Qlp "1)3 (min Kodam) from

before ; whilst many modern commentators adopt the rendering
" with God," i. e., with His assistance ; taking fij.^ (eth) as
the preposition with. So the Revised Version, The trans-
lators of the Authorized Version evidently have regarded f^ufr
(eth) as a contracted form of tn5<?a (meeth) and have rt-ndered
" from the Lord," like Josh. xi. 20, U^n'> h^12 (jneeth Jehovah),
" from the Lord." This rendering it will be seen is the same

people's commentary.

153

as that given in the Targum of Onkelos, certainly no insig-
nificant authority to follow, and has also been adopted by
Saadias Gaon in his Arabic translation, Piscatoris, Clerici,
Datho, and others. In animated declarations, prepositions are
frequently oniitted, and this may probably be the reason why
the preposition (73) fi'O'ni is omitted in the passage under con-
sideration.

We have now laid before the reader the different render-
ings which are given of the passage, and he can exercise his
own judgment as to which he thinks the best. As far as
the lanfuage is concerned, no one would for a moment hesitate
to translate " I have gotten a man the Loud." The difficulty
altoo-cther exists in the application of it. If the reader, there-
fore, thinks the explanation which we have above given in
every respect satisfactory, there is no other reason why he
should not adopt it.

2. And she again hare his brotlbor Abel. And Abel was a keeper of
sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the yround.

The name Abel, the Hebrew form of which is ^Itl (Hevel)
denotes a breath, also vanity, something that passes swiftly
aAvay, or is worthless. Thus Job speaks of his life " for my
days are bin {hevel) a breath." — (Job vii. 16.) And the
Psalmist says, "verily every man in his best estate is altogether
3l2n {hevel) a breath (or vapour.)" — (Ps. xxxix. 0, Eug. Ver.
V. 5.)

The sacred writer does not, in this case, assign any reason
why this name was bestowed upon the second son of Adam, but
the name is evidently of prophetic import, the parents probably
havino- been guided to nivo him this name in reference to his
liremature death.

We have otlier instances of this kind in Scripture of
names Avhieli are apparently of prophetic significance. As,
for example, the name of the patriarch ^lijj^ {lyv) Job,
which denotes one persecuted, \\\ reference to his trial and
sutt'erings. So bTi^tU' {Sha-ul) Saul, i. e., ashed for, the name
of the first king of the Israelites, being demanded as king.

''And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tilli-r of
the ground," the eldest son naturally adopted the occupation
of his father, whilst the next important occupation; that of
tending the flocks was atlopted by the younger brother. The
Hebrew word "ij^^ (tson), rendered in the English Version

s/ie3^>, includes also goats.

154

people's commentary.

;

; • 'm

Ma ■ : ■

; U".

3. A )id in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the
fruit of the (/round an offering to the Lokd.

4. And Ahel, he also brought of the firstlings of his Jlock, and of
tfieirfal. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and his nffering.

We liave already shown that the ordinance of sacrifice most
likely had its origin in the garden of Eden, and no doubt Adam
after his expulsion strictly observed this rite. His two sons,
following the practice of their father, also bring an offering to
the Lokd. It is impossible to gather from the statement in
the text, or from the context how old they were when they
performed this pious act.or on what occasion these offerrings had
been made. The literal rendering of the phrase D^^ai ypTa '^fT'T

{waihi mikkets yainim) is, " And it came to pass at the end of
days." The word "days" is often used to express an indefinite
space of time. Sometimes, however, "days" is used in Scripture
to express precisely a year, i. e., a year of days, hence we have the
expression Qi^ji n^T (sevach ydviim), not a sacrifice of days,
but " a yearly sacrifice" ; rt)2''7a'' D"'?2"' {yciinim yaiaimah) not
froimhiys to days but "frovi year to year."* — (1. Sam. ii. 19.)
According to this idiom, our passage might be rendered " at the
end of the year,"-f" and may refer to a y earl 3- feast of ingather-
ing which is at the end of the year, and which was afterwards
under the Mosaic law to be regularl}' observed. (Compare
Exod. xxiii. 16.) According to the most eminent commentators
it was such a harvest feast wdiich the sons of Job celebrated
when Satan brought the dire calamities upon them.

" Of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat," many have
explained this, "from the choicest and the best"; but it is
better to take tniD2l (hechoroth) in its literal sense first-born,
which God afterwards by express law set apart for Himself.
" And of their fat," it is, of the best of the firstlings. The
Hebrew word l^bH (chelev) fat, is frequently in Scripture
employed metaphorically in the sense of the best or choicest
portion of anything, hence we have so frequently the expres-
sion " the fat of the land," i. e., the best productions of the
land. Abel's offering, therefore, consisted of the first-born of
the flock, and the very best of them. He was not satisfied to take

•The Hebrew student will have to bear in mind this idiomatic use of t3*?3''
(.va»t(»i), or he will Hud some difficulty in making sense of some passages. See,
for example. Lev. xxv. 29 ; Judg. xvii. 10 ; 1 Sam. xxvii. 7 ; Isa. xxxii. 10, &c.

tThe same rendering was adopted by the eminent commentators Eben flzra,
RosenmilUer, Von Bohlen, and many other modern writers.

yp^ {mikkeLt) " at the end," the preposition JJ is frequently used to point
out the time at which an event takes place, and then takes the signification of

at. See again ch. viii. 6, "And it came to pass V15?2 {mikkets) at the end of
forty days." '

mttt

people's commentary.

155

. See,
10, &c.

f'.zra,

the first that came handy, but selected the choicest. This
action of Abel shows his sincerity in performing this religious
rite, and his desire to please God, setting an example worthy
of imitation.

It is also worthy of notice here, that the offering which
Abel brought is precisely the same kind which God, centuries
afterwards, by express law, appropriated to Himself. Abel, in
bringing " of the firstlings of his flock," must have been well
aware, that this kind of offering is especially pleasing to God,
for it is altogether out of the question to have merely occurred
by chance. How, then, did Abel obtain this information ? We
can come to no other conclusion than that it was communi-
cated to him by God Himself. And this affords a conclusive
proof, that although God did expel our first parents from
Paradise, His close intercourse with them did not cease, but
that He still made known unto them His Divine will, and
taught them the way in which they should walk.*

The offerings of the two brothers, although of different kinds,
are here both spoken of under the term nniDl'a (minchah), but
after the institution of the different kinds of sacrifices under
the Mosaic law, this term was restricted to bloodless sacrifices,
consisting of flour, cakes, with oil and frankincense, a small
portion --f which was burned upon the altar, and tb*- remainder
went to Aaron and his sons. (See Lev. ii. 1, et acq.) In the
English Version this offering is generally called " meat offering,"
which is not an appropriate name for it now, though it may
have been so when that version was executed ; vual-ofering
would be more suitable, and I perceive in the Revised Version
meal-offering is given, "And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and
to his offering." This must have been shown by some visible
sign, for, as Jerome very properly remarks : " How could Cain
have known that God accepted Abel's offering, and rejected his
own " ? He, therefore, favours Theodotion's free translation,
who renders, " and set on fire." Many Jewish and Christian
commentators also favour the supposition, that Abel's offering
was consumed by a supernatural fire sent from heaven. In
whatever manner God's favoui'able reception was indicated, it
must have been by some visible sign, readily understood by
both brothers. The Hebrew text throws no light upon it, as the
verb n^^ffi (shadh) only signifies to look with favour, to respect.

5. But unto Cain, and his offering, He had not respect,
was very loroth, and his countenance fell.

And Cain

As the sacred writer does not state any reason why Cain's
sacrifice was rejected, whilst that of his brother was accepted,

*In the Book of Adam, frequent mention is made of God convening with
Adam and instructing him after his expulsion from Paradise.

II! IN

i^■•^

I IM

. ■

156

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

commentators have indulged in various conjectures. The Tal-
mudical writers ascribe the rejection of Cain's offering to Ins
having acted in a selfish manner, not having ottered the very
beat of the produce. They compare him to a faithless servant,
who keeps the best of the produce for himself, and hands the
inferior kinds over to his master. The more favourite explana-
tion among modern commentators is, that by the rejection of
Cain's ottering Cod intended to show that animal sacrifice
was more acceptable, than the bloodless ottering. Hoflfmann
conjectures that Cain merely ottered thanks for the preserva-
tion of the present life, whilst Abel ottered thanks for the
forgiveness of sin. The Apostle Paul, however, tells us that it
was, " by faith Abel ottered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous."
(Heb. xi. 4.) And the context also clearly indicates that the
fault did not lie with Cain's ottering, but with the state of his
heart. God delights more in obedience than in sacrifices.
" And his countenance fell," an unusual expression, and we
believe occurs only here and the next verse. It imports some-
thing more than ordinary .sadness or dejection It was the
result of a fierce anger — as the original has it — being kindled
in his heart, which showed itself in his countenance by
assuming a sullen and malignant impression, and at last
culmiuiited in the mmxler ot his brother. Ordinary sadness
is ditt'erentl}'^ expressed, as for instance in the case of the
butler and baker in the morning after their dream, " and
Jo.seph came imto them in the morning, and saw them, and,
behold, they wtre 'C'^S^T {zodplmii) sad." And Joseph asked
them " wherefore are youv faces CjJI (raliii) sad to-day ?" —
(Gen. xl. 5, 6.) See also Neh. ii. 2, 3.

6. And the Lord said unto C(iin, why art thou ancjry ? and why is
thy countenance fallen?

7. If thou doest well, shdt thoii not he accepted? and if thou doest
not tvell, sill lieth at the door, and unto thee is his desire ; but thou
shalt ride over him.

The more literal rendering of the first part of verso 7 is,.
" Is it not, if thou doest well, there is acceptance or a lifting,
up." This passage clearly indicates that Cain had not been
acting well, and, therefore, his sacrifice was not accepted. It
teaches also, that mere outward services are not pleasing to
God if the heart is not in a proper state. The Scri])tures, from
beginning to end, teach that sacrifices without righteousness
are of no avail. " And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the
door," it is, but if thou art not well disposed and perseverest in

'iumfii iiiniiwriiwnwwriiitlfiiiiifini ■

iwiiii ii»in«to<(i"«n«?»

people's commentary.

157

to,

hy is

wrong tloing, then " sin" will always be nt hand to entice tiiee
to still further transgression and acts of iniquity.

As the noun fli^tin (chattath) signifies both ain and sin
ojferhuf, many commentators, without due regard to gram-
Hjatieal construction, have rendered " a sin ottering lieth at the
door," as much as to say, that if thou doest not well, is thei'o
not a sin offering always at hand to which thou maycst have
recourse. So, for instance, the Rev. Henry Blunt, in his
" Family Exposition," explains, "if thou art conscious of harbor-
ing these revengeful and wicked thoughts, there is a sin offering
at hand, a way of acceptance is yet oi)en ; the sacrifice which 1
have myself aj)pointed." (American Edit. p. G8.) But the
rendering sin offering is not admissible, for the feminine noun
Di^'Dn (ch(iMath) is here construed with the masculine verb
V^"! {'>'Ovets) lieth. The use of the masculine verb, as well as
the masculine pronouns iflplffin (tesihvhdho) his desire, and

IS (P*^) o^^'* him, show that " sin" is here personified as tho
enemy who, by the agency of the "serpent," enticed our first
parents to sin, and is here represented as lying in wait at the
door of the human heart, watching for an opportunity to
ensnare his victim*. The eagerness of the enemy to make man
sin. is expressed in very foi'cible language, "and unto thee in
TJnptU!7\+ (teshukatho) his desire, but more literally " his running

after." Satan does not wait until his victims come to him, he
runs after them. Now, the very idea of running after a thing
implies an anxiety to possess it. Thus Satan ran after our
fiist parents, and so he will continue to do until the Messiah
.shall crush the serpent's head.

" But thou shalt rule over him," it is, by the grace of God
power is given to thee to withstand the assaults of Satan.
The most eminent modern Jewish and Christian commentators
take sin in our passage as personification of the enemy lying
in wait to assault man, and, no doubt, it is the only inter-
pretation that the language will admit of.

7 is,,
\iimg,

been
II. It
Ing to

from
jsnesa
It the

Ist in

*The masculine verb and masculine pronouns, do not agree with the femi-
nine /orni of fli^tSn (chattath), but with the subject personified by it, namely,
the enemy. So Milton writes :

" The Thunder

Winged with red lightning and impetuous rage,
Perhaps hath spent his shaft. — Paradise Lost, I. 154.

The Poet just before had called the Hail and Thunder, God's Ministers of
Venijeance, and so personified them, he therefore says : "his shafts," instead of
Ua shafts, otherwise he would have destroyed his own figure.

tFrom the root p*) '25" (a/jui) to run after.

168

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY,

! I I'

■ , 1

■rf

; " !

8. And Cam spoke with Abel hi a brother ; and it came to jmaa when
they were in the field, that Cain roae up ayninat Abel hia brother, and
* alew him. , ,

_.'''', • : ■'•■ '. , '.' -

The first part of this verse has proved not a little pei-plexing^
to commentators both in rendering and explainit)}jf it. The
passage literally rendered reads: " And Cain said unto Abel his
brother," but as it is not stated in the narrative what Abel did
say, it leaves the passage inipei-f ect and altogether unconnected
with what follows. Hence in the Samaritan codex, and in the
Septuagint, the ])hraso " let us go into the field" is supplied,
which has also been adopted in the Jerusalem Targum, the
Syriac and V\dgate Versions. The passage thus filled up would
read : " And Cain said unto Abel his bi'other, let U8 go into the
field. And it came to pass when they were in the field," &c.,
which renders the passage very clear. In some Hebrew copies,
too, a blank space is left, to indicate that something had been
omittetl or had dropped out of the text. But as the words
miun HDbD {ntlechah hassadeh) " let us go into the field" do
not occur in a single Hebrew manuscript, and were apparently
unknown to Onkelos, the author of the Chaldee Version of the
Pentateuch, and to Origen, Symmachus, and Theodotion, most
modern critics and commentators have very properly hesitated
to accept them as genuine, and sought to remove the obscurity
of the passage in a more satisfactory manner. The verb "^JiJ^*
(amar) in our verse, is evidently used in an absolute sense like
the verb "^^IT (davar) to 82)eak with some person, and the pas-
sage, " And Cain spoke with Abel his brother," may then be
explained, that Cain pretended to be on friendly terms with
his brother, conversing with him as familiarly as if he cherished
no ill feelings towards him, in order to hide his murderous
design until a favourable opportunity should arrive to carry it
out. This opportunity occurred at one time when they were
together in the field. There are several similar treacherous
designs recorded in Scripture. Thus, Joab, the general issiTiio of

David's army, took Abner aside in the gate on the
speak with him quietly, and then killed him. 2 ^
So Absalom invited Amnon to a great si
who attended among the other princes, was

Absalom's servants. (2 Sam, xiii, 26-29.)

It is impossible to form an adequate i<lea of the gn *
of our first parents on beholding the lifeless body oi i

feti
m uy

anguish
heir son

* The verb *|)3fc^ {amar) is again used in the sense to speak Exod. xix. 25»
" And Moses went down to the people ■l?3&^''T (vai-yomer) and spake unto
them." So also 2 Chron, xxxii, 24, "In those days Hezekiah was sick even
unto death, and he prayed unto the XtOKD : 172&('^1 (vai-yomer) and He spoke
to him, and He gave to him a sign."

■WSh*"---

people's commentary.

16f)

Abel, the first victim to donth which was brou^'ht into the
worM l>y tlieir <li.sul)»'(lirnce to God's coininan<hneiit. And Ijow
greatly must this nnj^'iiish liivv«^ been inteiisitieil at tiit; thoiij^lit
that the tlcath was hrou^dit about by his own brother. And
yet, in their (Uiep affliction they had still the consohuion that
he died " the death of the rif^hteous," and as a writer has well
observed : " He was the first of the noble anny of nmrtvrs, the
first of human kind who entered tho abodes of the blessed."

9. Aiiif the LoHu mid unto Cain, Where ia Abel thy brother I And
he »n!<l, I hiow not : Am I my brother's keeper?

We may here draw the reader's attention to tht; fre(|U(Mit
repetition of the words, "his brother," in tho narrative. In
verse two we read, "she aj^ain baie his brother Abel ;" in verse
eight, "(Jain talked with Abel his bi'other,"and tt<fain in the same
verse, that " Cain rose up against Abel his brotlier ;" and in the
verse before us, " Where is Abel thy l)rother?" By this fre(|uent
repetition the sacred writer evidently designed to set forth in
a marked manner the enormity of tho crime. To show that
the most tender ties of close relationship which shouKl be
characterized by mutual love and affection were wantonly and
pitilessly rent assunder. " Where is Abel thy brother f Here,
like in the case of Adam, ch. iii. 0, God does not directly charge
Cain with the crime he had connnitted, but simply puts a
question, to arouse him to a sense of his guilt, and afford him
an opportunity to repent, and express a heartfelt contrition for
the awful crime. In both cases, in accordance with the stiictest
justice (jlod affords the culprits the opportunity to plead their
own cause, and say what they could in extenuation »d' their
conduct. But in both cases the opportunity afforded them to
repent was disregarded, and so far from awaking them to a
sense of their guilt, on the contrary Adam answered the ques-
tion l»y making a miserable excuse that he was ashamed not
of his conduct, but because he was naked, whilst Cain sinswered
the question, by a direct lie, and insolence ; " I know not ; (ini
I my brother's keeper ?" The reply of Cain shows what a
h irdened sinner he must have been, that he indeed " was of
that wicked one," and that " his works were evil," (John iii. 12).
He meets God's question not only with a barefaced falsehood,
but, in addition, impiously uses language which implies that
God had no right to put such a question to h'.i: : " Am I my
brother's keeper ?" Were it not that these words were
recorded, one could hardly conceive it possible for a miserable
creature of the dust to have the audacity to address such
language to the omniscient God.

160

people's commentary.

10. And He said, What haat thou done ?
blood cristh unto vie from the ground.

The voice of thy brother' a

God is indeed, " ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow
to anger, and of great kindness," (Neh. ix. 17). Notwithstand-
ing the impious language of Cain, He takes no notice of it, but
gives the sinner another opportunity to confess his guilt and
repent ; therefore He puts another question to him, " What
hast thou done ? " The putting of the question implies that
an answer was expected. But Cain expressed no contrition for
what he had done, and God now charges him with his crime,
" The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me," as much as
to saj^ although thou hast silenced the voice of thy brother,
yet his blood crieth unto me out of the ground for vengeance.
In the original, instead of the singular " blood," the word is in
the plural, tJi^T {damim), "bloods;" and so the verb Q'^DS'S
{tsodkim), " are crying." The plural noun is generally used in
reference to blood shed unnaturally, and it is only such blood
which cries for vengeance. Hence the murderer is spoken of as
12''?2T 115'^I5^ ('^'^i damim), lit., a man of bloods, i. e., bloody man
(Ps. v. 7). Onkelos, in his Chaldee version, ingeniously inter-
prets the passage: '• The voice of the bloods of the generations
which would have proceeded fi"om thj' brother."

11. And now art thou cursed from the ground, which hath opened
her iiiouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand.

The first part of the verse is elliptical, " And now because,
thou hast done this thing, art thou cursed from the ground,"
it is, as far as the ground is concerned which thou hast been
tilting. Hitherto the ground had befriended him by yielding
its produce without stint, henceforth it shall withhold its
strength, and thus become the instrument of punishment,
because it was obliged to drink the innocent blood. The next
verse describes more fully the punishment.

12. When thou tillest the ground it shall no longer yield to thee Iter
strength ; a fugitive and a wanderer shalt thou be on the earth.

In the sentence pronounced upon Adam (ch. iii. 17, 18, 19,)
the ground was also cursed, but only to the extent that it shall
involve hard labour in tilling it, and that the occupation should
also be attended w'ith disappointment, by the ground bringing
forth thorns and thistles. In the punishment of Cain, the veiy
strength was withdrawn from the ground, so that the soil was
rendered powerless to yield its produce for him. Instead of
the peaceful and honourable occupation of husbandry, he was

henceforth to be " a

fugitive

and a wanderer," homeless,

41 MUf^oV'.^Av^^' '

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

161

friendless, obtaining his subsistence as best he could. His
native country the ground of which he stained with human
blood 'spued" him out, just as the land of Canaan spued out
the Canaanites on account of their "abominations," (Lev. xviii.
27, 28.) The words ^Jt 3?5 (aa ivanad) rendered in the
English Version, " a fugitive and a' vagabond," are merely two
synonymous terms denoting a fugitive and ivanderer. The
expression implies also an inward restlessness and fear which
seize the murderer and chase him from place to place.

'* A man oppressed with life's blood
Fleeth to the pit, let tlicui not detain him."

(Prov. xxviii. 17.)

It is, a man oppressed with a sense of guilt of having shed
life's blood, finds no rest until death gives him relief in the
grave : " Let them not detain him," i.e., let no one shield the
murderer from receiving his merited punishment, or assist him
to allay his 'nward restlessness.

13. And Cain said to the Lord, 7111/ jnmlshment is greater than I
can hear. (Lit., " than can be borne.")

As the primary signification of "ii^? (aivon) is iniquity or sin,

the latter part of the verse admits of being rendered either :
" My sin is greater than can be borne," or " greater than can be
forgiven." Luther, following the ancient versions, adopted the
latter rendering in his German version, whilst some of the
Jewish and modern Christian commentators either favour one
or the other. But both these roiulerinos would implv that

/"I'll 1 .

Cam all at once became overpowered with the consciousness of
the enormity of his crime, whilst his language in the next verse
clearly shows, that it was not the enormity of the crime that
troubled him, but the severity of the punishment. He began
now to stand in dread of losing his own life, no doubt thinking
as he had slain his brother without any provocation, any one
meeting him in his wanderings might st;rve him in the same
way, " every one that findeth me will slay me ;" it was this
that was uppermost in his mind, and not contrition for his
guilt. The rendering, therefore, which we have given, and
which is the same as in the English version, is, no doubt, the
correct one, and is now very generally adopted by commentators.
Although the noun niy (awon) primarily denotes inlquifi/ or

sin, it is sometimes, however, used to express also what is the
result of sin, namely, punishment. Thus, for example, 1 Sam.
xxviii. 10, " As the LoitD liveth there shall no r^y (divon)

punishment happen to thee for this thing," (compare also Is.
V. 18).

162

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

U ;-,i]

;^::'v 1

'if :Sl'
'■-. ( '

\-u

Hi •

it- J

i Hi

14. Behold, Thou driveat me out this day from Hie face of the ground^,
and from Thy faoe shall I be hid ; and I sfuill be a fugitive and a
wandered' on the earth ; ami it shall come to pass, that every one tliat
findeth me shall slay me, , •

Cain, in this verse, enumerates the circumstances which com-
bine to make his punishment intolerable, evidently in the hope
of having it rendered less severe. But there is not the slightest
trace of conti'ition in his language. The fear " that every one
that fiudeth me shall slay me," seems to engross all his thoughts.
" From the face of the ground," it is from Eden, the region
where he had been carrying on his agricultural pursuits, and
where his family had been dwelling after the expulsion from
Paradise. " And from Thv face shall I be hid," as God is
onmipresent, Cain could not be hid from the presence of God,
for, as the Psalmist says,

" Whither shall I go from thy spirit ?
And whither shall I flee from thy presence ?
If I ascend into the heavens thou art there :
And if I spread my bed in Hades, behold thou art there :
If I take the wings of the morning, *
And dwell in the uttermost part of the sea.
Even there thy hand shall lead me, {i. e., sustains me),
And thy right hand shall hold me." — Psl. cxxxix. 7-10).

The expression, "and from thy face I shall be hid," can
therefore mean nothing else, than that God would no longer
lift up the light of His countenance upon him, and vouchsafe
him protection. We have already remarked that God did not
cease his familiar intercourse with our first parents after they
had been driven from the garden of Eden, but still walked
among them, instructing, and guiding them, and extending to
them His paternal care. But Cain, having sinned and not
repented, God withdrew His presence and all the benefits aris-
ing with it from him, for there can be no intercourse between
God and the sinner. " Every one that findeth me shall slay
me." Here the question has often been asked: " And whom had
Cain to fear, as there existed no person but his father and
mother ?" Josephus says, " W nen he was afraid, that in his
wandering about he should fall among wild beasts, and b\' that
means perish, God bids him not to entertain such a melan-
choly suspicion, and to go over all the earth without fear of
what mischief he might suffer from wild beasts." (Ant. b. 1 ch.
2, par. 2.) The idea that Cain expressed here a fear of wild
animals is also adopted bj' the celebrated commentators
Kimchi, J. D. Michaelis, and some other writers. The language

* " Wings of the morning," i. e., of the morning dmcn ; expressive of rap»Jl
motion ; there is nothing swifter than the spreading of the viornuKj datvn from
one end of the heaven to the other.

'■' ■ !i!

eisAn

I ivmm ■■ '. gr:

people's commentary.

163

in the next verse, however, altogether precludes the idea of a
reference to wild beasts, " whosoever slayeth Cain vengeance
shall be taken sevenfold, would be meaningless as applied to
animals. The true explanation no doubt is — and the one which
is generally adopted — that Adam had other children besides
those mentioned. Thus, in verse 17, Cain's wife is alluded to,
though there has not yet any mention been made of the birth
of any daughter. (Compare also ch. v 4.) The human family
would thus soon increase by the birth of grandsons and great-
grandsons, any one of whom might consider it his duty to
avenge Abel's blood. It is still a common saying among the
Orientals, if any one has committed a murder : " Ah, all men
will kill that murderer," it is, every one desires to have the
murderer punished.

15. And the Lord said to him, therefwe, whosoever slayeth Cain
vengeance shall he taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord gave a sign
to Cain, lest any one finding him should kill him. (Or more literally,
" 80 as not to slay him, any one finding him. ")

In the Septuagint, and in several other ancient versions, n^i

(lachen) is rendered ot^ourw?, not so; and so in the Vulgate and
by some modern commentators; they have regarded the word as a
contraction for p jj^b {^o chen) not so, for which, however,
there is no authority, nor any necessity. " Therefore," namely,
because there is some reason in Cain's complaint, " whosoever
slayeth Cain vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold ;" it is
Cain shall be avenged sevenfold. The number seven being a
holy number among the Jews, hence this number is sometimes
used to express an indefinitely large number ; " sevenfold " is
therefore often used in Scripture in the sense of manifold.
The number seven appears also frequently in connection with
religious rites : the seventh day is set apart to be kept holy ;
the seventh year is the Sabbath of the fields (Exod. xiii. 11);
seven times spven years constituted the jubilee, when the pro-
perty reverted again to its original owner (Lev. xxv. 8 et seq.) ;
the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles lasted seven days,
and seven weeks were numbered between these two feasts;
after full seven days from the birth the rite of circumcision
was performed; seven times the blood was sprinkled; seven
dc^ys lasted the marriage feast (Jud. xiv. 12) ; and seven days
lasted the mourning for the dead (^Gen. 1. 10), &c. The use of
•"sevenfold" imparts, therefore, certain solemnity to the menace.
"And the Lord gave imj^ {oth) a sign to Cain," that is, God
vouchsafed Cain a miraculous attestation to assure him that
the promise made to him would be literally fulfilled: and what
could possibly inspire him with greater confidence than a

1G4

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

miraculous attestation ? It at once afforded to Cain a visible
demonstration of the power of God, and thus convinced him
that he who is capable of performing such a wonder, is likewise
able to protect and to punish.

Wo find several similar instances recorded in Scripture where
miracles were given as assurances of the certain fulfilment of
Divine promises. In this manner Moses was assured that his
mission into Egj'pt would be successful by his rod hem.{f
changed into a serpent, and again the serpent into a rod ; and
by his hand becoming leprous as snow, and again restored to
its Jiatural flesh. (Exod. iv. 1-7). So Hezekiah received a
miraculous attestation that he would recover from his sickness,
and that he would be delivered from the King of Assyria :
" And this shall he fiij^ {otic) as a sign unto thee from the
Lord thi»t the Lord will do this thing that he had spoken :
Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees which is
gone down in the sun-dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.
So the sun returneil ten degrees by which degrees it was gone
down," (Is. xxviii. 7, 8). It will be seen that in this passage
tiie Hebi-ew Avord for " sign " is precisely the same as that
emplcjyed in our passage. In the English version it is rendered :
" And the Lord sot a mark upon Cain," this rendering has
given rise to the wildest conjectures.

It generally has been understood that God placed some kind
of mark ui)on Cain which was to serve as a kind of protection
against harm from those who might seek to take vengeance
upon him. Indeed, so strongly has this idea taken hold of the
English mind, that it has become quite proverbial to say, " he
bears the mark of Cain." Some writers have even gone so far
as to suggest, that it was " a horn on the forehead," others, " a
distorted face," and otliers again, " one of the letters of the
sacred name mn"' {Jehovah.) The absiu'dity of the notion of
any mark having been placed upon Cain will at once become
apparent, when we take into consideration that the meaning of
.such a mark could not possibly have been known to those who
met him ; na}', more, it might even have acted against him. The
sacred narrative in this case does not inform us what the
miraculous attestation consisted of, tl " context, however, shows
that it seems to have had the effect t quieting his fears, and
that he did not shun the society of man, for we find him after-
waids building a city in the land of his exile, which implies the
forming of social ties and friendly intercourse. Josephus
lelates, tliat Cain " did not accept his punishment in order to
amendment, but to increase his wickedness ; for he only aimed
to procure everything tiiat was for his own bodily pleasure,
though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbours. He
.augmented his household substance with much wealth by

■id»4

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

165

rapine and violence : he excited his acquaintance to procure
pleasures by spoils and robbery, and become a great leader of
men into wicked courses." — (Ant. b. 1 ch. 2 par. 2.) Josephus
must have obtained all this information from ti'adition. His
descendants, however, became certainly celebrated for their
ingenuity and .skill in the arts of .social life.

We are asked, how can we reconcile the Divine clemency
extended to the murderer, with the direct Divine law, " Whoso
shedeth man',s blood, by man shall his blood be shed." — (ch. ix. 6.)
To this (juostion it is .suflicieiit to reply, innsniuch as God's
dealings with man are always characterized by the strictest
justice, though they may not always be comprehensible to our
finite understanding, we may re.st assured, that the mercy
shown to Cain was likewise in accordance with the sti'ictest
justice. As the sacred narrative affords no information on this
point, any explanation that may be offered must necessarily
be mere conjecture. Still it appears to us that the precaution
against vengeance I>eing taken upon Cain, was intended to
guard against the abuse of biood-i'evenge, which in the early
histor3M)f man, amojig an untutored ])eople, might have been
productive of the most fearful results.

The blood avenger, under the influence of pa,ssion, does not
stay to investigate wh(!ther the murder has been wilful or
justifiable. He may follow mere report, but how often does
report j^rove false when a murder is first found out ? He is
determined to rvenge the blood of a relative,and allows nothing
to hinder him. Among the Carilxs, one of the five tribes
inhabiting Guiana, among whom the practice of blood revenge
also existed, though they had not the least connection M'ith
the Hebrews and Arabians, it gave rise to long and fearful
family feuds. (Lal)at's Voyages.) Even among the civilized
Aral)ians blood revenge was abused to a most fearful extent.
As an example we mention the revenge taken by Muharrik, a
kingr of Hirta — who lived a little before Mahommed'.s time — on
the Temanites, a people on tiie east of Jelumea for having
killed his brother. He vowed he would 1-urn 100 Temanites
alive. Whilst engaged in carr^-ing out this barbarous deed, a
Temanite observing the fire from afar, and imagining that a
feast was preparing, and according to the freedom allowed by
the custom of the Arabians on such an occasion, deteimined tc
share it as a guest. When he had arrived on tlu^ spot t"v)
king asked him who he was, and on learning that he was a
Temanite, though as a rule a guest although not invited is
sacredly protected from harm, he ordered him to be cast into
the fire, and as an excuse for his atrocity he said he found a
Temanite wanting to make up the number he had vowed.
(Arab Crest, p. 107.)

166

people's commentary.

The Almighty, in His infinite mercy, spared the life of the
first murderer to afford him an opportunity to repent, and that
he may teach his children from his own sad experience, the
fearful consequences of sinning against God. From the severe
punishment with which any one slaying Cain was to be visited,
we may learn that it was not the will of God at the beginning
that men should take the avenging of blood in their own
hands, " vengeance and recompense " belong to God. (Deut.
xxxii. 85.)

16. A7id Cain loent out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in
.the land of Nod, in the east of Eden,

"And dwelt in the land of Nod," that is, in the land of his
wandering, or exile. The name " Nod" is not the geographical
name of any particular country or region, as some writers
have sujiposed, but was so called from Cain being a fugitive in
it. The Hebrew term tjj (Nod), is derived from the root
^^15 (naJ) to tvander, to be a fugitive, hence "llDVli^a*
(beerets Nod) denotes, "in the land of wandering or exile."
Some \ery extravagant conjectures have been indulged in by
modern commentatoi's as to the locality of " the land of Nod."
Some have placed it in Tartary, others in India, and others
aofain in China.

17. And Cain knew his ivife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch;
and he was building a city, and called the name of the city after the
name of his son Enoch.

The question is here often asked, "who was the wife of
Cain, as there has not yet been any mention made of the birth
of a daughter?" There can be but one answer to this question;
the wife of Cain must necessarily have been his sister. As
the human family sprang from one primitive pair, such a mar-
riage could, under the circumstances, not be avoided. There
must of necessity in the beginning have been intermarriages of
near kindred, which were afterwards, under the Mosaic law,
prohibited, and accounted as incest. As regards no mention
having yet been made of the birth of a daughter, it is sufficient
to say, that daughters are not generally mentioned in the
genealogical lists, unless under special circumstances. Thus,
for example, of all Cain's female descendants the only one
mentioned is Naaviah, in verse 22. In the book of Adam there
are two daughters of Adam mentioned, namely, " Luva, which,
interpreted, means the beiififal, and " Acklejam." In other
Oriental writings these names aupear under somewhat different
forms. Of course the names could only have been obtained
thiough tradition.

wis-

ift ■>>'

1.11-M i m VJ f H.U

l^LMflVIVia^>WBLl

people's commentary.

167

" And bare Enoch," the Hebrew name tjIDn (chanoch) Enocht
according to its derivation, may either signify trained or dedi-
cated. It is quite probable that Cain, now driven from home
and wiiiidering in a foreign land, where no smiles of relatives
would cheer him in his desponding moments, gradually began
to realize the enormity of his crime and the miseries it entailed
upon him ; and taking warning from his own sad experience,
determined to train up his son in the paths of virtue, and
accordingly bestowed a name upon him which would constantly
remind him of this duty. Solomon employs the verb, from
which the name Enoch is derived/in the sublime proverb :

" Train ^jjpj {chanoch) a child in the way he should >jo ;

Even when he is old he will not depart from it."

(Prov. xxii. 6.

" And he was building a city," it is, he c ccupied himself in
building one. In the original the participle njS 'honeh)
building is employed, indicating that the work was progress-
ing and not that it had been finished. We must !i ire also
divest ourselves of our modern notions of What mnoHtutes a
city, foi tlio signification of the Hebrew word "V^ (ir) nty, as
emploj'ed in Scripttire, is of wide extent, embracing small and
large towns, and even a watch tower, as Isa. i. 8, mi^D 'T'5?
{ir netziirah) a ivatch toiver. This will also explain, that
whilst in the whole land of Canaan there were only thirty-one
royal cities, in Josh. xv. we have no less than 124 cities
enumerated as belonging to the tribe of Judah alone ; some of
those evidently being but small towns. The building of this
city by Cain, whatever its size may have been, was
a great step in the advancement of civilization. "And he
called the name of the city, after the name of his son
Enoch." The naming of the city after his son was evidently
intended to {)erpetuate the name of his family. The reason
why he probabiy did not call it after his own name was, that
he considered his name to have become too infamous by the
crime of fratricide. The city Enoch was situated in the land
of Nod, but as there is nothing known of that country, it is not
surprising that no trace should ever have been discovered of
this most ancient of all cities. Conjectures, indeed, have been
numerous ; the town Anuchta in Susiana has been identified
with the city of Enoch, and so has Henochia in Syria, whilst
those writers who identify India with the land of Nod, discover
the city Enoch in the old commercial town Kannuch ( Sanskrit,
Kanyakuhdsha,) in India. These, and other opinions which
are not worthy of notice, are merely baaed upon the very slight
resemblance of the names, and nothing more.

168

people's commentary.

18. And unto Enoch was hoiii Irad : and Irad begat Mehnjael : and
Mehujuel begat Methuaael : and Metkuaael begat Lamech.

The signification of the Biblical names is generally very easily
traced ; with the names of the antediluvian patriarchs there
exists, however, sometimes a difficulty owing to some of the
roots employed in the infancy of the language having become
ob.solete. TTiJ {Irad), is probably only an earlier form for "mj?
(Arod), and in that case would denote a ivild ass. bi^i"in?3
{Mechujael) probably denotes one smiffen of God. bj^tUin^S
(Methnsael) denotes a man of God. The derivation of the
name tl^b) (Leviech) Lamech, cannot be traced, as no root exists
now in Hebrew from which it could be derived Some of our
modern critics have laid great sti-ess upon the similarity of
some of the names in the Oainite genealogy, with some in the
Sethite genealogy in the next chapter, as Cain and Cainan ; Iratl
and Jared; Metliusael and Methuselah; whilst the names Enoch
and Lamech occur in both genealogical tables; and concluded
from this that the two genealogical tables are merely different
forms of one primary tablo, Oi, in other words, that Moses
had made up the Cainite genealogical table with names
borrowed from the Sethite family by altering some sliglitly,
and retaining the others. — (See Von Bohlen Com. on (iencisis

E. 59.) Upon such iiimsy grounds our modern critics do not
esitate to call in question the genuineness of the Cainite
genealogical table. The more vague resemblance of names is
not the slightest proof that tliey are identical. Any tyro in
Hebrew [)hilology knows that the slightest change in the form
of the word, altogether alters their meaning. Let us, as an
example, take some of these very names; T^i^? (Irad) we have
said may denote a tvild ass, whilst TTi (Jared) signifies a
descent \ "^■^i^iy^y^ (Methasael) denotes a Trmn of God, whilst
nboJIiriTO (Met/iushetach) Methuselah, signifies a .spear mnan.
It will thus be seen that although there is a resemblance in the
form of the names, thej' differ in their meaning. Then again,
as regards the names of Enoch and Lamech occurring in the
genealogi3al tables of both families, surely our critics must be
well aware that throughout the Scriptures, we find the same
name sometimes occur in different families. Thus we have
" Korah," a son of Esau (Gen. xxxv. 5,) and " Korah" a Levite,
cousin of Moses, — (Exod. vi. 21.) Again, we have " Enoc]i,"son
of Cain, " Enoch," son of Jared, — (Gen. y. 18 ; Enoch," the son
of Midian, — (Gen. xxv. 4) ; and •" Enoch," the eldest son of
Reuben (Gen. xlvi. 9.) Again we have " Kenaz," a descendant
of E.sau, — (Gen. XXX vi. 11,) and "Kenaz," the grandfather of
Othniel, — (Josh. xv. 17,) and so we might adduce many other
examples. Indeed, the very fact that the names of Enoch and

people's commentary.

169

jael : and

ry easily

l)s there

i of the

become

tor ni-|3?

1 of the

lot exists

e of our

larity of

le in the

an ; Irfiil

3.S Enoch

Dneluded

(litFcrent

at Moses

I names

slightly,

Gentisis

1 do not

Cainite

ames is

t^To in

he form

s, as an

Iwe have

tnifios a

f, whilst

[/■ iiKin.

[o in the

again,

in the

Innst be

[ic same

re have

Lovite,.

3h,"son

tlie son

son of

torn I ant

:iier of

other

Ich and

Lamech occur in both tables, is to my mind sufficient proof
that the Cainite genealogical table was not constructed from
names adopted from chapter five, otherwise all the names
would have been altered to give it the appearance of an original
table. Similarity and identity of names were the natural
results from familiar intercourse of families.

Nothing worthy of recording seems to have taken place in
the families of the patriarchs mentioned in our verse. The
sacred historian passes the four generations rapidly over.

19. And Lamech took unto himself two wives
was Adah, and the name oj the other Zillah.

the name of the one

Lamech by taking two wives directly contravened the Divine
law, Gen. ii. 24, and thus paved the way for polygamy, which
ever since has been the fruitful source of misery and evil. The
name rn^ (Adah) (merely another form of "i^y (Adi) denotes
ornament, whilst nbS (Zillah) signifies shadow. Both names
are, no doubt, expressive of personal appearance.

20. And Adah hare Jahal : he was thejather of those who dwell in
tents, and of those who have cattle.

The name b^"' (Yaval) Jabal,iH evidently derived from the root
bi'' (yaval) tofloiv, with the accessary signification to increase ;
thus the name would denote increase, and very suitable to his
occupation as a keeper of flocks. " He was the father of those
who dwell in tents ; " according to the Hebrew idiora, a person
that oHginates or invents any thing is said to be the father of
it. Jabal was the first who adopted the nomadic life, moving
about with his flocks and living in tents, he is therefore said to
be the father of those who afterwards followed the same occu-
pation.

21. And his brother's name was Jubal : lie was the father of all such
as fiandle (or play) the lyre and flute,

The name b^li {Yuval)Juh(d^\H probably merely another form
for bli^ ( Yovel) loud sounding music, and as Jul^al was the in-
ventor of musical instruments, the name is very appropriate-
The instruments which Jubal constructed were, no doubt, at
first of the simplest construction. The string instrument which
he invented is in Hebrew called 1132 (klnnor), and at first was
a kind of lyre or cithera, played with the fingers, and of small
size so as to be easil}' carried about.

In course of time the primitive form would gradually be im-
proved upon, just as is the case in our times, until at last the larger
and more complicated instrument, the harp, originated from it ;
25

. !i.

?Mli

170

people's commentary.

hence the Hebrew word is used to denote both instruments.
The wind instrument which Jubal invented is in the original
called nrni? (^''0'^'^) which no doubt was a kind of Jliite, but
whether it was of the form of the modern flute it is impossible
to say. There is an instrument still very common in the east
made of reeih, which vary fi'om five to twenty-three reeds,
commonly called the Pandcvan pipe or syrinx, and very pro-
bably the primitive instrument of Jubal may have been of
this kind. The two instruments which Jubal invented may
be regarded as the types of string and wind instruments. In
the English version the Hebrew word 3^1? (ugav) is rendered
by " organ," which, even in its most primitive form, would be
altogether too complicated an instrument to be invented at this
early period of the history of the human race. We have no
indication that the organ was known to the ancient Hebrews.

22. And Zillah, sfie cUso ba/re Tubal-cain, a lutmrnerer or sharpener
of all itistrumenta of brass and iroji . and tfie sister o/ Titbal-cain was
Naamah. '

The name Tubal-cain is a compound name. The derivation of
bmn {luval), Tubal is doubtful ; nip (cayin) cain, denotes a

lance or spear, and may in the name be used as a representative
of all kinds of instruments, and hence the name may probablj'
signify a worker of instruments. Some writers trace the origin
of the fabled god of the smiths, Vulcan,a,B a contraction of Tubal-
cain, namely, Vul-can. Tubal-cain was the inventor of various
kinds of brass and iron instruments. We have already stated that
daughters are not generally mentioned in genealogical tables,
unless under special circumstances ; there must, therefore, be
some reason for the mentioning of Naamah here, although the
narrative does not afford any information on the subject. Ac-
cording to the largum of Jonathan,* Naamah was the originator
of song. This would afford sufficient reason for her name being
mentioned. But this Targum contains so many extravagant
statements, that no confidence can be placed in an}'^ of the tradi-
tions recorded in it, unless otherwise confirmed. More likely the
reason of her name being given may be found in the derivation
of the name n735D {Naamah) which denotes lovely, pleasant,
probably on account of some peculiar personal charm possessed
by her.

*Thia Targum on the Pentateuch although ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel,
the author of the Targum on the Prophets, is evidently of a more recent date ;
it mentions events which happened several centuries after the death of Jonathan
ben Uzziel.

gii>i »i i

w'StwlwwrrTWwwigp'jpE;

people's commentary. 17 1

23. And Lainachaaid tohiatoivM :

*Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
Wives o/Lamech, give ear to my speech t
For I have slain a man to my wounding.
And a young man to my hurt :

24. 1/ Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Tfien Lamsch seventy and sevenjold.

We have in this address the only relic of antediluvian poetry
that has come down to us, and furnishes also the remarkable
circumstance that poetry and music went hand in hand from
the very earliest times ; for whilst we recognize in Lamcch the
first 'poet, we have in his son Jubal the first musician. As this
poetical effusion is abruptly introduced without its having the
slightest connection witn what precedes or follows, no doubt,
many of my readers in reading it have wondered what may
have been the cause that prompted it. Indeed, the passage
has generally been looked upon, as one of the most obscure in
the whole of the Old Testament. Still, whilst we have no
historical data to guide us in the elucidation of the pas-
sage, the deficiency is, to some extent, supplied by the
information that may be gathered from the address itself.
It is quite evident, from the last two lines of the address
that Lamech compares some less heineous deed of his with
the cold-blooded and unprovoked murder which Cain had
committed. It is, therefore, highly probable, that Lamech had
been attacked and wounded by some one, and that in defend-
ing himself, had the misfortune to kill his assailant. His
wives would naturally stand in great dread, lest some of the
deceased's friends would seek for vengeance. The custom to
avenge the blood of a relative is very old, as we shall hereafter
show. Lamech, therefore, in order to allay the fear of his
wives, endeavours, by his address to assure them that there
was no cause for anxiety, for if God would avenge Cain seven-
fold, who out of mere jealousy and without any provocation,
killed his brother, how infinitely greater will be the punishment
of him who will attempt to injure me having merely acted in
self-defence. Surely God, who, in His infinite mercy, promised
to protect the fratricide, will likewise protect me. This appears
to me to be the true import of Lamech's address. One not
acquainted with the characteristics of Hebrew poetry would
naturally conclude, from the language employed, that Lamech
liari L-iii«ri «o «,o., " „«.] « a young man," but such is not the

had killed " a man " and

*We have already explained this passage in Vol. I., p. 169, but in justice to
new subscribers who have only commenced to subscribe with the begin-
ning of this volume we think it but right to repeat the explanation here. The
reader will, however, perceive that we have aclded some new matter.

II V

I.;

WM.

172

PEOPLE 8 COMMENTARY.

case, the tJiird and fourth lines merely form what in Hebrew
poetry is called a * Synonymous Faralleliam, that is, where
an idea expressed in one lino is, for emphasis sake, repented
again in the next, either by employing nearly the saiiio words
again, or more or less vary the language. The same is the case,
as the reader will perceive, in the fird and second lines of the
address, where the latter merely re-echoes the sentiment of the
former. " A man " in the third line and " a young man " in
the fourth line are, therefore, merely synonymous terms refer-
ring to one subject. But it may be asked, why is the address
just introduced here ? Perhaps the verse preceding the address
may furnish an answer. It is there stated that Tubal-cain was
the inventor of instruments of brass and iron ; may not then
this assault on Lamech have taken place soon after the inven-
tion of instruments ? We have, alas ! in our days, only too
many instances of maiming and murder, as the result of carry-
ing weapons.

We may here mention a tradition which is given in the
Book of Adam, and which at one time apparently was very
current in the East both among Jews and Christians, for it is
found in many other ancient writings. According to this tradi-
tion Lamech nad become blind, but accompanied the young
herdsman who kept his flock into the field, for the young man
would not go alone for fear of being robbed or murdered, for
there was great wickedness among the descendants of Cain.
One day the young man heard a rustling, and told his master
that it was either a wild animal or robber ! Lamech made ready
his bow and asked the young man to direct him to the place
from whence the noise came. The young man obeyed, and
Lamech shot off his bow, and immediately heard something
fall to the ground. On leading Lamech to the place, the young
man discovered that it was Cain that had been killed, and told
his master, who was exceedingly grieved at what had happened.
(See also Hottinger Hist. Orient, ed. 11, p. 33. Michael Glycas,
in Annal. p. 118. Rabbi Gedalja in Shalsh. Kabb. p. 92,
and in some of the Patristic writings.)

25. And Adam knew his wife again, and she hare a son, and she
called his name Seth : for God, said she, hath appointed me anotlier
seed instead of Abel, for Cain hath slain him.

With the address of Lamech the history of Cain and his
descendants is finished, and in the verse before us the sacred
historian returns now again to the first human pair in order to
introduce the succeeding genealogy. After the death of Abel

• For full explanation of the diflferent kinds of Parallelisms, see Vol. i. p.
169 et seq., where a number of examples are given.

PEOPLES COMMENTAUY.

173

another son was born to AJani vvliich must have ^'leatly con-
tributed to ilispel in houk! measure the deep ghiom wliicli the
premature death of Al)el had east over tlie houseliohl of our
first j)arentH. And Eve, fully Hensiblo of the j^'reat ^dft,
expressed her acknowledgment of (Jotl's mercy in the bestowal
of this Huu, by calling him fi^" {Sfn'th) Seth, i. e., (iji/Htintcd
ane, cuinptnmitiua. " For (Jod, naitl tt/ic, f^^' (»/i(ilh) had
appointed me another seed instead of Abel." Our modern
critics in accordance with their Klohistic and Jehovistic thenry,
maintain that this must have originated from a diH'erent author,
since the name QTlbK (I'^lohhn) (Jud is here employed, whilst
throughout the chapter mn"' {Jt'humli) Lord occurs. Hj:,d our
critics only tried, they would have found that there exists a
far more reasonable way of accounting for tlie use of Klohim
here. The name QTlbs^ {J^loltiiii) — as we have already
explained — expresses the attribute of omnipotence, and hence,
it IS employed wherever God's |)ower is displayed, and Eve,
therefore, very appropriately uses it here to show, that what
the ivickedtiesH of 1)1(111 had taken from lier, was again restored
to her by Divine omnipotence. Seth was " ajipointed" in the
place of Abel, in whose family was to be preserved the true
worship of Jehovah. He became the ancestor of Noah, and
through this pious patriarch, of Abraham, and through Abraham,
of the chosen people of Israel. It is the history of his family
which the sacred historian now proceeds to describe, a hist(»ry
in which one momentous event follows another in rapid suc-
cession, and furnishes information on subjects which could
never have been disclosed by any uninspired writer

26. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son ; and he called
his name Enos ; then began men to call upon the name 0/ the Loku.

Seth called his first born son '©"i^j^ (Enoti/t) Enos, the He-
brew name denotes frailty, expressive of the frail or mortal
condition of man. Hence the word is sometimes used in the
poetical writings for man, or more frequently for the whole
human race, mankind. Thus Job says, " What is 'O'lSS^
(Enosh) man, that thou shouldest magnify him?" As much as
to say, is he not a miserable, frail creature ? — (Job. vii. 17)
So also the Psalmist. — (Ps. viii. 5, Eng. Ver. v. 4.) Seth, pro-
bably bestowed this significant name of human fiailty upon
his first born son in reference to the uncertainty of human life
being especially reminded of this fact, by the untimely death
of his brother Abel. It was probably also intended to teach
humility. " Then began men (or more literally, ' then was
begun') to call upon the name of the Lord." Simple as the
language of the original is, it has, notwithstanding, been terribly
26

I I

174

PEOPLES COMMENTARY,

inistianslated and misinterpreted. Thus, in the Oialdee ver-
sion ofOnkelos, it is rendered, "then in his daj'^s the sons of
men left off fi'oni praying in the name of the Lord." A sim -
hif I'Midoring has been adopted hy many Rabbinic writers, and
also by some Christian commentatois, \\:io understand it as
liaving a direct reference to the commencement of idolatry.
This rendering and interjiretation is altogether fallacious, for
the phrase "to call on the name of Jehovah" throughrmt the
Old Testament always denotes to invoke the ndme of God in
lyraycr. Thus, for example, Oen. xm". 8, "and he built there an
altar, and called on the name of the Lord." Compare also
ch. xiii. 4, ch. xxi. 'i.S ; Ps. Ixxix. 0, cv. 1 ; Is. xii. 4 ; 1 Chion.
xvi. J?. Prayers., as well as sacrifices, liave undoubtedly been
pi-oviousl^' ottered in the families of Adam and Seth, but in
the tin)r> of Enos, a further step in the advancement of religious
observances was taken by the institution of public worship.
It was to this religious progress that the sacred historian
alludes in cur pri' sage.

f,i,

CHAPTER Y.

\ ■ "

111 ehajiter five the sacred w)iter fiii nishes a genealogical
tal'le of the ten pati'iarclis from Adam to Noah, by whom the
true faith was preserved. Tims forming a line between the
first auij second father of tlio Juunan race, and emoraoing the
time from the creation to the delugi), a period of 'iQ'A^ years.
In the gonealog^s' of the family of the Cainitos, the reader will
have observcvi, no ages are recorde'l for this family on account
of its Avicke([,iess, was accui'sed liy God and had no futui'e
jii.itory, witli the address of Lamech to liis iw> wives its
his-tory is finished, and never resumed afterwards. In the
genealogy of the family of the Setliites, on the contrary,
fyxf". ages are recorded with great miiuiteness, for it is this
family which form the basis of the sacred narrative wliich is
to follow. The genealogical table is luiiiiue in its consti'uction,
and bears pi'oof!s of authenticity on the face of it, No impostor
would ha\e' dreamed of making up such a list ; for, observe,
it gives tir.-;t the years before the birth of the first son ; then
the rest of the life; and then the extent of the whole life. It
Avoid<l at>p(\ir as if the sac;red historian was .solicitous tl\at there
should be no misconception in regard to the ages of these
patriai'(^hs. In the Samaritan text and the iSe[)tuagint version
the luinibers indeed differ somewhat from those in the original

!, Lb!

■ ■■^■"■■11 1'l^i^^'fciiU JiiifM

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

175

Hebrew, but critics are almost unanimous in their opinions
that the Samaritan and Septuagint variations are evident
corruptions of the Hebrew text.

For the convenience of the reader we subjoin a tabular view
showing the dilTerent ages, and also the variations in the Sama-
ritan text, and the Greek version :

Hebrew Text.

ij'eal
the
the
the
-'Ciirs.
will
:ount
jtui'e
its
the
■ixry,
this
}h is
kion,
4i0r
rve,
.l>en
It
lere
i«so
i<jn
nal

Yflars Rest

Extent

Patriarchs.

lie lire | of

birth of life.

whole

son.

hfi.'.

] . Adam

130

800

930

2. Seth.

lor,

807

912

3. Enos

815

905

4, Oainan

840

910

5. Mahalalcel . .

830

895

6. Jared

162

800

962

7. Enoch

(15

300

3G5

8. Methuselah . .

187

782

969

9. I.amech

1«2

595

777

10. Noah

500

950

fVoiii the birth of

.Shemto the Hood.

100

Total

1056

Greek Version.

Yr>ar3
hofnre
birth of life.

SOD.

Rest
of

230
205
190
170
165
162
165
187
188
500

100

Extnnt

whole

life.

7001

707 j
7151
740|
730
800!
200i
782'
565

22G2 1

930
912
905
910
895
0t)2
3(55
969
753
950

Samaritan Text.

Years

Iwfore

birth of

son.

130
105
90
70
65
62
65
67
53
500

100

Rest

lifu.

Kxtent

whole

life.

8001 930

8071 912

8151 905

840 910

S30! 895

785' 847

300' 365

653 720

6001 653
950

1307

We vare asked : "Where did Moses obtain the multifarious
and complicated ages of these antediluvian patriarchs:'" It
would be qviite hutiicient to sa3Mn answer to this (pitvstion, that
he was &n iv •spired writer. But it is (pute proba'tlo that he
may have drawn his information from existing genealogical
records ; stiil writing under inspiration, he was thus enabled
to supply anything that was wanting in the chain of descent,
or correct any error, if such occurred, in the account. In chap,
xi. 10-26, we have a similar genealogical table of the fathers
from the rfoo 1 to the call of Abraham, but in that table only
the age at the thne of the first born and rest of life afterwards
are given, the extent of the whole life is not mentioned like in
chap. V. Wecomeviowto touch upon a very impf)rtant sub-
ject, important since it has been eagerly laid hold of in
these days of free thought aai.l .scepticism to disprove the
veracity of the Mo ;aic record. In the discussion of this su!)ject
many physicians and naturalistr have joined hands with Bibli-
cal critics. We are told that the most eminent physiologists
have declared that " an age al>ove 200 years, even uu'ler the
most favourable circTanstances. is a phA'sical impossibility."
Now we do not for a moment doubt that this conclusion is l)ased
upon the best information at present obtainable, and is quite

176

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

I'ii

1:5; ,
it; )

.;■'!■

lis '*

correct. But what information have we as to the prevailing^
state oi' the climate, mode of life, or many other eircumstancea
that may have been conducive to longevity before the flood ?
And without this knowledge all that physiologists may write
or say against the extraordinary vitality of the antediluvian
patriaichs, is merely conjecture. Besides, these scientists start
altogether from a wrong point in their investigations. In recon-
ciling the longevity before the flood with the short life of man-
kind after it, it is all important that we start from the Scripture
statement that man came Irom his Maker's hands an immortal
hi lug, for it shows that he originally was so constituted as
to be capable of living for ever. But man sinned, and with
sin he brought the penalty of death upon himself and his des-
cendants. It w^ould bo vain to conjecture how this change Irom
immortality to mortalit}' was brought about, whether by change
of constitution or by climatic change or other causes, the Scrip-
tures have not revealed it, nevertheless the fact still remains.
But whilst man was doomed to die, by the great mercy of God
his life was not curtailed at once to its present short period, it
was only when he sank from wickedness into still greater
d'pravity, that the Divine decree went forth, that henceforth
the span of life was to be 120 years. (Gen. vi. 3). And thus
it was, as a writer has properly remarked, "every pi'ogress|in the
career of sin caused a new reduction in the years of human
life ; toil increased, and the years were again reduced ; the
greater the interval which separated mai> from the happy days
of Paradise, the shorter grew his life, until at last it became
comparable to the " shadow that passes," " the cloud that
vanishes," or " the dream that disappears.' Thus whilst Noah
lived 950 years, Abraham only lived 175, Jacob, 147, Moses
120, Joshua 110, whilst David places the usual extent
of life at 70 ; or under exceptional circumstances at 80. —
(Ps. xc. 10.) Josephus, not always very orthodox in his
explanations of miracles, defends the litei'al acceptation, of the
patriarchial ages. He says : " But let no one, upon comparing
the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few
years which we now live, think what we have said of them
is false, or make the shctness of our lives at present an
argunient that neither did they attain so long a duration of
life, for those ancients were beloved of God, and (lately) made
by God himself, and because their food was then fitter for the
prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years."
And he then goes on to say : " Now, I have for witness to
what 1 have said, all those that have written Antiquities, both
among the Greeks and barbarians ; for even Manetho, who
wrote tlie Egyptian History, and Berosu.s, who collected the
Chaldean Monuments, antl Mochus, and Hestianis, an^l besides

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY,

177

God

few
lem

these, Hieronymus the Egyptian, and those who composed the
Phoenecian history, agree t<. what I here say. Hesiod also,
and Hecatjeus, and Hellanicus, and Acusiiaus, and besides
these, 'Ephonis and Nicolaus, relate that the ancients lived a
thousand years." — (Ant. b. 1 ch. 8, sec. 9.)

The Hindoos, who freely adopted statements from the
Mosaic account, and more or less disguised them, held that
there were four periods during which the longevity of man
was gradually reduced from 400 to 300, then again to 200 zzvl
100. — (Manu. 1, 88.) We have stated that Moses so con-
structed the ffenealoijical table that there mijjht be no miscon-
ception regarding the ages of these antediluvian patriarchs, and
we will now give an example to show the wisdom in his having
done so. Some writers, in order to reconcile the patriarchal
longevity, have advanced the supposition that the yeavti only
meant months. This would certainly have the effect of reducing
the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs to the present standard
of human life, for thus Adam would only have been 77 yeors
and 8 months old when he died, 8eth only 7'2 years, &c. But
let us now see how this theory would agi-ee with the ages
given when the first son was born. Adam was 130 years old
when Seth was born, if we now reduce the years to months,
then Adam was only 10 years and 10 months old at the birth
of his son, whilst Enos was a fatlior when 7^ years old, Cainan
when not quite 6 years, and Enoch when ') years and 5 months.
It is .surprising how perfectly reckless some commentators are
in their interpretation.s. In their attempt to get over a diffi-
cult subject, they jump at conclusions without in the least
examining what the consequences may be, or whether the
language admits of such a construction as they desire tc put
upon it. In the case before us, they evidently did not examine
whether the word niDtJ {nhannh) jjear admits of being rendered
by Dionth, or they would have discovered that throughout the
whole of the Old Testament it is only used in the sense of
year, and that month is always expressed by "jj^n {clio<h'f>h.)
Hardly less absurd is the hypothesis adopted by some critics,
that from Adam to Abraham the year had only-'? months, from
Abraham to Joseph 8 months, and from Joseph's time 12
months. The Old Testament recognizes no oth(;r mode of
reckoning than 12 months to the year, aln^ady in ch. viii. 7,
we are told that the ark rest(?d on the mountains of Ararat
" in the .seventh month on the seventh day."

1. This is the hook of the generations of Adam,
created man, in th", likeness of God made IL' Id in.

Tn the day God

" This is the book," the word iSo (wpher) employed in th-^,
original, merely means a writing complete in itself, whetlior

I. hn

178

people's commentary.

<t-

' tl'

K'fl

long or short, or consisting of one sheet or more. Hence it
denotes a hill, a contruci, a hook, &c. In our passage it is best
rendered by record, as " This is the record of the generations of
Adam."

" In the day God created man, in the likeness of God made
He him." The sacred historian in giving the genealogical
record of the descendants of Adam very appropriately prefaces
the account by recapitulating the principal and most important
events connected with the creation of the parent of the human
family, to indicate, tliat as he was created in the likeness of
God, so he ti-ansmitted that likeness also to his descendants.

This appears to me to be the reason why Moses here repeats
again, V, hat he had already so plainly stated in ch. i. 27, so
thni the fundamental truth that cdl human heings hear the
image of God may stand at the very beginning of the history
of the human race.

2. A male and a Jemale created He them, and blessed them, and
called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

" And called their name Adam." This passage informs us that
the name was not self-imposed, nor given by Moses, but bestowed
by God Himself. Mow, every act of God is done for some wise
purpose, thougix human understanding may not uhrays be able
to divine tlio reason. Why, then, did God call our first parents,
" Adam ? " The only reasonable reply to my mind is, because
the name expresses at once that man bears " the likeness of
God;" for, as we have already stated, t]1l55 (Adam), and tl^)2l
(dcm.uth) likeness, are liotli derived from the root n?al
(damah), to be alike. It will also be seen that God did not
bestow that name upon Adam alone, but He called " their name
Adam." Adam, therefore, is the geneiic name of the human
family as well iis the name of the first man, the type of the
human race.

3. And Adam lived a hui:dred and thirty years, and he bejat a son
in his own likeness, after his own image ; and called his name ISeth.

It will be seen that a son is not in the original, but the con-
text requires the insertion. For a similar ellipsis see ch. vi. 4 ;
xvi. 1 ; XXX. 1. Very frequently a noun is omitted after certain
verbs where the context readily suggests the word that requires
to be supplied.

" In his own likeness, after his own image." This passage
clearly teaches, that the Divine likeness impressed by God in
Adam at his creation was also transmitted by him to his des-
cendants. The sacred writer is very precise, he employs here
the same words fT1'2T (demuth) likeness, and Qbil (tselem)

PEOPLE S ('OMMENTARY.

17£)

image, as are euiploycd in ch. i. 20. The pa.ssa<i;e, th(n'cfore, in
my opinion, altogetlier sets at rest the question whicli lias called
forth so much discussion, even amonir the Patristic writers,
" whether the internal nature of man, that is, his soul, is trans-
mitted from parents to offsprings," [Tradnci(inl-ii)i), or " whether
it is in every case the act of a new creation (Ci 'eat ion Ism).
The former view, no doubt, is the one which is in accordance
with the teaching of the Scriptures. From verse 3 to verse 'li<
there is nothing that requires explanation.

'24. And Enoch loalked loith God, and he vxis not; for God had
taken hint.

We have already remarked that the name tli^H (Ohanoch)
Etiock signities trdlaing, teacliAny, and ancient traditions ascribe
to him the invention of the art of writiuix, and the scii'uce of
astronomy. According to some of the Rabbinical writers,
" Enoch promulgated during his life many important laws,
which were afterwards iricorporated with the Mosaic laws."
Some Arabic writers too, ascribe to him a code of laws. This
pious patriarch was highly revered throughout the East, among
the heathens as well as by the Jews " And Enoch walked
with God." This expression implies the closest and most
familiar intercourse with God, and indicates a higher degree of
piety than the expressions "to walk before God," Gen, xvii 1 ;
xxiv. 40 ; or " to walk after God," i)eut. xviii. 9. Jndct.'d, the
expression, "to walk with God," occurs only in two other places
in the Old Testament, viz., Gen. vi. 9, where it is said of Noah
that he " walked with God," and in Mai. ii. G, of the priests,
who, by virtue of their sacred office, stood in close relation to
God, they oniy being pennitted to enter the Holy Place, and
have direct intercourse with Jehovah.

In the translp.tion of Enoch, who war, the first of the human
race who passed from earth into heaven without tasting death
or seeing corruption, we have the strongest jjroof we possibly
can have of the immortality of the soul. It must bo remem-
bered, that Enoch, at the time of his translation, was only
three hundred and sixty -five years old, which at that lime was
not the half of the ordinary life of man. The " taking away"
of Enoch, tlierefore, from this teinptiral life at so early an age,
can only find its explanation in God as a loving father, having
taken him to His eternal home, there to enjoy gicater and
never ending bliss, as a reward for his great piety. He and
Elijah being exempted by God from the common lot of man of
seeing death and corrupticm. There are, indecl, many writers,
who insist upon explaining " for God took him" as meaning
nothing more than that he had been removed from the world,

180

people's commentary.

m'.ImI'JI !»I

ill' '
Mil ''■

by the common process of disease and death, but it is strange
that it should not have occurred to these writers, that this would
have been rather a punishment than, reward for his great
piety, and Avould be altogether inconsistent with the represen-
tations which we find throughout the whole of the Old Testa-
ment, " where length of days" and " a numerous offspring" are
constantly spoken of as the rewards in this life for piety. The
Apostle Paul distinctly asserts that, "By faith Enoch was
translated that he should not see death, and was not found,
because God had translated him." — (Heb. xi. 5.) This state-
ment of St. Paul is (juite in accord with the prevailing opinion
among the ancient Hebi-ews. Thus the author of the apocryphal
book Ecclesiasticiis sa^'s : " Enoch pleased God, and was trans-
lated, 1)eing an example of repentance to all generations." — (ch.
xliv. 10.) The same opinion is set forth in the Targum of
Onkelos (Chaldee version), an<l in the Targum of Pseudo
Jonathan, (another Chaldee version of the Pentateuch.) And
so likewise both ancient and modern Jewish commentators
have explained our passage, that Enoch was translated into
heaven. Dr. Kalisch — who is not always very orthodox in his
iiittM-pretations — remarks on the passage, " We are convinced
that the taking away of Enoch is one of the strongest proofs
of the belief in a future state prevailing among the Hebrews;
without this belief, the history of Enoch is a perfect mystery,
a hieroglyph without a clue, a commencement without an end. —
(Com. on Gen. p. 184.) Kitto is ecjually exjilicit; he observes,
" As a reward, theiefore, of his extraordinary sanctity he was
translated into heaven without the experience of death. Elijah
was in like manner translated, and thus was the doctrine of
immortality i^alpahlij taught under the ancient dispensation."
(Eneyelop. art. Enoch.) Delitzseh says, Enoch and Elijah were
translated into eternal life with God, without passing through
disease, death, and corru])tion, for a consolation of believers,
and to awaken the hope of a life after death." — (Com. on Genes,
p. 126.)

To Enoch was ascribed the apocryphal " Book of Enoch," or
rather the book was written under his name. As regards the
author and time when it originated, nothing certain is known.
The prevailing opinion is, that it was written originally either
in Hebrew or Chaldee by a pious Palestine Jew in the second
century before the Christian era. The author seems to have
collected all the traditions that have been prevalent at his
time about that godly patriarch, and in order to give greater
authorit}' to his statements, and to enlist more readily the
attention of his contemnoraries to the teaehinjj set forth in the
book, he represents it as if it had been written by Enoch him-
self. The book represents Enoch as having foreseen in prophetic

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

181

the

^n.

ler

ive

jer

vision the destruction of every living thing by the deluge, and
to have exhorted his son Methuselah and his contemporaries,
to turn from their evil ways. His prophetic eye penetrated
still further into the future, he describes the course of Divine
Providence till the coming of the Messiah. The book contains
also an account of what was revealed to Enoch concerning the
spiritual region, a narrative of the fallen angels and their
punishment ; and exhibits in forcible language the reward of
the righteous, and the punishment of the wicked. A Greek
version of the book was current in the Primitive Church, and
was (juoted b\' the Fathers, but was altogether lost sight of
after the eighth centurv. TertuUian seems to have regai'ded
the book with great favour, and thinks that it had been pre-
served by Noah in the ark. Origen, Jerome, and Austin, on
the contrary, apeak of it as of no authority. It certainly was
rejecterl by the Church.

The original Hebrew or Chaldee, as well as the Gi'eek ver-
sion, are irretrievably lost, but the traveller Bruce discovered
in Abyssinia three perfect manuscripts of an Ethiopic version,
which had been maile from the Greek version, and brought
them to England in 177'}.*

Among modern writers the book has been brought into pro-
minence by the discussion of the questions whether the Apostle
Jude, in his general Epistle, verses 1.'), 16, actually cited from
the book, or whether he tpoted a traditional prophecy of
Enoch, or whether the words (pioted were received by direct
revelation. The most eminent, and by far the larg''st number
of commentator^ favour the opinion that Jude quoted from the
book of Enoch. They argue that by doing so tht; Apo.stle by
no means sanctions every thing that is written in the book, but,
as an inspired writer, was' able to <liscriminate between what is
genuine and what is spurious, and that his sanction extends no
further than to the pi)rtion he cites. They argue, " that St.
Paul quotes several of the heathen poets ; yet no one would
from this infer that the Apostle approves altogether of the
productions from which he had eited, or that his (;itation ren-
ders them of greater value. All tliat can be reasonably inferred
from such a citation is, that the inspired writei in quoting .a
sentiment with approbation, it must be regardiMl as just and
right, irrespective of the remainder of the book from which it
was taken.

*Archbishop Lawrence, made an English translation from the Ethiopic.
There is also a Latin translation by Ofnirer, and a (Jernian t'*anslation by Dr.
A. Dillmann, with an introduction and commentary.

lli

|2;,;.

! :

■

i'^'

■•

liiiyii..

182

PEOPLES C'OJIMENTARY.

28. And Lamech lived an hundred and eiyhty-two years ami begat
a son :

29. And he, adled his name Xoah, sai/int/, (his one shall com/oi't us
from our work and from the toil of our hands, from the yround which
tfie Lord fuis cursed.

In the preccdiiifj^ verses no reason is given for the bestowing
of the respective names, but in this ver.se, it is said that
Lanieeli called Ills son nS (iVuucA) iVt>(//i, wliich means rent, and
assigns as a leason for calling him .so, " this one shall comfort
us from our work and liom the toil of our Imnds," tfec. Now,
here the question arises in what way did Noah comfort or
relieve his parents from " the toil of their liands T As tlie
Scriptures nowhere afibid any information how this prediction
was fulHlled in Noah, hence interpreters have answered the
question in ditl'erent ways. Some have explained the passage
merely to mean, that the assistiince wliich Noah would render
his parents in tilling the ground, would naturally relieve them
of some toil. This is certainly a very reasonable conjecture,
and 3'et it hardly furnishes a .satislactor}- explanation, for the
declaration is unquestionably prophetic, and refers to some
important event. Hence, many writers discover in the pas-
saue an allusion to the invention of a<rricultural instruments
by Noah, b}' wliich labour would be diniinished. But the
sacretl historian nowhere gives Noah credit for !>uch important
inventions which he would, no doubt, have done in the same
manner as he gave Jubal credit for inventing musical instru-
ments,andTubal-cain for inventing instruments of brassand iron.
Bishop Sherlock supposes, that the prediction had been verified
by the restoration of the fertility of the earth to a great degree
after the flood, and that the descendants of Noah are still enjoy-
ing the blessing which God had bestowed upon him. Against
this supposition of the bishop, it may be urged that we have not
the slightest proof that the agricultural labour after the flood
involved less toil than it did before. Even Solomon, in
Ps. cxxvii. 2, which bears his name as the author, speaks of
eating, " bread of sorrows," /. e., bread procured by toil and
pain. And notwithstanding all our modern inventions of
agricultural instruments the labour is, and ever will be, still
very great, and att(;nded with great anxiety. Now, whatever
the true meaning of the passage may be, it must be explained
as merely indicating a partial relief from labour; and this is
quite in accordance with the common mode of expression pre-
vailing in the East. But where is this partial relief from
labour to be found ? Probably the true answer to this ques-
tion may be discovered by comparing ch. i. 29 with ix. 3. In
thejbrmer passage, God assigned lo men all the produce of the

PEOPLE S COMMENTAItY.

isa

vd begat

mifwt ua
ltd which

stowing
lid that
rent, and
comfort
. Now,
nfort or
As the
ediction
ered the
passage
J render
ve them
njecture,
, for the
to some
the pas-
ruments
But the
iportant
he same
I instru-
nd iron,
veritied
degree
enjoy-
gainst
ave not
le flood
ion, in
3aks of
)il and
ions of
[e, still
^atever
jlained
[this is
j)n pre-
from
ques-
13. In
1 of the

earth for food. This produce, after the fall of our first parents
could only be obtained through hard labour, and attended with
great anxiety. In the latter passage, we have, for the first
time, permission given for the use of the flesh of animals:
" Every moving thing that liveth shall be to you for food, as
the green herb I give you all things." The expression " as the
green herb," refers to the first allotment in ch. i. 29. Here, I
think, we have the partial relief; man was to be no longer
entirely dependent upon the precarious products of the ground,
and which could be obtained only by toil from the curse-laden
ground, but hencelbrth he was to have more comfort, moie
peace of mind, for in case of failure, he need no longer fear
starvation, but may have recourse to animal food. It was not
Lamech's family alone that was to enjoy the relief and comfort
granted to Noah, but all future generations were to enjoy it,
and be benefited by it. This seems to me to be the im])ort of
Lamech's words ; but as the reader has now the explanations of
different interpreters before him, he is able to exercise his own
judgment.

32. And Noah was Jive hundred years old : and Noah begat Shun,.
Ham, and Japheth.

In the preceding generations only the eldest son is mentioned,
but here all the sons of Noah are mentioned, because all three
became the ancestors of very important nations, as is reconled
in ch. X. The language in our verse must not be understood
to convey the idea that the three sons were all born in one
year, but that these sons were born to him only after he had
reached the age of " five hundred years." The names which
Noah bestowed upon his sons are also highly significant in their
impt^rt. The name* Q'^j {Shem) Shttn denotes a iiarue, but is
also sometimes us>ed in the sense of renown or fame. Noah,
evidently, under the prompting of the spirit of prophecy
bestowed this name upon his son, for Sheni was to be reno'wned
for spiritual blessings. In ch. ix. 20, Noah, after having
pronounced a curse upon Canaan, innnediately afterwards
exclaimed, " Blessed be the Lokd God of Sliem." Jehovah Ls
called the God of Shetn, doubtless to intimate that He was so
in a special manner, and as connected with special privileges.*
Accordingly we find that in the line of tliis father of the chosen
people, the knowledge and worship of Jehovah was preserved.
This supreme dignity vouchisafed to Sheni developed itself
gradually more and more, as the chosen people developed into

*An explanation of the iir.mes of the sons of Noah has aheatly been given in
Vol. 1. pp. 8, 9, but in justice to the many new subscribers who have not that
Volume, 1 think it but right that tlie explanation should be repeated, as the
import of the names are so highly significant.

PEOPLK's (.-OMArKNTARY.

^ great nation. Tho n«^* x

'eo,l after thoo"° Tf?""'" '" ^o a Go,I ,m „ tT' S^fations
enables „, f n '^ '^^ ^^^^^S alj tMs ,?tn^ ^.s abo.lo amon^

b.-othor, am .,|,ok™TAv!;'7°™''''' "'« '-"t when tl,. *K

the elder " T /i i° °^ rendered " f Jia ] "."^•^"ei it agrees
the former I "fi'^'l^ri-'g i-< a'lop ted b .t' i!":^",^ >«

people's commentary.

185

Bible ; Deut. xi. 7 ; Judges i. 13. This point being settled, we
now proceed to the more iniportanti)oint, namely, the inw/r/iJ*/
of the prophetic name " Japheth."

In II threw the name is j^g"* (Ycjiheth), and is derived from
the root Jjf'B (pothah), to Hincad, to enlarge, and signifies,
therefore, eiildnjcitient, or enlarycr. The derivation of the
name is beautil'ully brought out in Noah's prophetic dechira-
tion regarding Ja})heth ch. ix. 7, " God will enlarge Japheth,"
which reads in the original Jngib tlB"^ (//"/'''^ leycfi/ieth) liter-
ally, ivili enlavf/e the enlaiycr, wliere the reader will perceive
there is inirat^ointmn, or a play upon the two words, namely,
the verb and the name derived fiom it. The appropriateness
of the name " Japheth" becomes strikingly apparent, in the
remarkable fulfillment of Noah'.s prophetic declaration as set
forth in the above (pioted passage. Jaj)heth had seven sons,
whilst 8hem had only five and Ham only four. From his
seven sons, the whole of Europe, and a conbiderable part of Asia
were originally })eopled, and ever since have been occupied by
their descendants. Some probably also crossed over to America
by Behrings Straits, from Kanischatka. When this wide
extent of territor}^ is taken into consideration, it may truly be
said of Japheth that he was mi entarger.

frees

[eth,

^ave

rate

|)ns ;

ige

^Id

\an

Ihe
he
iw

CHAPTER VI.

1. And it came to pass when men began to multiply upon tlie earth,
and daughters were born to t/iein.

2. 2'hat the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were
fair, and they took for themselves wives of all whom they chose.

We may safely say there is no passage in the Scriptui'es
which has been so terribly misinterpreted as this passage, and
this, not only by rationalistic w)-iters, but by orthodox writers
as well. The difticulty which the passage presents lies in the
expression C'^nbi^n "^53 {^^nc haelokim) sonn of God," for here
the question naturally arises, who are we to understand by
this designation ? Now, this question has been answered in
three different ways. The general prevailing opinion among
the Rabbinic writers is, that by the " sons of G jd" are to be
understood here princes, nobles, or mighty and injiue/ntial men,
who took to themselves wives from the lower classes. This
opinion has also been espoused by some Christian and ration-
alistic writers. This mode of explaining the expression, how-

^^>S^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

:<i

:/.

1.0

I.I

U^|28 |2.5

1.25 J,, .4 ,.6

.« 6"

►

*>?

j:-^

/).

"> ,>^

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WeST MAIN STRUT

WnSTiR.N.Y. 145S0

(716) •72-4503

,Sf

186

people's commentary.

!' t...

ever, is neither sustained by the usage of language, nor does
it harmonize with the context. Nowhere throughout the
Scripture in the expression "sons of God" ever used in reference
to " princes and noblemen," and it is quite unaccountable that
this mode of explaining the expression should have been so
favourably received among the Rabbinic writers whose He-
brew scholarship is generally! of the highest order. The context,
too, implies a degeneracy from a moral and reliigious state, and
not a mere stepping down from a higher and honorable posi-
tion. Again, a still more widely prevailing opinion is, that by
"the sons of God," are meant angels. This view is very
ancient. In the best manuscripts of the Septuagint the words
QTlbj^ ■'D2i O'cne Elohim) are rendered ayyeXoi tov deov angels
of Ood. In the book of Enoch this view is also set forth, and
Justin, Irenaeus, Clemens, Alexandrinns, and others quoted
this opinion from the book with approbation. Josephus, too,
states that " many angels of God accompanied with woriien." —
(Antiq. b. 1 ch. iii. par. 1.) Philo, also entertained the same
view. This opinion, strange as it may appear; is also very
prevalent among modem commentators and critics, especially
among those belonging to the school of higher criticism, who
persist in the assertion that Moses adopted the notion of inter-
marriage of angels or spirits v/ith the daughters of men from
heathen mytholog}'. Thus Kaliscli Mbserves : " The very com-
mencement of the narrative contains a notion, which cannot be
explained tiom the Bible, but which is indisputably borrowed
from foreign and heathen sources. The ' sons of God'
descended to the beacitiful ' daughters of men.' They deserted
their pure and ethereal nature, and abamloned themselves to
despicable depravities ; they left the heaven, in order to cor-
rupt the earth and themselves." — (Com. on Genesis p. 170.)
This is the language of an English commentator, and may be
taken as a fair sample of the views entertained upon the sub-
ject by those belonging to the English liranch of the rational-
istic school, and held in common with those belonging to the
German branch. — (See for example Von Bohlen. Com. on
Genesis, p. 82.) The notion that by the designation, " sons of
God," in our passage, are meant angels, evidently had its
origin, from the same phrase being usedjin regard to angels, in
Job I. G, ch. ii. 1. " Again, there was a day and Q^nbi^n ''321
{bene haelohivfi) the sons of God came to present themselves
before the LoiiD, and Satan came also among them." See also
ch. xxxviii. 7.) There can be no doubt that in these passages
the phrase denotes angels. But this only proves that the
phrase may be thus interpreted : it does by no means follow,
that it must be so explained everywhere else. We have already
stated that when a word or phrase admits of different inter-

1 1

PEOPLES COMMENTAKY.

187

pretations care must be taken to select that meaning which

accoids best with the context, and harmonizes in every respect

with the teaching of the Scriptures. In the passage before us,

both the context as^ell as the'teaching of Scripture, are clearly

againsi; the supposition that by "sons of God," are denoted

angels. In the first place we may i*emark, that the expression

" sons of God " is only applied to holy angels. It will be seen,

on referring to the above quoted passages from the book of

»iob, that Satan was not included among "the sons of God,"

but is said to have come among them. In our passage, however,

if indeed angels were meant, they could only have been fallen

angels. In the second place, the Divine 'declaration contained

in verse 3 is only applicable to human beings, it would be

meaningless as applied to angels. And thirdly, the expression

"and they took for themselves wives," is in itself fatal to the

assumption that angels are meant in our passage. The phrase

niDfi^ npb {lalcach ish-shah) to take a wife, throughout the Old

Testament is only used in reference to the marriage relation as

originally instituted by God, ch. ii. 24, and never to unlawful

intercourse. Besides all this, in Matt. xxii. 30, it is distinctly

stated that ii; C " ro/arrection they neither marry, nor are

given in marriago, ^ut are as the angels of God in heaven." (See

also Mark xii. 25). It is, indeed, surprising, that the opinion

of intermarnage between angels and daughters of men should

have been so widely accepted, and so strenuously maintained,

as the phrase can be readily and consistently explained without

adopting such a ropulf>ive view. By " the sons of God," are

unquestionably meant the descendants of Seth who, according

to ch. iv. 26, " began to call upon the name of the LoiiD," and

formed the visible church. These saw the daughters of the

impious Oainites and allured by their beauty, intermarried

with them. In the original it is, " saw the daughters of QHs^n

(had(lam) Adam, that is of the wicke<l race who had nothing in

them but the depraved nature of fallen man. It is by no means

remarkable that the godly Sethitos should here be designated

" sons of God," for this appellation is sometimes applied to

true worshippers as well as auLjels. Thus, for example, in

Hos. i. 10, the Israelites are called "the sons of the living

God." In Deut. xiv. 1, it is said of the Israelites, " Ye are

children of the Lord your God." ^

The book of Adam relates, that Noah often preached among
the Cainites, but that the Sethites desci'nded from the holy
mountain, and dwelleth now with the Cainites and intermar-
ried with them." Modern orthoilox Jewish and Christian
writers, with few exceptions, understood by the phrase " sons
of God," descendants of Seth. The entering into the company
of the depraved is the first step to a downward career. The

PlilOPLE'S COMMENTARY.

! I

evil influences of the wicked are sure to make themselves
sooner or later felt. In the case of the Sethites the evil influ-
ences di(' their destructive work most terribly, and ought to

serve as a warning
exclaim :

to young and old. Well might Solomon

" My son, if sinnera entice thee,
Coiiaeut thou not !

•' My son, co not in the way with them,
Keep back thy foot from their path."

Prov. I. 10, 15.

And well might Moses afterwards prohibit marriages with
heathen nations, (Deut. vii. 3, 4;) and St. Paul warn the
Corinthians, " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbe-
lievers ; for what fellowship liath iighteousne.ss with unrighte-
ousness ? and what connuunion hath light with darkness i (2
Cor. vi. 14.)

Out of the ten generations in the line of Seth, only the
family of Noah was found worthy to escape the general
destruction l)y the flood.

3. And tfie Lord said, My Spirit shall not rule in man for ever ;
since he is ahojlesh ; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty
years.

This verse contains several philological diflSculties, and con-
sequently different renderings are given of it, they however
do not materially affect the sense. The first diflSculty arises
from the use of the verb "iTii (yudun) which I have rendered

sltall rule, as this verb only occurs in this place. Many ancient
interpreters have rendered " shall not remain or dwell," from
which it would appear as if their copies had the reading 'l^i'^

(yalun,) and the difference of reading may have easily
originated from the transcribers having mistaken the letter T
(dcUeth) d for the letter ^ {Icttned) I or lice versa. Gesenius
rekiders the passage " my Spirit shall not be made law in man
for ever," and explains, " the higher and divine nature shall
not for ever be humiliated in the lower," giving to the Hebrew
verb the signification of the Arabic verb (dana), for which
there is neither any authority, nor any necessity. Most
modern interpreters render "shall not rule" or "shall not
judge,"* whilst a few render like in the Elnglish Version, "shall

*Thoae who adopt thia rendering very properly regard the form 'l^l'^ {yadun)
aa aynonymouB to V^^l {yadin). to judge, to rule. These two^forms occur in
other verba, thua we have b^^i ^7«'0 and i^5 (gul) to ryoke, D^tJ5 (*•"*) "nd
dtS (^um) to put, to place, and why not also the forma "111 {dun) and Vi^
{din) to judge, to rule f ': ^ '

people's COMMINTARY.

18^

lich
Most
not
hall

not strive." The next difficulty lies in the word Q^iJj'a
{beahaggam) which lu the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Chaldee,
and Vulgate versions is rendered "in that also," or "since also,"*
namely, " since he also is flesh." This rendering is likewise
adopted by the Jewish and many modern commentators.
Many of the modern writers, however, render the word "in
their transgression,"^ namely, "in their transgi-ession or wander-
ing they are flesh." So Vater, Eoscnmliller, Ewald, Gesenius,
Tuch, Delilzsch, and others ; but, from our remarks in the note
below, it will be seen that on philological giound this rendering
is not admissible.

" Since he is flesh," that is, since man has become utterly
corrupt. Even the professing Sethites, those who had been
deemed " the sons of God," cast off all spirituality, and gave
them selves up to a profligate life. " Flesh" is, in Scripture,
sometimes employed to denote the ivhole body, and at the same
time implying proneness to sin. Hence Solomon says : " Suffer
not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin." — (Ecc. v. 6.) Here it
will be observed " flesh" is used for the body, as the seat of
desire. And Christ exhorts his disciples : " Watch and pray,
that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed is willing,
but tne flesh is weak." — (Matt. xxvi. 41.)

Now, although our verse, as we have shown, presents some
philological difliculties, yet its import is perfectly plain. It is
of little consequence whether we translate " my Spirit shall not
I'ule, or dwell, or judge, or stHve in man for ever." The mean-
ing evidently is, that man had become too hardened and
depraved to allow himself to be ruled or guided by the
Spirit of God, although ample time and opportunity had been

*Iu adopting the rendering "since," or *' beeatue aho," they have taken the
word as compounded of the preposition ^ in, Q the fragment of the rektive pro-
noun *11Zl2l( ((u/ter) that, and Q]| {gam) also.

{Thoee who render )3!203 {beshaggam) " in their transgression " regard it
as compounded of the preposition j^ in, ^Q {ahag) transgreasion, the infinitive
kal used substantively, of ^^IB (ahagag) to transgreaa, and the pronominal suffix
h ~r (am) their, and this analysis of the word, is certainly also admissible. But
Dy taking the word in this manner, we are confronted with the insurmount-
able difficulty of having the plural suffix Q~r their immediately followed by
the singular pronoun ^^tl (A'() ^- '^he passage in the original readg

*ltJJ!l i^TH p«i103 [beahaggam hu vuaar) and would, therefore, jjive the
anomalous rendering, in their tranagreaaion he iafleah. Keil and Delitzseh (Com.
onOen., p. 134), and others, get over the difficulty by rendering the singular
pronoun Hltl (^") ^ freely in the plural "they," namely, " in their wandering
they are flesh," but this is altogether arbitrary, and not warranted hy the
usage of language. They say there are other examples of such a change in the
number, no doubt there are, but they can in every instance be readily recon-
ciled. There can be no caw produced which is luialogoaa to the one in this
passage.

88 •

190

people's comment arv.

i,.i

I) "

\v. f

'ii-j

given him to repent and turn from his wicked ways, but it
M'as of no avail. God, therefore, dotennined to end His divine
forbearance, and destroy the godless race. The poet Cowper
has well said :

) .f

"There is a time, and justice marks the diito ;
How long suffering ( 'lemenuy to wiiit ;
That hour ohipsed th' incurable revolt
Is punished, and down uomes the thunderbolt.

Yet the Almighty, who is ever " gracious and merciful, slow
to anger, and of great kindness," did not at once cut them off,
but still granted them a respite of 120 years, to give them
another opportunity to repent before the day of vengeance
should come. It was in the 480th year of the life of Noah,
that God informed him of the coming of the deluge ; accord-
ing to Hale's chronological table 3275 B. C, and the Hood
according to the same table came 315.5 B. C, it was during the
intervening 120 years tliat Noah pi*eached repentance among
the degenerate race, hence Peter calls him " a preacher of
righteousness." (2 Peter ii. 5.)

4. The tyrants tuere on tfte earth in those days, and also after that,
when the sons of God came unto t/te dauyhlers of men, and they bear
children to them, these are t/ie mighty ones who were of old, men of
rtinoion.

In the original, the word which we have rendered " tyrants"
is Qlb'^BD {nephilivi), and is evidently derived from the root
bSD {liaphal) to fall, also to fall iijton for the purpose of doing
injury ; in the latter sense the verb is used in Job i. 15.
Hence, according to this derivation, the word would denote
persons who fall upon others in order to intiict injury, men
who had no regard for God or man, carrying out by force their
wicked designs. In this sense Luther has taken the word and
rendered " Tyrannen " tyrants, in his German version, so also
Keii and Delitzsch (Com. on Gen. p. 137), Gesenius, and others.
And this sense accords well with the context as the sacred
historian is describing the immense wickedness that prevailed
at that time. In the Targum of Onkelos it is rendered jj^iISi;!
iglbboraya) powerful men, and similar in the Syriac version.
Symniachus translates fiuuoi, i. e., violent men, and Aquila
iimriTTTOPTev, i. e., men who attack, invaders. The Nephilim
were probably a class of men among the Caiuites who made it
a practice to tyrannize over the people.

The idea that the Nephilim were giants has originated with
the Septuagint, where the word is rendered yiyavTef;, giants,
which rendering has also been adopted in the Vulgate, in our
Authorized Version, and by many modern commentators. The

people's commentary.

191

word occurs only again besides here in Num. xiii. tS3, where
the spies report regarding the land of Canaan : " And there we
saw the Nephiliui, (p^J? ^23 bene An<d-), sons of Anak, (i. e.
long-necked people) from the N(^]»hilini ; and we were in our
eyes as grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes." Keil and
Delitzsch consider that this passage furnishes no j)roof that
gianU are meant by the Nophilim. They remark, " When the
s|)ies describe the land of Canaan, as 'a land that eateth up
the inhabitants thereof,' and then add (ver. 83), 'and there wo
saw the Nephilim.tho sons of Anak among (lit. "173 (m in) from,

out of, in a partitive sense), the Nephilim, b} the side of
whom they were as grasshoppers ; ' the term Nephilim cannot
signify giants, since the s))ies not only mention them especially
along with the inhabitants ot the land, who are described as
people of great stature, but single out only a portion of the
Nephilim as sons of Anak p23? 133, i. e., long-necked people or
giants." In our version it is leudered, " the sons of Anak,
which came of tlie giants ;" but it will be seen that
the words " which came," are in italics, which shows that
they are not in the original, and therefoie literally ren-
dered, it would be, " and the sons of Anak from or among
the Nephilim." The Nephilim, mentioned in Num. xiii. 33,
were most likely a powerful aboriginal people of Canaan,
among whom dwelled some of the descendants of Anak who
were especially remarkable for their great stature. Anak,
from whom sprang the famous giants so often mentioned in
Scripture, was the son of Arba, after whom was called the
ancient city Jaife^ TPIp (I^irjath Arba) (Gen. xxiii. 2.) i. e.,

the city of Arba, aiter wards called Hebron. His descendants
are always spoken of as " sons " or " children of Anak," " sons
of the Anakims," or merely " Anakims,' and the terms mean
long-necked people, giants."

The commentiators who take Nephilim in the sense of giants,
must acknowledge that that meaning cannot be traced from
any root now existing,* whilst on the other hand we have
shown, that the meaning, tyrants, is very readily obtained from
a very common root. But whilst we consider the rendering
tyrants an accordinir best with the context, and also the deriva-
tion of the word being then readily obtained, it is proper to
say, that from a theological standjjoint, it is quite immaterial
which of the renderings we have given is adopted, since the
sacred writer alludes more particularly to the wicked acts of
the Nephilim.

*8ome writers have iudeed taken the word as a participle Niphal of the verb
^bfi) (polo,) 'o dUtmguith, h mce extraordinary men, but fsuch a derivation is

together out of tixe question. The form of the part. Niph. is Q*>Kbfi3
{{niphlaiiii) whioh is qiiite dill'ereut to Q'^^SD (ti^phUim.)

19S

people's commentart.

!|!1^'

In the Revised Version the Hebrew term, " Nephilim," is
retained in the text, but " giants " is given in the margin. I
think it would have been better if one of the renderings given
by the different versions had been adopted in the text.

The word which we have just been treating on, is only one
of the very many similar eases in the Old Testament, in the
rendering of which there exists a great diversity of opinions.
From this it may be seen how utterly hopeless it is of any ver-
sion ever being executed that would give universal satisfaction,
when we see in so many instances, versions differing from ver-
sions, interpreters from interpreters, and critics from critics.

" These are the mighty ones," (Eng. Ver., heroes,) the word
fi'^13^ (gibborim) signifies mighty Tnen, but is used in a bad
as well as in a good sense. Hence we read Is. v. 22, " Wo unto
those Qi^a^ (gioborim) mighty to drink wine." And Ps. lii. 3,
(Eng. Ver. v. 1,) " Why boastest thou thys^^lf in mischief "nSian
(haggiubor) O mighty man." And so, in our passage, " and
when the sons of God came to the daughters of men, they bare
children unto them : these are Q'^l2i!kn (haggiborim) the
mighty ones who of old were men of name," i. e., tyrants
renowned for their wicked deeds. I take, therefore, the mean-
ing of our verse to be, that in the days when the Sethites
apostatized and cast their lots with the wicked Cainites, there
were tyrants or men remarkable for their wicked deeds upon
the earth ; and when the sons of Qod married the daughters of
the ungodly Cainites, children were bom to them who became
also renowned for their excessive wickedness. Hence the
sacred narrative goes on to say :

6, And the Lord saw that tlta urickednesa of man was great on the
earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually.

6. And the Lord repented that He had made nwH on the earth, and
it grieved Him at His heart.

In these verses the sacred writer simply sets forth in more
direct and explicit language the immense and universal state
of depravity into which the human race had sunk, in order to
show how merited and just the fearful punishment was which he
now proceeds to recount. " Every ^^i (yetaer) lit. formation of
the thoughts of his heart was only continually evil,* implies the
highest degree of wickedness, every purpose, every desire,
which he was able or unable to carry out was evil. The heart
was among the Hebrews as with us considered as the seat of
emotions of every kind. The Hindoos too, regarded the reason-

*Thera ia a wmng in the Talmad, that the ' * evil inuiqination entices man to
■ill in this world, and testifies against him in the next." (Suooah, fol. BSi, col. 2.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

193

»• :,

ing faculty as being seated in the heart. " And the Lord
repented tnat he had nmdc man." It must not be supposed
that this passage implies that Ood is variable in His purposes ;
" the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent ; for he is not
a man that he should repent." (1 Sam. xv. 29.) This and
similar expressions are borrowed from the ordinary language
employed by men, and indicate great disappointment. Cjod
had created man an innocent being, but now he has become a
corrupt, vile creature. Sin had propagated sin, and every
successive generation had become more depraved than the
preceding. " And it grieved Him at His heart." It is impossible
for language to depict more vividly, how utterly detested sin is
in tl e sight of God. The passage expresses the most intense
grief, and Calvin has well remarked, " God is no less hurt by
the atrocious sins of men, than if they pierced his heart with
mortal anguish."

lesire,
Iheart
|at of
3on-

lan to
|col.2.

7. And the Lord anvf, f vnll blot out tlie mar. whom 1 hare created
from upon the face of the earth, both man and beaat, and reptile, and
the/owU of the air ; for I repent that I Itave made them.

" I will blot out the man whom I have created." What a
fearful contrast does the terrible declaration contained in this
passage present to the loving declaration ; " Let us make man
in Our image, in Our likeness ; and let him have dominion," &c.
Little more than fifteen centuries had elapsed since man came
from his Maker's hands an immortal, pure, and spotless being, and
as he was perfectly good, so was he also destined to be perfectly
happy. God blessed them, and wherever God's blessing rests,
there reigns peace and happiness. But what a woeful change
does the naiTative now preser t to us ! Man, so deeply sunk in
iniquity without any hope of being reclaimed, that the Almighty
determined to blot him out from the face of tho earth. His
divine justice demanded that the sinners should be destroyed.
But not only man, but the animals likewise were to meet with
the same fate. This must be accounted for on the ground that
all the living creatures were created lor man, and he was con-
stituted their ruler, and, therefore they are also involved in his
fall and punishment. Some of the Rabbinic writers have indeed
supposed that the beasts had also become degenerated, so for
example the celebrated commentator Rashi (see his Commentary
on verse 12), but this view cannot for a moment be entertained
with any show of reason. There are other passages in Scrip-
ture which show the animals to have participated in the
punishment for the sins of man. Thus, for example, Hos. iv. 3,
" Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth
therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the
39

194

PKDFLKS )MMKVI'.VRY.

Ill
,1

.1' I

fo^l-top h Hv.n ; yji, th ; fi<hiso? thjs^i shiU 1)3 tikm awiy."
Tin ivuIm' iniy als) onivfo Jjr. xii. i, Z sp'i. i. 2. The wjr.l

nans {f>''t:i)ii'i) wUlcIi is fj^Miirally usjI itx rjforance to
<l)iii fsticibi) 1 iiiiimils, is luro. as woll as in .s)in) otiior placos,
usoil in a in )ro oxtiMislve sonsii to inchi L' will aniinils also.

8. litil Xo th foitii I ijriiC'i in th". ei/ns of ih'i Lord.*

This i^raco, wti loarn from oh. vii. 1, was ohtainorl on
aficonnt of his righteousness. Ood <loos not permit the righteous
to suffer in the punishtnent of the wiekeil. So, hy the grace of
God, Lot, his wife and two daiicfhters, were spar»^d when Qod
destrovod the wicked cities, So lorn and Gomorrah. But Lot's
wife, di .jbeying the commandment not to look behind, was
instantly converted into "a pillar of salt." So Rahab, the
hostess at Jericho, who extended hospitality and protection
to thv spies sent by Joshua, was, l)y faith, saved from
perishing with them that believed not when the city was
taken. (Compare Heb. xi. 31, James ii. 25). And here wo
must not omit to offer a few remarks on the word n5lT
(zonah), rendered in our version "harlot." Genei'ally the
word has been derived from the root n2T {zaiial), to commit
forn'ii'dflon, and Gesenius remarks : " Nor is there any ground
to render n2'iT (sonah) in Josh. ii. 1, hosfc.s.^, one who keeps a
public house, as if from "nj (^'' >i), fo nourish." I must differ

from Gesenius and from those who have rendered the wordhavlot,
for I think there is very good ground for rendering it hostess.

* Among the ancient Hobrcws the five bonks of Moses, Mcro read through
durini( the; year : a practice still observed among the orthodox Jews. For this
purpose they were divided into fifty-four sections to answer to the fifty-four
8abhath9 which occur in the Jewish leap-year. Tiie twelve lunar months,
employed by the Hebrews, fall twelve days short of the twelve solar months,
hence, in order to reijain these lost days, tliey interoalaieil every three years
one vmiith, since in the thirty-six solar months there would be thirty-seven
lunar months. During the ordinary years which have only tifty-two Sabbaths,
the sections were made to agree by joining two together, and not by omitting
any of them. Thus the five books of Moses wore read through every year.
(Compare Acts xv. 21.) The end of each JT23"|g {pnra»/inh) JKction h indicated
by the letters g g g (/» ;> p) or 'q 'q 'q {sua). Each section is a'^o denoted
by 'its first important word, so that the first nection is called fl'I'QJlS^'nS
(bereshith,) which finishes with verse 8. The second )-j5 {Xoach), kc, and the
name of the section is given on the top of the page immediately after the name
of the book. At the end of verse 8 the first {parmhah) nection is concluded, so
that it contains no less than five chapters and eight verses, or 146 verses in all.
The sections, however, differ in length. During the persecutions of Antiochus
Epiphanes the reading of the rt"njf\ {torah) Law was suspended, but was
restored again in the time of the Maccabees, and a selection from the prophets
was also read after the reading of the section of the Law. (Compare Acts xiii.
16.) This practice is still observed among the orthodox Jews at tne present
time, and in most editions of the Hebrew Bible a table of the seleotioos from
the prophets is given at the end of the Bible.

peoplk's commentary.

196

and the
Ihe name
)uded, so
in all.
Intiochus
|bat was

)ropheta

Lets xiii.
present

)na from

There can be no objection on philological grounds to derive the
word from v\y (zun) to feed, for there exist similar denvations,

thus we have n?3lp {koiwih), stature, from mp {kurn) to stdtul
or rise up; n^ll (I'omdh) eU'vailon from 'q\'\ (ritDt) to lift
up; ^"j^"]^ {nuituih) slumber ivoui Q")^ (nam) to .slitinho', &c.
Tnen, i.gain, every Hebrew scholar is well aware that fre(|uently
the true meaning of a word can only be obtained from the
context. Now, in this case, the context is all in favour of the
rendering hoatesi*, and entirely against the rendering " harlot."
In the first place, it is but reasonable to suppose that Joshua, in
sending men on such an important errand, would select i)ious
and most trustwvivthy men, an<l that these men setting out on
their dangerous enterprise would consider themselves under the
direct guidance and protection of the Almighty ; is it, therefore,
at all likely that these men would take up their abode with a
person whose mo ni of life is an abomination in the sight of
God ? As an ina-keeper or keeper of a ludjinii-hodDic she
may have been a respectable and good woman, and, indeed,
her whole conduct endangering her own life, and perimps
the lives of her family, in shielding the spies, shows tliat
she was possessed of good principles. In the second place,
we find this veiy Raliab afterwards married to Salmon,
a prince of Judah — who is called "the father of Bethlehem,"
having probably greatly improved and adorned the city —
to whom she bore Boaz, and from whom descended Obed,
Jesse, and David (Matt. i. 5, G.) Now, it was surely not
likely that a Jewish prince would have married a woman who
had led a dissolute life ? That llahab was a liontens, and not a
harlot, was evidently the prevailing opinion of the ancient
Hebrews, for in the Targum (Chaldoo version) it is translated
i^tT'DlDlB i^ntlfi^ {Ittctha pundckitha) a woman an innkeeper,

So also in the German version of Rabbi Shalom Hakkohen,
GastwiHhin, hostess. So Prof. Leo, Dr. Adam Clark, and
many Jewish and Christian commentators. In the Septuagint,
and also Heb. xi. 31, and James ii. 35, the Hebrew word HDlT
{zonah) is indeed rendered by Tropprj which generally denotes
a harlot, but the question hei'e arises whelher the Greek word
in those passages may not be used in the sense of a hostess, as
iropvt] after all is derived from irepvatt), to trade, to sell. It is
well known, that in the New Testament some Greek words are
used with different meanings to those which they had previously
borne. According to some classical writers it apparently wos no
uncommon thing for women acting as hostesses. Herodotus
speaks of Eg3rptian women carrying on commerce and keeping
inna, whilst the men remain at home and weave. (See Herod, in
Euterp. c. xxxv.) It is, therefore, not at all unlikely that widows

i!^

196

people's commentary.

■

1 ■!

1
1

1 ';

i '■

i j

;)

[

1 ■

B IT ''' ^^

or single women may have kept places of public entertainment
among the Cnnaanites as a means of making an honest liveli>
hood. Everybody knows that in our times, this is a very
common thing. I have alwayH felt, that in rendering the
Hebrew word by harlot a stain is cast upon the character of
liahab, for which there is not the slightest ground. It is simply
a question ns to the mode of deriving the word, and as I have
adduced exumnles of precisely similar derivations, there exists^
therefore, no objection on philological ground in rendering the
word hostess, whilst every thing else, so far as we have any
infoimation, is most decidedly in favour of that rendering.
Influenced by the.se considerntions, I have taken this oppor-
tunity — though somewhat out of place — to offer a few remarks
upon the subject, leaving it to the judgment of the intelligent
reader to decide as to the soundness of the arguments which I
have adduced. Since the above wns written the Revised
Version came to hand, in which I perceive the rendering
"harlot" was retained; I cannot say that this does in the
least afl'ect my opinion on the subject.

9. This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, and
perfect he was in his generations : with God walked Noah.

We have already remarked (ch. ii. 4) that the word f|*lbli?T
(toledoth), occurs only with a pluial form, though not always-
with a plural signification, for while it sometimes denotes
generations, it is also employed in the sense of history or
family history. In the latter sense it is evidently used here.
The rendering : " Those are the generations of Noah," as given
in the Authorized Version, and also retained in the New Version,
does not harmonize with the context, for the snored historian
enters upon the nairative of the deluge, and the preservation
of Noah and his family in the ark, and evidently used the
phrase as the heading of the narrative, namely, " This is," i. e.,
what now follows in the following narrative : "the history, or
family history of Noah," i.e., how Noah and his famil}' have been
preserved in the ark. Thus,. Von Bohlen has very properly
rendered " Diess i.st die Geschithte des Noah," i. e., This is the
history of Noah ; so Gestnius : " This is the family history of
Noah;" Geddes: " This is the account which we have of Noah;"
and so many other eminent commentators. Prof. Bush explains
the phrase, ' the generations of Noah,' " that is, the matters of
record relating to him, the character he sustained, and the
events which happened to him." The sacred writer very appro-
priately contmences the Instory of Noah by setting forth the
great piety of the patriarch through which he found mercy
with God, and together with his family escaped the general

people's commkntart.

197

and

destruction by the flood. The language employed expre.ssos
the highest degree of holiness. " Noah ivcM a righteous man,"
he was just in all his dealings with men, and doing that which
18 pleasing to Qod. According to the Scriptures a righteous
man is merciful and liberal.

•* The wicked Iwrrowoth nn<\ payoth not again !
But the righteous ihoweth moroy and givcth."

(P8. xxxvil 21.)

And not only is the kindne.ss extended to^human beings, but
also to the animals :

, "A righteous man careth /or the life of his beast,

But the tender mercies of the wicked are cniel."

(I'Rov. xii. 10.)

The righteous man hates deceit, but is a lover of the truth :

"A righteous mnn liatuth lying," (lit. "lintoth a word of fulsohowl," used
to express (/fceiHn general.)— Prov. xiii. 5.)

The righteous man loves wisdom, an<l .seeks to obtain it :

" Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning," (lit. "he will add
learning," by habitually seeking after it. )— Prov. ix. 9.)

The righteous man is temperate in his mode of living :

"The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul," (i. e., to the satisfying
■ot his hunger, and no more.) — Pkov. xiii. S."). )

The righteous man is careful of his speech :

"The heart of the righteous studioth to answer," (/. *•., he carefully weighs
his words before he answers, so that he may not give utterance to any thing
«vil or ofifensive. ) — (Prov. xv. 28.)

When Solomon says : " Be not righteous over much ; neither
make thyself over wise : why shouldst thou destroy thyself,"
{Eccles. vii, 16), it must not be supposed to convey a warning
against leading an over righteous life, or against becoming too
wise, but is rather a warning against hj'pocritical righteousness,
4Buch as was in later times assumed by the Pharisees, and against
pretended and false wisdom. This is evidently the meaning
that Solomon wishes to convey, for he says, v. 20, " For there is
not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not,"
which show.s, that he did not entertain the idea that a man
<50uld be over righteous. The celebrated commentator Rabbi
Maimonides explains the passage as a warning against asceti-
cism, in denying one's self innocent pleasures and amusements
for fear of finding sin in them. (See Yad Hackftzakah, part i.
B. iv., sec. iii. 3, 4.) But this interpretation of the passage is

198

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

'hm-'

111

•l||:

not atlmissiMe, for it can hardly be said that a person destroys
liiinself inertiy by abstaining from pleasures and amusements.
But Noah was not only "a righteous man," but he was also
" perfect in his generations." The Hebrew word D'^?3tl (taniim)
denotes perfect, blameletiH, hiiiuccTit. When used in connection
with the animals offered as sacrifice, it denotes without blemiah
in the strictest sense, but when emi»loyed to express the piety
of a person, according to Sciipture usage, it does not mean
absolutely sinless, but merely in so far as man can be perfect,
for, &6 Solomon said, " there is not a just man upon earth, that
doeth good, and sinneth not." And hence the Psalmist exclaims

" If thon IjORD shoiiklest murk iniquities,
LoKD, who shall stand?" (Ts. cxxx. 3.)

And Job confesses,

'* Of a truth I know that it is so ;
But hoM' call man be just with (Jod ?"

(Job ix. 2.)

And so in other places the universal sinfulness of our race
is sot forth. " In his generations," that is, the age he lived in,
among his contemporaries. The Hebrew word for " genera-
tions " here employed is, Jn"«,T (iloroth), and as will be seen is
diH'erent from that used in the beginning of the verse.

But our verse does not only state that Noah was righteous
and perfect, it goes on to say that he " walked with God," an
expression, which, as we have already observed, implies the
closest antl most confidential intercoui'se, and indicates a much
higher degree of piety, than the expression, " to walk before
God " or " to walk after God." Only in two other places in
the Old Testament does the phrase occur, namely, ch. v. 24,
it is said of Enoch that he " walked with God ; and he was
not, for God took him ;" and Mai. ii. 6, it is said of the priests
who by virtue of their sacred office stood in close relation to
God.

10. J lid Noah begat three sons, S/iem, Ham, and Japheth,

The birth of the three sons has already been mentioned, ch.
v. 22, but the sacred historian repeats it again here, as forming
an important part of the history of Noah which he is now
narrating.

11. And the earth was corrupt before God ; and the earth was filled
with violence.

" And the earth was corrupt," that is, the inhabitants of the
earth. " The earth " is sometimes tropically used for the
inhabitants of the earth. So also the w^ord ^'2T\ (tevel) world
for the inhabitants of the world. Thus Ps. xcvi. 13.

PKUl'LES CoM.MENTAUY.

199

" Vor He conuth to jiulgo the larth (/. c. , the iiihal>itniit8 of the eaitli). Ho
shall judge the world (i. c, the iidi.ibitaiits uf the world,) with rightcousmsa."

The corru})tioM lieie spoken of" vas a general moral corrup-
tion': tho inhabitiints of the eartli had become altogether
morally ilegenerated. Sometimes, however, it is CNpecially
applied to the oornipting of the worship of God by the intro-
duction of idolatnnis practices. Thus, when the children of
Israel caused Aaron to make a niolten calf, " the Loid said unto
Moses, Cio, get thee down; for the people which thou broughtest
out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves." (See
also Dent, xxxii. 5, Jud. ii. 19.) "And the earth was filled
with violence," In theTargum it is rendered, " and the earth
was filled with rapines."

This agrees with the retidering we have given of Kcphilini
in verse 4: " There were tyrants on the earth," these perpetrated
all kinds of cruel acts. The depravity into which tho
human race had sunk !uid now reached the climax, there was
no longer any fear of (Jod, nor regard fur man. Instead of
" And the earth was corru|»t," the Authorized Version has " The
earth was also corrupt, ' which conveys the ideii*of being some-
thing supjdemental to what has just prev'ously l)een stated,
but which does not harmoui/e w ith the context. The renilering
which we have given is the literal one, and has also been
adopted in the ^Jew Veision.

12. And Gud sain the eartli, and behold, it was coriitjjt, fur all Jieah
has coritij>ted itn way.

"All tlesh," that is, all mankind, spoken of in this manner
either from their carnality, as here, cr from their frail nature,
as Is. xl. 0, 7,

" All Hi sh U grass,

And all g(iinlliiies.s thereof U as the flower of the lields.
The graKs withereth and the flower fadeth."

Sometimes the expression "all flesh " is used to include also
^//e tn(i7iK</.s', as will presently le shown. "lias corrupted his
way ; ' the word 7i~iT (c/trtcA), ■?(«,(/, is sometimes metaiihorically
used to denote ilievui^nier of I if e, and sometimes especially the
true iriifjkm, or the niuile of life ahi';h iHidenslny to God. (See
Exod. xxxii. 8, Dent. ix. l!^", 10, Vs. v. 9, Js. ii. 3.)

13. And God said to Avoh, 7 he ind vfalljlesh is come before me ;
for the turth i,s Jilhd v:'ith i! 'fence throvffh ihtni ; and, behold, I will
destroy thtin with the earth.

" The end of ail flesh is come before me," is not, as some have
interj)reted to mean, that " the consummation of all tleshliness

! !

ii! I !.

:r-} :i

Ifpl

[ ,1 , ■ I

!t;.J.;
Si 11

200

people's commentary.

or depravity has come before me," but means the destruction
of all flesh is decreed by me. The woi'd vp (kets) end, is very

commonly used in the Scriptures in the sense of death or
de»f ruction. The expression ijgb 553 (?>« lephanai) "is come
before mo" differs from ^bi5 5513 (^'^ elai) is come unto me;
the former denotes to come into the wind, hence to resolve, to
di'cree, the latter means to come to my hearing or knoivledge.
Thus, for instance, ch. xviii. 21, " I will go down now, and see
whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it,
which is come unto me ;" tvhich has come to tiiy heaHng or
knoivledge, " and if not, I will know," So again, Exod. iii. 9;
" And behold, the cry of the children of Israel; ibi5 653 (f>^
elai) is come unto. me, i.e., has come to my knowledge. These
and similar expressions we have already observed, are merely
employed to depict in a forcible manner God's dealings with
man, which could not possibly have been so forcibly conveyed
in any other way, and bolong to what is called antropo-
moiphism. "I will destroy them." In the original it is, "lam
destroying them." In the Hebrew, like in the Greek, the
participle is often employed where we would use the future.
But tht! sacred w liters very often specially speak of a future
event as if already taken plae(; to indicate thereby the cer-
tainty of their fulfilment. In their j)rophetic vision they see
the events already passing before their eyes. "With the
earth," that is, with everything that exists upon the earth, as
cities, plants, kc.

14. MdTcp, for thyself an arh of gopliPT wood ; cells shfdt thou moke
ill the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and lolthuut with pitch.

The "ark" which Noah was commanded to build is.in Hebrew,
called nnr" (f<''''di), and occurs otdy as the name of Noah's ark,
and the ark of bulrushes in which Moses was laid. (Exod. ii.
3, 5.) The etymology of the word is doubtful, but is supposed
to be of Egyptian origin, a su|)j)osition wliich is favoured by
the similarity to the ancient Egytian word tha, i. e., a chest,
and the Coptic word {thevl) a cltest, and also it being the name
given to the ark of bulrushes (rather of papyrus). "The sacred
ark in which the two tables of the law were deposited is called
"llli^ (aron) i e., chest or ark. The appellation HliTl {t''va) being
applied only to Xoah's ark and the ark of bidrnshes in which
Moses had been placed, shows that there must have existed
some similarity between the two. Now the similarity did not
exist in the material of which they were constructed, nor in
the size, the only similarity, therefore, could have been in the
siiape. Noah's ark then was not a ship with a keel, as some
writers have insisted upon, but a large flat-bottomed structure

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

201

in the shape of a chest, not bnilt with a viev/ to sailin;^ quality,
but with a view to capacity. Hence in the Septuagiiit the
term nD?l (tevali), when used as an apnellation of Noah's ark,
is rendered /ci/Smto? n clu'M or cofer, a ' when applied to the
ark of bulrushes, it is di^rj,\v\\\it\\ is evidently derived from the
Hebrew word. Had the ark been built in the form of a ship,
it could not have rested on tlic dry land without falling over
on one side, and thus would have endangereil the lives of the
inmates. Besides, in the instruction given to Noah as to the
manner the ark was to be constructed no mention is made of
either masts or rudder. There is, therefore, nothing in the
sacred narrative to indicate that the ark was in the sha|>e of
a ■^hip. It will probably bo said, that such a huge flat-bottomed
structure, three stories high, withtmt masts, sails, and rudder,
must have been altogetht^r at the meicy of the winds and waves,
wo shall, however, hereafter show, that the ark was under God's
special protection. Noah was commanded to build the ark of
"gopher wood." The tei-m -|2!l iiPphev), occurs only in this place,
and there is at present no tree existing of that name, no doubt,
however, it denotes a tree that yields a resinous suhstance, such
as the pine, cedar, fir, or cypress. Indeed, it is not at all impro-
bable that it may have bi't.'u an ancient name applie<l to all
resinous trees. Hence we have the term fTilg)^ (gopkrith),
pitch and other combustible substances ; and also 153 (copher)
pitch. Most likely it was the cyprens wood of which the ark
was built, for not only was it plentiful in Assyria, but was con-
sidtTed also as the most durable of all woods. Hence it was
exclusively employed throughoiit Asia for ship building: in
Egypt for mummy cases ; and by the Athenians for coffins.
The ark was to be constructed in Qijp {ki nnim) celln, the
word literally denotes nedfi, but is evidently here used in the
sense of small com part nenti^. It was also to be pitched within
and " without with pitch,' to prevent any water entering it.
The substance to be used for that purpose, is in Hebrew called
"IBS {copher) pitch, or nf^phult, it is so named from igs
{c(tphar) to cover, to overlay.

15. And this is how thou, shut' make it. The length of the ark
three hundred cubits, j7.< breadth fifty cubits, and its heic^hf thirty
dibits.

The "cubit" is in Hebrew called n^5^ (amm'ih,) a tertn also
applied to the fore-arm, and the ciihit was so-called, because
originally it comprised the length from the elbow to the ex-
tremity of the middle finger. Hence Moses speaks of it as
" the cubit of a man" — (Deut. iii. II.) The cul>it is generally
reckoned at 18 inches, though there are some writers who
30

202

PtOPJ.E S CDMM KNTAUY.

ill

1
1

i*^

. [

III

1 |!

make it e(]unl to 21 inches, It is, indeeil, (juite probable thut
the Hebrews at a hiter period adopted or soinetiines employed
the " royal cubit" of the Babylonians, which was three inches
longer than the ordinary cnl it of the Hebrews. To such a
cubit allusion seems to be made in Ezek. xliii. 13 : ''And these
are the measures of the altar after the cubit: The cubit is a
cubit and a hand breadth." Many commentators have sup-
posed that there were two soils of cubits used among the
Hebrews. ///e t'o'jJiWJoiiatW^ of 18 inches, and the sucred cubit
of 30 inches, and appeal in suppoit of their opinion to
Num. XXXV. 4, 5, " And the suburbs of the cities, which
ye shall give unto Levites, i^hall be from the wall of the
city and outward a thousand cubits round about. And
ye shall measure without the city, for the east side two thousand
cubits, for the south side tv.o thousand cubits, and fur the west
side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand
cubits, and the city «A((/^ be in the niid^t." They maintain that
the cubit in verse 4 was the conunon cubit, and that in verse 5
the sacred cubit. But even if it were so, it would not reconcile
the apparently contradictory account. Besides, there is no trace
whatever of the existence of a cubit of thirty inches measure-
ment. lnleri)reters and critics have endeavoured to reconcile
the appall nt di-serejiancj' in difleient ways. In the ^eptuagint
the numl er tivo ihoummd is given in loth verses, and Bochart,
Kennicott, and other interpreters, have adopted the reading of
that version, and suppose that the " one thousand." in verse 4,
is an en or in the Hebrew text. But why migh*^, not the num-
ber " two tlioui-aiid " be an enor in the Sejituagint text ? Was
the text oi the latter more zealously guarded against errors
thjin the former ? I think not. It cannot be urged that it
might probably be a mistake of the transcribers, for the differ-
ence in ex] ressing the two numerals is too great to mistake
one for the other. Rosenmiiller, and other writers, supposed
that the "one thousand cubits" maybe in length liom the
city, and the " two thou.'-and cubits" in breadth on each side of
the city. Qhis is a much more reasonable mode of solving the
difficulty. The explanation given, however, by the celebrated
Eabbi Mainionides is by far jiiefeiable, and to my mind con-
clusive. " 'Jhe sul uibs,' obf^erves that famous Eabbi, "of the
cities are ^aid in the law to be three thousand cubits on every
side iiom the wall of the city and outwards. The first thousand
cubits are the subuils, and the tvo thou.'^and cubits, which
they measured without the !-uluibs, were the fields and vine-
ards." This explanation of Mainionides has been accepted as
highly satislactoiy by most ctmnientatois, except by those
whose prejudice will not allow them to see anything in the
books of Moses but discrepancies and misstatements.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

203

The following diagram will illustrate the explanation given
1)V Mainionitles : .

"^ o

riclils and vineyards
2000 cubits.

Suburbs

1000 cubits

Suburl)S
OOO cubits

CITY.

^•^

Suburl)s

1000 cubits.

3
© a

Fields and vineyards
2000 cubits.

errors
that it

differ-
uistake
ipposed
cm the
side of
itig the
'hiated
id con-
of the

vine-
kpd as

those
lin the

If we now reckon the cubit at 18 inches, the dimensions of
the ark would be, its length 450 feet ; its breath 75 feet, and
its height 45 feet.

It is here that the modern school of criticism begins to wage
its warfare agaijist the Mosaic account of the deluge. I say
begins, for the truthfulness of every statement that follows is
called in question. Dr. Kalish, an English commentator, who
however, only echoes the sentiments of other neological
writers, fur instance, observes, " it has been proved, that, in an
architectural point of view, such a vessel, which would be
equivalent ' in capacity of stor.age, to eighteen of the largest
ships in present use ' is impossible ; an ark constructed in the
beginning of the seventeenth century, by the Dutch Menonite
Janson, after the stated dimensions, broke into pieces before it
was completed ; though a ship built in the sau»e proportions,
but much smaller dimensions (120 feet long, 20 feet wide, and
12 feet high), proved successful." (Com. on Genessis, p. 180.)

This undertaking of the Menonite Janson is also brought
forward by Von Bohlen (Com. on Gen. p. 86) and many
other writers of the rationalistic school as a proof against the

204

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

<!: ■

ii,i!,

credibility of the Mosaic narrative. But supposing there had
been a hundred similar attempts made, and all had proved a
failure, would that in any way affect the truthfulness of the
sacred narrative ? I say not in tTie least. It is quite possible
that if Noah himself had undertaken to build such a structure
of his own accord it would have proved a failure also. But
the sacred narrative informs us that God not only commanded
Noah to build the ark, but he was likewise instructed how he
was to construct it. God Himself, therefore, was the architect
of the ark, and it was built under His direct guidance, and for
His service ; under such circumstances failure was impossiLio.

16. ^ light thou shall make for the ark, and to a cubit thou shall
Jinish it from above ; and a door thou shalt make in the side ofit;
loith lower, second, and third stories thou shalt make it.

" A light shalt thou make," or it may be rendered " light
shalt thou make ;" the Hebrew word here employed is iniS
(tsohar) and is the only place where it occurs in the singular.
But the meaning of the word is easily established from its
use with the dual form D"'"in2 (fsohorayini) denoting double
light, i.e., the brightest or strongest light, hence noonday.
What is meant here is an opening for admitting light and air. Or
the word may be used here collectively, denoting lights ; so
that there may have been a number of such openings in dif-
ferent parts of the ark. In the Authorized Version it is
rendered "a window shalt thou make," but in the Revised
Version it has very properly been translated " a light shalt
i&hou make." From ch. viii. 6, it would appear that the ark
v/as furnished besides also with windows, for it is said thera
that " Noah opened 'y\^J^ (challon) the window," which, as

the reader will perceive, is quite a different word from that
used in our verso, and indeed is the ordinary word for window.
(Comp. Gen. xxvi. 8, Josh. ii. 15.) There is, therefore, no
necessity to suppose, as many commentators have done, that
there was only one window in the ark, which would have
been alto^fether insufficient for such a large structure. Rabbi
Kimchi, and whose opinion has also been espoused by Luther
and some other interpreters, very erroneously suppose that
only Noah's apartment was provided with a window, and that
the animals remained in the dark, our text, as v/e have shown,
admits of a more reasonable interpretation. " And to a cubit
thou shalt finish it, from above," that is, the light was to be so
constructed as to extend within a cubit to the edge of the
roof. The eaves very probably projected sufficiently to pre-
vent the rain from entering. " And a door thou shalt make
in the side of it ;" the Hebrew word here for " door " is nflS

people's commentary.

205

;ii

vised
shalt
ark
thera
as

t>'afc
dow.
no
that
lave
abbi
iher
)hat
)hat
)wn,
libit
so
the
■jre-

(pethach) which primarily signifieri tin openivrj, but ia aJao used
in the sense of an entrance or doorway either of a house or
tent, and sometimes its meaning is extended to denote a door,
which, however, is commonly expressed by filjT {deleth) i.e.,
a door hanging and turning on hinges. The word nns
(pcthach) is pro'^)ably here to be taken collectively in the sense
entrances which Noah was to make, namely, an eti trance to
each story, by which everything could be readily and con-
veniently brought in and taken out. These entrances could,
of course, after every thing had been brought in, be easily
closed up.

Calmet, in his Dictionary of the Bible, under the article
Noah's Ark, remarks : " After the nicest examination and
computation, and taking the dimensions with the greatest
geometrical exactness, the most learned and accurate calculators,
and those most conversant in building of ships, conclude, that
if the ablest mathematicians had been consulted about propor-
tioning the several apartments in the aik, they could not have
done it with greater correctness than Moses has done ; and this
narrative in tne sacred history is so far from furnishing deists
with arguments wherewith to weaken the authority of the
Holy Scriptures that, on the contrary, it supplies good argu-
ments to confirm that authority ; since it seems, in a manner,
impossible for a man, in Noah's time, when navigation was not
perfected, by his own wit and invention, to discover such
accuracy and regularity of proportion as is remarkable in the
diuiensions of the ark, it follows that the correctness must be
attributed to Divine inspiration and a supernatural direction.
(Wilkins's Essay towards a Real Character, part ii. <'ap. 5 ;
Saurin, Discours Historique, Tom. i. pp. 87, 88)."

17. And I, lehold, I am brhujim/ the, flood of vaters upon the
earth to destroy alljlesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under the
heaven ; every thing that is on the earth shall die.

" And I, behold, I am bringing," as much as to say, the flood
by which I purpose "to destroy all flesh " will not be owing to
natural causes, but will be brought about by My onmipotence.
It was to be unlike any inundation that ever may have been
before or will be hereafter, and hence the term bl2?2 {^Mabhul),
by which Noah's flood is designated in the original, is never
used in reference to any other flood. Luther, in his German
version, very appropria^^ely rendered the Hebrew term by
" Sundfluth," i. e., sin-flood, which at once expresses the cause
of the flood. The Sanscrit designation is slnt-uluot, i. e., univer-
sal flood. The term b*)2lJa (Mabbul) occurs only once more in
the Old Testament besides in the narrative of the deluge,
namely, Ps. xxix. 10 :

20«

people's commentary.

" The Lord sat* nit K'tiuj nt the fl()o<l ;
Yea the l^>ui> sitteth King forever."

The floofl bore spoken of is Noali's flood, and the Psalmist
declares anion<^ other niifjhty deisdsof (Jod, tliJit \\i\ sat as king
at the time of the flood in jtidgniejit ujxtn the world, and
sittcth as King for ever. In the Authorized Version, the flrst
line is rendered, "The Loist) sittcth ti|)on the flood," wliich
does not convey an intelligihlo nit-aning. Besides, '' npon the
flood," is not a proper rending of blS'Sb {l<iiiiahhiU) ; the pre-
position b indicates the time (U or in which an event takes
place. Thus Gen. viii. 2, "and the dove came to him ^-^y 5713?^
{le-e.tk ever) at even tide." In the Revised Version, however,
it is rendered in the sauie manner as I have rendered it.

18. JiiU I win cstnMish unj rovennnf mlth fli('<',a)i(l thou xhnll come
into the ark, thou and tliy xo)i.x, thy >nfi\ end thy nonti wicen with thee.

" I will establish nij' coviniant with tlu^e "; the covenant which
God established with Noah, was a solemn i)romise given to
him, that he and bis fjimily should safely enter the ark. A
covenant, however, generally implies the mutual agreement of
parties faithfully to carry out certain stij)ulations, and in this
case the conditions would lie, that Noah on bis )»art would in
faith implicitly carry out the instructions which God bad given
him in regard to the building of the ark, and the bringing of
the living creatures into it, together with all kinds of food
necessary to preserve them alive. It is evident from eh. ix.
9 to 17, that " the covenant" in our verse has only reference
to the delivery of Noah's family from the flood, for we learn
there that innnediately on the coming out of the ark, God was
pleased to establish a more general and lasting covenant with
Noah and his seed.

The Hel»rcw term for covenant is JTi"i2l (berlth) and is
derived from the verb n"i3 {^Mivh) to cut asunder, also to
eat, and is so called from the most ancient mo(b; of contracting
a solemn covenant or contract which was done by cutting an
animal which may bo used for .sacrifice in two parts, and the
contracting parties then passed between the two portions. It
is highly probable, that a portion of the victim thus cut up,
was sacrificed and the rest was feasted upon by the parties
making the covenant. Hence we find, from very early times,
it was customary among th(> Hebrews, that parties concluding
a covenant eat together. (See Gen. xxxi. 54.) In Gen. xv. 9,

* Sometimes, though not very frequent!", there is an ellipsis in the first line
which has to be supplied from the second I'uie to complete the parallelism ; much
more frequently, however, an ellipsis occurs in tlie necoml line, and has to be
supplied from the Jimt line.

PKOl'LK S COMMKNTAllY.

207

et acq., where God inaik' a proinlse to Abralmin ho cominandod
him to take ci-rtain victims and (livi<U' them into halves, and

when the sun went down, " a smoking fiiinac" and a
burning himp passed l)etwcen the pieces." The smoking
furnace and i\w burning himp were the syndmls of the l)ivine
pres(!nee„ and in this instance the Divine glory ah)ne passed
between the portions, tor tlie ])romis(^ of bestowing certain
favoiu' was altogether on i\w part of (Jol, 'V\w prophet
Jeremiali also, alludes to this cert'mony of forming a covenant.
'And I will give the men that havi? transgressed My covenant,
which have not performed the words of My covenant which
thoy made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and
passiMl between the two parts thereof." (Cli. xxxiv. IS.)
Later, ap})ar(,'ntly a more inexpensive mode was adopted,
namel". merely by partakifjg of salt. Baron dn Tott relates,
that ' ^"ildavanji Pasha was de^iiousof an acipiaintance with
mo, n I' siH-ming to regret that his business wcmid not permit
him LI I stay long, he departed, promising in a short time to
return. I liad already accompanied him half way down the
staircase, when he suddenly stopped and tinning briskly to
one of my domestics who followed me said, ' hv'nuf nii' directly
Some bread and salt.' 1 was not less surprise<l at this fancy,
than at the liaste which was made to ol)ey him. Wliat he
requested was brouixht, when, fah'nirf tt llttlr ndlf between his
two Ji)i(jrr)<,iitid iratting it ti'lth <i. vi>/sterioas oir on a bit of
bread he cat it with a, devout <jravity. assuring me that I might
now reli/ i)n him. I soon procmred an explajiation of this
ceremony." The Baron states further in a note, that, " The
Turks consider it the blackest in<;ratitude to forijet the man
fi'om whom we have i'eceiv«!d food ; which is siixnitltMl by the
bread and s<dt in this ceruinon}'." (Trav. part i. p. 214", Eng.
edit.)

The Arabs, too, eat bread an<l salt together in concluding a
covenant^ and hence they say, " 'rhere is salt between w«," that
is, there is covenant between us. This custom of partaking of
salt in making a solemn promise or covenant, no doubt origi-
nated from its cleansing and preserving (jualitles, it was thus
used as a symbol tliat the covenant was to be lasting. This
will explain also why the ott'erings were to be seasoned with
salt, as the syml)ol of the perpetual covenant between God and
liis chosen people. " And every oblation of thy meal offering
shalt thou season with salt ; neither shalt thou suffer the salt
of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meal otter-
ing : with all thy oblations thou shalt offer salt." (Lev. ii. 13.)
Hence we have also the expression nb?3 fTilS (berith niclach)
a covenant of salt. " All the heave offerings of the holy things,
which the children of Israel offer unto the Lord, have I given

";''

d!;

iij

^m^ ''

Ijl

wJm K» -. Imi

■ ■ill

ti.

'■>^

208

PEOPLE S COMMENTAKY.

thee, and thv sona and thy daughters with theo, as a due
for ever : it i« Qb'^ nb?a D^^S (f'erith melach olam) a cove-
nant of salt for c\er htlore tlie LoKD unto thee, and to tliy
seed with thee." (Num. wiii. ID.) So agiiin 2 Chr. xiii. 5,
" Ought ye not to know that tlie LoUD, tho Coil of Israel, gave
the kingdom over Israel to David lor ever, even to him and to
his sons by a covenant of salt." That is as an inviolable
cove7iant. The heathens among other things no doubt borrowed
the use of salt ivith their mcri fives fr<»ni the Hebrews. Corn
mixed with salt, apparently were used in sacrifices. (See
Homer II. i. lin. 449, 4.>«, Odyss iii. lin. 441.) Pliny
observes too, " But the inHuence of salt is thought to be
greatest in sacrifices, since none are performed without the
salt^mcal." Nat. Hist. li. xxx. cap. 41.) liarthelmy D'Herbelot
in his celebrated work the lUlliuiheque Orie7itale, p. 4GC, gives
a remarkable instance of the power of tlie covenant of salt over
the mind. He relates, that " Jacoub ben Laith, the founder of
a dynasty of Persian primes called the Safiarides, rising, like
many others of the ancestors of the princes of the East, from a
very low state to royal power, being in his first setting out in
the use of arms, no better than a freebooter or robber, is yet
said to have maintained some regard to decency in his deprecia-
tions, and never to have stripped tliose that he robbed, always
leaving them something to soften their afHiction. Among other
exploits that are recorded of him, he is said to have broken
into the palace of the prince of that country, and having
collected a very large booty, which he was on the point of
carrying away, he found his foot kicked something which made
him stumble ; he imagined it might be something of value, and
putting it to his mouth, tlie better to distinguish what it was,
his tongue soon informed him it was a lump of salt. Ujion
this, according to the n)orality, or rather superstition of the
country, where the people considered salt as a symbol and
pledge of hospitality, he was so touched, that he left all
his booty, retiring without taking any thing away with him.
The next morning, the risk they had run of losing many
valuable things being perceived, gieat was the surprise and
strict the inquiry, what coiild be the occasion of their being
left, at length Jacoub was found to be the person concerned ;
who having given an account, very sincerely, of the whole
transaction to the prince, he gained his esteem so effectually,
that it miglit be said with truth, that it was his regard for salt
that laid the foundation of his after-fortune. The prince
em|)loying him as a man of courage and genius in many enter-
prises and finding him successful in ail of them, he raised him
little by little, to the chief po.st among his troops; so that, at
the prince's death, he found himself possessed of the command

PEOPLKK COMMKNTAUY.

200

26, as a duo
lam) a covo-
B, and to thy
Chr. xiii. 6,
F Israel, gave

him and to
m inviolable
jbt borrowed
n'ews. Corn
ritiees. (See
41.) Pliny
>ught to be

without the
y D'Herbelofc

p. 406, gives
tof salt over
lie founder of
IS, rising, like

East, from a
setting out in
robber, is yet

1 his de|)retla-

)bbed, always

Among other

have broken

and having
the point of
which made
if value, and
what it was,
salt. Upon
ition of the
\symbol and
he left all
with him.
jsing many
lurprise and
] their being
concerned ;
the whole
I etlectually,
ird for salt
The prince
bany enter-
Iraised him
[so that, at
command

in chief, and had such interest in their affections, that they
preferred him to those of the children of the deceased prince,
and ho became ahaolufe W((fit<'r of that province, from whence
he afterwards sj)rea(l his coiKHit'sts far and wide." (See also
Harmer's Observations.) Salt being among Kastern nations
the symbol of hospitality and friendship, this will illustrate the
passage in Ezra iv. 14 : " Now because we have eaten the salt
ot the palace," it is, because we receive our maintenance from
the King. Harnier mentions an instance of a modern Persian
monarch upbraiding an unfaithful servant : " I have then such
ungrateful servants and traitors as these to eat my salt."
(Observations, Vol. iv. p. 4o8.) Tamerlane (Tinuir, also nailed
Timur-Leng from his lameness), one of the gieat conquerors
whom Central Asia sent forth in the middle ages, in his
" Institutions," tells of one Share Behrbaum who had left his
service and joined the enemy. " At length," he goes on to .say,
" my Halt, which he had eaten, overwhelmed him with remorse ;
he again threw himself on my mercy, and humbled himself
before me."

" Thy wife," the name of Noah's wife is not mentioned in
Scripture ; traditions, however, have assigned to her different
names. According to the book of Adam her name was Haikal,
daughter of Abaraz. This name is assigned to her by other
ancient writers, but make her the daughter of Namus. Both
Abaraz and Namus are saitl to nave been sons of Enos.
Epiphanius calls her Bath Enos, I. c, the daughter of Enos.
By other writers she is called Nuraito, whicli seems to be
derived from the Ohaldee "n^ (nuv) Jive. Some Egyptologists
suppose to have discovered the name of Noah's wife upon an
obelisk of the son Ameneraes (of the eleventh dynasty) in the
valley of Faioura, where she is called ijjti (Tamar) a palm tree.

19. And of every lirinff )eing, of all flesh, tiiu) of every sort, Hhntt
thou hriny into the ark to keep them alive tvith thee ; they shall be
male and female.

20. Of the fowU after their kind, and (ff/ie cattle after tlieir kind,
of every creepiiuj thiny of the ground after its kind, two of every sort,
shall come to thee to keep them alive.

We have here again to face the contentions of the rational-
istic and infidel writers, who strenuously pei'sist that the state-
ment in these verses, " two of every sort" contains a ' manifest
contradiction " to what is stated ch. vii. 2 : "Of every clean
beast thou shalt take to thyself by sevens, the male and its
female." We may here again quote the eminent English
commentator Kalisch, whose remarks will serve as a sample of
the sentiments entertained upon the subject by the writers of
31

210

PKOI'I.KS COMMENTAKY.

iill

tho now school of critici.sin. He obseivt's on (•)). vii. 2, H :
" Noah was coiunuindod to take into tlie avk hvvvu pair of all
clean, and one pair of all unclean animals, whereas lu- had
before heen ordered to take one pair ofc^very species (vi. 1!>, 20.)
no distinction whatever between elean and luiclean animals
havinj» there been made. All tho attempts at arjijuin^ away
this discrepancy have been utterly unsuccessful. The ditticulty
is HO obvious that the most desjx-rate etlbrts have been made."
And a little further on he remarks : " We do not hesitate to
acknowledf^e here the nuuiifest contradiction as we have avowed
it in the liistory of the Creation (Com. on Oen. p. ISH)." This
alleged discrepancy is accounted for by the same stereotyped
argument as all the other fancied discrepancies, by supposing
difi'erent authorships, one account being taken from the
Jehov'ititic, and the other from the J'Jlokistic documents. For
my part, I am at a lojs to see that any " desperate efforts " are
required to reconcile these two statements. The two |)assages,
if considered with the context in which they stand, seem tome
perfectly clear. God having, in verse IH, declared to Noah
that He would establish a covenant with him, and that he and
Ills family shouU come into the ark to be preserved from the
deluge, enjoins him, in verses 11), 20, to bring *' two of
every aurt " of all the living creatures with him. The
statement, " two of every sovt," here sinijjly means that
they were in all cases to be a male and a female, without any
reference as to the number of the pairs. If we now turn to
ch. vii. 1, we read there that God commanded Noah to enter
the ark M'ith his family, and in connection with this command
he is further enjoined in verse 2 as to the precise number of
the animals he was to bring with him, namely, that they were
not all only to be one pair, but of the clean animals ho
was to take "by sevens." This more explicit direction,
I maintain, is only appropriately given in connection with
the command to enter tho ark, and does not contradict the
preceding statement, but is merely a more specified repetition
of it. Our adverse critics lay much stress upon the absurd
explanations some commentators have resorted to in their
endeavour to reconcile the tw^o statements, such as for example,
the second and third verses of chapter seven, being " an inter-
polation of some pious Jew," or that " one pair came to Noah
spontaneously, whilst six jjair were brought by himself," as
some of the Rabbinic writers have explained. But such
erroneous explanations prove no more a discrepancy, than the
wrong interpretation of a statute by some judges would prove its
inconsistency. Men will sometimes err in their judgments,
and whilst some will be wrong in their views, others will be
right.

I'EOPF^ES COMMKNTAHY.

211

22. And North did according to all God had cotnuuimled him, so he
did.

The buildin;^ of such an immenso stnicturo fm the nrk must
nci'ossaiily hiivo involved u vast amount of hilmi, .nid expense,
whilst the |iur|K)st' for which it was (lesi;^Mi('(l, no (h)uht c<in-
stantly suhjeeted him to the scoffing' and ridieuk^ of the unbe-
lievers, who would s(!otliii<jlv ask him whcreso much water could
come iVom to drown all the livini,^ thinjjjs; a (juestion which is
so constantly repeated in our <lays, by those who refuse to
believe anything except what they themselves can account for.
Hut "Noah did aecordin^ to all that Ood commanded him,"
f or, ns tlie aposth^ Paul said, " liy faith Noah liein;,' warned of
Uod concerniu^j thinj's not seen as yet, moved with i^odlv fear,
prepared an ark to the saving' of his house; throu;,'h which he
condemned the world, and became heir of the rij^hteousnesH
which is according,' to faith." (Ileb. xi. 7.) Accordinj^' t<j somti
of the Patiistic writers Noah was a hundred years Ijuihlin^-
the ark, but accordiny to some of the Rabbinic writers he
occupied one hundred and twenty yeais, and during all that
time he also preached repentance, and waiwied his contempor-
aries of their certain destruction if they persisted in their evil
way.s. But all his ettbrts proved of no avail^: not even on(^
would listen to the pious patriarch's warnings. What a fearful
spectacle of unbelief and hardness of heart we have heie
exhibited, not even one could be induced to flee from the wrath
to como and be saved !

bion,
rith
the

Ition
surd

Iheir
iple,
^ter-
loah
as
juch
the
^eits
3nts,
ll be

CHAPTER VII.

1. And the Lord said to Noah, coins thou and all thy house into
the Ark ; for thee have I seen righteous be/ore me in this generation.

Bishop Hall has justly remarked : " What a wonder of mere}'
is this that I here see ! One poor family called out of a world,
and as it were, eight grains of corn fanned from a whole
barnful of chatf."

The one hundred and twenty years of grace were ended, and
the day of punishment had arrived, and Noah is conunanded to
enter the ark with his family. The ark had been finished
and stored with provisions, yet Noah did not show any undue
haste to enter it. He had implicit faith that when the proper
time had arrived he would be directed to do so. It appears
from verses, 10, 13, that the very day that Noah entered the
ark, " the we* ^ of the flood began to be upon the earth." He

212

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

'''M-«i

I, !

I I,

I! i'!J

"?ial

had no doubt to the very last moment exhorted the people to
repent of their sins, in the hope that some might yet be saved.

2. 0/ every clean beast thou sJialt take unto thee by sevens, the male
and itsj'emale ; ami of the beasts which are not clean two, the male
and its female,

3. Also of the fowls of the air, by sevens, t/ie itmle and female : to
j>reserve seed alive upon the face of' the earth.

Critics are not agreed upon whether the expression " by
sevens " is to be uaderstood three pairs and one odd one, or
whether it means seven pairs. The former opinion is held by
Calvin, Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Tuch, Deiitzsch, and other
critics, whilst the latter supposition is maintained by Eben
Ezra, Kimchi, and other Jewish critics, and also by many
modern commentators as Michaelis, Kalisch, Dillman, Von
Bolilen, and other critics. The expression n3?l3i!J n^lSlli
[ahlvah sliioah) seven seven in the text, unquestionably favours
the supposition that it means seven pairs, for distributive
numbers are according to the usage of the language expi'essed
by a repetition of the cardinals, thus again in verse 9, D''D'I3
d'^DlD (skeuayim shenayltn) by twos, or two by two, it seven
single ones had been meant, the numeral seven would only
have been once expressed. The larger number of clean
animals that were to be preserved in the ark, was a wise and
merciful provision of the Ahnighty as these were required for
sacrifice and also to serve for food, and therefore a more rapid
increase was necessary.

We are asked, how did Noah obtain the information as to
which animals were to be considered clean and which unclean,
in as much as the dietary laws were not promulgated until
upward of sixteen centuries afterwards ? The reply is, that by
" clean animals " are here most probably to be understood only
such as were permitted to be used for sacrifice. Now as
sacrifices had been offered in Adam's family, it is reasonable to
infer that our first pai mt had been instructed by God as to
what animals are acceptable to Him, as well as to the manner
in which they were to be offered up. This information would,
of course, be handed down from family to family. If, how-
ever, as some commentators suppose, " the clean animals were
precisely those which were later permitted for food." (Lev.
xi., Deut. xiv.), then we must infer, that the antedeluvian
patriarchs obtained the information by ins[>i ration.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

21S

L as to
nclean,
d until
hat by
(1 only
ow as
able to
as to
lanner
J would,
|f, how-
were
(Lev.
tluvian

4. For in yet oeven (hiijH, I trill rnuHi', if. to rain upon the earth
forty days and forty niyhts ; and I n'lll dpntroy every iivimj being
which I Iiave made, f rota off the fnee of the earth.

Seven days were allowed for Noah to bring tl: animals into
the ark; and there was j'et an opportunity otitTf.. for i-cpent-
ance. During these few leniaining days of grace, Noah, no
doubt, unremittingly exhorted the people not to persist in
their unbelief, and pointcjd to the c-losing scene of the eniltstrka-
tion of the animals as a proof, that thtMr p'lnishment was near
at hand. But it was all of no avail, instead of showing any
contrition, they probably menjiy laughed at the credulity of
Noah, and ridiculed the idea of such a catastrophe as a deluge
taking place, which would sweep every living thing from tlie
face of the earth. "Forty days and forty nights;" as the
numeral seixn became remarkable from the six days creation
and the seventh day in which God rested, so the number forty
became afterwaids remarkable from the forty days and forty
nights during which the rain descended upon the earth. Thus
we read that Moses waK fort\' days and forty nights upon the
mountain ; the Israelites wandered forty years in the wilder-
ness; Elijah, when he fled from Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, who
threatened to take his life, was, duiing his journey to Beer-
sheba, and from thence into Arabia Petrrea, miraculously
supported during forty dr.ys and forty nights ; fort}' days res-
pite was given to the inhabitants of Ninc^veh to repent; Christ
fasted forty days. " I will destroy every living being " ; in the
original it is Qlp'^n b3 ('^"'-'^ hiiiknni), every stuvdivff Itebuj •
that is every being that through the principle of life is capable
of maintaining an erect postuie. Thi-* expiession occurs only
again in verse 23, and Deut. xi. 6.

6. Atid Xoah was six hundred years old when the food of water
was upon the earth.

" Six hundred years old ; " in tlic^ oi-iginal jtis, " a son of six
hundred years. The Hebi-ews legai'dt'd man as the cliild of
time, in which he is brought up, and hi.s character forniiMl ;
time too, cojitinually jjvoduces physical changes on the human
fran)e ; hence in spc, iking of the agt of a per.son. tiiey always
said he was the son oi' (hnujhter of so many years. Thus in
ch xvii. 17, Sfiiah is spc^ken of as being " ninety years old," in
the original it is " f-|3 (bath), a daughter oi ninety years.

11. In the six hundredth yearoj Noah's life, in the second month, the
seventeenth day of the month, on the same day, tn-re all the foantiiins
of the great deep broken up, and the indows of heaviu were opened.
32

214

PEDTLES COMMENTARY.

I! '

i I

" III the second month." The ancient Hebrews apparently had
no names ior their niontlis ; in .speaking of them they distin-
guislied them by numerals, as tin; first, the second, &c. ; and in
this manner di)es Moses speak of tliem throughout the Penta-
teuch. Even in ilie books oF Josliiia, Judges, and Samuel, the
sanui metluxl still occurs. Moses called the month in which
the Israelists came out of Egypt Ahih, i. e., an ear of grain ; but
we meet with no other names of months, until the reign of
Solomon. Thus, 1 Kings vi. 1, we read of the month of " Zid,"
and in verse 88, of the month of " Bui," and in ch. viii. 2, of
the month of " Ethanim."

Critics differ in their ojnnions as to the origin of the present
Hehrew names of the months. Some think that Solomon bor-
rowed them from the Pluienicians, others think they came from
the Chaldeans, whilst Hardouin maintains an Egy|)tian origin.
As the names were not in common use among the Hebrew.s
before the Babylonian captivity, it is most likely that the
Israelites adopted them from the Chaldeans.

The ancient Hebrews began their year about the time of the
autmnnal e(]uinox, an<l the first month is now called Tlshn. It
is on the first and second days of this month that the Jews
still (celebrate their N'eiv Ye<iv.

The seventeenth day of the sec(md month on which the delujxe
is said to have commenced answers to about the Gth November,

Afterwards in commemoration of the departure of the
Israelites from Egypt, the month in which the event took ])lace
was constituted to be the first month of the year. " This month
skdll he to you the beginning of months ; it shall he the first
mi^nth of the year to you." (Exod. xii. 2.) Hence after that
time the ecclesiastical year commenced with this month, from
which all the festivals were regulated, Moses, as we stated,
called the month ^^''^ii (Ahib) i. e., an ear of corn, but its
present name is 'lO'^D (iV'i^aji) i. e., the flower month.

Thus we see, the Hebrew calendar has a double New Year,
the civil year beginning on the first day of *illl5?l (Tishri) for
civil transactions, and the ecclesiastical year beginning on the
first day of Nisan for the regulation of the religious festivals.

From our verse we learn further that the waters of the flood
were not produced by rain merely, but that " the fountains of
the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven
were opened," this language seems to imply that wherever
waters were kept in their place by the omnipotence of the

• "iltDiTl (Thhri) the name seems to he derived from the Chaldee verb
&5"T0 (fhfra) to begin, to open. This month .answers to part of September and
part of October, whilst the month Niaan answers to part of March and part of
April.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

215

Almighty were now let loose. The term QTHvl (tehom) denotes
a large body of raging water, as the sea or ocean, also the great
subterranean body of waters, called the abyss or the deep.
The expression n3"l Dinn (tehoni rahhah) " great deep," denotes
the fathomless deep. " The windows of heaven" ; the Hetirew
term for " windows" here employe<l is msiJ^ {arubhoth) wliieh
denotes windows made of hitticowork. In the Septuagint the
word is rendered KarapaicTai cataracts. The language is evi-
dently figurative, meaning that the waters were made to cotne
down in torrents, or like water-spouts, every obstacle having
been removed. Job says :

" He (God) Inudeth up the waters in His thick clouds ;
And the cloud is not rent under them." — (Oh. xxvi. 8.)

The bands which held the waters were now broken, and the
water was allowed to gush down unresti-ained.

The word for "rain" enijiloyed in our verse is not "it37a
{inatar) which denotes ordinary rain, but Xad'y (gcshem) heavy
or violent rain. Surely, our adverse critics cannot have given £jj t.-a*.v-Ji. i^.^
full consideration to the language in our verse, or the (]uantity ^>-«.wf/'vwu-.0\
of water would not have proved a stunibling block to them. y>i^a-ti •

13. On the selfsame day entered Xoah, and Shem, and Ilarn, and ' '

Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his
sons with them, into Cue ark.

This precise language is intended to teach, in the first place,
that the earth after the flood was again re-peopled by Noah's
family and none other, and in the second place, that monogamy
was strictly observed in the family of Noah.

16. And those that ivent in, loent in male anil female of all fl'-xh, as
God had commanded him. A)iil the Loiu) closed ronnd about him.

"And the Lord closed round about hitn," that is, the Lord
protected him on all sides from any danger that might threaten
him, or in other words, the ark and its inmates were now taken
under God's special care aiid pi-oteetion. In the Authoi-ized
Vei*sion, it is rendered, "and the Loud shut him in," and the
same rendering is also given in the Revised V^Tsion : tliis rend-
ering has subjected the passage to much cavilling at the hands
of the opponents of Scripture, who sneeringly ask, " where the
necessity was for a Divine interposition in performing so
simple an act as the shutting of a door ?" Surely, they say, *

"Noah, who was able to build such a structuvL', was also able
to make a door which he could shut hinisflf after he had
entered." Kalisch renders, " And the Lord closed : ..iiind him ;"
and, so, many German interpretei's. The Chaldee Veision,

:ii

216

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

1 1

h>4

'm t|

b!' '

however, thoujjh not giving a literal translation, unquestionably
gives the proper meaning of the passage by rendering : " And
the Loud protected about him." A similar rendering of this*
passage is adopted by many Geiman eommentatois. Thus, for
instance, Samson Hirsch, Rabbi to the Israelitish Religious
Society at Frankfort on the Main, renders : " And God closed
protectingly (urn iltin) about him." And he remarks upon
the passage, "Although Noah had done eveiy thing, his
safety was still not assured ; he had done what he was com-
manded, but it was the Divine protection afterwards that
shielded him. What this protection consisted ot, what God
did for him, is related in the following verses: (Com. on
Genesis, p. 14)4.)

The primary signification of the preposition I3?2l (f^ead and
badd), and in which sense it is commonly used is, about or round
about, and, therefore, there is not only no philological olMection
to rendering the passage "^"[^'2 mri'' irkCT (waiyisgor Jehovah,
haddo) " Ami the Lord shut around about him," but this rend-
ering gives the primary meaning of the words. In Job i. 10, we
have a similar expression. Satan replies to God : " Hast thou
not ^13?3 TOXH {sdchta baddo) lit. hedged about him," it is
protected him on all sides. The Psalmist says, " But Thou, O
Lord art il^H "1373 {magen baddi) a shield about me." (Ps. iii.

4.) I do not mean to say that n3>3 (bead) is not used some-
times in the sense behind, but the context will, in those cases,
indicate that it must be so rendered.

But there is another important circumstance which must be
taken into consideration in interpreting our passage. The
Scrijjtures, indeed, contain numerous instances of God graciously
interposing Hia Divine power for the accomplishment of certain
ends, yet in not a single instance was that power exercised so
long as the end could be obtained by natural means. Dr.
Chalmers very properly remarked: "It is remarkable that God
is sparing of miracles, and seems to prefer the ordinary process
of nature, if equally effectual, for the accomplishment of his
purposes. * * In short, He dispenses with miracles when
they are not requisite for the fulfilment of His ends. (Daily
Scripture Readings, vol. 1, p. 10.) Now, as the closing of the
ark after Noah had entered did not actually require a super-
natural intervention, it is only reasonable to conclude that the
sacred writer refers in our passage to a circumstance where a
mii-aculous interposition was absolutely necessary. And this
circumstance we have in God surrounding the ark with His
Divine protection to shield its inmates from all danger. And
there was indeed great danger of the ark being violently
assaulted by the desparate multitudes when they saw the waters

tin-'

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

217

ionably
; "And
of this*
lius, for
sligious
closed
s upon
ng, his
IS com-
ds that
lat God
lom. on

ad and
ir round
bjection
Jehovah
lis rend-
i. 10, w©
ast thou
a" it is
Thou, O
" (Ps. iii.

id soine-
96 cases,

must be
The
aciously
f certain
cised so
s. Dr.
Ihat God
process
It of his
\s when
(Daily
of the
super-
bhat the
rhere a
Ind this
ith His
And
[olently
waters

■^^•\ ,

-13^'

constantly increasing upon them, who would naturally make a
rush for the ark in the hope of saving themselves, and in their
frenzy would have recourse to all kinds of violence. In such
an assault Noah and his family would have been powerless,
here supernatural aid alone could protect them.

17. And the jlood was Jorty days upon the earth; ami the waters
increased and bore up t/ie ark^ and it was lifted up above the earth.

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth ;" that is, the
waters continually increased during that time, and reached the
height stated in verse twenty, <at which height it then remained
for 150 days, as stated in verse twenty-four.

19. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all
the high mountains which are under the whole heaven were covered.

20. Fiftfen cubits above them the waters prevailed ; and the moun-
tains were covered.

In these two verses we are brought face to face with the
exceedingly difficult question, whetlier our text speaks merely of
a partial, or of a universal flood. Tho question has given rise
to a vast amount of discussion, which is not confined to com-
mentators and critics only, l)ut is participated in also by Q-i c-Q-x-ij^u.,
scientists. Until the close of the last century, the universality . Ij^ '

of the Noachian deluge was universally maintained ; and tlie <-■''''' '^^' "^
same opinion is still entertained by the largest numl)or of »^./vm.'VJt/V^»=*>
modern writers who have treated on the suhject. They hf)ld
that by the expressions, " all the high mountains," " under the
whole heaven" Moses clearly wishes to imlicate that the whole
earth was covered by the waters of the flood. There are,
however, many eminent writers who, on the contrary, main-
tain that these expressions do nob necessarily imply a uni-
versal deluge, since " by a sort of metonymy common in the
East, a considerable part is spokcni of as a whole, though in
reality often greatly less than a moiety of the whole." There
are quite a number of passages in the Scriptures whicli prove
the existence of such a mode of expression during the Hible
times, and modern travellers frequently speak of its existence
still .among the Eastern people. As this is an important point
— for it will show that, so far as the language in the text is
concerned, there is nothing that will militate against the
theory of a partial deluge — we will here refer to some of those
passages, and in onler to indicate more distinctly the simi-
larity of the expressions to those in oar text wo will give
them in italics. In Gen. xli. oO, o7, it is said, " And the
famine was over all the face of the earth." * * " And (dl

ili

218

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn." By the
expression " all the face ot" the earth," can here only be meant
Egypt anil the countries h ordering upon it. In Exod. ix. 25,
we read : " And the hail sntote throughout all the land of
Egypt all that wa» in the field, both man and beast ; and the
hail smote every herb ot the field." Let the reader now notice
the words " all" " every " in the above passage and then turn
to eh. X. 14, 15, where we read, "And the locusts went up
over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the borders of
Egypt ; very grievous tvere they • * * and they did eafc
every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the tiees which
the hail had left." It will be seen that the expressions "all"
" every " in ch. ix. 25, can only mean a great portion. So in
Deut. ii. 25, God promises the Israelites : " This day will I
begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the
peoples that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the
report of thee." " By the peoples under the whole heaven" we
have evidently to understand the siirrounding nations, and
those who may hear of the great wonders which God had
peribrmed for his chosen people.

In Isa. ch. xiv. 26, we read : " This is the purpose that is

purposed upon the ivhole earth " ; but the context shows that

this declaiation is directed only against Assyria. We may now

refer to a few passages in the New Testament. In the Gospel

of St. Luke, ch. ii. 1 , we read : " And it came to pass in those

days, that there went out a deci'ee from Caesar Augustus, that

a^^ the 'World should be taxed ;" but " all the world" here can

only mean, so much of it as was then subject to the Roman

Empire. In Acts ii. 5 it is said : " And there were dwelling in

Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under

heaven;" but, according to verses 9, 10, these Jews only came

from countries extending as far as Italy on the one hand, and

the Persian Gulf on the otlier, hardly equal to one-fiftieth part

of our globe. The expression " under heaven" must, therefore,

be taken in the limited sense as indicated by the context.

Again, Col. i. 23, it is said that the Gospel had been " preached

to every creature under heaven" but the expression " under

heaven" can only mean here so far as the Gospel had then been

preached among the civilized nations. We may now refer to a

secular writer. Josephus says : " And Stralo himself bears

witness to the same thing in another place ; that at the same

time that Sylla pas.scd over into Greece in order to fight against

Mithi'idates, he .sent Lucullu.^* to put an end to a sedition that

our nation, of whom the habitable earth is full, had raised in

Gyrene." (Ant. B. xiv. ch. vii. par. 2.) Agrippn, in his speech

to the Jews to dissuade them from making war against the

Romans, says, " for there is no people upon the habitable earth

PEOrL K S COM .M KNTA U V.

2 ID

which have not s<m\o portion of you anionij tlieni." (Wars of the
Jews B. ii. cli. xvi. par. 4.) Thrse aio /i i/perhofiral e.rju'i'ssioiis,
and must no nion; be taken in a iiteial sense than the statement
of cities " Wdllrd up fultemrn" (l)eut. i. '2H), which only means
cities with vcMy hii^'li walls ; or the statement that thei'c W(i(3
amoni,' the Beiijamites who went out to battle aj^ainst the
children of Israel, "seven hundred chosen men left-handed;
everv one could slinor stones al <(i) ha'tr bmtdfli^and not miss,"
which is only inte-nded to convey the idea that these men wliere
exceedingly expert in slinging stones. Such hyperboles are
very conunon among the Eastern |)eople, and especially in the
writinffs of Arabian authors. Fi'om the foregoing remaiks it
will be seen, that the language in our text does not absolutely
imply that the Noehaic (leltige was universal.

It is, howevtn-, nrged against the hypoth«!sis of a local deluge,
that "if the waters of the deluge rose fd'teen cubits above the
mountains of Ararat, the level must have been high enough to
give uidversality to the deluge, and mountains of similar
altitude in other parts of the globe nnist have been eipudly
covered." This argument, at first sight, certainly appears to
be of such a nature as not easily to be gotten over. Hut thrre
are circumstances coiniected with the theoiy of a universal
flood which are just as diffictdt to reconcile. But h'le we
must not lose sight of the fact, that the Scriptures do not
represent the deluge as having Iteen a natural oi-currence, but
bi'ought about by the omnipotence of the Almighty. TJod,
indeed, emjiloyed — as in many other miracles recorded in the
Scriptures — natural means so far as they could conti'iliute to
accomplish the end ; but when they failed su^jcrnatural means
were resorted to. Who can comprehend th(^ full meaning of
the expressions, "the fountains of the great deep were broken
up, and the windows of heaven were opene<l .'*" Who can tell
what immense changes this violent breaking up of " the foun-
tains of the great deep" nuiy not have produced in the con-
figuration of the countiy whei'c the flood took ]d;u',e. " In
1N19 a wide expanse of counti-y in the delta of the In<lus, con-
taining fully two thousand s(piat(> miles of flat meadow, was
convei'ted by a sudden tlepnssion of the land, accompanied by
an earthcpiake, into an inland sea ; the tower of a small f'oi't,
which occupied nearly the nuddle of the sunken area, and on
which many of the inhabitants of a neighbouring village suc-
ceeded in saving themselves, may still b(! seen raising its
shattered head over the surface, the only obj(>ct visible in a
waste of waters of which the eye fails to determine the extent.
About three veavs after this event, a tract of countrv inter-
posed between the foot of the Andes and the Pacific, moi-e than
equal in area to all Great Britain, was elevated from two to

I r

ip»

3jia

i I

I'M' ii

.,;|i

220

PEOl'LES COMMKNTARY.

seven feet over its fonner level, and roek.s laid bare in the sea,
which pilots and lislu'nnen of the coast had never before
seen." (Hu<rh iMiller's Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 312, 313.)
There are many accounts of such local changes having taken
place from time to time from various causes.

Dr. Ijarret, who was tlu; first that succeeded in reaching the
summit ol mount Ararat in 1820, gives the perpendicular
height of the great Ararat as 10,204 Paris feet above the level
of the sea, and 13,.*J')0 above the pUin of Araxes, and that of
the little Ararat as 12,284 above the sea, and 9,501 above the
pliiin. It is, of course, impossible to conceive how the waters
<;ould reach twenty-two feet above Ararat without making tlie
llood universal, unless by a direct n)iracle by which the waters
were restrained from overflowing <jther countries not inhabited
by human lieings — which, after all, would be no greater miracle
than the dividing of the Reil Sea so that " the Children of
Isiael went through the sea upon dry tjroaml ; and the waters
tcere a wall to them on their right hand and on their left" —
or by .some great and sudden subsistence of the land which
may have been cau.sed by the breaking u|) of the fountains of
the deep, as well as by the pouring down of the waters through
the windows of heaven. This sudden suksistence of the land
n)ay have been accomplished by an inrush of the waters of the
Persian Gulf, similar to what occurred in the Runn of Cutch
on the eastern arm of the Indus in 1819, of which we have
already spoken. Hugh Miller, who strongly advocates the
theory of a partial tlood, illustrates his theory as follows :
" Let us suppose," says that distinguished geologist, " that the
human family, still amounting to .sevei'al millions, though
greatly reduced by exteiininating wars and exhausting vices,
were congregated in that tract of country which extending
eastwards from the molern Ararat to far beyond the Sea of
Aral, includes the original (Jaucasian centre of the race; let us
suppose, that the hour of judgment having at length arrived,
the land began gi-adually to sink, as the tract in the Runn of
Cutch sank in the year 1819, or as the tract in the southern
part of North America, known as the " sunk country" sank in
the year 1821 ; fuither, let us suppose that the depression took
place slowly and equably for forty days together, at the rate of
about 400 feet per day — a rate not twice greater than that at
which the tide rises in the Straits of Magellan, and which would
have rendered itself apparent as but a persistent inward
flowing of the sea; let us yet further suppose, that from mayhap
some volcanic outburst coincident with the depression, and an
effect of the .same deep-seated cause, the atmosphere was so
efiected, that heavy dienching rains continued to descend
duiing the whole time, and that, though they could contribute

PKOPLKS ("OMMENTAUY.

fSl

but little to tho actual volume of the flood, — at most only
some five or six inches per day,— they at least seemed to con-
stitute one of its main causes, and adiled greatly to its terrors,
l»y swelling the rivers, and rushing downwards in torrents from
the hills. The depression which, extending to the Euxine Sea
and the Persian Gulf on the one hand, and the CUilf of Finland
on the other, would open up by three separate channels the foun-
tains of the great deep, and which nicluded, let us suppose, an
area of about two thousand miles each way, would, at the end
of the fortieth day, b? sunk in its centre to the depth of sixteen
thousand feet, — a depth sufficiently profound to bury the
loftiest mountains of the district; ami yet, having a gradient of
declination of but sixteen feet per mile, the cantour of its
hills and plains would remain a[)parently what they had been
before, — the doomed inhabitants would see but the water ris-
ing along the mountain sides, and one refuge after another
swept away, till tho last witness of the scene would have
perished, and the last hill top would have disappeared. And
when after a hundred and fifty days had come and gone, the
depressed hollow would have begun slowly to rise, — and when,
after the fifth month had passed, the ark would have grounded
on the summit of Mount Ararat, — all that could have been
seen from the u|)i)er window of the vessel wouM be simply a
boundless sea, roughened by tides, now flowing outwards, with
a reversed course, towards the distant ocean, by the three great
outlets which, during the period of depression, had given access
to the waters. Noah would of course see that ' tlie fountains of
the deep were stoj^jjed,' and ' the waters returning from off the
earth continually;' but whether the deluge had been partial
or universal, he could neither see nor know^" (Test, of the Rocks,
pp. 358, 359.)

The question is asked by those who hold the theory of a
universal flood : " If the deluge were but local, what need was
there of taking birds into the ark ; and among them birds so
widely diffused as the raven and the dove ? A deluge which
could overspread the region which these birds inhabit could
hardly have been less than universal. If the deluge were
local, and all the birds of these kinds in that district perished,
though we should think they might have fled to the unin-
undated regions — it would have been useless to encundier the
ark with them, seeing that the birds of the same species which
survived in the lands not overflowed would speedily re[)lenish
the uninundated tr.act as soon as the water subsided." " This
reasoning," Hugh Miller says, " is mainly based upon an error
in natural science, into which even naturalists of t'^a last cen-
tury, such as Buff'on, not unfrequently fell, ar.i which was
almost universal among the earlier voyagers and travellers —
33

'^^''^UAvW LJ^m^

•f^'

*A ^)n<ry\JL^yjlA.

222

rKOl'LK S C< )MM F.NTAIIV.

Sill '

!«l!

the error of confounding ns identical the merely allied hirda
and beiLsts of (li.stant countries, jiiid of thus assigning to nperlcft
wide arcns in creation which in reality thry do not occupy."
Hugh Miller then goes on to say, " The grouse, for instance, is a
wiilely spivad genus, or rather f'linlf;/; for it consists of more
geneiu than (jiie. It is so extensively present over the
north<!rn lu^iuispju're, that Siberia, Norway, Icehitid, ami
Noi'th Anieiica, have all their grouse — the latter continent,
indeed, iVoni Hv(; to eight ditt'erent kin<ls ; ami 3'et so restricted
are some of tlu.^ species of which they consist, that, were the
British Islands to he submerged, one of the best known of the
family — the rt.'d grouse, or mooi- fowl [Lii^/ojxix Scot Ivan) — would
disappear from creation." He then goes on to say, that "this
bird is exclusively a J-lritish bird ; and unless by miracle a
new migratory instinct were given to it, a complete submersion
of tli(* JJi'itish Islands would securi! its destruction. If the
submergence amounted to but a few huKi ed miles in lateral
extent, the moor-fowl wo\ild, to a (Certainty, not seek the
distant uninundated land. Hugh Miller in>^tanees also the
capercailzie, or great cock ot the woods, once a native of Scot-
laiwl, which was exterminated about the time of the last
Rebellion, or not long after; the last specimen seen among
the pine forests of Strathspt^y was killed, it is said, in the year
1745 ; and the last specimen seen among the woods of Strath-
glass survived till the year iTdO, but that since then " iho
species disai)peared from the British Islands ; and, though it
continued to exist in Norway, diil not replenish the tracts
from which it had been extirj)ated. The late Mai-cjuis of
Breadalbane was at no small cost and trouble in re-introducing
the species, and to some extent he succeeded ; but the caper-
cailzie is, I understand, still I'cstricted to the Breadalbane
woods."

" The dove," says Hugh Miller, " is a fum'dy, not a siyecies.
All the American species of <loves, for example, differ from the
six Eiu'ojx'an species, three of which are to be found in Scot-
land. Of even the American passenger pigeons (EctoplKtes
mignitorla) * * only a single straggler — the one who.sc chance
visit has been recorded b}- Dr. Fleming — seems to have been
ever seen in Britain. And the East has also its own peculiar
species, unknown to Europe." As reganls the raven, Hugh
Miller reniarks : "The connnon raven is more widely .spread
,l;an any single species of pigeon. Even the raven, however,,
seems restricted to the northern iKuiisphere. India and
Southern Africa have both their ravens; but the species differ
from each other, and from the widely s|)read northern one."
He then goes on to say : " Fuither, when extiipated in a
district it is found that, as in the case of the capercailzie and

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

S23

tlio golden eagle, tlie ncighhoming regions in wlueh the rnven
continues to exist fail ("or Jiges to furnish a frtsh supply.
There are counties in Knglnnd in which the raven is now
never seen." (pp. H07-yiO.) From these rt^niarks of tho dis-
tinguished geologist it will lie seen that in oi-der to pre.servo
tho luitive birds of the region sulmierged hy the flood, it was
necessary to take them into the ark, and is, therefore, no
argument against the paitial deluge theory.

The si/«i of the ark heing altogether inadcfjuate to contain
anything like all the e.visting species t)f anin als distrihuted
over the globe, is in itself a eonclnsive argument against the
tunversality of the flood. The world renowned voyager. Sir
Walter Kaleigh, observes in his magnificent History of the
World: " If, in a ship of such greatness, wo seek room for
eighty-nine distinct species of beasts, or, lest an^' shoidd bo
onnttcd, for a hundivd .several kinds, wi; shall (jasily find place
both for them and for the birds, which in bigness are no way
answerable to them, and for meat to sustain them all. For
there are three .sorts of beasts whose bodies are of a (juality
well known; the beef, the sheep, and the wolf; to which the
rest may be veiluced by saying, according to Aristotle, that one
elephant is ecjual to four beeves, one lion to two wolves, and
so of tho rest. Of beasts, .some feed on vegetables, others on
flesh. There are one-and-thirty kinds of the greater sort feeding
on vegetables, t)f which nnndier oidy three are clean, accoiding
to the law of Alo.st.^, whereof seven of a kind entered into the
ark, namely, three couples foi- brei'd, and one odd one for
sacrifice ; the other twenty-eight kinds were taken by two of
each kind ; .so that in all then; were in the aik one-and-twenty
great beasts clean, and six-and-tifty unclean ; estimable for
largeness as ninety-one beeves; yet, for a supplement (lest,
perhaps, any species bo omitted), let them bo valued as a bun-
dled and twenty beeves. Of the le.s.ser sort feeding on vegetables
were in the ark six-and-twenty kinds, estimable, with good
allowance for supply, as four-.si ort .sheep. Of those which devour
flesh were two-ar d-thirty kinds, answerable to threescore and
four wolvv^.s. All these two hundred and eighty beasts might bo
kept in one story or room of the ark, in their several cabins ;
their meat in a .second ; the birds and their provision in a
third, with .space to spars for Noah and his family, and all their
necessaries." "Such," .says Hugh Miller, " was the calculation
of the great voyager Raleigh — a man who had more |>ractical
acquaintance with sloiv<i</e than perhaps any of the other
writers who have .speculated on the ca])abilities of the ark; and
his estimate seems sober and juiliciou.s. It will be seen, however,
that from the vast inciease in our knowledge of the mammals
which has taken place since the ago in which tho " History of

224

PEOPLKS ("OMMKNTAIIY.

f I

th«! World" was written, tho cnh^iilation which oinhracod all the
eii^hty-iiinn known animals of that tinio wi)iil<l emhraco those
of hut a single centro of creation now ; and that tlu! estimate
of Sir VV^alter tells, in conseiinence on the side, not of a uni-
versal, hut of a partial delnijo. (Test, of the Kocks, p. tSl{7.)

Sir Walter Halei^^di's " History of the World," was written
durinj; his imprisonment from lOO.'Ho I<)1'>. A little it\oro than
a century afttn-wards the <^reat French nuturalist. Button, wrote
his famous work " Histoiro Naturelle (jent'rale et Particuliere,"
in which ho states that " the nuniher o\' (|ua<lruped animals
whoso existence is certain and well ostahlislied, does not amount
to more than two hundred on the; surface of the known world."
In this statement of Buflbn, Kaieiffh's allowance for the unknown
animals is douhled. SiTice the time of HuH'on by new dis-
coveries the numl)ers have immensely increased, so " that the
eighty-nine distinct species known to Ral<M(^h, have been
represented during the last thirty years by the one thousand
<■ mammals of Swainson's estimate, the one thousand one

y i^Aa-»-^- hundred and forty-tune mammals of Charles Bimaparte's
-^ , V estimate; the one thousand two hundnid and thirty mammals
x.^ -' .„i.« ixr:.. i:-...'. ej.tji,iate, and the one thousand five hundred

-fe

'^-^^^^""^■of VVindiuL's

a-4

^.*

mannnals of Oken's estimate. In the first edition of the ad-
mirable "Physical Atlis" of Johnston (published in 1848), there
"^^ <J-'- ' ^^'^ °"^ thousand six hundred and twenty-six difterent species
of mammals enumerated ; and in the second edition (published
li*i,'K<i- ^^ in 18.j()) one thousand six hundred and tifty-eight species. And
rv-v fA i^° *'"^ ^^^y 6xt.raordinary advance on the eighty-nine mammals
"t \ ■ ^^ Haleigh, and the two hundred mammals of Buffon, we must
T a*-" add the six thousand two hundr(>d md sixty-six birds of Lesson,
L and six hundred and fifty-seven reptiles of Charles Bonaparte ;
or at least — subtracting the sea snakes, and perhaps the turtles,
as fitted to live outside the ark — his sixhun(h'ed ttnd forty -two
reptiles. * * Such is the nature and amount of the increase
which has taken place duiing the last half century in the
mainmaliferous f'aima. In .so great a majority of cases has it
increased its bulk in the ratio in which it has increased its
numbers, that if one ark was not deemed more than sufficient
to accommodate the animal world known to the French naturalist
\j^/v"* of eighty years ago, it would require at least from five to six
^^J^^ \ - arks to accommodate the animal world known in the present
day." (Test, of the Rocks, [)p. 388, 342.)

But, besides the inadequate size of the ai'k to furnish room
^(^•'-^'^'^"i l^\ for all the progenitors of our existing species of animals, there
r ^„r-r* > rl^isyet another circumstance which argues with still greater

^^.-<~j^ force, if possible, against the theory of universal deluge, namely, j'vr^vv^
<y»~- iQ^ .^-. the manner in which the animals are now found to be distributed : /,.,
^ 'over the face of the earth. Linnoeus. one of the greatest of

r--n

4^0-^

H 7 0-1

Oi,

¥"

,.>^

Ms-%>*-.

I'KOI'LES COMMENTAUV.

225

natnrnli.sta, inderd licM in tlic last cciittin', " that all creatures
-which now iuhahit the ^IoIh' ha<l proceedt'd ori^diially friiiii sonio
such coininon centre as the ark iiiinht havi' furniNhed;" imt llujL,di
Miller says : "No zoolo^'ist acquainted with the distriliutii)n of
8|)«5cieH, can ac(|uie.see in any sueh conelusion now." And then
goes on to renuuk. " We now know that every j^^reat continent luus
itH own peculiar fauna; tiiat the oiij^inai centres of distrihution
must have heen, nor. one, but numy ; further, that the areas or
circles around these centres must have heen occupied hy their
pristine animals in aj^^es lon^' anterior to that ol the Noachiaii
Delu;^e ; nay, that in even the latter ^'eolo^ic ages, they were
preceded in them l»y aninuds of the same general type. There
are fourteen such areas oi jjrovir.ces enumerated hy the later
natuialists. Jt nuiy he well, however, instt.'ad of running any
risk, of losing ourselves andd the less nicely defined provinces
of the Old World, to draw our illustiations from two-and-a-
half ])rovinces of later discovery, whose Hunts have been
rigiiily lixed by nature. "The great continents," says Cuvier,
" contain species peculiar to each ; in.somuch that whenever
large countries of this de.scription have been discovered, which
their situation had kept isolated t'lom the rest of tiio world,
the class of quadi'upeds whicii they contained has been i'ouiul
extremely diHerent from any that had existed elsewhere.
Thus, ■when the iSpaniards first penetrated into South America,
they did not find a single species of quadruped the same as any
of Europe, Asia, or Alrica. The puma, the jaguar, the tapir,
the cabiai, the lama, the vicuna, the sloths, the armidilloes, the
opossums, and the whole tribe ot sapajaws. were to them
entirely new animals, of which they had no idea. Similar
circumstances have occurred in our own time, when the coasts of
Is'ew Holland and the adjacent islands were first explored..
The various species of kangaroo, phascolomys, da.syurus, and
perameles, the flying phalangeis, havf aiitonished naturalists by
the strangeness of their conloiniations, which presented pro-
portions contrary to all formei- rules, and were incapable of
being arranged uiuler my of the systems then in use. New
Zealand, thougn singularly devoid of indigencjus mammals and
reptiles, — foi' the only native muimnal seems to be a peculiar
species ot rat, and the only native I'cpti.e a smad harmless
lizaid, — has a .scarce less remark;ibie launa ihan either of these
great continents. It consists almost e\clusivel> of birtls, some
oi liiem .so ill provided with wings, that, like tlit- toiL-n of the
natives, they can only run along the ground. ' (pp. o44, 845.)
The eminent .scholar. L)r. I'ye femiii.. who strenuously main-
tains the hypothesis ot a partial oeluge, in dealing with this
subject emphatically, remarks, ";ill ,and animais, having their
geographical regions, to which their const ituti«)nal natures are

lot^-.

226

PliOPLR S COMMENTARY.

q>0 ■v''^ 1^

ioi I

congenial, — many of them being unable to live in any other
situation, — we ciunot represent to ourselves the idea of their
being brought into one small spot from the polar regions, the
torrid zone, and all the other climates of Asia, Africa, Europe,
and America, Australia, and the thousands of islands, — their
preservation and provision, and the final disposal of them, —
without bringing up the idea of miracles more stupendous than
^ Ow^ ^^y ^^^^^ ^^^ recorded in Scripture." Another great objection
is urged against the univevsdlity of the dduge, and that is, the
quantity of water requisite to cover the whole earth to the
height of fifteen cubits, or twenty-two feet above the moun-
tains. It is admitted, even by those who uphold the iiniver-
sal'dy of the deluge, that this is the greatest objection, and,
indeed, sceptic and rationalistic writers all point to it as a proof
of tlie incredibility of the Mosaic narrative. There are other
arguments brought forward against the theory of the deluge
having been universal, but sufiicient has been said to show, that in
the first place, the text according, to the ancient prevailing mode
of expression in the East, and especially among the Hebrews,
admits of being interpreted that the deluge was mere!}' partial.
And secondly, that the difficulties connected with the iinlveraal
deluge theory altogether disappear with the theory of o. partial
flood. Vossius says : " The universalitu of the deluge, is impos-
sible and unnecessary ; was it not sufficient to deluge those
countries where there were men ?" It is important to observe,
that the theory of a partial deluge, was brought forward long
'-, before the science of Geology had made its wonderful discoveries,

Ift/x'^fc ' ^^'^ ^^ ^^^ therefore not be said to have been adopted in order
j 'to escape the consequences of those discoveries. Stillingdeet,

Bishop of Worcester, a very eminent scholar, I believe was the
fii'st who suggested the theory of a partial deluge in his
" Origines Sacroj, or Rational Account of the Christian Faith,"
published about IGGO, a work which was received with great
favour, and gained for him a great reputation. He held that
the deluge was indeetl universal as regarded man, but only
partial in reference to the extent of the earth'& surface that it
covered. (See pp. 236-34G.) This theory was adopted by
Matthew Poole, a well known commentator ; by Le Clerk, by
Dr. Pye Smith, in his "Scripture and Geology," (pp. 72-119) ;
by Archdeacon Pratt, in his work entitled " Scripture and
Science not at Variance," (pp. 52-50) ; by Hamilton (who was
President of the Geological Society in 185G), in his work
" Researches in Asia Minor," &;c, (vol. i., p. 202, and vol. ii., p.
38G) ; by Professor Hitchcock, in his work " Religion of
Geology," (pp. 103-129) ; by Kitto, in his " Popular Cycl. of
Bib. Lit., new edition, article Deluge" ; and by a host of other
eminent writers.

*^^^

PKOl'LE S COMMENTARY.

227

Sceptic and Rationalistic writt'r> insist upon tin* text sjiraking
of ti Kvlrei'sal (h'Jii(](', n\v\ then bi'ini,' foi'wanl ari,niini'nts to
show tlie impos';il)ility <»f sui-h a tlooil having taken place,
thus calling in question the truth fulness of the Mosaic narra-
tive. I prefer to give a few ([notations fi'oiu English writers,
to show that rdflona/lsm ilmrishes on English soil as
luxuriantly as on Cu'ruian. Bishop Colenso, in part ii p. xix.,
Remarks on the Scripture .Account of the ]^.>luge: " Wiihout
any appeal to science at all, if only (a person) allows
himself to "think" upon the suhject, and to i-ealizc to his
own mind the necessary conditions of the supposed event,
he will need only a cojnmon practical judgment to convince
him that the stoiy told in the b"ok of Genesis is utterly in-
credihle." This is as strong language as is used by any (Jer-
nian neologist, eithei' lay or elci'ical. Dr. Kaliseh, another
English writer, says: " The question then stands thus : (Jeology
teaches the impossibility of a uni\ersal deluge sinet; the last
6,000 years, but does not exclude a partial destiiiction of the
e.arth's surface within that period. The Biblical text, on the
other hand, demands the supposition of a universal deluge,
and absolutely cxclndes a pn'tial tlood." (Com. on. (J'Mies. p.
210.) As I have above stated this is precisely w!\at all
skeptic and ratiorialistic writers persist in, and I have thero-
fcre in my remarks dwelt u])on thi.s point, to show that the
Scripture mguage is nothing more than what is commonly
made use of throughout the East even to the present day.
Of course, if the sacred text did not admit of the partial
deluge theory, all that could otherwise be said in its favour
would be of no avail.

But the reader will naturally ask, how do these writers
account for Moses making such extravagant statements as they
say? We will let Dr. Kaliseh answer the question, which is
substantially the same as would be given by any of the
writers belonn-injr to the nctv school of crlticifim: "The Old
Testament," says Dr. Kaliseh, " does not show the ancient
Hebrews as superior to their contemporaries in secular
knowledge. They were not above them in physical sciences:
they shared, in positive learning, nearly all their notions,
and a great portion of their eiroi's ; but they surpassed
them, inrinitely in religious contemplation ; they alone shook
off the fetters of superstitions; they compiered idolatry,
and rose to the purest notions concerning the attributes of
God and the duties of man. The religious lessons, therefore,
which the history of the Noachian deluge discloses, are its
chief value, and form its only remarkabh? ditlerence from the
many similar traditions of ancient tribes, an<l they are by no
means affected by the question, whether tlie deluge was partial

/„

228

C^^/

\-^

-r^.^Vl

PKOPLE S COMMKNTAUY.

or universal." Now let the reader well mark what follows :
" The Biblical narrative is bused upon a liistorical fact. But
this fact was, in the course of time, amplified and adorned, till
it was, in the ])eriod of the author of the Pentateuch, generally
augmented into a universal flood ; he employed the mateiials
in the foi'm in which they had become the common legendary
property of nations ; but, with his usual wisdom and compre-
hensiveness of mind, he worked them out into a grand religious
system ; they became, in his hand, the foundation of a new
covenant between God and men." (pj). 210, 211.) Di, Kalischis
obliged to admit that "a partial destruction of the earth's sui-face
may have taken place," but will not allow that the language in
the text admits of such an interpretation. We, on the contrary,
have clearly proved, that the text admits of being so explained.
Then in order to account for the narrative setting forth a
universal deluge which geology teaches involves an " impos-
,sibiliiy," he adopts the stereotyped argument of the German
rationalistic school whenever a miracle is in question, " the
Hebrews were no more advanced in secular learning thtn their
contemporaries," And who claims such superiority for the
Hebrews ? But surely, in discussing Biblical subjects, the
question is not what the sacred writers know as " Hebrews,"
but what they know as inspired men. Secular wi-iters may
make false statements, and promulgate all kinds of errors : with
writers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit such a thing is
altogether impossible. To say that the Bards of the Bible
merely wrote as ordinary men, reduces the Scriptures at once
to the level of other secular writings. Dr. Kalisch says :
" The religious lessons, therefore, which the history of the
Noachian deluge discloses are its chief value, and form its only
remarkable difference from the many similar traditions of
ancient tribes." This is certainly not the case, for if "the
Mosaic history of the Noachian deluge is only founded on
tradition, it can claim no superiority over many ancient, or
e'/en modern traditions, which also disclose "religious lessons."
'Jake, for instance, the many traditions contained in the
Talmud, or in the book of Adam, the author of the latter
certainly was no Hebrew. Dr. Kalisch goes on to say : " The
Biblical narrative is based upon a historical fact. But this
fact was, in the course of time amplified and adorned, till it
was, in the period of the author of the Pentateuch, generally
augmented into a universal flood; he employed the materials
in the form in which they had become the common legendary
property of nations ; but, with his usual wisdom and compre-
hensiveness of mind, he worked them out into a powerful link
of his grand religious system ; they became, in his hand, the
foundation of a new covenant between God and man." (Com.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

229

)llows :
;. Bui
led, till
nc'ially
aterials
rendary
;ompve-
eligious
a new
alisch is
; surface
ruage in
ontrary,
plained,
forth a
" impos-
German
:>n, "the
itn their
for the
ids, the
Hebrews,"
ters may
jrs: with
, thing is
[he Bible
at once
;h says :
of the
its only
litions of
if "the
Inded on
^cient, or
llessons."
in the
e latter
" The
ut this
till it
[enerally
aterials
• endary
;ompre-
ilul link
,nd, the
(Com.

pp. 210, 211.) Now, it may well be asked, upon what authority
Dr. Kalisch presented these positive statements to his readers?
The Mosaic account of the great catastrophe is the earliest
account in existence ; and it is, therefore, mere conjecture on
the part of Dr. Kalisch to say that the sacred writer based his
narrative upon an existing tradition, and embellished it to suit
his purpose.

Is it surprising that infidelity is on the increase, both
in Europe and in this continent, when Biblical critics
strip the sacred narratives of the Old Testament of their
inspiration, and reduce them to mere ordinary traditions ?
And strange as it may appear, it is nevertheless only too
true, that such rationaUstic works find by far a greater
number of readers, than works written in the defence
of the Scriptures. The universal traditions concerning the
deluge throughout the world, among the savage tribes as well
as the civilized nations, however, bear incontestible testimony
to the verity of the Mosaic narrative. These traditions, indeed,
vary in detail, but this naturally arises from their being invari-
ably embodied in their religious systems, and were thus made
to assume a form as suited their respective beliefs. They agree,
however, in the most essential points with the Mosaic narrative.
As might reasonably be expected, the traditions among the
oldest nations, and who lived nearer to the locality where the
catastrophe took place, would be more full in detail and less
disfigured than those of the modern nations, and living a great
distance from the country where the eveut happened. Hence,
we find that the Chaldean tradition beai's the closest resem-
l)lance of all others to the Biblical narrative. It is as follows :
Xisuthrus, the son of Otiartes or Ardates, the representative
of the tenth generation after the first man, was a wise and
pious monarch. Belus (the Baal of Scripture) revealed to him
that constant rain commencing on the fifteenth day of the
month Dsesius, would cause a deluge by which all mankind
would be exterminated. Belus commanded Xisuthrus to build
a large ship, 3,000 feet in length, and 1,200 in breadth, to enter
it with his family, and to take with him, of every species of
quadrupeds, birds, and reptiles, and of all kinds of provisions
required. The king did as he was commanded, and when the
rain commenced and the waters increased, he sailed towards
Armenia. After the rain had ceased, he sent out some birds
in order to find out the condition of the earth. They returned
twice, having the second time some mud on their feet. On
sending them out the third time, they did not return again.
When ^'ie ship grounded on one of the Armenian mountains,
Xisuthrus left the ship with his wife, his daughter, and the
pilot. They erected an altar and ofFero<l sacrifices to the gods,
94

\'i m

eif,

* .

■J

.»M:lf

.a
V

230

people's commentary.

but were soon afterwards raised to heaven, on account of their
great piety. Those who had remained in the ship, now left it
also, and settled again in Babylon, and became the ancestors of
a new human population.

It was believed that the ship was preserved in the highland
of Armenia, in the mountain of the CordymaeanSj and in later
times, pieces of wood, said to have been taken from the ship,
were sold, and frequently used as charms. This tradition is
preserved in a Fragment of Berosus, a priest and historian of
Babylon.

The Persian tradition is : " The world having become exceed-
ingly corrupted by Ahriman, the malignant and destroying
spirit, it was necessary to bring over it a flood of water that
all impurity might be washed away. The rain came down in
drops as large as the head of a bull ; the earth was under
water to the height of a man, and the creatures of Ahriman
were destroyed."

The Indian tradition appears in different forms, but one of
them agrees remarkably with the Mosaic narrative. It is as
follows: Satyavrata was the seventh king of the Hindoos,
who reigned in Dravira, a country washed by the waves of
the sea. During his reign, an evil demon by stealth appro-
priated to himself the sacred books which the first *Manu had
received from "f-Brahma ; and the consequence was, that the
whole human race, with the exception of the seven saints and
the pious King Satyavrata became fearfullj' corrupted. Then
there appeared to the king the divine spirit Vishnu, in the
shape of a fish, and declared to him that " In seven days, all
the creatures which have sinned against me, shall be destroyed
by a deluge ; but that he should be saved in a large vessel
miraculously constructed." He was commanded to take all
kinds of useful herbs, and esculent grain for food, and one pair
of each animal. He was also to take with him the seven holy
men with their wives. " Go into the ark without fear," said
Vishnu to him, " thou shalt see god face to face, and all thy
questions shall be answered." After seven daj's, incessant
torrents of rain descended, and the ocean sent forth its waves
be3'ond its shores. Satyavrata, at the sight of this, began to
tremble with fear, yet he piously trusted in the promises of
Vishnu, and meditating on his attributes saw a large ship
floating to the shoie, which he entered with the saints, after
having executed all that the goil had commanded him.

* Maim, r.f., the thinkinij bein<i, from the Sanskrit man, to (kink, ie mentioned
in the Vcdas (holy liooks) as the progenitor of the hiuuau race, and author of
the most renowned law books.

+ Brahma, a Hindoo deity, regarded ae the cicator of the univerBc.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

231

Vishnu now appeared himself in the shape of a large horned
fish, and fastened the ship with a great sea serpent, as with a
cable, to his huge horn. He thus guided it for many years,
and at last landed it, on the highest peak of Mount Himavan.
The flood ceased ; and Vishnu slew the demon, and recovered
the sacred books. He instructed the king in all heavenly
sciences, and appointed him the seventh Manu under the name
Vaivaswata. From this Manu the second population of the
earth descended, and hence man is called manudslia, i.e., born
of Manu, hence, the German words Mann, and Mensch ; and our
word man.

The account of the Hood contained in the Koran is mainly
drawn from the Biblical narrative.

In the Greek tradition of the deluge, we observe also a
marked resemblance to the Mosaic narrative. The whole
human race had become greatly corrupted ; rapine and murder
prevailed, the sacredness of hospitality was violated, the gods
mocked and insulted. Jupiter, therefore, resolved to extermi-
nate the whole human race. The earth opened all its secret
springs, the ocean sent forth its floods, and the rain came
down from the skies in torrents, and all creatures perished
except Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha, who were distinguished
for great piety. The two were saved in a large boat which
Deucalion had constructed by the advice of his father Prome-
theus. It was carried to the lofty peaks of Parnassus, which
alone reached above the waters of the deluge. After the
waters had subsided the surviving pair oft'ered sacrifices to
Jupiter, and through this pair the earth was again repeopled.
According to Plutarch, Deucalion had sent a dove from his ark
in order to see whether the waters had subsided. (Plutarch De
Sollert. Animal sec. 13.) And Lucian mentions that Deucalion
built a large chest, and brought into it his wives and children,
and that bears, lions, serpents, and all other animals came to
him in pairs. (De Dea. Syria, xii., xiii.)

The Chinese tradition bears also in many respects, a great
resemblance to the Biblical narative. The Jesuit Martinius,
says, that the Chinese computed the deluge to have taken
place 4,000 years before the Christian era. Fa-he, the reputed
author of Chinese civilization, is said to have escaped from the
waters of the deluge. He re-appears as the first man at the
production of a renovated world, attended by seven companions,
his wife, his three sons, and three daughters, by whose inter-
marriage the whole circle of the universe is finally completed.
In Mexico the traditions of the deluge arc preserved in
pictorial paintings. Baron von Humboldt observes: " Of the
different nations that inhabit Mexico, the following have paint-
ings representing the Deluge of Coxcox, viz., the Aztecks, the

232

people's commentary.

Hi :' .11 1:1

i: ti

Mitztecks,the Zapotecks,the Tlascaltecks,and the Mechoacanese.
The Noah, Xisuthrus, or Menou of those nations, is termed
Coxcox, Teo-Cipactli or Tezpi. He saved himself with his
wife, Xochiquetzal in a bark, or according to other traditions,
on a raft. The painting represents Coxcox in the midst of the
water lying in a bark The mountain, the summit of which
rises above the waters, is the Peak of Colhuacan ; the Ararat of
the Mexicans. At the foot of the mountain appear the heads of
Coxcox and his wife. The latter is known by the two tresses
in the form of horns, denoting the female sex. The men bom
after the deluge were dumb ; a dove from the top of a tree
distributes among them tongues, represented under the form
of small commas." Speaking of the Mechoacan tradition he
says, " that Coxcox, whom they called Tezpi, embarked in a
spacious acalli with his wife, his children, several animals, and
grain. When the great spirit ordered the waters to withdraw,
Tezpi sent out from his bark a vulture, the zopilote (vultur
aura.) This bird, which feeds on dead flesh, did not return on
account of the carcases with which the earth was strewed.
Tezpi sent out other birds, one of which, the humming-bird,
alone, returned, holding in its beak a branch covered with
leaves. Tezpi, seeing that fresh verdure began to clothe the
soil, quitted his bark near the mountain of Colhuacan. (Hum-
boldt's Researches, vol. ii. p. 64, Eng Edit.)

The inhabitants of the Fiji islands have also a tradition about
a flood which had taken place at one time. They say that
"after the islands had been peopled by the first man and
woman, a great rain took place by which they were altogether
•submerged ; but before the highest places were covered by the
water's two large double canoes made theii" appearance. In one
of these was Rokora, the god of carpenters; in the other
Rokola, his head workman, who picked up some of the people,
and kept them on board until the waters had subsided, after
which they were again landed on the island. It is reported
that in former times canoes were always kept in readiness
against another inundation. The persons thus saved, eight in
number, were landed at Mbenga, where the highest of their
gods is said to have made his first appearance. By virtue of
this tradition, the chiefs of Mbenga, take rank above all others,
and have always acted a conspicuous part among the Fijis.
They style themselves Ngali-duva-ki-langi, i. e., subject to
heaven alone." (Wilkes' Exploring Expedition.)

Aringhi in his " Roma subterranea," gives a description of
four marble sarcophagi on which is represented the ark in the
form of a square chest, floating upon a stream of water. In it
is seen the figure of the patriarch from the waist upwards ; and
above, the dove bearing the olive branch towards liini. A

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

233

ion of

in the

In it

; and

similar representation is givon in n painting in the cemetery of
CalHstus. (Tom. i., pp. 325 331, 333 ; Tom. ii., p. 143. See
also Cardinal VV^i.soman's Lectures, " (connexion Between Science
and Revealed Religion," vol. ii. p. 123.

The imperial bronze medals of the city of Apamea, in Phrygia,
bear on one side the head of ditierent emperors, of Severus,
Maerinus, and Philip the elder. P>ut the revers;> is uniform,
and is described by Eckhel as follows : " A chest swimming
upon the waters, in which a man and a woman appear from the
breast upwards. On the lid of the chest stands a bird, and
another, balanced in the aii*, holds in its claws an olive branch.
On the outside of the chest, apparently in the act of leaving it,
are a woman robed, and a man in a short garment, with their
faces turned from it, and holding up their right hands." We
have here repre.sente<l two ditierent scenes, but evidently the
same actors. For the costume and heads of the persons .standing
outside do not allow us to consider them others than the figures
in the ark. We have these indiviiluals first floating over the
waters in an ark, then standing on the dry land in an attitude
of admiiation. (Doctrina Numorum Vri. .jm, Vienna, 1703,
part i., vol iii., p[). 130, 136. See also Cardinal Wiseman's
Lectures, vol. ii., pji. 1 1 8, 119.) But the most interesting circum-
stance connected with these medals re(pures yet to be men-
tioned. On the front panel of the chest or ark are the letters
Nft, NO, or NHE, NOE, very probably the letter E, L\ on those
medals on which only the two letters occur has become ellaced.
Eckhel, who is considered one of the best authoiities on this
subject, concludes, that inasmuch as the entire scene represented
on these medals undoubtedly bears reference to the Noachian
deluge, so must also the inscription on the ark ; and conse-
quently must be the nann^ of the patriarch IS'oah.

It may, however be asked, wliat induced the Apameans to
choose the deluge as a s3-nd)ol on their coins ? To this we may
reply, that it was appaiently customary for cities to choose as
their emblems any remarkable event which was supposed to
have taken place there. Now it appears there existed a popular
tradition that Rbnint Ai'arat,upun which the ark restetl, stood
in the neighbourhootl of Apamea, or Cela'ua, as it was anciently
called. And this will likewise account for the city having
formerly been called Kiliotos, i.e., the ark ; the very word whicli
is employed in the Septuagint, and by Josephus in speaking of
Noah's ark.

It will thus be seen that the heathen ti'aditions of a deluge
throughout the world, coincide in the most important particu-
lars with the Scriptural account of that catfi 'Strophe. All agree
that it was on account of the great wickeci.iess of the luunau
race that the flood was sent ; that only on ; man was saved
3d

ill

i !

.!: I

'1' •;

'[ '

I' ?

I' 'J

t ''

234

people's commentary.

Avitli his family, and that b}' this family the earth was again
reiieo|)led ; tli'tt binls were sent out, in order to ascertain the
condition of the earth ; and that an altar was built and sacrifices
ottered. The traditions may indeed be more or less intermingled
with fnbles, yet the leading facts are there, and it is utterly
incredible that so many nations widely separated from each
other, differing in their religious systems, manners, and customs,
.should agree in attesting to these circumstances if no sucli cir-
cumstances liad ever occurred. And it cannot be said that this
tradition of the flood obtained its universalit}' through the
medium of Christian missionaries, for it existed already among
ancient nations who flourished long before the promulgation of
Chiistianity, and is found to exist among savage tribes who
have never been visited bj'^ missionaries. The Scriptural state-
ment contained in ch. x. 82, that from the three sons of Noah
tlie earth was repeopled after the flood, alone satisfactorily
accounts for the uidversalitv of the tradition, and all that
sceptics and rationalists may write or say, the fact still remains
the same.

21. A)id all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of foiol, and
of cattle, and of beasts, and of everi/ cree/nn<j thing that creepeth upon
the earth ; and every man.

22. All in lohose nostrils tnas the breath of the spirit of life, of all
that loas on the dry land, died.

The ]ihrase Qiipl UTi £l)31S3 (whhmath ruach chaiyim) is in
the Authorized Version rendered " the breath of life," following
the Greek Version, but the rendering above given, and which is
also given in the Revised Version, is the correct rendering.
The expression " in whose nostrils is the breath of the spirit of
life," evidently is only explanator}^ "of every man," at the
end of verse 21 ; for the destruction of the animals had ali*eady
been described in the former part of the verse. The sacred
writer, having stated that all inferior animals had perished,
then goes on to say, " and every man ; every one in whoso
nostrils is the breath of the spirit of life ;" and in order to
make the declaration more emphatic, he adds, " of all that was
on the dry land died." In the original, we may remark also,
the phiase, "and every man," at the end of verse 21, is separ-
at'jd from what precedes by one of the two chief pause accents
in the language, which shows that this phrase forms an inde-
pendent sentence. In the English Version it is punctuated by
a comma, instead of a colon or semi-colon, which ai-e the proper
equivalent to the Hebrew accent. We must not omit to state,
that the ])hrase Cin mi tl^IDD (nishmafh ruach chaiyint)
" the breath of the spirit of life," does not occur again in the

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

235

I again
ain the
.crifices
iiingled
utterly
111 each
ustoms,
ich cir-
hat this
jgh the
' among
[vtion ot
bes who
ill state-
>f Noah
■actorily
all that
remains

foiol, and
neth upon

life, of all

OM Testament ; it is the same expression aa is used in ch. ii. 7,
"and he breathed in his nostrils tD^Tt !n?3'0D (nishmath chaiyim)
the breath of life," witli tlie exception that in the passage
under consitleration the word nil (runch) "spint" is added
api)arently for emphasis sake. Or the phrase may be an abbre-
viated expression of Q^n DyatSS (nishmath chaiyitn) spirit of
life, and t3^^n ni"l (rnach chalyivi) breath of life, the two
being combined in order to give additional force to the declar-
ation.

23. And He blotted out every living being that was tipon the face of
the yround, both man, and cattle, and reptiles, and the fowl of the
Iieaven ; and they were destroyed from the earth : and Noah only
remained, and those that wei-e with him in the ark.

' And He blotted out," that is, God blotted out according as
He had declared in verse 4. The form of the verb T\'lV'\
(ivaiyimach) is active (the Kal of niDa {viachah), and there-
fore must be rendered as we have done above, and the same
rendering is also given in the Revised Version in the margin.
Some modern editions of the Bible, however, have the reading
n'2''T (ivaiyimmach) the passive (the Niphal) " And it was
blotted out," which reading was followed by the translators of
the Authorized Version. But all the old versions have the
active form, and most eminent critics and interpreters have
a,dopted that reading.*

*The constniction with the following particle t^5}^ (eth) favours also the
cctive form. In comparatively few instances it is true, we find this particle also
employed with a passive verb to point out more particularly the subject of it ;
in that case it assumes the force of to wit or nnrncli), and our passage would
accordingly have to be rendered, " And it was blotted out, to wit, every living
thing." The Hebrew student will find similar construction in (Jen. iv. 18 ;
xvii. 6 ; xxvii. 42 ; Exod. x. 8 ; xxi. 28 ; xxv. 28 ; Numb, xxxii. 5 ; Deut zii.
22 ; 1 Kings ii. 21.

»■

Srfl. !

•tl

'i. ,'

I: K

236 pkople's commentary.

CHAPTER VIII.

1. And God remeiuhered Nudh, mid every living thing, and all the
cattle that was with him in the ark ; and God caused a wind to past
over the earth ; and the waters subsided.

The last verse oi tlio ))r('C('iliiig chapter informs us that
" the waters prevailed iipt)n tlie earth an hundred and fifty
dayH," and in the opening vers(i of this chapter we are toKl
that then " (iod reiiienil»ered Noah, and every living thing."
The expression "God remembered" nuust not be taken in
a literal sense, for God Imd not for one moment forgotten
tlu^ inmates of the ark ; on the contrary, as soon as they had
entered it, the vessel was taken under His special guidance
and protection. The meaning is, that God remembered
Noah by putting forth another display of His omnipotence
in his behalf by causing the wattirs gradually to subside,
so that the inmates of the ark might be released from their
confinement, God never forgets the pious and upright. " And
God caused a wind to pass over the earth " : we have already
stated that God always employs natural agencies as long as
these are sufiicient in atleeting a desired end, and it is only
when it is beyond the power of natural means, that His almighty
})ower is manifested. In this instance the natural agency
emi)loyed to assuage the waters was " a wind," but it re(juired
supernatural power to anise the wind to come just at the time
wlu'u needed, and to shield the ark from evil efiects of the
aerial elements. " And tlie wateis subsided or settled down,"
i. e., they began to .subside. The verb "rpT^ (Khachach), to sub-
aide, to nettlii down, is sonietimes applied also : to the aj_)^easing
of anger. (See Esth. ii. 1.)

2. And the fountains of the deej), <nid the windows o/ heaven were
closed, (Old the rain from heaven was restrained.

A hundred and fifty days after the commencement of the
deluge, the sources which so abundantly contributed in bringing
about the catastrophe were now again closed. This could not
be affected by natural agency. He only who had broken up
the fountains of the deep, and opened the windows of heaven
could close them again.

3. And the waters returned from off the earth continually : and at
the end of a hundred andjifty days the waters decreased.

"And the waters returned continually." This rendering
afiords the meaning of the original, though it is far from being

PEOPLE S COMMFA'TART.

237

iven were

a literal meaning. By a peculiar Hol)re\v idiom a continnancy
of action is expressed by the use v)f tiro 'm fin it ires, and hence
the expression in the original is, " and the waters '2^'0^ "Tllbn
(haloch waahov) to go and to raturn," that is, the watt-rs were
gradually yet continually subsiding. (See also verse 7.)

4. And the ark rested, in the seventh vionth, on the seventeenth day
of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

" In the seventh month," namely, the seventh month of the
year, not from the beginning of the deluge, which had now
lasted five months, or one hundred and fifty days. " KesttMl,"
the verb n^D (nmich) here employed, signifies to settle doivn
quietly, as one sits down into a chair, showing God's providen-
tial care in shielding the vessel from harm, " Upon the moun-
tains of Ararat :" the mountain wliich now is known to
Europeans as the Ararat, and upon which the ark is said to
have rested, consists of two se])arate peaks of unequal Insight,
both of which disappear in the clouds. The highest rises 1 7,730
feet above the level of th(^ sea, and the lesser 14,57'i fciet.
There is a chasm 12,(){)0 yards wide between the two peaks.
The mountain is 12 leagueB east of the town of Erivan, situated
in a vast plain, and formerly belonged to Persia, but was in IS28
ceded to Russia. Among the Eastern people it is called by
different names, as Bacis, Masis, by the natives; the Turks call
it Aghri-Tagh, i.e., steep mountain; the Persians Asis, i.e., the
happy mountain, and also Kuld-Nuch, i.e., the mountain of
Noah ; in the Koran, it is spoken of as Dsheittl in Kurdistan.
It is not known when it received the; name Arnrat, which the
Armenians write Aral-arat, i.e., the ruin of Arai, and say it
was so called because Arai, the eighth king of Armenia, is said
to have been defeated and killed in one of the j)lains of this
province J 750 B. C. We will hereafter show that Ardrat
occurs in Scripture only as the name of a country, and not
of a mountain. Morier speaks of Ararat as bi'ing most
beautiful in shape and most awful in height. Sir Robert
Ker Porter gives the following graphic description of this
stupendous work of nature : — " As the vale opened be-
neath us, in our descent, my whole attention Ijecame
absorbed in the view before me. A vast plain with countless
villages, the towers and spires of the churches of Eitch-mai-
adzen arising from amidst them ; the glittering waters of the
Araxes flowing through the fresh green of the vale ; and the
subordinate range of moimtains skirtinix the base of the awful
monument of the antediluvian world, it seemed to stand a
stupendous link in the history of man, uniting the two races of
men, before and after the flood. But it was not until we had

'I -'1:
J*-

f.'t

!#■

:p^

►ill !

^ !

:(-'

!il:(i

:i<l

■ i-

238

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

arrived upon the first plain, that I liohold Ararat in all ita
aniplitiulo of j^randour. From the spot on which I stood, it
appuarud as it" the hiigest mountains of the world had been
piled upon each other, to form this one sublime immensity of
earth, and rock, and snow. The icy peaks of its double heads
rose majestically into the clear and cloudless heavens ; the sun
blazed bright upon them, and the reflections sent forth a '
zliiig radiance e(|ual to other suns. This point of the ^
united the utmost grandeur of plain and height, but the feel-
ings 1 experienced while looking on the mountain are hardly
to be desciibed. My eye, not able to rest for any length of
time on the blinding glory of its sunnnits, wandered down the
apparently interminable sides, till I could no longer trace their
vast lines in the midst of the horizon, when an inexpressible
impulse immediately carrying my eye upwards again, refixed
my gaze on the awful glare of Ararat ; and this bewildered
sensibility of sight, being answered by a similar feeling in the
mind, for some moments I was lost in a strange suspension of
the powers of thought."

Sir Robert, in speaking of the two peaks, remarks : " These
inaccessible summits have never been trodden by the foot '^f
man, since the days of Noah, if even then, for my opinion
the ai'k rested in the space between the heads, and not on
top of either. Vaiious attempts have been made in difieren**
ages to ascend these tremendous mountain pyramids but in
vain ; their form, snows, and glaciers, are insurmountableobsta-
cles, the distance being so great from the commencement of the
ivy regions to the higliest points ; cold, alone, would be the
destruction of any person who .should have the hardihood to
persevere."

The French traveller Tournefort made an attempt to reach
the top in the year 1700, but after a long hard struggle with
the many difficulties that he encountered, he was at last obliged
to give up the attempt. About, the beginning of the present
century another attempt was made by the Pasha of Bayazeed ;
but lie also, after experiencing many hardships, and narrow
escapes of his life, was at last obliged to desist.

Among the Armenians it is almost an article of faith, that
the summit of the mountain cannot be reached, and they con-
secjuently rejoiced at the different failures. They considered,
that the mountain would lose its sanctity if its summit were
reached by the curiosity of travellers, for they firmly believe
that the ark of Noah, or at least part of it, still exists on the
peak.

Notwithstanding the repeated failures, and the hardships,
and dangers experienced by previous travellers in their attempt
t'^ reach the summit of Ararat, the intrepid German traveller

I'Eil'LKS CUMMENTAUY.

'2'Si)

Dr. Parrot tli'tt'i'iniiu'd to in;ik(5 another attempt, nu'l hail the
sati.sfactiun ot having his laltinious and ilaiiLjoruns adventurt'.
aftnr two frnitk'ss uttonipts, at hist crownedJwith.sncot'sson thi'
27th of SopttMuhtT, LS21). As wo shall have to conihat tlu^
deeply rooted and widely provailinjj; heliof of the ark havini;-
rested after the tlood on Mount Ararat, we will hci-e (|Uot(! \)\\
Parrot's own account of his ascent, so that the reader may see
how utterly injpcjssilile it would have been without a direct
nnracle for nuiny of the inmates of th(( ark, as elephants, eame!s,
horses, and other cpiadrupetls to have ilescemled from the hli,dit'st
peak, when it is even now rey;arded as a renuirkaMe achieve-
ment almost transcending human power.

Prof. PaiTot was accompanined l>y Mr. Uehagel as mineralo-
gist, Me.ssrs. Hehn, and Shiemann, nu-dical stu<lentsof Moscow,
and Mr. Federow an astronomer of St. Petershuriih. " On the
12th of September, at seven o'clock in the morning," says Dr.
Parrot, " I set out on my journey, from the convent of St.
James, near the foot of the mountain, accompatded by Mr.
Schiemann. We took with u.s one of our Cossacks and a peasant
of Arguri, who was a good huntsman, and our rotite was first
in the bottom of the valley, then up its right acclivity t(jwards
the spot where there are two ^mall storehouses standing close
to each other; the one formerly a chapel, and the other built as
a protection for a spring, which 's considered .sacred.

From the cha})el we crossed th" grassy elevati(m, which
form.s the right declivity of the cleft. We suflered so much
from the heat of the day, that our Co.ssack, who would probably
rather have been seated on horseback and galloping about on
the steppes for three days than scrandiling over the rocks for a
couple of hours, was ready to sink from fatigue, and we were
obliged to send him back. At about six o'clock in the evening,
when we were also very tired, and had almost readied the
snowy region, we cho.se our night's lodgings in the clefts of the
rocks. We had attained the height of ll,G7o Paris feet ; in
the sheltered places about us lay some new fallen snow, and the
temperature of the air was at the freezing point. Mi\ Schie-
mann and I had provided ourselves tolerably well for such an
undertaking, besides the pleasure of the expedition warmed us;
but our atldetic Jiigar, Schak of Arguri (Isaac), was quite
dejected from the cold, for he had nothing but his sunnuer
clothing ; his whole neck, and also his legs, were (juite Ijare. I
had neglected to think about his wardrobe before setting out,
and it therefore was my duty to help him as well as I could,
but as neither of us had much clothing to spare, I wrapped up
his neck and his bare limbs in sheets of blotting paper which I
had taken witl» me for drying plants, and this was a great
relief to him. At daybreak we set out again on our journey

t-iSlrtil'nM.

ipf^"

i. i!

1 ' ; ' ii

r 'i

1 : ; ■ ■

1 ■

I : ■
1 '
|f-

i I

KM*

;

f i

1 1

|l:

ii i!

240

PEOPLES CC»MMI':NTARY.

towards the eastern side of the mountain, and soon reached
the declivity which runs iuimediattly from the summit ;
it consists entirel}'^ of pointed rocky riilges coming down
from above, and leaving between them ravines of considerable
depth ; in wluch the icy mantle of the summit loses itself, and
glaciers of great extent. There were several of these rocky
ridges and clefts of ice lying between us and the side of the
mountain which we were endeavoui'ing to reach. When we
had hai)pily surmounted the first crest and the adjoining beauti-
ful glacier, and reached the second crest, Schak had no courage
to proceed. His benumbed limbs had not yet recovered their
warmth, and the icy region towards which he saw us hastening,
did not hold out umch prospect of relief ; thus one remained
behind from heat, and the other from cold — only Schiemann,
though unaccustomed to these haidships, did not for an instant
lose his courage or his desire to accompany me, but share<l with
alacrity and perseverance all the difficulties and dangers we
had to encounter. Leaving the Jaixer behind us, we crossed
the second glacier, and gained the third rocky ridge. Then
immediately turning otl'in an oblique direction, we reached the
lower edge of the icy crest, at a height of 13,180 Paris fecit,
which runs from this place without interruption to the summit.
We had now to ascend this declivity covered with perpetual
«now. Though the inciiuation was barely 80 degrees, this was
sheer impossibility for two men to accomplish in a direct line.
We therefore determined to advance diagonally towards a long
pointed ridge which runs far up towards the summit. We
succeeded in this by making with our ice-poles deep holes in
the ice of the glacier, which was covered with a thin hiyer of
new fallen snow, too slight to afford the requisite firmness to
our steps. We thus reached the ridge, and advanced directly
towards the sun^mit by a track where the new snow was rather
deeper. Thou;;h wo might by great exertions have this time
reached the goal of our wishes, yet the fatigue of the day had
been considerable, and as it was ali-eady three o'clock in the
afternoim, we were obliged to provide a lodging for the night.
We had obtiiined the extreme upper ridge of the rocky crest,
an elevation of 14,500- Paris feet above the level af the .sea,
(tlie height of mount Blanc,) and yet the summit of Ararat lay
far above us. I do not think that any insurmountable obstacle
could have impeded our further pi-ogress, but to spend the few
remaining hours of daylight in reaching t!>is point would liave
been worse than madness, as we had not seen any rock on the
sununit which Avould have afforded us protection during the
night, in<lep(jndently of which our .stock of provisions was not
calculated to last so longf. Havinsx made our barometrical
observations, we turned back, satisfied from the result that the

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

241

s to

ctly

lior

iad

the

ht.

est,

sea,

lele

"ew

ive

the

not

cal

mountain from this side was not inaccessible. In descending,
however, we met with a danger which we had not anticipated ;
for if in the descent of every mountain you tread less safely
than in going uj), it is still more difficult to tread firmly, when
you look down upon such a surface of ice and snow as that over
which we had to pass for more than a werst, and where, if we
slipped and fell, tliere was n')thing to stop us but the sharp-
j)ointed masses of stone in which the region of eternal ice loses
itself. The danger here is perhaps rather in the want of habit
than in the real difficulties. My yoiing friend, whose courage
had probably been proof against severe trials, lost his ])resence
of mind here. Jfis foot slipped, and he fell, but as ho was
about twenty paces behind me, I had time to thrust my ]K)le
finuly in the ice, to take a more stu'e footing in my c.vpital
snow-shoes, and while I held the pole in my right hand, to
catch him in passing with my left. My position was well
chosen, but the straps which fastened my ice-shoes broke,
and, instead of being able to stop my friend, I was carried
with him in his fall. He was so fortunate as to be
stopped by some stone.s, but I rolled on for half a werst,
till I reached some framnents of lava near the lower
glacier. The tube of my barometer was dasheil to pieces — my
chronometer burst open, and was covere<l with blood — and every
thing had fallen out of my pockets, but T escaped without
severe injury. As soon as we had recovered froui our fi'ight,
and thanked God for our provitU'utial escape, we collected the
niost important of our effects, and continued our journey. We
were soon afterwards delighted to hoar the voice of our good
Schak, who had very prudently waited for our retui'ii. Having
made a fire, we passed the night in the grassy region, cand on
the third day reached the convent, where we were regaled with
an excellent bi-eakfast. We liowever took care not to i/oll the
Armenians anything about our accident, as they Avould certainly
not have failed to asciibe it to a judgment from heaven for our
presumptuous attempt to reach the summit, which they say
has been pi'ohibited to moi'tals bv a divine decree! since the
time of Noah. All the Armenians are fiimly persuaded that
Noah's ark exists to the present day on the summit of Mount
Ararat, and that in order to pn^serve it, no per.son is permitted
to approach it."

Dr. Pari'ot was laid \ip for a few days with an attack
of fever, brought on by the efleets of the fall, but on the
18th of September he considered himself sufKciently recov-
ered to make another attempt to r(>ach the sununit. This
time he took with liim a cross ten feet high, which he proposed
to set up on the toj) of the mountain, with an inscription in
honour of Field Marshal Count Poskewitsch, by whose victories
36

1' ": •

; .il

11^

m ■.

''i! 1

ii;

MM
'■1 :

»f|'i!

i !

r i

p'" : ■

U^l

P ■■!■' '

iij:

PiJ-''

HCi 1

Kelt ,

ra.

Liiiil

242

PEOPLE S COiMMENTARY.

the Russian dominion had been extended to this point. He
chose this time the noith-east side of the mountain, by which
the way was much longer, but not so steep. In this second
attempt he also failed, they erected however the cross on an
a,lmost horizontal surface covered dth snow, at the heiorht of
15,138 Paris feet above the level of the Euxine, or about 3o0
feet higher than Mount Blanc.

" On the 25th September," continues Professor Parrot, " I
sent to ask Stepan whether he would join us, but he declined,
saying that he had suffered too much from the former excui-sion
to venture again so soon ; he however promised to send us four
stout peasants with their oxen and a driver. Early next morn-
ing four stout peasants made their appearance at the camp, and
soon after a fifth, who offered himself voluntarily. To them I
added four of our soldiers. The deacon again accompanied us,
as well as Mr. Hehn, who wished to explore the vegetation at
a greater elevation, but he did not intend to proceed beyond
the line of snow. The experience of the preceding attempt had
convinced me that every thing depended on our passing the
first night as closely as possible to this boundarN^, in order to be
able to ascend and return from the summit in one day, and to
confine our baggage to what was absolutely necessary. We
therefore took with us three oxen laden with the clothing,
wood, and provisions. I also took a cross carved in oak * *
We chose our route towards the same side as before, and in
order to spare ourselves Abowiam and I rode on horse-
back. Here Mr. Hehn parted from us. It was scai-cel}^ twelve
o'clock when we reached this point, and, after partaking of our
breakfast, we proceeded in a direction rather more oblique than
on our former attempt. The cattle wex*e, however, unable to
follow us so quickly. We therefore halted at some rocks which
it would be impossible for them to pass — took each our own
share of clothing and wood, and sent banc the oxen. At half-
past five in the evening we were not far from the snow line,
and considerably higher than the place were we passed the
night on our previous excursion. The elevation at this point
is 13,036 Paris feet above the level of the sea ; and the large
masses of rock determined me to take up our (puirters here. A
fire was soon made, and a supper prepai'ed. I had some onion
broth, a dish which I would reconnnend to all mountain
travellers in prefei'ence to most broth, as being extremely
warm and invigorating. It was a magnificmt evening, and,
with my eyes fixed on the clear sky, and the lofty summit which
projected against it, and then again on the dark night which
was gathering far below, and around me, 1 1 xperienced all these
delightful sensations of tranquility, love and devotion, that
silent reminiscence of the past, that subdued glance into the

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

243

future, which a traveller never fails to experience when
on lofty elevations, and under pleasing circumstances.
I laid myself down under an overhanging rock of lava,
the temperature of the air at 4J degrees, which was
tolerably warm, considering our great height. At day-
break we rose, and began our journey at half past six.
We passed the last broken declivities in half an hour, and
entered the boundary of eternal snow nearly at the same place
as in our preceding ascent. In consequence of the incieased
warmth of the weather, the new-fallen snow, which had facili-
tated our progress in our previous ascent, had melted away, and
again frozen, so that, in spite of the inconsiderable slope, we
were compelled to cut steps in the ice. This very much embai'-
rassed our advance and added greatly to our fatigue. One of
our peasants had remained behind in our resting place, as he
felt unwell ; two others became exhausted in ascending the side
of the glacier. They at first lay down, but soon retreated to
our quarters. Without being disheartened by these difficulties
we proceeded, and soon reached the great cleft which makes
the upper edge of the declivity of the large glacier, and at ten
o'clock we arrived at the great plain of snow which makes the
first break on the icv head of Ararat. In the direction of,
towards the summit, a shorter but at the same time a steeper
declivity than the one we had passed lay before us ; and be-
tween this and the extreme summit there appeared to be only
a small hill. Aicei a short repose we passed the first precipice,
which was the steepest of all, by hewing out steps in the rock,
and after this the next elevation. But here, instead of seeing
the ultimate goal of all our difficulties, immediately before us
appeared a seiies of hills, which even concealed the summit
from our sight. This rather abated our courage, which had
never yielded for a moment so long as we had all our difficulties
in view, and our strength, exhausted by the labor of hewing
the rock, seemed scarcely commensurate with the attainment
of the now invisible object of our wishes. But a review of what
had already been accomplished, and of that which might still
remain to be done, the proximity of the series of projecting
elevations, and a glance at my brave companions banished my
fears, and we boldly advanced. We crossed two more hills, and
the cold air of the summit blew towards us. I stepped from
behind one of the glaciers, and the extreme cone of Ararat lay
distinctly befoi-e my enraptured e^es. But one more effort was
necessary. Only one other icy plain was to be ascended, and
at a quarter past three, on the 27th of September, 1829, we
stood on the summit of Mount Ararat !"

The above account of the ascent is taken from the Foreign
Quarterly Review for June, 1835, and the reviewer of Professor

244

people's commentary.

t '

! '

I I

Parrot's book fjoes on to say : " Having thus liappily accom-
plished his fatiguing and perilous enterprise, our author's first
wish and enjoyment was repose ; he spread a cloak on the
ground, and sitting down, contemplated the boundless but
desolate prospect around him. He was on a slight convex,
almost circular platform, about 200 Paris feet in diameter,
which at the extremity declines pretty steeply on all sides,
particularly towards the S. E. and N. E.; it was the silver crest
of Ararat, composed of eternal ice, unbroken by a rock or stone.
Towards the east, the summit declined more gently than in any
other direction, and was connected by a hollow, likewise covered
by perpetual ice, with another rather lower summit, which by
Mr. Federows trigonometrical measurement was found to be
187 toises distant from the principal summit. On account of
the immense distances nothing could be seen distinctl3\ The
whole valley of the A.raxes was covered with a grey mist, through
which Erivan and Sandarabad appeared as small dark spots.
While the Professor was eiifrajred in his observations the deacon
planted the cross, not precisely on the summit, where it could
not have been seen from the plain, as it was only five feet
high, but on the N. E. edge, about thirty feet lower than the
centre of the summit. The Professor and his five companions,
viz., the deacon, two Russian soldiers, and two Armenian peas-
ants, having remained three quarters of an hour on the summit,
commenced their descent, which was very fatiguing; but they
hastened as the sun was going down, and before they reached
the place where the great cross was erected, it had already sunk
below the horizon. It was a glorious sight to behold the dark
shadows which the mountains in the west cast upon the plain,
and then the profound darkness which covered all the valleys,
and gradually rose higher and higher on the sides of Ararat,
whose icy summit was still illuminated by the beams of the
setting sun. But the shadoAvs soon passed over that also, and
wouid have covered our path with a gloom that would have
rendered our descent dangerous, had not the sacred lamp of
night opportunely rising above the eastern horizon, cheered us
with its welcome beams.

Having passed the night on the same spot as on their ascent,
where they found their companions, they arrived the next day
at noon, at the Convent of St. James, and on the following day,
Sunday, the 28th September, they offered their grateful thanks-
giving to Heaven for the success of their trduous enterprise,
perhaps not far from the spot where Noah built an altar to the
Lord."

Encouraged by Dr. Parrot's success, frequent attempts were
afterwards mad« by other travellers, but all failed to I'each the
summit, until five years afterwards, the Russian traveller

ire

ler

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

245

Antornomoff, after encountering many dangevs.and experiencing
much hardship and fatigue, had the gratification to reach the
top of the mountain. The pious Armenians, however, stiil
persist in declaring the statements of these travellers as bare-
faced impositiot)s. The last account we have of a successful
attempt was by five English traveller in 1856, they were greatly
disappointed in not finding the ark, or at least a portion of it,
and came to the conclusion that it did not land on Mount
Ararat at all, but merely floated in its neighbourhood, and that
its real resting place will never be discovered by any human
being. There is a widely prevailing tradition among the East-
ern Churches that a certain monk, James, afterwards patriarch
of Nisibis, and a contemporary of St. Gregory, longed to see
the sacred ark with his own eyes, and made an attempt to
ascend, but frequently fell asleep from exhaustion ; and when
he awoke always found that he had slipped back to the place
from whence he had started. At last he was informed in a
dream, that no human being will ever succeed in reaching the
summit, but as a leward God sci I him down a piece of the ark,
which to the present day is pi ■-' . s ed as a most precious relic,
in the cathedral of Etchmiatlze^i.

The rejider will now see, how utterly impossible it would
have been without a special miracle for some of the (juadrupeds
to have made a descent over the icy declivities and rocky pre-
cipices. Nay, even for the human inmates, when it proves such
a dangerous and ditticult undertaking to modern travellers
provitled as they are, with all the aid that human ingenuity
has devise<l.

But it is altogether unwarrantable on the part of some of
our modern ciitics to bring forward the statement that the ark
rested on the tnuiuitainn of Ararat, as a proof "f the unhistorical
character of the book of Genesis, for it is not Scriptiu'e, but a
tradition founded upon an erroneous interpretation of the
original, that repiesents the ark to have rested on the mountain
now known to Euro|)eans as Ararat. To this point I will now
call the reader's attention.

I have already liinted that the term "Ararat" occurs nowhere
in Scripture as the name of a moinitahi, but as the name of a
region or country. This will at once become evident when we
turn to the only thi-ee places in which the term is found. Thus
in 2 Kings xix. 37, it is spoken of as the country into which
the two sons of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, lied, after having
killed their father in the house of Nisroch his god ; "and they
escaped into tO"l"li^ y^JJ^ (erets Ararat) the land of Ararat." In
the Authorized Version it is rendered " into the land of Ar-
menia," but in the Revised Version it is coirectly rendered
" the land of Ararat." This passage clearly shows that " the

ii ■?!

\ :h

246

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

land of Ararat " was not far from the Tiojrls and Euphrates, but
did not form a part of the Assyrian empire. The second place
where the term occurs is, Is. xxxii. 38, where the prophet
quotes the circumstance of the murder of Sennacherib by his
two sons verbatim.* And the third place where the term
occurs is in Jer. li. 27, where "Ararat" is mentioned in connec-
tion with the kini^doms of " Mimii" and "Ashchenaz •'' — "call
together against her (Babylon) the kingdoms of Ararat,Minni,and
Aslichenaz." In the Authorized Version " Ararat " is retained
and not translated Armenia, like in the other two places. It is
quite clear from these passages that Ararat is the name of a
country and not of a mountain, and a mere glance at the phrase-
ology will show that the same is the case also in the passage
under consideration. Whenever the sacred writers speak of a
particular mountain, they invariably use the singiihi)', as for
•example, 1510 "IH C^'^'*'' Sinai) Mount Sinai, "jlDlb in {har
Lev(inon) Mount Lebanon ; but in our passage >ve have
"t3"i155 "^"in" (/^^t''^ -4'''*—'') " niountains of Ararat," the noun
in the ])lural and in the construct state (genitive), which con-
clusively shows that Ararat cannot be the name of a mountain,
for it would be as great a violation of correct language in
Hebrew to say " the mountains of Arai-at," as it would be in
English to say, the mountahis of the Alps. All the ancient
authorities ag/ee in taking " Ararat" as the name of a country,
thus Berosus the Clialdean historian contemporary with Alex-
ander the Great, places the descent of the ark " on the moun-
tains of Kurdistan." He observes, " It is said there is still
some part of the ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the
Cordya^ans; and that some people carry ofFineces of the bitumen,
which they use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mis-
chiefs." (Joseph. Ant. B. I. ch. iii. par. G).

Josephus also remarks, " After this, the ark rested on a certain
mountain in Armenia." (Ant. B. I. ch. iii. par. 5.) The opinion
of Berosus is followed by the Chaldee and Syriac Versions,
which give mp """ntS [tare Kardu) " the mountains of Kurdis-
tan." In the valgate also, it is rendered " super montes
ArmenifB. " Ararat," as the name of a mountain, was unknown
to the geographers of Greece and Rome, and even the Armenians
to this day, call the mountain known to us as Ararat, Masis.

Jerome understood by the expression " mountains of Ai-arat,"
the plain of the Araxes, but most modern critics consider the
expression in its Biblical sense, as descriptive generally of the
Armenian highlands, the lofty plateau, which overlooks the
plain of the Araxes. And here, we again perceive the wisdom

* The murder of Sennacherib is also mentioned in the Apochryphal book
Tobit i. "21, where the sons are said to have fled " into the mountains of Ararat.'

people's commentary.

247

b'dis-
)ntes
^own
^ians
lis.
i-at,"
the
the
the
lora

300k

bat.'

of Divine Providence in guiding the ark to this locality. The
vegetation best suited to pastoral life is here abundant, and,
therefore, well adapted for the nomade state, in which the
earlj' generations of JNoah's descendants naturally have lived.
On the other hand, the climate is very severe, the winter lasts
from October to May, and is followed by a very short spring,
and an intensely hot summer. The severity of the climate, would
therefore afford a powerful inducement for the inhabitants as
they increased to seek for more temperate regions, and thus
bring about a more rapid dispersion of the people than if the
ark ha<l rested in a more pleasant locality.

The celebrated French traveller Tavernier, says, that the city
Nackshivan, three leagues from mount Ararat, is the most
ancient city in the world ; that the name is compounded of
Nack, (I ship, and schivan, settled or stopped, and that it received
this name, in memory of Noah having settled there after leav-
ing the ark.

5. A ml the waters decreased continually until the tenth month ; in
ihe tenth month, on the first day oftht month, the tops of the mountains
appeared.

The waters were continually abating, or as the orifjinal has it
"nOm tllbn {haloch weckasor), to go and to diminish, until the
first day of the tenth month, when they had sufficiently
decreased to render the tops of the mountains in general visible.
In the Authorized Version, and also in the Revised Version, the
Hebrew verb 15<15 (niru), is rendered " were seen," but there
is nothing in the narrative to indicate that the inmates of the
ark saw the tops, and there was nobody else to see them. The
meaning of the verb here, no doubt is, that at the time stated
the tops of the mountain "became visible," or "appeared";
though the rendering of the Authorized Version is also quite
admissible.

6. And it came to pass, at the end of forty days, that N'oah opened
the loindoio of the ark which he had made :

7. And he sent out the raven ; and it went to and fro, until the
wati'rs were dried up from the earth.

" At the end of forty days," that is, reckoning from " the first
day of the tenth month." " And he sent forth the raven."
Noah was evidently acquainted with the habits of the bird, and
therefore selected it as the most fitted for the occasion. The
raven is a strong, hardy, active bird, a greedy plunderei', and
feeds chiefly on carion. It can endure heat, cold, and hunger,
and was therefore a suitable messenger in order to ascertain
the condition of the earth. " And it went to and fro," that is,

1' IT

i^f

248

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

iW, ■ 1 m

it kept flying away and returning again to the ark without
however benig taken into it. The tops of the mountain
atibrded a resting j>lace, and earion supplied food. In Hebrew
the raven is called ^^^ (orev), blade bird.

8. And he sent forth the dove from him, to see whether the waters
had abated from the face of the ground.

The mere flying to and fro of the raven, furnished very little
information as to the state of the waters upon the face of the
earth. After seven days Noah, therefore, nmde another trial,
tliis time selecting the dove as his messenger, being more deli-
cate and tentlerly attached to its mate, antl consequently more
likely to return. Our verse does not state wliat time elapsed
between the sending of the raven, and the sending ot the dove,
but it was evidently seven days, for in verse 10 we read, " And
he waited yet other seven days."

0. But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned
to hhn, into the ark ; for the icaters were on the face of the lohole earth :
and he stretched out his hand, and took her, and brouyht her to himself
into the ark.

The mountain tops had indeed become bare, but doves do not
delight in frequenting mountains, und are probably on that
account by the prophet Ezekiel called *" doves of the valleys."
(Ch. vii. IG.) They delight in dr}', clean places, and never
alight on carion. The dove, therefore, not finding a resting
place for the sole of her i'eet, guided l)y instinct she returned
again to the ark. In Palestine there are two species of doves,
the house dove and the field dove.

• " And if their escaped ones escape, tbey Bhall be upon the mountains like
doves of the valleys, all mourning, every one for his ini(juity." That is, if
tliose who attempt to escape from the fury of battle are successful in their
ettbrts, they will in their solitary place of refuge in melancholy tones bewail
their iniquity. 'I'he escape of the fugitives is liei'c compared to doves of the
valleys wliicli alarmed by a bird of prey or a bird catclier, (juickly forsake their
natural abode in the ditls, and seek retuge in tiie mountains. And the moaning
of the escaped is very aptly compared to the melancholy cooing of the tloves.
Tile mountains are in other places in Scripture spoken of aa a place of refuge
both for men and birds.

' ' Thus David says :

" In the Lord I put my trust :
How say ye to my soul,
Flee as a biril to your mountain ?" (Pa. xi. 1.)

" The Flebrews evidently regarded the cooing of the dove aa a doleful cry,
thus Hezekiah says :

" Like a swallow or a crane, so did I chatter :
I did mourn as a dove ; mine eyes fail tvit/i looking upwards."

(Is. xxxviii. 14.)

witlioufc
mountain
I Hebrew

the loatsrs

:cry little
CO of the
-luT trial,
loie doli-
[itly more
e elapsed
the dove,
ad, •' And

he returned

hole earth :

to hiinaeir

es do not

on that

valleys."

nd never

resting

returned

if doves.

mains like
That is, if
ll in their
les bewail

Ifes of the

take their
iiioaiiiiig

lie (loves.

L)t refuge

tful cry.

14.)

people's commentary.

249

10. And h« waited yet other seven dayt, and again tent forth the
dove out of' the ark.

11. And the dove came in to him at eventide; and behold, in her
mouth was an olive leaf freshly plucked; and Noah knew that t/ie
waters had abated from off the earth.

The dove this time only returned when darkness began to
spread gloom over the still immersed earth, bearing a freshly
plucked olive leaf in her mouth ; this was a cheering proof to
Noah, that the tops of the trees had now emerged from their
watery covering. The ancient geographer Strabo testifies that
the olive tree was common in Armenia ; and the Greek natur-
alist Theophrastus states that the olive tree retains its verdure
under water. (Hist Plant, iv. 8.) Pliny also speaks of it.
(xiii. 50.) ) ^. V

From the circumstance of the dove bringing an olive leaf in
her mouth to Noah, it was always looked upon in the east as a
bird of good omen, whilst an olive branch became the symbol
of peace and joy. (2 Maccab. xiv. 4. Virg. vEn. vi. 230.)

12. And he waited yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove,
and she returned not again unto him any more.

" And he waited :" the verb ^pj'' (yachal) employed here
and also in verse 10, is often used with the accessory meaning
to wait with confidence. Noah did not lose his trust in the
Lord, but waited patiently, in faith feeling confident that God
in his appointed time would again render the earth habitable
and release him from the confinement in the ark.

13. And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the
first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from
ojff the earth ; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked,
and behold, the face o/ the ground was dry.

As the open air is the natural element for birds, the circum-
stance of the dove not returning again to the ark, was no
absolute proof that the waters had entirely left the surface of
the ground. It merely showed that they had sufficiently de-
creased to enable the bird to find a suitable resting place and food.
Noah waited therefore some time — the time is not accounted for
in the narrative — but on the first day of the first month, in the
six hundred and first year of his life, he " removed the covering
of the ark," in order that he might obtain a full view of the sur-
37

,1 f

t "

I! I 'I

250

people's commentary.

rounding country, and thus ascertain the real state of the ground.
"And behold, the face of the ground was dry"; this can,
however, only mean, that the surface of the ground was free
from water, that no water was to be seen upon it, but that it
was still saturated, for in vei-se 14 it is distinctly stated that,
" in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the
month was the earth dry " ; that is no less than fifty-seven days
after the removing of the covering of the ark. The Hebrew
student will see that in the original there are three distinct
verbs employed to express the gradual decrease of the water.
In verse 11 we have the verb '\^p (kallu) " they were di-
minished," or " become light ;" in verse 13 we have the verb
l^-jn (charevu) " was dry," that is, so far that no more water
was to be seen upon it; and in verse 14 we have the verb
niDH'' (yaveshah) " completely dry." Luther renders the verb
in verse 13 " trocken" i. e., dry ; and the verb in verse 14
ganz trocken^' i. e., perfectly dry. And so many of the Ger-
man commentators make the distinction by rendering the last
verb by " vollig trocken," i. e., entirely dry. As the Hebrew
word nOD^ (michseh) ''covering" is in Exod. xxvi. 14. Num.
iv. 8, used in reference to a covering of skins, some interpreters
have erroneously supposed, that a similar covering is spoken of
here. The word here denotes the roof of the ark, correctly
rendered in the Septuagint by a-Teyt), roof.

14. And in the second month on the seven and twentieth day of the
month, was the earth dry.

According to ch. vi. 17, the flood commenced in the 600th year
of Noah's life, in the second month, and the 17th day of the
month, and according to our verse the earth became perfectly
dry on the 27th of the second month of the 601st year of
Noah's life, the duration of the flood was therefore one year
and ten days.

15. And God spake unto Noah, saying :

16. Goforih of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy
sons' wives, toith thee.

Accustomed as Noah was to an open air life, the long con-
finement in the ark must have been wearisome to him, and j'et,
though he knew that the earth was dry, he did not leave the
ark until God commanded him to do so. He trusted in the
Lord, and felt sure, that as God had bid him to enter the ark,
He would also, when the proper time, arrived bid him to leave
it.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

251

20, And Noah built an altar to the Lord ; and took of every clean
beast, and of every clean/owl, and offered burnt offerinya on the altar.

Although this is the first time that the altar is mentioned,
yet as sacrifices had been offered before the Hood, no doubt, a
suitable place was always constructed for it ; and hence it is
here merely said, that " Noah built an altar," implying that he
built it in such a maimer as was acceptable to God. The
Hebrew word for altar is nST^ (viizbeach) derived from the
verb niT {znvach) to aacrifice, and hence, the term signifies (i
place on which sacrijiceaivere offered. The English word altav
is derived from the Latin altas, high, because originally the
altar was made of raised mounds of earth, or rough stone. (See
Exod. XX. 24, 25.) The altar which Moses commanded Joshua
to build on Mount Ebal, was to be of unpolished stones. (Deut.
xxvii. 5.) And no doubt those constructed by Sanuiel, Saul,
and David were of the same material. The altar which Solomon
built in the temple was of brass, but supposed to have been
filled in with stones. (2 Chron. iv. 1, 2, 3.) The altar built by
Zerubbabel, after the return from the Babylonish captivity was
also of rough stones; and so was that of the Maccabees. Joseph us
says, that the altar which was in his time in the temple was of
rough stones, fifteen cubits high, forty long, and forty wide.
(Wars b. vi. ch. 14.) " And took of every clean beast, and of
every clean fowl ;" this sacrifice of Noah was unique, neither
before nor afterwards was such a magnificent animal sacrifice
offered up. All the clean animals and fowls contributed to this
grand offering which the pious patriarch brought both as a sin
and thank-offering in gratitude to the Almighty who had pre-
served him and his family.

The Hebrew word for burnt-offering is nb? (olah), and
literally means an ascent-offering, so called because every part
except the skin was consumed and thus rose from the altar to
heaven, and not as Gesenius and others explain, that it was so
called, " because they were carried up and laid on the altar."
The skin belonged to the officiating priest. The sacrifice deno-
ted by the term nHT (zevach), differed from the former, inasmuch
as it was not entirely burned. If it was a sacrifice for sin, or
expiation, or for the purification of a person who had committed
an offence against the law, the officiating priest received a part
of it. If the sacrifice was brought as a thank-offering or peace-
offering, the fat only was burned upon the altar, the fat being
regarded as the best part ; except if the victim was a lamb or
ram, in that case the rump was added. The breast and right
shoulder went to the priest, but all the rest belonged to the
sacrificer, who, with his family, and friends, and invited poor,
eat it. This partaking of the peace-offering betokened the

-i-M

252

people's commentart.

til i ■

3 1 I

N n

enjoyment of communion with God, in the gifts which His
mercy had bestowed, of wlncli the choicest portion was otrored
to Hiiu, u portion to His servants tlie priests, and to His poor,
who according to Deut. xvi. 10, II, were to be invited to these
sacriHcial feasts. Hence the Psalmist says :

" Of theo luy praise thall be in the great congregation.
My vows I will pay before thum that fear him.
The meek shall oat and be satisfied. "

(Ps. xxii. 26, 27. Eng. Ver. 25, 26.

At the feasts when these thank-offerings were offered his
oppressed brethren should take part in them, they should eat
and be joyful.

21. And the Lord amelled a sweet savour; and the honv 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 ; neither will
I again smite any more every living being, as I have done.

" And the Lord smellcd a sweet savour," that is, the sacrifices
which the righteous patriarch offered were pleasing to the Lord.
The expression "sweet savour" (Hebrew nrT'DH PI''"! (reach
hanihichoach) sviell of rest or satisfaction when used in con-
nection with sacrifices, is identical in meaning with delight or
pleasure, and hence acceptable. Thus Lev. i. 9, we read, " and
the priest shall burn the whole on the altar for a burnt-offering
made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord," that is, accept-
able unto the Lord. So again. Lev. xxvi. 31, " I will not smell
the savour of your sweet odours," i.e., I will not accept your
sacrifices. St. Paul, too, employed the phrase in his Epistle to
the Ephesians, v. 2.

" And the Lord said in His heart," an anthropomorphic
expression, merely denoting, the Lord determined. " I will not
again curse the ground for man's sake." The Lord accepted the
sacrifices of Noah as the acknowledgement on the part of man
that he desires reconciliation with God, and gives the grapinu"
promise that the earth should not be again visited by I

which would destroy every living being; "for thr- i„u\;
of man's heart is evil from his youth," and, thei • U

have compassion on his infirmities. Sin, indt canno ^o
unpunished, yet though He will not overlook his u , il deefl , He
will no more destroy him from off the face of the earth.

22. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and
heat, and aummsr, and viinter, and day and night shall not cedse^

This verse contains another gracious promise, namely, that
as long as the earth endures, or as the original has it, " all the

PEOPLES COMMENTAUV.

25^

days of tho earth," tlio natural change, of the .season bhall nob
be suspen^lecl n^ain, as had heen tlie case (luiin<,' tho time of
the flood, but seed-Ziixeand harvest, coKl and heat, suninitr and
winter, day and night, sliouUl alternate in their reguhir order.
The ancient Hebrews were accustomed to divide tlie year into
two halves, namely, summer, with its heat and dryness, an<l its
harvest (Comp. Is. xviii. 4; Jer. viii. 20); and wintei, with its
rain and cold, its ploughing and sowing (Comp. Jer. xx.wi. 22 ,
Prov. XX. 4). If the render will bear in mind, this division of
the year, tho force ami beauty of some passngts will more
clearly be seen. Thus, for instance, Solomon says :

The Bhij^gnrd will not plftiit on account of coltl :

Uo secketh in the harvest, and there iu nothing. (Prov. xx. 4.)

CHAPTER IX.

1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to iherii, Be fruit-
ful^ and multiply, and Jill the earth.

2. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every
beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air ; on all that moveth
upon the ground, and on all the fishes of the sea ; into your hand they
are delivered.

The Divine blessing bestowed upon Noah and his sons is
couched in the same language as the blessing with which God
blessed our first parents after their creation ; " Be fruitful, and
multiply, and fill the earth," for with Noah commences tho
history of the human family from a second beginning. The
depravity of man had indeed brought down upon him a fear-
ful punishment, but it did not extinguish tho lovo and mercy
of God, for these endure for ever, and thus tho sacred narra-
tive tells us that hero, like in tho very begiiming, God bestowed
the same Divine blessing upon tho second ancestor of tliu
human race to replenish tho earth. God constitutes Noah also
the lord and ruler over all tho brute creation ; but hero there
is a marked difference in the language to that employed in Gun.
i. 28, where it is said, " and have dominion over oh') fish of tho
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every ^living thing
that moveth upon the earth ;" but in our passage we have the
declaration, that "the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall
be upon every beast of the earth." The difference in the lan-
38

.■i^t.,...

Fjf^r

■H

Ml' ^

'("

ifir-i^

1! <!

254

peoplr's commentary.

guage clearly indicates a great change to have taken place ia
the disposition and habits of the animals. Before sin had
entered into the world peace and harmony reigned among all
creatures, but after that event their propensities became
changed, gentleness and docility were supplanted by untract-
ableness and ferocity. God, therefore, gives Noah the assur-
ance, that notwithstanding this change in tlieir nature, there
should always exist among the animal creation a " dread " of
man. The language of our passage must, however, not be con-
strued to set forth that the same degree of " fear " and " dread"
of man should exist in all .animals, but rather that this " fear "
and " dread " exist in a greater or lesser degree in all the brute
creation.

3. Every moving thinxf that liveth shall be to you for food ; as the
(/reeit herb I give to you all.

In this verse we have, for the first time, set forth the per-
mission of killing animals for food. Up to this time man was
only appointed to have " dominion " over the animals, but this
" dominion " did not extend to taking their life except for sac-
O'ifice. " As the green herb I give you all things," alludes to
the primitive grant made to man. Gen. i. 29, when God
appointed to him " every herb " and " fruit of a tree " for food.
And though, probably, animal food had ueen made use of
before the flood, if so, it was certainly without any direct
Divine permission having been given. " Every moving thing,"
in the original the word 'ffi^ai {remes) is employed, which is
applied to reptiles, creeping things, but is here used in a gene-
ral sense for every thing that nioveth. " That liveth ;" this
expression clearly implies that only animals that were killed
for the purpose of food were allowed to bo eaten, and not such
as had ditul of themselves, or had been killed otherwise. " I
give you all." From this emphatic expression, at the end of
the verse, it is quite evident that there is here no distinction
made between the clean and unclean animals as was later
under the Mosaic dietary laws. Many of the eminent Rabbinic
writers regard the permission to use animal food as a provi-
dential provision, being necessary on account of the change
of temperature that had taken place after the flood.

4. Only thejiesh with its Zi/e, which is its blood, ye shall not eat.

The permission to eat animal food is accompanied with the
proviso that flesh in which there is still blood must not be
eaten, because the blood is the life of the animal, and the life
belongs to God. The commandment contained in our verse is
again laid down by Moses with great force and distinctness,

people's commentary.

255

and a reason for its strict observance assigned. " And any
man of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourn
among them, that eat any blood ; and I will set my face against
that soul that eateth blood, and I will cut him off from among
his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I
have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for
your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by the
life." Or as it maybe rendered, "for the life," or " for the
soul," * as in the Authorized Version. (Lev. xvii. 10, 11, et seq.)
The blood is the life of the animal, and that life is to be offered
up to God on the altar as an expiation for the soul or life of
him who brings the sacrifice which God might have demanded
for his sins.

Some commentators have indeed erroneously regarded the
prohibition in our verse as merely directed against the eating
of raw meat, such as has been, and is still, practised among some
of the less civilized people, as among some of the tribes in
Abyssinia, the Esquimaux, and others. Or against the still
more barbarous practice of cutting pieces of flesh from a living
animal, and devouring them raw with the blood streaming
from it, as was frequently d(me in the idolatrous worship of
some heathen nations. The celebrated Rabbi Maimonidcs,
who, in order to enable him more fully to set forth the import-
ance of some of the Mosaic laws, has, at the risk of his life,
collected a great deal of information regarding the practices of
fierce and barbarous people in their idolatrous worship, and
has given numerous instances of the horrible custom of cutting
pieces from live animals. And the modern travellers Bruce
and Madden testify that the practice still exists among some
of the Abyssinians, and relate several revolting instances which
they have themselves seen. Now, whilst we are ready to admit
that the prohibition in our verse may probably have been also
directed against such savage customs as those we have alluded
to — though we have not the slightest proof that such existed
in those early times — yet we must still insist upon that received
by the light of the passage we have quoted from Leviticus ;
its primary aim was to attach to blood a peculiar sacredness as
containing or representing the life of the animal, and which
was to be solemnly offered up upon the altar. Our verse does
not prohibit the eating of uncooked meat, but merely the blood
in a separate state.

• The Hebrew word *J5S5 {nfphesh),vr\\.\Q\i is employed both in our verse
and in Lev. xvii. 10, 11, denotes both soul and life, and the context alone must
guide which of the two words is to be used in translatiop. Thus la. liii. 12,

"Because he poured out IJJBD (nephes/t) his soul unto death," ». c, he gave his
life.

^"W"!^

256

people's commentary.

.^■*

5. And surely your blood, the blood of your Uvea, will I require ;■
at the hand of every beast will J require it: and at the hand of manf.
even at the hand of every man's brother, will 1 require the life of man.

" Your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require." On
account of the somewhat peculiar phraseology of the passage
C^'^tl'CBSb C3?aT flK {^tf^ dimchem lenaphshotfiechem) it has
been rendered in difterent ways. In the Authorized Version,,
it is translated " your blood of your lives," and so in the Sep-
tuagint, the Syriac, and Vulgate Versions, and also by some
modern commentators, but this rendering is on philological
grounds inadmissible.* Some Rabbinic writers render " I shall
demand your blood from your souls," and explain it as a pro-
hibition against suicide, which is not only against the tenor of
the passage, but would also require the reading dD^fTtUSDJi
{minnaphshothechem). The rendeiing which we have given,
and which is also given in the Revised Version, brings out the
sense of the passage fully, and is quite admissible, as f lequently
a word has to be supplied from a previous clause, in order to
complete the sense. " At the hand of every beast will I require
it ;" not only is man to suffer death for the murder he has
committed, but the beast also which has shed human blood
must be removed from the earth. Hence the commandment,
Exod. xxi. 28, " And if an ox gore a man or a woman, that he
die, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and his flesh shall not
be eaten." This commandment is generally understood as
applying to all animals, and that the goring of an ox is
only given as an instance. Indeed, the Samaritan codex has
n)2rin b'D 1fe5 "I'l.tJ (i^'hor o col hehemah) an ox or any beast.

'J'he infliction of punishment upon animals for killing a
human being was evidently also adopted by other nations from
the Mosaic laws, who, however, extended it to inanimated
things. Thus Draco (Greek Drakon), an eminent Athenian
lawgiver, born about G24 B.C., and therefoi'o lived about the
time of the prophet Jeremiah, actually ordered a stone sword
or club with which a man was killed to be prosecuted, if the
murderer himself ».3uld not be discovered. Solon, the most
renowned of all the ancient Greek lawgivers, born about 638
B.C., who softened the severity of the laws of Draco, still
retained in full rigour the laws in respect to the punishment
for murder. One of his laws went so far as to cause a dog who
bit any one to be bound and delivered over to justice. A statue
at Athens, which fell and killed a person, was punished as a
murderer. And so late as the year 1540, a stcord wherewith
a murder had been committed at Toidouie was, by a sentence

* tS^lmi'BDb t'aiinot Le taken as a genitive after tlS^I * substantive
with a pruuouiinul suliix.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

257

of the Parliament, liung upon a gallows because the murderer
liiraself could not be discovered. (See J. D. Michaelis's Cora,
■on the laws of Moses, vol. 4, pp. 23*, 235.) This infliction of
punishment on inanimated things may appear ridiculous in our
«yes, it however shows how sacred human blood was regarded.
" And at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's
brother, will I require the life of man ;" all men are in Scripture
regarded as brethren, they having one common origin : compare
Lev. xix. 17 ; Ps. xlix. 8 (Eng. Vers. v. 7). The expression
■" every man's brother " therefore means, whosoever he may he,
since he is the slain man's brother. Our passage, accordingly,
does not merely have reference to the custom of blood revenge
by the nearest relative, as some writers have restricted its
meaning, it imposes on the regular constituted authorities the
•duty to strictly carry out the injunction, to see that the shed-
ding of human blood is properly avenged. In the Chaldee
Version the passage is freely rendered : " At the hand of the
man who sheds his brother's blood will I require the life of
man." If, indeed, there were any doubt as to the exact mean-
ing of the phrase " of ever^ man's brother," that doubt would
be set at rest by the plain language in the next verse.

6. Whoso aheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for
171 the image of God made He man.

Luther has rightly remarked : " This was the first command
having reference to the temporal sword. By these words
temporal government was established, and the sword placed in
its hand by God." The expressions, " of every man's brother,"
" by man shall his blood be shed," do not give permission to
every one to take vengeance on the murdorer, this was under
the Mosaic laws restricted to the ^jj^^ igoel) i. e., the nearest
relative to the person murdered, and the regular constituted
authorities. The Scriptures nowhere permit revenge. The
shedding of blood must also have been wilfully and maliciously ;
the la'cing of life unintentionally, and without previous malice,
was not to be avenged. (See Deut. xix. 4.) In the Chaldee
Version the phrase, " by man shall his blood be sIumI," is para-
phrased " with witnesses by the sentence of the judges shall
his blood be shed." As the divinely appointed judges repre-
sented the authority of God they are called Qinbs^ {Elohim)
" gods :" _" I said, ye are gods," (Ps. Ixxxii. 8.)

" For in the image of God made He him ;" here we have the
-enoimity of the crime of murder fully set forth ; he that taketh
human life obliterates the image of God in man, and therefore,
AS Philo Judceus calls it, a sacrilege on the likeness of God in
man, to be punished even when caused by an animal. Hence
Scripture represents the blood of the slain to cry for vengeance

258

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

rl ■ilisli^

Ml!

'li

! i

to heaven, Gen. iv., 10, and demands that the wilful murderer
was even to be taken from the altar of God to suflTer deaths
Nay more, in 1 Kings ii., 28-34, there is an instance where the
murderer was, at the command of Solomon, slain at the very
altar. It is impossible to conceive how Scripture could have
set forth the enormity of the crime of wilfiil murder more
forcibly and explicitly, and prescribe in language more plainly
the punishment with which it was to be visited. This then
brings us face to face with the important subject regarding
capital puniahment, which from time to time attracts so much
attention in the legislative halls of different countries. It is
urged by the advocates for the abolition of capital punishment,
that by imprisonment for life, or for a lengthy time, with hard
labour, greater torments are inflicted on the imprisoned mur-
derer than by an instantaneous death, and serves just as well
to free the public from the presence of a dangerous felon, ".s if
capital punishment had been inflicted. But this argument
evades altogether the important question, whether it is in the
power of earthly rulers to abrogate the sentence which the
Almighty Himself has passed : " Whoso sheddeth man's bloody
by man shall his blood be shed." It is indeed argued that the
civil laws of Moses were never intended to be absolutely unal-
terable, that even Moses himself altered some. No doubt many
of those laws were instituted as the exigencies of the times, and
the existing state of society required them, and that, therefore,
when the necessity for them has ceased to exist, there could be
no objection to abolish them. As an instance, the institution
of goelism, or blood revenge by the nearest relative, is appealed
to, which was an absolute necessity in those early days before
regular constituted magistrates and judges existed, otherwise
the murderer would have gone unpunished ; but when, in the
course of time, regular tribunals of justice were established, the
system of blood i-evenge gradually fell in disuse, and is only
now found to subsist in full force among the Arabians. Other
Mosaic laws are referred to as being no longer regarded obliga-
tory. Hooker, one of the most illustrious writers and thinkers,
remarks on this subject : " Laws, though both ordained of God
himself, and the end for which they were ordained continuing,
may notwithstanding ce; \ if, by alteration of persons or times,
they be found insufiicient w attain unto that end. In which
respect why may we not presume that God doth even call for
such change or alteration as the very condition of things them-
selves doth make necessary ? " (Vol. i. j». 398.) All this is no
argument against the punishment imposed for murder in
Scripture, for neither " alteration of persons or times " have
rendered it " insuflicient," on the contrary, experience has amply
proved its wisdom and necessity. We have seen, whenever
governments allowed themselves to be influenced by the voice

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

25<>

of the populace, rather than be guided by the voice of the
Almighty, and abolished capital punishment, the crime of
murder increased so fearfully as to compel them to replace the
death penalty again in their criminal codes. Then, as regaids
imprisonment for life " inflicting greater torments than instan-
taneous death," it nevertheless does not strike with the same
terror as ca])ital punishment, as is quite evident from the fact
that invariably the utmost efforts are made to obtain a reprieve.
But apart from this, expediency must here be left altogether
out of the question. God, in His infinite Wisdom, has declared
" whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,"
and the principle on which the act of taking human life was
regarded by the Almighty as a capital crime is stated on its
highest grounds, " for in the image of God made He man."
And here it is important to bear in mind, that this command-
ment, when first promulgated, was not given to the Hebrews
as a nation, so that it might be said to be obligatory on that
nation only, but was given to Noah and his sons, by whom the
world was re-peopled after the flood, and is, therefore, obliga-
gatory on all the nations of the world. And this will account
for murder being universally punished with death, even among
the savage nations. There are three commandments which
altogether preclude the plea of being only binding on the
Israelites, they having been given long before they became a
nation, namely, the keeping of the Sabbath, instituted Gen. ii, 2 ;
marriage, instituted ch. ii. 24 ; and the commandment in our
veroC. Indeed, according to the Talmud, there were seven
commandments, called " HD "1521 tmS)a S^lID (sheva mitsvoth
bene Noach) seven cemmandments of the sons of Noali," which
were binding on all men, as having been given to Noah nnd
his sons, or as some of the Rabbinical writers maintain, " dating
back to the time of Adam." (Talmud, Sanhedsrim, Moimonides,
Hilch, Melach., ix., 1.) These are, 1 blasphemy, 2 idolatry,
3 murder, 4 incest as regards the forbidden degree of maniago,
5 plunder, 6 disobedience against the authorities of tlie state,
and 7 the eating of flesh cut from a living animal. These seven
laws even strangers dwelling among the ancient Israelites were
required to observe strictly.

8. And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,

9. And I,behold I am establishing My covenant with you, andioith
your seed after you ;

10. And with every living creature that is with you,ofthe fowl, of
the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you ; from all t/tat go out of
the ark to every b^ast of the earth.

What God (ch, viii. 21) had determined in his heart is hero
formulated into a solemn and unalterable covenant,and declared

) i

260

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

i'U.

to Noali and his sons. In this covenant of mercy the animals
are likewise inchided, for they had also been smitten by the
anger of God. " I am establish ing my covenant with you ;"
not indeed that man has any claim upon the Almighty — for a
covenant implies a mutual compacts — but by an act of His
infinite mercy He was pleased to enter voluntarily into an
engagement with His creatures; and thus show forth His
boundless love, in order to inspire man with confidence to
look up to Him as a loving Father, who cares for the welfare
of His children. " From all that go out of the ark, to every
beast of the earth." The phraseology of this passage is some-
what peculiar in the original, but its obvious tneaning is, that
the covenant is not confined to the animals only that went out
of the ark, but extends to all the animals of the earth.

11. And I will establish My covenant loith you; and no more
shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; neither shall tliere
any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

This verse sets forth the import of the covenant, that
though some })ortions of the earth might, from time to time, be
visited with an inundation, which may cause great destruction,
and entail a great deal of misery, yet there never should occur
such a fiood by which all living things should be destroyed.
And are we truly thankful for the unspeakable comfort which
this gracious promise affords ? — a promise which relieves us for
ever of all fear of another flood. We may also remark that
the promise which God here calls a " covenant," in alluding to
it in Isaiah, He calls it an oath :

For this is as the waters of Noah to me ;

For iia I liave sworn

That the waters of Noah should no more

Go over the earth :

So have I sworn

That I wouhl not be wrath with thee, nor rebuke thee.

(Is. liv. 9.)

God's promises being sure to be fulfilled, are solemn oaths
in substance, though thev are not so in form.

12. And God said, This is the sign of the covenant lohich I give
between Jfe and you, and between every living creature that is with you,
for eter)tal generations.

13. I constitute my boio in the clouds, and it shall be for a sign of
a covenant betiveen Me and between the earth.

God not only condescended to conclude a covenant with
His creatures, but He constituted, at the same time, a visible
sign of the u'ond's covenant, which was constantly to remind

PFOPI." S CO]>rMi;NT/Vi;.Y.

201

man of this giacious act, aal the ueart-cheuiug pronises
which it conveys. And what could have been more appro
priate for such a sign than the marvellous arcli suddenly
appearing in the still cloud-covered part of heaven after rain,
whose beauty, whilst it charms the eyes, at the same time
impresses the mind with the omnipotence of the Creator. No
wonder that so many nations have looked with special rever-
ence upon the rainbow, and have connected with its appear-
ance religious ideas, and that the ancient Greeks, apparently in
reference to its emblematical signification, should have called
it I/)t<? (Iris), which Eustathius derives from etpw, to tell, to
carry a Ttiessage, and was afterwards deified as the messenger
of the gods. The Persians, too, have regai'ded the rainbow as
a divine messenger; and on an ancient picture is seen por-
trayed a winged boy on a rainbow, and an old man kneeling
before him. (Stolberg, Gesch. der Rel. i. 64.) Some of the
inhabitants of South America likewise worshipped the rain-
bow as a benign goddess. And the old Scandinavians regarded
the rainbow as a bridge constructed by the gods to connect
heaven and earth. (Rosenmiilkr Morgenl, 1, 44.) We must now
draw the reader's attention to the rendering given of our
verse in the Authorized Version, and which is also retained in
the Revised Version, which is as follows : " I do set ray bow in
the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between
Me and the earth." Now this rendering, it will be perceived,
conveys the idea that the rainbow never existed before.whereas,
when we take into consideration that this beautiful plienome-
non is the natural result of the refraction and reflection of
the sun's rays falling on drops of water on the occurrence of
a sunny shower, it must have been seen over and over again
in the clouds during the 1656 years that elnpsed between the
creation and the deluge. The passage should be rendered, " I
do constitute my bow in the clouds," it boconu-s, then, at once
intelligible, and strikingly beautiful. The rainbow, although
often seen before, was not until then appointed as a sign and
pledge of the promise made to Noah. The beautiful phenome-
non, which no doubt often onchanted its beholders, has now
been made of peculiar significance — nothing less than the visi-
ble sign of a covenant between the eternal Jehovah and frail
man. The verb "ij^^ (nathan) has, in common with most

Hebrew verbs, several shades of signification, namely, to give,
to set, to constitiUe, to appoint, &c.; the rendering in the
English Version is, therefore, not actually a mistranslation of
the Hebrew verb, but rather nn unhappy choice from its vari-
ous significations. Numerous passages can be adduced where
the verb is used in the sense to constitute, or to appoint; thus
Oenesis xvii, 5, " for a father of many nations I have consti-
39

I :i

. l:

-■ti

I
! I

Ji^l

262

ll'll

people's commentary.

fl:-!!

ted thee." (Authorized Version, " I have made thee.") Also
" See, I have appointed thee a god to Pharoah." (Authorized
Version, " See, I have made thee." Again, Num. xi v. 4," Let
us appoint a captain." (Author's Version, " Let us make a
captain.) And so in many other ])laces. Accoi'ding to the
eminent llabbi Alaimonides, the ancient Jews were accus-
tomed, on beholding the rainbow, to bless God for mercifully
remembering his covenant, and faithfully keeping it. And
Jesus, the son of Sirach, says, " Look upon the rainbow, and
praise Him that made it."

16, And the bow shall be in the cloud ; and f mill look u)>nn it,* to
remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living crea-
ture of all flesh that is upon the earth.

The expression, " I shall remember my covenant," in the

f)receding verse, and the expression, " to remember the ever-
asting covenant," in our verse, do not imply the possibility
of God forgetting his promises at any time, they simply con-
vey to us, in plain and forcible language, the immutableness
of the Almighty's declarations. God unites here in the phrase
TOS bSH riTl tlJSi (nej^hesh chaiyah hechol basar), all living
creatures, from man down to the most insignificant creature,
all are embraced in this everlasting covenant of peace.

18. And the aonsof Noah, who went out of the ark, were Shem, and
Ham, an d Jajiheth ; and Ilavi is the father of Canaan.

As Ham hath other sons besides Canaan, the question natu-
rally arises, why this one should have been particularly men-
tioned here ? It seems to me the only satisfactory answer is,
that although the other descendants of Ham wore idolaters,
and sunk in wickedness, yet the descendants of Canaan greatly
exceeded them in wicked deeds and acts of cruelty, and the
sacred writer, therefore, in exclusively mentioning him, desires
to convey the information that Ham was the father of Canaan,
"who was the progenitor of the Canaanites, the most wicked
and depraved of all the races. (See more on this subject, vol.
1, p. cii., et. seq.)

20. And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vine-
yard :

We are not obliged to infer from the expression, " And Noah
began to be a husbandman," that he may not have followed this
occupation before the flood ; but merely that he resumed the

• The verb 13TD Hizcor) is, iii the Authorized Version, and also in the
Revised Version rendered, "that I may remember." The literal renderings
however, is *' to remember," which I have given.

people's commentary.

263

occupation of a husbandman. In Scripture a person who con-
tinues or resumes an action is sometimes spoken of as beginning
it. Thus ch. vi. 1, it is said, " When men began to multiply,'
but wo know that men multiplied befoie : the expression
means, when men continued to multiitly. In the New 1'esta-
mcnt the verb begin is sometimes used redundantly. Compare,
for instance, Mark xi. 15, Christ is said to " begin to cast out,"
and Luke xii. 1, to " begin to say," whore, in the parallel
places, Matt. xxi. 12, it is only said " cast out," «nd Matt. xvi.
6, " said." And so likewise in regard to Noah planting a vine-
yard, we are not obliged to suppose that wine was not culti-
vated before the flood, but njerely that among other agricul-
tural operations he also planted a vineyard. Modern travellers
testify that " nowhere is the vine found to grow so sponta-
neously, and in such an abundance and excellence as in the
region of Ararat, in Armenia, and the eastern Pontus." And
it is worthy of notice, that as from the sons of Noah the earth
was repeopled after the flood, we have the remarkable coinci-
dent, that the Hebrew term for wine "iii (yayin) is found, with

slight variation, in many eastern and western languages. Thus
Greek oivo<{; Latin, rhiuni ; Italian and Spanish, mio : Oer-
m&n, Wf'in ; FrcnrL, lin ; Welsh, yim/i; Cimbric, Uin ; Dutch,
wiin ; Danish, vim Some of the heathen nations ascribe the
invention of wine to their deities, thus the Egyptians attributed
it to Osiris (many eyed); the Phcvnicians and Greeks to
Bacchus, and the Romans to Saturn.

21. And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was
uncovered within his tent.*

" And he drank of the wine," the Hebrew term for " wine,"
here employed is, -.ii (yayin), the derivation of the word in

doubtful, though Gesenius and some other writers, derive it from
an obsolete root, "i^i (yon) to boil vp, to be in a ferment. But

though there is an uncertainty as to the etymology of the word,
there exists not the slighto^st doubt as to the inebriating quality
of the product denoted by it. The statement in our ver.so
is sufficient proof on this point. But there are many other
passages in Scripture where the word occurs which distinctly
refer to its intoxicating quality. Thus Gen. xlix.l2 : " Spark-
ling are his eyes (miyayin) from wine." Isaiah exclaims :

Woe unto them who rise up early in the morning, that they may follow

strong drink :
And continue till after twilight till wine inflame them." Is. v. ii.

*rtbniS5 for ibnfi^ so again, Ch. xii. 8, Ch. xlix. 11 ; and in other places.

264

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

' !i;

'! f

" Wine," says Solomon, is a mocker, strong drink is boisterous,
and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." (Prov. xx. i.)
Wine is oven used for drunkenness itself ; thus, 1 Sam. i. 14 :
" And Eli said unto her how long wilt thou be drunken ? put
away tlS"'"', (yanech) thy wine from thee ;" i. e., put away thy
drunkenness from thee." And so in other places. On account
of the intoxicating quality of the wine, we find in Lev. x. 9,
the precautionary command to Aaron : " Do not drink (yayln)
wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee when ye
go into the tabnernacle of the congregation, lest ye die." When
they were to perform their sacred duties, they were entirely
forbidden to drink it, for even the tasting might lead to intem-
perance. And Philo, in speaking of the wisdom of this com-
mand, enumerates four results which the drinking of wine pro-
duces, " hesitation, forgetfulness, sleep, and folly." Against
the non-observance of this command, the prophet Isaiah after-
wards bitterly cries out : " The priest and prophet have erred
through strong drink, and are disordered by wine." (Is. xxviij.
7.) A similar prohibition existed also among some of the
heathen nations. The Egyptian priests, and those that were
about to be initiated into the mysteries of Isis, were not allowed
CO taste wine. Among the Persian Magi, a similar law prevailed.
Among several Greek tribes there existed a custom, that if any
one intended to perform some sacred act, or wished to consult
an oracle, he was to abstain from food on that day, but from
wine three days previously.

Another term for wine of very frequent occurrence, is '©Tfl
(tlrosh), which is derived from the verb tJ5"i"i (yarash) to seize,
to possess, and is, according to Gesenius and others, so called
*' because it gets possession of the brain and inebriates." The
correctness of this derivation, we must say, admits of some
doubt. No doubt the word is derived from 135"\'» (yarash) to
possess, but we would rather favour the supposition of its being
so called, because the prodiict or products denoted by it con-
stituted, to a more or less extent, the possession of the husband-
men from the remotest times. We have several cogent reasons
for adopting this view. In the first place, the term tirosk is
frequently used in connection with ry] (dagan) corn, especially

in the bestowing of blessings, and we assume, therefore, that
wherever these two terms are employed together, the term
dagan is used to represent all kinds of grain produce, whilst
tirosh represents all kinds of liquid produce. Such an applica-
tion of the terms adds force to all the passages in which they
occur. Take, for instance, the blessing of Isaac : " Therefore
God give thee of the dew of heaven and fatness of the earth,
and plenty of tD^^tn "Itil (dagan vethirosh) corn and win^ •"

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

2G5

that is, plenty of all kinds of grain and liquid produce.
(Gen. xxvii., 28.) The reader nmy compare also Deut. xxiii.,
28 ; 2 Kings xviii., 32 ; and Is. xxxvi., 17.* In tlie Authorized
Version, and in the Revised Version, the word is sometimes
rendered " new wine," and sometimes merely " wine," and from
Hos. iv., 2, where hoth words occur together, " wine and new
wine {yayin and tirosh) take away the heart," it is evident
that there is some difi'erence in the product denoted by tlie two
terms. (Sec also Micah vi., 15.) AH the passages in which
the word tirosh occurs seem to indicate that ^ic/iv wive, the
ivine croj) of the season, is denoted by it ; thus in Isaiaii Ixv.,
8, it is said that " the new wine {tirosh) is found in the chistor,"
The question whether tirosh is of on inebriating nature is
satisfactorily answered by the passage of Hosea above (jut/ted,
where " new wine," as well as *' wine," is said " to take away
the heart." In wine countries it is well known that -/lew icine
intoxicates, although its aftects are not so soon felt as in the
case of old wine.

Another term for wine is ^)2T\ (chevier), and is so called
from the process of fermenting which the juice of tlie giape
passes through, being derived from the root *i)an (chumar) to
jermcTit. Moses, in his highly poetic and sublime address to
the Israelites, Deut. xxxii., 14, .says :

" And of tho blood of tho grape thou didst drink (cfiemer) wine."

In the Authorized Version it is freely rendered " and thou
didst drink the pure blood of the grape." This word is also
found in all the Semitic languages.

The wine used in religious services was always 'ii'» (yayin)^

thus it is said, "and the drink offering thereof shall be of "ii-^

yayin) wine, the fourth part of a bin ;" i. e, two pints and a
half (Lev. xxiii. 15). The modern Jews, in order to make sure
that the wine used for religious purposes is pure, make it a
practice to procure it directly from the vineyarti by one of
their own people.

From the great piety of the patriarch Noah, we think we
may safely conclude that the act of intoxication was connnitted
through inadvertency, of which he afterwards bitterly repentiul.
Noah may not have been aware of the power and nuschief
that lies concealed in the juice of the grapes, or his infirm, old
age may have rendered him more readily atfcctod by it. liut
althougJ! the act was not committed wilfully, the rucord of it
still stands as an imperishable memorial, that the first act of

* We have a parallel case in the word (lDp)3 (""^'''t'/Oi which denotes Loth

cattle and juwuesnion from the verb HDD (i'«w«/*) to 2)0i<sesn, as the wealth of tli«
nomadic tribes consisted of cattle. '

^ I

Ili

M»

266

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

drunkenness over recorded Was the cause of a fearful cur.^e,
and the heartrending nusories daily brought to our notice,
which are caused by intoxication, only too clearly and fearfully
•demonstrate that the curse still follows with unerring stops
the drunkard's path.*

We frequently hear the remark, " unfermentcd wine, " but
this surely cannot mean wine made from the juice of the
grapes, for such a thing would be altogether impossible. The
fermentation, after the juice is pressed from the grapes, is alto-
gether a matter of time, depending on the state of the tem-
perature. The first fermentation in a moderate climate gone-
rally reaches its highest point in five or six days. After two
or three weeks the fluid becomes comparatively clear, when the
wine is then removed from the sediment which has been
formed into another vessel, and a slow fermentation, called
after fermentalion, goes on for several months, during that
time the sugar is constantly converted into alcohol and car-
bonic acid, and a precipitation is forming at tho bottom of the
vessel. Several changes into other vessels are made in order
to get rid of the sediment.

22. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of Ma
father, and told it to his two brothers without.

Ham, as the context clearly implies, was of a frivolous and
unchaste disposition. He might, indeed, accidentally have come
into the tent and saw his father thus exposed, but had he pos-
sessed the least filial respect, he would have acted in a manner
as his brothers did, and reverentially covered his aged father.
But instead of doing so, he evidently with shameless delight
proclaimed it to his brothers. This wicked act called for a
severe punishment, and hence Noah, on being made aware of
tho unnatural and impious conduct of Ham, pronounced an
everlasting malediction against him, which is recorded in the
following verses :

24. And when Noah aioohe from his wine, and learned what his
younger sonhad done to him,

25. And he said,

Cursed be Canaan,

A servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.

26. And he said.

Blessed be the Lord God of Shem ;
And Canaan shall be a servant to him.
God will enlarge Japheth,
And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem ;
And Canaan shall be a servant to him.

* There is a proverb in the Talmud, " If wine moves in, knowledge moves oui"

PKOPLES COMMENTARY.

2G7

It appears from verse 24, that Noah on awakeiiinfr from his
wine was informed of the shnmoful behaviour of Ham. Most
likely the two brothers being horror stricken at the conduct of
tlieir brotlier, thouglit it their duty to inform their to.thor of it.
" And k>arned what his younger son had done to him." In the
Autliorized Version it is rendered, " and knew what his younger
son had done untf)him," and many commentators inferred from
this rendering, that tlie conduct of Ham was supernaturally
revealed to Noah. But the verb 511 (yada), although its
primary signitication is io know, is sonictimes used also in the
sense to learn, either from seehig a thing or hearing of it. (See
Heb. Bible, P]xod. ii. 4; Dent. xi. 2.) It is, therefore, unneces-
sary to supjiose a supernatural revelation to Noah. " Cursed be
Canaan, a servant of servants shall lie be." In the malediction
here pronounced there are two important questions presented
to us which demand a careful consideration. In the first place,
how can we account for Ham being the actual offender, and
yet the curse was not directed against him, but against his son
Canaan who apparently took no part in the transaction ? In
the second place, was not the denunciation too severe for the
offence ? As regards the first question, many commentators
have maintained that the only satisfactor}'^ reply is to be found
in the declaration contained in the second commandment of
the decalogue, " for I the Lord God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exod. xx. 5.) But
this reply could only be regarded as satisfactory, if the male-
diction had been pronounced against all the sons of Ham. Why
the curse is only directed against the descendants of Canaan,
and not against the descendants of Cush, Mizraim, and Phut,
also, is a point which would still remain unexplained. We must,
therefore, seek for a more satisfactory solution of the apparent
difficulty.

That the utterance of Noah was not the result of any out-
burst of passion, but of Divine influence, is evident from the
fact that he cursed Ham, not in himself, but in Canaan, upon
whose descendants the penalty more directly fell. No ebulition
of human anger could be imagined to predict future events,
much less to effect their fulfilment to the very letter, whereas
this prediction of Noah received a speedy partial accomplish-
ment, and is still fulfilling to the present day. We have then,
in this prediction of Noah, the earliest prophecy on record after
the flood, and as it has been well said, " the act of Ham was
rather the occasion than the cause of the prediction against
Canaan." Then as regards the malediction being only pro-
nounced against Canaan, and through him against his descen-
dants, is accounted for by the fact that the Canaanitish nations

I I

268

people's commentary.

i'lii

K '

ll J I li

of which we have an account in tlie inspired writings were the
most wicked and depraved of all the descendants of Ham's
sons. But though the imprecation was only directed against
Canaan, it is yet an undoubted fact that the curse of servitude
fell likewise upon other branches of Ham's descendants ; of
these we need only to mention the African races as an example.
Then as regards the second question, whether the denuncia-
tion was too severe for the ofl'ence, we have already stated that
the offence of Ham was not the cause of the malediction, but
was rather made the occusion for the pronouncing of it. It was
the utter dejiravity of the descendants of Ham that called forth
this prophetic denunciation, and when their great wickedness
is weighed together with their punishment in the balance of
justice, the former will be found by far to outweigh the latter.
In proof of this we need only turn to the history of the
Cajaanites as recorded in Scripture, and it will be found that
from a very early period their morals were most deeply depraved,
and their character marked by the commission of the most
enormous crimes. Let the reader turn to Genesis xviii., xix.,
and read the account of what led to the destruction of Sodom
and tlie three neighbouring cities, and it will give him an
insigho into the iiUcr depravity of the Canaanites. Even the
sons-in-law of Lot were so deeply sunk iii wickedness that they
would not listen to the voice of warning. Such a fearful
punishment as that v'ith which those cities were visited, one
would have supposed, could not have failed to strike terror
and exercise a benelicial influence on this wicked race, arousing
them to the danger of persevering in ^heir evil deeds. But
such has been far from being the case. In the time of Moses
we hud the Canaanites not only addicted to the grossest prac-
tice of idolatr}'', 1 ut to the commission of the most abominable
and revolting crimes — crimes such as should have never entered
into the mind of any human boirig ; but as they were so com-
monly indulged in by these idolatrous ,oople, it became even
necessary to mention them among the Mosaic prohibitory laws.
(See Lev. xviii.) The}'" immolated their children upon the
altar of Moloch, and, before the very eyes of th>e parents, burned
them to ashes. Yet, notwithstanding the great wickedness of
this peopi'"', God, who is longsuifering, and does not delight in
the death of a sinner, stayed his avenging hand so tliat they
might turn from their wickfl way 5. During the live centuries
that elapsed from Abraham io Joshua He permitted them to
increase, and cnjoy the gifts L^iat a most fertile country could
bestow; but, instead oi relinquishing their evil practices, they
became only more and more immersed in the hlthiness of every
species of vice, initil at last their cup of ini(niity was overflow-
ir«g, and God delivered them into tlie hands of the Hebrews.

corn-
even
laws,
bii the
turned
less of
fht in
they
Ituries
im to
I could
they
pvery

Irews.

people's commentary.

269

The great depravity of the Canaanites is testified to even by
heathen writers. Thus Plutarch, the great Greek biographer
and moralist, who flourished in the first century of the Christian
era, in s[)eaking of the Carthagenians, remarks : " Better would
it have been to have a Critias or a Diogoras " (persons who did
not believe in any supreme Being, and were famous for their
impiety,) " for their law-giver, than have retained a religion so
detestable for its human sacrifices. The Typhons and Giants,
those enemies of the gods, if they had prevailed, could have
instituted nothing worse." Other (Jlassic writers have expressed
themselves also decidedly upon this point.

It was in the time of Joshua that the prophetic denuncia-
fcian of Noah began its fulfilment; it was in his time that
they w^ere first brought under the yoke of the Shemif.es. He
invaded their land, smote upwards of thirty of their kings,
and most of the inhabitants who escaped the edge of the
sword were made servants and tributaries to the Israelites.
The conquest began by Joshua was completed by Solomon, for
"all the people that were left of the Ilittites, and the Amorites,
and the Perizzites, and Hivites, and the Jebusites, which "cere
not of Israel did Solomon make to pay tribute." ('2 Chron.
viii. 7, 8.) The great struggle between Rome and Carthage,
which ended in the ruin of the latter, confirms the fulfilment
of the prediction, Carthage being peopled by the descendants
of Canaan ; and the Romans being descendants of Japheth.
And from that time the miserable remainder of this peoi)le
have been slaves to a foreign yoke ; first to the Saracenes, who
descended from Shem, and afterwards to the Turks, who de-
scended from Japheth, and under their dominion they groan
at the present time. As regards the unhappy negroes, it need
only be mentioned, how many thousands are every year sold
and bought in the markets, and are conveyed from one quarter
of the world to another, and subjected to the greatest hard-
vships, of whom it can truly be said, that they are '' servants
of servants," i.e. most soivile. The expression "servant of
servants " is one of the Hebrew modes of expressing a super-
lative idea, like " vanity of vanities," i. e. the greatest vanity ;
" holy of holies," i. e. the most holy place ; " song of songs "
(the Hebrew title of the Song of Solomon), i. e., the most excel-
lent scng.

" Blessed be the Lvjrd God of Shera." The passage implies that
God was '* the God of Shem " in a special manner, and as con-
nected with special pri\ilege3. And, accordingly, we find that
in the family of Shem was preserved the true worship of God,
and Israel's greatness consisted in being the chouen people of
God; they were the " peculiar treasure " of God. (Exod. xix. 5.)
40

Ml
i

Hiii'l

I '^^

2-,: i.:\

h|i.

mk]

i'',

^ !

I ,

i ^IN

PI' I

t: .

1 M

270

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

The prophetic declaration relating to J epheth comprises two
parts :

1. " God shall enlarge Japheth." The original reads
tlfiib Q'^nblS^ flS"^ Yajyht elohim leyepheth) whore we have a
pjiranomasia, or play of words, i. e. " God shall enlarge the eu-
larger." This prophetic declaration of Noah we have already
shewn was literally fulfilled, both as to children and territory.
Japheth had seven children, iiam only four, and Shena five.
The descendants of Japheth's children spread over the whole
of Europe, and a considerable part of Asia, and probably
crossed over into America by Beh ring's Straits, from Kams-
chatka. " The northern hive," as Sir William Temple denomi-
nates it, has been always remarkable for its fecundity, and has
been continually sending out colonies.

2. And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.

Some of the ancient interpreters make God the subject of
the verb 'l3tD''T (ivaiyiahcon) " and He shall dwell," and ex-
plain, that although He will bless Japheth \vith worldly bless-
ings, yet He will bestow His spiritual blessings upon his chosen
people Israel, among whom He will dwell. If this is the
import of the passage, we have a literal fulfilment of it when
the Shekinah, or Divine presence, rested on the ark, and dwelt
in the Tabernacle and the Temple, so strikingly alluded to by
the Psalmist :

God is known in Judali ;

Great is His name in Israel.

And in Salem w His tabernacle,

And His dwelling place ia Zion. (Ps. Ixxvi. 2, 3.)

In the Chaldee Version the passage is rendered, " He will
make His glory to dwell in the tents of Shem.

Most commentators, however, make Japheth the subject of the
verb nS'O'^l. {ivaiyishcon) " and he shall dwell," and this is no
doubt the proper interpretation for several reasons. In the first
place, in connection with the Divine presence dwelling in the
Tabernacle or Temple, the sacred name mn"' Jehovah is always
employed, whilst in our passage QTlblS! (Elohim), " God," is
used. Secondly^ the expression " in the tents of Shem," whilst
ai)plicable to Japhet — as we shall immediately shew -is not
apulicable to God, who only once had His abode "in a tent
between curtams." (2 Sam. vii, 2.) And, thirdly, tlie state-
ment that " Canaan shall be his servant," can hardly be inter-
pi'eted in any other ways, than that he should be "a servant"
to Japheth. According to the Targum of Jonatlian (Chahlee
Version) and most, of tlie Patristic fathers, and whose opinion
has also been espoused by many modern commentatoi-s, the
fultilment of the prediction that Japheth " shall dwell in the

11 Hi

peq^^le's commentary.

271

tents of Shem," is to be consummated at the time of the Messiah,
when the descendants of Japheth would join the Israelites in
the worship of the Almighty, and when both would look upon
Jerusalem as the spiritual centre. But this interpretation of
the passage would be altogether adverse to the distinct declara-
tions of the prophets, according to whose prophecies no nation
will be excluded from the knowledge of God, and all nations
of the earth will flock to Zion. Compare Is. ii. 2, 4 ; xviii. 7 ;
Zeph. iii. 10 ; Zechar. viii. 20-23 ; xiv. 16 ; Ps. xxii. 28. In
that glorious time, God will exclaim : " Blessed be Egypt my
people, and Assyria the work of my hand, and Israel my inher-
itance." It will thus be seen that in that time the curse
resting upon the descendants of Ham will be removed, and
they as well as the descendants of Japheth, will bow down
before the Lord. The declaration that Japheth " shall dwell
in the tents of Shem," rather refers therefore to a peaceful dwell-
ing together, and a friendly commercial intercourse between
the Hebrews and the Japhetites, the latter probably con-
quered and occupied the northern and eastern parts of Pal-
estine, and assisted the Israelites in their constant struggles
against the remnants of the Canaanites scattered through the
land, as a common foe.

29. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred atid fifty years ; and
he died ;

This verse concludes the first great Epoch of Scripture history.
The celebrated traveller Burckhardt tells in his " Travels, ' vol.
1, p. 42, that in the little village of Kerak, in the region of Mount
Lebanon, the people show a grave which they declare to be that
of the prophet Noah.

CHAPTER X.

Although this chapter occurs before the eleventh chapter,
3'et in point of time it properly should come after it. This is
evident frum vorse 31, where it is said, " These are the sons of
Shem, after thoir families, after their tongues,' which implies
the existence ut' different languages, but which did not exist
until after the the confusion of tongues related in chapter XI.
But such transpositions are not uncommon in Scripture.

ilP

UI1

',i .

lis

I . I

H:^

!|IM

3 lit! !:

: if .
it

I if t

272

people's commen JJry.

1. How these are the generations of the sons of Koah ; Shem, Ham,
andJapheth ; and to them were sons born after thejiood.

The sublime doctrine of the unity of mankind, had already
been distinctly established in the orii^inal creation of onu liuiiian
pair. But all mankind except one family, having throu^li tlicii-
great wickedness been destroyed from the face of tlie carrii,
the sacred writer, therefore, makes in our verse the iinpoi-tant
statement, that from this family descended all the nations of the
earth, and thus form one grand brotherhood. There is then as
far as brotherhood is concerned, no difference between the
descendants of the blessed Shem and the cursed descendants of
Ham, as regards their origin they are brethren. This is
the Bible doctrine from the beginning to the end of the Scrip-
tures. Our chapter contains the mo.st ancient ethnographic
document that has come down to us, and as such ic is of ines-
timable value. Its historic truthfulness is sufficiently attested
by the fact that there is not the slightest attempt made in this
remarkable genealogical record, to give the least pre-eminence
of one nation over another. It is necessary to observe that in
as much as proper names are very liable to undergo ciiauges in
their being transferred from one language to another, it is,
therefore, not to be wondered at, that some of the names of the
nations have, in course of time become so altered as to render
it difficult to identify them with those given in our chapter.
Still, there exists happily no difficulty in tracing most all
leading nations to their patriarchial progenitors as given in
our list.

2. The sons Japheth ; Gomer and Magog, and Madai, and Javan,
and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

The genealogical record commences with the descendants of
Japheth first, although he was the youngest son, whilst the
record of the descendants of Shem, who was the eldest son, is
given last. The sacred writer probably adopted this order
here, so that he may pass immediately from the Shemites to
the line of patriarchs who lead to Abraham.

THE JAPHETHITES :

QoMER, is the ancestor of the Cimmerians or Cimmerli
dwelling chiefly in the Crimea, and around the Black
and Caspian seas. According to Homer, they were a
people dwelling "beyond the ocean streams," in a
lonely land and gloomy cells, which the sun never visits
with its cheering rays. (Odyss. 13-19.)

Magog, the ancestor of th'^, Scythians, inhabiting the Caucasus
and adjacent countries. The etymology of the name is

PEOPL'^- S COMMENTARY.

273

Javan,

imeri'i

Black

revo a

in a

visits

icasus
irae is

uncertiiin, though some writers give ''great mountain"
as the meaning of it. Ancient writers, who describe
tlieir ejiploits, speak of them hs a barbarous, avaricious
people. Compare also Ezekiel xxxviii. The king of
Magog is generally called Gog, but i)i later times the
name appears also as that of a nation, and is cou|)led
with Miigog. (See Revel, xx. 8.)

Madai, the ancestor of the Medes. The name; probably denotes
the iniddle, because Media was sujtposed to be situated
in the centre of Asia.

Javan, the ancestor of the lonians. The Hebrews and most
of the Asiatic nations applied the name lonians to
all the Greeks. (See Dan. viii. 21.)

Tubal, the ancestor of the Tihareni, a people of Asia Minor,
dwelling on the south-eastern shore of the Euxino.
Tubal and Meshech are frequently mentioned to^ .'ther
in the Old Testament as war-like nations. The pro-
phet Ezekiel speaks of them as bringing copper and
slaves to Tyre — Ch. xxvii. 13. Copper is found in
great abundance in the mountains of northern Armenia.

Meshech, the ancestor of a tribe inhabiting the Moschian
mountains in Armenia ixxA Cholchis. The prophet
Ezekiel speaks of Meshech and Tubal as a war-like
and barbarous people who " caused their terror in • ho
land of the living." And the Psaln)' ^ coi • ls"rfi ls
those who had the in:.5iortune to hu" • tck^n p their
abode among them. ' Woe id me, that I sojoirn ui
Meshech." (Ps. cxx. 5.)

TiKAS is not again mentioned in Scripture, b'l' 'm rdin.' to
the Chaldee versions, Jose})hus, Hieronynv . •■] I'lOst
modern commentators, he was the ancestor of the Tnra-
cians. Though some lew ii, jpreters favour tiij
opinion that the tribes r 'ar \> . -ver Tyras, (Diueste;)
are descended from liim.

3. And the sons of Gamer; Ashkenaz, and Ilr})Jiath, and J'ogarmah.

AsHKENAZ, according to the Rabbis, was the ancestor ot the
Germans, and the modern Jews still call Germany by
that name. This opinion is, however, altogether re-
jected by all Christian iiiterpreters. As Ashkenaz is in
Jer. li. 27, mentioned in connection with " the King-
doms of Ararat and Minni," who were to form an alliance
for the destruction of Babylon, many commentators are
of opinion that the descendants of this patriarch dwelled
near the Caspian sea. Josephus also remarks : " Ash-
kenaz founded the Aschanaxians, who are now called
41

ill

III

•■r

w^ ■

lA .

;<'il.

h'.'t

li t

I' '

I ':

274

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

by the Greeks, Rheginians," (Ant. i. vi. par. 1) ; and the
ancient town of Rhagae is just one day's journey from
the Caspian sea.

RiPilATH, in 1 Chron. i. (5, instead of inSi^ (RiphMh,) we have
the reading i^^'^'^ (Diphath), the latter reading has no
doubt oi'igiuated through a mistake of the transcriber,
who mistook the letter i r for t d. Many manuscripts,
however, have also Riphath in Chronicles, and so the
Septuagint and the Vulgate. The descendants of
Riphath arc generally supposed to have inhabited the
Riphaean mountains. These mountains were reg!«rded
by the ancients as forming the exti'eme border of the
earth, covered with eternal snow, having caverns from
which issue the cold northern blasts.

ToQARMAii was, according to the most general opinion, the
ancestor of a people iidiabiting a province in Armenia.
Indeed the Armenians themselves claim to be descend^^d
from Torgom. According to E/ek. xxvii. 14, "they of
the house of Togarmah," traded in horses and mules.
But, according to ch. xxxviii. 0, some of " the house of
Togarmah" were also a warlike jieople.

4. A ml the sons of Javan, Elishnh, and Tarshish, Kittim, and
Dodunim.

Elishah. The ancestor of the European Hellans, and of the
inhabitants of the Greek islands. According to some
interpreters he was only the ancestor of the inhabitants
of the province of Elis, one of the divisions of the
Peloponnesus, but in Ezek. xxvii. 7, " Elisha" is spoken
of as islands from which purple stuff was brought to the
market of Tyre. Ancient writers testify that on the
coast of many of the Greek islands, the shell-fish, from
the juice of which the valualno purple colours are
obtained, are found in great abundance.

Tarshisii. His descendants emigrated into Spain and took up
their abode in Tartessus, a tract of country situated be-
tween the two outlets of the river Guadalquiver, but in
a more extensive sense embracing the whole district of
Andalusia, and afterwards spread over the whole country.
Tartessus abounded in silver, iron, tin, and lead. There
is also found in this district a precious stone called
Tarshish. The Phoenecians carried on a great commerce
with Spain, from wh-Mice they imported gold and silver,
&c. Hence we have mention ma<le of 'CJ'^'idJl i!3i< {Oni
Tarshish) "a fleet of Tarshish." (I Kings x. 22 ; Is. ii.
IG.) The great wealth of Tartessus passed into a pro-
verb. (Strabo iii. 175.)

from

of the
A) some
.bitants

of the

spoken
It to the

on the
I, from

irs are

look up
Ited be-
but in
Irict of
puntry.
There
called
imerce
[silver,
{Oni
Is. ii.
la pro-

people's commentary.

275

KiTTlM. His descendants occupied the Island Cyprus, of which
the most ancient town was Citium, and its inhabitants
are by the Greek authors called Kittoii, which was, no
doubt, adopted from the Hebrew name.

DoDANlM. In many codices of the first Book of Chronicles, the
reading Q'»3ni (Rodanim) occurs, so also in the Samari-
tan version, and in the Septuagint it is rendered by
Rltodians, hence many critics have supposed that the
descendant of Dodanim inhabited the island of Rhodes.
Other critics, however, regonl the reading tD''DTT (Do-
danim) as the correct one, and understood the Daioill,
who formed the ancient population of Apulia a part of
ancient lapygia, in Italy.

5. By thfise were the finles of the nations spread hi their lands ;
■every one after his tongue, after their families^ in their nations.

In order to understand the full scope of the expression, " the
isles ^,of the nations" in our verse it is necessary to bear in
mind that the Hebrews used the word Qiij^ (iyim) not only
in reference to countries altogether surrounded by water, but
also to countries adjacent to the sea, and seems to have been
applied by the ancient Israelites to all countries which were
so situated to them so as not to be reached unless by water
The expression may therefore be applied in a general sense to
Europe. " The isles" here used metonymically for the inJuihit-
ants of isles. Sometimes in Scripture the country is put
instead of the inhabitants.

The Hamttes.

6. And the sons of Ham; Citsh, and \Mizraim, and Phut, and
Canaan.

CusH. From several passages of Scripture, it is evident that the
descendants of Cush first settled in Arabia. Thus the
river Gihon is said to compass " the whole land of
Cush," which cannot possibly be " Ethiopia," as the
English version has it. (Gen. ii. 13.) Zipporah, the
wife of Moses, is called a Cusliite, though she was a
Midianitisia woman of Aralua (compare Exod. ii. 21,
Num. xii. 1.) Nimrod was a son of Cush (Gen. x. 8),
and could not possibly bij an African. (Compare Gen.
X. 10.) From Arabia some of the doscendai'.ts of Cush
immigrated into Ethiopia. See more on tlie^ subject.
Commentary, p. 91.

MiziJAiM. From him descended the Egj'-ptians, whoso physiog-
nomy and bodily structure prove them to be descendants

I; '.'

•'It

•A

I:.

Mr: i

''(

. I

276

people's commentary.

of Ham. From their mummies, and pictorial represen-
tations it appears, however, that they were not all blacky
and to have curly hair, but resemble in their skull and
facial outlines more the Caucasians, though darker in
comi)lexion.

Phut is regarded by Josephus as the founder of the Libyans,
and his opinion was adopted by Gesenius and other
critics. Phut is, in the Septuagint, in most places also
translated " Libyans." The word, according to some
writers, denotes a how ; and the people were, probably,
expert archers. This agrees with their military character
in which they are represented in the Old Testament,
" the Lybians, that handle and bend the bow," (Jer.
xlvi. y.)

Canaan. From liim descended the Canaanites, and after him
the country which they iiihabited was also called
Canaan. The meaning of the name "lyss (Canaan) is,
the submissive one, from j?^^ (cana) to stoop, to submits

7. The sons of Cush : Seha, and Ilnvilah, and (Sabla, and Raamahy
atid Sabttchah. And the A'y»s oj' Jiauniah : iSheba, and Dedan.

Sela, is the ancient name of the province Meroe in Ethiopia..
The Sebeans were a mercantile people, and distinguished
for their tall stature. (See Is. xlv. 14.) Seba was also
tl:e name of the royal city, and Josephus informs us,
that Combyses called it Meroe after the name of his
sister. (Antiq. ii. x. 2.) It was situated about ninety
miles south of the junction of the Nile and Astaboras.

Havilau. From liim are descended the Chaulotroi dwelling in
Arabia near the Persian Gulf. Niebuhr, the renowned
traveller, speaks of a town and district near that Gulf
which are still called by the ancient name Havilah.

Sabtah. According to Josephus, his descendants inhabited the
country near the liver Astaboias {Tacazzc), which forms
the eastern river of the Jantl Meroe.

Raamau, is generally accepted to be the town Rcgma (Pe7/ioj
situated on the Persian gulf. The inhabitants are repre-
sented by the Prophet Ezekiel as bringing choice spices,,
gold, and preeiuus stones to Tyre. (Ch, xxviii. 22.)

Sabtecha, was the founder of an Ethiopean tribe, but the pre-
cise country which they inhabited cannot now with any
certainty be eletermined. The Ethiopian name Subatok,
discoNered on Egyptian monuments, bears a striking
resemblance to the Hebrew name, and argues against
the supposition of some wiiters who Avould place the
abodes of the descendants of Sabtecha near the Persian
gulf.

it I

iresen-
blacky
ill and
ker in

ibyans,
I other
;es also

some
obably,
laracter
lament,
' (Jer.

ter him

1 called
aan) is,
submit.

Raainahy

people's commentary.

277

Ethiopia..
iguished
was also
'orms us,
e of his
t ninety
,l)Oias.
;lling in
mowned
lat Gulf
lah.

lited the
■h forms

\e lepre-
spices,^

he pre-

_-.i anv

yuhatoh,

liking

against
lace the
1 Persian

Raainah had two sons who became the founders of
two important tribes, frequently mentioned in the Old
Testament, namely:

Sheba, who was the ancestor of the Sahmans inhabiting Arabia
Felix, whose queen, on hearing of the great wisdom of
Solomon came to Jerusalem " to prove him with hard
questions." (1 Kings x. 1.) Their country abounded in
spices, frankincense, gold, and precious stones. By
extensive commerce with India, Egypt, and Syria, the
Sabjeans accumnlated great riches. Their capital Sabas
or Mariaba, situated on a lofty and beautiful wooded hill,
was the most magnificent city in Arabia. Their palaces
and temples were gigantic structui'es, the decorations
and furniture, and according to some writers, even the
domestic utensils of the citizens were of gold and silver.
The nattiral production of Sheba, as well as the com-
merce carried on by its people, are often alluded to in
Scripture, for instance, 1 Kings x. 10 ; Ps. Ixxii. 15 ;
Is. Ix. 6; Ezek. xxvii. 22, xxxiii. 13; Job vi. 19; and
the Bible statements are fully attested both by Arabian
and Greek writers.

Dedan. His descendants, like the Sabreans, were also com-
mercial people. According to Jeremiah xlix. 7-(S, they
were immediate neighbours of the IdumjBans, and accord-
ing to Ezekiel xxv. 13, their territory extended between
Theman and Dedan. Their trade seemed to have
consisted chieliy in iron and ebony. (See Ezek. xxvii.
15.) Some writers maintain that the descendants of
Dedan, inhabited the Island Daden in the Persian gulf;
if so, they must have divided themselves and settled in
two ditterent regions. The Syrians call the island
Daden by the name Dlrin. Modern travellers have so
far been unable to fix upon the precise island in the
Persian gulf which once bore the name Daden.

8. And Gtcsh begat Nhnrod ; he began to be a mighty man on the
■earth.

9. He was also a mighty htuiter before the Lord : there/ore it is said,
Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.

Nimrod, although not an ancestor of any nation or tribe like
the other sons of Gush, yet by his own consummate boldness and
-valour he raised himself to power and dignity. " He began to be
a mighty man," the Hebrew word n2l!i (fjihbor) denotes a
valiant person, a strong or mighty man, a hero. The Rab-
binic writers, as well as many modern critics, derive the name
*n?3D {Nimrod) from the root Ti?a (marad) to rebel, according

it'i

iti

i!l!

I '1

ii;

•! !

278

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

to this derivation the name would signify we will rebel. It
is quite probahle that this name was not given him by his
parents, but was bestowed upon him afterwards on account
of his daring acts. He probably first displayed his mighty
strength and daring exploits in the chase, but gradually began
to exercise his power also over men by acts of tyranny. And,
indeed, in the Arabic Version Ti^ "11215 (gihoor tsayid) is
rendeied by " a terrible tyrant," and in the Syriac Version,
" a war-liko giant."

The eminent German writer Herder, also speaks of him as
"a trapper of men by stratagem and force." That Nimrod
was not merely " a mighty hunter " in the chase, but also by
bringing men under his power by high-handed and tyrannical,
means, seems also to be clearly indicated by the expression
mn*' ""DSb* (lilihne Jehovah), "before Jehova''." or more liter-
ally " in the face of Jehovah,'' that is, in defiance of Jehovah,
implying that his acts were done without any fear of God and
man. So in oh. xiii. 13, " the men of Sodom" are spoken of
as " wicked and sinners before the Lord." We may observe
too, that Jiuntbuj, is, in other places, used in reference to the
persecuting of men. Thus Jer. xvi. 16 : "I will send for many
nunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain." So
again. Lam. iii. 52 : " They have hunted me sore like a bird,
that are mine enemies without cause."

10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and
Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

The daring acts of Nimrod, no doubt, soon procured him
many followers, just as we have many examples in modern
history of daring persons having become the leaders of bands
of bold adventurers. Finding the sandy desert too small for
daring ex]jloits, and the extension of his power, he wandered
northward where he found Babel, (Babylon) and the other cities
mentioned in our verse, which at that time most likely were
but insignificent places. It will be seen, our text does not say,
that Ninu'od built those cities, but that they were " the begin-
ning of his kingdom." He conquered the places, and made
Babylon the seat of his goveinment, hence Babylon was after-

1 I
» I' I I'

* Many commentators and critics take tlie'JIphrase Jll!!'^ ''DSb {liphne
Jehovah) in our passage as merely expressing a suptrlative degree, and refer in

support to such passages as t3Tlb&5 "'^'ItlBD (naphtide Elohim, lit. '* wrest-
linca of God," i. e., "mighty wrestlings." Gen. xxx. 8,) nTH"' ^'^V i^^^
Jenovah), lit. '^the tiees of Jehovah." i. e., "the finest trees." Pa. civ. 16.)
bi^ ''T"lfc% iarze. et), lit. " the cedars of God," i. e., " the finest cedars." But.
the Hebrew atudeut will at once peiceivo that these are not parallel expressionB,
and that the conatruction is quite different.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

27J)

[liphne

pferin

rest-

{atae
16.)

But.
$iouB»

wards also called " tho land of Niiuiod." (Mic. v. 5, Eng. vers.
V. 6.) Eiech, according to Bacliart, is identical with Arecca or
Areca of tho old geographers, situated on the Tigris, upon the
borders of Babylonia and Susianii. But Kosenniullcr thinks
that Erech was nearer to Babylon, and this supposition is con-
firmed by Col. Taylor, the British resident at Bagdad, who is
disposed to find the site of tho ancient Erech " in the great
mounds of ])riniitive ruins, inditi'erently called Irak and Irka
by the nonuule Arabs. These mounds lie some miles east of
the Euphrates, about midway between the site of BaVtyloii and
its junction with the 'J'igris." Accad, according to some ancient
versions and interpreters, is Nesibis in Mesopotamia. C'alneh,
most interpreters identify this place with Canneh, mentioned
in Ezek. xxvii. ii3 ; and Calno, mentioned in Is. x. i) ; and
according to the ancient versions and interpreters, it is Ctesi-
phon, situated on the eastern bunk of the Tigris, opposite
Seleucia. This supposition is favoured also by Ctesiphon
being formerly called Chalonitis.

"In the land of JShinar." It is the country around Babylon.
The overflowing of the two rivers made the country exceedingly
fertile. The barley of the Babylonian plains is said to excel
that of all other countries. The corn produces two and three
hundred fold, the millet grows to a height almost incredible to
Europeans, except to those who have seen it. Tho date-palms
grow in abundance, and furnish excellent wine, and a nutritious
bread. The climate is mild and salubrious. Even modern
travellers bear testimony to the amazing fertility of the countiy.
(See Kerr Porter ii. 250.) It was no doubt tho great fertility
of the country that induced Ninirod to take possession of it,
and make it the basis from which to make further conquests.

11. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh,
and Rehohoth Ir, and Calah.

12. And Jiesen between Nineveh and Calah ; that is the great city.

The ambition of the daring hunter was not yet satisfied,
but having firmly established his kingdom at Baliylon, he now
sought to extend his dominion by further conciuests, and in-
vaded Ashur (Assyria). In this ex})editiou li'; was also suc-
cessful, as may be inferred from the lirief statement in our
passage ; and in order to strengthen his hold upon the newly
conquered country, he immediately set to work to build the
four cities mentioned in our verse.s. Of these cities Nineveh
was the only one which afterwards played an iiiij)ortunt part
in the history of the ancient woild. It was situated on the
eastern bank of the Tigris, opposite to the spot of the present
Mcsul. In course of time Nineveh b'jcame of vast extent, ii

III

' It

<. i

..^..

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

4 ^J^

1.0 If B^ li^

e 1^ 1 2.2

;; lis 12.0

I.I

1.8

1.25 1.4

1.6

6" ~

►

Hiotographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. MS80

(716) 872-4503

'/x

280

PEOPLE S COMMENTART.

was considered larger than Babylon, (Strabo xvi.737) and in fact
was the largest city in antiquity. (Diod. Sic. il 3.) The
prophet Jonali speaks of it as a great city of three days' jonmey,
<ch. iii. 3.) which contained more than 120,000 persons, "who
could not distinguish their right hand from their left," that is,
young children, (iv. 11.) This would imply a populatioa of
more than 600,000 inhabitants. According to Dioaorus Sica-
lus it was about twenty-one miles long, nine miles broad, and
about sixty miles in circuit. It is certainly remarkable that
the three days joumev given by the prophet Jonah, should
exactly correspond witk the sixty miles given by the ancient
historian. Its walls were a hundred feet high, and so broad
that three chariots could drive abreast upon them. Its towers,
of which there were fifteen hundred, were each two hundred
feet high. It was a city of great magnificence. Its merchants,
who formed the wealth of the city, are, by the prophet Nahnm,
hyperbolically said to be "more numerous than the stars."
(Nahum iii. 16.) This prophet also fortells the destruction of
Nineveh in such a vivid manner, as if he had been an eye-
witness of the event, (ch. i-iii.) It was destroyed after a siege
of several years by the united armies of the Medes under
Cyaxares, and the Babylonians under Nabopolassar, about 625
B.C. When Herodotus, not quite 200 years afterwards, visited
the spot there remained nothing of it but ruins. Nineveh was,
by the Greek and Roman writers, called Ninus. Indeed, some
writera hav . supposed that the name mD"^3 (Nineveh) is com-
pounded of "113 (Nin) Ninvs and ms (naveh) a habitation,
i.e., the habitation Ninus, and so called by Nimrod, after his
son and successor Ninus. ,i

We must not pass over uimoticed the rendering of verse 11
in the Authorized Version, "Out of that laim went forth
Ashur, and builded Nineveh." The meaning of the passage
according to this rendering would be, that Ashur, the son of
Shem, mentioned in verse 22, or one of his descendants who
had already occupied the land of Shinar, not being able to resist
the progress of Nimrod and his warriors, left the country, and
went into Assyria where he built the cities mentioned, and
thus founded the Assyrian empire. We may here at once
observe, that the rendering of the Authorized Version is not
only quite admissible, but is even more in conformity with
the structure of the passage in the original, for it will be seen
that in the rendering we have given, and which is also adopted
in the Revised Version and by most modem interpreters, the
preposition into must be supplied. The reason for rejecting
the rendering of the Authorized Version is, that " Ashur is
only mentioned in the 22nd verse; it would be perfectiy

people's commentabt.

281

I once

not

I with

Iseen

[pted

the

^ting

ir is

3tly

illogical to introduce him here together with Nimrod and
thus mix up the Cushites with the Shemites; the land is
called Ashur by anticipation." The ruins lately examined
reveal also that Nimrod was the founder of Assyrian cities.
Rabbi Shalom Haccohen, in his German Jewish version, also
gives the rendering which we have given. Luther, however,
in his German Version ; Rabbi Samson Hirsch, in his Com-
mentary on Genesis ; Rosenmiiller, Von Bohlen, and many
o</^er interpreters, have given the same rendering as in the
Authorized Version.

The localities of the other three cities cannot now be traced
with any certainty. Rehoboth Ir. (Hebrew y^y PlSm Roc-
hoboth Ir. i. e., Streets of a City) supposed to have been
situated about four miles south-west of the town Myadin, on
the eastern bank of the Euphrates, where there are extensive
ruins which still bear the name of Rehoboth.

Calah is now commonly identified with the large mound
Kalah Slierghat, which lies on the right bank of the Tigris,
about fifty-five miles south of Mosul. This place at one time
possessed a very extensive palace, and is several times men-
tioned on the a.-^-'K- oVv>lisk oi the central palace of Nimroud, at
the residence oi' '^ ■ kinj;. Resen (Hebrew "iQ^ Resen, i.e., a

curb or bridle, meanmg probably a strong Jirtress) is by some
writers identified with the extensive ruins of Nimroud, the
Larissa of Xenophon. (Anabasis, iii. iv. 7, 9.) The fortifications
of Larissa were so strong that the Persians were for a long
time unable to take the town, but at last succeeded during a
dense fog.

13. And Mixraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and L«hctb*m, and

Naphtuhim.

14. And Pathrusim, and Caaluhim (out of whom came Philtstim)^
and Caphtorim.

LUDIM, according to some writers the Moorish tribes collectively.
The Jerusalem Targum translates " Ludim," the inhab-
itants of the Mareotis, a part of Egypt. The prophet
Isaiah (Is. Ixvi. 19) speaks of them as accustomed to
fight with the bow.

Anamim, suppo.sed to have been an Egyptian tribe, and like
the former extinct in Joseplius's time.

Lghabim, the Lybians. Instead of Qi^nb {Lehabim), we have
in 2 Chr. xii. 3; Neh. iii. 9; Dan. xi, 48, the form d^llb
{Lubim); we have already stated that proper names
sometimes appear under different forms. These varia-
tions in the form of proper names, may have originated

282

people's commemtabt.

'! 1

from various causes, either through the carelessness of
transcribers, or from colloquial mode of pronunciation^
or f I jm the easy interchange of certain letters in the
language. In the Authorized Version in the two first
mentioned passages, the word is rendered by Lubims^
and in the fast passage by Lybians.

Naphtuhim, the inhabitants of the Lybian town Napata. Thia
town was once the capital of an Ethiopian Kingdom^
and was one of the most magnificent and richest towns
of Africa.

Pathrusim, are no doubt the people of Upper Egypt or Thebais»
DTltlffl {Pathroa,) is an Egyptian name, signifying the
southern country.

Caslubim, according to Bochart and other writers, the Chol-
chians, who, according to the Greek writers, descended
from the Egyptians. (Herod, ii. 104 ; Diod. i. 28, 66, &a)
" Out of whom came the Philistim," i. e., from the
Casluhim sprung the Philistines. According to Jer.
xlvii. 4, and Amos ix. 7, the Philistines were emigrants
from Caphtor, and hence many writers suppose that the
phrase, " out of whom came the Philistim," has been
transposed by mistake, and should come after " Caph-
torim," next mentioned in our text. There is, however,
no necessity for supposing any such misplacement of
the passage. A portion of the Philistines may origi-
nally have been settlers from the Casluhim, but the
nation was afterwards increased by a colony from
Caphtor joining them. The term dTlttbB {Pehshtvm),
Philistinea, denotes emigrants from the Ethiopic^
tsbs (palash). to emigrate. In the Septuagint called
'AWo^vXot wanderers. They dwelt on the coast of the
Mediterranean, to the south of Judea, from Ekron
towards the Egyptian frontier, bordering principally on
the tribes of Dan, Simeon, and Judah.

Caphtorim. Critics are by no means agreed as to the identity
of the Caphtorim. Some writers, upon the authority
of several ancient versions, understand the Cappadocians;
but by far the larger number of interpreters take the
term to denote the Cretans. This supposition is favoured
by the Philistines being sometimes called Q''fn3 {Chere-
thim) " Cherethites," as 1 Sam. xxx. 14 ; Ezek. xxv. 16 ;
Zeph. ii. 5, where the Septuagint and the Syriac Versions

, render Cretans. In those passages CherethiTn seems to

be synonymously used with the Philistines.

people's commentart.

288

zTon
on

16. And Canaan begat Sidon hUfirtt bom, and ffeth,

16. Ami the Jebugite, and the Amorite, and the Girgaaite^

17. And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sintte,

18. And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the ffamathite ; and
aftenjoarda were the/amilies of the C'anaanitee spread abroad.

From the sons of Canaan, given in the above verses, sprung
, the different tribes or nations who first peopled the land ot
Canaan. The country was about 145 miles in length, by forty-
five in average width, an area less than that of Wales. It
comprised the southern portion of Syria, and bounded on the
west by the Mediterranean, east by the valley of the Jordan,
north by the mountain ranges of the Lebanon, and the glen of
the Litany (Leontes) and south by the desert of Sinai.
ZiDON or SiDON, Heb. y\yi^ (Zidon), the first bom of Canaan^

from whom descended the Phoenicians. Josephus states
that Sidon built a city of the same name, and through-
out the Old Testament "Sidon" occurs as the oldest
capital of the Phoenicians. Joshua calls it n3"i "IIH^IX

(Zidon Rahhah) "great Zidon." (Jos. xi. 8.) Indeed,
both Biblical and profane writers often apply the
name Sidon to Phoenicia and call its inhabitants
Sidonians.* (See Deut. iii. 9 ; Ezek. xxxii. 30 ; Straba
i. 40 ; Virg. Mn. i. 677.) Many writers maintain that
" Zidon " denotes a Jisfiery, and that it was so called
from the favourite pursuit uf the ancient Sidonians, but
Josephus is no doubt correct in asserting that it was
so called after its founder. The Greeks called the
country ^oivikt}, Phoenicia, either after a brother of
Cadmus, or from ^wot a famous purple dye which
formed one of the principle articles of commerce.

Heth, Heb. fin {Cheth). From him sprung the Hittites, wha
dwelled in the southern part of Palestine, around
Hebron and Beersheba. They spread, however, into
several other districts, and this will account for " the
land of the Hittites " being used for Canaan. (Josh. i. 4.)

The Jebusite. From him sprung the Jebusites who dwelled
principally around Jerusalem, though some of them
also took up their abode in the moimtains of Judah.
Jerusalem formerly bore the name Jebus.. no doubt after

*0n the coins of Zidon the inscription "Il^b Q3*lSb (Uzidonim lezidon) {.«.»■
of Zidon of the Zidoniant. Bat later there evidently sprang ap a rivalry
between Zidon and Tyre, for on the Tynan coins there is the inacriptioa
t33*l2l QK "iSb ••*•» Ty*^ tfie itwther {metropolU) of the Zidoniant.

284

people's commentart.

its founder. Although Joshua defeated the Jebusites,
the}' still retained possession of their city Jebus. It was
afterwards attacked by the tribe of Judah but without
succ&ss, and at a later period by the Benjamitos, but
with no better results. It was, however, aft^srwards
concpiered by the valour and perseverance of David.
The Amouite. Of all the tribes of Canaan, the Amorite formed
the most powerful. They had their abode in the
mountains of Judah, and also between the rivers Arnon
and Jabbok. Moses deprived them of their transjor-
danic possessions, which wore apportioned to Reuben,
Qad, and to a part of Manasseh, and they were Hnally
made tributary by Solomon.
Qirp;asite, the abode of the Oirgasites, cannot be established
with any certainty. According to Matt. viii. 28, they dwelled
in the east of Tiberias, for it is there stated, " And when he
was come to the other side into the country of Gergeaenes ;"
but according to Mark v. 1, and Luke viii. 26, it is " into the
country of the Gadarenes." Origen indeed says, that the city
of Gergesa anciently stood on the eastern shore of Lake Tibe-
rias, and the precipice is still shown down which the swine
rushed. (0pp. iv. p. 140), but as this tradition is not confirmed
by any other testimony, no importance is attached to it. It
is commonly supposed that the reading Tepyeinjv&v "Gesgesenes,"
in Matthew, is dubious ; and, indeed, the Syriac Version has
there also (leatliro degodroye) "into the land of the Gadarenes."
According to some of the Rabbis, the Girgasites emigrated into
Africa, fearing the power of God ; and the ancient historian
Frocopius, who flourished about the beginning of the sixth
century, says, tliat in the ancient city of Tingis (Tangiers)
there are two pillars of white stone near a large fountain
inscribed in Phopnician characters, "We are the people preserved
by flight from that robber Jesus (Joshua) the son of Nave,
who pursued us."

The Hivite. The Hivites dwelled at the foot of Hermon and
Lebanon.

The Arkite. The Arkites inhabited, according to Josephns, the
city Area or Arce, a Phrenician town at the north-
western foot of the Lebanon. The ruins of the town
are still extant at Tel Arka. There are also some coins
in existence with the inscription ti^Ja p"|fi^b {learak

tnelech) King of Arak. (Rosenm. Alterth, ii. 1, s. 10.)
It was a flourshing town in the time of Alexander the
Great, to whom a temple was here erected.
The Sinite. The Sinites were marauders who infested Mount
Lebanon. They had a strong fortress called Sinnas in
the neighbourhood of Area. (Compare Strabo, xv. 756),

PEOPLE 8 COMMENTAUY.

285

and

10.)
the

)ant

[66).

The Arvadite. The Arvaditcs inhabited the ROiall island
AraduH, on the northern coast of Plui'iiicia. The prophet
Ezekiel, speaks of tiie Arvadites as experienced mariners
and brave soldiers, rendering great service to Tyre. (Ch,
xxvii, 8, 11.)

The Zemauitk. The Zcmarites are the inhabitants of the town
Simyra, mentioned by ancient geographers. It waa
situated at the western foot of Lebanon. There are still
ruins there called Sumruh.

The Hamathite. The Uauiathites had tlieir abode in the
Syrian town Hamath, by the Greeks and Romans called
Epiphania. It was situated on the river Arontes. It
is still one of the most prosperous towns of Syria, hav-
ing a laige population. The upper part of the town is
supplied with water from the river, which is raised by
immense Persian wheels about eighty feet in diameter.

19. And the border of the Canuunitea waa from Sidoii, as thmt yoeat*
towarda O'trar unto Gaza ; aa thou yo-at towarda iSodvm, and O'oinvr-
rah, and Admah, and Zeboim, to Laaha.

The descendants of Canaan spread tluinselves over the
extensive tract of country extending from hJidon in the north
down to Gerar and Gazu in the south, and to the Dead Sea and
the Jordan in the east. Gerar was a Conaunitish border town
between Kudish and Shur, it was situated in a valley called
" the valley of Gerar." (Gen. xxvi. 17.) In the time of Abra-
ham it was the seat of a Philistine king. (Gen. xxvi. 1.) Gaza,
Heb. nT5 {Azzah) the strovy one ; the most southern town of
the Philistines, and as the name imports, it was a strong fortres.s,
situated on a lofty mound. In the time of the Judges it was
conquered by the men of Judah (Judg. i. 18), but soon after-
wards regained its independence again. The place was sur-
rounded by exceedingly massive walls, and was only taken by
Alexander the Great alter a five months siege. He had erected
battering engines on an artificial mound 250 feet high, and a
quarter of a mile in width.

Lasua, (Heb. yxob (Lesha,) is, according to .several ancient
translators and Jerome, CalUvrhue, celebrated for its
hot sulphurous springs, situatetl on the eastern coast of
the Dead Sea. We shall have again to refer to these hot
springs. The other places mentioned in our verse will
be noticed hereafter.

*nDK3 (fioailiuh) iuBtcttd of 5^^^ ('"'af/'") auJ moro f"Hy TIK2 15 («<*

boac/ia) tli. xix, 22, literally, thy coniiny, i. e., "na thou coiiiest ' or •*gocat,"
ia au idiomatic uxpreHHion, dciiotinu in the direction towurdu, as in our verse
" from Sidon iu tho dirtctioii towarne Gorar."

186

people's COMM ENTAilT.

Descendants of Shem.

21. To Shem alto, the /other of all the children of Eber, the elder
brother qfJapheth, were children horn.

"The father of all the children of Eber." There are two
different reasons assigned by commentators, why Shem is spoken
of as " the father of all the children of Eber.'^ Some explain,
*^ because two important nations sprung from Eber throu^ his
two sons Peleg and Joktan — namely, the Hebrews and
AraJbia7k»r But as it is not easily seen why Shorn should be
exclusively called the father of the children of his great grand-
son Eber, other commentators underatood by the phrase 1321
^'^y {bene Eber) Hebrews, so called from their passing over the
Euphrates in coming from the east to the land of Canaan ;
t*^**? y2'9 (fber,) not as a proper name, but as an appellative
applied to the Hebrew nation, derived from the root 1135 {avar)
to p€U8 over, and hence called Q'^liy (Ivrim) Hebrews ; i. e.,
those who come from the other side of tJi£ Euphrates. And so
the celebrated commentator Rashi translates " children of the
other side" Parkhurst renders "children of pilgrimage." The
term was first applied to Abraham, who in Ch. xiv. 13, is called
t'\^y (Ivri), " the Hebrew," and afterwards to his descendants.
It is quite probable that when they fii'st came into the land of
Canaan, they may have been asked as to their former abode, and
having stated tha* they were tJ^in^ (Ivrim) Hebrews, i. e.,
emigrarUs from, beyond the Euphrates, they were afterwards
called by that name among their neighbours, whilst they
called themselves Israelites.

22. The children of Shem are : Elam, and Asahur, and Arphaxad,
Lud, and Aram.

Elam. From him descended the Elymseans who inhabited the
province Elymais. In Ch. xiv. i. Chedorlaomer is men-
tioned as the king of Elam. The Elymseans, however,
include also the Persians, who were likewise descended
from Ellam. Shushan (Susa) the ancient capital of
Persia was situated in the province of Elam. (See Dan.
viil2.)

AssHUR. From him sprung the Assyrians.

Abphaxad, From him descended a people inhabiting the
northern district of Assyria {An^haphachitis).

LuD, He was the ancestor of the Lydians of Asia Minor.

Aram. From him sprung the Aramaeans of Syria and Messo-
potamia. ,

PEOPLE S COMMENTART.

287

Oder

two
oken
plain,
;h his
and
Id be
;rand-

;cr the
inaan ;
native
{avar)

i ; i. «•»
And so
. of the
." The
19 called
mdants.
land of
jde, and

ws, i- *•»
erwavds

st they

haxcid,

lited the
is men-
kowever,
Ucended
U)ital of
iee Dan.

ting

the

lor.
Messo-

23. And th« children of Aram, Uz, and Hull, and Oether, and
Mash.

Uz. His descendants inhabited a district in the northern part of
Arabia Deserta, between the territory of the Idumeans
and the Euphrates. The land of Uz is specially noted
in Scripture for its having been the scene of Job's trial.

Hull, the dwelling place of the descendants of Hull, cannot
now with any certainty be ascertained. Some writers
identify them with the inhabitants of Ccelo-Syria^
others suppose^that they dwelled in the neighbourhood
of Uz.

OfiTHEB. A similar uncertainty prevails as regards the dwell-
iiu[ place of the descendants of Gcther.

Mash. His descendants are supposed to have had their abode
in part of the mountain chain Mons Masius, north of
Nisibis, which divides Armenia from Mesopotamia.

24. And Arphaxad begat Salah, and Salah begat Eber.
Eber, the progenitor of the Hebrews.

25. And to Eber were bom two aona; the name of one was releg,for
in his dayi was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Peleq. The name ^^g (Peleg) denotes division, and was be-
stowed, as our verse informs us, in commemoration of
the dispersion of the nations which took place in his
days. By the expression "in his days was the earth
divided," some commentators have erroneously supposed
that some actual disruption of the earth had taken ])lace
in his days, but the expression simply means that a dis-
persion of the natioiis of the earth nad taken place ; the
earth being, by sjrnecdoche employed for the inhabitants
of the earth or of a land. The descendants of Peleg
dwelled in Mesopotamia, while the Joktides emigrated
into Southern Arabia. Joktan is by the Arabians called
Kachtan, and is by them regarded as the father of the
genuine Arabians. And modern travellers inform us that
about three days' journey north of Nedsheran are a pro-
vince and a town called Kachtan. The sons of Joktan,
thirteen in number, are contained in verses 26-29, they
were progenitors of Arabian tribes, some of which have
only so far been identified, whilst others have either not
yet been discovered, or have become altogether extinct.

■TMIPBM

288

piople's oommentaby.

CHAPTER XI.

1. And the uhoie earth utu of one language, and of one epeech,

"And of one speech;** in the original it is fi^'lS'Tl flHK MttD
C^nnfi^('^'«p'*«'t echath tLdevarim aclutdim) "of one lip.and of one
kind of words," which is more to the poi.it than the rendering in
our version from which it might be inferred that there may
have existed different dialects of that language, but which
the original altogether precludes. The question as to which
language was the one here spoken of, does not in any way aflect
the authenticity of the books of Moses, as it is not for a moment
disputed that tlie Hebrew was the language of the chosen

{)eople from the time of Abraham ; and that Moses wrote in that
anguage, in which it pleased God also to convey His will and
commandments, and ht nee the lauguuge was in later times
also called ttl'TpH y\XOb (Jatihon hakkadofh) i.e., the sacred

language. In the Histoiy of Hebrew Literature. (Vol. 1, p. 3
et tteq.) 1 have, however, conclusively shown that the proper
names in the family of Adam are purely Hebrew words.
Further, there are but few of the proper names which are
mentioned up to the building of the tower of Babylon, of
which the derivation cannot now be traced from a Hebrew
root. There are, indeed, a few proper names of which the
root has become obsolete, but the same is likewise the case
with words in the later books of the Old Testament, as every
Hebrew scholar well knows. Again, Adam in bestowing the
names on the difierent crt-utures, would naturally be guided
by some peculiarity* that he had observed, and give such a
name which would at once express the peculiarity ; this I have
shown was actually the case. (See p. 13.) Bochart and many
other writers strenuously maintain that the names of the
animals and birds mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures are
the very same which Adam bestowed upon them, and that
these, for the most part, arc significant. Josephus says : " God
brought to Adam the several species of animals, exhibiting
them to him, male and female, and He imposed upon them
names by which they are even now called." This circum-
stance, then, likewise points to the Hebrew being the primitive
language. But further, I have clearly shown, that when we
examine the peculiarities of the Hebrew language, we find
many unmistakable indications of infancy, such as might
naturally be looked for m the language employed in the child-
hood of the human race. (See p. 14, H aeq.) Indeed, the
childlike simplicity of the Hebrew language, very frequently

f>eech.

HBtD
)f one

ingin
3 may
which
which

atlect
omunt
chosen
n that
ill and

times
sacred

i.p7a

words,
ich are
,'lon, of
Hebrew
ich the
le case
every
ing the
guided
such a
I have
1 many
of the
res are
)d that
God
^ibiting
them
jjircum-
limitive
leu we
re find
might
child-
3d, the
tuently

people's commentart.

189

renders translation very difficult. There is another very
remarkable circumstance which strongly argues in favour of
the Hebrew being the primitive language spoken of in our
verse, and that is, that the lives of four pernona form a link
from tfie creation across tfte jlood down to a part of the life of
Abrahavi. Adam lived 930 years, when he was 587 years old
Methuselah was born, so that this antediluvian patriarch lived
243 years during the life of Adam, and we may reasonably
.suppose that he conversed with him and spoke the same
language. Methuselah died in the year of the flood, 1G5G
A.M., but lUU years before that event, 1556 A.M., Shem was
born, so that this patriarch lived 100 years during the lifetime
of Methuselah, tthem lived after the flood 500 years, he died
according to the Hebrew text, 2156 A.M., and Abraham was
born 1946 A.M. according to the same text, so that Shem lived
upwards of a century during the lifetime of Abraham. A
writer has, therefore, well remarked : " Thus Methuselah stood
before the flood, Uod's great historic ledger, reaching one hand
back to Adam, receiving the record of events from him, and
with the other reaching forward and handing it down to iShem.
Then Shem, living on both sides of the flood reaches back and
takes the record trom Methuselah and hands it down to faith-
ful Abraham, who teaches it to his children." A few writers
have brought forward the Sanscrit as a rival to the Hebrew,
but I have shown that the structure of the Sanscrit is alto-
gether too peiiect, and we may add, too artificial for a
nrimitive language. (See more on the subject, History of
Hebrew Literature, p. 17 et aeq.)

2, And it came to past, cu they journeyed from the eaat, that they
found a plain in the land of Shinar ; and they dwelt there.

"As they journej'ed," lit. D^ODS {benaaeam), in their breaking
up or removing ; generally spoken of as nomadic encampments
striking their tents and removing from place to place with
their flocks. " From the east," which has somewhat perplexed
commentators in their endeavours to find a satisfactory expla-
nation ; for if this migration was from the Armenian province
where the ark had landed into the land of Shinar, they must
have come from the north and moved southward. But mp?a

{mikkedem,) admits of being rendered " in the east," which
rendering is also given in the Revised Version in the margin,
by Kalisch and other interpreters. The meaning accordingly
is, when they had migrated from their former habitation in
Armenia, into the land of Shinar ; i. e., (lower Mesopotamia or
Babylonia,) in their journeying about in that laud, which
viewed from Palestine or Arabia, took place ''in the east"
43

200

pboplb's commbntart.

"They found a plain «nd dwelt there." The "plain" here
ppoken of, was the ext<;iirii"e plain about Babylon, called by
Herodotus, irtBiou /Uya, great plain.

S. And they said one to another, 'Cotne atui let u» tntike bricke, and
bum thero thorouyUy. And they had brick for stone, and bitutnen had
they for mortar.

We have in this verso a most faithful account of the mate*
rials employed in the construction of Babylonian building,
which consisted either of sun-dried or burnt bricks of a fine
clay, and bitumen or asphalt, which abounds in the neighbour*
hood of Babylon, and wnich for excellence is unequalled in any
other part of the globe. Mr. Keppel says, " The soil of ancient
Aasyria and Babylon consists of fine clay mixed with sand,
with which, as the waters of the river retire, the shores are
covered. This compost when dried by the heat of the sun,
becomes a hard and solid mass, and forms the finest materials
for the beautiful bricks for which Babylon was so celebrated.
We all put to the test the adaptation of the mud for pottery,
by taking some of it while wet and then moulding it into any
form we pleased. Having been exposed to the sun for half an
hour, it became as hard as stone." (Trav. in the Ea8t,.p. 73.)
Thus the soil supplied in abundance the want of stone, aa
there existed no stone quarries throughout the whole region
of Babylon. Layard, in speaking of the ruins of Birs-Nim-
rod, remarks : " That the cement by which the bricks were
united, is of so tenacious a quality, tnat it is almost impossible
to detach one from the mass entire." (Layard, Nin. ana Baby 1.
p. 499.)

i. And they said* Come, let us build /or ourselves a oity, and a
tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make u«t a name, lest
we be scattered upon the/ace of the whole earth, j - ^^ ,., ^ ,[,; ,[

" Whose top viay reach unto heaven," is simply a hyperbolical
expression, denoting an exceedingly high tower. A similar
figure occurs in Deut. i. 28 : " The cities are great and fenced
up to heaven." So aho Daniel iv. 8 (Eng. Ver. v. 11) spoken
01 a tree whose height " reached unto heaven." It can how-
ever, be scarcely doubted, but that the well known heathen
myth of giants attempting to storm the heavcTU, owes its origin

* }l!3n {havah,) is the impentive with H p»nfP>gi»t trom ^H*) (yahav,)
to ffttw, and is used as a hortatory interjection to incit« to aotion, like the Eng«
lisn come / the Oerman toohlan, and the French allont. In the Kngli«h Version
it ii rendered by " go to."

t The word Qn {ahem) name, is lometiinei osad in the leue otjtune ae glory.
Sm for example 2 Sam. viL 23, riii. 13 ; Is. bdlL 3.

PBOPLB'fl COMMINTABT.

SOI

lyoAau,)

lie Eng-

tendon

Ir glory.

to some distortod tradition of the buildin^^ of the tower of
Babylon. " And let us inaice a name." This passage at onco
affords the inforniiition nn to the real motive of the ffigantic
undertakinjr. It wan an iinnioderate longing for worldly fnine
and gre8tnt'8H. Tho tower waw designed for a lasting inonii-
uiont of their power, and the mighty deeds they were able to
achieve, and not, as Jonephus and some other writers have
supposed, " to guard aga.nst a future flood." " Lest we bo
scattered upon the face of the whole earth," this declaration,
which stands in close connection with " let us make a name,"
shows thnt the fame which they would acquire by the under-
ttiking, was also intended to inspire with fear, and thus not
only serve to shield them from attacks of foes, but would enable
them also the more readily to extend their own power. There
are some who suppose that this event may probably have taken
'place during the life time of Nimrod, and Josophus indeed
distinctly declares that it was Nimrod who incited the people,
and declared that " ho would he avenged on Qod, if he should
have a mind to drown tho world again ; for that he would build
a tower too high for the waters to reach." (Ant i. ch. iv. par.
2). The language of our text, however, clearly implies that tho
daring enterprise was not set on foot by one person, but was
the mutual undertaking of many. The statement of Joseph us
was no doubt derived from some ancient tradition upon which
no reliance can be placed.

'1 6. And the Lord came down to iee the city and tower, which the
children of men built.

" And the Lord came down to see." \ need hardly tell the
reader that this is merely an athropomorphic expression, simply
implying that Qod took cognizance of the impious undertakmg
of these arrogant people. Qod is omnipresent, and nothing is
hidden from His sight. "Which the sons of man ^33 (6awu)
have built," that is, have began to build and finished to a certain
point. By mij^ 133 (ftewe Adam) "children of men" must here be
understood of those who had degenerated from the piety of their
ancestors, for it cannot for a moment be supposed that the race
of Shem took any part in the impious undertaking. ^

"' 6. And the Lord taid, Behold, the people is one, and they have uU
one language; and this they begin to do ; and now nothing will be
reetrained/rom tfiem, whidi tfiey purpose to do.

'*And this they begin to do," the literal rendering of the
original is, " and this is *their beginning to do," that is, this is

*p}>nn {haelMam) " their beginning" infinitive Hiphil, oaed mbetantivelyi
^nObn {cfutlal) to begin.

292

people's COMtfENTART.

only the beginning of their arrogant deeds, and if not pre-
vented from accouiplishing it, nothing hereafter will deter them
from anything they purpose to do, no matter how audacious or
how great or hard the undertaking. Although they well knew
tbat in course of time they could not possibly avert their being
spread abroad, as the natural result of the increase of popula-
tion, still, they no doubt designed by the building of the city
and tower to centralize their power, and as much as possible
preserve their unity, in order that by their combined action
they might render themselves more powerful. Such a power
in the hands of an impious, proud, and audacious people would
have led to the most fearful consequences. But God

' * Frustrates the devices of the crafty.
So that their hands cannot perform anjrthing real, (or of worth). "

—Job V. 12,

He confused their language, which at once obliged them to
divide up into separate communities.

7. Come, let ms go down, and there confound their langiuige, that
they may not understand *one omotJier's speech.

" Come, let us go down." The use of the plural pronoun " us,"
has been explained in different ways. Not a few writers have
regarded it as addressed to the angels surrounding the throne
of God. (See Isaiah vi. 1. 2.) The Patristic writers explained
it as indicative of the Trinity, whilst most modern interpteters,
both orthodox and heterodox, simply regard it as a pluralia
niajestaticua, similar to the use of the plural pronouns by
royal personages. In my remarks on "Let us make man in our
image," (Gen i. 26). I have explained it as God taking counsel
with Himself before He entered upon the act of the creation
of man, for the very idea of taking counsel in itself presupposes
importance, and it is undoubtedly the importance of tha event
that the inspired writer wishes to convey by the statement,
and this I consider to be the import of the statement "let us go
down," in our own verse. The inspired writer represents God
as taking counsel with Himself before He entered upon the act
of confounding the language, to mark in a forcible manner the
importance of the event. The use of the plural pronoun might
therefore be appropriately called, the plv/ral of deliberation.

* "They may not understand," in the original it is 12'73'S39*^ ^b (^o
tishmf'u) " they might not hear." The verb ^QQ) (ahama) to hear, is often
used in the sense to wideratand. Thus, for example, Gen. xlii. 23, " For they
know not that Joseph SJ^W ('homea ) unden>tood (lit, heard) them." So
sometimes the Qreek verb cuco^ to hear. 8ee John tL 60. 1 Cor. ziv. 2.

people's commentary.

29»

8. So the Lord scattefed them abi-oad from thence npon the face of all
the earth ; and they left off to build the city.

" And they left off to build the city ;" although there is no
direct mention made that the building of the tower likewiao
ceased, yet it is evidently implied, since the building of the city
and tower are previously spoken of as one undertaking.
According to an ancient tradition, God's intervention on this
occasion was attended by a tempest, thunder, and lightning,
and that the lightning, or according to the Arabians, a tire
from heaven, destroyed the upper part of the tower. Upwards
of 4,100 years, according to Calmet's chronology, or 4,400
years, according to Hale's computation, have passed awa}' since
the building of the tower of Babylon took place, and although
there remains nothing more of that once magnificent city and
far-famed temple of the Seven Spheres, than mouldering ruins,
and shapeless heaps of rubbish, yet there are strong reasons to
believe that even in tiiene ruins there is still preserved at least
a portion of the tower of Babylon. About forty miles south-
west of Bagdad on the banks of the Euphrates is situated the
modern town of Hillah, this town is surrounded in almost all
directions bj' ruins, and shapeless heaps of rubbish, among
which some wild animals and bird?; have taken up their abode,
and who-jf djsmal criee* now and then break the profound
silence that pervades the hideous waste. These ruins, reader,
mark the site once occupied by Babylon the Great, and testify
to the literal fulfilment of the fearful denouncement uttered
against it by the prophet Isaiah :

"I will also make it a possession for the porcupine and pools of water ;
And 1 will sweep it with the besom of destructiou said the Loru of hosts."

(Ch. xiY. 23.)

About six miles south-west of Hillah, at a place now called
Birs Nimroud {^' imrvd's fort), but by the Jews of the country
the prison of Nebuchadnezzar, " lies u group of ruins peculiarly
prominent by its colossal height and extent, standing on the
edge of the vast mar.sh foinied by the Hindiyah canal, and the
inundation of the Eu|)hrates, a dreary ynle, unrelieved by a
blade of grass, or a single herb. The huge heap, in which
bricks, stone, marble, and basalt are irregularly mixed, covers
a bquare-fcuperficies of 40,C0O feet ; whilst the chief mount is
nearly 300 feet high, and Jrcm 200 to 400 feet in width, com-
manding the extensive view over a country of utter detolation.
These are the remains of +he far-famed " Temple of the Seven
Spheres," most probably the " Temple of Jupiter Belus" of the
classical writers, and the " Tower of Babel ' of our text. It
consisted of seven distinct stages or square platforms, built of
kiln-burnt bricks, each about twenty feet high, gradually
44

294

people's COMMEXI'ARY.

1
t

ij
' ' ' I

i
,■1

diminishing in diameter, and forming an oblique pyramid."
(Kalisoh Com. on Gen, p. 315. See also Loftus. Chaldre and
Susiaim p. 31.) Mr. Rich, who carried on some excavation in
the place, observes, " Birs Nimroud, is a mound of an oblong
form, the total circumference of which is 702 j'-ards. At the
eastern side it is cloven by a deep furrow, and is not more than
i)0 or (10 feet high : but on the western side it rises in a conical
figure to the elevation of 198 feet, and on its summit is a solid
pile of brick, 27 by 28 feet in breadth, diminishing in thickness
to the top, which is broken and irregular, and rent by a large
fissure extending through a third of its height. The fire-burnt
bricks have inscriptions on them, and so excellent is the cement
that it is nearly impossible to extract one whole. The other
parts of the summits of this hill are occupied by immense frag-
ments of brick- work of no determinate figure, tumbled together,
and converted into solid nitrified masses, as if they had under-
gone the action of the fiercest fire." The eminent traveller
Ker Porter, who also gives a description of the place, says that
he has no doubt that the solid vitrified masses of brickwork
were the efiSbct of fire acting from above, and that it was pro-
bably lightning. This circumstance certainlj- accords with the
ancient tradition we have mentioned, that the tower of Babel
was overthrown by a firo from heaven, or by lightning. The
renowned travellers Niobuhr, Sir Kor Porter, and many other
travellers, and also many couimentatois, concur with the
tradiiions ot the country in fixing upon Birs Nimroud as the
probable site of the tower of Babylon.

9. Thsrefore is its name called Babel; for there the Lord con-
fottnded the language of all the earth ; and from thence did the Lord
scatter them abroad upon the face of all the ea^'th.

" Therefore is its name called B;iV)ol," the Hebrew nameb33
(Bavel) denotes confusion, and is, therefore a memorial name
commemorative of the confusion of languages.

Modern linguistic researches have now almost beyond a
doubt, established the theory of one primitive Asiatic language.
This theory coincides with the statement of the sacred writer
as recorded in the first verse of this chapter. But besides this,
there are several ancient profane writers who also bear testi-
mony to the building of a tower and the consequent con-
fusion of language. Josephus quotes fr(>m one of the Sibylline
oracles as follows : " When all men were of one language,
some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby
ascend up to heaven ; but the gods sent storms of wind and
overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language
and for this reason it wag that the city was called Babylon,"*
(Ant. I., eh. iv., par. 3.) Eusebius in his Proeparatio Evangel-'

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

295

as pro-
'ith the
: Babel
:. The

other
th the

I the

)nd a
juage.
mter

this,
I testi-

con-

i^lline
Juage,

3reby
and

l^uage

Ion,"
lel-

ica quotes Abydene, the celebrated author of the history of the
Chaldeans and the Assyrians, as follows : " There are those who
relate that the first men born on the earth (giants), when they
grew proud of their strength and stati , su|>|)osing that they
were more excellent than the gods, wickedly attempted to
build a tower whore Babylon stands. But as the work
advanced towards heaven, it was overthrown by the gods
with the assistance of the winds, and the ruins were called
Babylon. Up to that time men wore of one language ; but
then the gods sent among them diversity of tongues." Eupo-
lemus, as quoted by * Alexander Polyhistor, affirms, " That the
city of Babylon was first built by giants ; that thoy Ijuilt the
most famous tower in all history ; and that the tower was des-
troyed b}' the almighty power of God, and the giants dispersed
over the face of the whole earth." Mr. Op|>ort thinks that he
has found allusions to the deluge and the confusion of lan-
guages on a cylinder discovered at Birs Nimroud. and he
regards the circumstance as an additional proof of the identity
of Birs Nimroud and the Tower oi Babylon.

The remaining versos of the chapter contain the genealogy
of Shem. which is an immediate continuation of the irenealoir-
ical record of Adam in ch. v. It is a remarkabh) coincident
that both contain ten generations, and that each ends with the
pious patriarch chosen by God to propagate and to glorify His
name, the one ending with Noah and the other with Abiam.
We will here subjoin a chronological table of the ten gener-
ations between Noah and Abram, and from it will be perceived
that the Samaritan codex and the Septuagint again dilFer from
the Hebrew text, of which they are no doubt corruptions.

PATRIARCHS.

HEBRRW TEXT.

S.\MARITA\ CODKX.

SEPTUAGINT.

Years

Kest

Exteut Years jRest

Kxtent Years |He8t

Kxteiit

bef(jre

of i l)et<)re : of

of before j of

birth of

life.

whole Itirtli of' life.

whole l)irth of' life.

whole

first son.

life, first son 1

life. Itirst HonI

life.

Shem

Arphaxad

Kaivav

Salah ....
Eber ....
Peleg ....
Reu ....
Serug . .
Nahor . .
Terah . .

100

[ 500

«)00

100

500

«>00

100

500

.35

403

438

i;{5

303

438

135

400

•

1.30

3.30

.30

403

433

1.30

403

433

130

330

430

4«i4

1.34

270

404

134

270

209

23!>

130

109

239

130

209

207

239

1.32

107

239

VA2

207

200

230

1.30

100

230

130

200

119

148

179

125

(135)

205

(75)

145

(135)

600
535
460
460
404
339
.339
330
304
205

•Alexander Polyhistor was born at Miletum 85 years Iwfore the Christian
«ra. Ue wrote 42 treatises of grammar, of philosophy, and of Uistory, of wbioh,
however, only some fragments have come down to us. -, . «

296

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

.11 1

i-t"

The reader will perceive from the above table that the
Septuagint inserts between Arphaxad and Salah the name of
" Oainan " •who, according to ch. v. 9, was the son of £nos.
According to the Septuagint this second Cainan was the son of
Arphaxail, and Salah was the son of Cainan, whereas according
to the Hebrew text Salah was the son of Arphaxed. The same
person is also introduced in Luke iii, 36, but in 1 Chron. i. 18,
24, the name Cainan does not occur in Shem's line to Abraham,
and the most eminent chronologists perfectly agree that the
name in that line is spurious. The Septuagint most likely
introduced the name in order to complete the ten generations
from Shem to Terah, whereas the ten generations are intended
to extend from Shem to Abraham. 1 ne Hebrew text is faith-
fully adhered to in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions,,
as well as by other ancient translations. It will also be seen
from the table that the Septuagint gives to Cainan precisely
the same age at the biith of the first feon, and the same extent
of life as it gives to Salah.

The table of the patriaichs after the flood presents to us a
remarkable diflerente in the duration of life as compared with
the duiation of life before the flood. Noah reached the age of
950 yeais, whilf^t his son Shem, who was born before the flood
but lived the greater portiim of his life aiter it, attained only
to the age of tiOO yeais. His son Arphaxad, born two years
after the flood, only reached the age of 438 years ; Peleg 209 ;,
Isahor 148; Terah 205 years. This shortening of human life
may reasonably be ascribed to two primary causes, namely, the
climatic changes produced by the flood, and the change of
habits and mode of life. With the shortening of human life,
we leain from our table also that childien were born at a pro-
portionally earlier age of the jarents. In the genealogical
table from Adam to Nciah the age of 05 years is the earliest at
which the first son is born, but according to our table only
Shim was 100 years old at the birth of . his first son, but
Arjihaxad only thiity-five, Salah thirty Eber thirty-four, and
so on to Terah, whose first son was born when he was seventy
years old. . /'V

27. Act/; ilicse are the yeneratiin of 1 erah : Terah begat Abram,.
Auhor, and Iluran ; oiiti Laran htgat Lot. '

28. And Uaran died bijoie hia father 2'erah, in the land of his
nativity, in Lr of the Chaldees. '

" In l.'r of the thaldees." All the Jewish writeis identify
Ur with the UiOiUin t« wii Crjuh. cal.td ly tht Grttks Ldeffa.
This i^^ also the local ( ] initii o1 the i ati\t>. and the jriiicipal
mosque in the place is (ailed "The Alos-quf of Abraham," and

111/

ill I

people's commentary.

207

the pond in the court, in which the sacred fish are kept, is
called " The Lake of Abraham the Beloved " (Niebuhr Voyage
en Arabic, p. 330). But most modem critics identify Ur with
Mugheir (mother of bitumen), which is said to be one of the
most, if not the most, ancient city of the Chaldeans hitherto
discovered. It lies on the right bank of the Euphrates, about
six miles distant from the river. A few commentators take
Ur as the name of a district and not of a city, but this view
has not found much favor. In the cuniform inscriptions the
form Hur occurs instead of Ur. The name -\tis^ ( Ur) signifies
light or fire, and may probabl}' be connected with the fire-
worship so coramotdy practiced by the Chaldeans, Persians,
and other eastern people. Indeed, there is a tradition that
when Abram refused to worship fire, Nimrod, or some other
Chaldean tyrant caused him to bo cjist into a fiery furnace,
from which God delivered him.

29. And Abram and Nahor took wives to themselves ; the name of
A bram^s wife toas Sural ; ami the name of Xahnr's wife was MUcah,
the daughter of Haran, the fatfier of Mllcah, and the father of Iscah.

The name ^-)^ (Sarai) is no doubt derived from ^"liU ^^
combat, to contend, and hence denotes one contending or strug-
gling with her ill fate, such as barrenness, which, as the reader
is well aware, was considered by the ancient Jews as a great
reproach. In chapter xvii. 1,5, 16, when Abraham received
the promise, that she should become " a 'mother of nations,"
God commands him to change her name to nib (Sarn^h), denot-
ing a princess, that is a j^^'incess " of many nations." I have
already remarked that the parents, in giving such significant or
prophetic names, as they may be called, seemed to have been
secretly guided to do so. Sarai was, according to ch. xx. 12,
Abraham's half sister, and Nahor marrieil his niece. It is
quite evident that before the Mosaic laws were promulgated,
the laws of affinity and consanguinity were not strictly
observed, if observed at all. According to Exod. vi. 20,
Amram, the father of Aaron and Moses, took Jochebed, his
father's sister, to wife. The patriarch Jacob had two sisters
simultaneously as wives. It is true that this was brought
about by the deception practiced upon liim by Laban, still we
cannot for a moment suppose that, 'however deeply he may
have felt the fraud practiced upon him, he would never have
consented to marry the sister also, had such an alliance been
deemed sinful in his eyes. It is, therefore, apparent that what-
ever natural disinclination may have existed among the ancient
Hebrews in contracting marriages with such near relatives, they
were at least not looked upon as sinful, or the sacred writer in
recording them would certainly not have passed them over

\ '

• i

}

(

\
1

298

people's commentary.

without uttering one word of censure against them. Ah no
matrimonial laws then existed, and as the Hebrews were at
that time a nomadic people, wandering from place to place with
tlieir flocks, and, therefore, were necessarily cut up in small
communities, we can easily understsind how marriages such as
those above mentioned should have taken place, especially
when we take into consideration the great disinclination that
existed in contracting alliances with other tribes. (See Gen.
xxiv. 3, 4 ; xxvi. 34, 35 ; xxvii. 4.) ]n course of time, however,
when the Hebrew people assumed a nationality of more
marked character, though not yet possessed of a country of their
own, the Almighty, not only as their God, but also as their
King and Ruler, cave His chosen people, by His servant Mos' s,
both religious and civil laws by which their duties to God, and
tlieir duties regulating their intercourse with their neighbours
were distinctly defined. Of these, the laws regulating the
degrees ot relationship with which marriages are prohibited
form a prominent part, and are recorded in Lev. xviii. G-18 ;
XX. 11-21 ; Deut. xxvii. 20, 22, 23. Josephus in his antiquities,
b. i. ch. vi., par. 5, tells us that {Sarah was the daughter of Haran,
Abraham's brother, and his opinion was likewise adopted by
later Jewish writers, who maintain that Iscah is only another
name lor JSarai, and that Terah adopted her after her father's
death, so that she was only his adopted daughter. But the
language employed by Abraham himself is too explicit to admit
of such a hypothesis : " And yet indeed she is my sister, she is
the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother."
(Ch. XX. 12.)

31. AihI Terah took Ahrani his soil, and Lot the son of Ilaran, his
soli's soil, Olid i>arai his uutighter-iii-laiv, his *'(;7i Abravis wife;
and they went forth *with each other from Ur oj the (Jhaldees to go
into the /and oJ Canaan, and thty came niito Uuran, and dvelt there.

Although there is no mention made in our ver.se of a call
froDi God to Abrani, yet it is evident fiom ch. x., 3-9, and alsa

*In the Authorized and Revised Versions tPllJ^ TlJ^IS'^'l {vaiyttseti i(tavi) is
rendi-itd, "and tlity went forth with llitni, which lendeis the passiige very
anihi^uous, for it was " Terah " who took the |jerson8 mentioned in the verse
and went out with them. Hen'ce some interpieters change the third person

plural into the third person singular, and read tUtlJj^ fc52Z'^T (vaiyetue ittam),
" and he wtnt out with thim,' this change would uniove the difficulty, but it
is an arbitrary change, for which there is no authority, and a change of the
sacred text should l)e studiously avoided if possible. Others render Dplfc^
(iV/i/jd) '" 'I 'I'ip'^i^^al *'Hi*^i'. "together" or uUh inch otiier, which rendering
1 have adopt* d, as it n)ake8 g(]od sense, and leaves the text unaltered.^ The
perscnal pKiM'Uiis are in HeXicw sonictin.is Ubed in a reflexive or reci'procal
sente. A on lithlen renders (7uU eiiunultr) with tuik otlitr, bo Kaliach " with,
each other."

PKOPLKS COMMENTARY.

29»

from Acts vii., 2-4, that this rcinoviiij^ from Ur was uh'Nt tlm
direct divine {guidance. In tho fornu'i passa^'o it is net siattd
that God called Abrani in Ur, Imt only that ho had Innvifht
hirti out from it ; but accordint; to the latter, (Jod had
" appeared " to him " before he dwelt in Haian, and said unto
him, get thee out of thy land," (S:e. This reniovin*; was, tlu-n'-
fore, not merely for the ])Ur])os(' of tindinj^f better |>astur.Mv'«', as
many commentators maintain, or as Kurz — a very pious and
sound writer — remarks, that "Terah's nomadic habits indticed
him to leave that re^jion," (Manual of Sacred History, ]». !H.)
but was as we have stated, inider the direct guidance of (Ji>d.
As there is no mention made of Nahor in our verse, it would
appear that he and his family did not accompany Terah at
that time, but came to Iluran afterwards, since that pliict is in
eh. xxiv., 10, spoken of us " the City of Nahor." " And Sarai
his daughter-in-law," from ch. xx. 12. It is evident that .Saiai
was Terah's daughter, but is here called ifiJs {cnl/dflut}, " his
daughter-in-law," as Me u'//"c of Abram. Teiah left Ur with
the iiitention of going into Canaan, but un coming to Harm, a
place in north-eastern Mesopotamia, he took up his al>ndt' thert?,
probably he was tempted t(j do so by the fine |»asturagf that
the place may have afforded. Haran is about 20 miles south-
east of Edessa, and is by common consent identified with
Corrhae of the classical writers. It becanu^ afterwards ct-le-
brated for the defeat of Crassus \)y the Parthians.

32. And the Jays of Terah were two hundred and Jive yarn ; and
he died in Haran.

\an, his
wife ;
to go
there.

call
alsa

lf(7») is

\*i very

veise

uei'Bon

In this verse the liistory of Terah is concluded, and the
.sacred writer very appropriately recoi'ds here that he dii-il in
Harm, although he actually survived Abiam's (Muigratiou to
Canaan by (jO yoai's. This is quite evident, for according
to verse 20 Terah was 70 yeaia old when Abram was liorn.
and according to ch. xii. 4, Abram departed from Haran wIumi
76 years old, .so that according to these nund»ers Tei-ali was
at that time oidy 14;) years old, whereas our verse <j;ivtvs 2().'>
years as the time of his age. In like manner Abraham's death
is recorded before the birth of his grandsons Jacob and Esjui,
although he survived it by fifteen years. ((Jh. xxv. 7, 20, 'Hi.)
In Exod. xvi. .^3-^4, we have another striking (.'xamplr of a
circumstance bein*; recorded some considerable time before it
could have been executed. We read there, "And Moises said
to Aaron, take a vessel, and put an omer full of manna therein,
and lay it up before the Lord, to l)e kept for your generations.
As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before; the
testimony to be kept." What Aaron is here said to have done

300

people's commentary.

I III

was in the second month after tho exode (see ver. 1) and con-
sefnifntly a considerable time before tlie tabernacle was con-
structed. But this is readily explained ; the sacred historian
records here all that took place relating to the manna, and
hence verse 35 contains already the information also that '* the
Isnu'Iites did eat manna forty years, until they came to the
land which they were to iidierit, although they were at thig
time onlv in the middle of the second month after their
<leparture from Egypt. Fi'om these examples it will be seen
that Moses sometimes recorded events without regard to
chronological order, but rather when he deemed a suitable
opportunity afforded itself of doing so. And it would be well
for the reader to bear this mode of recording events in mind,
it may often prevent serious misconceptions. But it will be
said, that St. Stephen, Acts vii. 4, distinctly states, that
Abraham removed from Ilaran "when his father was dead,"
but this has been very satisfactorily explained, "that he
merely inferx'ed this from the fact; that the call of Abram
(chap, xii.) was not mentioned till after the death of Terah
had l>een noticed, taking the order ot the narrative as the
order of events ; whereas according to the plan of Genesis, the
dfath of Terah is introduced hei'e, oecause Abram never met
with his father again after leaving Haran, and there was con-
sequently nothing more to bo related concerning him." (Keil
Com. on Genesis p. ISO.) And so it has been explained by
many other connnentators. On referring to the chronologicJil
table it will be seen that the Samaritan codex gives 145
yi-aiN as the time of life of Terah, according to this reading
Abram removed to Canaan the same year that his father died,
but the reading of the Samaritan text is generally regarded as
an arbitrary change of the Hebrew text.

CHAPTER XII.

1. And the JjORD said to Abram, Get thee out o/ thy countri/, and
from thif kimlred, and from thy father s house, tmto a land that I
trill shetc thee.

The .sacred narrative enters now upon the history of Abram,
which, as a writer has justly remarked is, " on many accounts,
one of the most interesting and instructive ^\hich the pencil of
inspiration has ever drawn." In reading the five books of
Moses our admiration is everywhere enlisted by the minuteness
with which the various events are described, and yet whilst

peoplk's commentary.

iiiinuteiK'ss of description pervailes the whole of the Mosaic
writinjjs, nowhere is this found to such a remarkal)le degree as
in the history uj>on wliich wo arc now entering. The history
of the world from the crcjation to the time of Abram, though
replete with the most momentous events, and embracing a
period of no less than upwards of 2,000 years, oidy occupies
elevfu chapters, whilst to the history of Abram, although only
extending over tho short period of 175 years, no less than nine-
teen chapters are devote<l. If it now be asked why such
prominence is given to this particular history, the answer is
obvious, namely, that the Almighty had selected Abram from
an idolatrous family, and constituted him the progo rotor of His
chosen people, among whom was to be preserved the true
worship of Jehovah, and from whom was to spring Shiloh " to
whom nhdll he *the obedience of the people." The history of
AbTaui, therefore, lays the foundation of the national history
of the Hebrews, and hence it was important that it should be
given with great minuteness. Tlie name Ql|3>^ Ahtrim is com-
)>oundod of ^55 {(tv) j\i.ther and 3*1 (ram) exalted, hence exalted
fatliri', expressive of his hlijh calling, the parents were no doubt
secretly guided to bestow this highly significant name upon
him. The name of Abraham is not only venerated by Jews
and Christians, but also by the Arabians, Persians, and other
eastern pe )ple. The Mohammedans legard him as a friend of
God, ami a prophet, and attribute to him the rebuilding of the
sacred "f-Kaaba at Mecca. Ancient tradition ascribes to him a
complete knowledge of astronomy, philosophy, and the inven-
tion of alphabetical writing.

After the death of Noah, which occurred only two years
before the birth of Abram, according to Calniet's clu'onology,
idolatry seems to have prevaile<l among all the nations, and it
does not appear from the narrative that the knowledge of the
true God was retained in its purity in any single family. Cer-
tain it is that even the family of Abrain, and probably Abram
himself in his earlier years were idolaters. Tins important
fact we learn from Josh. xxiv. 2 : " Thus said the Lord, the
Goil of Israel, your fathers dwelt in old time beyond the river,
even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Xahor :
and they .served other gods."

" Unto a land I will show thee ;" Abram was to leave his

*lu the authorized verson it is remlered " the gathering, but the word
tini?"' (ijikhath) does not admit of such a rendering, and in the Revised Version
it is rendered in the manner as I have done.

tA'««'/a, denotes in Araliio s'lnare house, it is the name of an ohlomj stone
bitih/iH'j within the great mosque at Meoca, and the Mohammedans maintain
that Adam here first worshipped on this spot after his expulsion from Paradise.

302

rEOPLEH COMMKNTAHV.

native count iv and go into a Htrniigc land which would l>e
Hhuwn hiui. il*^ weh not told that tliu country which ]iu wnH
to remove to, was a land flowing' with milk and honey, or that
it WHS ill any way Itctttr tlum tli«' i-lacc where he then dwelt,
and wheie he apparently had heeii very prosperous ; l»ut yet,
without hesitation, he oheyed the command ot" God. Our nar-
rative does not give the slightest hint as to what actuated
Abiaiii to yield this ready ohedience ; hut the Apostle Paul
supplies tlie needed iid'ormatiun : " Hy faith Abraham, when
he was called, oheved, to go out unto a place which he was to
rectMve for an inheritance ; and he went out not knowing
whither he went." Hel>. xi. 'AO. We must, however, assume
that Abram received some intimation from (Jod as to the
direction he was tA) take, and that this direction guided him
towai'ds Canaan.

2, And I vill make of ihee a great vatioii, anil J ioillbles8 thee, and
make thy name yreat ; and thou tih(dt be a blexsiiiy.

The verse contains four distinct promises. Firstly — He was
♦o lie the father of a great nation ; by which, however, we
must not uiiilerstand as is fre((uently done, a nation njerely
great as to population, but rather as >teing distinginshed by
Hignal favcHiis as a chosen people of (Jod. Jt was the religious
element which con.stituted Israel's greatness and renown above
all other nation.s. When Moses exhorted tlie Israelites to keep
the statutes and judgments of Ciod. ho added, "for this K><_your
wisilom ar.d your understanding in the sight of the nations,
which shall hear all the.se .statutes, and say, Surely this great
nation in a wise and understanding people. For what great
nation is tin re that hath* Cod .so nigli unto them, asthe LoHD our
God in whensoever we call upon him." (Deut. iv. G, 7.)
Secondly — " I will ble.ss thee," that is, by bestowing upon hin>,
both temporal and spiritual favours. " The blessing of the
Lord," .says Solomon, " mnketh ricli, and he added, no sorrow
with it." (Piov. 10, 21) Thirdly— "I will make thy name
gi'eat," we have alreaily stated that the name of Abraham is
not only greatly revered b}' Jews, (.'hristians. and Mohannne-
dans, but by many other nations in the East. Fourthly — " And
thou shalt be a blessing," the patriarch was not only to be
blessed himself, but he was likewise to be a dispenser of bles-
sings. When Abraham departed fiom Haran, he was seventy-

* Cn j5C {Klotiiin) has l>eeu rendered differently in thia ijossage. Hosen-
niiiller, lt<H)tli, and iiiuuy others, " whose gods are so nigh to it," wliieh is quite
admissible. The Septuogint, Chahlce. Syriae, Arabic N'ersions, and many
Coiiuueutators render "who hath (Jod." The Kevised Version "a god," and
in the margin " (JmL"

PEOPLE H COMMENTARY.

3oa

five years oltl, niul chiliUosH, fmin n Iiuinnn point of view,
tlierelbrc it woiiM not .sfoiii j)rolinltlo tlint tlio.st' |ii(inii.se.s would
l>e it'iili/ed ; yet wlio wonlil venture to deny their liaving been
fulfilled to the utniimt extent.

3. Ami [ V'ill hlrtm (hem that lifrgn thee, and curse him that curmth
thee : mul in thee ahull ail j'uvii lien uj' the earth be blessed.

"And ourso him tlint curseth thee;" the two verbs in tho
originnl are not the sanie, as woidd be inferred from the Kng-
lish version. 1'he si-eond verb is ^b5p72 {tnilxtilldclui) denoting

ihosc 'i}i(il,in(j lUjht of tfiee or (lcn}>'isi)nj thee ; hence the nieaniiig
is, that God would curse hini, that in any manner dcKj/iscd
Abram, the possessor of God's blessing, and " the fiieiid of God,"
for such conduct towards him would be an affront tt tho
Almighty Himself, and as a just penalty would incur His curst.

5. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all
their stibstmice which thei/ had yathered, and the souls that thty had
aeqtiind in JIaran ; and thty vent fvitli toyo into the land of (Jauaan ;
and they came into the land of Canaan.

great
great

fUDoiir
G, 7.)

|n him,
)f the

borrow

name

>am is

imme-
And

|to be
bles-
|enty-

lliosen*
Isqiiite
many
aii«l

We have stated that from the already advanced age of the
patriarch, and being chiMless, it seemed improbable that the
promise, that he should become a great nation would be ful-
filled, yet he staggered not at the magnitude of the promise,
but by faith firndy believed that what God had promised. He
■was also able to i)eiform. Accordingly, as soon as he had
received the command, laying aside all worldly considerations
of leaving relatives, friends, and country where he had pros-
pered, he cheerlully obeyed the divine command. He set out
on his journey not knowing whither he went, or what difK-
culties and dangers he nught have to encounter on his way, or
wliat kind of country and people he may find when he would
ultimately reach his destination. All this shows the imjjlicit
faith he had in the levelation that God had made to him ; and
should serve as an example to all men who are also only on
their journey to another countiy, to put their entire trust in
the divine declarations contained in the sacred 8criptures,
tliough they may contain sulyects which are beyond the finite
understanding to comprehend.

" And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son."
There was no direct command to Lot to leave his country, but
Abi am " took" him, that is, induced him to accompany him;
and several incidents in the subsequent narrative show the
great affection of the good patriarch towards his nephew. " And

804

people's commentauy.

the *.Houl8 that, tlioy hiul faofiuirod," /. e., tlio men and maid-
servants of their lionsi'hoMs. As tlu'ir cattle increased, so
wonld necessarily also their domestics. These, as the language
implies, readily accompanied Ahrani, and probably for two
reasons; in the first place, hein^' kindly treate<l, and secondly,
having most likely been ijistrncted by him with the ndigious
tnitliH with which he himself Inul been imj)ressed. And indeed
Onkelos in his Chnldee version 1ms paraphrased the passage,
" And the souls which they gained in Haran for the belief in
God."

6. And Ahrnm paaifffl thrott(/h tht! laud nvfn the place of Shecheniy
nntu the oak of Moirh. And t/m Vanaanite. tons there.

Abram passed through the land of Canaan until he came to
Sheohem — that is where Shechem was afterwards built — where
he made a halt. Shechem is situated in the very centre of
the country, and there the pn'inise for the future possession of
the land by his descendants was lirst nmde. Shechem is no
doubt to bo identified with the j)resent city Nablus, the chief
town of a very fertile country, abounding with all the neces-
saries of life. It is very pleasantly situatetl in a vale between
Alount (ierizim and Mount Ebal, forty miles from Jerusalem
and ten miles from Shiloh. Shechem and its neighbourhood
was not rendered famous only by the events which transpired
there during the patriarchial ages, but also by the stirring
events which took place there in the later history of the ancient
Hebrews. It was here the grand and solemn national cere-
mony — perhaps, indeed, the most solemn in the history of the
Jewish nation — the I'eading of thu blessings and the cursings
took place. (Dent. xi. 2J), 30; Josh. viii. aO-:^r).)

It was here also where Joshua delivered his last .solemn
address to " the as.sembled tribes of Israel." (Josh. xxiv. 1-25.)
Shechem was constituted a city of refuge and a Levitical city.
It was there that Rehoboam was proclaimed king, and when
afterwards the ten tribes revolted from the despotic rule of
Rehoboam, and declared Jeroboam their king, the latter made
Shechem his place of residence. (1 Kings xiii. 25.) After the
Babylonish captivity it became the chief seat of the Samaritans
and of their worship, their temple being built on Mount
Gerizim. In the year 129 B. C, John Hvrcanus took the
city and destroyed the temple. In the New Testament ii
occurs under the name of Sychar, (John iv. 5) which

127 BD (nepheah) here used collectively aoHls.

t "Acquired," Hebrew TIUJ? ('*'") '>*• '^''.'/ >na(le; but]the verbis frequently
also used in the sense of (o aci/uire, just as with us when we say '* he made a
great deal of money," i. e., he acquired it.

PEOPLKS COMMENTARY.

305

apparently is a kind of nick-namo, sucli as the .Tows soine-
iiinoH ini'josod upon ytLu'es tlit'j' disliktMl. Awordin^ to
Bcnjanun of Tud'la, a >»i)anisli Uabbi, who visited thu place
in th« 12th century, thor« wore still ahovo a huiidrod
Samaritans th'. re, who ohsurvt'd the law of Moses only.
They professed to have priests of the lineage of Aaron,
who never married hut with persons of sacerdotal family.
They protended that they are dcsconded from the tribe of
Ephraim. They also say that they have among them the
sepi'lchre • f .Joseph. Maundrell also notices the tomh of
Joseph, sti'.! ht;aring its name, venerated even l»y Moslems,
who !mve built a small temple over it. It has always been
visited by pilgrims, but espccinlly siuce the Christian era, as
the place where Christ revealed himself to the Sama''iUn
woman, "To the oak of Aloreh ;" the oaks, were apparently
generally called after the name of the owner of tiie proj»erty
upon which the trees stootl, hence "the oak of Tabor." The
oak of Moreh was. however, not the only tree )f the kin<l in
the neighbourhood, for in Deut. xi. 30, we read of " the oaks
of Moreh," it wa« probably a remarkable tree either for its
great size or some other cati.se. In the Authorized Version
■\nbfi< (elon) is in an unaccountable manner always rendered by
"plain" instead of oaA;, this, however, has been properly altered
in the Revised Version. Besides, the rendering " plain of
Moreh," is altogether unsuitable, as the geogradhical features
of the country in the vicinity of Shechem are very broken
and mountainous.

And the Canaanite was then in the country ; this circum-
stance was well calculated to put the patriarch's faith to a
severe trial. He had now arrived in the land which God had
promised He would show him, but instead of tinding it unin-
habited .so tluit he might at once take ])o.s,sc.ssion of it, it was
on tlie contrary already occupied by a people, which, as the
sequel of tlie sacred narrative shows, was the most depraved
of the whole liuman fftmily. !"o far then from being the
owner of the country, he was a mere wanderer in it, surroun-
ded by wicked and warlike tribes, from whoni he had nothing
to expect but animosity. Yet thi.s territory was one day to be
possessed by his posterity as an inheritance. Under the.se
circumstances, it was surely a great trium|)h of faith, that
notwithstanding all the.se op]K)sing piobabilities, Abram did
not for one moment doubt that God would in due time fultil
all His promises.

8. And the Lord appeared to Ahrani and said, to thij seed vnll 1 give
this land. And he built an altar to the Lord, who appeared to him.

" And he built an altar to the Loud ;" the place having be-
come hallowed by the appearance of God, Abram consecrated.

306

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

it to the worship of the Almighty by building an altar on the
spot. And although it is not stated here as in verse eight that
he "called upon the name of the Lord," it may be inferred
from the statement that " he built an altar to the Loi-d ;" that
he offered up also his devout thanks for the gracious promise
made to him. The erection of this altar by Abram, seems to
have invested the place ever afterwards with a peculiar sanctity,
for when the Israelites had taken possession of the land, Joshua
set up " the great stone," intended for ever to remind the chil-
dren of Israel of their promises of obedience and i)iety on the
same place (Josh. xxii. 25, 27.) It was there also that the men
of Shechem, and the house of Millo assembled and made Abi-
melech king. (Judg. ix. 6.)

8. And he removed from thence to the viountain in the east of
Beth-el, and pitched his te.nt, having Beth-el in the went and Ilai in
the east ; and there he built an altar to the Lord, and called ttpon the
name of the Lord,

The narrative does not assign any reason wliy Abraoi
removed from Shechem, but there must have been some cogent
reason for it, for the pious patriarch would no doubt have
loved to remain near the hallowed spot where the Almighty
had appeared to him. Abram next pitched his tent in a
mountainous district " east of Beth-el ;" the name " Beta-el " is
here employed by anticipation, for it was Jacob who gave it
that name after his remarkable dream when on his journey
from Beersheba to Haran. (Gen. xxviii. 19.) Its original
name was T^ib (Luz) which denotes a tree or shrub bearing
nuts, and the town probably obtained its name from such
trees or shrubs having grown in the neighbourhood, just as
Jericho is sometimes called Qi"i7arin "1''" (*^'' hattemarim)
" the city of Palm trees." In the time of the Judges the ark
and the holy tabernacle were for a time in Beth-el, but in the
time of the Kings it was made the centre of idolatrous worship.
This called forth from the earlier prophets the severest denun-
oiations against it, and Hosea called bi^'JT'Sl {Beth-el) which
denotes the house of Go^^-, " '^^J!^■n''^" {Beth-awen) " the house

of iniquity." (Hos. iv. 15, x.o. 'Hai was situated about three
miles east of Beth-el, and was before its capture by Joshua
a royal town of the Canaanites. The city was taken by
stratagem and burned (Josh. vii. viii.), but was afterwards
again rebuilt. According to some travellers there are still
some ruins of the place to be seen, though they are very in-
considerable.

*n^ (Ai) the name denotes a heap of ruins. It is generally used with the
article i^j-j (haai) hence the English form of the word " H.r,i."

people's commentary.

307

"And he built an altar to the Lord," from this it would
appear, that wherever Abram pitched his tent, there he built
also an altar, and ottered up his prayers.

9. And Abram journeyed going on still toward the t'South.

His journeying was not jierfonncd by continued travelling,
but by a constant removing from one place to another, accord-
ding to nomad practice. But in this case his direction was
always toward the South.

10. And there ions a famine in the land : and Abram went down
into Egypt to sojourn there ; for the famine was severe in tJie land.

Abram is now subjected to another severe trial. No doubt
his faith was frequently put to the test by the many difficul-
ties and probably by dangers he had to encounter on his
journey from Haran, but in all likelihood he never experienced
any dfficulty in finding sufficient subsistence. In order to try
his resignation still more God sent a famine, which compelled
him to seek refuge in a country, whose great hatred for stran-
gers, did not augur a favourable reception, or allow him to
expect any acts of kindness at the hands of the inhabitants.
The licentiousness of Egypt too, was well known. Yet,
although he had to leave the land of Canaan, yet his faith
still held him steadfast in the assurance that God's promises
would in due time be fully fulfflled.

And here we may well draw a comparison between the con-
duct of the pious patriarch, and that of the Israelites when
coming out of Egypt. Abram left at the call of God his native
land, surrounded by relatives and friends, and where he seem-
ingly had been very prosperous. The narrative does not inti-
mate that any miracle had been performed in his behalf, and
!;;o far he had only received the promi'ie that his seed should
possess the land of Canaan and nothing more. Yet when the
land was visited with a famine, and ho was made to suffer want
and hunger, there was no desire evinced to return again to his
native land, where he had enjoyed plenty. A.nd why? Because
God had commanded him to come out of it. Hove wuh faith,
and faith begat obedience, and obedience led to htppineHs and
contentment. But what a different picture <loes the conduct of
Israel present. They had seen the stupendous miracles which
God had performed in their behalf, and were actually on their
way to take possession of the promised land ; and yet as soon
as a want of food seemed to threaten them, instead of putting
their trust in God, who had alrouly done so much for them,
they murmured against Moses and Aaron, and r*jproached them
for having brought them away from '• the flesh pots of Egypt"

308

PEOPLE S COiMMKNTAUY.

it:

r '

l! *f

■■i!

\ i ■

¥
1 t

ii 151

'I 1 4?

? i

! iFl

Here was a ivant of faith, which begat disobedience, and dis-
obedience led to misery and death.

11. And it came to j^css, vlien he was come near to enter into Fgyj)t,
that he said to Harai, his wi/'e, Behold, I i>ray, I know that thou art a
woman beauli/ul in ajjjjearance :

J 2. Therefort it will come to pass, when the Egyptians will see thee,
that they will say, lliis is his vnfe : and they will kill me, but they
will let thee live.

13. Say, 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.

It appears from ch. xx. 13, that Abram liad ah*eady at the
lime when he left his father's house retjuested it as a favour
of Sarai that wherever they should come, she was to say that
he was her brother. He mu.st, from the depraved state of
society of his own country, thought it necessary to make such
an arrangement. And the connuunil put forth by Abimelech,
King of Gerar, that any one who touched Isaac, or liia wife
Rebecca, shall surely be put to death, (ch. xxvi. 11) shows that
Abram's fear was not groundless. As Sarai was at this time
sixty-five years old, and still older when on a luture occasion
a similar occurrence tot k place, whilst Abram was sojourning
in Gerar (ch. xx. 2;) some ol ou)' modem writers urge that it
is highly improbable that Sarai at such an advanced age should
possess such charms as to attract the notice of two kings, who
desired to take her lor a wife. Ihey triumphantly point to
this circumstance as another proof against the credibility of the
Mosaic narrative. But surely our critics could not have taken
into account that Sarai lived 127 years, and, therefore was at
that time only middle-aged. Eighty years is with us con-
sidered a good age to attain, and yet no one would be a^stonished
if a wonian at forty years old was to be admired for her beauty.
The fexpre^sion nfi<172 f'£i {Zeplioth rnurth) "beautii'ul in
apptaiance," employed in the oiiginai, refers to fairiuss of
cuiitpleocion, and would therefore be liable to attract the atten-
tion ot the dark-coloured Egyptians, w hose wives, both accord-
ing to aiicientand modern writers, were generally very homely
and laded early.

Abram had until now placed implicit trust in the guidance
and protection of God. Here, however, we see him for the
fiist time to waver in his coi.fidtnce, and instead of relying
upon the assistence of the Almighty to shield him ironi the
real or landed danger, to have recourse to a devise of his own
creation. " Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister," as Sarai was
really his step-sister, there was no untruth in this statement.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

309

3, and dis-

into Egi/ptf
t thou art a

vill see thee,
le, but they

»e well with

ad}' at the
s a favour
,o say that
id state o£
make such
Abimelech,
ir his wife
shows thftt
t this time
re occasion
sojourning
rge that it
age should
kings, who
y point to
iiity of the
liave taken
re was at
h us con-
fstonished
er beauty,
iiutiiul in
iiriKss of
tlie at ten-
It h nccord-
[y homely

guidance

n for the

|f relying

i'rom the

his own

>arai was

tatement.

but then it conveyed the impression that she stood in no closer
relation to him, which led to her being taken by Pharaoh, and
on another similar occasion by Abimelech, whereas if Abram
had had moral courage to tell the whole truth, judging from
the I'eproof which both Kings administered to Abram for
misleading them, they would have respected his conjugal
relationship. The conduct of Abram on both occjisions admits
of no defence, and shows that the most righteous is subject to
the conmion erroi"s of humanity. And here we may remark
that the Mosaic narrative, fjom beginning to end, bears the
stamp of a most truthful record. It is natural that an historian
influenced by patriotism should endeavour to place his own
country and nation in as favourable a light as possible. Besides
there are many circumstances which may influence the most
conscientious chronicler of events in his narrative, especially
in recording the acts of favourite friends or relations. He may
regard it as of no great consequence to withhold little short-
comings here and there, as of no great impoi tance to the public,
whilst they might only detract from their otherwise good
character.

Now let the reader go through the Bible — for this holds
good as well in the records of the other inspired writers —
from the beginning to the end, and carefully note at every
page whether one single act can be pointed out that savours
of favouritism. Noah, the man who " walked with God,"
which implies the most confidential intercourse, and indicates
the highest degree of piety, had the accidental act of getting
drunk recorded against him. Abram, " the friend of God,"
had his short-comings as well as his acts of piety fully de-
scribed. The events in the life of Jacob are fully given, but
not in a single instance is the slightest attempt made to shield
the patriarch from blame where his conduct deserved it. All
the occurrences are described in the plainest language without
offering one word in justification of his conduct. Again, the
awful punishment that befel the sons of Aaron for using
strange fire, is narrated just the same as if they had been
perfect strangers to him. So Moses narrates the rebuke
administered to Aaron and Miriam, his bi'other and sister who
had spoken against him, when his wife Zipporah arrived at the
camp. This shows that even the ties of relationship did not
influence him to suppress anything. He even chronicles his
own disobedience in smiting the rock, when God had com-
manded him merely to speak to it.

15. Arul the princes of Pharaoh saio her" and praised her before
Pharaoh : and tlie woman was taken into P/uiraoh's house.

" The princes of Pharaoh sjvw her," it is the dignitaries of
46

310

people's commentary.

the court attending upon the king, and executing his commands.
The term " Pharaoh," or as it occurs in hieroglj'phic writings,
pher-ao, is not a proper name, but it denotes, according to
Josephus in the Egyptian language, a king. He says, "I
suppose they made use of other names from their childhood,
but when they were made kings, they changed them into the
name which, in their own tongue, denoted their authority."
(Ant. b. viii. ch. vii. par. 2.) It is in Scripture applied to at
least eight different persons who filled the Egj'ptian throne,
and is thus eciuivalent to the title Ccvsar among the Romans,
and Czar among the Russians.

Sarah being taken into Pharaoh's house, appears not to have
been an arbitrary act on the part of the king, but rather in
accordance with a prevailing privilege which the kings of
some eastern countries enjoyed of claiming the unmarried
sister or daughter of any of their subjects for their harem.
This exercise of authority is generally submitted to with good
grace, no matter how repugnant it may be to father or brother.
And hence when Abimelech took Sarah, he justified himself
that he had done so " in the integrity of his heart and in-
nocency of his hands," supposing Abram to be her brother
and therefore had a right to act as he did.

17. Atid the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his hovM vnth great plagues
on account of JSarai, Abram! 8 wife.

" With great plagues," the word Qi2?55 (negaim) employed in
the original, primarily denotes strokes or hlo'ws, though it is
fre(juently also used to express calamities or judgments sent
from God. The narrative does not inform us what these
visitations were, but as Pharaoh's conduct appeal's from verses
15-19, to have been honourable, and that he would not have
taken Sarah had he known that she was Abram's wife, it is
probable that they were not of such a severe nature as the
rendering in our version indicates. They were likely of such
a kind, that whilst they preserved Sarah from dishonour, they
at the same time induced the King to search into their cause.
Josephus says that he inquired of the priest how he might be
freed from the calamities, who told him that his miserable
condition was derived from the wrath of God on account of
the stranger's wife. (Ant. b. i. ch. viii. par. 1.) It is, how-
ever, very likely that Pharaoh, on instituting inquiries, learned
from Sarah herself her true relationship to Abram, and directly
sent for Abram and reproved him for having thus misled hira
in not telling the whole truth. Abram attempted no justifica-
tion for his conduct : he could not well do so.

The sacred narrative relative to the short sojourn of Abram

people's commentary.

311

ommands.

writings,
ording to

says, "I
[jhildhood,
n into the
uthority."
lied to at
m throne,
i Boinans,

ot to have
rather in
kings of
unmarried
jir hai'em.
R'ith good
>r brother,
id himself
rt and in-
r brother

•eat plagues

iployed in

»ugh it is

[enta sent

lat these

verses

lot have

rife, it is

as the

of such

kur, they

\r cause.

light be

[iserable

lount of

how-

lleamed

lirectly

led him

istifica-

Lbram

in Egypt, brings before us three important lessons. In the
fii-st place, it sets forth the proneness of man to err, as is ex-
emplified in the conduct of the pious Datriarch. Secondly, it
shows how mercifully oui heavenly Father deals with his
erring children. Although Abram rather put his trust for the
preservation of his life in a device of his own, instead of looking
for protection to God, yet by an act of Divine mercy he and
his wife were shielded from harm. And thirdly', it testifies to
the sacredness of the marriage state. God, by His special
intervention, protected Sarah amidst her imminent dangers.

CHAPTER Xni.

1. And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his vn/e, and all that
lie had, a'iid Lot with him, into t/ie South.

Pharaoh not only returned Sarah to Abram, but also com-
manded that he should be permitted to depart and journey
through the land unmolested. But the patriarch remained no
longer in Egypt than necessity compelled him, and when he
departed from the country he went into the southern part of
Canaan.

2. And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.

From our verse we learn that Abram prospered in Egypt.
He left the country not only enriched in cattle, but had also
much gold and silver. The usual riches of the Bedouin consists
in herds and flocks. The patriarch obtained the " silver and
gold" no doubt, from the sale of animals, milk, butter, and
wool to the towns-people, for the Egyptians themselves hated
pastoral pursuits.

3. A'iid lie went on his journeys from the South even to Beth-el, unto
tfie place where his tent fuid been in the beginning, between Beth-el and
Hai ;

4. To the place where the altar, ichich he had made tliere at the first :
and tliere Abram called on the name of the Lord.

" Went on his journeys," in the original it is Tiyo^sb l^b^
{ydech lemassadv) " went according to his breakings up" or
" removings," that is, he went from place to place, remaining a
longer or shorter time at some of the places according as they
furnished pasturage. According to the rendering of the Septua-
gint and Vulgate versions, he pursued the same route, and

ii- '

'P' ™ i

i 1

f ih

I > I '

!
i

ij: i i 1

^' ' '' ^J

rQ ' )' 1

SM^ f 1

»■' 1 1

B ''a

>■

B -' Tn

li ' ' 1

1 1 1 1

ti ■

■ : i 1

1, :

312

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

stopped at the same stations as he did on his way down into
Egypt. "And thoi(5 Abnun called on the name of the Lord,"
Abrani had no donl u offered up his devout thanks to the
Ahnighty for the providential protection vouchsafed him, long
before he had conie to this place, but the expression, "to call
upon the name of the Lord," implies always a more profound
devotion than the ottering up of an ordinary prayer, and
hence we find it onl}' used on particular occasions.

5. And Lot also, who went vnth Ahram, hadjlocks, and herds, and
tents.

Lot who liad been the constant companion to Abram since
tliey left Haran, was also blessed with wealth. "Tents" is
here like i Chrou. iv. 41, used as including also the occu-
pants of them. He had not merely " tents" but also a retinue
to occupy them.

6. And the land did not hear them, that they miyht dwell together :
for their substance loas great, so that they could not dwell together.

Their cattle had become so numerous that the land did not
furnish sufficient pasturage for them all. This insufficiency,
however, did not altogether arise from the land not producing
it, but to a great extent no doubt, from the cii'cumstance that
the district was already occupied by the Canaanite and
Perizzite, and who naturally had selected for themselves the
most productive parts. The statement that " the Canaanite
and Perizzite dwelled then in the land " (v. 7) seems to be
parenthetically introiluced to show that this was partly the
cause of an insufficient supply of pasturage. " Perizzite " is
not the name of a natiov, or of a particular tribe, but denotes
people dwelling "without walls and bars and gates" (Ezek.
xxxviii. 11; in fact inhabiting the open country and mountains.
Hence we lind them in all parts of the land of Canaan. The
insufficient supply of pasturage, and perhaps also of water,
gave rise to contentions between the herdsmen of Abram's
cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle.

8. And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray tliee,hetween
me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are
*kinsmen

The language does not imply that Abram and Lot themselves

*D'^ni^ D''"©3&5 literally men brethren. The term Hi^ (ach) brotJwr, was
among the ancient Hebrew?, as it is freijuently with us used in a wider sense.
The term was not only applied to a kinsman, or one belonging to the Hebrew
nation, but also to a person belonging to any nation whatever. (See Lev. xix.
17; Ps. xlix. 8; Is. Ixvi 20.)

PKOl'Lt; S COMMENTAUY.

31»

vrn into
e Lord,"

to the
iin, long

"to call
rofound
fer, and

erds, and

im since
onts" is
bo occu-
s, retinue

together :
•jether.

1 did not

fficiency,

troducing

vnce that

ite and

lelves the

anaanite

s to be

rtly the

zite " is

denotes

" (Ezek.

untains.

The

water,
Lbram's

\, between
we are

iselves

l(/ifr, was

ler sense.

! Hebrew

liOT. xix.

took any part in the strife, but that it tuiLjht ultiiiiati'ly lend
to unfriendly fet'liiij^'s iK-twocii them. The peaceful patriareh,
therefore, resolved at oiiec to take steps to prevent sueh an evil,
and in doing so he laid all personal consi<leratious aside.

9. I» )iot tfu: inhofe lawl before th<:e i Separate thij^Af, I /tray /A-v,
from ma : if thou wilt take the left, haii'l, then I tvill (jo to the riijht ;
or if thou depart to Ike r'ujht hand, then I will ;/o to the b-ft.

10. And Lot lifted ii/i his t\t/es, and be/icbl all the /ilaiu of Jorilan,
tltat it WHS well watered, brfore the Loun drstroi/eil Sadnni and (lonmr-
rah, like the garden of the Louu, like the land of Egypt, tow irds Zmir.

" Is not the \vhol(! Ian<l before thee?" Abrani, althoui^h the
head of the company, with a f^-eMerons spirit allowed his nephew
the unlimited choice to stdect whatever portion of the country
he pleased. In this act, tlu; pious patriarch displayed a truly
noble disinterestedness such as is not often met with amoni,'st
mankind. He trusted in (iod, that He would provide for him
no matter where he went. Tlu' conduct of fjot, on the contrary,
displays an inordinate deL,nve of sellishneKs, and a cravini; f(»r
worldly interests. Out of common polit(!ness, to say n(>thinL,'
of propriety, he ought to have returned the compliment and
asked Abrain to choose fii'st ; but instead of doing so, he eageily
availed himself of the liberty thus grantoil him and .selected
" the district of Joi<lan," which compri.sed the j)lain.s adjoining
Jordan from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, at present
called El iihor, that is, "plain and depres.sed coiuitry." ((Je.sen.
The.s. p. 717.) The great fertility of this district at that time
may be inferred from the manner whicOi Moses here speaks of
it. He describes it to have been " like the garden of the Loun,"
it is the gai'den of Eden planted by the IjOUD ; " like the land
of Egypt," whose soil is nMidmcd so highly fertile by the
annual overflow of the Nile. "Towards Zoai- " must not be
read in connection with " tluj lanil of Egypt." but forms an
independent sentence, and marks the southern e.Ktremity of the
fertile region. " Zoar " is here mentioned by antieipation, its
more ancient nami; was Hela (see ch. xiv. 8.) The origin of the
name Zoar (~i;jJ22> '• *"■> '^'"-' little one) is recorded in ch. xi.x. 20,
and long before Mo.ses wrote was in connnon use.

The river Jordan ("i^^i, i. c, ii flotoimj dowii), according to
Burckhardt and other timinent travellers, rises about four unles
north-east from B.iidas, in a plain near the hill called Tel-el-
Radi, in its way it passiis through the lake of Tiberias and
loses itself in the Dead Sea. There are close thickets all alons
the banks of the river, and upon the lower plain, wdiich at one
time artbrded shelter for wild beasts. On the periodical over-
flowing of the river, when they were driven from their covers,
47

PKOPLES COMMKNTARY.

; «

they cfinsed groat alarm to tlu^ iuliabitants of the valley, which
will txpiain the simile in Jer. xlix. 19, " Ik'hold he shall come
lip like a lion from the swellini,^ of Jordan, a«^ainst the hahita-
tioJis of the strong."

12. AbrnmdinelleJinthehnid of Cnnnnn, and Lot dwelled in the
cities of the pidin, and jtitchid his tfiUs an fur as Sodom.

' Ho pitched his tents as far as Soilom," that is, by con-
stantly moving from place to place, he gradually came as far as
So<l(»m. In the Aiithorized and Revised versions bn55''T
(};vN»/«rA(//) is rendered, " and he pitched his tent," which is
quite correct, hut the use of the plural fenfs is just as correct,
and as Lot had a large number of servants it is, we think,
more apjiiopriate. In the choice which Lot made we have the
old proverlt "' it is not all gold that glitters " fidly exeniplified.
He saw the region of Jordan, and to all appearance it was a"
most deliglitfid spot; and yet it wns a curse-laden spot ; the
]>opiil.*ition it contained was tlu^ most depraved, the most aban-
doned upon the whole face of the earth. When Lot approached
Sodom, and seeing the great wickedness of its inhabitants, we
may suppose that he full}' purposed to keep aloof from the
place ; but whatever his good intentions at first were,
the next we hear of him, we find him actually dv/elling in
Sixlom. This onlj' shows how careful we ought to be to keep
away from evil intluences. From 2 Peter ii. 8 we learn how
Lot was affected by the iniquity of the inhabitants : "for that
riifhteous man dwellini' auKjng them in seein<j and hearing
vexed hi^i rightemis soul from day to day with their lawless
deeds." Why Lot, however, should have remained in a place
so steeped in the grossest wickedness is not easily comprehended,
and can only bi; accountL'd foi- either by the neighbourhood
artbrding an abundant supply of j>asturage for his flocks, or on
account of family connections, for according to chapter xix. he
had daughters married in Sodom. .

14. Ami the Lord said to Abram, after Lot ions separated from him,,
Lijt tip now thif e'/es, and look from the place whrre thou art, north-
ward, atfl southward, and easdrard, and westward ;

1.5. For all tJie land tohlch thou secst, to thee will I give it and
to thy seed forever.

The sacred narrative having informed us where Lot had located
himself, and briefly stated (v. 13) what kind of society he had
fallen in with, now returns again to Abram, whose seed alone
was to inherit the land. The promise contained in our passage
had already on a former occasion been briefl}'^ made, " Unto

' niiajp B

PEOPLES COMMENTAUT.

315

thy seed will I give this land," (ch. xii. 7,) it is, however, here
not only rent^wed, hu^, also enlarged. He was asked to lift up
his eyes and look in all directions, the whole land was to belong
to his posterit}' " for evei'."

The departure of Lot must have caused sincere and
profound grief to the kind-hearted patriarch, who fountl himself
now deprived of the company of his nephew, whom he had
brought with liim from the land of idolatry, and instructed him
in the knowledge of .Ichovah. We have, therefore, here anotlier
striking instance of God's considerate kindness, in just select-
ing this perioil to renew His promises to Abram, and to com-
fort him with assurances of his future inhei'itance.

As the land of ("anaan has now for more than two thousand
years been in the hands of the gentiles, and the Jews themselves
have been scattered over the world, and more or less subjected to
barbarous treatment, the expression "and to thy see<l for ever, "
has proveil rather perplexing to interpreters in their endeavour
to explain it. It is, ther«'fore, not surprising that we should
find various theories advanced. It is by some niaintaine*! that
the promise'was merely conditional, namely, if they persevered
in the true faith and kept God's counnandments ; and they
appeal to Lev. xxvi. 27-3."i ; Is. Ixiii. 1<S. The language in our
text, liowever, implies an absolute gift. Many conunentators
maintain that the promise has only been partially fultilled,
and will receive its full aceom]tlishment only when the Jews
shall hereafter be gathered from out of all nations, and be
restored t(» the land of their fathers. This gatliering out of
all nations is distinctly promised in Dent. xxx. 3, 4, o. So again
Ls. xi. 12, " and he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and
shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the
dispersed of Judah from the four comers of the earth." In
Jer. xxxi, this gathering of Israel is also distinctly set forth,
and in verse 12 it is stated, that those who are gathered " shall
not sorrow an}- more." The prophet Ezek. xi. 17-19 ; and ch.
xxxvii. 25-27, likewise plaiidy teaclies, that Israel shall dwell
in the land that had been jfiven " unto Jacob", that thev should
dwell in it, even tlieir children, and their children's children
"forever." Notwithstanding these plain declarations, some of
our modern critics still persist in maintaining, that the only
return of the Jews to their own land promised by th-^ Almight}'^
was fultilled when the}' retui'ned from the Eabylonisli captivity.
Again, many writers maintain, that the promise made to
Abrara must not be exclusively applied to his descendants, to
his seed according to the Hesh, but to the true spiritual seed,
which in faith embraced the promise, and with a believing
heart held it fast.

316

people's commentary.

Nil

■; '1

IG Ami I shall make thy seed as the dust oj the earth : so that if a
man can number the dust of the earth, then thy seed shall also be
7iund)ered.

"As the dust of the earth," is a hyperbolical expression mean-
ing very numerous descendants. The same fij,'ure is aj^^ain
employed in the promise made to Jacob, ch. xxviii. 14. Similar
figumtive expressions are, "as the sand of the sea, " ch. xxxii.13 ;.
" as the stars of heaven," ch. xxii.17, ch, xxvi.4 ; Deut. i.lO.

17. Ari»e, and pass through the land in its length and breadth ; for
to thee shall I give it.

Abram is connnanded to pass through the length and breadth
of the land, and thus virtually taking possession of it.

J8. And Abram removed his ti 4, and came and dwelt by the oaks of
Mamre, vhich are at Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.

Abram now removed from Beth-el, and travelling southward
until he came to an oak -grove at Hebron, where he pitched his
tent. His first act was to build an altar to the Lord. Hebron
is situated about 27 miles south of Jerusalem, and was one of
the oldest towns of Palestine. According to Num. xiii.22, it
was built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt. The
original name of Hebron was 2?2l"lfi^ tT'lp (Kiryath Arba), i. e.y

the city of Arba, evidently so-called after a great man among
the Anakim (Josh, xiv.lo), whose birth place it probably was.
According to Jerome and the Rabbinical writers it received this
name from the four celebrated couples who were buried there,
namely, Adam and Eve ; Abram and Sarah ; Isaac and Rebekah ;
Jacob and Leah ; they have taken 52li;55(^r6rt)a8 the numeral
four. There is, however, no ground whatever for supposing
that Adam and Eve were buried there ; their place of interment
is nowhere mentioned. From the time that Abram took up
his abode in Hebron, the place became quite celebrated in the
history of the Jews. It was here where the angels announced
te him that a son was to be born to him. It was here that he
bought from Ephron the Hittite a burying-place, and where
afterwards himself, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebekah and Leab^
were buried. In the time of Joshua it was selected as one of
the places of refuge, and assigned to the Levites. It appear*
also from 2 Sam. xv.7, 9, that vows were taken and performed
there. David, w hen he was King of Judah, chose it as a place
of residence for seven and a half years (2 Sam. ii. 1. ch. v. 5.) The
circumstance of Abram, Lsaac and Jacob and their wives being
buried there, has led to several battles between Christians and
Mussulmen for its possession. In the time of the Crusades^

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

317

after having suffered greatly from heavy attacks, it became, in
1167, the seat of the bishopric of St. Abraham, but in 1187 it
fell again in the hands of the Moslems, and remains in their
possession ever since. The tombs of the throe patriarchs and
their wives are situated at the eastern end of Hebron on the
slope of a ravine. As might be expected, the place is constant-
ly visited by travellers. The Mohammedans have ejected over
the cave of Machpelah a raosque, which they regard as one of
the four holiest sanctuaries of the world. It is surrounded by
a high and strong wall, and from which Jews and Christians
are .strictly excluded. Still now and then some bold European
by stratagem makes his way into it. From the moscjue, the
town itself is by the Moslems called " Beth El Khalil," that is,
" the house of the friend of Ood. " At present Hebron is only a
large village, having among its inhabitants about one hundred
Jewish families. It has extensive glass-works. The pool at
which David had the murderers of Lsh-bosheth hung up (2 Sam.
iv. 12) is still to be seen there.

" The oaks of Mamre, " probably an oak gi-ove and called
after the owner, one of the three brothers mentioned as con-
federates with Abram (ch. xiv. 13.)

CHAPTER XIV.

1. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar,
Arioch king of Ellaanr, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king
of nationB ;

2. That these made toar with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha
king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of
Zeboiivi, and the king of Belah, that is Zoar.

The great political event introduced in the above two verses
is only connected with the history of the Hebrews from the part
which Abram was incidentally obliged to take in it. The kings
spoken of are not mentioned again in the subsequent narrative.
And here it is important to remark that the term ti^^j (melech)

*' king " in those primitive times was applied to mere chieftains
or heads of tribes ruling over a single town and the surrounding
district. This is evident from the kings mentioned in the
second verse being only spoken of as kings of cities, which
were situated only a few miles from each other. Indeed, even
in later times princes, vice-roys, and satraphs of great monarcha
-were sometimes dignified with the title king. (Compare Is. x.8.)
Hence the great monarchs assumed the title of " great king "
(Is. xxxvi.4), or of "king of kings" (Dan. ii. 37), (Ezra vii. 12.)
It is evident that although Amraphel king of Shinar, is first
mentioned, yet Chedorlaomer King of Elam, was the principal

I I

318

PKOPI.EH ("OMMKNTARY.

one iiitorestod in tliin war, aiul tluit tlioothei kiiij.s weio nu'iely
his allies, thoiij^h no tloiiNt induot'tl to take par', in tho uiidcr-
takini,' in tlie liDpe nf ileriviii},' soiur sulistantial ^;ain from it.
It appeals that t"heih)ilauuier hati pre\ionsly suhjiij^atetl the
region alonj; the valley of tho Jonlan. At the tiniti of our
nanative, there existed in tho valley live chief t(»wns, each
having' its own king. With tho cotKpiest of the territory the
kings heoanu! trilmtary to tlui king of Elain, and for twelve
years sulanitted to the burden imposed upon them, hut in tho
thirteenth year probably thinking themselveH now strong
enough toco|»e with their oppresst)r — "they ndielltMl ", refusing
any longt'r to pay the tributt\ The loss of the tribute from
the tivo kings in itself would probably havo been suflieient
cause to induce C'hedorlaomer to wago war against them and
to chastise them, but besides this there was tho importance of
tho valley in a connnerciid and military point of vie^^ , as
securing a connection between the Euphrates and the Nile, and
as iillbrding a nulitary road leading to the west and the south.
Another of the allies was " Arioch, king of Kllasar," the terri-
tory over wliich this king reigned can not now bo ilotermined
with any certainty. According to the Vulgate it was Ponhis;
according to Saadia, Siiria ; .some writers regard it to bo identi-
cal with 'JVlassar mentioned in Is. xx.wiii. 12, a region in Mes-
sopotamia. Tidal, one of tlio allies is called " king of nations,"
but what nations did ho rule over ?

Now, as the term t3''i!i (.'/",'/'^'0 is generally rendered yen/ //(■«,
nn<l a.s (lalilee is in Is. viii. 2S, Kng. Vers. xi. 1, and olsi'where,
called C'^ili b'^b'^ {GrUl (joy'nn) " (jlalilce of the gentiles " or
" nations," a great numy commentators have supposed that
Tidal's territory lay in lJpi)er Galileo. But this supposition
is not tenable, for TTpper (ialilee only received this appellation
long after i\I( ses' time, when tho Israelites ha(l taken pos.se.ssion
of the land cf Canaan, from its having a large gontile popula-
tion, especially IHuvnocians whose country lay near to it. It is
far more probable that Tidal was merely a chieftain of some
marauding tribes who had no permanent abodes, and hence he
is merely spoken of as " king of nations," without naming tho
territory over which he ruled.

If we examine tho motives which led to the military oper-
ations recorded in our chapter, we find they are precisel}' the
same as those which, unhappily, ever since have led to so much
bloodshed, and have been productive of so much misery among
the human family throughout the world, namely, grasping
ambition, .selfishness, an inordinate desire for power ami wealth.

3. All these joined in the vale of Siddiin, that is the Salt Sea.

" All these," that is the live kings, came with their force*

l'Et)PI,K 8 COMMKNTAUV.

310

into the vftlo of Sitltliin to doft'iul thfir torrltoiy. ft npiu-ars
from our wrso tliivt tho pint of tin* valley whii'li is now occujtiiMl
l»y till' l^t'ud Sea was fonncriy rMlIrd Sifjtlim.* TliiH placo was
from a istiat»';^fti(! point nf view well cliosfi'., as it was full nf
dangerous l»iliinu'n-|>its, Iiy wliicli tlicy no d.iul>t IkukmI to
en.snari! tlu'ir cni'Miii's not acNuiaintcd with tlio locality. It
appeals, however, from verse 10 that when thev were defeated,
in the haste of Mi;;ht, many of their iiWM army perished in thoso
vory pits which they hoped would prove fatal to their enemies.

5. Ami in f/irfoioii'dit/i yntr I'aiiir ('/iiilnrliioitiiT, iniil thi' kiiujH thnt
wore with him, niul fiiiott\ l^ipjutim in Ashfi-rofh Kuniitlin, mul thi'.
Zuzini hi //mil, mid f/ie Kiiilin in S/nnr/i Kirtiit'iaim.

6. And t/ie Iloriti's in t/icir inou)d Seir, to t/ie oitk of Purmi, n'/iich
is hi/ the icildfriiesa.

It appears from the.se verses that Che(h)i'laomer did not con-
fine Ids nulitary operations to the ehastisenient of the live
kin«;H only, hut on his way attfieked other trihes. In what
way these had incurred his disph'asuie the nai-rative dors not
afford any infornuition. Prohahly they had also heen trihutary
to him, and had cast off his yoke.

The " llephaim " wi're a <,dant rac(^ of extraordinary stature.
Accordinjf to Dent, iii. 11, tho iron hedstead of (V, their last
kin<,', was " nine culiits" (1,'U feet"^ !"i\U. and "four eid'its"
(0 feet) in hreadth. Tho chief town of the IhpliMim was
"fAshteroth Kariiium in tlu; district of I'asluin.

"The Zuzim," a tiihe of tlie .same da.ss as the Rephaim, and
occupied the cotmtr}' hetween the rivers Arnon and .Tahhok.
They were no douht identical with the jieople who weri' hy the
Ammonites calleil " Zamzu tiniihn," and ari^ spoken of as "a
great people, and many, and tall, as the Anakini " (IV'ut. ii. 20,
21.) Their chief city seems to have bien " Ham," hut as to it.s
locality nothing; has as yet liei'U discovered so as to identify it
with any certainty.

" The Emim " were also a ndL,dity and feiocious ^nant tribe.
Tlu'ir very lumu^ C^^IS^ (/■.'mini) denotes /I'rror. They had
their abode in " Shaveh Kiriathaim," 'ie.,ihv plain of Kiiiathaim
(double city). It i.s, in ver.sc 17, also called " the valley of
Shaveh " and " the kinji's valley." It was situated in the terri-
tory aiterwards allotted to the tribe of Heuben, but before the
exile it fell again into the hands of the Moabites (Jer. xlviii. 23,

* D'^TC Siddim, iiiiKst likely an inej;ular jilural of mil? (•'""'''/') hence
fields ; anil thus sonio of tho ancient versions roniler " valley of the Ileitis."

• t3''5"lD rn"inS3' (Anhti'mlk Kanidim) ilel\ot^;a the tiro lioriu-d Axhterolh,
and the city was no doubt so called from a temple erected there to the ^'oddea*
Ashteroth, and the figure of the goddess being represented with two burns.

i'fi

PI'

i I'

lit

111

lii I*

320

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

Ezek. XXV. 9). Biirckhardt and some other writers speak of
ruins a little south-west from Makour (Machaerus) which are
still called Kareynt.

The Horitcs (i"inn). ^^ their n.ame imports, were dwellers in
caverns, and had their abodes in Mount Seir in the country of
the Edomites. Hence Seir and Edom are sometimes used as
synonymous terms. These abodes, which nature had i)rovided,
were used from the earliest times as habitations. Sometimes
they were by art enlarged and divided into apartments, and
were in some instances spacioiis enous^h to afford sufficient room
for many hundreds or even many thousand individuals. The
Horites temind us of the Troglodites in Africa. "To the oak
of Paran. " This oak apparently was a noted tree at that
time, and stood on the borders of Edom. The desert of Paran
lies between the land of Edom and Egypt.

7. And the.y returned, and came to En-mishpat, the same is Kadesh,
ami smote all the territory of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites
ivho dwelt in Hazezon-tamar.

Having overcome the Horites, they turned about, and,
marc-liing northward, they arrived in the wilderness of Zin,
whieli formed a part of the desert of Paran, <ind came to En-
mislipat, situated on the frontier of Idumea, "Kadesh, "
(iDlp Kiulcnh, I. c, aacred), also called Kadesh Barnea
(*3'D"iS linp A'(;(/('sA Barnea, i e., the sacred denert of wander-
hiij.) In the town or near it there was a well called tOS'JJ^ 1 ">!?

Ev-mishpat, i. c, Well of Judgment, but why it was so called
VH' are nowhere informed. Probably there was an oracle or
shrine there which the people were accustomed to consult.
Notwithstanding the diligent exploration of eastern travellers
in order to discover the true site of Kadesh, they have as
yet failed to agree as to its identity. Dr Stanley supposed it to
be at Petra, but I am not aware that his opinion has been
adopted by any other traveller. Robinson places it in the
western part of the Arabah, near the fountain Ain el Weibeh,
M'hils'fc Mr. Rowland — and whose opini(m is now very generally
favoured — finds it at the fountain now called Ain el Kades, but
identical with En-mishpat, about 12 miles E. S. E. of Moyle, in
the east of the most elevated part of ,fehel Halal. From there
the caravan roads lead to P»>tra, to Moiint Sinai, and to the
interior of the Holy Land. (See Williams' Holy City, pp. 406 —

*.Simouis regards 3>5"l3 ( Unrnea) aa cnmiiounded of "jj^ (Bar) open country
or desert, and 3?D (■\^") ifnndcftnij, from yij to wnwler about.

Filrst suggests "13 [liar) a son, and ^^ wandering, i. &, son of wandering,
viz., Bed'oiin,

peak of
lich are

sUers in
intry of
used as
rovided,
netimes
its, and
nt room
s. The
the oak
at that
if Paran

? Kadeshy
Amorites

it, and,
1 of Zin,

to En-
Ladeah, "

1 Barnea
Humder-

o called
raele or
consult,
avellers
lave as
ed it to
las been

in the

\Weibeh,

nerally

lies, but

yle, in
n there

to the

4U6—

country
indering.

PKOVU: S COMMEin'AKY.

321

488.) At Kadesh, Miriam died, and, according to Jerome, there
■was in liis time {4th century) still a monument shown there.

" And smote all the *territory of the Amalekitcs, " that is,
the territory which the Amalekitcs afterwards occupied, for,
according to ch. xxxvi.l2, A^malek, the ]»rogcnitor of the Amale-
kitcs, was the grandson of Esau. But Moses speaks of the
places by the names by which they were best known in his
time. It will be seen that our text does not say that the
Amalekites were smitten, but " the territory," that is, the
people who at that time occupied it. Emboldened by their
constant successes, they even ventured to attack the Amorites,
the most war-like and powerful tribe of Canaan. Hazezon-
tamar, one of the chief towns of the Amorites, situated on the
western shore of the Dead Sea, in a region fertile and abounding
with i)ahn-trees. Hence the name of the town "i?a?|-'122n(^/'f*^^-
zon-tamar) pruning of the palm. The |>lace was afterwards
called T75 "injj (En-gedi) i. e., fountain of the kid.

Alter the conquest of the Amorites, Chedorlaomer and his
allies now marched against the five kings of the districts of the
Jordan. The latter, as already stated, united their forces in the
vale of Siddim, where they w^ere attacked and completely
routed, Those who did not perish in battle, or in the asphalt-
pits, fl« ' into the fmountains which intersect the territory of
the Mo; oites. Mountains throughout Scripture are spoken of
as places of refuge.

In their former victories, it is not stated that they carried
off any plunder, perhaps they could not encumber themselves
with it ; but after this last victory, " they took all the property
of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their victuals," (v. 11.) Among
the captives that were carried off was Lot, whom they had
taken with all his property. He that makes companionship
with wicked men nms the risk of sharing the evils with which
they may be visited. As Solomon declares :

" He that walketh with wise men ah.ill be wise,
But the companion of fools BhiiU sutTer for it."

I'rov. xiii. 20.

1 3. Aud tJiere came one who had escaped, and told A t>ram the Ifehrew ;
for he loas dwelling at the oaks of Afamre the Amorite, hrotfier of
Eshcol and brother of Aner ; and these were \confederate ivith Abratn.

* "All the territory," Heb. miS DS (ad sndeh) lit. "all the field," but the
wonl HTC (aadeh) field is often u.seil in a wider sense, like our word field, to
denote n Inrf/r. tract of coHutvij. See again 1 Sam. vi. 1 ; xxvii. 7 ; lluth i.6.

tnin (hnrnh,) the singular, denotes here mountainous d'mtrict.
t" Confederates, " Heb. fT'lIIl ''bS'S <' liaale heritli ) ponnrntom of a covenant,
synonymous with fl"!"!!!! "'tCDH (nnntif bvrilh) men of a covenant i. e. confeder-
ates.

322

people's commentary.

We may reasoiicably infer that the fugitive who brought the
tidings to Abram was one of Lots servants who knew where
the patriarch resided. " And told Abram the Hebrew ;" there
are two prevailing opinions as regai'ds the origin of the tt'rm
" Hebrew." The Hebrew writers generally considei' the term
to be a patronimic ironi the patiiarch Ebzr tlie great-grandson
oi Shem mentioned in Genesis x. ^-t, :J5. But as this patriarch
obtai'ied no special notoriety, but is only spoken of in the
genealogical account that he lived and died, it is not likely
that Abram, who was the sixth in generation from Eber, took
the appellation Hebrew from him. It is justly asked why
should Abram call himself after Eber, rather than from any of
his other ancestors ? Why not rather after the patriarch Shem ?
This mode of deriving the appellation " Hebrew" being justly
considered as altogethei' unsatisfactory, most modern critics, with
a greater show of reason, have regarded the term as an appella-
tion from "1^2? {eutiv) oi\e paKsiiKj over, an imvilgravf, and as
liaving been first applied by the C'ananites to Abram a id those
that had come with him from having 2><(.sse(^owr the Euphrates
on their journey from the east to the land of Canaan. This
supposition is strongly favoured by oiu" passage "and told
Abram i"H3>n {lifi-irri) the Hebrew," i. e. the iuiinir/ranf, and
is so rendered in the Scptuagint (tw irepaTTj) the passenger.
The term Hebrew remained after that the distinctive name of
the Jewish people.

14. Aiul when Abram heard that liln hiusman* loaa taken captive, h
led forth his tried servants, born in his own house, three hundred am
eu/hteen, and pursued tlieiu till Dun.

The aged patriach who, though he had been accustomed to
lead a peaceful pastoral life, and unac(piainted with the manner
of canying on a warfare, on hearing of the misfortune that
befel his kinsman, did not lose a moment to perform the duty
vMch as a relative devolved upon him. Without making any
special preparation for the contest he was about to engage in,
he hastily led forth 318 tried servants, and as it appears from
verse 24, scnue men furnished by his allies, Aner, Eshcol, and
Mamre, and pursued the enemy as far as Dan. Now, here it
is important to observe, that the place here spoken of by the

TTlfc^ (ashiv) "his kinsman," reiulcrecl in tlie Authorized aiul Revised
Versions " Itis brother." As Lot was Ahraiu's )ii'p/ieiv, some wlio are not
acquainted with Hebrew pluaseology, may, l>y the rendering " his brother,"
be led to suppose that tliere is a discrepancy hero. As the Hebrew word HS^
(ach), a hrolhtr, was used in otlier souses, as kiii.niKiii, all;/, f'clliiio-conutri/iiian,
friend, one of the same tribe, fellow man, it is desirable, iu order to prevent
ambiguity, to select the meaning best suited to the context. And, we tliink, it
is a pity, that in the Revised Version the rendering kinsman was not adopted.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

323

name of " Dan," cannot possibly be the town of that name in
the extreme northern part of Palestine, which only received
that name in the time of the Juilges, (see Jud>;es xviii. 28, 2!),)
after a portion of the tribe hail eontiaere<l it, antl took up their
abode iiiere, but was up to thiit time called "' Laish," Moses,
therefore, could not have sj.oken of the town under the name
of Dan which it only received long after his death. Some of
our modern critics discover here " a glaring anachronism,"
whilst many orthodox connnentators, to get over the apparent
difficulty, suppose that the words " till Dan," were interpolated
by some other hand to render the passage more clear. It is
even con jeetured that this and other similar interpolations, liad
been made by Ezra, when he revised the Old Testament Scrip-
tures. But there is not the least necessity for supposing either
" an anachronism," or an " interpolation," the Dan of our verse
is evidently the other northern town Dan-Jaan mentioned in
2 Sam. xxiv. G, situated between Giiead and Sidon, and which
is (juite .suitable to our passage. It has, indeed, been justly
remarked, that if the northern boun<lary town had been
intemled here, the te;\t would most likely have been " Laish
which is Dan," just as it is said " the vale of Siddim, which is
the Salt Sea," (ver. <\) ; " En-niishpat, which is Kadish," (ver 7) ;
and " the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's vale," (ver. 17.)
Some commentators render IT^i^n (chanichiiv), " his tiained
servants," i. e., trained or experienced in warfare, but such a
rendering, although admissible is not suitable, for it is not j)i-o-
bable that the i)eaceful patriarch, to whom the contentions of
the herdmen A\as distre^sing, would train his servants in the
murderous art of war. The meaning of the word here is " his
trusty servants" such as could be depended upon. This is
made still more evident, by the following words '■ born in his
own hou.se," it is those who had grown up in his household,
and had become attached to him. Those servants would natu-
rally be niore trustworthy than those that had been hired or
bought.

15. And lie divided }iinist:If u(jai)ixt tlioii hi/ iiiylit, he and his ser-
vants, and defeated them, a)ul pursued them to Ilubak, loliieh is on the
left hcoid of Datnuscns.

" And he divided himself." The tactics employed here by
Abram are precisely the same as were afterwards so frequcmtly
adoj)ted by the Hebrews and among the Arabians, The army
was r'onerally divi<led into three di'^'isions, and these attacked
the enemy simultaneously in the centre and on the two wings.
The assault was generally made at night, atid from ambush.
(Compare Josh. viii. 2, 12 ; Jmlg. vii. IG, kc.) Among the

! .!

•'

i
i

;

i;|

i '

■! if

-! ':!;

■t

■

324

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

Arabians they generally manage to fall upon the enemy an
hour or so befoie daylight, when they are sure to find the
camp asleep. They make a sudden nish upon the enemy, and
knock down the principal tent-poles, and by thus enveloping
the men in their tent-cloths renders the victory even over a
much superior force easy. Unless when an immediate attack
was apprehended, it appears they did not set sentinels. " And
pursued them unto Hobah which is on the left hand of Damas-
"Cus," rendei'ed in the Chaldee Version " on the north of Damas-
cus." This rendering is quite admissible, for the ancient
Hebrews, in speaking of the points of the compass, supposed
the face to be directed to the east, hence the right hand denotes
the south, and the left hand the north. This agrees with the
village Hoha mentioned by Troilo, situated about a quarter of
a mile to the north of Damascus (Trav. p. 584.) Damascus is
probably the most ancient city in the world. According to
Josephus it was founded by Uz, the great-grandson of Noah.
But whether there is any truth in this tradition, certain it is
that already in the time of Abram it had become a place of
consequence. Damascus, unlike most of the cities of the east,
can boast of having retained its prosperity under every change
of dynasty. The city is about six miles in circumference, and
together with the adjoining village Salahiyeh has a population
of about 150,000, of whom about 127,000 are Mohammedans,
17,000 Christians, and 6,000 Jews. The situation of the city is
unrivalled for beauty, situated as it is in a luxuriant plain at
the eastern base of Anti-Lebanon, and when viewed from the
neighbouring hills its appearance is charming. The bright
buildings with the vast number of domes and minarets spark-
ling beneath the eastern sun, rise out of a sea of various tinted
foliage, while all around — except on the north-west where
stretches the bare snow-white ridge of the Anti-Lebanon —
extend beautiful gardens, rich corn fields, and blooming orchards,
watered by the river Barrada (the *nD^&< Ahanah of Scripture,
(2nd Kings v. 12) and its branches. The traveller is, however,
greatly disappointed when entering the city, he finds the streets
narrow and dirty, and almost entirely blocked with loaded
donkeys The best street is the one called " Straight " (Acts
ix. 11). The external appearance of the houses is for the most
part mean, but the interior of the dwellings of the wealthier
classes are truly magnificent and luxuriously furnished. The
Great Moscpie, formerly a heathen temple, then a Christian
church, composed of different kinds of architecture, is one of
the handsomest ecclesiastical buildings that the Mohammedans
can boast of. The bazaars are very numerous, and finer than

* The marginal reading gives flS^S^ Amanah.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

325-

either those of Cairo or (Constantinople, and well supplied with
goods of European and Oriental manufacture.

17. Aiul the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return
from, defeatiny Chcdorlaomer, and the kings who were with him, at th«
valley of Shaveh, which is the king's vale.

Whether " the king of Sodom " here spoken of is the same
that fought against Chedorlaomer, and was one of those who
were fortunate enough to make their escape, or whether it was
his successor, is impossilJe to determine. This, however, is of
no importance. The victory of Abram with his insignificant
band over such a superior force, which had been victorious in
all its previous engagements, must naturally have excited great
astonishment, and afforded much satisfaction to those who had
been vanquished. We accordingly see, several kings come to
meet him on his return to congratulate him on the great victory
he had achieved. The meeting took place in the valley of
Shaveh near Jerusalem, which afterwards — no doubt in com-
memoration of this event — was called " the king's vale", and
is the same in which Absalom " reared up a pillar for himself",
in order to keep his name in remembrance. (2 Sam. xviii. 18.)

18. A7id Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine :
and he was priest of the Most High God.

19. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most
High God, possessor of heaven and earth :

20. And Blessed be the Most High God. who hath delivered thy
enemies into thy hand. And he gave him a tenth of all.

We learn from this pa.ssage that the king of Salem also went
out to meet Abram. It is generally supposed that Melchizedek
founded the city in the year 2023, and called it Qj^D {Shalem)
Salem, i. e. peace. About a century after its foundation it wuo
captured by the Jebusites who called it Jebus after their pro-
genitor Jebus son of Canaan. After the city was conquered
by the Israelites the ancient name was restored who added the
prefix '©^"11 {yeiiisli) i. e.jwusession and called it Qbffi^"!"^ Jeru-
salem, i. e. posstssion of peace. We are in the above passage
introduced to a mysterious personage, mysterious on account
of his illustrious and sacred character, but respecting whom
Scripture furnishes but little information. He bears the highly
significant name pH^ ""Sb^a Melchizedek, i. e. king of righteoiis-
■ness, and combines in his person both the dignity of a king
and tlie sacred office of priest to the Most High God. After
what has been said of him in our passage, we hear nothing

326

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

fit' i

»!> I

U! i-

more of him for nearly 1000 years, when the Psalmist speaks
of him as the ty))e of the Messiah.

" The Lord has sworn anil will not repent,
Tliou (ivt a priest for ever
After the order (or manner) of Melchizedek." (Pa. ex. 4.)

Again, 1,000 years elapse before we hear him again spoken
of, this time the apostle Paul speaks of him as the type of
Christ. (Heb. vii.) The person of Melch.izeciek, therefore,
presents an interesting subject of enquiry, and has accordingly
engaged the attention fi-om very early times, both of Jewish
and Christian writers. The result of the enquiries has indeed
been productive of a vast number of theiu'ies, but as might be
expected from the absence of any direct Scriptural information,
they have absolutel}'' furni.shed nothing that can positively be
relied uiion. Many of the theories advanced are so absurd that
they are not deserving of any notice, they, however, acknowledge
in all cases the high character of Melchizedek. From the fact
that neither the parents nor the birth and death or Melchizedek
are mentioned he has at a very early period of the Christian
era been regarded as the Messiah ai)pearing in human form.
Some have regarded him to have been an angel. This theory
Jerome ascribes to Origen and Didymus. The ])atristic writers
of the 4th and 5th centuries vehemently denounced the tenet
of the Melchizedekians, that he was a Power, a Virtue, or
[nfluence. Leaving these and other wild theories for what
the}'- are worth, we refer to one which has been favoured by veiy
many eminent Jewish and Christian Avriters from the Christian
era to the present day, and which at least has plausibility in
its favour, though it may not by some be deemed as altogether
satisfactory. We allude to the hypothesis that " Melchizedek
was none other than Shem, the son of Noah." That this was a
tradition of the ancient Jews, is evident from its being recorded
in the Targum of Pseudo Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum.
There is no allusion made to it in the Targum of Onkelos,
(Chaldee Version), but this is readily accounted for, the latter
being a Version, therefore, adheres more strictly to the original
text, V. hilst the former two are merely paraphrases often giving
free translations and ex])lanations. This tradition is also
spoken of in the Talmud, as the following extract will show :
" Rabbi Jochannan ben Nuri says : — "The Holy one — blessed be
His name — took Shem and separated him to be a priest to
Himself, that he mi^^ht serve before Him. He also caused the
Shechinah to rest upon him, and called his name Melchizedek."
(Avodath Hakkotesh, part 3, ch, 20.) Jerome, in his Epistle
ad Evangelwm (0pp. i. 438), which is entirely devoted to the
person of Melchizedek, states that this was the prevailing

people's commentary.

327

very

ristiaii

ity in

ether

zedek

was a

orded

rgum.

kelos,

atter

ginal

living

also

(low :

id be

jt to

the

lek."

[istle

the

lling

opinion of the Jews in his time. The same opinion was enter-
tained by the celebrated Syrian divine and scholar Ephraim,
and by the eminent Jewisli commentator Rashi, and otiier
Rabbinic writers. It was afterwartls also embraced by
Luther, Melanchthon, H. Broughton, Selden, Lightfoot, and
many other Christian scholars, and among them especially by
the eminent Biblical scholar Charles Taylor, who most elabo-
rately supports this opinion. (Fragments to Calmet, No. 6G0,
vol iv. pp. 345-359.) If, indeed, the identity of Sliem witli
Melchizedek could be satisfactorily established, it would cer-
tainly, to a great extent remove the mystery with which tlie
brief Sciiptural account of Melchizedek is involved. The fact
that so many eminent men have accepted the ancient Jewish
tradition, at least shows the plausibility of it, if nothing more,
for we may rest assured that they gave this imijortant subject a
full and careful consideration. And when we come to examine
into the subject more closely, we certainly find that tiie diffi-
culty of identifying Melchizedek with Shem is after all not so
great as it at first sight may appear. We have already sliown
that Shem was for some time contemporary with Abram.
Indeed, according to Calmet's chronological table, he liveil
forty -three j'ears after the birth of I^aac, so that there is no
difficulty on this point. Leading a pastoral life like the other
patriarchs, he would like them be obliged to move from place
to place in search of pasturage, and in the course of his wan-
derings may have come to the place mentioned in our passage,
and finding the same pleasant and suitable took up his perma-
nent abode there, and in the course of time built a city and
called it Salem. It nuist be borne in mind that upwards of
400 years elapsed between the flood and the occurrence recorded
in our passage, during such a lengthy period a city of con-
siderable size may spring uj). Shem being the founder of the
city, it is but natural that he would be also the ruler of it.
How far beyond the city his dominion extended it is impossible
to say. Then as to his being also spoken of as " a priest of the
Most High God," this circuui. stance also argues in favour of
Shem, for before the regular institution oi the priesthood under
the Mosaic law the patriarchs, as the heads of the families,
performed the office o^ priestlioud, they offered up sacrifices and
instructed their households in their religious duties. Thus we
find Job offering up burnt offerings for his sons (Job i. 5).

But, it is asked, how did Shem obtain the name Melchizedek ?
And why does Moses not speak of him by the former name ?
As to the first question the etymology of the name itself .sug-
gests the answer. The name was no loubt bestowed from the
king having ruled his people in righteousness. And this
circumstance argues likewise in favour of Shem, for as Noah

328

PEOPLES COMMEXTAUY.

was a " preacher of rigliteousness " to the antedihivians we
may think the same of his son Shem, who succeeded him in the
priesthood. As to the second question, why Moses does not
call Melchizedek here by his real name Shem, it is sufficient to
answer that the sacred writer makes use of the title by which
he was better known in that country. We offer the.se remarks
merely to show that this theory which has been adopted by so
many eminent ancient and modern scholars is, at least in the
absence of a better one, deserving of cousideration.

According to Joseph us, Melchizedek was a Canaaniti.sh
prince, that he was, as the name imports, a righteous king, and
that on this account he was made tlie priest of God. This view
of Josephus is adopted by many modern commentators.

" And he gave him a tenth of all," that is a tenth of all the
spoils which he had taken from Chedorlaomer and his allies ;.
not as one who had befriended him, but as the servant of God,
thus setting his descendants an example how to honour and
support those who minister to men in spiritual things. Accord-
ingly we find the laws regulating the giving of tithes carefully
laid down in the Mosaic code.

21. And the Kiiuj of Sodovi said to Ahram, Give me the *peraons^
and take the projierty to thyself.

" Give me the persons," i, e., the men and the women whO'
Chedorlaomer had carried away prisoners, but in grateful ac-
knowledgement lor the services which Abram had rendered, he
requests him to keep the property for himself. This is precisely
according to the prevailing custom among the Arabians. If an
enemy has made an attack upon an Arab camp, and carried off
prisoners and property, if they are afterwards recovered by
another party, the prisoners are restored to Ihe owners, but the
property is kept by those who have recaptured it.

22. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my
haivi to the Loud, the Most lliyh God, the possessor of heaven and
earthy

23. That I trill not ftake from a thread even unto a shoe-latchet, and
that I will not take of anything that is thine ; and thou shall not say, I
have made A bram rich :

" I have lifted up my hand to the Lord," or, as it may be

*'iysr5 {neplti'i^fi) the singrilar here used collfctivuly.

tAfter the first^Qj^ (iin) the verb Hpfift (t'H'rc/*) must be supplied from the

secoml part. Literally it would read, "If I take," but the particle £5^ (i»«)
after a formula of au oath assumes the force of a negative particle, thus "I

wiU not take." So also Gen. xlii. 15, By the life of Pharaoh nTTJ IK^D Gift
"if ye shall go from this," i. e., "ye shall not go from this," and so in other
places.

people's commentary.

329

rendered, " I lift up my hand," the ancient mode of perlorming
an oath by lifting up the right hand. Hence the right hand is
in Hebrew called "11731 (yamin) from "1)31 (yama^i), synonymous

t o "i^ai^ (aman) to be faithful. Hence also the Mohammedan oath,

" By the right liand of Allah." "From a thread even unto a shoe-
latchet," is an Oriental proverb, meaning not the viost trijiimj
thing. We see from ch. xii. IG, and ch. xx. 14, that Abram on
other occasions took presents from heathen kings, yet he would
not accept the least thing belonging to the impious king of
Sodom, or to any of his subjects. He looked upon that property
as accursed ; and the principle that the property of the godless
is cursed, and therefore is Qin (chorem) devoted to destruction,
pervades throughout the Scriptures. Thus the property of all
the idolatrous towns of Canaan taken by the Israelites was to
be utterly destroyed. (See Josh, vii.l.)

24. Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion
of the vfien who went with me, Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, let them take
their portion.

But whilst he would not take anything for himself, it was
quite proper that the outlay which was incurred for the main-
tenance of the men during the expedition should be refunded,
and that the rights of his allies who have furnished him men
should be protected. He left it therefore to their choice to take
anything or not, " Let them take their portion," if they are so
incliued.

CHAPTER XV.

ft, mid
say, I

ly be

jin the

iim)
kua "I

other

1. A/t«r these things, tJie word of the Loud came to Ahram in a
vision saying, " Fear not Abrain : I am thy shield ; thy reward will be
very great.

" After these things," that is, after the occurrences narrated
in the preceding chapter, and when Abram had again resumed
his peaceful occupation at home. " The word of the Lord "
HTI (hayah) was unto Abram " ; this is the Hrst time that the
phrase " the word of the Lord " occurs in a divine communi-
cation, but is the one commonly employed in Divine revelations
made to the prophets. " In a vision ", this vision was not in a
dream, though it was in the night, for God " brought him forth
outside " and bid him look at the stars. " Fear not Abram " ;
from these words it would appear that although he had returned
victorious, there must atill have lingered a dread in his mind

\i I

II! I 1

330

people's commentart.

of some future danger probably that his vanquished foes might
return with a mightier force and overwhelm, him. This fear
does not appear to have been expressed, but Goil knoweth the
secrets of the heart, and all that is passing there, and hence
gives him the assurance, " I am thy shield ' , that is, I am thy
protector, and as I have hitherto shielded thee from thy enemies,
so will I continue to be thy defence, ryy^ (fnagen) " shield " is
in Scripture often metaphorically used as protector. Thus
the Psalmist says, " But thou, O Lord art a shield for me," ?'. e.
thou art my protector. (Ps. iii. 4, Eng. Version 3.) " Thy
reward sJuul be very great " ; i. e. thy reward in believing that
God is able to fulfil all his promises.

2. And Abram $aid Lord God, what toilt Thou give me, seeing I go
ehildUsa, and the *po8$eaaor of my home, is Eliezer of Damaactu.

" Lord God what wilt Thou give me" ; as much as to say, of
what use are all earthly goods to me, seeing I am childless, and
when I die all my possessions will fall into the hands of a
stranger. We can easily imagine that it must have been
altogether incomprehensible to the patriarch how the promises,
" I will make thee a great nation " ; " unto thy seed will I give
this land " ; and again, " I will make thy seed as the dust ot
the earth," were to be fulfilled, as he was already advanced in
years, and still had no heir. Nine years had already elapsed
since the promise was first made to him, and yet there were no
signs of its accomplishment. " Seeing I go childless," i. e., I
am going out of the world childless. The verb to go is in other
places used in the sense to depart out of the world. Thus the
Psalmist says, " Spare me, that I may recover strength, (or
more literally " I may become cheerful,' ) before I go hence, and
I am no more." (Ps. xxxiz. 14 ; Eng. Ver. v. 13.) We have no
information how " Eliezer of Damascus " came into the house-
hold of Abram, but it is generally supposed, that he was a
native of Damascus, and had been purchased as a slave
by the patriarch, and that as a reward of good conduct
he gave him his freedom, and afterwards on proving himself a
most trusty servant, was appointed as steward or overseer of

•"The possessor" is in our passa^^^e called pTCJS "IJl (^" meaJtek) lit. ton Of
ponttatian, i. e. a possessor. By a peculiar Hebrew idiom et Tptraon possessing a
certain quality is said to be tA« «on of it. Thus ^"^H 1!! I^** chayM) lit. a tion

ofttrength, i e. a possessor of strength, d hero, Tvy\S *\^ (^ avlak) lit. son
of mquity, i. e. a possessor of iniquity, awkked person* p1S)3 {meahek) is iden^
tical with ^1S73 {methech) denoting possession, as Job xxviii. 18, the former
form is evidently here used to form a paranomasia with pIS^I Dammuek.

i i

people's commentary.

e," i. e.

son of
basing a
It. a »on

llit. son

iden^

fotmet

all his possession. After Abrnm's death, he would naturally
succeed to the property, as there would bo no other competitor.
Abram was far away from his relatives in Chaldee, and fur-
thermore, he had become altogether estranged from them liy
difference of religious convictions. As for Lot, he had again
taken up his abode among the wicked inhabitants of Sodom.
Under these circumstances it is hardly surprising that the
pious patriarch should prefer to leave this property to a faith-
ful steward who had so long and well served him. In the
Mosaic code by " a statute of judgment," if a man died without
leaving a son or daughter, his inheritance passed to the nearest
kinsman. But this law applied rather to the landed property
of the family than to the personal possessions, and was insti-
tuted to secure to every family a certain amount of landed
property, and thus prevent individuals from getting too much
of the territory into their possession. But Abram had no
landed property, and even if he had, no such law existed as yet
in his time.

Z. And Ahram said, Behold to me Thou hast given no teed : and
behold an inmate of my house is mi/ heir.

•' An inmate of my house : " in the Authorized Version it is
rendered " one born in my house," and so also in the Revised
Version, but this rendering gives rise to an incongruity, for if
Eliezer is of Damascus he could not have been born in Abram's
house. In the original it rends "'fl^a*'!! {hen beithi), lit. a son
of my house, which means an inmate, whilst one born in my
house would be expressed by Tl^3 'Vb'^ {yelid heithi). Com-
pare ch. xiv. 14, xvii. 27.

In answer to Abram's earnest plea, Ood assures him (v. 4)
that his heir should be an offspring of his own body, and in
order to impress him with God's omnipotence, and to strengthen
his faith in the power of the Almighty to fulfil His promises,
however incomprehensible they might be to man. He brought
him outside and bid him look up toward heaven with its
countless stars and number them. And whilst Abram was
contemplating the starry vault of heaven, which proclaims the
infinite power of God, He was pleased to repeat the assurance
of a numerous progeny to him ; as much as to say, not only
shalt thou have a son who shi.U be thy heir, but thy progeny
shall be as numerous as these radiant orbs which thou art
unable to count.

6. And he believed in the LORD ; and He accounted it to him for
righteousness.

.:■^^i» -V..'

Who, but " the fool " who says in his heart " there is no God,"

88«

people's commentary.

can f&il to become improsaed with tho boundless omnipotence

of tho Ahnighty when looking upwards to tho starry heavonR.

And yet not more than a thousand stars can be distinguislicd

in tho clearest winter night by tho naked eye. Millions

have been discovered bv means of the telescope, but as it is

probable that by far the greater part lie beyond tho reach

of the best glasses which have been, or e ill bo, constructed

by man, the real number of stars may be jumcd to be beyond

all human calculation or conception. The glorious sight, whilst

contemplating the numberless shining orbs, made tho Psalmist

exclaim :

•* When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fencers, '

The moon and tho stars, which thou hast ordained ; >

7'hen I aay, What is man that thou art niindful of him ?
And the son of man that thou visitest him T "

And it was this glorious sight which now also full}' impressed
Abram with the infinite power of God to be able to perform all
that He had promised. "And he believed in tho Lord," although
utterly improbable as tho declaration must have appeared
at his advanced age and the advanced age of Sarai his wife,
and the confiding faith, Qod accounted to him for righteousness
aa an acceptable and praiseworthy act.

7. And he said to him, I am the Lord whc ht thee out of Ur qf
the Chaldeea, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8. And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that /shall inherit
it?

Many commentators have regarded Abram's question,
"Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it ?" as an expres-
sion of doubt, but such a view is altogether inconsistent with
the statement in verse 6, where it is said that Abram believed
in the Lord, and that his faith " was accounted to him for
righteousness." The question simply implies an earnest desire
for more information or distinct knowledge of the matter. The
language here differs also somewhat from that employed in the
previous promises. In. ch. xii. 7 we read, "Unto thy seed will I
give this land" ; and in ch. xiii.15, " To thee will I give it and
to thy seed for ever"; but here it is only said, " to give thee this
land to inherit it." Hence we see that God, so far from reprov-
ing him for asking for the information, graciously gratifies his
desire.

9. And He said to him, Take/or Me a heifer three years old, and a
she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtle dove,
and a young pigeon.

10. And he took /or Him all those and divided them in the midst
and laid the piece of each against its other half, but the birds he did
not divide%

•mhu^Mh

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

333

" Take for Mo," •*. *., offer for Me, and is so retulorod in tho
Chnldee Version," oflcr before nie." The creatures which Abrain
is here commanded to offer comprised tho same pure animals
which were afterwards ap})oint(!d for sacrifice, under tho Mosaic
law. The birds not being divided was likewiso in accordance
with the ritual law afterwards instituted (Lev. i. 17.) This
sacrifice was, therefoie, typical of the sacrifico which was after-
wards to bo offered when tho promise made to Abram was con-
summated. Under the Mosaic Uiw tho animals were generally
offered when one year old, but on this solenni occasion they
were to bo of the age of three years, they being then in a per-
fect state, neither too young nor too old. Some of the Patris-
tic writers explain " the three years " ago of the animals as
foreshadowing the three generations of Israel which wore to
serve in Egypt, or tho three centuries of captivity in a foreign
land. This supposition is also favoured by Delitzsch and others,
but according to verses 13, 10, the bondage lasted a longer
time. The ceremony of dividing animals into two halves in
concluding a covenant, and between which the contracting
parties passed, was observed among many ancient nations;
and Ephraim, the celebrated Syrian divine, relates that the
Chaldeans still practised it in his time, namely, in the 10th
century of the Christian era. The parties interested inti-
mated by tl)'s ceremony that they deserved to be so killed
if they violated tho covenant. (See Horn. Tl. ii. 124; iii. 21)1-
301. Virg. JKn. 040. Liv. i. 94, xl. 0.) It is most likely that
the heathens adopted the custom from tho Hebiews, and not
the Hebrews from the heathens, as some of our modern com-
mentators will have it. It is certainly altogether improbable
that God would command Abiani to perform a ceremony which
was practised by the surrounding idolatrous nations, when we
find afterwards such great care taken to guard against the
Hebrews adopting any ceremonial acts performed Ijy the
heathens. Thus, for example, it was a common custom among
Medes and some other eastern nations, for |)arties making an
agreement to cut their arms, and lick up one another's blood.
(Herod, i. 14.) A similar repuLsive practice prevailed among
the Armenians. (Tac. Am. xii. 47.) The Hebrews, on the
contrary, were directly forbidden to make any incisions in
the body. As to drinking human blood, such an act they
would have looked upon with the greatest horror, since even
the eating of tho blood of animals was visited with tho most
fearful Divine judgments. (Lev. xvii. 10.)

From the custom of dividing animals originated the phrase
tT'13 tl"l3 ic(^'>'(ith herith) to cut a covenant, i. «., to make a
covenant, so frequently used in the Hebrew Scriptures.

d34

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

< \

il 'i I

11. Aiid the birds of prey cams down upon the carcases, but Abram
drove them away. , ; . ' '

" The birds of prey" which are here represented rapaciously
swooping down upon the carcases, symbolize the Egyptians
and other enemies of the Hebrews, who by their cruel oppres-
sion would seek to exterminate them. The reader will remem-
ber, that Pharaoh commanded all the male children of the
Hebrews to be desti'oyed. " But Abram drove them away."
This prefigures that his faith would preserve his posterity from
<lostruction. Though the Israelites were often " brought low
for their iniquity," yet for Abram's sake God remembered
for them His covenant. (Psalm cv.)

12. And v}hen the sun was goin^f down, a deep sleep fell upon
Ahram ; and behold, a terror of great darkness fell upon him.

On comparing this verse with verse 5, it will be seen that a
whole day elapsed between the occurrences related in the two
x'orses. The occurrence spoken of in verse 5, took place whilst
the stars were yet visible, whilst the one narrated in our verse
happened when the sun was about to set. The intermediate
time was occupied by Abram in preparing the victims, and
watching them until it ])leased God to manifest Himself. Some
writers suppose that this interval of time may typify the time
between the promise made in the vision and its fulfilment. " A
deep sleep," Hebrew n^TlFl (tavdeni'ih), a supernatural sleep ;
the word is employed in Gen. ii. 21, " And the Lord God
caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam." (See also 1 Sam.
XX vi. 12.) The supernatural sleep was here accompanied by
*' a terror of great darkness;" and we learn from other portions
of Scripture, that similar over-powering influences upon the
mind and body sometimes accompanied Divine communications.
{Compare Job iv. 13, 14, et seq. Dan. viii. 27 : x 8.) The
going down of the sun, prefigured to Abram the withdrawal
of the sun of grace from his posterity on account of the fre-
quent forgetfulness of the covenant ; and the great darkness
accompanied by intense mental distress, were no doubt emble-
matical of the suffering and distress which the Israelites
brought upon themselves from time to time by their rejecting
the commandments of God, and their proneness to idolatry.

13. And He said to Abram,, Know of c siirety that thy seed toill be
a. stranger in a land that is not theirs, atid shall serve them ; and they
will afflict them four hundred years.

1 1. But that nation also, whom they shall serve, I will judge : and
afterwards they will go out with great substance.

:■' i.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

S35

16. But thou ahalt come to thy fathers in peace ; thou shalt he buried
in a good old age.

16. And in the foiwth generation they shall return hither : for tfie
iniquity of the Arnorite is not yet complete.

It was while Abram was in this supernatural sleep that God
delivered to him the prophecy of the servitude of his descendants
in Egypt. " And they will afflict them four hundred years."
This statement gives rise to several difficulties if compared
with other portions of the sacred narrative, which our ration-
alistic writers have not been slow to point to as evident con-
tradictions. In the fiist place, according to Exod. xii. 40, " the
sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelled in Egypt was
four hundred and thirty years." To reconcile the difference of
these two dates it is only necessary to state that the 400 years
in our passage date from the birth of Isaac, which took place
25 years after the call of Abram, so that from this event to the
deliverance from the Egyptian bondage was 405 years, and
here given in round numbers as 400 years. In the second
place, we are confronted with the question, whether the 480
years are to be tegarded as actual servitude in Egypt ? There
are some writers who insist upon 430 3'^ears actual dwelling in
Egypt, but we must say that they do not do so without creating
insurmountable difficulties. These will at once become apparent
from the following remarks. In the first place, St. Paul dis-
tinctly dates the 430 years from the promise to Abram to the
giving of the law (Gal. iii. 16, 17). Secondly, the period of
430 oppression could hardly be reconciled with the genealogy
in Exod. vi., and Num. xxvii. 1. Thirdly, it appears from
Num. xxvi. 59, that Jochebed, the mother of Moses, was the
daughter of Levi. Now even if we allow that she was born to
him when 137 yeai's old, that is the last year of nis life, it
follows that, if the sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, Moses,
who was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus, must have
been born 350 years sifter Jacob went down into Egypt, and
his mother must, at least, have been 256 years old when Moses
was born, which would imply an absurdity. There can, there-
fore, be no doubt that the 430 years must be reckoned from
the call of Abrain when he still lived at Haran, which, accord-
ing to the following dates, would reduce the number to 215
years of actual residence in Egypt :

From the call of Abram to the birth of Isaac, (compare

Gen. xii. 4, xxi. .i) 25 years.

From the birth ot Isiac to the birth of Jacob, (see (ieii.

XXV. 26) fiO years.

From the birth of Jacob to his emigration into Egypt .... 130 years.

Making a total of 2ln years.

ii li^^

336

PEOPLE S COMMENTAKY.

!pi'

This agrees likewise with the Septuagint version, and the-
SaniaritiU) Pentateuch, which insert in Exod. xii. 40, after " in
Egypt," the words " and in Canaan." This reading is also found
in the Alexandrian codex of the Septuagint. In the Targum
of Jonathan the verse is paraphrased, " and the days which the
children of Israel stayed in Egypt were thirty times seven
years, that is 210 years ; but 480 years had elapsed from the
time, when God spoke to Abraham, on the first day of Nisan,
between the disected parts of the animals." With this agrees
also the statement of Josephus, who says : " They left Egypt
in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar
month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather
Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years
only after our forefathers came into Egypt." (Ant. b. ii. xv., par.
2). It must, however, not be inferred from the readings given
in these versions that the Hebrew text has been corrupted, they
simply afford an explanation of the numeral in the secred text,.
a practice which they frequently adopt where the original is
not quite clear and liable to be misconstrued. This was evi-
dently the prevailing mode of reckoning the 430 years among
the ancient Hebrews, it was adopted also by some of the
Patristic writers, and afterwards by some of the most eminent
Jewish and Christian commentators. " And in the fourth gen-
eration they shall return hither" ; it is evident from the context
that the four generations are equivalent to the four hundred
years in verse 23.

The tru*h is, the primary meaning of the Hebrew word 1i^
(dor) is revolution, hence a revolving period of time, an age,
or generation. During the long lived patriarchial ages, a gener-
ation seems to have been computed at *one hundred years, at a
later period of time, however, the Israelites seem to have
reckoned the duration of a generation, as is now done with us,
from thirty to forty years.

But even the 215 years cannot be taken as the time of actual
servitude, for the oppiession of the Israelites only commenced
after the death of Joseph, when a new king ascended upon the
throne of Egypt, " which knew not Joseph." (Exod. i. 8). Now,
according to Oalmet's chronological table, Jacob went down into
Egypt 2298 A. M., and the new king who knew not Joseph
ascended the throne 2427. thus we have an interval of 129 years
between these two events, during which the Israelites were not
oppressed. According to the same chronological table Moses
was born six years after the ascending >f the new king upon

•So among the Romans the word seculum orig'nally denoted an age or gener-
ation of men, but afterwards acquired also th e secondary signification of a
century . (See Censorin de Die natali, c. 17).

-=&>.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

337

actual
lenced
on the

Now,
n into
Foseph

years
Ire not
iMoses

upon

gener-
\n of a

the throne, and Moses was, according to Exod. vii. 7, " fourscore
years old" at the time of the Exodus, accordingly the whole
period of oppression was only 86 years out of the 215 years of
the dwelling in Egypt. But it will be asked, does not our
passage distinctly declcro that " they will afflict them four
hundred years ?" According to the accentuation of the pas-
sage in the English version it certainly does say so, but on
referring to the original it will be seen from the accentuation,
that the words Qfii^ :iS5T dllUT {waavadum iveinnu otham)^
■" and thy shall serve them, and they shall afflict them," are to
be considered parenthetical, so that the passage without these
words would read, " know of a surety that thy seed shall be a
stranger in a land that is not theirs four hundred years." The
words thus parenthetically introduced merely conveyed to
Abram the information that his descendants were to be op-
pressed, but not as to the precise time that the oppression was
to last. " They shall come out with great riches ;" in these
words God gives the patriarch the assurance of His continual
watchfulness over them. Though in His infinite wisdom He
allowed them for wise purposes to be afflicted for some time,
yet they were not to serve that strange nation who had no

• claim to their service for nothing, they were in due time to be
rewarded for their hard labour, and leave their land of bondage
with great substance. (See more on this subject " Introduc-
tion," vol. i. p. liii. et seq.) " But thou shalt come to thy father*
in peace." In i,L's passage we have the immortality of the soul
distinctly indicated.

It may well be asked, what else can our passage mean than
that he should meet his fathers in the blessed abode of the
departed spirits? If the existence of his "fathers" had ceased with
their returning into dust in the grave, the words in the passage
most assuredly would altogether be meaningless. It will be

• observed that the return of the soul to his fathers, is altogether
separated from the burying of the body. We have here two

• distinct statements. But where did they exist ? Surely not
in the grave. The only place then where this reunion con Id
possibly take place was in bli<"t2J sheol, i. e., the abode or i-oalm
of the departed spirits. It is quite evident that the expressions,
" thou shalt come to thy fathers," "he was gathered to his people,"
(ch. XXV. 8) cannot mean he was burled with his people, for in
verse 9, it is stated that his sons buried him in the cave of
Machpelah, in the field of Ephron," which was in the land of
Canaan, (compare ch. xlix. 30,) whilst all his fathers died
fjud were buried in Messopotamia. It is, indeed, surprising,
that with passages like these and similar other ones before
them, there should yet be found some writers, who will persist
in holding that there is no allusion in the Old Testament to the

338

people's commentary.

1 'if iPl

Ill

doctrine of the immortality of the soul. " For the iniquity of
the Amorites is not yet complete ;" here we have the reason
assigned why the fulfilment of the promise is delayed. The
wickedness of the Canaanites was indeed great, but God is
merciful and long suffering, and slow to anger. He affords
these impious people ample time and every opportunity to turn
from their wicked ways. But Divine justice demands that
wickedness must be sooner or later punished. Our passage
entirely disarms the opponents of Scripture who are persist-
ently bringing forward the conquest of Canaan and the treat-
ment to which its inhabitants were subjected by the Israelites-
as acts of cruelty and injustice. It is surprising that such men
as Dr. Kuenen, Dr. Hooykas, Dr. Oort, and some other well
known intei*preters of Scripture should take such a one-sided
view of this subject, looking merely at the punishment, with-
out inquiring whether that punishment was not well merited.
The Canaanites themselves were not the first inhabitants of the-
land, they took possession of the country after having ^determi-
nated most of the earlier tribes the Aiiakim, Rephaim, and
Enim. During the five centuries that elapsed from Abrahami
to Jo.shua, they were permitted to increase and enjoy all the
gifts that a most fertile country could bestow, and it was not
until their cup of iniquity was overflowing that God delivered
them into the hands of the Hebrews. (See more on this subject
Introduction vol. i. p. cii. et. seq.) But it will be asked why
are the Amorites only mentioned in our passage, and not any
of the other tribes of Canaan ? This may probably be accounted
for by the Amorites being the most powerful ot all the tribes
of the country, they are here employed as the representatives-
of all the Canaanites. So again, Deut. i. 20.

17. And it came to pass, that when the sini went dotcn, and it wa»
dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a Jtame of Jive that jmssed
between those pieces.

The chief part of the ceremony in concluding the covenant
is described in this veise. The presence of the Almighty is
manifested under the symbol of " a smoking furnace, and a^
flame of fire." In a similar manner He afterwards manifested
Himself to the children of Israel in a pillar and cloud of fire.
The rendering of the Hebrew word " ^:iSfi " {tannur) "furnace"
renders the passage somewhat ambiguous, though this ren-
dering cannot well be avoided for want of a more suitable
term. What is really meant here is, a kind of portable oven,
much in use among the Orientals. ]t is an earthen vessel
about three feet high, and is placed upon a support. Fire is-
made inside, and when the sides are sufliiciently heated, thin,

people's commentary.

33i)

layers of paste are spread on the sides which are quickly
baked. The word occurs fifteen times in the Old Testament,
and only in this instance and in three other places is it
rendered by " furnace " in the Authorized Version ; in all the
other places it is translated " oven." The pro[)er Hebiew
word for a smeUivg furvace is itiS (cur.) (Compare Prov.
xvii. 3 ; Ezek. xxii. 18-22.) And this word is always employed
wherever the people are metaphorically spoken of as having
been cast into the furnace, as Ezek. xx. 18-22 ; or delivered out
of the furnace, as Deut. iv. 20 ; 1 Kings viii. 51 ; Jer. xi. 4.
The furnace, therefore, in our passage cannot symbolize the
afQiction of the Israelites in Egypt as has been explained by
so many commentators, and is not parallel to " iron furnace "
in Deut. iv. 20, where 1?,3 (cur) is used. We have already
stated, that in concluding a covenant between two or more
parties, all that were a party to it went through the divided
pieces, but from the nature of this covenant, God alone passed
through in a representative symbol, for it was He alone that
made a pledge, Abram was only the recipient of the promise
that God would finally establish his seed in the promised land.

18. On that same day the Lord made a covenant with Ahram,
saying " To thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt
to the great river, the river Euphrates."

By the passing of the furnace and flame of fire between the
divided pieces, the promise was ratified, and the Lord novv
makes over the promised land as by a deed of gift to Abram.
" To thy seed have I given this land," the Rabbinic writers
very properly remark, " He does not say, " I will give." but " I
have given," and yet Abraham was as yet childless, but because
the %v(y)'d of the holy blessed God is a deed, therefore he speak-
eth thus." In this covenant, the extent of the promised land
is materially enlarged. In the preceding promises the land of
Canaan was only given, (see xii, 7 ; xiii. 14-17 ; xv. 7) ; but
here the boundaries are promised to reach in the south to
" the river of Egypt" and in the east to " the river P^uph rates."
The territory of the Hebrews was to comprise all the country
between these two rivers. Hence among the ten nations
enumerated in the following verses which the Hebrews were
to conquer, three of them have never been mentioned before.
By t3'^1!S?a "in3 {'i^ehar Mitsraywi) " river of Egypt," is unques-
tionably meant the Nile, and not the Qi"iS)2 bn5 (v(tcli(il
Mitsrayim) " brook of Egypt, i. e., the Wadi el-Arisli," men-
tioned in Num. xxxiv. 5 ; Josh. xv. 4 ; on the ctrntincs of Egypt
and Palestine, and which flows into the Mediterranean. As
the history of the Hebrews nowhere gives any indication of

340

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

; i

9' *' '^^^1

■In

B:i

ji •

HHii

(j ■

^^^f '

■ l:

i\ ii

K ; 1!

their territory having at any time reached to the Nile, some
commentators have indeed been led to interpret " the river of
Egypt " in our verse to mean the brook of Egypt, and not the
Nile. But this supposition is altogether erroneous, such an
insignificant little stream or brook as the Wadl-el-Arish, would
not bo called inD {nahar) a river. In Isa. xxvii. 12; and Jer.
ii. 18, the river Nile and Euphrates are again mentioned as the
extreme boundaries of the possession of the Israelites. That
the Hebrews did not occupy all the territory which God here
assigned for a possession to Abram's seed, must be ascribed to
their inactivity or neglect to do so. They even permitted some
of the heathen tribes to occupy large portions of Canaan,
although they had been commanded to drive them out. (Exod.
xxiii. IJI).

CHAPTER XVI.

1. Now Siirdi, Abram's tvife, bore him no children; and she had
a handmaid, an Egyptian, tohose name was Hagar.

Ten years had now elapsed since Abrain first had received
the promise, and although he was still childless, and already
advanced in years, yet his faith was so firm that notwith-
stamling the apparent improbabilities of having a lineal heir he
did not doubt but that the Almighty, who can control the laws
of nature, would, in his appointed time, surely fulfil the pro-
mise. It was, however, different with Sarai, who apparently
could not l)ring herself to believe that she should become a
mother at her advanced age, and, therefore, concluded if the
promise was to be fulfilled, it must be through some other
person than herself. She accordingly resolved to give her
Egyptian handmaid to her hiisband to be his wife, saying:
n372^ n335< ""b^S^ [idai Ibbanek in'hmineiinah) literally, " per-
haps I may build up a famUi/ by her." Now, however, repul-
sive the conduct of Sarai may appear to us, j'et it was quite in
accordance with the widely prevailing custom in the East, and
it is, therefore, simply absurd on the part of some of our
modern commentators to judge of the act by the existing
customs of our times. We have precisely a parallel case in
Rachel tjivinfj her handmaid Bilhah to Jacob to wife. (Qen.
XXX. 3.) The proposal came from the legal wife, to whom then
the children were considered to belong. This will also account
for Abrara readily consenting, as our text implies, " And Abram

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

341

listened to the voice of Sarai," it being her own -^sh, and in
accordance with the prevailing custom of the age, he saw
nothing wrong in the f)roposal.

Sarai probably had brought Hagar with her from Egypt,
who seems to have been her chief maid-servant, just as Eliezer
was the chief man-servant of Abram. As the name ^^n {Ha(jar)
is a purely Hebrew name denoting flight, it can hardly have
been her original name, but wjis, no doubt, later bestowed
upon her on account of her flight from Abram's house. We
.have had already occasion to show that it was no uncoiamon
practice among the Hebrews to bestow names having reference
to some remarkable incident in the lives of individuals. Among
the Mussulmans Hagar is held in great voneration. They call
her " mother Hagar," and maintain that she was Abram's law-
ful wife, and that Ishmael, as th^ eldest son, obtained there-
fore the extensive tracts of Arabia, which, in their estimation
far surpass both in extent and riches, the limited territor}' of
Canaan which the younger son Isaac recjeived. From Hagar
descended the Hagarites U^^^y7\{Hagnuii) mentioned. (1
Chron. v. 10, 19,20.)

3. And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Ilagar, her maid tlie Egyptian^
■ after Abram had dwelled ten years in tltc laiul of Canaan, arul gave
.her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

According to this verse the ceremony of giving in marriage
was literally performed by Sarai, She took Hagar and gave
ber to Abram to be his wife. Sucli secondary wives, although
regarded as of an inferior rank, were still considered as real
wives, and their positi(m was not looked upon Jis degrading.
Their children, however did not inherit the property of the
father, if he had sons by the real wife, but they were generally
provided for during the father's life time. Abram was now
85 years old when Hagar was given him to wife, and Sarai was
75 years old. It was not lonir before Sarai had cause to regret
her action. Little did she think that the honor which she
conferred on her Egyptian maid would be the cause of seriously
disturbing the domestic peace which had hitherto reigned in
her household. But so it was. Hagar, instL'ad of being grate-
ful for what her mistress had dom; for her, assumed now an
insolent demeanour towards hor, she despised her benefactress,
forgtitting that although she was Abram's wife, she was still a
b)ndsvvoman, (see ch. xxi. 10) and still subject to her
juistress. Solomon gives as one of the four intolerable things
under which the earth trembles, " an handmiid that is heir to
her mistress," i.e., a handmaid when she supplants her mistreas
in the affections of her husband. (Piov. xxx. 23.) It is
51

II It I'

342

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

1 ..

!'■

ill

i-l

important ^at the reader should bear in mind the reprehen-
sible conduct of Hagar towards Sstrai, for tlieie are many who
take altogether a one-sided view of the subject, bestowing all
the commiseration on the former, and laying all tlie blnme on
the latter. Sarai's ill treatment of Hagar may be deserving of
censure, but she certainly had great provocation.

6. But Abram said to Sarai, Behold, tfiij mnid is in thtj hands do
unto Jier as it pleaseth thee. And when ISarai afflicted {or humbled) her^
shejledfrmn her face.

The ill-feeling that sprung up between Sarai and her maid^
placed Abram in a very perplexing situation, and must have
caused the good patriarch intense grief, especially, as Sarai
imagined herself wronged by him as well as by Hagar. Abram 's.
reply to his wife's excited coniplaints, however, was calm, gen-
tle, and at the same time just, tending at once to convince her
that his affections had not been estranged from her : ' Behold,,
thy maid is in thy hand ; do unto her as it pleaseth thee," as.
much as to say thou art her mistress, and, therefore, she is
entirely under thy control, and although thou hast given her
to me to wife, that does not release her from thy authority.
This repl}' shows that he regarded Sarai as the only mistress of
his house, and that she had the first claim to his affections. In
the absence of more infoiu)ation, it is impossible to form any
just idea whether Sarai's treatment of her maid may not have
been too severe and unwarrantable, but be that as it may,
Hagar evidently either could or would no longer put up with
her mistress's ill treatment, and fled from her presence, na
doubt intending to return to Egypt.

7. And tJie * angel of the JjOKD found her by a fountain of water in^
the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shnr.

Hagar's path in returning to her native countiy led fron>
Hebron through the desert of Shur, and is the same which ia
Numbers xxxiii". 8 is called " the desert of Etham." The com-
mon caravan road between Palestine and Egypt still runs-
through the heart of this desert. Whilst on her way to a
place called "Shur" — from which pi obably the desert received

* The Hebrew teiin for awj/eZis ^&^D73 (malach) Vit^vaWy a messemjer. The
K>ot tI6^b (laach) is obsolete in Hebrew, but in Arabic and Ethiopic denotes
to send, in the latter also to serve, to miniiter. Hence it is employed imliflferently
to a human agent or viessenijer, as 2 Sam. ii. 5, xi. 19 ; to a prophtl. Hag. i. 13 j
to a priest, Mai. ii. 7 ; and to celestial spirits. Our term angel is derived from
the Greek ayytXas which like the Hebrew w^ord also denotes a niMsenger, or a»
it is translated in some of our old Bibles a tid'mgs-bringer. St. A ugustine has
very properly remarked, novien nan maturce, sed officii, "it is a name, not of
nature, but of office."

people's COMMENTAiir.

34a

from
|ich ia
com-
run*
to a
leived

The

lenotes
frently

i. 13;
|1 from
or aa

le has
I not of

its name — on the confines of the desert, being overcome by-
fatigue, she seated herself by a fountain. We can easily pic-
ture to ourselves, that thus circumstanced, a lonely wanderer
in the vast dreary desert, exposed to the fierce heat of the sun,
still far away from her native land, and no kindly hand near
to protect her in case oi danger, the mind of Hagar must have
been exercised with the most painful emotions. At this mo-
ment of Hagar's utmost extremity, when no pitying eye beheld
the son'owing fugitive save that of Him who watches over the
destitute, " the angel of the Lord appeared to her and relieved
her dreadful anxiety." " The angel of the Loud " is, accord-
ing to verse 13, God Himself. " And she called the name of
the Lord, who spake to her." So again ch. xxii., 11, 15, 16 ;.
and also Exodus iii., 2, " And the angel of the Lord appeared
to him in a fiame of fire ;" but in verse 4 we read : " And when
the Lord saw that he went thither to see, God called to him
out of the midst of the bush." So again, Judges vi., 11 : "The
angel of the Lord appeared unto Gideon," but according to
verse 14 it was God Himself. And so in other places in the
Old Testament. Indeed, some Oriental translators always
employ " the angel of God," instead of Jehovah, whenever
Jehovah is spoken of as appearing on earth.

8. And he said, Hagar, Sarai'a maid, wlience didst thou come ? and
whither wilt thou go 1 And she said, I Jiee from my mistress Sarai..

Although omniscient, the angel asked her whence she came
and whither she was going. The question was a suitable intro-
duction to the message to be delivered. And further, hearing
herself familiarly called by her name, and her occupation
specified, would naturally tend to allay any fear that the sud-
den appearance of a stranger in that lonely place may have
caused her, for she must either have inferred from it that he
was a person who had previously known her, or that he must
be a superhuman being. The communication afterwards made
to her soon convinced her that the latter was the case.

9. And the angel of the Lord said %into her, return to thy mistress^
and submit thyself under her Jiands.

10. And the angel of the Lord said to her 1 toill tiiidtijjly thy seed
exceedingly, that it shall not he numbered for multitude.

" Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself." By this
direction the angel, before he delivered the joyful tidings which
would fill her with rapture, desired to impress upon her first
that her conduct in despising her mistress had been wrong,
that as she was still Sarai's maid she was in duty bound to-

■■;■
I

344

people's commentary.

return and to submit to her rightful authority. It was also to
teach her that it was only for Abraham's sake, whose wife she
w^as, that there was such a great future in store for her descen-
dants. " I will multiply thy seed exceedingly :" such a declara-
tion can only be made by the Deity, and clearly shows that
" the angel of the Lord " is God Himself.

This promise of an innumerable progeny was speedily fulfilled
in the rapid increase of Ishmael's direct descendants. Isaac,
his favoured brother, had only two sons, Jacob and Esau, whilst
Ishmael had twelve sons, who became princes and gave their
names to as many tribes (Gen. xxv. 13, 14, 15, 16). About
170 years after this declaration to Hagar, the sons of Jacob
amounted to twelve, whilst the descendanta of Ishmael had so
rapidly increased as to form a trading nation. At the time
when Joseph's brethren were conspiring to take his life, " a
company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their camels
laden with spicery, balm, and myrrh, going to carry it down to
Egypt." (Genes, xxxvii. 25.)

11. And the angel of the Lord said to her, Behold, thou art toilh
child, *and sluilt hear a son, and tliou shalt call his natne Ishmael ;
because the Loud hith heard thy affliction.

12. And he will he a wild ass of a man ; his hand will be against
every man, and every man's hand against him, ; and he shall dwell
before the face of all his brethren.

Hagar was enjoined to call her son bj^JJ^tl)'' {Ylshmael),
Ishmael, i. e., God heareth, because God " hath heard," that is,
hath heeded her affliction.

From this Hagar could not fail to learn, that God is no
respecter of person, that His care extends to the slave as well
as to the master. "And he will be a wild ass of a man."
Under this figurative language, the character of Ishmael, and
more particular!}' that of his descendants the Bedouins, is most
powerfully and truthfully depicted. Nothing could be more
descriptive of the wandering, lawless, freebooting life of these
children of the desert than by comparing them to the indomit-
able wild ass. In the book of Job there is a beautiful and
graphic description of the animal.

* tn^l", evidently instead of fnyjl' part, fem., like ch. xviii. 19, Is. vii.

: : ~ » V

14. This irregnlar form occurs again, Judg. xiii. 5. Some writers regard the
peculiar form of the word as a compound of two tenses, implying time^
present and future, and equivalent to ' thou ahalt very shortly bear.'

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

345

■■,i> Who hath sent out the wild ass ireo T
,. Or who hnth loosed thu hands of the wild ass ?

Whose house I have made the wihlerness ;
And *the salt steppe his dwelling place,
He scorneth the tumult of the city,
The shoutinus of the driver he heedeth not,
The range oY the mountains is his pasture,
And ho searcheth after every green thing. — (Job xxxix. 5-8.)

The wilil a.ss surpa.s.ses in fleetness the swiftest horse, and
resembles the latter in gracefulness. It delights in its native
deserts, and is remarkable for its capability of enduring both
hunger and thiist. Travellers observe, that they often heard
Arabs .say, that it is altogether untameable. It is hunted as
game, and its flesh is by the Orientals regarded as a great
delicacy, European travellers, however, do not seem to relish it

The prediction was literally fulfilled, even as it regarded
Ishmael himself. When he was seventeen years old, he and his
mother were expelled from Abram's dwelling. Hngar intended
to return to Egy; t, but losing her way she wandered in the
wilderne.«;s of Beersheba, and afterwards retired into the wilder-
ness of Paran, where she took up her abode in the neighbour-
hood of Sinai. Ishmael became an expert bow-man, and his
mother married him to a country woman of her own. Inured to
hardships at his early age, his mind acquired fierceness from soli-
tude, and his body grew robu.st. He soon acquired influence over
the native tribes, and ro.se to great authority among them, And
as regards his posterity the Bedouins, the analogy between
their habits and mode of life ; and tho.se of the wil 1 ass is
equally a? striking, if indeed not more so. God him.self has
sent them out free ; He has looi<ed them from all political
restraint. The wilderness is their home, and the barren land,
where no other human beings could live, is their dwelling.
They are swift like the wild ass, and therefore not easily caught.
They scorn the city, and have no fixed habitation : the tent
that is pitched in the evening is struck in the morning.
When they make depredations on cities or towns, they retire
into the wilderness with such precipitancy that all pursuit is
eluded, and thus it may be .said they liced not the ahoutini/H
of the dtnver. They cultivate no lands, but the range oj
the mountains is their pasture. They have occupied the same
country, and maintained the same mode of life since the day
of their great progenitor. Civilization has never imprinted
her foot on their barren soil. "His hand will be against
every man, and every man's hand against him." Such has

Mi'

, [il^

*The "salt steppe" i. e.,the most barren steppe, for sa/; is the symbol of
6orrc««eM, (Compare Ps. cvii. .34 ; Jud. ix. 4."); V'irg. Geo. 2, 238.) "He
scorneth the tumult of the city ;" the wild ass delights in the unilisturbed
freedom, far away from the habitation of man.

^46

PtOi'LES COMMENl'AUY.

proclsoly been the ca.se with rslimaolH posterity, from the
oarliost period of their history and it continues at the pre-
sent time. " In the desert everyhody is everybody's foe,"
is their proverbial saying. Hurckljardt, who prolwibly had more
intimate ac(iiiMint,ance witli the Arab tribes than any othor
eastern traveller, speaks of them as " a people; of robbers; that
is to say, eveiything wliich tliey can lay hold on in the open
•country is their lawfr.l prize. ' (Trav. p. VAO.) Dr. Shaw,
who can s])eak froin e,\perience, havin<^ bec^n plunderet'. him-
«elf, observes : "The Aiabs are naturally thievish and treach-
■crous ; and it sometimes happens that those very persons are
overtaken and pillaged in the uiorning, who were enter-
tained the tiight before, with all i\w instances of friendship
and hospitality." (Travels.) Belzoni, who had frecjuent
opportunities of observing the Beil^uins, rei)resents them as
■•'being even in perpetual warfare with each other; their
thoughts are incessantly employed in improving their arts of
■ilefence, or in obtaining plunder. (Travels, p. 149.) Mr.
Paxton remarks, " They have occupied the same country, and
followed the same mode of life, from the day of their great
ancestor, down to the present times, and range the wide extent
of burning suiids which separates them from all surrounding
nations, as rude and savage, and untractable as the wild ass
himself. Claiuiing the barren plains of Arabia, as the patri-
monial domain assigned by (Jod to the founder of their nation,
they considered themselves entitled to .seize, and api)ropriate
to their own use, whatever they can find there. Impatient
of restraint and jealous of their liberty, they form no connec-
tion with the neighbouring states, they admit of little or no
friendly intercourse, but live in a state of continual hostility
with the rest of the world. Mounted on their favourite horses,
they scour the. waste iii search of plunder, with a velocity sur-
passed only by the wild ass. They lev}'^ contributions on every
person who bajipens to fall in their way, ;ind fi'Mtiently rob
their own countrymen, with as little «yi ..s they do a

stranger or a>i enemy ; their haie: is ' - eveiy man,

and every man's hand against '''^Tf

" He shall dwell in the face a in..

ing evidently is, that thedesceh ntsof
maintain their independence, thai al

thr . ' the meau-
iimael should always
attempts to conquer
them would prove fruitless. Some writ, rs take the expression
" his brethren " in a restricted sense, meaning " the c
descendants of Abram, namely, the Hebrews, Edon
Midianites, «fc;c.," whilst others take it in a larger sen^
understand by it mankind in general. The latter supposi ,
decidedly preferable. From the earliest period of their hi

'•r

••s,

I is

.they ha ire maintained their independence, notwithstan lin

people's COMMENTAllY.

347

th»> repeated cfTorts that have been ma(h) to destroy tliom. God
j)re.serv(!.s this people a lasting monument of His providential
care, and as an ineontcistible proof of the truth of His word.
Even the autlior of the " Decline and Fall of the Roman
Kmpire," who eidisted in the ranks of infidelity, bears uninten-
tionally testimony to the fulfilment of the j)rophecy containc<l
in our passaj^^c;. After describin<,' the result of the wars carried
on by the Al)yssinians, the Persians, the Sultans of Ejjypt, the
Komans and the Turks, aj^'ainst the descendants of Ishmael, in
the partial success of these nations, he adds : " Yet these ex-
ceptions are fenipordrif and local ; the body of the nation has
escaped the yoke of the most powerful monarchies ; the arms
of Sesostris and Cyrus, of Pompej and Trajan, could never
achieve the conquest of Arabia; the present sovereign of the
Tmks may exercise a shadoio of jurisdiction, but his pride is
reduced to solicit the friendship of a people whom it is dan-
gerous to provoke, and fruitless to attack." (Decline and Fall,
vol. ix. p. "I'M).) Such is tlu; character of the descendants of
Ishmael, as is fully attested by the most eminent historians
and travellers, and every candid reader must admit, that it
in every particular coincides with the j)rediction concerninj^
tliem in our verse. Let it be remembered that the Bedouins
m\i the only people known whose manners and mode of life
lias'c romiiined unchanged, and who follow the pursuits and
po-isess the dispositions which characterize them in the ancient
prophecy. And let it also be borne in mind that, whilst the
ileicendants of Ishmael retained their original wandering
mole of life, and are still maintaining their independence, the
descendants of his brother Isaac had formed themselves into a
p )werful commonwealth, yet have been subdued by various
nations, their cities laid waste, and they themselves disperse<l
among all the nations of the world. It has, therefore, been
well remarked, "could any sagacity have foreseen so decided a
tlirterenco between the dispositions, and pursuits, and fortunes,
of the two branches of a family, whose dwelling place was in
the same quarter of the globe ? Every candid and ingenuous
mind will answer, no! And with such minds we leave the
decision ; only expressing our opinion, that had we no other
argument to offer for the authenticity of the Pentateuch, than
what is afforded by the prt)j)hocy in question, with the char-
aeb:)r of rshmiel's descendants, this alone would be amply
sufficient for the purpose of convincing the most incredulous
mind." In the Authorized Version tD"55 !!5"lS (p/ive-Adam), is
f leiily rendered " a wild man," instead of " a wild ass of a
man," the translators have followed the rendering of the Sep-
tuagint as aypoiKot avOpcoTro^, a ivild vi%n, which, however,
destroys the beauty of the passage, and deprives it of much of

^li!-

i! ''r^t..

?' "i

?i! ^

348

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

its force. In the Kevised Version it is rendered "a wild ass

among men,

Version.

which rendering is also given in the Chaldee

13. And she called the name of the Lord that spoke to her, Thoii art
the God of seeing ; for she said, Do I even here see after seeing, (or
after the vision.)

From the positive and distinct manner with which the
assurances were made to Hagar, she became convinced that
they were utterances of a superhuman being, and " called the
name of the Lord that spoke to her : 'J'hou art the God of
seeing ;" that is, the God who suffers Himself to be seen. The
narrative does not leave us to conjecture why she gave that
name, but immediately gives us the reason, for she said, " Do
I even here see," or as some render, " Do I even still see after
seeing," as much as to say, do I not still live and see after hav-
ing seen God ? Having reference to the general beliet that no
human being can see God and live. (Compare Exod. xx. 19 ;
Deut. xviii. 16 ; Jndg. vi. 22, 23.) It is an expression of
devout and greatful surprise at beii;g permitted to continue
to live after having seen the symbol oi the Divine presence.
In the Authorized Version, the Hebrew phrase ij^i bj}^ HFli^
{affah el roi) is rendered " thou God siest me," i. e., thou
seest and takest compassion on me, the translators have
adopted the rendering of the Septuagint av 6 0eo? o
eTTiScov fie, and the Vulgate qui vidistl me ; but the Hebrew
word *ifi<"i (roi) rendered "seest me" is an abstract noun, and

does not admit of such a rendering, for that would require ijs^l

(roeni.) In the Revised Version, " God of seeing" is given
" in the margin."

14. Wherefore the well teas called Biicr-lahai-roi ; behold, it is between
Kedesh and Bered.

In commemoration of the great event of having been per-
mitted to see the symbol of God and continue in life, she called
the well li^-j inb "liiSl (Beer-lachd-roi) "well of the seeing
alive," or as some render it " well of seeing God and living."

* ""SJI (I'oi) sitjht or vision from Hfi^"! ('■'"»'') to sec, like 1^11 {<'lioU) sick-
ness, from nin (chalah) to be sick ; '^'^^ (o)ii) affliction, from HDJ' (cinah)-
to suffer, to be afllicted ; anil other nouns of this foim.

people's commentary.

349

ild ass
;!hal(lee

%ou art
'.ing, (or

ch the

ed that

lied the

God of

[1. The

Lve that

id, " I)o

,ee after

'ter hav-

that no

XX. 19 ;

ssion of

continue

presence.

e., thou

irs have

@eo^ 6

Hebrew

\un, and

lire n^i^l

js given

Is between

?cn per-
ie called
seeing
ing.

iioU) sick-
\y (anah)'

CHAPTER XVII.

1. And when Ahram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord ajypeared
to Abram, and mid to him, I am thv Almighty God ; walk be/ore Me,
and beperject.

Thirteen years had elapsed since the birth of Ishmael recor-
ded in verses fifteen and sixteen of the preceding chapter, and
Abram had now attained to the age of ninety-nine years, and
the covenant made with him fifteen years ago remained still
unaccomplished. He had indeed now a son, but it was
the son of a foreign hand-maid, and although Sarah had not
been mentioned in any of the promises hitherto made, the pat-
riarch would naturally have expected that the promised bles-
sings would be realized through her. Abram's faith had there-
fore been put to the severest test. But God's appointed time
Tor the fulfilment of the covenant was now drawing near, and
He appeared again unto the faithful patriarch, this time to
prepare him for its execution. And here it is worthy of notice
that whilst at the establishment of the covenant, ch. xv., 7,
God made himself known to Abram as nin*' Jehovah, the self-
existing Being. " I am niST' who brought thee out of Ur,"
here He announces Himself as *T'nJ5 bfc^ [el skaddai), " God Al-
mighty." This was evidently designed to impress upon Abram
that although the announcement which is now to be made may
appear to him as involving an impossibility, with the all-
powerful God there is nothing impossible, that no obstacles
however great can stand in the way in accomplishing His prom-
ises. We have here also to notice another remarkable differ-
ence between the covenant in ch. xv. and the covenant of this
chapter. In chapter xv. the piomises were made uncon-
ditional, no duties were imposed upon the patriarch, but made
as a reward for his faith ; but in this chapter where the prom-
ises are renewed and enlarged upon, and the time of the prom-
ised heir distinctly specified (verse 21), Abram is placed under
certain obligations. The first obligation is, " walk before Me,
and be perfect." The command is brief, but could not possibly
be more explicit. The Hebrew word Qi^jn (tamim) is very
expressive ; it denotes innocent, hlameleas, upHght. The con-

*''TtD {Shaddai) is evidently derived from "ntD {shadad), to be powerful*

having the ending 1 = (ai) which occurs with : jme proper names, I^H

Haggai, "^Ijlp (Sinai, &c. Vetringa, whom Oesenius and others follow, regard

the form the word as pluralia majestaticm, but the ending "> — :;: — {ai) as a
plural form is too uncertain to warrant such a supposition.

*■ ,"!

350

people's commentary.

tinuance of the covenant was conditional on his leading a
blameless life. The second obligation is the observance of the
rite of circumcision (verses 10-11.)

4. As for vie, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shaU be a
father of a multitude of nations.

5. And thy name shall no more be called Ahram, but thy name shall
be called Abraham; for 1 have constituted thee the father of a multitude
of nations.

"As for me," in the original, merely "Jifc^ {ani,) "I," intro-
duces with particular emphasis the promises which follow,
whilst in verse 9 ntlfe^T (weattah), " but thou," i. e., " as for
thee," introduces the obligation which was imposed upon
Abraham, as much as to say, whilst I, on My part, will most
assuredly keep My promises, it will be obligatory on thy part
to " keep My covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their
generations." " And thou shalt be a father of a multitude of
nations;" this, of course, must be understood as referring to his
spiritual posterity. (Compare Rom. iv. 11-17.) The twelve
sons of Jacob founded only the Hebrew nation so that accord-
ing to this, Abraham could only be said to have been the lineal
father of one nation. And even if we were to include the
tribes that sprung from his children by Keturah, and those
that descended from Ishmael, Abraham could hardly be said to
have been " the father of a multitude of nations." It is there-
fore evident that the passage must be understood as embracing
all true believers of all ajjes and all countries. This is further
evident from the fact, that circumcision, the sign of the cove-
nant, was not restricted to his lineal descendants, but " he that
is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger,
which is not of thy seed," (v. 12) was to be circumcised, and
were thus admitted into the fellowship of the covenant. An-
other remarkable feature in the renewal of the covenant here,
is the change of ^xame both of Abram and his wife. Accord-
ing to the renewed promise Abram is to be a father of a
multitude of nations, and kings are to issue from him, hence
his name QIH^^ Abram, i. e., (exalted father,) was changed to
*Dn"llK Abraham, i.e., exalted father of multitude, as a tangible

•The name Dn"l!3&^ {Avraham), Abraham, seems to be formed from Q^l^J^
{avram), Abram aucl "liTSH (hdmon), multitude, by dropping the final letter Q
of D"llI155> a»il adding the (irst syllable QH of "IITSH' ^^^ name would
accordingly be a contraction of l"|?3n Q"lll&^ (avram 'rmon), i. e., exalted
father of multitude. This etymology of the word seems to be clearly indicated
by the context "^Tlfli D'^i!! lytZTi !1IS5 "'3 " for a father of a multitude of

people's commentary.

851

pledge that Ood would fulfill his promise. We have already
explained ch. xi. 29, that the name iltD Sarai, denotes one
struggling or contending ; this name is now changed to nitD
" Sarah," (ver. 15) denoting a princess, i. e., a princess of many
nations.

10. This is My covenatit which ye shall keep between Me and you
and thy seed after thee ; circumcise every male child among you.

Some of my readers are perhaps not aware that circumcision
was practiced among other nations than the Hebrews and the
descendants of Ishmael, but such is undoubtedly the case.
Indeed, many modern critics labour hard to prove that it had
its origin in Egypt, and that the Hebrews, as well as some other
nations, derived the custom from the Egyptians. Among those
who strenuously upheld this theoiy, is Spencer, who enters
fully into the discussion of the subject in his work De Legibus
Hebrceoi'uvi, Lib. I., cap. IV., sec. 4- Kalisch also positively
asserts that " among the nations which derived the custom of
circumcision from the Egyptians, were undoubtedly the He-
brews." (Com. on Genes, p. 388.) Le Clerk, though he does
not speak quite so positively, still suggests that the Egyptian
practice seems to have given occasion to the Divine command
to Abraham. (Com. on ver. 10.) And this view is more or
less pertinaciously maintained by all the rationalistic writers.
The whole scriptural evidence, however, clearly goes to show,
that the sacred narrative here contains the account of the
origin of circumcision. Our verse distinctly declares circumcision
to be the sign of the covenant concluded between God and
Abram and his seeds : " This is my covenant," that is the
sign of my covenant as is more fully explained in verse
11. In verse 12, the time is specified when the rite was
to be performed, namely, on the eighth day, and also on
whom it was obligatory to observe it. The obligation of
observing the rite is emphatically repeated in verse 13, and
the reason assigned why it was to be observed : " my covenant
shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." In verse
14 is set forth the fearful punishment for wilfully neglecting
the observance of the ordinance : " that soul shall be cut off
from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." We may here

nations, I have consMtnted thee." Many critics explain the form of the name
as derived from ^^)^^ !l^ ('I" hamon) fatlier of inuUitude, but they do not
account for the occurrence of the letter "!• Others, in order to get over this
difficulty derive it from |3J^ (av) father, and QHT {raham) muUUtide ; but
there is no such word as Qn'l (raham) existing in Hebrew, and the cognate
Arabic word {rtiham) muUUude, occurs very rarely, and it is hardly probable
that a foreign word would be employed in forming such a significant name.

fv.

■I i *

il;.

: !
■ \ ■

;

352

people's commentary.

'ii !

observe that commentators are by no means agreed as to the
full force of the phrase, " that soul shall be cut off from his

f)eople." The same punishment was to be incurred for neg-
ectmg the observance of the passover (Exod. xii. 19), which
was the symbol of the national covenant L3tween God and
Israel. Many writers understand the phrase merely to mean
that " the person who wilfully disregards the observance of the
rite forfeits thereby his connection with the Hebrew commu-
nity, and all the benefits and blessings which the covenant
confers.'" The more common explanation however is, that the
phrase denotes i^nnishment by death, either by direct judg-
ment of God, if the offence was not known, or by the sentence
of the properly constituted judges, if the offence was known.
Some of the Rabbinical writers even maintain that it signifies
something more than mere temporal death. Thus tho renowned
writer Maimonides remarks: '"That soul shall be cut off,
which we have heard explained thus, ciU off in this world and
cut off in the world to come." That the phrase implies 'punish-
ment by death seems to be evident from several passages of
Scripture. Thus in Lev. xvii. 10, we read : " I will even set
my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him
off from among his people," that is, by direct judgment of God.
A striking proof that death was really the consequence of the
omission of circumcision is afforded in the case of Moses neg-
lecting to circumcise his son, as recorded in Exod. iv. 24, 2.5 :
" And it came to pass by the way, in the inn, that the Lord
met him, and sought to kill him," &zc. Now, as circumcision
was instituted by God Himself as a sign of the covenant,
surely, it is most unreasonable to suppose that He would adopt
a rite as a sign which is practised among heathens. Especially
when we take into consideration, that many of the Mosaic laws
were directly designed to guard against the adoption of heathen
customs and practices, and to isolate the Hebrews as much as
possible from their surrounding idolatrous nations. (See more
on this subject, vol. i. 269 et seq^ We have had already occasion
to show upon what flimsy grounds some of the rationalistic
theories are foundpi, and this Egyptian origin theory of cir-
cumcision, does cei inly not rest upon any more solid basis.
It so happens that several of the classical writers, as Herodotus,
Strabo, and Diodorus Siculus, mention that circumcision wa.s
practised among the Egyptians, and immediately our modem
critics jump at the conclusion, that the Hebrews derived it from
that nation. They apparently never gave it a moment's thought,
that the Egyptians might have adopted it from the Hebrews,
and which no doubt is the case. It is true, that Herodotus
speaks of it as a custom ancient in his time, and as existing
among the Egyptians and Ethiopians, but then he lived more

PEOPLE S COMMENTAttY.

353

Icasion

[aliatic

)f cir-

basis.

|dotus,

was

lodern

from

kight,

jrews,

Idotus

[sting

than a thousand years after Moses, and after all he was not
sure whether the custom originated with the Egyptians or
Ethiopians, (ii. 104.) There is nothing in the writings of
these authors, or in the works of any other ancient writer, to
show that circumcision was practised before the time of Moses
by any other nation than the Hebrews, whilst, on the contrary,
the Egyptians and other nations are spoken of as uncircumci-sed
people, even in the time of the prophet Jeremiah, 'Behold," says
the pi-ophet, " the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish
all thevi which are circumcised with the uncircumcised ; Egypt
and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab,
and all that have the corners (or extremities) of their hair (or
locks) clipped,* that dwell in the wilderness : for all the nations
are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcistd
in heart." (ix. 25, 26.) Here the reader will perceive, "all
the nations " are declared to be uncircumcised, whilst " the
house of Israel " is said to be " uncircumcised in heart," that is
impure of heart.

Circumcision was evidently adopted among other nations
from the Hebrews, not from religious motives, but from th«.*
belief that it was a preventative of some virulent diseases.
Hence we find it practised among people who neither observe
any religious ceremonies, nor possess any moral feelings, such,
for instance, as the Troglodytes or cave chvellers. Philo Judjeus
distinctly declares that it prevents the painful disease of av6pa^
ca,rbiincle, and obviates some terrible disorders. Travellers
testifvalso to its beneficial effects amcmg Bu.shmen. Christian
missionaries, too, who have exerted themselves to the utmost
for its abolition among the Abyssinians, desisted when they
perceived the dangerous physical consequences arising from its
discontinuance. We find the custom in use, too, among the
Kafir nations of South Africa, and according to some travellers
it exists in some of the southern islands of the Indian Seas and
the Pacific Ocean, and also among some American tribes.
Through the Mohammedans, it spread among the Turks, Per-
sians, and Indians. It is estimated that even at the present
time, it is held in great veneration by no less than upwards of
150 millions of the earth's population, who regard all uncir-
cumcised persons as unclean, and look upon them with great
contempt. Very frequently there m»\y be seen en the cover of
thG Koran, the phrase : " Let the unclean (un-'rcumcised) not
touch it."

•The phrase nj!<£S "^SIlSp ^3 b5?T is in the Authorized Version wrongly
rendered " and all tliat are in the utmost corners " ; it is used here in conteni) i
of the Arabs of the desert, who make it a practice to clip the corners of the r
hair. Herodotus speaks of those Arabs as wearing; their hair cut in this manner.
The rendering in the Revised Version is similar to the one which I have given..

1^^ Ma

-J ;i

354

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

The mode and time of performing it, differs greatly among
those nations. Among the Hebrews the rite must be performed
on the eighth d.iy, and even should that day fall upon the
Sabbath. (Comj)are John vii. 22, 23.) The reason why the
lite was not to be performed before the eighth day, probably
was, because all newly born creatures were considered unclean
for .seven days, (see Lev. xii. 2, 3), and therefore could not be
offered to God. Hence no animal could be offered before it was
eight days old. (Com. Lev. xxii. 27.) At the time of circum-
cision the child received its name. On the day when the rite
is performed the Hebrews are accustomed to call the child " the
bridegroo:a of circumcision."

17. And Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in h>s
heart, Shall a child be born to one that is a hundred years old ? and
ttJuill Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear ?

The promise in the preceding verse that Sarah should bear
a son at her age was of such a stupendous nature that the aged
patiiarch fell in adoration upon his face, and his heart being
tilled with joy and astonishment he laughed. The context,
however, clearly shows that it was out of wonderment that he
laughed, and not out of incredulity, or ridicule as many com-
mentators explain. We know that laughter often springs from
veiy different emotions of the mind. A person, for instance,
suddenly surprised by the announcement of some good news is
ver}' apt to give vent to his excited feeling by laughter. "Ar\d
said in his heart," to say in one's heart, is an idiomatic expres-
sion, meaning to think or say to oneself. According to some
travellers, many of the savages of the Pacific ocean make use
of the plirase, " to speak in the belly," for to think.

18. And Abraham said unto God, that Ishmael might live before
thee !

The prayer " that Ishmael might live before thee !"
evidently implies that after the promise of a son bj* Sarah,
some fears regarding the wellare of Ishmael had risen up in
the mind of Abraham, and he prays theiefoie that he may live
and enjo}' the blessings promised him. We may remark that
the verb HTt (ohayah) to live, is sometimes used in the sense
to thrive, to prosper, so that the passage may be rendered " O
that Lshmael might prosper before thee." God will always
graciously receive the sincere and devout prayers of His
children, and now replied to Abraham :

19. And Cod said. Indeed, Sarah thy wife .shall bear thee a son ;
and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant
with him for an everlasting covenant, and tolth his seed after him.

people's commentary.

355

among
formed
ton the
hy the
:obably
unclean
not be
e it was
circum-
bhe rite
Id " the

id in hi 8
Id f and

lid bear

he aged

rt being

context,

that he

ny cora-

igs from

nstance,

news is

. "Ai\d

expres-

to some

ake use

e before

thee !"

Sarah,

up in

lay live

rk that

ke sense

red " O
lalwavs

)f His

a son ;
\oveiuiiit

20. And as for Ishmael, I /uive heard thee ; behold, I have blested
Mm, and I shall make him fruitful, and shall multiply him exceedingly;
iwelve princes shall he beget, and 1 sliall make him a great nation.

21. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall
■ hear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

" Behold I have blessed him ;" i. e., I will bless him. The
reader who may not be acquainted with the Hebrew modes of
expression, will do well to remember, that the sacred writers
very frequently speak of a future event in order to indicate abso-
lute certainty of its fulfilment as if already having taken place.
They see, as it were, with the prophetic eye the event already
transpiring. Thus in chap. xv. 18, "unto thy seed" "ip^fis
inathatti) I have given this land," i. e., I will give. Some of
the Rabbinical writers very properly remark, " He does not
^say, " I will give," but " I nave given ;" and yet Abraham has
as yet begotten no children. But because the luord of the holy
blessed God is a deed, therefore He speaketh in this manner."
^So also I Kings iii. 13.) "And I have given thee also that
which thou hast not asked," i. e., I will give. And so in many
other places. "And shall make him fruitful," &c. The
blessings bestowed on Ishmael were worldly blessings, he was
to grow into a numerous nation, no less than twelve princes
should descend from him. We have here the remarkable
coincident, that the son of Hagar is constituted the father of
twelve princes, just as Jacob the son of Isaac was the father of
twelve heads of tribes. In chap. xxv. 13, 14, 15, the names
of the twelve princes are given. "But my covenant shall be
with Isaac," the covenant of grace which was to last for ever,
is established with Isaac, by him should Abraham's seed be
called. (Chap. xxi. 12.) Among his descendants the true
worship of God was to be preserved. It has been well remarked,
that " the basis on which the future salvation of mankind was
to be erected, was not the transitory and cold glitter of worldly
greatness, but the eternal sunshine of truth."

But although the covenant was established with Isaac and
his seed after him, yet from the fact that it was commanded,
verse 13, that "every male child among you in your
generations ; who is born in the house or bought with money
of any stranger who is not of thy soil" was to be circumcised,
it is evident that strangers not lineal descendants of Abraham
"were received into the fellowship of the covenant In the
time of the Hebrew commonwealth, it was not compulsory on
strangers to receive the rite of circumcision as it was in tlie
times of the patriarchs, it was entirely left to their option.
" The strangers of the gate," were indeed obliged to oi«erve
what the Hebrews termed the seven laws of Noah, which we

i i'

<h X !

i -

i ■

I '

356

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

have already given, and by observing tliese laws, they securecT
to themselves certain legal and social advantages ; they were,,
however, barred from enjoying any spiritual privileges, which
could only be obtained by entering the covenant through

circumcision.

CHAPTER XVIII.

1. And the Lord appeared to him in the oak-grove of Mamre: and"
he was sitting in the tent-door in the heat oj the day.

A short time — according to Lightfoot, three months — after
the events recorded in the preceding chapter, the Almighty
manifested Himself again to Abraham. This manifestation is
perhaps the most remarkable recorded in the Old Testament, it
shows in the most striking manner in what great favour
Abraham stood with God, for He not only appeared to him^
but partook also of his hospitality — for we will immediately
show that one of the "three men" was Jehovah— -and after-
wards made known to him His intention of destroying Sodon>
and Gomorrah, just in the manner as a person would confide
to a friend some important undertaking which he is about ta
enter upon. The chief purpose of this manifestation was ta
convey to Sarah also the promise of a son which had
been made to Abraham alone. In the Authorized Version,.
!!<17a^ ""Dbfi^ {done Mamre) is again rendered "plains of Mamre,"
instead of "oaks" or "oak -grove of Mamre," in the Revi.sed
V^ersion, it is rendered " oaks of Mamre." When this manifes-
tation took place, the patriarch was sitting " in the tent-door
in the heat of the day." The intense heat during the middle of
the day in the eastern climes, compels the laborers and
travellers to rest during that time.

2. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, three men stood
ojyposite to him: and when he saw tbeni, he ran to meet them from the-
tent door, and bowed down to the ground.

"Three men stood iibjj (uluv) opposite to him"; in the-
Authorized Version it is rendered " stood by him," which, it-
will at once be seen, creates an incongruity, for if the men stood
"by" Abraham at the tent door where he had been sitting,,
how can i*^ be said that " he ran to meet them." The context
requires ■ 'y^ (ci/av) to be rendered here by " opposite to him,'"

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

357

•or " over against him," as in the Revised Version, and by most
•German translators, and which is quite admissible.* This ren-
dering removes the apparent inconsistency. When Abraham
saw the three men standing before him at a little distance;
and perceiving that they stood still, the aged patriarch with
genuine hospitality which is always the characteristic of pure
piety, eager to perform an act of kindness, i-an to meet the
«tr lingers, and begged them not to pass on until they had
refreshed themselves. The act of hospitality described in our
pa.s.sage, is quite in accordance with the prevalent practice
among Oriental nations, who have ever been distinguished for
their strict observance of this virtue. In the Old Testament
we find many similar instances recorded, as Genes, xix. 2 ;
Exod. ii. 20 ; Judg. xix. 16-21. The patriarch Job says :

The stranger did not lodge in the street ;

But I opened my doors to the traveller, — (Chap.

xxxi. 32.)

In the Mosaic law, hospitality is directly enjoined. (See
Lev. xix. 33 ; Deut. xiv. 29. In the New Testament, its obser-
vance is likewise enforced, (See Rom. xii. 13; 1 Tim. v. 10;
Heb. xiii. 2, 3 ; 1 Peter iv. 9-10.) The early Christians were so
■zealous in the discharge of this sacred dutj-, that even the
lieathens admired them for it. In the Rabbinical writings,
we find also great stress laid upon the exercise of this
virtue. As an example, we may quote a remark of Rabbi
Bechai, who sa3S, in his Commentary on the Pentateuch
-yiS p m^V i^'^DDDi^ n1S)3n prn^in is ^. e., " every one that
Keeps the laws of hospitality inherits paradise," In the Koran,
this great principle is also inculcated. In the fourth chapter
•there is the following command: "Show kindness unto parents
and relations, to orphans and the poor, to your neighbor who
is of kin to you, and also your neighbor who is a stranger, to
your familiar companions, and to the traveller," To the
scrupulous and strict observance of these precepts by the fol-
lowers of Mohammed the unanimous voice of all Oriental
rtravellers bears ample testimony. An Arab, on aiTiving at a
village, proceeds to the house of some one who is known to
him, and says to the master of the house : " I am your guest,"
"The host immediately welcomes the traveller, and sets before
him the best that his house affords. Should the traveller not
"have any acquaintances in the place, he dismounts at any
house, fastens his horse, and sits down to smoke his pipe until
the master of the house bids him welcome, and offers him his

•When the preposition 32? {al), the primary meaning of which is above, is
employed to denote a position, itm^y be rendered by, at, near, by, over against,
>or opposite to.

! 5t;

"^ff

t ';

358

people's commentary.

evening

meal. In the morning, the stranger proceeds on hi»
journey, and offers no other return for the hospitality ho had
received than the uoual parting salutation: "Goa be with you."^

The traveller Tavernier relates an act of hospitality extended
to his party, and which resembles the one of Abraham in our
passage. " We were not above a musket shot from Anna" (a
town and caravan station of Syria), says Mr. Tavernier, " when
we met with a comely old man, who came up to me, and, taking
my horse by the bridle, said : ' Friend, come and wash thy feet,
and eat bread at my house. Thou art a stranger ; and since I
have met thee upon the road, never refuse me the favor which.
I desire of thee.* We could not choose, but go along with him
to his house, where he feasted us in the best manner he could,,
giving us, over and above, barley for the horses, and for us hy
killed a lamb, and some hens." — Tavemier'a Travels.

Mr. Robinson, in his " Biblical Researches," likewise speaks
of acts of hospitality extended to his party. He says : " Being
now off the track of all former travellers, we came in contact
here with Oriental hospitality in its primitive and genuine
form. The villagers supplied us with every thing we desired ;
regarding it as an honor, and without expecting a recompense.
Such is the custom in all these mountains." Among the
Hindoos, hospitality is also practised in a liberal manner. They
not ordy extend it to their friends and to the stranger, but nofv
unfrequently even to their enemies, saying, " the tree does not.
withdraw its shade even from the wood-cutter."

3. And Jte said. Lord, if now I have found favour in Thine eyes^
past not away, I pray Thee, from Thy servant.

" And he said. Lord." It is evident that Abraham must have
perceived that one of the " three men " was the Lord, for he
addresses Him by the title iDifi< {A donai) Lord, and is, no*

doubt, the same who, in verse 10, makes the promise, and is ia
verses 13, 14, called mn"' («/ie/toytt/i), Authorized Version, LoRD^

4. Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and
recline under the tree.

" And wash your feet," that is, have them washed : for this
office was commonly performed by servants and slaves, and not
by the guests themselves. When David sent servants to
Abigail to bring her that he might take her to wife, she humbly
answered, " Behold let thine handmaid be a servant to wash
the feet of the servants of my lord." (1 Sam. xxv. 40-41.)
The washing of the feet of guests forms the most grateful part
of hospitality among the Orientals, as the sandals worn by
them only protect the soles, the feet soon become scorched and

people's commentary.

3:>«)

covered with dust. Indeed, no covering can effectually proteot
the feet from the fine dust of the desert, which, with the pi r-
spiration produces a most annoying irritation upon the skin,
from which, next to the allaying of the thirst, travellers are
desirous to relieve themselves.

5. /Lnd I will fetch a morsel of breads and comfort ye your heard* ;
after that ye may pass on, since ye liave come over to your servant.
A nd they said, iSo do, as thou hast said.

" A morsel of bread," that is, a morsel of food. The Hebrevv s
employed Qnb (lechem), bread, to express any kind of food. Jt
is even several times employed in the Old Testament to express
food for animals. Thus Job xxiv. 5 : " The wilderness yieldc'h
them Qnb (lechem), food for their young ones." It is for the
young of the wild ass. (See also Is. Ixv. 25.) The patriaidi
endeavours to make his hospitality appear as unostentatious
as possible, and says, " a little water," " a morsel of bread," he
does not wish them to think that he is going to any trouble on
their account. " And comfort ye your hearts," more literally
" sustain," or " strengthen your hearts. " Since ye have come
over to your servant " ; '.n this passage the phraseology of tht?
words "IS i3? "^3 is not very clear, but the meaning of the pas-
sage obviously is, since your journey has led you to pass this
way. The rendering given in the Authorized Version, " for
therefore are ye come to your servant," and which has also
been adopted by many Commentators, leads to the supposition
that they had come for the purpose to be entertained, which is
altogether against the context. It would hardly have been
polite, not to say unbecoming, on the part of Abraham, to press
the strangers to partake of his hospitality, and immediately
afterwards telling them, that they had come for the purpose of
being entertained. In cases where the phraseology is doubt-
ful, we must be altogether guided by the context.

6. And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, Make
ready quickly three seahs of jine Jlour, hmad it, and make cakes.

We have in this verse, and the two following verses, a beau-
tiful and faithful Oriental picture, it has been verified by all
Eastern travellers as being exact in every particular. Abraham
asked Sarah, his wife, and not one of the many maid servants
of his household, to make cakes. Now the baking of bread or
cakes is one of the first accomplishments of Eastern females of
the higher as well as the lower classes, and they especially
pride themselves in their expertness in making pastry. The
■wife of the mightiest and proudest sheikh does not consider it
beneath her dignity to knead and bake bread with her own

\' :■;'

nco

PEOPLE S COMMENTAUY.

it^ Mil

liands, oHpocinlly wlion the Hameis wanted forgucMts. Accord-
ing to 2 Sam. xiii. 6-10, the princess Tamar seems to have bct^n
expcit in Iwikin^ cakes, and readily consented to perform this
meni.il service, when requested to do so. " Throe seahs," a Bt^ah
contMJiiH ulioiit two gallons and a half of liquid measure, or n
pock, dry measure. Some critics have deemed the quantity of
fiour hei (• ordered to be used as too excessive. " Three pecks of
ri(»nr," they wiy, "to be used for three per.sons, is altogether
uniensou.hle." But here again those critics have evidently
not troubled themselves to inquire what may havo l)een the
custom of the country, and of those times. Now the fact is, it
appeai\s to have been the custom for hosts, if they wished to
.show special honor to guests, to set before them portions far
l)(\>oud what they were able to consume. We have a striking
example of this in the portion which Joseph sent to Benjamin,
which was " five times as much as any of the portions of all
the rest." (Ch. xliii. 34.) The large portions were also a sign
to the guests that they were cheerfully and not grudgingly
entcutained. Some writers have supposed, too, that " a part of
the cakes may have been intended to be taken as provision on
their journey."

7. Ant Ahrnham ran to the herd, and fetched a calf, tender and
good, and gave it to a young man ; and he hastened to dress it.

The patriarch was determined to entertain his guests with
the choicest things that his household afforded. He therefore
himself selected the best and most tender calf of his flocks, and
having done this, he gave it to a servant to make it ready for
the table. In choosing a calf Abraham displayed a liberality
which is now seldom practised among the Arabs and Turks,
who generally kill either a himb or kid, considering a calf as
altogether too extravagant The animal killed at such unex-
pected visits is, whilst it is yet warm, at once roasted before the
file ; and the Orientals consider the meat thus immediately
cooked after the killing, much more tender and better tasting
than if it were kept for some time.

8. And he took hutter, and milk, and the calf lohich he had dressed,
and set it before them, and he stood by them under the tree ; and they
did eat.

We have here a faithful picture of a Bedouin repast, such as
would be furnished at this day by an Arabian chief in enter-
taining guests. Both butter and milk are freely used by the
Ai-abians. The Bedouins are veiy fond of putting a lump of
butter on the meat, and allowing it to melt. Traveller speak of
the Arabs being highly amused in seeing Europeans spreading

people's commentaht.

8G1

the butter on the bread, and in order to show the proper way
•of using it, would break oft' a small bit of bread, anci heap upon
it as large a lump ot butter as it would hold, and eat it with
the greatest relish. Milk is abundantly used among all noma-
dic tribes, both in cooking and drinking. It is proper to state
lieie, that the Hebrew word, nx)3n (chemah) winch I have
rendered " butter," primarily denotes thick or curdled milk,
hence it is used in Scripture to <lenote sour milk, cream, butter,
or cheese, and it is only by the context that wo can distinguish
which of these meanings it has in any given passage. " Butter"
is, no doubt, the proper rendering in our verse, though Kalisch
and some othere, have renderetl it " sour milk." " And he
stood by them," that is, he .<?erved them. So the sheiks, at the
present day, stand when they entertain distinguished guests,
and attend to them.

unex-
)re the
liately

isting

Iresged,
[d they

ich as
lenter-
:>y the
Imp of
leak of
lading

9. A nd they said unto him, Where is Sarnh thy wife f And he aaid,
Behold, in the tent.

10. And lie eaid, I shall surely return unto thee, at *the returniny
season; and, behold, Sarah thy wife loill have a son. And Sarah heard
it in the tent door, and it was behind Ilim.

This visit of the three heavenly beings, as we have already
stated, was intended for Sarah, rather than for Abraham, in
order to convey to her also the promise of a son, which had
previously been made to Abraham alone ; and hence the first
inquiry of the guests is : " Where is Sarah thy wife " ? Being
told that she was in the tent, which was so near to the tree
that she could easily hear what was said, the one whom
Abraham had addressed as ''515^ (Adonai) Lord, renews the
promise that Sarah should have a son " at the returning season."
•" And it," i. e., the door, was behind him who spoke.

12. And Sarah laughed vjithin herself, saying. After 1 am waxed
■old shall J have pleasv,re f and my lord being old also.

"And Sarah laughed." Abraham when the promise was
made to him, laughed for joy, but Sarah's laughter arose from

*The phrase riTT tl53 (caeth chaiifnh) which [ have rendered "at the
returning season," is peculiar, and has therefore j/iren rise to different render-
ings. In the Authorized Version, it is rendered, "according to the time of
life," but this rendering is not admissible as HTl (chaiyah) is the feminine
adjective of in {chai) Vivimj or remving. The meaning obviously is, when the
time or waton is reviving again, i. e. , returning again. This is placed beyond a
-doubt by comparing verse 14, where the phrase occurs again, but where the

explanatory word 13?i73b (fammoed), " at the appointed time " is added. Now
which was " the appointed time " ? The answer is found in ch. xvii. 24, where
^we have it more fully and more explicitly expressed, " at this set time in the
year. " The conclusion of the covenant with Abraham, and the promise made
to Sarah were nearly contemporary.

Cti

362

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

1. !i

i. 'I

ni;i

'ilP':

\r i

lilii

incredulity, she regarded the accomphshment of such a promise
under the circumstances as an impossibility. " My lord being^
old also" Sarah calling her husband " my lord," does not
imply a slavish dependency such as Eastern ladies are now
subjected to by their husbands, which never prevailed among
the ancient Hebrews, but respect and high regard ; and the
apostle Peter records it to her honor, and as an example to all
married womeu. (1 Peter iii. 6.) The Hebrews, seem to have
used ^|3^i^ (adoni) n.y lord, as an honorary address to any one

to whom reverence and honor are due. As for instance, a child
addressinga father (see ch. xxxi, 35) ; or addressing a brother
(see Lev xii. 11).

13. And the Lord said to Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh ^
saying, Shall I indeed hear a child, since I am old ?

The reader will perceive from " Lord " being printed in
capitals, that in tltfe original mn'' Jehovah is employed, which
at once places it beyond a doubt, that one of the guests wa»
Jehovah, aui which is further attested in the sequel of the
chr.pter. It v'.';.s probably not customary for ladies to be pre-
sent when strangers were entertained, and this would account
for the question being put to Abraham, Sarah having not yet.
come in the presence of the guests.

14. Is anything loo di^cuU for the LoRi> ] At the appointed time-
I shall return again to thee, at tlie returniiiy^of the season, and Sarah
shall have a son.

Here again we have a display of God's merciful dealing with
his erring children. Sarah's unbelief demanded a reproof in
order that it might be dispelled. But the reproof was of the
mildest nature possible, simply reminding her that there is noth-
ing too difficult, or according to th* luore literal rendering too
wonderful or extraordinary for the Almighty to perfonn. It
would be well, that our modern disbelievers in the miracle;? of
Sciripture, would ponder well over the question here put to
Abraham, 'Is there any thing too wondeiiui for the Lord ?" It
declares, in unmistakable language, that the Author of the laws
of nature is able to suspend those laws if He will, and that the
teaching of science in the cases of miracles, must give way to
the ieaching of JScripl/ure

15. l%en Sarah denied, saying, I did v«t laugh ; for she was
afraid. And lie said. Nay ; thou didst laugh.

From the language in verse 13, Sarah must have perceived
that He who uttered it was a discerner of the secrets of the

people's commentary.

36a

heart, and that nothing is hidden from Him, and yet, instead.
of humbly confessing her guilt, or even attempting to exten-
uate her conduct, out of fear of punishment, she positively
denied that she had laughed. And so it has indeed ever been.-
How rarely do we find any one having done wrong ready to
acknowledge it, but rather seeking to escape the consequences
by strenously denying it, or if that is not possible, endeavouring
to justify the act. Thus one sin seldom comes alone. Although
Sarah had aggravate 1 her oftence by adding to her incredulity
a direct falsehood, yet God is ever "gracious and merciful, slow
to anger, and of great kindness," and merely corrected her,.
" Nay ; thou didst laugh." After this reproof we hear nothing
more of Sarah's unbelief, but on the contrary, St. Paul includes,
her among those who were distinguished for their faith. (Heb.
xi. 11.)

After the repast was finished the heavenly guests rose up
and proceeded on their journey towards Sodom, and Abraham,,
as it was customai-y, accompanied his guests some distance on
their way. It seems to have formed a part of Oriental hospi-
tality to accompany guests a short distance on leaving. It
inilicated not only that they had been welcome, but also that
their company afforded pleasure. In the New Testament it is
in several pi ices enjoined as a duty. (See Rom. xv. 24 ; 3 John
6 ; Acts XX. 38.)

17. And the Lord (Jehovah) said, Shall I hidejrom Abraham tliat
which I do;

Here it will be .seen that one of the heavenly beings is again
spoken of as " Jehovah," and it is He who discloses to Abraham
Wjiat He purposes to do. If we turn to verse 22, we find that
the two angels went on their way to Sodom, whilst Abraham
reinained standing before Jehovah to intercede for the inhabi-
tants of Sodom, and, according to ch. xix. 1, only two angels-
came to Sodom in the cening. " Shall I hide from Abraham ? "
that is, I will surely not hide. According to the Hebrew idiom,
when in the speaker's opin/on the answer to a question should
be in the negative, the interrogation has then the force of a
positive negatkm Thus ch. iv. 9, " Avi I my brother's keeper ? '*
meaning, I am surely not. Also Job iv. 17, " Sliall nioi'tal man
bt! more just than God?" meaning, surely, morial man is not
more just tiian God. And so in very many other places ; the
reader would, therefore, do well to bear this idiom in mind.
" ^nd the Lord naid,"' not to Abraham, but to Himself, similar
to ch. viii, 21, This verse and the two ensuing verses may,
therefoi'e, be regarded as forming a Divine soliloquy.

'"WP"

364

people's commentary.

ii! :^'

i =:t

" I;

18. Seeing that AbraJkam voiU surely become a great and mighty
nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed in him !

What unspeakable condescension we have here on the part of
Jehovah, the Creator of the universe in disclosing to Abraham
what he was about to do. But God had just concluded a cove-
nant with liini, by which he was constituted the heriditary
possessor of the land, and a blessing to all the nations of the
earth, he was consequently deeply interested in the impending
fate of the doomed cities and its numerous inhabitants. God,
therefore, being mindful of His covenant, afforded Abraham an
opportunity to plead for these wicked cities, that he might
become convinced that the awful punishment was founded on
the strictest justice.

1 9. For I have chosen him, that he might command his children
•aiul his household after him, that they should keep tite way of the
Lord, to do justice and judgment ; that the Loud might bring upon
Abraham that xohich He hath spoken of him.

This verse is closely connected with Jhe preceding, and
assigns the reason why Abraham will become a mighty nation
and a source of blessing to all the world, tor as our verse tells
us, the Lord had chosen him to be the spiritual father of all
nations of the earth, that he might instruct his descendants to
keep the ways of the Loid and walk in the paths of righteous-
ness.

" For I have chosen him," in the Authorized Version it is
rendered, " For I know him," which is certainly according to
the primary meaning of the verb JTi {yada} to know. But
this verb, like most Hebrew verbs, has various shades of mean-
ings, and most modern connnentators have taken the verb here
in the sense to choose or elect, which certainly is more suitable
to the context. It is so used again, for instance, in Amos iii. 2 :
*' You only in3?"Ti (yadati) I have chosen of all the families of
the earth." The rendering in the Revised Version is rather
ambiguous. " For I have known him, to the end that he may
command."

20. And the Loud said, Tlte cry of Sodom and Go orrah *indeed
is great, aiul their sin indeed is very grievous.

" The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah," does not, as some com-
mentators explain merely mean, the report of the wickedne&s

*The particle '3 is freiiucatly useil t(i introduce a statement with special
emphaaia, ami then takes the signitiuation of huleetl, truly, or verihj. As, for
example, Isa. vii. 9, "if ye will not hclieve, "13 truly, ye shall not be
estfiblished,''

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

365-

tiu

leed

of those cities, but rather, the cry for vengeance. So chap. iv.
10, the blood of Abel is crying from the ground for ven-
geance. The expression means, a moral demand for punish-
ment. Although only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned ,^
yet it is evident, from Deut. xxix. 23, that the two other
neighbouring cities were also destroyed. Perhaps these two
cities exceeded the others in wickedness, and are, therefore,
particularly mentioned.

21. T toill godovni noio, and see whether they have done altogether
according to the cry of it, vjhich is came unto me ; ^and if not, J will
know.

As God is omnipresent and omniscient ; the language in our
verse must not be taken in a literal sense, but is merely
employed to teach in the most lucid and impressive manner,,
that God's judgments are based upon the strictest justice. He
is, therefore, represented as coming down to make Himself strict
inquiries whether the wickedness of those cities is really as
great as the cry for vengeance indicates. It brings before us,^
also, in a most vivid manner, our absolute duty to make the
most careful and searching inquiries before we condemn any
one, In our days, we are unfortunately inclined to give too
readily credence to mere report.

23. And Ahaham drew near and said, Wilt thov also destroy the
righteous with the wicked ?

24. Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city : wilt Thou
aho destroy, and not sjjare the place for the fifty that are therein.

After the two angels had proceeded on their way towards
Sodom, Abraham, not unmindful that he was but " dust and
ashes," meekly drew near to the' Judge of the whole earth to
intercede for those wicked cities. And it has been well observed
that " here commences the most remarkable instance of human
intercession to be met within the revealed word of God, in
which the faithfuhiess of Abraham and his near access to
the throne of grace, the astonishing love of kindness ami
forbearance of the great Jehovah, are painted in colours which
the pencil of uninspired mortality dare not imitate." Abraham,
it will be seen, was not influenced in his intercession by any

•The phrase (iS'li^ li^b Qi^l ('w/m h tdaah), may bo rendered, " and if
lot I will take cognizance of it." The verb Sl"^ {!/<"f"), <'■» ^'nou; is sometimes,
employed v ith tiio accessory signification, to talc c^Kjuhance. Thus, for instance,

Pa. i. 6 : "For nin" JHT {!l(»l''</i Jehovah], the Lord Inoweth," that ia,
takes coijuhntice " of thf way of the righteous," in order to reward it. " but tl e
way of the wicked shall perish." Ju our verse it means, ' I will take cogni-
zance," and act accordingly.

i ,1 *,■ .; ,

■l

!' ' i

366

people's commentary.

;}! ill I '^

..J

^^^0911 ii

■I^^^H V

iS^^) '11H V

wMfflgl js^K ^ t

r 1 - ' nH i

Ir^ ^ 1 ''^Ib '

ii - 1 'i ' ' ;3I '

b||. 1^1

■1

IP I^V^

selfish motives. He knew that his kinsman Lot was living in
Sodom, yet he does not even mention his name. He was
actuated in his intercession solely by what he regarded to be
an act of justice, that the righteous might not indiscriminately
sutler with the wicked. He does, therefore, not appeal so
much to God's mercy as to His attribute of Divine justice.
There is no plea made that the evil deeds of the inhabitants
might go unpunished, for the pious patriai'ch knew well, that
God is a " God of vengeance," and " a jealous God," and who
will " by no means span, the guilty," but merely that the cities
might be spared for the sake of the few who may be found in
them who had not forsaken the paths of righteousness. From
the communication which God made to Abraham, in verse
20, he no doubt become fully impressed with the fearful
state of depravity that must exist in those cities. Yet he
charitably hoped that in such a populous city as Sodom there
might at least be found fifty righteous persons ; and, therefore,
began his plea based upon that number. And here we mu.st
observe, that the other cities were noo excluded from the inter-
cession, but their fate was made dependent on the number of
r^gh'oeous persons found in Sodom as being the leading city,
tind hence that city is only mentioned. The ardent sympathy
which had sprung up in the heart of ihe good patriarch,
aroused in him a fear that after all there might not be found
in Sodom even fifty righteous persons, and encouraged by the
readiness with which God yielded to his petition, he ventui-ed
to reduce the number to forty-fivo. His great anxiety for the
righteous, and seeing also that the Lord readily granted his
last request, emboldened him to reduce tlie number still moie,
and now prayed that tiie city might be spared if only forty
righteous be found in it, and this request being also graciously
granted, he continued his intercession until the number was
reduced to ten. When this insignificant number was reached,
Abraham ceased his intercession ; so that it has been truly said,
that " Abraham was tired asking before God was tired grant-
ing." The destruction of the wicked cities which immediately
followed, proves that not even ten righteous i^ersons could l>e
found in Sodom.

The narrative of Abraham's intercession teaches some very
important lessons. In the first place we learn lioni it, how
iiifjhly the righteous are esteemed in the sight of God, and
what blessings they may be to the country or the place where
they live. Had only ten righteous persons been found in
Sodom, God would, for their sake, have spared it and the other
cities wiiich shared in its fate. In the second place it teaches
in the clearest manner the ej[flcacy of intercessory prayer, if
humbly and devoutly oflfered up. As deeply steeped in sin as

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

367

Sodom was, yet Abraham had all his prayers granted ; " I will
not destroy it for the sake of the ten," was God's gracious
answer to the last of the six intercessory prayers. And thirdly,
it brings before us in a marked manner the duty of interces-
sory prayer. If Abraham, as a perfect stranger, fervently
interceded in behalf of a guilty city, whose destruction could
by no possibility have injured him, does it not become our
<luty to intercede for our country, city, relatives, and friends.
The neglect of praying for others is spoken of (1 Sam. xii. 23),
as sinning against God ; " God forbid," says Samuel, *' that I
should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you." (See
also Luke xi. 8-13.)

3.3. And th^ Lord departed lolien He hail finished to speak with
Ahrahor.u : and AbraJiam returned to his piace.

" And the Lord departed," not to go to Sodom, but disap-
peared, rendered in the Chaldee Version : " The glory of the
Loud was lifted up.'"

»f 'i

CHAPTER XIX.

1. And the two anrfels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was
sitting in the gate of Sodom : and xohen Lot sn'M? them, he rose up to
meet tliem ; and he bowed himself with his face to the ground.

" And Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom," We have
ab'eady stated that in ancient times the gates of a city were
used as places of public resort. There the citizens assembled
('or conversation and social intercourse. There also justice was
administered. Hence the expression in the gate often means
in court or before the tribunal. (See Deut. xxv. 7 ; Prov. xxii.
22.) "Gate" is sometimes used for assembly v>r concourse
itself; thus Ruth iii. 11, "all the gate of my people," i. e., all
the concourse of my people " doth know that thou art a
virtuous woman." The gates were also used as market places.
The gates being used as places of public assembly, wiT account
for the Mosaic ordinance, that parts of the law should be writ-
ten on the gate. (Deut. vi. 9 ; xi. 20.) This was intended to
remind those who assejnbled there of their religious duties, and
probably also to indicate to sti'angers that may enter that the
city belonged to God. As the gates would not hold many
people, spacious open places near them were reserved, furnished
with seats for the use of the public.

r ■ I !u

3C8

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

, '1

^ i

Lot did not wait until the strangers had come up to the gate-
to offer his hospitality, but like Abrnham, he went to meet
them, and respectfully saluted them. Modern travellers men-
tion that the Arabs regard it as an honour to entertain strangers,
and they very often contend with one another for the honor.
(See Burckhardt's Bed. p. 280 ; Tavernier's Travels, B. i. 1 25.)
The angels at first refused to accept Lot's hospitality, "Nay,
but we will abide in the street over night," they said, this wa»
evidently to prove his character, to see whether nis proffered
hospitality was really sincere, and what anxiety he would
evince for their safety. They did not refuse, as some writer*
have explained, in order that they might more readily observe
the conduct of the inhabitants ; for in that case, they would
not have yielded to Lot's entreaty. Besides, as God's messen-
gers, they already possessed all the information regarding the
fearful depraved state of the Sodomites. Lot showed his great
anxiety for the safety of the strangers, should they persist in
their determination to remain in the street all night, by the
urgent manner he repeated his invitation : "He pressed upon
them greatly." His conduct showed him worthy of the honor to
be the host of God's me.sst'ngcrs, eind the angels yielded to hia
earnest solicitations, " and entered into his house." " And
he made them a feast." Lot's entertainment apparently differed
from Abraham's, which was a genuine Bedouin entertainment,
whilst Lots seems to have been more of a regular feast. The
term ntTffi?3 {TttisJiteh) employed in the original is derived from
n£TSJ (shathah), to drink; hence its primary meaning is <t
(IrinJcing. (Comp. Est. v. G ; vii. 7.) But frequently also used
in the sense of a /easi or havquet. Thus Abnim when Isaac
was weaned, made " ^"n^ nriTT^ " (misktch gadol), " a great
feast." (Ch. xxi. 8.) So Isaac made nniTTa (mishteh) "n feast"
to Abimelech and his officers, "and they ate and drank." (Ch.
xxvi. 2G, 30. See also ch. xxix. 32. Judges xiv. 12; Est. i. 3,
ch. V. 4.)

The sacred narrative next proceeds to recount an occurrence
which at once shows the awful depravity of the Sodomites.
Before the strangers had laid down, the inhabitants of the city,
not the young and tlioughtless only, but the old as well, from
every quarter of the city, came and surrounded Lot's dwelling,
clamouring that the strangers should be surrendered to them,
so that they might deal with them as they pleased. The
.shameiessness with nhich they openly declared their iniquitous
"design, clearly establi.shes tlie fact that the inhabitants wei'e
habitually addicted to the commission of the most abominable
and revolting crimes — crimes such as ought never to have
entered the mind of any human being. And yet they were so
commonly indulged in by the idolatrous people at that time.

peopj.k's commentary.

960

the gate
to meet
Brs raen-
trangers,
le honor.
B.i. 125.)
T, "Nay,
this wa»
proffered
le would
B writers.
r observe
ey would
i messen-
rding the
his t'reat
Dersi.st in.
t, b\- the
hSfcd u})on
honor to
ed to hia
" " And
Y differed
Lainnient,
ist. The
^ed from
ing is (t
also used
en Isaac
' a great
a feast"
." (Ch.
Est. i. 3,

currence
domites.
the city,
ell, from
[welling,
lo thein,
II. The
liquitous
Its were
Iminable
:o have
Iwere so
Lit time.

that it become even necessary to mention them among the
Mosaic prohibitory laws. (See Lev. xviii.j Let those writers
and lecturers who merely look at the punishment without
also inquiring whether it was not well merited, calmly and
impartially consider the conduct of the Sodomites as recorded in
the sacred narrative, and we feel assured, unless prejudice con-
trols their judgment, they will heartily acquiesce in the senti-
ment contained in the following lines:

" For who that remembers the tale of transgression,
Or thinks upon Sodom, would mourn for her dead ?
No ; heaven too long slighted, compels the confession,
That just was her judgment, though awful and dread."

The prophet Isaiah, in speaking of the godless men among
the Israelites, says :

* " The show of their countenance doth witness against them ;

And they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. — (Is. iii. 9.)

6. A nd Lot toent out to them before the door, and shut the door after

hiuiself.

7. And said, I pray you, brethren, do not act vnckedly.

8. Behold, I pray you, 1 have two daughters who have not known
a man ; I will, I pray you, bring thein out to you, and you may do to
t/tem as is good in your eyes : only to these men do nothing ; for
therefore they came under the shadoic of my roof.

Lot's conduct in fearlessly going out to the turbulent
Sodomites at whose hands he had little mercy to expect, and
by kind words endeavouring to dissuade them from their wicked
purpose, is highly praiseworthy, but when he resorts to the
expedient by offering to surrender nis two daughters as a sub-
stitute for his guests to the wilful pleasure of the abandoned
Sodomites, his action admits of no justification, and can only
be spoken of in terms '.j( the strongest reprobation. It was
indeed his duty to do all in his power to protect the strangers
to whom he had extended his hospitality, but whilst it was
proper for him to have due re<.(ard for the sacredness of the
rites of hospitality, he had no right to forget the sacred duties
of a father towards his daughters. He had no right to resort
to an evil in order to avert another evil. After all justifiable
means had proved unsuccessful, he should have left the issue
to God, trusting in His protection. Whilst we, however, are
ready to condemn in severest terms Lot's abominable otter, it
is at the same time but just that we should not overlook the

* This does not mean, that their looks betray them, but that they make no
eflfort to conceal their evil deeds.

370

people's commrntauv.

II 'iS

W ;i(ri'

» :...■

exceedingly trying position he was placed in. Having pressed
the strangers to accept his hospitality, he was in duty, as well
as according to custom, bound to protect them from harm, and
fearing lest they might suspect him of treachery, he may, in
order to assure them of his ><incerity, have made the outrageous
proposition. To this we may add that he was probably at the
time labouring under great excitement, and was hardly con-
scious of what he was saying: the vindication of his honour,
and the safety of his guests engrossing all his thoughts. We
all know, that in an excited state of mind, we are apt to say
things which we are afterwards heartily sorry to have uttered.
Scripture furnishes several examples of extravagant utterances
made under excited feelings. Thus Reuben, in order to obtain
his father's consent to let his lavourite son Benjamin accom-
pany his brethren into Egypt, says : " Thou maj'est kill my two
sons, if I do not bring him to thee." (Chap. xlii. 37.) Another
instance we have in Jephthah's extraordinary vow. (Judg. xi.
30, 31.) Lot, in entreating the Sodomites to desist from their
wicked design, appeals to the sacred laws of hospitality, " for
therefore they came under the shadow of my roof" ; that is,
they accepted my hospitality, on the understood condition,
that their safety would be guaranteed by doing so. But the
lawless Sodomites had no respect even for the generally pre-
vailing laws of hospitality, but becanie only more turbulent
and determined.

9. And they said, stand back. And they said, This one came to
sojourn among us, and he continually acteth as a judge : now we shall
deal worse with thee than with them. And they pressed sore upon the
man, upon Lot, and came near to break the door.

The phrase tSBIS tOBtD"'"? {'waiyishpot ahaphot) may either
be rendered, " he continually judge'-," or " acts as a judge," or
"he indeed acts as a judge," in either case the words imply
that Lot had made it a practice to remonstrate vith them
about their wicked doings, but as the result shows all his moral
remonstrances were of no avail, but on the contrary, according
to our verse, it made them only more determined. It is impos-
sible to sa}' what would have been Lot's fate in the hands of
those enraged and abandoned Sodomites had not the angels by
a miracle saved him. " They smote the men who were at the
door with blindness," so that they were unable to find the
door. The Hebrew word *n"'"l"D'^ (sanwerim) blindness, here

*D^"n!5D {sanwerim) probably denotes blindness produced by supernatural
agency, whilst "ITl^J? {ivvOaron), Deut. xxiii. 28, denotes blindness, arising

from natural causes. This supposition is favoured by the former word
being in both cases where it occurs, used in reference to blindness produced
8up<:rnaturally.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

371

imply

them

s moral

ording

irapos-

nds of

els by

at the

nd the

is, here

Irnatttral
arising

Br word
nrodttcecl

employed, occurs only once more, namely, in 2 Kings vi. 18,
where in answer to the prayer of Elisha, the Syrian army was
smitten with blindness.

The word in our verae is evidently not used in the sense of
actual blindness, but rather in the sense of a confined vision,
such as objects swimming before their eyes, which they in vain
would strive to seize. This supposition is favored by the
word having the plural form, and also by its being said, " and
they wearied themselves to find the door." Had they been
smitten with total blindness, they would at once have desisted
to attempt to break the door, but our verse says, that they
continued eagerly to look for the door until they had exhausted
their strength and patience.

12. And tike men said to Lot, [last thou here any one besides ?
son-in-law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou ftast
in the city, briny them out of this place :

From the supernatural power manifested by the strangers,
Lot must have already perceived that they were no ordinary
human beings. But his guests themselves now informed him
tnat they were messengers sent from God to destroy the city
on account of its wickedness, and directed him to remove any
one belonging to him out of the doomed place. There is
nowhere, any mention made of Lot having sons. If he had,
they must have perished among the inhabitants of the city, for
certainly none weut out with their father. Although the sons-
in-law, as the sequal proved, were no better than the other
Sodomites, yet, for Lot's sake, deliverance was otfered to them.

14. And Lot went out, and spoke to his sons-in-law who had taken
his daughters, and said, Arise, go out of this place; for the Lord toill
destroy the city. But he appeared in tlia eyes of his sons-in-law as
one that mocked.

" And Lot went out," it must hare been in the night that
Lot went to the houses of his sons-in-law to inform them of
the impending catastrophe, and to entreat them to save them-
selves by leaving the doomed city. We may reasonably sup-
pose that he related to them all that had transpired at his
house, and how he had obtained the information, and his com-
ing at such an unwonted time, would at once indicate the
urgency of the case. But his godless sons-in-law would not
listen to the voice of warning, or be moved by his earnest solici-
tation, though coming from one who was deeply interested in
their welfare. They, on the contrary, looked upon him as if
he were merely jesting ; they bad become so hardened and
bliiideil in their iniquitous practices, that they did not believe

372

people's commentary.

i>'y

r ,

;| i:

(I «!

H-^i

in any judgment of God. " It is all very well," they probably-
said to tlujiiisc'lveH, " for an old man to believe such t'oolisli
tales from trnvelling stran<rer.s, but tlu-y will not do for us.
What, destroy this city and busy inhabitants by a fire from
lieaven V lmpo.ssiblei Mere childish bugbear! We have
been eating and drinking, buying and selling, and we shall no
doubt continue to do so." " Who had taken his daughters ;"
n the oi'iginal it is lif^Sli TIpb {jokeche benotkav) takers of his

daughters; and may therefore mean, those "who had taken his
daughters," or " who were about to take his daughtei's ;" the
latter rendering is adopted by Josephus, in the Vulgate, Luther's
German Version, and by very many rrtodern commentators ;
whilst the former rendering is given in the Septuagint, the
Targums, and also by a great many modern interpreters.
Similarly also, in tbe Authori/.ed Version, " whicb had married
his daughters." From what is said in ver.se 15, " and the two
daughters JTli^lS^Dn {hannimzaoth) lit. that are found," i. e.,
who are here, it would appear that there were other daughters
who were not present, who had allowed themselves to be influ-
enced by their husbands, to pay no attention to their father's
entreaties.

15. And when the viorniuff arose, then the am/els hastened Lot, sai/-
intj, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daiujhters, who are here; lest thou
be destroyed in the iniquity of the city.

God in his infinite mercy had long suffered the godless
people of Sodom and of the three neighbouring cities to indulge
in their abominations, and thus afforded them an opportunity
to turn from their evil ways, but they became only more and
more hardened in sin, and their wickedness had now reached
such a point as to call for immediate punishment. The
appointed hour of visitation had now arrived, and when the
dawn (not the sun) arose upon the doomed cities, the angels
urged liot on to leave the place lest he be " destroyed in the
iniquity of the city," that is, in the punishment of the city.
" Iniquity " is in Scripture .sometimes used for the punishment
of the iniquity. Thus, ch. iv. 13, " My punishment (Heb. t'yys
aivoni, my iniquity,) is greater than I can bear."

16. Jiut he lingered : and the men seized his hand, and the hand of
his wife, and the Imnd qf his two daughters, the mercy of the Lord })eing
upon him : and tliey brought him out, and set him loithout tJie city>

Most commentators ascribe Lot's lingering to his being
reluctant to leave his home and earthly goods ; thus, for
example, Keil and Delitzsch, " he, still delayed, his heart evi*
dently clinging to the earthly home and possessions which he

'«

•robably
I t'oolisli
for us.
re from
J'o have
shall no
gliters ;"
rs of k'lH

ikeu his
rs ;" the
Lutlier's
(ntators ;
ginfc, the
rpreters.
married
the two
k1," i. e.,
aughters
be inHu-
■ father's

! Lot, say-
; lest thou

godless

indulge
)rtunity
lore and

reached
^t. The
'hen the
angels
[d in the
[he city.
lishment

eb. 13-13?

fi/tnd of
)HD being
citt/i

IS being

lus, for

rt evi*

Ihich he

PEOPLK .S COMM KNTARY.

373

'wras oV)liged to leave." We think, howev* r, it would be just
as reasonable, and certainly more eluiritable, to suppose, that
Lot delayed in the liope of his sons-in-law having, during the
niglit, taken a more seiious view of the information he gavo
them, and had resolved to leave the city with him.

17. And it cninc to pass, trhen they had hroiight thevi forth without
the city, that Hi' sold, J'jKrnjieJ'iir thy life ; look not hvhiiid thn< ; nor
stay ill all the district ; escape to the vwnntaiti, lest thou he destroyed.

The reader will here perceive the sud<len ehnngc from the
plural to the singular, " wdien they had brought them forth, Ho
said." It would appear from this and from the context, that
God is speaking, who had again joined the angels, and hence
we find Lot addressing Him, v. 18, i^li^ {Adoimi) " Lord, and

according to v. 24, it is nitT' (Jehovdh) Himself who de.':-
troyed the cities, and not the angels. Lot was also commanded
not to look behind, nor stay in any j)art of the plain. He was
not to gratify his curiosity by looking upon the burning cities,
or cast a sorrowful look upon the place where he had to leave
all his accumulated property and relatives. The command is
only given to Lot as the head of the family, but its observance
was obligatory to his whole household. This is evident from
the punishment of Lot's wife for having disobeyed the com-
mand. They were to escape into the mountainous region of
Moab, distant several miles to the east of Sodom, for there was
no safety for them in the plain. And here we may protitably
cast a glance upon Lot's present condition to what it was when
he entered Sodom. Then he was a man of great possessions,
now he leaves it flying for his life. What a lesson it teaches^
to young and old to shun bad society, as they would .shun
poisonous serpents!

18. And Lot said to them, Oh, not so, Lord :

19. Behold, r pray Thee, Thy servant hath foitnd grace in Thy sight,
and Thou hast vuignijied Thy mercy, which Thou hast showed mitu
me, in saving my life ; but I caimot es'Cipe to the mountain, lest the
evil overtake me, and I die.

20. Behold, I pray Thee, this city is near to fee thither, and it is «.
little one : Oh, let me escape thither, I pray Thee, — ia it not a little one 1
— and my aoid shall live.

Lot expresses a fear that the mountain which God had com-
manded him to escape to was too distant, that, before he could
arrive there, ^ipl (/i«ra)"the evil," i.e., thethreatened catastrophe
would overtake him,and share the same fate as the doomed cities.
56

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

11.25

Vi Ki 12.5

• 50 '*^~ Mill

;^ Big ™^

ttiotographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WIST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. USSO

(716)872-4503

£.'

i ,-

374

people's commentart.

He therefore anxiously pleads that he may flee into a little town
which was near by. This little town was formerly called Bela
{oh. xiv. 2.), but from the circumstance of Lot having spoken of
it as a ^512^ (Mitaar) "little one," it received the name '\y^
(Zoar), i. e. the little one. But what shall we say of Lot in
making this request ? Surely we can ascribe it to nothing else
than a want of faith. His duty was to have put his trust in
Ood, and that having commanded him to escape to the moun-
tain He would also protect him from any harm happening to
him. Lot pleads as a reason why he should be permitted to
take refuge in Zoar, it being only a small place, " is it not a little
one ? " No doubt wishing thereby to indicate since it contained
but tevi' inhabitants, its wickedness was comparatively small
also, and might on that account be spared. The Jerusalem
Targuni has the remark, " it is little, and its sins are little."

21. And He said to him, Behold, I have accepted thee in this thing
also, not to overthrow tfie city of which thou hast spoken.

Here asrain we have a remarkable instance of Qod's merciful
dealing with erring man. The request was of such a nature as
was likely to call forth a severe rebuke ; but not so, although
Zoar was situated in the district which was to be destroyed,
yet for Lot's sake it was spared. There exist considerable ruins
on the eastern side of the Dead Sea in the Wady Kerek, which
are now on the best authority supposed to be those of the little
town Zoar. " I have accepted thee," in the original we have
the idiomatic expression '31353 "^Hi^'bD {nasathi phanecha) " I
have lifted up thy face," i. e., I have granted thy request. The
idiom seems to have originated, from supplicants in the E'lst
standing with the head bowed low — expressive of great sorrow
or affliction — when asking a favour of a high dignitary, or pre-
senting a petition on some weighty matter, but when tha
request is granted, the head is lifted up for joy.

23. T/m sun rose upon the earth'*when Lot entered into Zoar.

24. Atid the Lonn rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brim-
ttone and Jire from the Lord ou< of heaven;

It is evident that the sacred writer in mentioning, " The sun
rose upon the earth," wishes thereby to indicate that this visi-
tation of God's wrath was wholly supernatural, there were no
black and heavy thunderclouds, the sun rosp upon the doomed
cities as usual, there was not the slightest indication of a fear-
ful judgment being so near at hand. And, no doubt, when
Lot's sons-in-law saw the city bathed i.i the cheerful and soft
li^ht of the rising sun, and every thing appearing serene around

PEOPLE 8 COMMENTAET.

875

them, they heartily laughed at their father-in-law's credulity
in believing the strangers, and his sudden depaiture from the
city. Tet no sooner had Lot entered the small town, which
God had preserved for him, than the Almighty rained brim-
stone and fire from heaven, that is, according to the Hebrew
idiom, ignited brimstone. The reader not acquainted with
Hebrew idiomatic expressions, will, no doubt, have found the
phraseology : " The Lord rained — from the Lord out of
hv-'.ven," somewhat remaikable, but " from the Lord," accord-
ing to the Hebrew idiom is equivalent to himself, the Hebrews
employed the noun where we would use the pronoun ; so that
it would read, " the Lord rained from Himself out of heaven."
Similar modes of expression are not uncommon in the H<^brew
Scripture. Thus, for example, 1 Kings, viii. 1 : " Then Solomon
assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes,
the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king
Solomon," i. «., unto himself. So Exod. xxiv. 1. " And He
(the Lord) said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord," i.e., come
up unto Me. A similar mode of expression is found in the New
Testament, as Matt. xii. 26, " if Satan cast out Satan/' i. e., cast
out himself, 'c h divided against himself." Although only
Sodom and Jomoi ih are mentioned in our verse, yet it is
evident from Deuu. . xix. 23, Hos. xi. 8, that the cities Admah
and Zeboim were also destroyed. ; .

25. And He overthrew those cities, and all the district, and all the
inhabitants of the cities, and the growth of the ground.

Never before or since has such a catastrophe occurred as that
by which the Fertile valley of Siddim was totally destroyed.
God rained down upon it burning brimstone by which not only
its cities and inhabitants were consumed, but the very soil
which abounded in asphalt was burned up, and its place occu-
pied by the Dead Sea. And here, it may not be out of place
to offer a few remarks on this extraordinary and mysterious
lake, which has hitherto bafiied the mast zealous researches of
scientists in their endeavour to account for its origin. The
Dead Sea is in the Old Testament spoken of under different
names, as nb^aH Q'' {Yam Hammeladi) the Salt Sea, (eh. xiv.
3); '>3?anpn D"^ {Yam, Hakkadmoni), the Eastern Sea (Joel
xi. 20); so called in opposition tj niini^n D"* (Yam Haacharon)
the Western Sea or Mediterranean nSI^H D"' (Yam Haaravah)
the Sea of the Arabah or desert plain (Deut. iv. 49.) The Arabs,
call it Baar Loot, Sea of Lot. Josephus and other Greek
writers call it Lake Asphaltites, from the great quantity of
asphalt found in it, and in its neighbourhood. Among Euro-
peans it is commonly called the Dead Sea, on account of the

•^■i-rotf-^ w ii«> Wi"<-< pi. »r i i i tm" i -jir-mi^itnmmmiammv^ -t/nmm*''-^

! 1;

iii!^

376

people's commemtaby.

I .'

dead-like stillness which prevails, and the absence of vegetable-
and animal life. It is about forty miles long, with an averages
breadth of nine miles. The shape is that of an elongated oval.
A very curious circumstance connected with this Sea is, its
having two very dissimilar parts, the northern part having a
depth of about 1,2U0 feet, whilst the southern part does not
exceed eighteen feet From this it appears that the bottom
of the Dead Sea consists of two distinct plains a depressed
and a more elevated one. The two plains are separated
by a very narrow and shallow peninsula, which stretches to a
very great distnnce into the ^ea from the eastern shore. It is
now a very prevalent opinion among travellers who made a
careful exploration of the lake, that the shallow part of the
lake occupies the former valley of Siddim, and the depression
was caused by volcanic action which accompanied the rain of
" brimstone and fire " although not mentioned in the sacred
narrative. The large number of bitumen pits which existed in
the valley (see ch. xiv. 10.) indicate the volcunic character of
the district, and, indeed, throughout the whole valley of the
Jordan volcanic traces are to be seen. The statement of the
natives, that when the water was very low, they observed
fragments of buildings and pillars, has not been verified by any
traveller. (See Reland, Palestine, p. 257 , Maundrell, Journey
from Aleppo to Jerusalem, p. 454.) The question whether tha
waters of the deep northern part of the lake were salty before
the catastrophe ot which the narrative speaks, or whether it
obtained its present character at that time will probably never
be satisfactorily answered. The water is perfectly clear and
inodorous, l)utin taste is said to "resemble innauseousness thatof
a solution ofalum,and is so bitter and pungent, that itcausespain-
ful itching and even ulceration on the lips, and if brought near
a wound produces a most excrutiating sensation. It contains
the muinutic and sulphuric acids ; and it consists of salt to
about one-fourth its weight." Another remarkable circum-
stance connected with the water is its great buoyancy.
Josephus observes, that the most weighty substance thrown
into it will not sink ; and that the Emperor Vespasian to test its
strength, caused certain men who could not swim to be thrown
in with their hands tied behind them, and they floated on the
surface. This statement has been attested by many travellers.
Thus, for instance, Mr. Stephens remarks : " I can almost
corroborate the most extravagant accounts of the ancients.
Before I left Jerusalem, i had resolved not to bathe in it on
account of my health, and I had sustained my resolution
during the whole of my day's ride along its shores, but on the
point of turning up among the mountains, I could resist no
longer. My clothes seemed to come otif of their own accord ;

people's comventabt.

377

and before Paul had time to ask me what i was going to
do, I was floating on its waters. Paul and the Arabs fol-
lowed ; and after splashing about for a while, wo lay like a
parcel of corks upon its surface." There is another remark-
able circumstance connected with this wonderful lake. The
river Jordan and many other streams empty tliennselves into
it, but there is no apparent outlet ; the question, therefore,
how the superfluous water is disposed of, has proved a puzzle
to explorers. Some have supposed that there must be a sub-
terranean outlet, but as there is not the slightest trace of such
an outlet to be found, others are of opinion that the super-
flous water is entirely carried off by evaporation. Most wri-
ters favour now the latter supposition, although it hns been
calculated that the Jordan alone discharges daily about
€,999,000 tons of water into it, besides what it receives from
the river Arnon and some other streams. The lake being shut
in on both sides by high mountains ; those on the east side
rising 2,000 feet above its level, its surface remains unmffled,
and a death-like silence hangs over it. The atmosphere is
heavy and oppressive, and it is said, that those who navigate
it, " experience a paralysing drowsiness, thirst, and giddiness."
Travellers have also some times noticed a noxious smell resem-
bling that of sulphuretted hydrogen. There exists a very
common belief that the exhalations of the lake are fatal,
and that birds flying across drop dead. This, modern
travellers have proved to be without any foundation. Mr.
Stephens saw a flock of gulls floating quietly on the surface.
Maundrell says he saw several birds flying about and skimming
the surface without the slightest harm. Other travellers have
frequently seen swallows dipping for the water necessary to
build their nests. There are, however, no fish in the lake. " I
am well convinced," says Mr. Madden, " both from ray own
observations, and from the account of the Arabs, that no living
creature is to be found in the Dead Sea." (^Travels, vol. 2, p.
210.) Josephus mentions that the waters of the sea change
their appearance three times every day, and reflect different
colours from the rays of the sun, and the same has been
noticed by modern travellers. In the morning the vva^^^er is
almost black ; this may be caused by the dense fog hanging
over the sea ; at noon, it is pale blue ; whilst at sunset it
assumes a reddish or yellowish colour. Wo must here not
omit to notice the remarkable fruit which grows on the shore
of the Dead Sea, and is commonly known as the apple of
Sodom, generally supposed to be the fruit of the Asclepiaa gi
gantea, though some writers call it Solanum Sodomeum. It
is described as having all the appearance of the most inviting
Apple, but is filled with a nauseous and bitter dust onl3\

tr'timl'.i tmrmiiimiMWW— W

• ■-'psi«»r«wr~---'i"wwi»swi'--.

I: I

378

people's commentart.

The deceptive appearance of the fruit it often alluded to by
moralists and poets, thus for instance, Milton, in whose infer*
nal regions —

" A grove aprwig up— \Mden with fair fruit —
Greedily they uluck'd
The fmitaee, fair to aiuht, like tnat which grew
Near that uitnminoua Uke, where Hodom flam'd.
Thia, more delaaive, not to touch, but taate
Deceived. They fondly thinkios to allay
Their api>etite with guat, inatead of fruit
Chew'd bitter aahea, which th' offended taata
With apattering noiae rejected :" —

£6. And hit unft looked back from behind him, and the became £»
pillar of wit.

" Looked back from behind him." This implies that she fol-
lowed the Rteps of her husband, as is still the custom in the
East at the present time. Some critics have conjectured that
instead of T'lflfc^^a (meacharav) " from behind him," the ori-
ginal reading may have been fi'^'inK (achareha), " behind
her " ; but the present reading is no doubt the original one,
nnd such an emendation of the text would be altogether
j;ratuitous. The sacred narrative does not inform us what
induced Lot's wife to look back. It may have been out of
curiosity which, like the curiosity of Eve, was too strong for
her faith ; or, it may have been from a longing for the earthly
possessions which she reluctantly left behind her ; or, to see
whether the threatened destruction of Sodom had actually
taken place. Whatever her motive may have been, it can in
nowise mitigate her guilt; she acted in defiance of God's direct
command. The command was a test of obedience : it was an
ea.«y test, and involved neither hardship nor self-denial.

" And she became a pillar of salt." Some writers explain the
phrase to mean, that she was suffocated and gradually became
encrusted by the floating vapour. Travellers declare that thei^:
" clothes, hats, hands, and faces, were impregnated by salt iA
less than two hours." And they also speak of lumps of salt in
the shape of pillars being still to be seen in the vicmity of the
Dead Sea. Some writers have conjectured, that as salt is
sometimes used to express perpetuity, the phrase, " pillar of
salt," may be merely equivalent to a pei'petual pillar or lasting
monument. In support of this supposition they appeal to
Num. xviii. 19 ; 2 Cnron. xiii. 5 ; but in these passages the
word obiy (olam) "for ever," is added: "it is a covenant of
salt forever." The expression, " covenant of salt," originated
from salt being added to the sacrifice, and in concluding a
uolemn agreement, a sacrifice was offered. Most commentators
very properly explain the phrase that she was actually turned

people's commentakt.

979

into a pillar of salt, and the author of the apocryphal book, " The
Wisdom of Solomon," remarks, "and a standing pillar of salt is a
monument of an unbelieving soul." (Wisdom of Solomon, x. 7.)
Josephus remarks that Lot's wife was changed into a pillar of
nalt, for I have seen it, and it remains to this day." (Ant. book
I. eh. xi. par. 4.)

Clement of Rome, who lived about the time of Josephus, also
declares that it was standing in his time. Ireiueus, who lived
about a century later, states that it still existed in his time, and
some modern travellere even relate of its being there at the pre-
sent time. It is, however, not at all unlikely that Josephus and
all others who profess to have seen it, were imposed upon by the
natives who constantly play upon the credulity of strangers by
pointing out objects of antiquity which have no claim whatever
to it. They had, no doubt, a pillar of salt pointed out to them
as being the pillar into which Lot's wife was turned, but which
may have been naturally formed like many othei*s of the same
kind still to be seen.

The narrative now returns again to Abraham, who according
to the last verse of the preceding chapter, had "returned to his
place," after he had finished his intercession for Sodom and
Gomorrah.

27. And Abrafiam repaired early in tfie moniing to the place where
fie had stood before tite Lord :

When the kind-hearted patriarch by his earnest intercession
had reduced the number of " righteous," for whose sake God
would spare Sodom, to ten, he, no doubt, hoped that the city
was now secure, that surely ten righteous pei-sons would be
found among its inhabitants. Stilly as the wickedness of the
place was so great, his mind was not at ease, lest even that
small number might be wanting, and that his kinsman and
family might be involved in the destruction of the place. This
thought must have been the cause of deep anxiety to Abraham,
and accordingly we find him, early in the morning, repairing to
the same spot wheie, the day before, he had pleaded with the
Lord, in order to ascertain the effect of his intercession.

Who can picture to himself the intense grief and bitter
disappointment of the good patriarch when he saw the whole
district enveloped in smoke. No doubt, wlien this dreadful
sight burst upon his view his first words nuist have been :
" What, not ten righteous persons to be found in all the cities
of the plain? And, after all, my intercession has been fruitless."
But although the guilty cities, with their depraved inhabitants
had been forever swept from the face of the earth, the righte-
ous patriarch's prayer was not in vain, for when God destroyed
the cities He " remenbered Abraham, and sent Lot out from the

380

people's commentart.

11 li

midst of tho overthrow," (v. 29.) It was, therefore, Abraham's
prayer of faith that preserved Lot

3). And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the moHntain^ and
hi$ two dnu'jhtertt with him ; for /w feared to dwell in Zoar : and h«
dwdt in a cave, he mid his two daughters.

When Lot had to leave Sodom in haste to escape destruction*
he looked upon Zoar as a convenient and suitable place of
refuge ; but when he saw the flames spreading wider and
wider, or the watera coming nearer and nearer to him, he did
no longer consMor it safe to remain in a place situated so low,
he, therefore, hastened to the mountain of Moab, and took up
his abode in a cave. This mountain or hill country borders on
the eastern side of the Dead Sea. The remaining verses of the
chapter contain an account of th»^ detestable conduct of Lot's
two daughters. And here again we have an illustration of the
evil influences of bad society: even the daughters of righteous
Lot were contaminated by it. No doubt Lot had striven to
make the inmates of his house walk in the fear of God, but
by the intercourse with the Sodomites, they became imbued
with their sinful character. It is impossible to find any ade-
ouate apology for the atrocious crime committed by Lot's
daughters. The only thing that might jirobably be urged in
mitigation is, that they haa laboured under the false impres-
sion that the earth was visited with a second judgment, this
time by fii-e, and all human beings had perished except their
father and themselves, and in order to sav«j the human family
f lom extinction, they acted as they did. That apparently they
entvrtained .such a tliought would appear from what the elder
sister said: " Our father is old, and tlwA'e is not a man on the
earth to come to us." (v. 31.) The sacred narrative, how-
ever, is careful to indicate that Lot did not designedly partici-
pate in the heinous transaction, but that he was a mere
instrument, his daughters having made him drink wine so
that they might successfully carry out their design, knowing
that their father in his proper senses would with indignation
reject their wicked pi'oposal. " He knew not when she lay
down, nor when she arose ;" some writers explain these words,
that " he did not distinguish the peraon either on her approach
or her departure ;" but we think the meaning which the sacred
writer wishes to convey rather, is, that he was entirely uncon-
scious of what was going on. The literal rendering of the
original is : " He did not know in her laying down and in her
rising up ;" that is, ha had no perception of the matter from
fii"st to last. But when we come to consider Lot's conduct in
allowing himself to be induced to indulge in drinking to such

PEOPLES COMMENTART.

881

jred

«n extent that he became unconscious of what he was doing,
and that not only oi oe but on two successive nights, we cer-
tainly cannot hold him blameless in this instance. Here again
we see crime and drunkenness go hand in hand. The eldest
daughter bore a son, and called his name Moab ; and the
younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi. From
the giving of these names, we must either conclude that Lot's
daughters were utterly <levoid of shame, or that they looked
upon their conduct rather as praiseworthy than otherwise, for
the import of the names will always recall to the mind the
incestuous connection. The name 'IS^ija (il/oa6) denotes /rom,
the father, and ^;a5 "i^ (Ben-ammi) signifies son of my people, or
8on, of my family. From the former descended the Moabitcs,
and from the latter the Ammonites, We must hero not omit to
notice the view so boldly set forth in the writings of some emi-
nent scholars belongin^j to the new school of criticism. They
hold the account of Lot s daughters incest to be mere fiction, and
to have been introduced into the narrative as a brand upon the
Moabites and Ammonites, the great enemies of the Hebrews.
But those writers have altogether lost sight of the fact, that the
animosity, which afterwards sprung up between the Israelites
and those nations, did not originate from any hostile feeling on
the part of the former, but arose from the unfriendly and in-
vidious spirit which the latter evinced against the Israelites.
This hostile feeling sliowed itself fii-st when they refused to
furnish the Hebrews with provisions on their journey through
the wilderness, and afterwards again in hiring Balaam to come
and curse them. It was on account of these inimical acts that
the Ammonites and Moabites were forbidden to enter into the
congregation of the Loud even unto the tenth generation, and
that they were not to bu received as friends or allies. (Deut.
xxiii. 3-6.) But there is not the slightest indication of a desire
on the part of the Hebrews to disavow the relationship existing
between themselves and those people, or that they taunted them
with their incestuous descent. On the contrar}^ the near
relationship is openly acknowledged, and the Israelites were
forbidden to distress or to meddle with them, because their
territory had been given to tlie children of Lot. (See Deut.
ii. 9-19.) The open declaration of relationship between the
Hebrews and their implacable enemies the Moabites and the
Ammonites, is an incontestible proof of the impartiality of the
Mosiiic narrative.

We may here, en passant, mention an ingenious conjecture
of Michaelis. He thinks that a part of Lot's flock may have

'nidi's another form for ^Jj^Ja

1 .v

i I

88t

people's comhentart.

been pasturing in some district sufficiently remote from the
scene of destruction, and thus escaped in being involved in the
ruin. It is argued in support of this conjecture, that if Lot
had lost all his effects, it is reasonable to suppose that he would
have appealed to Abraham, his noble-hearted kinsman, for aid.
After tnis. Lot's name is not mentioned again : not even his
death is recorded.

CHAPTER XX.

1. And Abraham journed from there tmoarda the cmmtry of the
Southf and dwelt between Kadeah and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.

2. A7id Abraham said of Sarah hu» wi/e, She is my sister ; and
Abimelech King of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

"And Abraham journeyed from there," namely, from the oak-
grove of Mamre, where he had dwelt for a considerable time,
and had made friends and allies. The sacred narrative does
not inform us why he removed from the place which, from the
repeated Divine manifestations there, must have become espe-
cially endeared to him, but most likely it was that the pastur-
age was becoming scarce. He took his journey soutliward,
stopping at different places between Kadesh and Shur, until
he at last reached Gerar, the metropolis of the countiy of the
Philistines, where he took up his temporary abode. The city
was situated in the deep Vadi o*^ Gerar, where Rowland dis-
covered the ruins of an ancient cic, ', called Khirbeth el Gerar,
about eight miles S. S. £. of Gaza. Here Abraham had re-
course for the second time to the expedient of equi-
vocating in regard to his real relationship to Sarah: A
fear, whether real or imaginary, that the people would kill him
in order to obtain possession of his wife seized him, and he
resorted again to the ignoble device by asserting that she was
his sister. The guilt in this instance is greatly aggravated
from his having on a former occasion (en. xii., 10-20) bad
such a direct proof of Divine protection, and which ought to
have inspired nim with the assurance that God would also now
shield him from the evil designs of the people. It matters not
what idea he may have entertained as to the licentious char-
acter or barbarous state of the inhabitants, his faith in God'a
power to protect him ought to have been strong enough to dis-
pel all fear of evil. It is impossible, therefore, to find any

people's commentary.

888

apology for Abraham's conduct on this occasion, and only fihows
the exceeding proneness of human nature to err. That ve here
find a king ofa different country acting in a similar manner as
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, on a previous occnsiun, is a striking
proof of the existence of the privilege — as we have stated in
our remarks on ch. xii., 15. P. 310 — which the kings of some
eastern countries enjoyed of claiming the unmarried sister or
daughter of any of their subjects for their harem. And hence,
when Abimelech took Sarah, he justified himself that he had
done so " in the integrity of his heart and innocency of his
hands," (v. 5), supposing Abraham to be her brother, and there-
fore had a right to act as he did. The name 'nb^ilK Abime-
lech, denotes /«^/ier AriTj^f, probably indicating that the rule of
the king was to be of a paternal character. " Abimelech "
appears to have been the title of the kings of Qerar, just as
Pnaraoh was the title of the kings of Egypt.

3. £tit God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to
ftim, Behold thou art but a dead man, because of the woman whom
thou ha$t taken ; for she is a husband's wije.

God once more rescues Sarah by hin direct intervention from
the danger into which the untruthful statement of her husband
and her.'ieif had placed her. "God came to Abimelech in &
dream of the night," which in the Chaldee Version is para-
phrased, " the word from the presence of God came to Abimelech
in a vision of the night" " And God said to him. Behold, thou
art but a dead man," meaning, that be would surely bring death
upon himself, unless he restored the woman unhaimed to her
husband.

4. Btit Abimelech had not come near her : and he said, Lord, unit
thou aho slay an innocent nation t

" Wilt thou also slay an innocent nation ? " In these words
Abimelech evidently alludes to the destruction of the cities of
the plain, the word fi^ (gum) " also " clearly shows that such was
the case. It is as if he had said, surely the destruction of that
impious nation was just, but we are not such a nation of evil
doers, and what I have now done was in ignorance, having been
misled by their misrepresenting their true relationship (v. 5.),
surely thou wilt not slay an innocent people as if it were guilty ?
Both in the Authorized and the Revised Versions it is rendered
" wilt thou also slay a righteous nation," but this rendering
renders the passage very ambiguous, for, it is hardly reasonable
to suppose that Abimelech would presume to speak of his peo-
ple as altogether free from moral evil so as to call them " a
righteous nation," but what he meant to say was rather, that

384

PBOPLB'S COMMENTiRT.

he and \nn people wore innocent, not having knowingly done
wrong in this inHtancc. The word p^l^ {tmKldick) riyhteoas,

is Monietimcs UHod in the sense o( innocent, an<l ho in our verse
it has been rendcrud by many Qorman cominontators. Thus,
for example, von Hohlen, " ein unschuldltjes Volk, " an innocent
nation. God, who knows the thoughts of the heart, admits
Abimelech's plea of ignorance : " Yea,* I indeed know that
thou didst this iu the integrity of thy heart, (v. G.)

7. Now, tIter«Jore, restore the man's wt/e, for hf ia n prophet, ntul A«
$haU pray for tttee, and thou shnlt live : and if thou dogl not re-
store her, know t/iat tlum shult surely die, thou and all that are thine.

"For he is a prophet," the Hebrew for prophet is fc^'^SJ
(navi), and is derived from j^^J (n<fr((), synonymous to 533
(nai'((), to (jnsh forth , to utter wordn -xuth fervour, the meaning
of the word is, one who 8pe<tkfi n» God's amfximador. Thus,
Exod vii. 1, we read: "And the LoiU) said to Moses, see, I
have made thee a Gml to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall
be thy prophet." That is, Moses shall act with regard to
Pharaoh as the direct representative and messenger of God, and
Aaron was to act as his spokesman, or, as it is expressed in
chap. iv. 1(), " He shall indeed bo to thee instead of a mouth,
and thou shalt l>o to him instead of God." Abraham is here
called " a prophet," not in the common acceptation of the term
as one fortelliiig future events, but as one who is the recipient
of Divine revelations, and who stands in a specially near rela-
tion to God. " And he shall pray for thee." It appears from
other passages of Scripture that in later times, it was also a
special work of the prophets to make intercession for others.
Thus we read, Jer. xxvii. 13: "But if they be prophets, and
if the word of the Lord be with them, let them now make
intercession to the Lord of hosts." (Compare also chap. vii.
16, chap. xiv. 11.) Forgiveness is also more readily granted
if prayed for by the injured party. Thus Eliphaz the Tama-
nite and his two friends were commanded to take seven bul-
locks and seven rams and go to Job, and offer them up for a
burnt-offering, "and my servant Job shall pray for you, for
him will I accept." (Job xlii. 8.)

9. Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him. What hast
thou done unto us f and what have I sinned against thee, that thou
hast brought on m« and on my kingdom a great s^in f tfiou hast done
■deeds unto me tfuit ou^ht not to be done.

^vl^T^ "^DpS^ {anochi yadati,) lit. «• I, I know ;" bat the repetition of the
prononn in full before the verb, makes the phrase emphatic, as /, coen /, know,
•or J imleed kiioto. Such constructions are very common.

PEOPLE'8 commentart.

3S5

Wliai a noble example of forl^earance does tlus heathen
prince here set U8. Motwith.stnnclmi; the injury he had sus-
tained, and the great tlangor to which he iind all Iuh house-
liold had been exposed, there is not the sHghtest exprension of
anger or ill-feeling towards hiui 'vho was the cause of it, but
the mildest reproof. It has indeed been justly remarked,
that " were wo to judge simply from this portion of the
sacred narrative, we would perhaps be inclined to think that
Abraham had been the heathen, and Abimelceh the prophet of
the Lord." But still more astounding is the great abhorrence
which this heathen prince evinces of a sin, which, in our civi-
lized ami enlightened age, is so frecjuently regarded with shame-
less indift'erenco. Observe, Abimeiech does not complain of
the Rufl'ering to which he and liis family had been subjected,
(see V. 17,) but " what have I offended thee, that thou hast
brought on me and on my kingdom "a (/rent sin ?"

for

one

the

710.

11. And Alraliam said, liecuvte V thntqht, Sunty the fear of God
is not in this place ; and they will alay me for my wife's mke.

No doubt Abralmm felt the justice of the reproof, and wa.«i
heartily ashamed of his conduct. He found it necessary to
offer at least .some excuse to tlie king, and now gives as a
reason for misrepresenting his relationship to Sarah, that ho
thought " the fear of God" was not in the place ; but this is l)ut
a feeble excu^;e, for it could have been merely a surmise. He
had no grounds for supposing that the people of Gerar were
more depraved than the other heathen people among whom he
had been sojourning. But, even if such a fear had taken
liold of his mind, he should have trusted in God for further
protection. He also informed the king that, after all, he had
told the truth when he said that she was his si>iter, since she
was the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his
mother (v. 12.) But then he told only part of the truth, and
just withheld that part which would have prevented Abimelech
from taking Sarah. The king showed his magnanimity still
more by not only forgiving Abraham, but by making him also
present of " sheep and oxen, and manservants and maid-
servants ; ' and by offering him tlie freedom of his country to
dwell in it wherever he chose (vv. 14-, 15.) Nor did his
generosity stop here, but he made also a munificent piesent to
Sarah.

• •• I thought," Heb. "'Pl'l^i^ (amarti) " I said ;" but the verb (amar) to nay,
is often used for speaking iu the mind, i.e., thinking, as here. So, also,

Exod. ii. 14, "thfnkest thon to kill me, Heb. 172K n?IK {altah omer)
sayest thou to kill me. Homer, too, makes use of the expression: "He
■peaks to his mighty heart," i.e., he thought within himself.

Si-

■i

f M

386

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

1 i'ji

16. And Co Sarah he $aid, Behold, I have given to thy brother a
thotuand ahekeh of eilver: behold, it ia/or thee a covering of the eyes
to aU tltat are with thee, and with all thou art recognized.

This vei*se has been variously interpreted. Some writers have
erroneously explained that the " one thousand shekels of silver,"
were not a special present made to Sarah, but as the value of the

Presents made to Abraham ; so, for instance, Keiland Delitzsch.
lost commentators, however, very properly regard the thou-
sand shekels of silver given to Abraham as a present to Sarah.
This supposition is cleaily supported both by the language and
context ; and further, it is not likely that Abimelech would
tell Sarah the value of the presents he made to her hus-
band. The sum, 1,000 shekels, or about $500 of our money,
appears also to be too small a sum as the value of the sheep,
and oxen, and men servants and maid servants. " I ha i e
given to thy brother." Abimelech evidently calls Abraham
her brother, because she had represented him to be such, and
probably was at the same time intended as a mild and delicate
rebuke for having deceived him. "Behold it is for thee a
covering of the eyes." Some writers, as, for instance, Eben Ezra,
Ewald, and Kalisch, refer the pronoun 5^^^ (ku) to Abraham,
and render, " he is to thee a covering of the eyes," which is also
the rendering given in the Authorized Version, and in the
margin of the Revised Version. The meaning, according to this
rendering, would be, " thy brother" (Abraham) is a protector to
thee, who is able to protect thee from any impertinence, and
guard thy honour. The reader will, however, perceive that
by reading " he is '" instead of " it is," there would then be
no reason assigned for the giving of the thousand* shekels.
Most versions and interpreters very properly refer the pro-
noun 5^^n (hu) to the silver, and render " it is." Many com-
mentators explain the phrase ai^ij mOS " * covering of the
eyes," to mean a gift for the anxiety she suffered, or a
self-imposed atonement gift made to her. But the more
common interpretation of the phrase, and which the lan-
guage certainly at once suggests, is, that it means a veil,
that the money was given to supply Sarah with a veil or veils,
80 that she might be recognized as a married woman. It seems
to have been customary in those early times for married
women to wear veils, while unmarried women did not cover
the face. Thus, according to ch. xxiv., 15, 16, 17, Rebekah's
face was then uncovered, but according to v. 65, when she was

•The Hebrew term ^pX5 {iheket) shekel is derived from bp12) {»hakcU) to

toeigh, because originally the value of money was reckoned by weight. From
the Hebrew wonl probably comes our word gcnle. In Ohaldee it is csllod

^''I^bO ("<*'''>) I A"<1 from which may be derived our word ahiUinff.

people's commentart.

887

about to meet Isaac, she put ou a veil, indicating thereby that
she had become his wife. Abimelech in thus giving Abraham
money to buy Sarah a veil, or veils, administered a delicate
reproof to Sarah that she ought to observe the common cus-
toms, and that she might then be easily recognized as a mar-
ried woman. The objection urged by some that a thousand
shekels of silver was an exhorbitant price for a veil, is of not
much weight, the money may have been intended to supply a
veil whenever one was wanted, and we need not suppose that
Abimelech intended that the whole sum should be appro-

Eriated to the purchase of veils, but gave the large sum as
ecoming the dignity of a king. " To all that are with thee,"
i.e., the veil will be a mark that you are a married woman to
all that may fall in with you, " and with all *thou ai*t recog-
nized," that is, all will at once recognize you as being married.

'j.

'- i'

CHAPTER XXI.

From
called

1. And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did
to Sarah as He had spoken.

Abraham's enduring faith, and patient waiting for the accom-
plishment of God's promise, were now fully rewarded. In his
hundredth year the promised son was born to him, exactly at
the time foretold by God, (eh. xvii. 17, 21). " And the Lord
visited Sarah," that is, in order to fulfil His promise. God is
spoken of in Scripture as visiting either to show mercy or to
fulfil a promise ; thus Gen. 1. 24, Joseph telJs his brothers :
" God will surely visit you " ; or to visit in order to punish, as
(Psalm Ixxxix. 33 ; Eng. Ver. v. 32,) " Then will I visit their
transgression."

3. And Abraham called the name of his son that was bom to him,
whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

Abraham bestowed the name Isaac in obedience to the direct
command of God, fch. xvii., 19.) The name pnS"' (yitachaJc),
Isaac, denotes laughter.

•The word flHDi {nochaeliath), the 2nd pers. fem, Niph. of Hpi {yaehaeli)t
has been differuntly rendered, bat the rendering we have given ia best saited to
the context, and ia adopted by Vater, De Wette, Von Bonlen, and many other
conunentatora.

■'

388

people's commentary.

6. And Sarah aald. Laughter hath God prepared for me ; all wh»
hear it will laugh with vie.

" Laughter hath God prepared for me." It is a laughter
arising out of great joy. It is not an uncommon thing for
Orientals to express themselves in this manner when an unex-
pected event happens to them. If a person, for instance, has
obtained anything which he did not expect, he will say,
*' What is this ? I am made to laugh." — " All who hear it will
laugh with me :" it is, will sympnthize in my great joy at the
unexpected and miraculous birth of n son. Seme of our mod-
ern commentator.^ have rendered i^ pH'S.'^ {yitschak li) " by
laugh" or " mock at me," but surely, though any one might
wonder at such an extraordinary occurrence, there was certainly
nothing to mock at.

8. And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a
great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned.

Our text does not state at what age Isaac was weaned, but
it was probably when he was three years old, for it seems to be
customiary among most Oriental people to suckle their children
much longer tlian with us. Traces of this practice are to be
found in the Scriptures. Thus when Samuel was weaned, he
was then sufficiently old enough to be left with Eli for the
service of the tabernacle. (See 1 Sam. i. 22, et seq.) In 2
Mace. vii. 27, the mother of the seven brethren slain in one day
by Antiochus for refusing to eat swine's flesh, in exhorting her
youngest son not to listen to the promises of the tyraiit, but to
follow the example of his brothers, and to die rather than
break the commandment of Moses, addressed him as follows :
" O my son have pity upon me that bore thee nine months in
my womb, and gave thee suck three years, and nourished thee,
and brought thee up." A Persian ambassador to England
stated, that " in his country male children are often kept to the
breast till thiee years old, and never taken from it till two
years and two months." And he attributes the greater for-
wardness of European children to the practice of early weaning.
In India the time is three years. But girls are everywhere
weaned earlier. (See also Russel's Nat. Hist, of Alei)po. Germ.
Edit. i. 427. Mungo Park, Travels 237) " Abraham made a
great feast." Accordingtomodei'ntravellera this is still customary
in the East. (See Moriers, 2nd Journey, 114. Schubert's
Travels, ii. 48).

t»lCOPLE*S COMMENtAUY.

980

all vchtf

aiighter
ling for
n unex-
ice, has
nil say,
ir it will
r at the
ur mod-
li) "by

e might
certainly

jrt made a

mcd, but
nns to be
• children
are to be
ianed, he
for the
In 2
one day
;ing her
it, but to
ler than
'ollows :
onths in
led thee,
^^ngland
pt to the
till two
iter for-
iveaning.
rywhere
o. Germ,
made a
stomary
hubert's

9. And Sarah saio the $on of Hagar the Egyptian, whor.t the k<td
home to Abraham, mocking.

Commentators are not agreed ns i, the proper import of the
word pnSJa (metaachek) here employed. It is, however, derived
from the root DPS {tsachak), to laugh, from the same root as
the name pns^ Isaac is derived, and therefore, the most likely
meaning of it is laughing at, mocking, or deriding. Indeed, i*
is well worthy of notice here, that in ch. xxxix. 14, 17, th^
same verb is employed to express tlie grossest insult. When
Potiphar's wife falsely accuses Joseph, she says, the Hebrew
servant came in unto me pnsb (letsachek) to mock me." We
may, therefore, well conclude that the conduct of Ishraael who
was then upwards of sixteen years old (comp. xvii. 25) was of
a highly vexatious and insulting nature. Tne translations of
the Septuagint and Vulgate Versions " Sarah saw Ishmael
play with her son Isaac," are altogether inappropriate. The
mere childish gambols of children would be too trivial an occa-
sion to induce Sarah to have recourse to such a harsh measure
as to demand the expulsion of Ishmael. bome of the Rab-
binic writers n»ake mention of Sarah having discovered in
Ishmael a disposition to idolatry and various vices. We do not
know upon what authority they made this statement, most
likely mere conjecture : certainly it is not supported by the
text. We think, we may safely conclude, that Ishmael's con-
duct on the occasion may be ascribed to jealousy. Up to
fourteen years of his age he regarded himself as the sole heir of
his father, but saw himself now superseded by his younger
brother. His jealousy was most likely aroused on seeing the
great care and affection lavished on Isaac. The wild and un-
governable character ascribed to him and his descendants (ch.
xvi. 12) began already to develop itself, he indulged in mockery
against Isaac, or as the apostle Paul expresses it, " persecuted "
him. (Gal. iv. 29.) Sarah had, no doubt, much cause to be
offended at Ishmael's conduct, and seeing no other way of re-
storing again her domestic peace than by the expulsion of her
hand 'maid and her son, demanded of her husbaud that both bo
sent away.

11. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham^ s sight on account
of his son.

Sarah's demand naturally was exceedingly distressing to the
good patriarch. The feelings of a father could not be so easily
stifled, his affections for his son would make him shrink from
taking such a harsh step, and he refused this time to accede to
his wife's wishes.

390

people's commbntary.

12. And God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight
because of the lad, and because of thy boiid-iooman ; in all that Sarah
saith unto thee, hearken to her voice ; for by Isaac shall thy seed be
called.

From this verse we learn that it was by the direct command
of Qod only that Abraham acceded to the wishes of Sarah,
and at once exculpates the patriarch from the charge made
against him by many writers, that " his conduct towards Hagar
and Ishmael was unfeeling, unworthy alike of a kind m&ster
and an affectionate father." It has been well remarked on
our verse, that " God does not require Abraham to acquiesce in
Sarah's proposal, because he approved the spirit which
prompted it, but because it accorded with his counsel and his
repeated declarations that all the blessings of the covenant
were to belong permanently to Isaac." The expulsion of
Ishmael, by tne providence of God, was also ultimately bene-
ficial to him, as it had the direct tendency to form his char-
acter and that of his descendants, and tend to their national
destination as declared in chapter xvi. 1-13.

14. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread,
and a bottle of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her
shoulder, and the young man, and sent her away : and she departed,
and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.

From the statement, that "Abraham rose up early in
the morning," we may infer, that he had received the
Divine direction in a vision during the night. It also
shows the eagerness of the patriarch to obey the will of God,
although it must have been a heartrending ordeal to part
with his son. " And he took bread." The word Qnb {Icchem)
" bread," no doubt here means, as it often does in other places,
food of various kinds, and these were, ^ve may rest assured, of
as large a quantity as they could possibly carry. "And a
bottle of water." The Hebrew word fiJan (chemeth) denotes
a leathern bottle, which was generally made of goat skin,
though sometimes, especially the larger bottles, were made of
the skins of other animals. Eastern travellers mention, that
all those that lead a wandering life, keep their water, milk,
and other liquids, in leathern bottles, and that they keep more
fresh in them, than in other vessels. Such leathern oottles
were also used by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans,
and we think are still used in some parts of Spain, where they
are called borrachaa. From the monuments of Egypt, the
sculptures of Mesopotamia, and the relics of Herculaneum, we
not only learn the different shapes of bottles that were used,
but that some of them were both elegant and costly. Hagar's

thy sight
hat Sarah
hy seed be

command
of Sarah,
'ge made
ds Hagar
d master
irked on
[uiesce in
t which
1 and his
covenant
ulsion of
ely bene-
his char-
national

yok bread,

it on her

departed,

early in
ved the
It also
of God,
to part
\{lechem)
places,
lured, of
'And a
denotes
t skin,
ade of
, that
Ir, milk,
Ip more
loottles
lomand,
pe they
)t, the
im, we
used,
Lagar's

* people's commentary.

391

bottle was, no doubt, made of a kid-skin, and was slung across
her back from her shoulder. " And the young man," the
Hebrew word "i^t {yeled), rendered in the Authorized Vei*sion
by " child," and which is no doubt admissible, yet is here more
appropriately rendered, either by lad or young man, as Ishmael
at the time was at least sixteen 3 ears old. He was circumcised
when thirteen years old, and Isaac was born one year after-
wards, and weaned when about three years old. The word
l^i (yeled) is often used in the sense of a young man ;
thus Joseph is (ch. xxxvii. 30) spoken of as a ^31 (yeled), though
he is said (v. 2) to have been " seventeen years old." The young
friends and advisers of Rehoboam are called 0*115^ (yeladim),
1 Kings xii. 8, 10, where the English Version has properly ren-
dered the word " young men." The foregoing remarks will show
how absurd it is to explain as is generally done, that Ishmael was
also put on Hagar's shoulder. The phrase " and the young man,"
refers to the verb "ifl^T (waiyitten,) " and he gave," and not to
n?aD© by UiS {san\ at ahichmah,) " putting on her shouloer."
The lad was led by the hand. (v. 18.) " Beer-sheba" denotes
well of an oath, or well of the seven, and received its name on
account of the covenant concluded between Abraham and
Abimelech. (See vv. 30, 31.) Beer-aheba was situated about
fifty miles south-west from Jerusalem, on the southern border
of Palestine, and was the limit in that direction of the
Israelitish dominion. It was one of the most ancient and
interesting places in sacred record. Two circular wells of
pure water, the largest about forty -four feet deep to the surface
of the water, and about thirteen feet in diameter, and a heap of
ruins about a quarter of a mile broad, are the only remains to
mark the site where Beer-sheba stood. It is by the Arabians still
called Bir-es-seba. By " the wilderness of Beer-sheba," is pro-
bably meant the desert track of country lying beyond Beer-sheba
toward the wilderness of Paran ; and it is to the latter place
that Hagar with her son afterwards went and dwelt there.
We may also remark that the English terms ivildemeas, desert,
do not always convey a correct sense of the Hebrew word
■13*173 (inidbar,) which properly denotes an uncultivated tract
of land, an open country, or open fields, adapted for pasture;
hence we have in Scripture such expressions as " the pastures
of the wilderness;" Ps. Ixv. 13; (Eng. Vers. v. 12;) "the
wilderness and its cities." (Is. xlii. v. 2.) In fact the word
"1211 ?a (rnidhar,) is derived from the verb i|3T (davar,) to lead,
to guide, from cattle being led there for pasturage. In the
East, uncultivated lands and extensive plains, from the exces-
sive heat and long drought, soou become barren, hence the
word is also employed sometimes to denote a sterile region.
The use of the Hebrew word midbar, does, therefore, not

• .-11

- 1

392

ipeople's commentary.

necessarily imply that the place denoted thereby is void of
vegetation.

It is well known that even the desert of Arabia, which is
entirely burned up with excessive drought in summer, furnishes,
after the autumtuil rains, plenty of pasture for the flocks of the
Bedouins during the entire winter anil spring. Hagar probably
intended to return to Egypt, her native country, but lost her
way in the trackless desert.

15. Aiul wfien the water was spent in the bottle, aJie plw I tlie j/oting
man under one of t/ie shrubs.

Before Hagar had reached any inhabited place, the supply of
water in the bottle gave out, and the lad being overcome with
thirst, and no longer able to walk, his vital power beginning to
fail, she laid him down under a shrub, which at least afforded
a little shelter from the scorching rays of the sun. All travel-
lers who have made a journey through an Eastern desert, declare
that to be thirsty in a desert without water, exposed to the
burning sun, is one of the greatest sufferings that a human
being can sustain. The rendering, " and she cast the child
under one of the shrubs;" given in the Authorized Version and
also in the Revised Version, leads to the supposition that Hagar
had carried Ishmael also, but we have above shown that, from
his age at that time, such could not have been the case.
The verb tibtt) (sltaiach,) has various shades of signification,
and is evidently here used in the sense to lay down, namely,
Hagar laid the exhausted young man down on the ground. So
chap, xxxvii. 22, where Reuben is proposing to his brothers to
put Joseph into a pit, in order that he might afterwards de-
liver him to his facher, and where the same verb is used, we
need not suppose that the verb is employed in a stronger sense
than to put or place.

16. And she went, and sat down opposite him, at a distance, as it
were a bow-shot : for she said, I will not see the death of the youth.
And she sat opposite him^ and lifted up her voice and wept.

The great distress of Hagar, and the intense suffering of her
son, cannot tail to enlist commisseration. It is indeed natural
that it should do so. At the same time we must bear in mind»
that this awful visitation was no doubt intended as a punish-
ment for their reprehensible conduct. Both mother and son
had grossly insulted those to whom respect and veneration
was due. Hagar despised Sarah, and Ishmael mocked Isaac.
But by the mercy of God, the punishment was of but a short
duration, and limited to the mere apprehension of a danger
which never came to pass. " As it were a bow-shot," i. e., as

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

393

far as the aiTOw flies. Another mode of expressing a short
distance is, " it is a call off," i c, as far as a man's voice can ho
heard.

17. And God hpard thu voice ofthe youth ; and the angel of God called
to Hagar from heaven, and said to her. What ail-lh thee Ilagar ?
Feir not, for God hath heard the voice ofthe youth ichere he is.

18. Arise, lift up the youth, and hold him hy thy hand ; for I shall
make him a great nation.

19. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of vxcter ; and she
went, and filled the bottle with touter, andgace the youth to drink.

Ishmael as the son of" AV)rahani was destined to become the
progenitor of a great nation ; when, therefore, his suti'ering
from thirst seemed nearly to overwhelm him, God sent His
angel to re-icue him. " Lift up the youth, and hold him by the
hand ;" literally " strengthen thy hand upon him," that is, assist
and support him. " And God opened her eyes " — an idiomatic
expression denoting to bring under notice — she now saw a well
which before had escaped her notice. So, Num. xxii. 11, it is
said, that " the Lord opened the ej'es of Balaam, and he saw
the angel of the Lord standing in the way ;" i. e., he was now
enabled to see, what he had not before observed.

20. And God was ivith the youth; and he grew, and dwelt in the
wilderness, and became a great archer,

" God was with the youth," that is, made him to prosper.
" Became a great archer," this does not only mean that he
became expert in using the bow, but is also expressive of his
warlike character. He finally took up his abode in the great
desert of Paran, now called et Tili. The narrative also informs
us, that " his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt"
(v. 21). This is quite accoi*ding to the Eastern custom, whore
the parents, especially the mother selects the partners for her
children, and also makes the preliminary arrangements, except-
ing the fixing of the dowry, which is generally done by the
father.

It has been well remarked that Ishmael who -was em-
phatically a son of the desert, and leading a wild life, and
yet bowed to the will of his mother in the choice of a wife,
indicates, in a striking manner, the fixedness of Oriental
customs.

22. And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol
the chief captain of his army spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with
thee in all that thou doest :
59

T <

394

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

23. And now awear xmto me here hy God, that thou wilt not dtal
falaely toith me, nor with my off'ttprhnj, nor tvith my progeny; but
according to (he kindness that I have done unto thee, thon shall do to
me, and to the land wherein thou sojournest.

It is evident from this passage that Abimelech had become
greatly impressed by the miraculous care with which God
guarded Abraham. He may also have heard of the extra-
ordinary birth of a son to him in his and his wife's old age, and
most probably also of the promise that his seed should possess
the land of Canaan. Under these circumstances it was there-
fore expedient on the jiart of the Phili.stine king to seek the
alliance of a man standing so high in the favour of God, and
on whom such great blessings are showered. Abimelech
asking Abraham to swear that his friendship might not only
be extended to himself but to every member and branch
of his family down to later generations, clearly indicates that
he must Imvo been aware of the promise made to Abmham
that his seed was hereafter to possess the land of Canaan, for
from Abraham himself, who was then upwards of a hundred
years old, his descendants could have nothing to fear. The
words ilDDb^ ''3*'Db^ {uknini idenechdi), which I have rendered
" nor with my oli'spring, nor witli my ])rogeny," is, in the
Authorized Version, rendered, "nor with my son, nor with my
son's son," having adopted the rendering given in the Targum
of Onkelos (Chaldee Version), i-);^ 13^ ""in {fjcri iivar beri)
" my son and my son's son." But the phrase 1351 "1^3 {nin
wenecked),'pvogeny and ofspr'ing or i>osterity, is a proverbial
expression, denoting member and branch to a later generation.
Thus, Is. xiv. 22, it is foretold concerning Babylon: "And I
will lise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off
from Babylon, name and renmant, 133T "lijl {icenin waneched)
and otis|)ring and progeny," in the Authorized Version again "son
and son's son." In order to conclude a covenant with Abmham,
Abimelech accompanied by his chief captain Phichol — probably
as a witness — went to Beer-sheba where the patriarch was then
dwelling. But before Abraham concluded the covenant he
complained to the king that his servants had violently taken
possession of a well which he had dug.

This was a serious loss to Abraham, who was possessor of
much cattle. Indeed, the taking possession of a well in those
arid regions, has frequently led to bitter strife among whole
tribes. Abimelech was very indignant at what his servants
had done, and assured Abraham that this w'as the first time
he had heard of it ; and as a matter of course commanded that
the well be restored. In order, however, to insure the posses-
sion of the well more securely to himself and his descendants,

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

895

and to prevent a similar occurrence in future, Abraham made
Abimelech take from him " seven lambs," as a witness that he
had dug the well, and was the rightful owner of it (vv. 28-31).
The lambs being seven in number, imparted additional solemnity
to the transaction, as the number seven was regarded a sacred
number. Among the ancient Arabians there existed apparently
a custom when entering upon a solenm agreement, to draw a
little blood by making an incission in one of the hands, and
smear it on seven stones. (Herod, iii. 8.)

33. And Abraham planted a tamai'ink in Beer-aheba, and there
called on the name of the Lord, the ecerlaating Cud.

The Hebrew term bttlJ^ {eshcl), rendered in the Authorized
Version simply by " a grovo," unquestionably denotes a tama-
risk, but may probably be used here in a collective sense for a
tamarisk grove. The use of groves as places of woi-ship became
afterwards very common among all nations. As the idolatrous
worship carried on in those groves, however, became attended
by the most abominable jiractiees, the offering of sacrifices
in groves was forbidden under the Mosaic law. (See Deut.
xvi. 21). And the pious kings showed their zeal for maintain-
ing the true worship of Jehovah by cutting down the groves
where the people burned incense and offered sacrifices to idols.
"And there called on the name of the Lord." The phrase
mn"^ CCi &5"lp (^*ai'<t heshem Jehovah), to call on the name of
tha Lord, denotes offering up of prayer, and performing public
worship in general.

bssor of

those

whole

trvants

st time

^d that

>osses-

idants.

CHAPTER XXII.

1. And it came to pass after these th!ti{/s tluit God tried Abraham, and
iaid to him, Abraham : and he said, Behold, here / am.

2. And He said, Take now thy son, thy only son, whom thou lovest,
even Isaac, and go to the land Moriah ; and offer him therefor a burnt-
offering upon one of the mountains lohich I shall tell thee.

The sacred narrative now brings before us one of the
severest tests of obedience conceivable, and unmistakably shows
that there is a faith which, while it unhesitatingly believes
what God promises, also unhesitatingly obeys what God com-
mands. Such faith was Abraham's. When God promised that
he should have a son in his old age, his faith silenced all doubts
that may have risen up in his mind as to the possibility of its

s •

'III

lii

396

PEOPLtS COMMENTARY.

accomplislinent. An<l now when the promise after jtutient
waiting was at last fulfilled, and the son had grown up to a
young man, and the happy patriarch in faith already saw him-
self "a father of a nitdtitnde of nations," he is eonnnanded to
slay the son, through whom alone (Jod's promises made to him
could he fulfilled. The Rev, Henry Blunt has, therefore, well
observed : " What a dilemma was this even for the strongest
faith ? If Abraliam believed the promi.ses, he must almost
necessarily have doubted the command ; and if he )»elieved the
connnand, liow could lie liave any reliance on the |)romises ?
But a strong faith does not rea.son ; it believes, and it obeys."
Appalled and deeply afiected as Abraham nmst have been at
the thought of the sacrifice re((uired of him, and the intense
pain and suti'ering lie must inflict upon his beloved son, he
hesitated not a moment to obey God's command, and still
believed that the promises made to him would surely be ful-
filled. " By faith," says the apostle Paul, " Abraham, wlien he
was tried, ottered Isaac : and he that had received the promises
offered up his only begotten kou. Of whom it was .said, that
in Isaac shall thy seed be called : Accor<ling that God icas able
to raise him up even from the dead." (Heb. xi. 17-19.) " God
tried Abraham." The rendering in the Authorized Version, " God
did temi)t Abraham," may give rise to an erroneous impression,
as the word tempt is usually employed in the sen.se to persuade,
to invite to sin. The primary meaning of the term HDD (tiissaJt),
and in which it is most frequently used is, to put to the t«8t,
to try a person. (Comp. Exod. xv. 25 ; Deut. xiii. 3) ; though
it is sometimes employed also in reference to man tempting
God by not believing or trusting in His power or assistance.
(See Exod. xvii. 2 ; Deut. vi. 16). " Thy only one." Isaac was
the only son of Sarah, and he was tlie heir of the promises.
" The land of Moriah." It is the region round that mountain,
and which was nearly a three days' journey from Beer-sheba.
As regards the etymology of the name n^1?a (Moriyah) Moriah,

some critics regard it as a compound of {?!'' 1173 (mori-yah)

God is 7ny instructor, irom HT {ycvrah) one of the significations
of which is, to teach. This derivation is certainly very ap-
propriate for the mountain upon which afterwards the temple
was built, and from which the knowledge of Jehovah was to be
diffused over the earth. (Comp. Is. ii. 3.) Hengstenberg takes
it as compounded of H'l HS^"!^ {moreh yah), shown by God ;

whilst Gesenius regards it as compounded of H"^^ ii5"j)p(W'0r-i yah),

elected by God. '

More commonly, however, the name is interpreted to denote
Jehovah manifested, and is no doubt used here proleptically,

• patient
I u|) to a
saw liiin-
anded to
le to him
fore, well
strongest
t almost
eved the
romi.ses ?
it obeys."
3 been at
e intense
1 son, ho
and still
y be ful-
when he
j)romiscs
>aid, that
u'as able
) " God
on, " God
ipresaion,
oersuade,
(nlsaah),
the teat,
though
empting
sistance.
iaac was
romises.
ountain,
r-sheba.
Moriah,

ri-yah)

ications
ery ap-
tomple
as to be
•g takes
y God ;

-i yah),

denote
)tically,

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

397

Zion, that

mountain

whole city

expression

in reference to the manifestation of God to Abraham when ho
was about oH'ering up Isaac, and to which allusion is made in
ver. 14. Onkelos, in his Chaldeo Version renders 5^3nb''iB ?lS^b
(learah palchami), to the land of irorfihip. Moriah is one of
the four hills upon which Jerusalem was built, the names of
the other three are, Ziou, Acra, and Hezetha. It is lower than
mount Zion, which contaim-d the upper city and the citadel.
Acra, which lies north-west of Moriah, contained the lower city.

The valley which divided mount Zion from Acra and Moriah,
is, by Josephus, called " the valley of the Cheesemongers."
Across this valley Solomon appears to have raised a causeway
leading from the royal palace on mount Zion to the temple on
mount Moriah.

It was, no doubt, the greater height of mount
gave rise to the common usage of calling the,
of the temple also by that name, and even the
being spoken of by that appellation. Tims the
"Tii^ ^^ (hath Zion) lit. daaghtev of Zion, is poetically use<l

for inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Abraham not only obeyed the command to offer up his
beloved son, which involved also the duty to slay him with
his own hands, but he obeyed promptly. He did not allow
the affections of a father to influence him to delay its execution
a moment longer than w^as absolutely necessary. Ho " rose up
early in the morning," having received the command, as the
context seems to indicate, during the night, and made the
necessary preparation, and this being done, immediately set
out on his journey, taking with him Isaac and two servants.
He took also the wood with him, which was no doubt done as
a precaution lest the locality did not furnish suitable or any
wood at all.

4. On the third day, Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place
afar off.

" He saw the place afar off." As God had promised to show
the mountain upon which Isaac was to be offered (ver. 2), we
may infer that a visible sign was given, by which Abraham
recDgnized the proper place. According to the Jewish tradi-
tion : " When God commanded Abraham to go to the place He
would tell him of, and offer his son, he asked how he should
know it ? And the answer was : * Wheresoever thou seest My
glory, there will I stay and wait for thee.' And accordingly
he now beheld a pillar of lire reaching from the heavens to the
earth, and thereby knew that thi? was the place." {Pirke
Eliezer).

898

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

J I!

I'M

I !, i^

ft. ylwd Abraham tavf to his youvg vien, " Remain ye here with the
aas ; and I atul the UhI will ijn yonder, and we xoill tnorship, and we will
return to you."

" Ami we will return." Sonic of our rationalistic writers
have pointed to this statement as another act of deceit on the
part of Abraham when he said " wo will return," and went for
the express purpose to oft'er up his son as a hurnt-offerin^.
Whilst some commentators have construed the lan^'uage as an
allowable dissimulation in order to ([uiet the minds of the
young men. But the language neither implies deceit nor dis-
simulation, but is the language oi' ti strong fditfi. The patriarch
firmly believed that the Almighty who had so miraculously
given him this son, in whom only His promises coidd be ratified,
would in .someway or other prevent his final loss. He either
believed that God would interpose and i)revent the sacrifice, or
that He would raise him to life noain.

6. Aiid Abraham took the vood of the Inti'nt-ofirrinf/, and laidit vpon
Isaac his son.; anil he took thejlrc in his hand, and the knife ; and they
went both of them together.

As a burnt-offering required to be entirely consumed, the
amount of wood required must have been considerable. But
Isaac had now arrived at an adult age. Josephus gives it as
twenty -five, whilst many commentators make it at tin rt} -three.
The age assigned by Josephus is the most probable one, and is
very commonly accepted.

7. And Isaac spake to Abraham his father, and said, 3 fy father:
and he said, Jiehold, here am I, my son. And he said, liehold the fire
and the mood : but where is the lamb for a burnt-offeriny f

8. Aiid Abraham said. My son, God will provide for Himself a lamb
for a burnt-offering : and they went both of them together.

Isaac, at his, age, must necessarily have become conversant
with all the religious practices performed by his father, and
learned their significance. He knew therefore, from the fire,
wood, and knife, that his father was about to offl^r a sacrifice,
and not. seeing the animal to be oflTered, he naturally asked
the question "but where is the lamb for a burnt-oflering?"
Oh, who can picture to himself the anguish that this dreadful
question must have caused to the aged patriarch. How keenly
must this soul stirring enquiry have put the faith of Abraham
to the test. Bishop Hall has indeed well remarked. " If Abra-
ham's heart could have known to relent, that question of his
dear, innocent, and religious son, had melted it into compassion.
* My father, behold the fire and the wood, but where is the

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

391)

•e with the
id we will

; writers
iii on the
went for
rofferin^.
nge as an
Is of the
t nor (lis-
patriarch
aculously
•e ratified,
He either
icrifice, or

'nidit upon
! / and they

imed, the
ible. But
gives it as
lirt) -three,
ne, and is

fy father :
kohl the fire

self a lamb

onversant
ther, and
the fire,

sacrifice,

ly asked
oiBering?"

dreadful
)w keenly
Abraham

If Abra-
lon of his
mpassion.
jre is the

sacrifice V I know not whether that word, ' my father,' <lid
not strike Abraham as deep as the knife of Abraham could
strike his .son; yet ho doth nc^t so much as think, still he pcr-
• sists and conceals, and whore he meant not, propliecies, ' My
son, Ood will provide a lamb for a burnt offering. "

9. And they mine to the place which God hnd told him : and Ahra-
ham lyAlt an altar thfre, ami laid the \i'ood in order; and bound Itnae
hit eon, and laid him on thn altar on the wood.

10. And Abra/Mtn stretched out hit haiul, and took t/te kn\fe to slay
his son.

The appointed place had now been reached, but Abraham
had not as yet informed his son of tluj Divine conunand ho had
reciiivod. But now tho information could no longer bo with-
holdeu that he was tho destined victim. Josephus (Ant. B. I.
ch. xiii. par. 3, 4,) gives a pathetic dialogue which j)assed
between father and son on the occasion, but which is altogether
imaginary. The sacred narrative passes the h-^art-ronding scene
over unnoticed, as if it were impossible for language to describe.
And who can picture to himself the torment and anguish the
father must have experienced whilst he was building tho altar,
arranging tho wood, binding his son, and laying him on the
altar, and finally stretching forth his hand to seize the knife to
slay his bolovecl son ? It may well bo asked, what more was
necessary to prove Abraham's faith and obedience ? But
whilst Abraham's conduct in this severe test calls for our
highest admiration, we must not at the same time overlook
Isaac's filial obedience and pious resignation to the Divine ap-
pointment. For we must take it for granted that he willingly
submitted to become the victim to bo offered, and without a
murmur allowed himself to be bound on the altar. It must be
remembered, that he was no more a child, but being about
twenty-five years old, he was in the prime and vigor of life,
and therefore could easily have resisted his aged father now
a hundred and twenty-five years old. But he proved himself
a worthy son of " the father of the faithful," and worthy to be
tho heir of the promise.

11. And the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said,
Abraham, Alrraham: and he said, liere am I.

12. And He said, Lay not thy hand upon the youth, nor do to him
anything : fur now I know titat thou fearest God, and thou hast not
withheld thy son, thy only one, from Me.

The stretching forth of the hand and taking the knife, was
the completion of Abraham's obedience, and of his faith, and
the sacrifice was regarded as having been actually ^consummated

f. i

400

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

I ::

iri xiis heart. And now the angel of the Lord called to him
from heaven " Lay not thy hand upon the youth, nor do to him
anything, for now I know thou fearest God." Oh, what joyful
words those nmst have been to him ? Here ajjain the context
shows that " the angel of the Lokd" is none other than God
Himself, this is evident from the hist clause of verse 12, "and
hast not withheld thy son, thy only son from Me ;" and also
I'rom Abraham calling the name of the place " Jehovah-jireh"
(v. 14). " For now I know thou fearest God." As God is
omniscient and knows the thoughts of man, He knew this
before, and, indeed He had Himself already declared it (ch. xviii.
19). But what the language here simply intends to convey is,
that he knew by a new proof, having put his faith and obedience
to the severest trial possible. It must be remembered that God
in His declarations often accommodates his language to human
usages of speech, in order that they may be readi'y understood.
And here it is proper to otter a few remarks in reply to the
objections so frequently urged by the opponents of Scripture
against this portion of the sacred narrative. It is well known
tliat the iunnolation of children was a common practice among
ancient idolatrous nations, and the opponents of Scripture ap-
peal to the command given to Abraham to offer up Isaac as a
proof, " that human sacrifices are also recognized in the narra-
rative as agreeable to the will of God." Now, the very first
sentence of the narrative shows how utterly groundless the
objection is : " And it was after these things that God tried
Abraham." The command to ofi'er up Isaac was intended to be
merely a trial of Abraham's faith, and obedience to the will of
God. The " chosen" (Gen. ch. xviii. 19) father of the faithful
was to be set forth to his posterity as having victoriously stood
the severest test of his faith. But when this test had been
carried to the very uttermost, so that the knife was already in
the hand to slay the victim, the trial was then completed, and
God interfered, for He never intended thit the command
should be actually executed. The eminent Oriental scholar
and theologian Le Clerk, has very pertinently remarked on this
portion of the sacred narrative, that " it is introduced in order
to show that, although human victims were not offered to God
by his true worshippers, j^et this did not arise from any un-
willingness on their part to sacrifice the best and dearest."

14. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as
it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord, He shall be seen.

In commemoration of the ev^ent, Abraham called tlie name
of the place *n!J^1"' mn"' (Jehovah j ireh) — Jehovah will see — i.e.,

* The verb HS^'^ (raah) is sometimes used in the sense to look out or choose
anything/or onenelf, hence to provhle.

un-

: as

people's commentary.

401

will 2)rovid€. He evidently gave this name in allusion to the
answer he made to Isaac's (question, (v. 8.) There is likewise
a very strikinfj correspondence between this name and the
name Moriah, i. e., Jehovah manifested. " * ^ it is said to this
day," that is, it became a proverbial expressiu.i to say, " In the
mountain of the LoiiD He shall be seen ;" namely, that God
would select this place where His presence would be mani-
fested, and where sacrifices would be offered to him.

15. And the angel of the Loud called to Abraham Jrom heaven a
second time.

16. And said, By Myself I have sworn, saiih the Lord, trtdy ;
because thou hast done this thing, and not withheld thy son, thy only

one :

17. Indeed, I will bless thee greatly, and v:ill multiply thy seed
exceedintjly, as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand upon the shore
of the sea ; and thy seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.

God swears either by Himself, (compare also Jer. xxii. 5,) or
by His attributes and wonderful deeds ; (comp. Deut. xxxii. 40,
et seq.,) for as the Apostle Paul says, " He could swear by none
greater," (ITeb. vi. 18.) This is another proof that the angel
of the Lord is God Himself and not a created angel. " They
shall possess the gate of their enemies," which simply means,
they were to subdue their enemies, and take possession of their
cities.

In verse 20 and remaining verses of the chapter we have the
genealogy of Nahor, Abraham's brother, who was married to
Milcah, the sister of Lot. The genealogy seems to be introduced
to show the uninterrupted connection of Abraham's house with
his family in Mesopotamia, from whence Isaac was to take his
wife.

CHAPTER XXin.

L A, id Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty years old:
these were the years of the life of Sarah.

2. And Sarah died in Kirjnth-Arba, that is, Hebron, in the land
of Canaan : and Abraham came to monrn for Sarah, and to weep
for her.

Of the numerous women mentioned in the Scriptures, Sarah

is the only one whose ago is given. If this exception has any

.significance, it must be because she w«3 the mother of the

promised seed, and thus became the mother of all believers

f >

f P
HI

402

people's commentary.

(comp. 1 Pet. iii. 16) ; and hence the chronology of her life, like
that of Abraham is given in all its more prominent cases.
Sarah survived the birth of Isaac thirty-seven years. From
our passage it appears, that Abraham, some time after the event
recorded in the preceding chapter, removed from Beer-sheba, *
and had again taken up his abode in the grove of Mamre near
Hebron, where Sarah died. This statement is]highly important,
as it shows that Sarah did not die in the land of the Philis-
tines, but in the promised land. "And Abraham came to
mourn for Sarah." The expression ''came" would imply that
Abraham was absent at the time oi her death, and it is quite
probable, as those who had large possession of cattle had
several feeding places, he may at the time have been absent
from Hebron, but as soon as he received the melancholy
tidings, he hastened to perform the last duties, and to give
vent to the expressions of grief for the loss of the affectionate
wife, who for sixty-two yeai-s had shared his wanderings.

3. And Abraham rose up from be/ore his dead, and spoke unto
the sons of Ueth, saying,

4. / am a stranger and a sojourner vnth you : give vie tlie pos-
session of a btirying 2)l(ice loith you, that I may bury my dead out
of my sight.

"And Abraham rose up." It seems to have been customary
from early times to sit on the ground whilst mourning for the
dead. So when the three friends of Job came to mourn with
him, they sat on the ground with him seven days. (Job iii. 13.)
And this custom, we believe, is still observed among some of
the orthodox Hebrews in Europe.

" I am a stranger and sojourner with you." The land had
indeed been repeatedly promised to him and his seed for an
inheritance, but the Canaanites were still in possession of it,
for God's appointed time for their expulsion had not yet come,
and Abraham seeks now to obtain a place of burial for himself
and his wife in the promised land. But here we may further
remark that even the Israelites, after they had taken possession
of the promised land, were only to consider themselves as
strangers and sojourners, for we read (Lev. xxv. 23), "And the
land shall not be sold in perpetuity ; for the land is Mine : for
ye are strangers and sojourners with Me." And David, after
he had become King of Israel, says :

For I am a stranger with Thee,
A sojourner as aU my fathers were,

(Ps. xxxix. 13, Eng. vers. v. 12. Compare also Heb. xi. 13.)

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

403

13.)

5. And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him,

6. Hear us, my lord : tho%i art a prince of God among us: i» the
choicest of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us vnll withhold thee
his sepulchre, that thou mayest bury thy dead.

This ready, kind, and generous offer of the idolatrous chil-
dren of Heth to a stranger, and one opposed to their idolatrous
practices, may appear somewhat remarkable ; especially when
the great degree of sacredness with which the resting places of
departed relatives were regarded is taken into consideration.
But it must be borne in mind that Abraham had before dwelled
for a length of time at Hebron, and had found there faithful
friends and allies in Eschol and Mamre. (See ch. xiv. 13.) It
was from this place also that he had set out on his expedition
against the kingf who had taken Lot and his property, and
returned victorious. This exploit alone mu.st have made the
Hebronites to look upon Abraham as a most extraordinary man ,
who was able to defeat with such an insignificant number of
men, an army that had vanquished the combined forces of the
five kings in the vale of Siddim. But besides this, as Abimc-
lech had publicly acknowledged, the supernatural protection
vouchsafed to Abraham, the report of the occurrence in Gerar
had no doubt also spread to Hebron, and this would make
the Hebronites to look upon Abraham with a feeling of awe.
We can therefore understand how it came that the Hittites
called Abraham QTlbiS^ i^'^iSD (nesi Elohhn) which admits of a
twofold rendering, namely, "a prince of God," i.e., a, prince
appointed by God, or " a mighty prince.'"* With such an
important personage they deemed it highly desirable to form a
friendship, and to lay him under some obligation, and hence
their ready reply ; nay, so far from being " a stranger and
sojourner, thou art a prince of God among us, in the choicest
of our sepulchres bury thy dead. ' But such a thought as
burying Sarah in the sepulchre of an idolatrous family could
only be regarded by Abraham with great abhorrence He
therefore asked as a favour that the children of Heth might
entreat Ephron for him, who possessed a certain cave which
the patriarch was anxious to obtain as a place of burial. As
to Ephron nothing is farther known, but probably was some
important person among them. Ephron not only at once

* It is one of the Hebrew modes of expressing the superlatives to place a
noun in construction with one of the appellations of the Deity, which then
attributes to the noun the idea of the highest excellency. Thus we have the

expressions Qlflbli^ ''binSS (nnphtide Eloldm), lit. "the wrestlings of God,''
t. e., the most poicerful wrestlitigs (Gen. xxx., 8) ; Ciribi^ "It! (^f"" Elohim),
lit. "the mountain of God," i. e., a moat lofty vKunilain (Ps. Ixviii., 16);
bjS^ ''TIK («'*«« -^Of lit. "cedars of God," i. e., the Jineit cedars (Ps. Ixxx., 10.)

II:

m I

404

people's commentary.

acceded to Abraham's request to let him have the cave, but
likewise the whole field which contained the cave, and that
without asking any payment for it. Now this apparently
liberal act on the part of the Hittite has been generally admired,
and so it certainly deserved to be, if it had been made in all
sincerity. But it is by no means an uncommon practice in
the East to resort to this mode of dealing when asked to dispose
of anything to a person of superior rank, with the expectation of
having some favour granted in the future or receiving a present
of greater value in return. Mr. Fraser, in his " Journey into
Khorasan," has the following remarks, which strikingly
illustrate Ephron's conduct : " The least a Persian says
when he receives you is, that he is your slave ; that
his house, and all it contains — nay, the town and country —
are all yours ; to dispose of at your pleasure. Every
thing you accidentally notice — his water smoking pipes, his
horse, equipage, clothes — are all presents for your acceptance.
This mode of address as Francklin observes, is not confined to
the great ; but the meanest artisan will not hesitate to ofter the
city of Shiraz, with all its appurtenances, as a present to a
stranger on his arrival. All this is understood to mean no
more than ' your obedient, humble servant ' at the end of our
letters. But it often happens, that if the stranger be a person
of wealth or influence, the man is really anxious to force upon
his acceptance any article he happens to admire, or expresses a
wish to purchase. But if the stranger is inconsiderate enough
to accept it, it will not be long before he discovers that by this
act he is considered to have given the person a claim either
upon his good offices and favours, or for a present of much
more than equal value in return. If, like Abraham, he under-
stands these matters, and is not disposed to receive such
obligations, his best course is either ' not to admire ' at all, or
to insist on at once paying the value of that which attracts his
admiration. In the latter case, the man will name the price, like
Ephron, in a slight way, as a thing of no consequence. ' It is
worth so much, what is that between me and thee?' But
when the money is produced, he counts it very carefully, and
transfers it to the pocket or bosom of his vest in a business-like
manner, without any indication that shekels of silver are
under valued by him." Abraham, however, courteously though
determinedly declined to accept the burial place as a present,
he desired to pay for it so that it might become his permanent
property by a binding and legal purchase. " I will give thee
money for the field ; take it of me, and I will bury my dead
there (v. 13). Ephron, in accepting the offer to take pay for
the piece of land, still kept up the appearance that he merely
did so to oblige, and not indeed that he cared for the money.

PEOPLE. S COMMENTARY.

405

lOugh

this

ither

uch

nder-

uch

1, or

his

It is

But

and

,-like

sent,
nent
thee
lead
■ for
rely
ney,

at the same time, however, he did not lose the opportunity of
asking a considerable sum for it.

14. And Eiyhron ansioered Ahrahuin, sn/jiny to liim,

15. My lord, listen to mc : a piece of /and worth four hnndred
shekels of silver, loliat is that betit'een me and thee i bunj there/ore thi/
dead.

As the " shekel of silver " was in value equal to about 65
cents, the piece of land would amount to about 200 dollars.
We of course do not know what size the field may have been,
but there is no reason for believing it to have been of very
largo extent. The sum therefore asked for it was rather a
considerable one, especially when it is taken into consideration
that in those early ages the value of money must have been
far greater than at present. Thus, in Exod. xxi. 22, the price
for "a man-servant or a mai<l-servant" is placed at " thirty
shekels," or .about eighteen dollars. According to Judges xvii.
10, a household priest could be obtained at a yearly salary of
" ten shekels, and a suit of apparel, and the victuals." David
bought from A raunah a threshing-floor and oxen " for fifty
shekels." (2 Sam. xxiv. 24.) Other examples might be cited
to show the great value of money in those days, but those \\ e
have given are sufficient to show that the sum asked by Ephron
was no small one, and that he made no sacrifice by the sale.

16. Ayid Abraham listened to Ephro)i ; and Abraham weighed, to
Ephron the silver tvhich ho had named, in the presence of the sotis of
Ilethj/o'iir hundred shekels q/' silver, current money with the merchant.

The oldest money employed was silver, which was apparently
cut in small bars of certain weight, for convenience sake. The
largest of these was called shekel, i. c, we'iglit. There was no
inscription upon it, except perhajts the numlier marked upon
it whether it was one, two, or more shekels weight. But as
this afforded a good opportunity to practise deception, for it
was easy to make the bars of lighter weight, the money was
therefore generally wei!.^hed. And thus Abraham weighed
" the four hundred shekels of silver current money with the
merchant in the presence of the sons of Heth." As in those
early times there were no written contracts by which a property
could be secured to the ])urchaser, it was important to give as
much publicity as possible to such transactions in order that
the report of them might with more certainty be handed down
from generation to generation. And hence we find that, accor-
ding to vei'se 18, Abraham not only concluded the bargain
" before the eyes of the children of Heth," but also '' before all

1 »

406

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

;i li

ill'

that went in at the gate of his (Ephron's) city." In most of the
ancient versions, a^d by some commentators, TlbBDT2U flUJa
{mearath Hamvmciqjelah) is rendered by "double cave." Thus
the Sept. TO airrfKatxiv to BittXovv, " the twofold cave ;" the
Chald. i^fibSS rill's (mearath caphlatha) "the cave of double-
ness ;" the Vulgate, " spelunca duplex ;" Eben Ezra, " a cave in
a cave." They regarded nbBD?3 {machpelah) as an appellative,
derived from bS3 (caphal) to be double, supposing the cave to
have consisted of two distinct parts. But the tenn " Mach-
])elah " is now very genei*ally regarded to be the name of the
locality in which the field with the cave was situated, and this
supposition is certainly favoured by the language in verse 19,
"And the field of Ephron, which is in Machpelah, which is
befci-e Mamre." The "field" is here said to be "in Machpelah,"
which can only mean that it was situated in the locality called
Machpelah. In verse 19, also, it is said that "Abraham buried
Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah."

It seems to have been formerly a very common practice of
depositing the dead in natural caves. Such caves are very
numerous in Palestine and Syria. The mosque built over the
tombs of the patriarchs is a massive structure, and is by the
moslems esteemed as one of their holiest places, and Christians
ai'e strictly prohibited from entering it. The court in which
the mosque stands, is surrounded by a high wall constructed
of very large stones. This wall, Dr. Robinson thinks, may be
substantially the same as that which is mentioned by Josephus,
Eusebius, and Jerome, as the sepulchre of Abraham. Some few
travellers have succeeded, by bribery or other means, in gaining
an entrance into the mosque and cave, and they describe the
sepulchre to be a deep and spacious cavern, cut out of solid
rock, the entrance to it being in the centre of the mosque. All
Bey, who ])assed himself ofi' as a Mussulman, and thus gained
an entrance, says : "All the sepulchres of the patriarchs are
covered with rich carpets of green silk, and magnificently
embroidered with gold ; those of their wives are red, embroi-
dered in like manner. The sultans of Constantinople furnish
these carpets, which are renewed from time to time.

are
gently
ibroi-
iruish

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

CHAPTER XXIV.

407

and the Lord

1. And Abraham loaa old, and advanced* in years ,
had blessed Abraham in all things.

2. And Abraham said to his eldest servant of his house, who ruled
overall that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh ;

3. AivL 1 10 ill make thee swear by the Lord, the God oflieaven, and
tfie God of the earth, that thou loilt not take a wife to my son of the
daughters of the Canaanites, amony whom I dwell :

4. But thou shaltgo to my country, and to the land of my birth, and
take a wife to my son, to Isaac.

The sacred narrative furnishes us in this chapter — one of the
largest in the Bible — with a precise and highly interesting
account of the marriage of Isaac. The account appropriately
commences with the statement that " Abraham was old and
advanced in years," for he had now attained the 140th year,
having been a hundred when Isaac was born, and according to
ch. XXV. 20, Isaac was " forty years old when he married." In
this advanced age, we can readily understand that the pious
patriarch should be solicitous to see his beloved son, and heir
of the promise, united to some child of God before his
death. There were, however, great difficulties in the way of
obtaining the desired object. Living, as he did, among the
idolatrous Canaanites no such suitable person could be found
among the women of the country ; and if he sent his son back
to the country from whence he had been called, to choose him-
self a wife from among his kindred, there was the great danger
that powerful temptations might induce him to remain there.
Though Abraham, no doubt, had full confidence in the firmness
of Isaac's principles, still he was too well acquainted with the
infirmities of human nature. Under these circumstances, the
prudent patriarch determined to send his most trustworthy
servant to select a wife for his son from his kindred. But it
will perhaps be asked, that as, according to ch. xxxi. 19, 30, idol-
atry had still a place in Nahor's family, was there not great
danger of evil influences by a marriage with a member of that
family ? This question may be satisfactorily answered in the
words of an eminent writer : " The descendants of Terah
belonged to the blessed branch of the Shemites ; the germ of
truth slumbered in them, and it recjuired but a genial influence
of example and instruction to bring it into blossom." Thus,

* In the original the expression is Q''?3''2l 2i(^ (^" heyammim) "advanced
in days," e. e., advanced in age. In Job xiv. i.. we have the contrary expres-
sion Ql}2'^ "l2Ii? {^itsar yamim), short of day», i. e., short lived.

' I

-,«

408

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

for instance, though Laban had his household idols, yet he was
ready to acknovvledgo that it was " Jehovah " Wlio guided the
stewai'd's steps (eh. xxiv. 50.)

The steward whom Abraham sent on the important mission
was no doubt his old faithful .servant Eliezer of Damascus, and
although he had the highest confidence that he would carry
out his wishes and obey his injunctions, yet knowing too well
the weakness of human nature, and the insidious character of
the idolatrous people among whom he dwelled, in order to
make the .steward more careful he binds him by the most
solemn oath that could possibly be taken. " Put thy hand
under my thigh ;" we find this formality in administering an
oath only once more employed, namely, ch. xlvii., 29, where
Jacob requires the same ceremony from Joseph. It is there-
fore doubtful whether it was a common ceremony in adminis-
teiing an oath in those ancient times. The design of the
ceremony is equally doubtful, and hence various explanations
have been given. Eben Ezra and some other Jewish com-
mentators consider that it symbolizes the submission of the
servant, and demands unconditional obedience to the master.
This view was also adopted by Rosemiiller and many other
modern commentators, and is no doubt the most plausible that
has been advanced. The servant, after he had taken the oath
to do as he had been charged, lost no time in setting out on
his journey. He took ten camels, " and all the goods of his
master " — it is, the precious things which his master sent for
presents — " and went to *Mesopotamia, to the city of Nahor."
Although there is no mention made here of any one accom-
panying him, it is however evident from ver.se 32 that he was
accompanied by attendants, which will account for the number
of camels being taken. Indeed, it would have been quite
against Oriental customs to have come on such an important
errand from a wealthy chief unattended, and without some
display of grandeur.

11. And he made the camels to kneel down icithout the city by a well
of water, at the time of the evening, at the time ivhen t/ie vjomen come
out to draw water.

12. And he said, Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray Thee,
send me good speed this day, and shew kindness to my master Abraham.

The steward had learned during his long .service in his
master's house, that the events in life are controlled by Provi-
dence, and now committed the success of his mission entirely

* Heb. C''^n!D D*li5 {Arom naharayim), i. e., Syria of tioo rivers ; namely,
^Yx-cv^ / the region lying between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris.

f-t^<^

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

409

, yet he was
) guided the

ant mission
mascus, and
I'^ould carry
ig too well
haracter of
in order to
' the most

thy hand
istering an

29, where
t is there-
n adminis-
ign of the
Lplanations
wish com-
ion of the
he master,
lany other
usible that
m the oatli
ng out on
ids of his
V sent for
)f Nahor."
le accom-
he was
le number

en quite
important
out some

by a well
men come

ray Thee,
Abraham.

in his
y Provi-
entirely

; namely.

to the will of God. " He made his camels kneel down." This
is the posture in which camels repose. " By a well," Probably
the principal well belonging to the city, where the women of
the town come at certain times of the day to draw water,
which on account of the great heat during the day was gener-
ally done in the morning or evening. The duty of fetching
water devolved upon the females, and is still performed by
them among the Ambians and in some parts of India without
distinction of rank ; even the daughters of the greatest and
proudest chiefs come with their vessels. In Turkey and
Persia, however, this laborious work is now only performed by
females among the poorer classes, the well-to-do families are
supplied by men who make it a regular business. The wells
wore to the females what the gates were to the men. When
they met at the time of drawing water, they indulged in a
friendly conversation.

The prayer which the steward offered up is remarkable for
its humility, he calls upon God as the God of his master, as if
he felt himself unworthy to be acknowledged by the Almighty,
and also for the faith in which it was offered. He had full
confidence, that God would direct him in his important mis-
sion^ to bring it to a successful issue. As a perfect stranger,
he could not have known the maidens that belonged to Terah's
family, he therefore fixed upon a sign, by the occurrence (»f
which he might discover the person he was in search of.

14. And 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 will say.
Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also; let fier be she whom Thou
hast appointed for Thy servant, for Isaac ; and thereby shall I know
that Thou hast shown kindness to my master.

15. Aiul it came to pass, before he had finished speaking, that, behold,
Rehekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, the son of Milcah, t/ie wife
of Nahor, Abraham's brother, with her pitcher on her shoulder.

The devout prayer of the steward — which, according to verse
45, was mental, " before I had finished speaking in my heart "
— was speedily answered. Rebekah with the pitcher upon her
shoulder approached the well, and without taking any notice
of the stranger, immediately went down to the well and filled
her vessel.

Natural wells were made more accessible by having a
few steps leading down to them, whilst excavated cisterns,
for rain water, were generally covered with a large stone on
account of the drifting sand : they were much wider at the
bottom than at the opening. The steward who, no doubt,
watched every movement of the mniaen, now hastened to
61

410

PEOPLES COMMBiNTARY.

he-

address her, let me, I pray thoo.toste a little water of thy
pitcher." This request was not only quickly and politely
answered by "drink *my lord," but with the additional oflbr,
" I will draw ivater for thy camels also, until they have done
drinking" (v. 19).

It will be seen Rebekah offered more than the steward had
prayed for, (v. l-t). She did not merely say"! will give thy
camels drink also," but that she would draw water until they
had done drinking. Now it must be remembered, that although
camels can endure thirst for a very long time, when an oppor-
tunity does offer, they consume an immense quantity of water.
We can therefore readily conceive that the task which Rebekah
imposed upon herself to satisfy ten camels, must have been an
arduous one. Yet she delighted in rendering this service.

20. And she hastened, and emptied her pitcher into tlie trough, and
ran again to the well to dram water, and drew for all hia camels.

After the stranger had finished drinkiiig, "siu ha-stoned,"
implying that she cheerfully entered upon her task. " And
emptied her pitcher into the trough." Many of the wells in
the East, especially those near the towns, have watering
troughs round the wells, which are either of stone or wood.
She then " ran again to the well to draw ivater," and this she
continued to do until the camels had finished drinking.

21. And the man was wondering at her in silence, to know whether the
Lord /lad made his journey p^'osperous or not.

The steward was struck with amazement at what had just
transpired. The maiden who had rendered the service, was
beautiful, active, kind-hearted, and, above all, had fully an-
swered the sign he had fixed upon, by giving the recjuired
response to his request for a drink of water. So far then all
had turned out favourably to his mission being successful.
There yet remained, however, the important point to be decided
whether the maiden belonged to Terah's family, and this made
him wonder in silence to know whether the Lord after all
" had made his journey prosperous or not." We can easily

Eicture to ourselves the anxious feelings of the steward until
e had satisfied himself about this circumstance. Before, how-
ever, he made inquiries of the maiden, he selected suitable
presents.

22. And it came to pass when the camels had finished drinking, that
the man took a golden nose-ring, a beka in weight, and two bracelets

for her handt of ten shekels' weight of gold.

*l51fc^ (adoni) " my lord " was used by the Hebrews as we use "sir."

■

people's commentauy.

It appears from vcr.sc 47 that the jowuls were not given,
until ho had received the satisfactory infornmtion as to lier
family. In the Authorized Version tlio Hebrew term QT3
(neacm) is rendered " ear-ring"; now although the word denotes
both an ear-Hng and a nose-rhuj, yet one ear-ring would
hardly have been a proper present. Besides, in verso 47, it is
distinctly stated that the steward " put it in her no.se ;" Author-
ized Version, " put the ear-ring upon her face," but the Rovi.sed
Version, "put the ring in her no.se." " A boka is half a
shekel.

The no.se-rings now worn by Oriental women are generally
hollow, to render them less heavy. They are either of ivory,
silver, or gold, and freciuently set with costly jewels.

Bracelets are the most favourite ornaments among Eastern
ladies, and not unfretpiently among tho rich, nearly the whole
arm from the wrist to the elbow is covered with them. The
bracelets are often very massive, and in our passage the two
bracelets are said to have weighed " ten shekels," that is, about
2 oz. G pen., value about 46 dollars. Bracelets are promised in
the Koran among the rewards for piety. (Koran xviii. 30.) It
appears that in ancient times even men wore them. (Comp. 2
Sam., i. 10.) On the Assyrian .sculptures they are often seen
on the arm of a person of distinction, and even on the arms of
the deities.

The steward having ascertained from the maiden that she
was the daughter of Bethuel, and the grand-child of Abraham's
brother (ch. xxii. 22, 23), gave the presents to her, not as a
bridal gift — for those were according to verse 53 more numerous
and costly — but for the service she had rendered him. The
satisfactory answer he had received from the maiden regarding
her family, dispelled the lingering doubt as to the success of his
important mission. He now felt satisfied that the maiden was
the wife aj)pointed by God for his mastei's son, anil he prostrated
himself before the Loud, and devoutly gave thanks for Hi.s
mercy in guiding him in the way to the house of his master's
kinsman. Rebekah having extended the hospitality of her
father's house to the stranger — " We have l)oth straw and
provender enough, and room to stay in" (v. 25) — hastened home
to inform her family of all that hatl taken place. When Laban
her brother saw the presents, and had heard what his sister had
said, he also lost no time in asking the stranger to the house,
" he ran out to the man, to the well," and found him standing
by the camels, probably awaiting an invitation from the head
of the hou.se. Why Laban and not Bethuel went out, the narra-
tive does not inform us, but probably he may have been infirm,
at any rate the son being younger, could more speedily extend
the invitation, and welcome him to the house.

■ I

■J-it

412

people's commentary.

31. And he said, Come, thou bleteedof the Lono; lohere/ore dost thou
etandioithout ? mid I have prepared the house, and loom /or the camelt.

" Thou l)loH.sccl of the Lord." The reader will perceive from
" Loud " beint^ printed in capital letters, that in the original
mrr^ (Jekovan) is employed, and .some of our modern writers
maintain that its use by Laban, who, according to ch. xxxi. 30,
i.s still an idolator, is altogether inconsistent. But there appears
to me nothing at all remarkable in this, and can easily bo
accounted for, It will be seen, that as soon as the steward had
received the favourable answer from Rebekah, he immediately
bowed down and worshipped, making use of the words : "Blessed
he the Lord (Jehovah), God of my master Abraham," which
had no doubt been heard by the damsel before she had left the
place, for there is no reason to suppose that she ran off before
the man had done worshipping. In relating what had trans-
pired, she would not omit to tell of the man thanking the Lord
for his success, and what particularly wo aid have struck her, that
ho had called his master's God " Jehovah." It i.s, therefore,
quite natural that Laban in addressing the man should use the
same name, if only out of courtesy, if nothing more. The
costly presents, the servants (v. 32) that accompanied the stew-
ard, the number of camels, and probably also a handsome
outfit, were to Laban a sign of distinguished position, and of
wealth, and hence, addrtssed him : " Thou blessed of the Lord,
wherefore dost thou stand without ? " This was evidently
intended as a gentle reproof, for not thinking better of his
hospitality, and not accompanying his sister at once.

32. And the man came into the house : and he {Laban) ungirded his
camels, and gave straw and pi'ovender /or the camels, and water to wash
his feet, and the men's/eet who were with him.

In the Authorized Version it is rendered : " And the man
came into the house, and ungirded his camels," &;c. This
rendering gives the wrong impression, that the steward did all
that is mentioned in our verse, which would have been a gross
violation of the custom of the country, and a great laok of
civility on the part of Laban to allow his guest to do it. The
fact is, in the original the nominative is often omitted where
it can be readily .supplied from the context. Here the context
clearly indicates that Laban is the subject of the verb, and
ought to have been rendered " and he ungirded," as it is
rendered in the Revised Version. Nor need we even suppose
that Laban himself did it, but simply ordered it to be done ;
for, as we have already stated, according to Scripture usage, a
person that orders a thing to be done is said to do it himself.
The preliminary duties of entertaining guests having been

.^5ls^:.i:.

PEOPLES COMMKNTAKY.

41.S

performod, " food whs set hofore him ;" l»ut tlio fMitltful Ht«>W(vnl
was too iiitt'iit upon tlie affair ontnistod to him t(» coiisidtr liis
own comt'oi ts, he nd'u-^tMl to cat until hi' had iiiadr known to
them tln! (»l»j»'ct of IiIh journey. Althouj^h contrary to the
oxiHtin^ rules ul' t'lKiuctte on such occa'^ioiis, Knlmn perci'ivinj;'
the j:reat anxiety (»f his ^nicst to unhurdon his niiinl " — I will
not cat until 1 have snoken my M'ords " (v. .'{.*J)- yieMed to his
wi.shes, and re(iuested him to sjteak. The stewiiid now narrated
in hin;j[iiMj,'e Ixitli reniarkahlc for its si'iiplicity and cle^'ancc of
diction, how (Ji>d had hlesHcd his master with worldly ^oo'ls,
and that Sarah Iiis wif«^ luul home toliima son in h<r old ai^'e,
to wliom he hatli nivt-n all that he hath. How his ninster hath
made him sw ; r tiot to take a wife for his son liom the
Canaanites, hut to ^'o to his tatlicr's house and take a wife for
him from his own family. The stewai'd then luniated what
had taken piace at the well, laying ])nrticular stress upon how
he hail placctl liimself entirely under the ]>ivine guidance.
The .stewaid was evidently anxious to imj)Jcss upon Lahan and
his family " the mercy and truth " (v. ^7) wlii'eh (hid hath
shown to his master ; and in concluding his ad<lrcss he also
entreats tlu ni lliat they might likewise extend 'kindness ami
truth " to his master. But should they refuse to give Rchekah
to Isaac foi- a wife, to tell him so at once, so that he may " turn
to the lijiht haTid oi' to the left" (v. 40) ; it is, go to .some other
branch of 'J'crah's family in order to fulfil his ohiigation to
his master. We must not omit to notice that the ]>hi'ase
"^Dli^ TiS £"2 {fxiff' '^'f'" aJoni) in ver.se 4S, rendered in the
Authorized and Revised Versions "my n)aster's hrother's
daughttr," should have been rendered "my master's kinsman's
daughter," for Bethuel was Abraham's nephew and not his
brother. \Vc have already stated that the word ni< brother
is used also in the sense of kinsman.

50. And Lohitn and Bethuel answered and said, The thing pro-
ceedethj'ivm Op Lord." we cannot speak to thee bad or guod.

f>\. Jiehold, Hibtkdh is before thee, lake hei', and go, and let her be the
wife ojthy masters son, as the LuHU hath spoken.

Bethuel and Laban acknowledged that "The thing pro-
ceedeth from the LouD." They recognized in the steward's
journey the guidance of God, and that it would thei-efore l)C
useless in any way to oppose His will. And accordingly .at
once consented to let Rchekah become Isaac's wife. Both the
words and actions of Bethuel and Laban show thTt they could
not have been hardened idolators, but easily accessible to the
truth. We see throutrhout this transaction Laban taking a
prominent part, for it seems brotliers considered them.selves
62

414

people's commentary.

ill

as the gnarrl'ans of their sisters, to protect their honour, and
to look after their welfare. (Comp. ch. xxxiv. 5, 11, 25; 2 Sam.
xiii. ; Judg. xxi. 22). The pious steward, as soon as he had
received the favourable answer, and now saw his errand crowned
with complete success, prostrated himself, and devoutly gave
thanks to God for His mercy in having prospered his journey.
A servant now brought the bridal presents, consistiug of jewels
of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment for Rebekah, and
valuable presents for the mother and brother. The faithful
steward was now impatient to gladden the heart of his aged
master, and the following morning asked for permission to
set out on the journey homeward. This request, however,
the relatives were unwilling to grant.

55. And her brother and her mother said. Let the maiden abide with
us some days, if only ten ; after that she may go.

The desire on the part of the relatives to keep Rebekah, if
only for ten daj's longer after they had given their consent,
was a very natural one. Indeed, it was the custom to allow
a certain time to elapse between the betrothal and the mar-
riage. But the steward could not bear the idea of keeping
the good news from his venerable master a moment longer
than was absolutely necessary, and persisted in his request to
be allowed to depart. They decided therefore to leave it to
Rebekah to say whether she was willing to depart immediately,
and on being asked, answered, apparently without giving the
matter a moment's consideration, "I will go." (v. 57.) The
ready willingness to leave so suddenly her beloved parents and
relatives, may, no doubt, be accounted for by Rebekah having,
like her father and brother, recognized that " the thing pro-
ceedeth from the Lord," therefore did not wish in any way to
oppose the steward's action, who had throughout his journey
been under tiie Divine guidance. It was certainly not for
want of filial affection. A maiden, who had shown such dis-
interested kindness to an utter stranger, could net be other-
wise than an affectionate daughter. Rebekah's decisive an-
swer, h'ft her relatives no other alternative but to accede to
htr wishes. They accordingly permitted her to depart, not,
however, M'ithout having first bestowed upon her the fervent
blessing " be thou the mother of thousands of myriads, and let
thy seed possess the gates of those who hate them." (v. 60.)
The sorrow of leaving her affectionate parents and relatives,
the loved home of her childhood, and pleasant associations, was
in some degree lessened, by her nurse and her maids accompany-
ing her to her new home ; and also by the circumstance that,
although Abraham and his .'on were strangers to her, yet they

PE»PLE S COMMENTARY.

415

Hour, and

5 ; 2 Sam.

s he had

1 crowned

itly gave

journey.

of jewels

kcih, and

faithful

his aged

ission to

however,

ibide toith

3ekah, if
consent,
to allow
ihe mar-
keeping
it longer
quest to
ve it to
diately,
ing the
■.) The
nts and
having,
ng pro-
way to
ourney
not for
ch dis-
other-
ive an-
cede to
it, not,
'ervent
and let
v. 60.)
atives,
IS, was
ipany-
j that,
t they

-were her relatives. When the « aravan arrived in Canaan, and
was nearing Abraham's tents, Rebekah on lifting up her eyes,
saw a man walking in the field and coming towards them.
She probably supposed it might be Isaac, and therefore asked
the steward, " What man is this that walketh in the field to
meet us ?" And on receiving the reply that it was his master's
son, she* quickly alighted from her camel, for as Isaac was
walking, it would have been a gross breach of Oriental eti-
quette to be presented to him seated on the camel. Indeed,
eastern travellers relate that in many parts the custom still
prevails for women when riding and meeting a strange man,
to alight from their animals as a mark of respect. So men
also as a mark of respect to a superior, will alight and lead
their animals until they have passed him. Rebekah also
"took the veil and covered herself" (v. 65) as became a
bride meetingr the bridegroom. For according to the common
custom on the day of marriage, the bride is brought vailed
to the bridegroom. And this may explain how it was that
Laban could practise such a deception on Jacob as substituting
Leah for Rachel, (ch. xxix. 25.) The term D''3?2 itf(^\f) ^lere
employed denotes a large vail, covering nearly the whole
body ; diff'ering from those ordinarily worn in the house, which
cover only the face ; the former renders it impossible to reuog-
niz the person. Our narrative represents Isaac as going out
" to meditate in the field at even-tide; the word mipb (lusitach),
has by some been rendered as in our own version, to vieditate,
and by some to prey, either of these renderings are correct ;
only that the meditation here spoken of must be understood
to have been pious meditation, and not of a worldly nature.
It is somewhat strange that Gesenius in his " Thesaurus," p.
1322, without the authority of a single manuscript, should
have proposed to read miC2 tDTOb (lashid bassadek,) " to
wander in the field." Isaac took Rebekah into his tent for-
merly occupied by his mother, " and she became his wife ; and
he loved her," and he was consoled for his mother's death, which
had taken place three years befoie.

bSm (wattippal) V. 64 ; the verb 5SD (naphal) primarily denotes to fall,
but is also used Id the sense to alljlu quickly, (Cump. 1 Sam. xxv. 23,
2 Kings V. 21.)

I »

;i'

416 people's commentary.

CHAPTER XXV.

1. And Ahndiam tcoh again a infr, and her ?m7we was Kcturah.

Keturah was, according to 1 Chron. i. 32, only Abraham's
concubine, and many commentators, not indeed witliout some
good grounds, suppose that she had entered into tliis relation-
ship with the patriarch before the death of Sarah; and that
she had borne the six sons mentioned in verse 2, (hiring Sarah's
life time. In su]iport of this supposition, it is argued, that as
the birlh of Isaac was considered miraculous, it being beyond
the natural order of events: (comp. ch. xvii. 17; xviii. 11.)
Abraham being then one hundred years old, and as the apostle
Paul expresses it. " as good as dead" (Ileb. xi. 12), it is incre-
dible that the patriarch should have l)ecome the father of six
other children, alter the death of Sarah, when he \mA attained
to the aiie of 140 j^ears. The account of the p.itriarch's mar-
riage to Keturah being introduced here after the aeath of Sarah,
does not necessarily argue against its not hav ng taken [ilace
befoie, for we have already shown in our remai ks on the second
chapter, that events are not always recorded in their chronolo-
gical Older, the sacred writers not always finding it suitable to
do so. 1 his very ])robably was the case in this instance, as
the inset tion in an earlier place, would have interrupted the
continuity of the narrative. It is for a similar reason that we
find in verses 8, 0, the death and burial of Abraham recoided,
though he lived fifteen years after the birth of his grandsons
Jacob and Esau (vv. 25, 20), so that the history of the life of
Isaac might not be interrupted.

2. And she hare hhn Ziinran, and Jokahan, and Medan, and
Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

Zimran was probably the ancestor of the Zamercni, a tribe
in the interior of Arabia: (Plinj' vi. 32). Jokshan was the
ancestor of the Sabavans and the Dedanites. Medan and
Midian each was the ancestor of a distinct tribe, but the two,
tribes — probably frtm the proximity of their abodes — seem
soon to have become merged into one, which will ex})hiin why
the same people are sometimes called ^i^t^Ta {Midhrn'nn),
]\Iid}(tvii<fi,Rru] sometimes C^DTTS {Medaiiiin ,) Mcdav Hen (com-
joare Gen. xxx\ ii. 28, 30), though in the Authorized Version
they aie in both places called Midianites. Some of these two
tribes had their abode in the peninsula of Sinai, and some in
the east (tf the Jordan, near the territory of the Moabites. The
Midianites were engaged in an extensive trade between Syria,
Arabia, and tgypt. Ihey are sometimes called Ishmaelites

life of

tribe
IS the
and
two,
seom
why
vim),
(oom-
crsion
two
lie in
The
Syria,
ielite»

people's commentary.

417

(comp. ch. xxxvii. 25, 27, 28, 36), this arose from the Ishmael-
ites beiM{][ the masters of the commerce of" the desert, they gave
the name to the Arabian mei chants generally. The descen-
dants of Islibiiek havtt as yet not been identified. From Shuah
descended tlie tribe to whom Bildad, one of the fiiends of JoV),
bel.)nrre<l. He is (Job ii. 11) called "the Shulute." Tlie dis-
trict which the Shuhites inhabited may probably be identified
with SakkjL'a in the east of Bataniea.

5. And Abralidm gave all that he had to Isaac.

G. And to the sons of the concubines whom Abraham hid, Abraham
gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son ohile he yet lived,
eastward to the land of tlie east.

Abraham, in order to prevent any contention among his sons
after his death in regard to the divisitm of his property, took
the wise precaution to make the settlement of it before he
died. To Isaac the rightful heir, as the son of harah his real
wife, he gave " nil that he had ", which here, according to the
Hebrew idiom only means the g rcdtc'^t. share, for he gave also
iritis to t!ie sons of his concul)in('s Ka'mr and Ketiirah, and
which no doul; t were of such a substantial character as to enable
them to begin life with. He also took the further precaution
of sending them far away from Isaac, so that his [trosperity
might not arouse any jealouj feelings, whilst thos(i eastern
regions to which he sent them, afforded them ample room and
opportunities to form new communities.

7. A7id these are the, days of the years of Abraham's life which he
lived, a hundred and seventy-Jive years.

9. Anil his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of
MaclipelaJi, in tlie f eld of Ephron the son of Zohar the llittite, which
is before Mamre.

Abraliam was a hundred years old when Isaac was born, and
Isaac was sixty years old wiien Jacob and E^au were born (v.
26) ; accordingly Abraham lived after the iiirth of his two
grandchildren fifteen years ; but the death of tlie patriarch is
here recorded before the birth of these two children, so that
the account of the life of Isaac might not be interrupted. The
narrative records the exceedingly pleasing cii'cumstance of
Ishmael taking part with Isaac in burying th(ur father. It
shows, however deeply he may have at the time felt the expul-
sion of his mother and himself from their home and the subse-
quent sufferings they had to endure, that he rlid not harbour
any lasting ill feeling towards his father or his brother.

The hist)ry of Abraham being now concluded, the sacred
writer merely states (v. 11) that God blesse<i Isaac after the

418

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

3- 'i

death of Abraham, and before proceeding with the sequel of his
history, tarns again to the history of Ishmael, giving a brief
account of his descendants in order to show the actual fulfil-
ment of the promise which God had made to Abraham con-
cerning him in ch. xvii. 20, that twelve princes were to spring
from him, and that he would become a great nation. In verses
13, 14, 15, we have the names of these twelve princes recorded,
and from them descended twelve nations or tribes, which con-
stituted the chief population of the Arabian peninsula.

By far the most powerful of those twelve nations, were the
Nabathaeans the descendants of Nebajoth, the first-born son of
Ishmael. It seems that at first they chiefly applied themselves
to the breeding of cattle. In Isa. Ix. 7. "the rams of Nebajoth"
are spoken of as being acceptable for sacrifice in the tem])le.
They had their habitation in Arabia Petrsea, Petra being their
capital. Their wealth consisted in abundance of horses, camels,
and sheep. To be subjected to a foreign power was regarded
by them as worse than annihilation, and in order to guard
against such a calamity, they built their capital in the rockiest
part of the chain of Mount Seir, and made it almost impreg-
nable. The Nabathseans, although occupied in raising cattle,
were nevertheless a biave and warlike nation, and heroically
defended their country from foreign foes. As an example of
their great bravery, we may mention that in the year 312
B. C, Antigonus, king of Syria sent his general Athnseus with
4000 light armed troops and 600 cavalry against them. At the
time when the general approached Petra, the greater portion
of the Nabathjeans were attending a fair held annually in the
interior of the country for commercial purposes. The general
attacked the city suddenly by night, killed a large number of
its inhabitants and carried ofl' considerable booty. The Naba-
thjvans Avere soon informed of what had taken place, and
without loss of time attacked the invading army and completely
routed it. They were subdued, in the reign of the emperor
Trajan, by Cornelius Palma, the Governor of Syria ; but Petra
still remained one of th^ chief centres of Arabian trade.
Hadrian, who succeeded Trajan, bestowed great benefits upon
the town and in grateful acknowledgment for these favours,
thoy called its name Adriave on coins, some of which are still
in existence. Under the piotection of Roman garrisons, the
commerce vastly increased, and with it the wealth of the city.
It was duru,^ this period of great prosperity, that the city
was adorned with the magnificent architectural works which
render the town of such great interest to the traveller. In the
ravine leading to the city, are the tombs with Ionic columns
and other Greek ornaments. In another ravine, stands that
wonderful structure El-Khuzneh probably used as a temple.

M'-'y--Tfc,

people's commentary.

410

and regarded one of the wonders of the East, " the facade of
which consists of two rows of six columns over one another,
with statues between, with epitaphs and sculptured pediments,
the upper one of which is divided by a httle round temple
crowned with an urn. This edifice shines still in all the fresh-
ness of colour, and attracts notice by the elalorate detail of
sculptural ornament, but its interior is merely a lofty hall, with
a chamber on ech of its three sides. Behind this edifice there
are many beautiful facades leading to apartments excavated in
the cliffs, used either as tombs, or as temples, and later as
churches. In the wider part of the valley is the splendid
Greek theatre, entirel}' hewn out of the rock, 120 feet in
diameter at the base, with more than thiity rows of seats, in
the native rock, red and purple alternately, and h<ilding up-
wards of 3,000 spectators. In the ancient city of Petra itself,
every variety of ruins, of streets, houses, temples, and palaces,
bespeaks the departed glory of a once magnificent and wealthy
city." Petra is no doubt identical with the 3?bD " ^<'la, " of
Scripture. The Hebrew name denotes a rock, and answers to
the Greek word Petra.

From Kedar, the second son of Tshmael, descended the
Kedarites, and who are no doubt identical with the Kedrei of
Pliny (v. 12). They had their abode in the desert between
Arabia Petrsea and Babylon, and are characterized as a people
inhabiting dark-coloured tents (Ps. cxx. 5 ; Cant. i. 5). They
were famous tor their fine cattle, and providing the market of
Tyre with sheep and goats (Ezek. xxvii. 21) ; and spoken of as
traversing the desert with their camels, and as possessing great
wealth (Isa. xxi. 16). They were famous for their skill in
archery (Isa. xxi. 17). Of the descendants of Adbeel. Mibsam,
Mishma, Dumah, and Massa, nothing certain is known. They
very probably united with sonio of the larger tribes.

The descendants of Tema were an extensive trading people of
the Arabian desert mentioned, Job vi. 19; Isa. xxi. 14; Jer. xv.
23. From Jeturdescended the Ituraeans, inhabiting the province
in the east of Jordan. They were a formidable people, expert
in using the bow, and audacious in attacking caravans for which
they laid in wait. The: tribes descended from Naphish and
Kedemah, have not been identified.

! I'

16. These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names by their
vi llages, and by their encampments ; twelve princes according to tJieir
nations.

The Arabs, according to their mode of life, live either in
villages or towns, or are dwellers in tents. By the term l^n
(chatser), viliaye, is meant a place without a wall, and by the

■ I,-

Cith 1

420

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

term rTT^tD' {tlrah), a circular encampment of tents. When
the Bedouins encamp, they arranj^o their tents in a circle,
within which the cattle are kept by ni^^ht. The tents of the
chief occujiy a place in the centre of the circle. "Twelve
princes," i. e., twelve chiefs. Each tribe has its chief or head of
tribe. Although the death of Ishmael is already recorded in
verse 17, yet this is done by anticipation — as was the death of
Abraham — in order that the narrative of the life of Isaac might
nr t be interrnp; ed, for Ishmael lived 48 years after the birth of
Jacob and Esan.

18. And tlicy diodl from tiavila to Shur, which is hf/or". Ejypt, as
thoii goest toinarJs Assyria ; 'hedwdthi the presence o/ all his brethren.

" From Ilaviliih to Shur." The descendants of Ishmael occu-
pied the vast territories from the Euphrates and the Persian
Gulf to the bordisrs of Egypt. Occupying the whole of the
desert of Arabia with their nomadic excm-sions. " He dwelt
in the presence of all his brethren " ; that is to say, thus
Ishinjud, us rcpn^sviiti'd by liis descendants, dwelt in the pres-
ence of all his brethren, as was foretold to Hagar (ch. xvi. 12.)

19. And this is the family history of Isaac, Abraham's son.- Abra-
ham bey (it Isaac.

This verse forms the heading or title to the history of Isaac.
We have already stated in our remarks on chap. ii. 4, that the
primary meaning of the word fnb^n {tolc.doth,) and in which
it is generally used \h, generations. It is, liowever, also used
s<Mnetinies in the more restricted sense of fdmily h'tMory, as
Gen. vi. 9 : " This is the (tuledoth) family history of Noah ;"
at. d again, <-h. xxxvii. 2: "This is (the toledoth) f the family
hi.story of Jacob," rendere<i in the Authuvized Version, " these
are the wnerations," a renderinir which is not suital>le to the
context in the.se two passages. And so in our verse, it is more
suitably rendered " family history," since it is not merely a

• In tlie Authorized Version the passage is erroneously roiKli^red : " and he
dit'd in the presmioe of all his brethren " ; the translators h iviiig taken the
verb 5S3 {nnphiil). in the sense of Iw dinl, instead of ht dwelt. The verb jSO
(mivhal) ill our pissage is evidently used in the same manner as the verb 'lO'JlJ
(Hhorhan). to itwi'l' \\\ the parallel passage ch. xvi. 12. It occurs again iu tlie
sense bt ettrn iu/> or in Mfltlr. <lown iu .Tudg. vii. ]'2. B )th tiie Septiiagint aiul
Targum render " and he dwelt before his brethren." And so the Revised
Version : " he abode in the presence of all his brethren. "

t As rt h'lMnrji is mode up of various events, hence the word ftH^T^
(tohdoth) is alwjvys used in the plural. It is derived from the verb "X^"*
(i/alnd,) to heijri, since i-ivnln are iu Scripture spokeu of as being bugotleu, See
Prov. xxvii. 1 ; Ps. xc. 2.

^ i ' i t' i i M Siir- '-I I l i iimi

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

421

jrht

record of Isaac's descendatits, but also of the ])rincipal events
which happened to hiiu during lii.s life In ordtsr to give the
narrative completeness, the sanred writer repeats certain
facts which have ah'eaily been stated. Tims he mentions
again that *' Abraham hegat Isaac," so that the narrative might
coiinneiice with his birth. He then repeats again that Isaac
took Reiiekah, the fhiuijhter of Bethuel and sister of Laban
the Aranijeaii to wife, adding here, however, the very impor-
tant infoiination that he was then "forty years old," (v. 20)
which enaliies ns tlie more readily to understand several cir-
cumstances enniiected with Isaac's history. Lsaac's faith, like
his father's faitli, was also put to the test. All Abraham's
other sons hud children, but he who wa,s to grow into a mighty
nation, whose seed was to be as the stars of heaven in multi-
tude, is childless, though he had now been married to Uebekah
twenty years. Yet Isaac remained unwavering in his faith
that Got! would fulKl His promise. He did not repine at the
delay, but "he entreated the Loud for his wif.;, because she
was barren ; and the Loiii) was entreated of him, and Rebekah
his wife conceived." (v. 21.)

22. Ami the children stntfff/M totjefher whhin her; and nhe sairl,
If it he so, wJifrefore am I thus? (t. e. where/ore do I live f ) And she
went to iuqaire of the Lord.

The verb ^'i^SlfT' (yithratsetsit) employed here, denotes a
violetd >^ti'i(;jj/f., which must have caused intense pain, and
hence the exclamation, " wherefoi'e do I live ? " The circum-
stance being also an uncommon one, and probably, being
impressed with the belief of its foreboding some future
important event, if not some evil ; " .slie went to inquire
of the Lokd", from Whom alone she could obtain the wished
for information. As to kow and ivkere Robek;ih made the
inquiry commentators are by no moans agreed. The language
employed, however, we think funiishes itself the information
how the iu|uiry was made. The phrase niT'Tl^ uJTiTb
{lldrosh etk jukounk) " to inquire of the Loiin", in most places
where it ofjeurs, iuxplies an appeal to a ))r(fi)'tnt^ ov swr yi^ he
was originally called. Thus we read 1 Sam. ix. 9. " Beforetime
in Israel when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said, come
let us '^o to the seer: for he that is now called a prophet was before
time called a seer." (See also 2 Kings iii. 11. ; viii. 8.) Now
Abraham had been called " a propliet" ch. xx. 7, and as he was
still living, it is highly probalOe tli;it she went to him, and
through him inquire 1 of the Lo.o. If, however, some may not
deem this explanation quite satisfactory, there can be no
objection for supposing, that Rebekah went to a place set apart
63

422

people's commentary.

11^ 'i?

for Divine worship and in prayer made the inquiry herself.
The incident of the cliildren struggling togetlier, was no doubt
supernatural, and was intended to pre-intimate the future
hostility that would spring up between the two nations that
were to descend from them. The Edomites showed animosity
towards the Hebrews already before the latter had even assumed
a national character. When they were leaving Kgypt attd had
reached the territory of the Edomites, they asked for permis-
sion to pass through their country, the request was made in
the most friendly manner ; " Thus saith thy brother Israel ",
promising to pay for anything they should require, and exer-
cise the greatest care not to injure anything on their way, not
even to drink water out of their wells without paying for it^
Their polite and fiiendly request was not only arrogantly
rejected, but the king of Edom sent a strong army against
them, to oppose them (Num. xx. 14-21.) After that the two
nations were almost continually at war.

25. And thejirst came out red, all over like a hairy cloak, and they
failed hia name Haau.

From the child being covered with hair, he obtained the
name -["Qy {Fsav,) " Esau," i. e., hair)/. He was also called DT^
(Edom,) "Edom," i. e., the red. From him descended tlie
Edomaeans or Edomites. They remained independent till the
time of David, who subdued them in fulfilment of the Divine
declaration,

And the one people eliall be stronger than the other people ;
And the elder shall serve the younger, (v. '23.)

Of the death of Esau we possess no certain information.

26. And after that his brother came out, and his hand took hold of
JSsau'a heel ; and his name was called Jacob : and Isaac was sixty
years old when she bore them.

The name '2py^ (yadkov,) " Jacob" denotes both a heel-catcher
and a supplwuter. The name is derived from J^pj (akav,) to
seize by the heel, and hence metaphoiically, to svj^plavt, to
circumvent, just as in wrestling, an attempt is often made to
hit the heel in order to trip an opponent. Both meanings of
the name are referred to in Scripture ; thus the prophet Rosea
says : " In the womb he took his brother by the heel." (ch.
xil 4.) And Esau exclaims after he discovered that he had
been supplanted in his father's blessing by Jacob, " Is not he
rightly called Jacob ? for he hath supplanted me these two
times." (Gen. xxvii. 36.)

people's commentary.

42a

(ch.

had

ot he

two

27, And the boys grew; and Esnuwaa an expert hunter, a man of
the field ; andJavoh was a righteous man dwelling in tents.

As the two boys grew up, the difference in their characters
became more and more strikingly apparent. Esau loved to
roam over fields and mountains in search of game, affording
him an ofiportunity to perform daring acts. Jacob, on the
other hand, loved the quiet, peaceful occupation of tending the
flocks, and " dwelling in tents." But our passage states further
that Jacob was QJT) pij^ (ish tarn), an uprvjkt man, by which
the sacred writer evidently desires to indicate that there was a
marked difference in their religious character. The rendering
in the Authorized Version: "And Jacob was a plain man," is
not only ambiguous, but does not even convey the proper foice of
the original. The explanation adopted by Oesenius and others,
that " the expression merely imples a milder and placid dispo-
tion, deprives the word Cjr) (tain) of its signiticati<m in which
it is generally used in Scripture. The same word is used in refer- .
ence to Job, who is said to have been itlJii qj^ (fani weijaslier),
j)erfect and upright (Joh i. 1.) David prays, that God might
protect him from those " who shoot in secret places at QJT| (tarn)
the perfect " : (Ps. Ixiv. 6, Eng. Vers. v. 4."

28. And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat o/ his venison; hut
Rebekuh loved Jacob.

" He did eat of his venison," in the origina.1 it is: T^sa T^S ^3
(ki tsayid bepliiv, for his venison was in his mouth ; that is, it
was agreeable to his tsiste. We must also observe that the
Hebrew word "]n^ {tsayid) denotes any kind of game obtained
by hunting, and not merely the meat of the deer. The grounds
for Isaac's ardent attachment to Esau are of a very trivial
nature, and a writer has well remarked : " He vv moitifying a
view of human nature to see prudence, justice, and piety con-
trolled by one of the lowest and grossest of our appetites." The
narrative does not assign any reason for Kebekali lavishing her
affections upon Jacob, but no doubt the prediction made to her
that " the elder sliould serve the younger " (v. 23), influenced
her mind in favour of her younger son. Besides this his
gentle disposition and domestic habits would naturally endear
him to his mother.

29. And Jacob cooked pottage .
he was faint.

and Eaau came from the field, and

30. And Esau said to Jacob, Let me devour, I pray thee, of that
red, red jiottage,ybr / am faint : therefore ivas his name called Edom.
(i. e., the red.)

Pottage made of various kinds of ground grain, is a dish
much used among the people of the east. The red pottage

4'J4

PEOPLES COMMENTAHY.

spoken of in our pas,sa<,'e, was accord in<x to vovao ^4, nmdo of
" lentils," (criuini Iron) which are of a hrown ri'.l colour.
Lentils were cxh-nsivcly j^rown in the cast ; those ^rrown in
E;^'ypt were paiticularly famous, and the manner of cooking
tliem has been immortalizrd on monuments (See Wilkinson,
Anc. K;,'ypt, vol. ii. .*{.S7.) Esau makes use of the verh ^jj?^ il<i(if,)
to det'oar, and not of the ordinary verb ^DX {'wlml ,) to eat ; ho
also repeats " tluit red," but omits the substantive pi>lfii(/e,
all of which indientes the passionate eagerness with wliicb ho
longed to eat of the pottage.

31. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthriyht.

The privileges Avhidi the " birthright" conferred in the pa-
tiiarchial times, were the succession to the chiel'tiiiiiship. be-
coming the head and ruler of the family ; the obtaining of a
double portion of his latino's property; anil in this nistanco
the inheritance of the covenant, which (}od Imd ninde with
Abraham, All these privileges Esau bartered for a mess of
pottage. And hence St. I*aul called Esau a " protane person,"
lor having resigned with iudill'cruuce so uuspuakable a privi-
lege.

32. And Extiu S(,id, Jiehold, I am yoiiiy to die ; and lohdt projil in
this birthrlyht to inn i

This lan'.^uage of Esau clearly .shows that his whoh^ miml
was entirely eii^^rossed with the onj»yments of this life, and.
that he looke<l upon tlie spiritual blessings of tlu^ future as not
worthy of consideration, regarding them (»f no p.irtieuliu" value.
Jacob, on the otiuu" hand, earnestly desired to ol)t>:in the right
of prin»ogeniture, which in this case embraced with the t(Mn|)0-
ral privilegtvs, also the title to the blessings of the promise.
And for this he des(!rves our warmest counnendation. But
when we have saiil this much in his praise, it is all that tho
transaction a bait,s of" to say in his favour. The m'nms which
he employ'd to obtain the birthright caiuiot be too s(!verely
dtmouuced: they were unjustiHable, uncharitable, and uiifi^eling.
His action showeil a want of faith in the Almighty to accom-
plish what lie had promised. His mother hail, no doubt,
informed him of the Divine promise made to her before his
birth, that " th(> elder should serve the youuLjer," and he should
have trusted in God to bring it to pass in His appointed
time.

33. And Jacob sail, Sioear to me this day ; and he swore to him :
and he sold his birthriyht to Jacob.

Jacob was evidently conscious of the great injtistico ho had
committed in ol)taining such inunenso privileges for such a triflo

iBHIfiifl,-ii I ■•"

^.*^.--_i,j.,t .^j.

I'KOPI-K S COMMKNTAUV.

425

as a moss of jt<)tta«,'o, and JVariu;^ lest Ills ln'othcr in moImt
moments mav not consider hinisflf Itoiind to ncknowlcd;,'!' tlio
tmiisacdoii, wliicli involvtMl v,ui'li iniincnsc loss to liinisclt' and
his ilrscrndaiils, niadu liini swear, whicli nuxle the liar;^nin
irrovoe*il»l<'. 1 he AioliunimedKiis Uept (las tiimsMctioji I'nr a
Ion;; time nlive, liy distril»utin«x diiily to stiHn;,Mrs and to jxtor
people potla^'e of lentils eookeil in a kitchen near the j^ravo at
llel)i()n, wlicrt' they helieved the ci-ssion of the liirthti^^dit took
place. It is nlso a common remark anionj; eastern |ieo|tle if a
person suld a piece of land oi' any tliiiii^ else at a low price, that
*' he sold it lor /it>ttii(ft\" Or if a father ^'ives his daii;;liter in
marria;;e to an inferior person, that " hi* lias j^rivcn her for
pot lay ti.'

CIIAPTEll XXVI.

1, And ihi've was a /ttvntie in the laiicf, henhle tin' /irnt fmnliie
irhic/i irnx in th>' diiijH of Almi/itim. And Imtm: iri'iit to Altinie-
iech, the kimj vf the J'hUistiues, to d'erar.

Isiiac who had heen dwo1Iinf» " hy the well of F.nhiii-roi " (eh.
XXV. 11,) Wfis now ol»li<(ed to leave that |ilace on account of a
famine which occurred in the land, and went into tlu; countiy
of the I'hilistines, and took up his ahode in (Jerar. Now
although ilie kini,^ spoken of in oiu' veise I ar<s the same name
as the kinj; who reiifiied in Gerar in Ahridiam's lime, yet they
were nu)>t likely ditferent persons, a.s a jieriod of aliout eighty
years had elapsed since Altraham's Sdjoiirii in Oirar. We have
already statetl that Altimelech seems to have heen the otticial
luime of ihi' kin^^s of the l*hilistines, just as the kin<,'s of Ki,ypt
assumcil tli(! name of Pharaoh when they asceuded tlu; throne.
Indeed we find tlu; name " Altimelech " oi' a kin;( of the Philis-
tines as late as David's time (see Ps. x.\.\iv. I) Accord iiiLj to
verse 'IG thenairu! of tliej^fcneral of the kiii;^'sarmy was Phidiol,
which was also tlx; nanu; of the ^^^eneral ol the kintj's army in
Ahraham's time, and it is therefore very hiyhly piohahle that
it was also an oHicial title.

2. And the Lord appeared to him, and said, (lO not doivn into E<njpt :
dwell in the land which I shall tell thee :

3. iSijanrn in this land, and I sh(dl he irith thee, and I shall bless
thte. fur til ihcf, and to thij sad, 1 sladl (^irt- idl /h'sc itmn/ries ; and
I shall pvijarni the oath which 1 swore to Alrndiani (hij falluiv.

It appeals that Isaac intended to piv ceed to K;,'ypt in ortlcr
to esca^te tho fumiue, aB his father had dune uu u previous

42G

I'tXH'LL U CtJMMKNTAUY.

occasion wlien a fainiiio took pliicu in the land of f'anoan. But
on liiH wiiy, the Lord, uppfiired to Isaac, and directed him
not to leave the Promised Jiund ; and he took np hin al)o<Ie
in Gerar (v. (i). The tinje for the immigration of Ahraham'H
Heed into K<,'ypt, as foretold, chapter x v., 1,'}, had not yt't arrived,
and this may probably acoonnt for Isaac '"^t beint; permitted
to take refu^^e in that country as )iis fi liad done, (iod

renewed to Isaac all the promises ho had lado to his father.
iiy the expression " all these countrieH,"* is to b»! nnderstood
the (err'Uorii'H of the Canaan it isk <?'i/>t's, particularly mentioned
ch. XV., 18-21.

B. Because Abraham obeyed J/y voice, and observed My observances,
My eommanJnients, My slalules, and My laws.

The sacred writer evidently employed the iliflferent terms in
onr verse — which embrace the various classes of ordinances —
to indicate Abraham's great piety, and his perfect obedience to
the will of God.

During Isaac's sojourn in Gerar the men of the city asked
him concerning his wife, and either throufrh real or imaginary
fear that he would V)e killed if ho acknov 'ged his true rela-
tionship to Rebekah, for she was beaut he also, like his
father, had recourse to the miserable expei.. .;t by saying tliat
she was his sister. Happily Isaac's misrepresentation did not
bring any suffering upon any person, the true relationship
being discovered before any evil resulted. It happened that
the king, looking through a window of the palace, saw Isaac
" sporting " with Rebekah in a manner to convince him that
sue was his wife. In the East the houses have Hat roofs, and
for the sake of safety are surrounded by a high railing (comp.
Detit. xxii., 8). The people use the Hat roofs for various pur-
poses (comp. Josh, ii., G ; Judg. xvi., 27 ; 1 Sam. ix., 25, 2G ;
Isa. XV., 3), but chiefly as a favourite resort to enjoy the cool of
the evening. It is highly probable that it was from the roof of
the palace, from which an extensive view was obtained on look-
ing through an opening of the railing, he .saw l.saac " sporting "
with Rebekah. It was from the roof of the palace that David
saw Bathsheba (2 Sam, xi., 2). Having made this di.scovery
the king summoned Isaac to appear before him, and reproved
liim for having misrepresented his true relationship to
Rebekah, pointing out to him the evil that might have easily
resulted from his unwarrantable misstatement, and thus
brought "guilt " upon him and his people. The high regard
for the sanctity of matrimony evinced both by this king and
the king in Abraham's time puts modern civilization to the

^bi^n a more ancient form for PlbSi^n > *Q(1 occurs only in the Pentateach.

PEOPLE S COMMKNTARY.

427

bliisli. Thoy ovidently looked upon wedlock as something
nioif than a niero civil coutnwf, which may Iw annulled on the
most flitusy j^roundM, or violated without the least compunc-
tion. tJudj,'iiif; from the conduct of those two kin<,'s towards
the patriarchs, the kin^js of the Philistines in those daya must
indiuid have heen kijid-hearted men, and deserving of the
name ?ib?3'^25< AhlmeUch, i.e., father ki ni/. The king not only
dismissed Isaac with merely a slight reproof, hut made also an
edict, that anyone harmirjg him or his wife " shall surely bo
put to death."

12. And laiuic mwed in that land, aiul received in the satru year a
hundredfold : (uul the LoRD bletaed him.

It is a connnon practice among the eastern nomades when
they come to a fei'tile place which promises toalf'onl pasturage
for some length of time, they apply thejnsclves to agriculture,
and ixlUw harvest, if necessary, remove to another |)laoe In
accordance with this custom, we tind Isaac to sow in the land
whore he had now taken np his abode seeing that the land
was fertile ; and God blessed his labours with a hundredfold
])roduce. Hut Clod's blessing did not rest only on his agricul-
tural pursuits ; but his flocks and heids also increased greatly,
so that he b«*ame very great. Isaac's rapid increase in wealth
produced j» l'>"isy among the Philistines. They apparently
could not bear to see a mere strang(!r ac»piiring so mneli
riches: they lo>ked with envy on his agricultural prosperiiy.
As they could not prevent the land from ^'icMing an abundant
harvest they had recourse to inflict an injury which would
oblige him to leave the country ; they stopped nj) all the wells
which his father's servants had dug when he sojourned in the
land.

16. And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from ua ; for thou art much
mightier than we.

From the kind treatment which Abimelech had extended to
Isaac in making an edict to insure his and his wife's .safety
whilst sojourning in his territory (v. 11), it may he inferred
that no perscmal ill-feelings prompted him now to nvjuest the
patriarch to leave the country (comp. v. 2!)), l>ut was induced
to do so to prevent serious disturbances which his stay might
give rise to, as the animosity of the people had manifested
itself in mischievous nets. The reason which the king gives for
requesting him to depart, " for thou art much uiightier than
we," was probably intended both as a compliment, arid as an
apology for his subject's jealousy. Isaac might justly have
appealed to the solemn covenant which his father had concluded

M9 ■<'

428

people's (IOMMKNTARY.

with Abimelech, the reigning prince of that time (soe ch. xxi
25-32), and insisted upon his right to remain, but being a peace-
loving man, he at once yielded to the request of the king, and
removed to " the Viilley of Ceiar." Here he diseovi-red that the
animosity of the Philistines had also manifested itself »tgainst
his father, for they had tilled up the wells which he liad dug.
Isaac had these wells reopened, and to show his iilial affection
he called them by the same names as his father had done.
Isaac's seivants dug in the valley and found a well of "spring-
ing watei'," in the original called Siin D"'72 {m'ly'nn chaiyuu)
livhig tiHitcr, i c, water springing from a fountain.

The herdsmen of (ierar, however, claimed this water as their
own, and as tliis gave rise to a quarrel between Isaac's lierdsmen
and the Philistines, he called the well pi^^ "/,>/,;", i. e. con

iention. Isaac's servants now dug another well, hut the Pliilis-
tiue herdsmen claimed this one also,and as this well w as likewise
a cause of contention Isaac gave it the apj)i()]iiiate luime riDtOID
" Sitnah ", i.e. .strife. The nanative atibnls no information
upon what gronn<ls tlie Philistines had ba.'-ed tlicii' right to the
wells, but it could only have been upon {\u\ ground of their
being in their territory. 'I'hough Isaac piobably liad a sufficient
number of seivants to have successfully maintained his right
to tlie wells, yet being peacefully disposed, he i-atht i- yielded to
their unjust claiu) than rnterupon a violent contest with them,
and removed to another ]ilace, most likely beyond the lioimdary
of the counti-y of the Philistines, whiel*. may account Ibr his
being left in un<lisputed possession of the thiid well which liis
sei-vants dug. The Philistines probably did not think it piu-
dent to carry their animosity be3'ond their territory. As there
was no contention about this well, Isaac calle(l it, mnni
' lip.hoboih, ', /. e., eiiltoycmcnf, and he said, " Foi- now the Lohd
has enlarged for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land " (v.
22.) The Hebrews were accustomed to spi'ak of a change from
straitened circumstances to a more prosperous condition, by
being enldiyad, or broiujht hUo <i spdcioafi place. 'J'hus the
Psalmist says, " Thou hast enlarged for me tvlicn I was in dis-
tress". (Ps. iv. 2.)

23. And he toent up from thence to Beer-shcha.

The narrative does not i»:form us how long Isaac liad remained
in the place; whei-e he liad removed to after leaving the country
of the Philistines, nor give the reasons for his renn.v.d from
there. But from the long resilience of his father in Heer-sheba,
the place must have; become particularly endeared to him, and
he now pitchetl his tents in that place, nodi>ubt rii ar the tama-
risk which his father had planted, and where he had invoked the

people's commentary.

429

oe ch. xxi
g a peace-
kin^, and
(1 tliHt tlie
If Honinst
a liacJ dug.
1 nirectiou
li;i(l (lone,
it" " spring-
, chaiyim)

or as their
I lierdsinen

, i. e. coH

tlie Philis-
iis likewise
line riDplU

I formation
i^lit to the

I I of their
a suthcient
I his right
_\ icldod to
vith tliem,

liomidarv

Hit for his

which his

Ilk it prii-

As there

■'. ninn-i

the LoHD
land" (v.
ui^e from
(lition, by
'ri\ii.s the
;a« in dis-

remained
e country
i»v;il from
'cr-sheba,

liin, and
the taiiia-

oked the

name of the Lord, the everlasting God (ch. xxi, 33.) Here
the Lord appeared unto Isaac and renewed the promises which
He liad made to him on his going to Gerar (vv. 2-4.) and Isaac
erected an altar and offered up his devout prayer and thanks
to the Almighty for his gracious promises (vs. 23-25.)

26. And Abiinehch toent to him from Gerar, and Ahuxzath his
rovncillor, mid Phichol the general oj his army.

It will be remembered that Abiraelech, accompanied by
Phichol. came on a former occasion to this very place to make
a covenant with Abraham (ch. xxi., 22-33), and we now find
him come for the same purpose to make a covenant with
Isaac. This time he was in addition accompanied by his chief
councillor, probably to invest the transaction with a political
importance. Abimelech had no doubt heard of the continually
increasing prosperity of Isaac, and recognized in it a super-
natural influence. He saw that a great future awaited him
and his posterity, and he was therefore anxious to renew the
treaty of friendship which he had concluded with his father.
He was probably especially induced to do this now on account
of the ill-treatment Isaac had received at the hands of his
people, and he having himself requested him to leave the
country.

27. And Isaac said to them, Where/ore come ye to me, and you hate
me, ami /mvesent me away Jrom you t

28. And they said. We saw indeed that tfie Lord was toith thee : and
me said, Let there now be an oath between us, even between us and
thee, ami let us make a covenant with tJiee ;

29. That thou wilt do us no evil, as we have not touched thee, and
as we have done thee nothing but good, and /tee sent thee away in
2)eace; thou art now the blessed of the Lord.

After the ill-treatment Isaac had experienced at the hands of
the Philistines, and having been by Abimelech himself reques-
ted to leave his land, we can readily understand that the patri-
arch would be astonished vO receive a visit from the king ac-
companied by his two chief officers. He therefore naturally
inquired of them what the object of their visit may be, as their
past conduct indicated a hatred towards him. The king's reply
is perfectly candid ; there is not the least attempt to disguise
the nature of his coming. He candidly acknowledged that he
saw that the blessing of the Lord rested upon the patriarch,
and that he therefore was anxious to make a solemn covenant
with him that he might be assured that he and his people need
not fear any evil from him or his descendants. He reminds the
patriarch of his former friendly behaviour towards him ;
64

430

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

"we have not touched thee," that is, we have not driven
thee away by force ; " we have done thee nothing but
good," no doubt referring to his endeavour to protect Isaac
and his wife from harm (comp. v. 11) ; " and have sent thee
away in peace," by which he evidently wished to impress upon
Isaac that the request to depart from the land was well meant,
as the then existing jealousy among his people might have led
to mischievous deeds which were beyond his power to pre-
vent ; " thou art now the blessed of the Lord," as if he had
said, since God has so greatly blessed thee, and thou art under
His protection, thou canst afford to be magnanimous, and deal
generously with us. The patriarch accepted the king's apology;
his open-hearted declarations convinced him that his profes-
sions were sincere, and he made them a feast, and they ate and
drank together as a token of friendship. In the morning,
before the visitors departed, the covenant of peace and friend-
ship was finally sealed by ai^ exchange of oaths. By the
renewal of the covenant the Philistines were exempted from
the fate impending on the Canaanites, and had their indepen-
dence guaranteed to them. The same day that the visitors
left to return home Isaac's servants, who had been digging a
new well, brought him the good news that they had found
water, and the pious patriarch's mind being still absorbed by
the solemn act performed in the morning, called the well
nyniDD " Shibah" i. e., oath, in commemoration of the conclusion
of the 'Covenant by the exchange of oaths. " Therefore the
name of the city is Beer-sheba to this day (v. SS) ; the reader
will observe that the passage does not state that Isaac called
the place Beer-sheba, but that " the name of the city is Beer-
sheba ;" it had already received that name from Abraham in
commemoration of a similar event (comp. ch. xxxi., 31). Our
passage merely intimates that the name Beer-sheba receives
now additional significance and propi'iety by the renewal of the
covenant which Abraham had concluded in the same place with
Abimelech, king of the Philistines. The well which Isaac's
servants dug, however, is a different one from the one dug by
Abraham's servants, and some modern travellers mention the
existence of two wells in the neighbourhood of Beer-sheba, both
still bearing this name.

34. And Esau was forty years old token he took to wife Judith
the daughter of Beeri, the Hittite, and iasetnath the daughter of Elan
tJie Hittite.

35. And they were a grief of mir d to Isaac and to Rebekah.

A period of no less than eighteen years had elapsed since the
event recorded in the preceding verses. As the sacred narrative

people's commentary.

431

does not record anything that took place in the patriarch's family
during that time, we may safely take it for granted that, the
years were passed in peace and happiness such as can only be
experienced in a God-fearing family. But now the reign of
domestic peace was again disturbed, this time not by strangers,
but by an act of the favourite son of the father, who took to
himself two wives from the idolatrous and depraved Hittites,
who were tJJs^ fri^ (morath nephesh) " a grief of mind ", or
more literally " a bitterness of spirit " to Isaac and Rebekah.
The Septuagint renders, " they were contentious with Isaac and
Rebekah " ; and the Chaldee Version paraphrases, " they were
rebellious and stubborn against the command of Isaac and
Rebekah." But although the difference of manners and impiety
of these strange women may have been a constant source of
grief to Isaac and Rebekah, the primary cause of " the bitternesj
of spirit " no doubt was their descent from a tribe which on
account of its impiety was devoted to destruction, and from
which the Hebrews were for ever to be separated. This
alliance with an idolatrous people shows that Esau neither
possessed any fear of God, nor filial affection, seeking merely
the enjoyment of this world, and having no thought for the
future.

CHAPTER XXVII.

1. And it came to pass, when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim,
so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said to him,
My son: and he said to him, Behold, here am /.

2. Aiul he said, Behold, I pray thee, I am old, I know not t/ie day
of my death :

3. Nov) therejore take, T pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and
thy bow, and go out to the field, and hunt for me some venison.

4. And make for me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it
to me, that I may eat ; that my soul may bless thee before I die,

Isaac had now attained to the age of 137 years, the age at
which Ishmael had died, fourteen years before. The remem-
brance of his half-brother's death at this age, together with his
increasing infirmities, may have impressed him with the
idea, that his own days upon earth were also drawing to an
end— although he lived forty -three years after this — and hence
we find him now desirous to bestow his paternal blessing upon
his firstborn son. Notwithstanding the distinct declaration

432

PEOPLKS COMMENTARY

which God made to Rebekah, that " the elder shall serve the
younger," and notwithstanding that Esau had frivolously bar-
tered away his birthright with the privileges appertaining to
it for a mess of pottage, and now had shown his utter disregard
for the religious feelings of his parents by taking to himself
two wives from the accursed Canaanites, notwithstanding all
this, Isaac still persevered in his preference of Esau. It must,
however, not be supposed that Isaac desired to bless Esau
because he " ate of his venison " (ch. xxv. 28), but because he
being his first born, and therefore, regarded him as the succes-
sor to the headship of the family. Why Isaac requested Esau
to procure for him some venison, and prepare for him his
favorite dish before he bestowed the blessing, is not quite clear.
It may, however, have been either in order to exhilirate his
physical powers before imparting the blessing ; or in accord-
ance with a generally prevailing custom among the ancient
Eastern people of eating and drinking on certain religious
observances.

Rebekah who had heard what Isaac said to Esau, deter-
mined to secure the blessing for her favourite son Jacob, and
as she saw no way of doing so by fair means, she had recourse to
a stratagem which the dim eye-sight of her husband greatly
aided to render successful. She, no doubt, considered the
deception which she was about to practise upon her aged
husband to be under the circumstances justifiable. She pro-
bably reasoned : " What does Esau, who sold his birth-right for
a mess of pottage, and so spurned the great privileges as heir,
care for a blessing ? And has not the IjORD declared that
' the elder shall serve the younger,' and how is this declaration
to be fulfilled if Esau obtains the blessing ? Surely I am jus-
tified in using any means to bring it to pass." Now whilst we
are ready to make all possible allowance for the feelings of a
doting mother that actuated her to secure for her beloved son
the highly prized father's blessing, it is nevertheless impossible
to do otherwise than regard her conduct on this occasion as
most highly reprehensible. Examine it as we will, we can
discover nothing but a deliberate and determined deception.
On a former occasion when in bodily pain, she inquired of the
Lord, why did she not do so in the present perplexity ? Or
where was her faith, that God would surely accomplish that
which he had promised ? Why did she not reason, " The Lord
hath spoken, and will He not accomplish it ? " Her proper
course would have been to have represented to her husband,
that as God had declared that " the elder shall serve the
younger," the birthright was transferable, and that Esau had
actually sold it to Jacob, and, therefore, the blessing belonged
to the latter. She should have entreated him to comply with

■J '* gg ! v ?.?Wi

'%'

people's commentary.

433

what evidently was ordained by God. And we doubt not, but
that the pious patriarch would have perceived the propriety of
his wife's representation, and would have acted accoi-dingly.
But should he still have persisted in bestowing the blessing upon
Esau, she should have borne in mind that the Almighty is able
to overrule the designs of man. We have an instance of
God so overruling the action of Jacob in the bestowal of his
blessing upon the two sons of Joseph (ch. xlviii. 13, 14).

8. And now, my son, listen to my voice, accoi'divy to tliat trhich I
coinniand thee.

9. Go, I pray thee, to (heffock, and fetch me from thence tiro (food kids
of the (/oats ; and I tvill make tliem savottry meat far thy father, such
as he loveth.

Robekah, in addressing her son, employed such language as
would ensure his ready compliance with her wish. She bids
him to do as she commanded him, appealing at once to his
filial obedience. It will, perliaps, be asked how the flesh of
" kids of goats " could be imposed upon Isaac as " venison ?" but
we have already stated that the Hebrew term *Ti^ {tsayvl)
denotes any kind of game obtained by hunting, and therefore
does not necessarily mean flesh of the deer, but may also mean
the flesh of the gazell, which in the young animal does not
differ much from the flesh of the kid of the goat. Any slight
difference in taste would be readily removed by the use of spices.

1 1. And Jacob said to Rehekah his mother. Behold, Esau my brother
is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man.

12. Perhaps my father tvill feel me, and I shall be in his eyes as a
deceiver ; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.

It appears from the language ia our passage, and from Jacob's
subsequent conduct, that the fear of detection, and thus bring-
ing a curse instead of a blessing upon himself, alone deterred
him from at once acceding to his mother's unrighteous pro-
position. When his mother had set his mind at rest as to the
consequences in the case of failure, by promising to bear the
blame herself, ' upon me be thy curse my son," (v. 13), he no
longer hesitated to comply with her wishes. Now, we can readily
understand that Jacob highly prized the blessing of his fathei%
and as he, no doubt, looked upon the purchase of the birthright
as a perfectly valid transaction, probably did not entertain any
conscientious scruples in depriving his brother of the blessing,
considering verj' likely the blessing to be one of the privileges
belonging to the birthright. The consideration of obedience
due to a parent may also have had weight with him in acced-

'V^.
«.-i<

iir*

434

people's commentauy.

-1

: !',.

II F< ''

h ;

l''^

U liii

A' !

i':!

ing to his mother's proposition. But whilst we say this much
in extenuation of Jacob's perpetrating the deliberate deceit
upon his aged father, we are far from agreeing with some
Jewish and Christian writers who have attempted to vindicate
Jacob's conduct on this occasion on the ground of necessity ;
but all the arguments that have been adduced to justify the
act of deceit and utterance of deliberate falsehoods necessarily
crumble to pieces at the least touch. Under no consideration
is it allowable to do a wrong act in order that good may result
from it. We may reasonably assume that Rebekah's know-
ledge of all religious obligations were not of such a high standard
as to form a proper judgment on all moral points ; but with
Jacob, who from his youth enjoyed the opportunity of religious
tiviining, the case is different. He could not have been ignorant
that deceit and falsehood are grievous sins in the sight of God,
and should, therefore, at once have represented to his mother
that in acceding to her proposition he would sin against God.
The duty of obedience to parents is most forcibly inculcated
in the sacred pages. Solomon says :

The aye that mocketh at his father,
And despiseth the obedience of a mother,
(*. e. the obedience due to a mother,)
The ravens of the valley shall pick it out.
And the vultures shall devour it. — (Prov, xxx. 17.)

But obedience to the precepts of God is the primary duty, and
it becomes absolutely imperative upon children to disobey their
parents should they require them to do anything which is sin-
ful in the sight of the Almighty.

And here we must not omit to observe, that it is one of the
remarkable peculiarities of the sacred records, to portray with
the same strict fidelity the faults and intirmities of Scripture
personages as their virtues and graces. They are represented
as weak and as prone to err as we ourselves. It must, there-
fore, not be inferred that because Moses Joes not offer one word
in condemnation of Jacob's and Rebekah's conduct, that he
meant to justify it. He merely states the facts as they occur-
redj without interrupting his narrative by affixing any comment
on them. But although the sacred historian does not descant
on the character of the transaction, we still plainly see, from
the subsequent narrative, that the oflence was not left unpun-
ished. Jacob on account of the hatred which his brother had
conceived against him, and the resolution he had formed to slay
him after Isaac's death, was obliged to flee from his home and
take refuge with his mother's kindred in a distant land. The
deception which Laban practised upon him, was a merited
retribution for the deceit which he had practised upon his
father. The punishment of Rebekah was also not insignificant.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

435

is much
e deceit
ih some
indicate
scessity ;
tify the
lessarily
leration
',y result
} know-
itandard
ut with
eligious
Ignorant
of God,
mother
1st God.
culcated

ity, and
ey their
h is sin-

e of the
ay with
cripture
•ese-nted
there-
tie word
that he
occur-
)mment
descant
e, from
unpun-
ler had
to slay
me and
The
nerited
on his
ificant.

As the heir to the blessings vouchsafed to Abraham, there could
be no necessity for Jacob leaving his paternal home, even as
Isaac had never left his father's tents. She therefore, no doubt,
hoped of keeping him always by her side. But now as the
result of the deception she practised upon her husband, she
sees her favourite son a fugitive from home, a lonely wanderer
into a distant land. The separation from her favourite son
must have greatly embittered her life. The idea that he had
set out with the intention of taking up his abode with her
brother Laban would in some measure temper her grief But
still it must be remembered, that long dreary wastes of coun-
try stretched between Beer-sheba and Padan-aram, through
which few, if any, travellers passed. The convenience of post did
not exist in those days, there was, therefore, but little chance
of obtaining tidings from hihi, as to his welfare. And though
she hoped at the time of her son's departure, that the separa-
tion would only be for a short time, it turned out otherwise, for
no less than a period of twenty years elapsed between his flight
and return to Hebron. And, indeed, as there is no mention
made of Rebekah on Jacob's return, we must infer that she had
departed this life before that time and that she never had thehap-
piness of folding her beloved son in her arms again. With the
departure of Jacob from home, the history of Rebekah is ended.
Her name is only once more mentioned, ch. xlix. 31, as being
buried in the cave of Machpelah. Even as to the time of her
death no mention is made in the narrative.

15. And Rebekah took the choicest garments of her eldest son Esau,
which were tvith her in the house, and clothed Jacob her younger son
with them .•

16. And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands,
and upon his smooth neck.

Rebekah having conceived the scheme of deception, and
determined to carry it out, took all precaution possible against
its failure The great obstacle in the way to bring the under-
taking to a successful issue was, that Jabob was a smooth man
and his brother a hairy man. But the shrewd mother soon
found means to overcome the obstacle in the manner related in
our verses. The skins of the kids of the goats, were not those
of the European goats, which would have been quite unsuit-
able for the occasion, but were those of the Angora goata,* or
camel goats, as they are sometimes called, and of which there

*They are so called from the city Angora (the Ancyra of the ancients), in the
moantainoua interior of Asia Minor, about 220 miles distant from Constanti-
nople. The pecaliar hair of the Angora goats, seems to depend on the climate,
for it soon changes when the animal is transferred to Europe.

436

people's commentary.

IP I

are stil large herds to be found near mount Lebanon. These
goats have^beautiful long black silky hair, (see Paulus's Oriental
Travels, vii. 108,) and hence we find the locks of the Shula-
mite, compared to the hair of these goats — (see Song of Solo-
mon, iv. 1.) It appears also that wigs were made of this hair,^
(see Martial Epigr. 12, 45.)

18. Aiicl he came to his father, and said, My father : and he saidy
here am /. Who art thou, my son?

The question, " Who art thou, my son .?" clearly indicates
that a suspicion that all was not right had been aroused in the
mind of Isaac. It may have been caused either by Jacob's
voice not quite resembling his brothers, or by the short time it
had taken in obtaining the venison, or probably by both. Jacob
answered boldly, "I aTn Essau thy first-born," (v. 19) ; a de-
liberate falsehood ; but he had undertaken to practise a decep-
tion upon his father, and in order to avoid at once detection he
had no alternative left than to reply as he did. The perpetra-
tion of a wrong action, always necessitates the utterance of
falsehood to prevent detection, or to avoid punishment. Some
writers have indeed laboured to divest Jacob's answer of false-
hood by interpreting it, " I am Esau thy first-born, not in
person, but in right ;" but I am sure, the reader, whilst he may
admire such an explanation as highly ingenious, will hardly con-
sider it as satisfactory. But even supposing the language of this
part of the answer would bear such a construction, how will
those commentators get over the other part: "I have done
according as thou badest me," seeing that he had received no
such command ? Jacob's conduct admits of no apology, and
all that can be said in regard to it is, that it was the act of
a man who, notwithstanding his piety, was yet weak and
prone to err as any other human creature. Jacob's bold
assertion that he was Esau, seems, however, not to have
altogether satisfied the aged patriarch. The short time occupied
in procuring the venison apparently was unaccountable to him.
Hence he asked, " How is it thou hast found it so quickly my
son ? " The question demanded an answer, and this, in order
to avoid detection, could only be given by uttering another
falsehood, and Jacob answered, " because ^he Lord thy God
brought it" (v. 20). The previous prevarication was bad
enough, but this one, staggers one for its enormity ; and we
cannot but help thinking that Jacob himself must have felt
horrified at his blasphemous reply, making God Himself con-
federate in his sin, " the Lord thy God brought it to me,"
and now hated himself for having entered upon the miserable
imposture. Most likely, when he conceded to his mother'a

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

437

con-

me,

jrable

ther'a

request, he never thought of its involving anything more than a
little artful deceit, and we should therefore take warning from
Jacob's error, and flee from evil at its approach as one would
flee from a poisonous sei-pent to avoid the deadly bite. One
should have thought, that Jacob's solemn declaration would
have satisfied his father, but it was not so. There was
evidently something in Jacob's voice, which still left a lingering
doubt in the patriarch's mind ; to assure himself, therefore,
that it was really Esau who stood before him, he asked him to
" come near " that he might feel him, whether he was indeed
his son Esau or not (v. 21). Had it not been for Rebekah's
precaution, the deceit would now have been detected, for even
as it was, the hairy feeling did not altogether satisfy Isaac, for
he said, ' The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are Esau's
hands " (v. 22). Accordingly we find he asked once more,
" Art thou my very son Esau ? " to which Jacob replied, " 1
am " (v. 24). Whether this reply had the eftect of quieting
the lingering doubts in Isaac's mind, it is impossible to say.
It appears, however, that he offered no further objections, but
partook now of the venison of his son, and when he had
finished eating, requested him to come near and kiss him.

27. And he came near, and kisocd him: and he smelt the odour of
his (jarmeitts, and blessed hint, aiid said,

See, the odour of my son

Is like the odonr of a field 2chich the Lord hath blessed.

28. And God give thee of the detc of heaven, and of the fatness of the
earth,

And abundance of corn and nine.

29. Peoples shall serve thee, and nations bote doivn to thee :

Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons boio doicn

to thee :
Cursed be those who curse thee, and blessed be thuse icho bless
thee.

When Jacob came near the aged patriarch hesmellod the odour
with which Esau's garments were impregnated. It lias by some
been supposed, as the Orientals are very fond of perfumes, and
sprinkle theirclotheseither with scented oil or water, or fumigate
them with the incense from some odoriferous, weed that the odour
in Esau's clothes had been imparted in some such way ; but such
is not the case. It is well known that many parts of Palestine
and Arabia exhale a most delicious odour fcomp. Hom. iii. 113,
Plin. xvii. 5). This is especially the case after rain, when the
fragrance becomes very strong and extremely sweet. We can,
therefore, readily understand that the clothes of Esau, whose
favourite occupation was to roam thi'ough hill and dale in

1(1 1

r.^;*

i,
■J

433

people's commentary.

search of game, would become impregnated with the scent
with which the air is perfumed. And this will probably fur-
nish us with the reason why Rebekah induced Jacob to put
on his brother's clothes, as the scent from them would lend
additional aid to render the deceit successful. We certainly
cannot conceive any other reason. As Isaac was not able to
distinguish whether the person before him was Jacob or Esau,
it is not at all likely that he could discern what clothing he
wore. It was the scent of the garments that was to play its
part in the scheme, and not the garments themselves. We may
remark, also, that the Hebrew word fn)3nn {hachamudoth)
(v. 15), which is generally rendered "goodly raiment" or
" choicest garments," primarily denotes desirable, hence desir-
able garments, so that the passage literally rendered reads,
" And Rebekah took the garments of Esau her eldest son, the
desirable ones, which were with her in the house ;" " the desir-
able ones," i. e., those suitable for the occasion.

We have already observed, in our remarks on Hebrew poetry
in vol. i., that the inherent love of the ancient Hebrews for
poetry is strikingly apparent, even from the limited amount of
literature that has escaped the ravages of time. Their language,
as soon as it passes the limits of mere narration, at once becomes
dignified ; their blessings, their prayers, their dire lamentations,
and triumphant bursts of joy, all display strikingly their natural
taste for poetry ; and hence it is that so much of the Hebrew
Scriptures are written in poetry, and that even among the prose
writings we so frequently meet with poetic effusions. Such a
poetic declamation we have in Isaac's blessing. It is couched
in highly poetic language, and possesses all the characteristics
of Hebrew poetry.

The blessing is prophetic, and descriptive of the land which
the decendants of Jacob were to possess, and accords in every
respect with the immense natural fertility of Palestine. It
was indeed a land which the Almighty had blessed, " a good land,
flowing with milk and honey," (Exod. iii. 8.) And as Moses more
distinctly describes it, "a land of wheat and barley, and vines and
fig trees, and pomegranates ; aland of olive oil, and honey; a land
wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness ; thou shalt not
lack any thing in it." (Deut. viii. 8, 9.) Skeptics have indeed
laboured to invalidate the statements of the sacred writers
who represent it as one of the most delightful spots upon the
face of the earth, by drawing arguments from the present neg-
lected state of some parts of the Holy Land, and from its
present desert appearance. But its original fertility and
beauty are by no means even now wholly obliterated, and the
arguments of the opponents of Scripture have been proved to
be utterly futile by the unanimous testimony of modern travel-

people's commentary.

439

which

lera who seem to vie with one another in contributing infor-
mation in illustration and confirmation of the sacred records.
" The fame of fertility of Palestine, and its former riches in
com, wine and dates," observes RosemuUer, " is even immortal-
ized by ancient coins, which are still in existence. But since
the land has been several times devastated, greatly depopulated,
and come under the Turkish dominion, and the Arab tribes,
who rove about 'it, and not only make it insecure for natives
and strangers, but also have contmual feuds among themselves,
agriculture has decreased, and the country has acquired the
present desert appearance, particularly near the voads. Still
traces of its former fertility and beauty are every where to be
seen." The celebrated traveller D'Arvieux, remarks, " It must
be confessed, that if we could live secure in this country, it
would be the most agreeable residence in the world, partly on
account of its pleasing diversity of mountains and valleys, and
partly on account of the salubrious air which we breathe there,
and whichisat all times filled with balsamic odours from the wild
flowers from these valleys and from the aromatic herbs on the
hills," (Travels, vol. ii. p. 204.) Lord Lindsay remarks : " Let
mo not be misunderstood, richly as the valleys wave with corn,
and beautiful as is the general aspect of modern Palestine,
vestiges of a far more extensive ancient cultivation are
everywhere visible — vast and unreclaimed districts constantly
intervene between the oasis of fertility — while, except, im-
mediately round the villages, the hills once terraced and
crowned with olive trees and vines, are uniformly bare and
overgrown with wild shrubs and flowei-s, proois far more
than sufficient that the land still enjoys her Sabbaths, and
only awaits the return of her banished children, and the
application of industry commensurate with her agricultural
capabilities, to burst once more into universal luxuriance,
and be all she ever was in the days of Solomon. (Letters on
Egypt, Edom, and the Holy Land, p. 251). Dr. E. D.
Clarke, speaking of the appearance of the country between
Sechem and Jerusalem, says, a sight of this territory alone
can convey any adequate idea of its surprising produce ;
it is truly the Eden of the East, rejoicing in the abun-
dance of its wealth. Under a wise government, the pro-
duce of the Holy Land would exceed all calculation. Its
perennial harvest ; the salubrity of its air ; its limpid springs ;
its rivers, lakes, and matchless plains ; its hills and vales ; all
these, added to the serenity of the climate, prove this land to
be indeed a 'field which the Lord hath blessed ; God hath given
it of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and
plenty of corn and wine.'" (Travels, vol. ii. p. 521.) Josephus
also bears testimony to the great fertility of Palestine. (De

440

people's commentary.

I' I

Bell. Jud. lib. iii. c. 3 par. 2.) Tacitus de.scribos the climate ah
<lry and sultry; the natives as strong and patient of labour; the
soil as fruitful, exuberant in its produce, like that of Italy,
and yielding the balm and palm tree. (Tacit. Historia. lib. v.
c. 6.) Justin confirms the account of Tacitus, respecting the
exuberant produce of Palestine, its beautiful climate, its palm
and fragrant balsam trees. (Justin. Hist. Philopp. lib. xxxvi.
c. 3.) The celebrated Arabian geographer, Abulfeda, who had
visited Palestine, says, " that even in the thirteenth century, it
was the most fruitful part of Syria." (Tabul}« Syrire p. 9 edit,
Koler.) Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, who resided sixteen years in
Jerusalem, says : " The grape vine flourishes most luxuriantly
in this country, and it is not rare that you meet with vines
which are extended so far that thirty men can conveniently
sit under the overshadowing of one, as under a tent." (Desc.
Geog. of Palest, p. 303.) Volumes might indeed be filled with
extracts from the works of eminent travellers in confirmation
of the Scripture accounts of the beauty and fertility of the
Holy Land ; but the few we have given, will, we are sure, be
quite sufficient to convince the unprejudiced I'eader, that the
arguments which the opponents of Scripture bring forward to
invalidate the Scriptural statements mu.st be altogether
groimdless.

In a country like Palestine where throughout the months of
May, June, July, and August, not a single drop of rain falls —
although the sky is sometimes obscured with clouds- -we can
easily imagine how very beneficial a copious dew must be to
vegetation during these dry months, we can, therefore, readily
understand why the deiv is so frequently made a symbol of the
Divine goodness in Scripture, and the granting of it forms such
an important part in the bestowal of blessings. (Compare Gen.
xlix. 25, where " the blessings of heaven from above," are equi-
valent with rain and dew; Deut. xxxii. 2.; xxxiii. 13, 28.;
Mic. v. 7. ; Zech. viii. 12.) The dew i-^ so h-
the skin those who are exposed to
rises ; and the atmosphere I n'm\
quickly dispersed, and tin of i

dew has communicated to saiiu ;3 euurely evaporated.

(Shaw's Travels, vol. ii. p. 125.) . lius the prophet Hosea,
forcibly compares the transitory goi i in\j)ressions of "Ephraim"
and"Judah" to "a morning clouu, and to " the ear' v dew,"
that " goeth away," (ch. vi. 4.) Allusions to the refresh! dews
of Palestine occur very often in the Scriptures, the ren may,
for instance, compare Ps. cxxxiii. 3, and Hosea X' But

although the dew is very copious, yet as the heat ci iig the
months of June, July, and August, steadily rises to ti ropical
temperature, it only continues to nourish the more rouust and

\'y as to wet to
soon as the sun

the mists are
sture which the

people's commentary.

441

we can

st be to

eadily

of the

ns such

e Gen.

"hardy shrubs ; the grass and plants ^''^-dually become dried up,
so that fields, so lately clothed with the richest verdure, and
adorned with the loveliest flowers, are converted into a brown
and arid wilderness. If, at this season, a single spark falls up-
on the grass, a conflagration immediately ensues especially if
any low shrubs, or briars, or thistles are contiguous. (Compare
Exod. xxii. 6. ; Joel i. 19, 20. ; Is. ix. 18. &c.) Isaac's ble.ssing
conveyed to Jacob, also the promi.se of dominion over the con-
(juered nations.

" Peoples shall serve thee, and nations bow down to thee."
This must, of course, be understood of his descendants, and
not personally of Jacob. And the prophetic declaration wns
si<:;nally fulfilled in the days "i David, when the Moabites,
Ammonites, Philistines, Syrians, and Edomites were subdued
by the Israelites. But not only foreign nations should acknow-
ledge the sovereignty of Jacob's descendants, but also his
" mother's sons," — that is, the descendants of Esau, and par-
ticularly the Edomites, the nearest kinsmen of the Hebrew.s.
Jacob had scarcely left his father's presence when Esau came
with the venison which he had prepared, and .said : " Let my
father arise, and eat of his son's veni.son, that thy soul
may bless me " (v. 31). We can readily understand that the
pious patriarch should have " trembled very exceedingly," or
as the original more forcibly expresses it, " trembled with a
great trembling exceedingly," when he heard the words of E.sau.
The idea that after all his precautions he had yet been imposed
upon would naturally overwhelm him with astonishment and
grief. Indeed, from the question, " Who art thou ? " it would
a})pear that he hardly could bring himself to believe that .such
a wicked imposition could have been practised upon him. And
even after Esau's ready reply, " I am thy son, thy firstborn,
E,sau," Isaac was unwilling to think that his younger son was the
perpetrator of the deceit, and asked : " Who, then, is he who took
venison, and brought it mo ? " But when his astonishment and
excitement gradually subsided, and he began more calmly to
reflect upon what had taken place, all doubts as to the guilty
party disappeared. Yet remembering the prophecy received
lay Rebekah, that " the elder should serve the younger," he
became now convinced that the tran.sfer of the birthright was
" of the Lord,' and would have come to pass without human
aid. He therefore felt that as his younger son was destined to
become the head of the family and heir of the promise, the
blessing he had bestowed was unalterable, and exclaimed: "Yea,
and he shall be blessed " (v. 33). The great importance and
efficacy which the ancient Hebrews attached to parental bless-
ings may be gathered from the words of Jesus the son of Sirach,
who says : *' The blessing of the father establishes the houses of
66

ii;

442

people's commentary.

^i «

:M!'

children, but the curee of the mother rooteth out the founda-
tions," (Eeclesiasticus iii. 9). But the blessinpjs of the patriarchs
were of an infinitely higher order. Their utterances were made
under inspiration, and are, therefore. Divine prophecies.

When Esau heard the words of his father, " he cried with a
great and exceeding bitter cry." The language is particularly
emphatic, and indicates an intense and overpowering grief.
Yet, to his praise be it said, he did not give vent to an angry
woi'd against his brother, but merely imploringly added, " Bless
me also, O my father " (v. 34). It was only after Isaac himself
alluded to Jacob's reprehensible conduct: "Thy brother came
M^ith cunning and took awa}'^ thy blessing," (v. 35), that he
uttered the acrimonious remark : " Is he not rightly named
Jacob ? " i. e. s^ijpplanter, " for he hath now supplanted me
twice ; he took away my birthright, and behold now he hath
taken away my blessing " (v. 3G). Esau, liowever, had no right
to say that Jacob had taken away the birthright from him
when he voluntarily sold it for a mess of pottage. But although
Esau had despised his birthright, he evidently highly valued
his father's blessing, for we see him imploring a second time,
" Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me ? " And again,
when Isaac informed him that he had constituted Jacob the
head of the family, and blessed him with corn and wine, we
see him still persisting in beree J.ing his father that he might
bless him also. " Hast thou but one blessing, my father ? bless
me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and
wept " (v. 38). What a touching scene does the second
narrative here present to us. The rude hunter, who seemed to
care for nothing but his own pleasures, bowed down before his
blind father, imploring him in tears for the blessing of which
he had been deprived by the subtlety of his mother and
his brother. Had Rebekah witnessed the scene, we doubt not
but that she would have been moved to pity in seeing the
anguish of her eldest son, and heartily have reproached herself
for being the cause of it. Esau appears now to have learned
to estimate the real value of the birthright which he had
despised, but it was too late. The blessing had been conferred,
and could not be revoked. For as the apostle Paul says : " For
ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited
the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place of repent-
ance, though he sought it carefully with tears (Heb. xiii. 17).
That is, he could not prevail upon his father, though beseeching
him in tears to recall or change the blessing which he had
bestowed upon Jacob. When Isaac said, " I have made him
thy Lord " his language must not be construed to mean that
it was/;2s act, he only uses the ordinary prophetic language.
Men speaking under inspiration are often represented as doing

people's commentary.

443

ne, we

might

r ? bless

ice, and

second

med to

ore his

which

and

3t not

ng the

lerselt'

earned

had

f erred,

For

lerited

pent-

17).

ching

had

him

1 that

juage.

doing

themselves what they merely foretell as surely coming to pufis.
Thus Pharaoh's butler relating how Joseph had interpreted his
and the chief baker's dreams, says : " And it came to pass, as
he interpreted to us, so it was ; me he restored to mine office,
and him he hanged," i.e., foretold that it would be so. (Com-
pare also Jur. i. 10 : Ezek. xliii. 3).

39. And Isaac, his father answered and said to him,

Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall he thy dwelling.
And away from the dew of heaven from above.

40. And by thy sword shalt thou live, yet thou shalt serve thyhrother ;
Audit shall come to pass when *thou exertest thyself.

Thou shalt break his yoke from thy neck.

Isaac's position was indeed a distressing one. On the one
hand his favorite son in tears persistently imploring him for a
blessing ; and on the other hand, not being able to predict any
thing that would be likely to soothe the mind of the suppliant.
And yet, he could not well let him depart without a cheering
word. The patriarch's declaration can certainly not be called a
blessing, for there is little in it of a consoling nature. But
still there is a little, and that is contained in the prediction,
" thou shalt break his yoke from thy neck." In order to arrive
at the real meaning of Isaac's prediction, which mirrors the
destiny of Esau's descendants, it is necessary to ascertain whe-
ther the preposition ^ {mi) in the words iU)3'ffl)3 (mishmaniie)

and bt3)a (mittcil) is only used in its ordinary sense fi^om, and
we are to translate " from the fatness," " from the dew," or
whether it is here employed in the sense of aivay from, and

*The meaning of the verb Ti'^yl (tnj-id) in the above passage is somewliat
obscure, and hence various renderings have been given of it. Saadia, in his
Arabic Version, and Rabbi Kimchi, and other Jewisli commentators, have
rendered, "when thou shalt rule, thou wilt break the yoke," as if derived from
^^"1 {radah) to rule. But this renilering is certainly very ambiguous,
Gesenius renders, " and it shall be when thou shalt rove at large that thou
shalt break his yoke from thy neck ;" but it is not easily seen, how the
Edomites could break the yoke by roving about. No more happy is the
rendering given by Kalisch, Von Bohlen and others, " but when thou truly
desirest it ;" those wlio litear a foreign j-oke are always truly desirous to shiike
it off, and this was certainly the case with the Edomites, who were constantly
rebelling. In the Authorized Version it is rendcreil, " when tliou shalt have
dominion," which is similar to tlie rendering given by Saadia. In tlie
Revised Version, it is rendered, " when thou shalt break loose, that thou
shalt break his yoke from off thy neck ;" this rendering yields a feeble sense,
for if a person breaks loose from restraint, he of couric shakes off restraint.
The rendering which I have given, appears to me to afford ^he most suitable sense,
namely, that by exertion they will ultimately succeed to shake off the yoke.

T^"ir\ (tarid) ia evidently the fut. hiph. of ^!1"| {rud) to rvander about, but
it no doubt used in our passage, with the accessory meaning to exert oneself.
There are other renderings given, but which it is not necessary to notice.

ii^

%■

4)44

people's commentary.

accordingly have to translate, " away from the fatness," " away
from the dew." In the Authorized Version the passage is ren-
dered, " thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of
the dew of heaven from above," but there will be little difficulty
to show that this rendering is inadmissible for various cogent
reasons. In the first place, the blessings arising from the plen-
tiful dew, and the fatness of the earth, have already been bes-
towed on Jacob, (v. 28,) and point to the possession of the pro-
mised land by his descendants. Those blessings could there-
fore not be bestowed upon Esau also ; and accordingly Isaac
himself said to Esau, " and with corn and wine I have sustained
him : and what shall I now do for thee my son ? " (v. 37.)
Implying that every blessing had already been bestowed on
Jacob. Secondly, if Isaac had had it in his power to bestow
those blessings on Esau also, why should he have hesitated to
bestow them on his favourite son ? And thirdly, it would be im-
possible to shew that the prediction had been fulfilled. The region
of Mount Seir, and the waste districts to the west and north west
of it, inhabited by the Idumseans, the descendants of Esau, are
exceedingly barren and desolate. The soil is parched by the
burning rays of the sun. The absence of " the fatness of the
earth, and of the dew of heaven," render the industry of the
husbandman aboi'tive. It is said, that there is frequently for
many miles no village, nor even a hut, to mark the tracks of
a human being ; and that those who, by ancestral traditions or
indolence are still remaining in tlie country, live in subterra-
neous caves or tents. There are indeed some parts of the land
of Edom, which are not so sterile as to defy cultivation alto-
gether, and where vineyards and corn fields arc to be met with
(comp. Num. xx. 17 ;) but even they are said to produce little
more than is actually necessary for immediate consumption.
From the foregoing remaiks it will now be readily seen how
unsuitable the rendering of the English Version is. If we on
the contraiy render " away from the fatness of the earth, and
away from the dew of heaven," the prediction has its fullest
accomplisLment. The descendants of Esau had their habita-
tion " away from" the land upon which the blessings of heaven
were showered, and M'hich became the inheritance of the
descendants of Jacob. The context absolutely requires the
rendering "away from," and there is not the least objection to
it on philological grounds. The proposition yj (vii) is in other

places of the Old Testament used in the sense of " away from,'
as for example. Num. xv. 24. Tll^Tt iD^i^^a (mee'ne haedah,)
"away from the eyes of the congregation;" English Version,
"without the knowledge of the congregation." (Comp.also Prov.
XX. 3 ; and so in other places.) In the Revised Version, the ren-

I' i !'

.^gaiia ra w g ttH<fc»\>«a«ji^H|

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

445

leaven
if the
es the
tion to

Othoi'

from/
edah,)
ersion,
Prov.
ie ren-

dering " away from" is given in the margin ;" and most of the
Jewish and German interpreters render " weg von," aivayfrom
or " ohne," without. (See, Von Bohlen, Dilhiiann, Delitzsch,
Gesenius, and others.) '• And by thy sword shalt thou live ;"
the sterile country being unfit for agricultural and pastoral pur-
suits, the Edomites were to obtain their livelihood by the chase,
and by the spoil which they will obtain by their warlike
weapons. The prediction implies that they will be in constant
warfare with the neighbouring nations, and live a freebooting
life. " Yet shalt thou serve thy brother ;" notwithstanding the
prowess of the descendants of Esau, they will yet be brought
under the dominion of the kings of Judah. But this subjection
will not be a lasting one. The Idumseans retained their inde-
pendence until the reign of David, who subdued them, and
thus was Isaac's prophecy fulfilled, that " the elder shall serve
the younger." They were, however, continually endeavour-
ing to shake off the yoke from their shoulders, and in
in this they partially succeeded at the end of the reign of
Solomon, when Hadad, the Edomite, who had been carried into
Egypt during his childhood, returned into his native country,
and had himself acknowledged as the lawful king ; (see Kings
xi. 22). But he seemed to reign only in east Edom, the part
south of Judea remained subject to the kings of Judah until the
reign of Jehoram, against whom the Edomites rebelled, (.see 2
Chron. xxi. 8). Amaziah, eighth king of Judah, took Petra,killed
1000 and compelled 10,000 moie to leap from the rock, on which
the citj' stood. In commemoration of this conquest he changed
the name of Petra to bs^np"^ Jocktheel i.e., subdued of God,
But this conquest was by no means permanent. In the reign
of Ahaz, the twelfth king of Judah, hordes of Edomites invaded
Judah and carried ofl a great many captors (2 Chron. xxviii.
17). About the same time Rezin, king of Syria, expelled the
Jews from Elath, and was then occupied by the Edomites. Thus
was fulfilled the second part of Isaac's prophecy, that in course
of time Esau should shake off his brother's yoke from off his
neck. When Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, the
Edomites joined him, and encouraged him to raise the very
foundation of the city. This circumstance I'e-kindled the
hereditary hatred of the Jews to a still greater degree, and
hence the bitter demmciations against Edom (Ps. cxxxvii. 7, 8,
9 ; Ezek. xxv. 12, 13, 14 ; xxv. &c).

Esau conceived now a fierce hatred against his brother for
the wrong he had done him, and probably thinking that with
the death of his brother the effects of the blessings would also
become annihilated, he purposed in hia mind to slay his brother
as soon as the days of mourning for his father would have arriv-
ed (v. 41), This atrocious design banishes all sympathy which.

446

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

we may have hitherto cherished for Esau. Although Esau,
according to verse 41, merely " said in his heart " that he would
slay his brother, yet he must have divulged his design to some
one, for in verse 42 it is stated, " And these words of Esau, her
elder son, were told Rebekah." As f^oon as the fond mother
heard of the imminent danger in which her favourite son stood
of losing his life, she immediately sent for him, and entreated
him to flee to her brother Laban, and remain with him until
his brother's anger shall be turned awny and forget the injury
ha had received, and then be able to return in safety. In order
the more readily to gain the consent of Jacob to leave his
loved home, she represents to him that his death would also
involve the death of his brother, " Why should I be bereaved
of both of you in one day ? " In these words, Rebekah evidently
alludes to the custom of revenging the blood by the nearest
relative. Had Esau succeeded in carrying out his murderous
design, it would have been the duty of the nearest relative to
avenge the blood of Jacob by killing Esau. We have already
stated that the observance of this custom is still exercised
among the Mohammedans to an alarming extent. (See Burck-
hardt, Notes on the Bedouins p. 85.) It is for thi<5 reason that
an Arab hesitates to tell his name or that of his father or of
his tribe to a stranger, lest there might exist a blood-feud
between them. They even take the precaution to impress upon
the children the necessity of observing this precaution. (See
Layard, Nineveh and Babylon p. 305.)

46. And 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 Ueth,
sitch as these, of the daughters of the land, of what avail is life to inef

Rebekah could not send Jacob away from his home without
first obtaining his father's consent. Not wishing, however, to
grieve her aged and infirm husband by telling him of the mur-
derous intention of Esau, she represented to him the danger
of Jacob taking a wife from the hated daughters of Heth, as
his brother did which was the source of so much grief to them,
and that it was therefore desirable that he should journey into
Mesopotamia ) her family, and take a wife from her relations.
We learn from the next chapter, that Isaac readily acquiesced
in her proposal.

(See

Ivithout
lever, to
>e mur-
danger
"eth, as
them,
sy into
lations.
liesced

people's commentauy.
CHAPTER XXVIII.

447

1. And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and
said to him, Thou shall not take a wife of the dunyhters of Canaan.

2. Arise, yo to Padan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's
father ; and take for thee a tvife from thence of the daughters of
Laban, thy mother's brother.

We can readily understand that Isaac would be highly pleased
with his wife's proposal. Indeed we may take it for granted,
that he himself before his death would either have proposed
the same thing, or adopted a similar plan to that of his
father, in order to procui-e a wife for Jacob from his
relations in Mesopotamia. Before Jacob's departure, Isaac bes-
towed upon him " the blessing of Abraham," that is the bless-
ing of promise which Abraham had received from the Lord,
(comp. xvii. 8 ; xxii. 17 18.) By the bestowal of this blessing
(vv. 3. 4.), Isaac ratified the blessing which he hadipreviously
given to Jacob unawares.

6. A nd Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away
to Padan-aram to take to himself a wife from there, and that as he
blessed him he gave him a charge, saying. Thou shalt not take a ivife
of the daughters of Canaan ;

7. And that Jacob had obeyed his father and his mother, and ivas
gone to Padan-aratn ;

8. And when Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan displeased
Isaac his father ;

9. Then Esau went to Ishmael, and took, besides the wives he had,
Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, r't sister ofNebajoth,
to be his tvife.

Fi'om the circumstance of sending Jacob away from his
home into a distant land to take a wife from his mother's
relatives, Esau evidently perceived — if he had not perceived it
before — how utterly detestible his marriage with the Hittite
women, must be in the eyes of his parents. In order, there-
fore, to ingratiate himself into his father's favour, he resolved to
marry a daughter of Ishmael, thinking no doubt that if Jacob's
marrying a relative of his mother war ^jleasing to his parents,
surely his marrying a relative of his father would be still more
so. But it is quite evident that Esau in taking this step was
not actuated by a sincere desire to make amends for his un-
righteous marriage with the Hittite women, for he still retained
them, and thus added sin to sin. Had his real aim been to
please his parents, he would have put away the women which

< p* T *ry ff ' "wv i!i^

448

people's commentary.

Ill ^i

If ' J 1

ji i 'i

El: f;

were the cause of so much grief to them. Esau's conduct
seems to have been rather actuated by a hope of gaining his
father's favour in order to obtain from him a blessing more
favourable to his worldl}' prospects, than the blessing w liich
had been bestowed upon him on a former occasion. In this,
however, he did not succeed. The expression, " Then Esau
went to Ishmael," must be understood, that he went to the
family of Ishmael, for Ishmael himself had now been dead
about fourteen years.

10. Aiul Jacob went out from Beer-sheha, and went towards Haran.

As a lonely wanderer Jacob departed from his father's roof.
He had neither a servant to accompany him, nor a beast to
carry him, the statf in his hand was his sole companion in his
solitary journey. (Comp. ch. xxxii. 10.) What a contrast to
the manner in which Abraham forty years before had sent his
eldest servant to the same country and to the same family,
accompanied by servants and camels, with all the signs of Asiatic
grandeur, bearing " Jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and
raiments and precious things." But why was this so ? Isaac
was rich in servants and rich in beasts, why allow a beloved
child set out on a long and dreary journey, beset by many
dangers, all alone and on foot ? There can be no other reason,
than to elude the watchful eye of Esau, to give Jacob an
opportunity to be some distance on his way, before his brother
would discover his absence. Who can pursue this portion of
the history of Jacob, and yet believe he was not punished for
having turned aside from the straight path of probity and
truth ? And who can picture to himself the pangs of remorse
of the fugitive, and the gloomy and distressful thoughts that
arose in his mind whilst pursuing his dreary way ? We may
here mention that the distance from Beer-sheba to Haran was
about four hundred and fifty miles, the country to be ti-aversed
is in many parts exceedingly desert, and dangerous on account of
wild beasts and wayfaring marauders. Jacob, at the time of
his departure for Padan-aram, was already seventy-eight years
old. The narrative does not state the age, but it may be
obtained as follows: Jacob remained with Laban twenty
years, fourteen of these he served for his two wives, Rachel
and Leah (xxxi. 38). Soon after the birth of Joseph, Jacob
desired to return to his own country (xxx. 25) ; but at the
earnest entreaty of Laban, he remained six years longer ^xxxi.
41). Joseph was therefore about seven years old when his
father returned to Canaan. Ten years later Joseph was
sold into Egypt (xxxvii. 2). And thirteen years after this
event, when he was thirty years old, he stood before Pharaoh

I's conduct
gaining? his
;ssing more
ising \N hich
n. In this,
Then Esau
went to the
been dead

vards Haran.

'ather's roof.
)r a beast to
(anion in his
I contrast to
had sent his
same family,
5ns of Asiatic
'of gold, and
is so ? Isaac
ow a beloved
set by many
other reason,
,ve Jacob an
•e his brother
lis portion of
punished for
probity and
7-s of remorse
boughts that
y ? We may
[,o Haran was
3 be traversed
i on account of
. the time of
,y-eight years
it it may he
,aban twenty
wives, Rachel
Joseph, Jacob
) ; but at the
longer fxxxi.
old when his
Joseph was
riars after this
efore Pharaoh

people's commentary.

449

(xli. 46). Then caine the .seven years of plenty, and when two
years of the famine had elapsed Jacob went down into Egypt
(xlv. 6), and according to xlvii. 9, he was 130 years old. It
will thus be seen that from the time of Jacob's departure to
Padan-aram to his immigration into Egypt, there elapsed 20
years + ^0 + 13 + 7 + 2, or 52 years. If we now deduct these
52 years from the 130 years, it will give us 78 years as the
age of Jacob when he left his home.

11. And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there over night,
for the sun had set ; and he took one of the stones of the place and put
it under his head, and lay doum in that place.

Jacob had now travelled several days, for the place here
spoken of is forty-eight miles from Beer-sheba. Having lighted
upon a certain placo — or rather, according to the literal render-
ing of the original, " in the place," which seems to indicate that
it was a divinely appointed place — and being overtaken by
nightfall " he took one of the stones of the place, and put it
under his head." In the Authorized Version it is rendered,
" and he took of the stones of that place and put them," which
the original will certainly admit of, for it will be seen from the
words one and it being in italics that they are not in the original.
But the rendering of the Authorized Version would form a
contradiction to what is stated in verse 18, where it is distinctly
said that " Jacob took the stone which he had put under his
head, and set it up /or a monument." The rendering in the
Authorized Version of the word *T>tTl2J5^1)3 (meradshotav) by
" for his pillows " is not admissible. According to other places
where tiie word occurs it denotes the place at the head or under
the head. (Comp. 1 Sam. xix. 13, 16 ; xxvi. 7 ; 1 Kings xix. 6.)
The Revised Version has the same rendering as we have given.

Jacob had been destined before his birth to be the heir of
the promise, and now God appears to him in a dream and con-
firms to him all the promises made to Abraham.

12. And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set upon the earth, and the
top of it reached to heaven: and behold, the angels of God ascending
and descending on it.

13. And behold, the Lord stood above it, and said I am the Lord
God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac, the land irhereov
thou liest, to thee will I give it. and to thy seed.

It can hardly be denied that the scene which the sacred nar-
rative here brings before us has a symbolical meaning. Wr
have above hinted, that from the phraseology in tiie original,

Oucurs only with a plural form.

^:.

ill

450

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

\t.%

,\n

: il

it appears that the place where Jacob lighted upon was divinely
appointed. It must have been near the city Luz, for in com-
memoration of the event of the night he changed its name to
Beth-el (v. 19.) Yet he did not enter the town where Oriental
hospitality would have secured for him comfort and safety, but
he passed the night in the open field, where he was exposed
to the attacks of wild beasts and marauding Bedouins. But
God shielded him from all danger; and is it too much to say, that
the protection here vouchsafed to the ancestor of the chosen peo-
ple was intended to symbolize the fatherly care which God would
hereafter bestow upon Israel and upon His church ? The lad-
der resting upon the earth and its top reaching to heaven,
symbolizes the fellowship between God in heaven with his
people upon earth. And the angels ascending and descending
the ladder, teaches that every thing is under the guidance and
control of the Almighty ; the ministering angels carry up the
sincere prayers and petitions of men to God, and bring down
assistance and protection. God standing at the top of the
ladder, symbolizes that He is the source from whom all
blessings flow. We have already stated (Vol. I. 90) that super-
natural dreams, were known from ordinary meaninofless dreams,
by having in all cases left a certain impression on the mind of the
dreamer, which made him sensible that the dream he had dream-
ed foreboded some event of the highest importance. And this
will account for the great anxiet}' evinced always for discovering
its meaning ; as was the case with the butler and baker of
Pharaoh, with Pharaoh himself, and with Nebuchadnezzar. So
likewise when Jacob awoke he felt powerfully impressed with
the reality of the dream, and in wonderment mingled with
reverential awe, he exclaimed, " Surely the Lord is in this
place ; and I knew it not ;" " How dreadful is this place ; this
is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of
heaven." (vv. 16, 17.) Jacob could not show his thankfulness
to the Almighty by offering a sacrifice ; his staff was all that
he possessed, but he did all that under the circumstances he
WHS able to do. He " took the stone which he had put under
his head, and set it up for a monument, and poured oil on its
top," (v. 18) by which act he consecrated it, and set it apart to
God. (Comp. Fxod. xl. 9, 11); and no doubt offered up his
devout thankfulness for the gracious promises made to him.
When Jacob left his home, he was no doubt provided with as
much provision as he could conveniently carry, and as oil was
largely used among the ancients for various purposes, especially
for healing wounds, a little cruse of oil would naturally
form a |)art of his stock of provision. It is not a little remark-
able that we not only find that many ancient nations have
adopt'^d the practice of erecting sacred stones, but that even

^p""*«"

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

451

[overing

aker of

sar. So

3d with

d with

in this

e ; this

^ate of

fulness

1 that

ices he

under

on its

lart to

[up his

him.

ith as

il was

jcially

rally

luark-

have

even

in some instances the very names they gave to those stones,
though clothed in foreign garbs, still unmistakably show that
they are identical with the name "Beth-ol," which Jacob gave
to the place. The Black Stone in the temple of the Kaaba —
otherwise called Beit-allah, i. e., the hou.se of God — which is
still to be seen at Mecca, and which the Mahommedans say
had been brought from heaven by the angel Gabriel, and
erected there. Eusebius, and other ancient writers speak of
the custom in early times of erecting pillars of stone and
anointing them with oil for religious purposes. The Greeks
made also use of such sacred stones, they called them ^anvXia,
BaityUa (Plin. 37, 51,) which is acknowledged to be identical
with the Hebrew Beth-el. Morier, in his " Second Journey
through Persia," says, that he noticed his guide occasionally
placing a stone or two stones one upon another in some con-
spicuous place, and uttering a prayer for the safe return of the
party.

19. And he called the ^mme of that place Betlt-el ; but the name of
that city was called Luz at the first.

Jacob did not call the name of the place whereon he had
slept Beth-el, i. e., the house of God, but in commemoration of the
event he changed the name of the city Luz, which was near by
to Beth-el.

20. A nd Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and
keep me in this tvay that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and
raiment to put on,

21. And I return again to my father's house in peace, and the Lord
is my God ;

22. Then this stone, which I have set for a monument, shall be God's
hou^e ; and all that Thou wilt give me, I shall surely give the tenth
part to Thee.

Jacob does not content himself with merely consecrating the
stone as a memorial of the event, but makes also a solemn vow
that if God would fulfil what He had promised in the dream,
to guard him wherever he would go, and bring him back to his
father's house in peace, in short, that if God would be a God to
him as he was to his ancestors, he would then in a more special
manner consecrate the place. This he did on his return by
erecting an altar in the place. (Comp. ch. xxxv. 7.)

In the Authorized Veision the phrase t3"inbKb "'b mn'' HTn
(wehayah Jehovah li lelohim) is rendered " then shall the Lord
be my God." This rendering, it will be seen, represents Jacob
as making his acknowrledging Jehovah as his God conditional

«■

452

people's commentary.

on God's fulfilling His promises to him, which would certainly
be a flimsy basis to rest his religion on. But Jjicob had, no
doubt, from his youth acknowledged Jehovah as his God ; he
is, as we have seen in ch. xxv. 27, called OJri 'Qjij*^ {ink fam),
" a perfect " or " upright man." Some commentators, adhering
to the rendering of the Authorized Version, explain the passage,
that Jacob would then utterly renounce all superstitious and
idolatrous practices of the surrounding nations, and worship
God alone. But it is a gratuitous assumption that Jacob had
at any time been in the least given to heathen practices. He
certainly would not have been called " a perfect man," if such
had been the case. It is proper to state that the original cer-
tainly admits of the rendering given in the Authorized Version ;
but as \ve have already stated that in cases where a passage
admits of a twofold translation, we must entirely be guided by
the context. The rendering which we have given is not only
given by many eminent orthodox interpreters, but even by
many rationalistic writers. In the Revised Version, too.although
the rendering of the Authorized Version is retained in the text,
yet in the margin the rendering, " and the Lord will be my
God " is given. In this case whei'e everything is in favour of
the rendering given in the margin, and nothing can be urged
in favour of the one given in the text, we think, the revisers
might very properly nave adopted the former altogether.

■ij i<:- ' ■

i •

CHAPTER XXIX.

1. Then Jacob lifted up his feet, and came into the land of the
children of the east.

The sacred writer in speaking of Jacob leaving his home,
made use of the ordinary expression npS?'^ i^S"^! {waiyetse

yaakov) " And Jacob went out " (xxviii. 10) ; but now, in
speaking of his resuming his journey after he had seen the
vision, he makes use of the expression : " Then Jacob lifted up
his feet " (Eng. Vers. " Then Jacob went nut "), the phrase
implies that he now went on his journey cheerfully and
briskly. The promise he had received in the dream, had made
him altogether a different person, all gloomy thoughts were
now dispelled, and the future laid now before him bright and
serene. A Jewish writer has very pert nently remarked,
" His heart lifted up his feet." Although he had yet four
hundred miles to traverse before he reached his destination,

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY,

453

of the

home,
laiyetse

ow, in
en the
ted up
phrase
and
made
were
t and
arked,
four
lation,

and much fatijijue to endure, and probably many dangers to
encounter, yet the promise that God would bo witli him and
protect him, cheered him in his lonely way, and removed all
fear of harm. " And he came into the land of the children of
the east." The term Q^p 13^ (bene kedem) " children of the

east, generally denotes the Arabs inhabiting the country in
the east of Palestine, but is here extended to the inhabitants of
Mesopotamia, as that country was lying still more eastward,
beyond the Euphrates. ^ ay-i

2. And ht; looked and behold, a well in the Jield, and behold, \Y.f^iy
there were three flocks of shfep lying bj/ it ; for out of that well ^^ ^ '
they tvatered thejlocks : and the stone upon the vtottth of the well was ^y^*.<\.

great.

The journey of the four hundred miles had evidently been
accomplished without any thing occurring worthy of notice, for
the whole account of it is contained in the preceding verse.
Jacob before entering the town apparently had halted in afield
where there was a well. The well here spoken of, is however,
not the same well at which Abraham's steward had halted. That
well was before the town, this one was further off in a field.
The other well was a natural one, which furnished water for
the use of the inhabitants, this one was a cistern in which
water was collected to water the flocks. This well was covered
with a great stone, as it was in the open field it was liable to
be filled up with the drifting sand. But it may be asked where
was the necessity for using such a heavy stone ? There proba-
bly were two reasons for this. In the first place, to prevent
one party from taking an undue share to the injury of other
shepherds. Secondly, to prevent the well from being too often
opened and exposed to the flying dust. The .shepherds there-
fore assembled with their flocks at the well, and by their com-
bined strength removed and replaced the stone. The meeting
with the shepherds in the field aff'orded Jacob an opportunity
to obtain some information regarding his mother's family, but
as they might after all have come from some distant part of
the country, he natui-ally tii'st inquired of them, " iNly brethren,
whence are you ? " and having received the welcome answer,
"From Haran are we," he now asked them, " Do you know
Laban the son of Nahor ? " i. e. the descendant of Nahor, for
Laban was the son of Bethuel, and grandson of Nahor. But
the word "13 {hen) son is often used to denote a more remote

descendant. The shepherds having answered Jacob's question
in the aflSrmative,"We know him," he now asked them "i^ QiblSn
(hashalom lo) " Is he well," or more literally " Is there peace to
him ? " We may remark that the meaning of the Hebrew word
68

454

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

DlblD (shalom), ia very comprehensive, it denotes peace, health,
])rosj>erity, vielfare. Hence very appropriately used in Oriental
salutation " peace bo with you. ' The shepherds replied " He is
well ; and, behold, Rachel his daughter cunicth with the sheep,"
(V. 6).

7. And he naid, Behold, the day is still high (lit. giuat) ; it is )iot
yet time that the cattle should he gathered ; water ije the sheep, and go
■and feed them.

Having been told that Rachel was coming with the sheep,
Jacob evidently was anxious to get the shepherds away in
order that his meeting with his cousin might not bo witnessed
by strangers. He lepresented to the shepherds therefore, that as
the day was still high, and not nearly time to gather the sheep
into their folds for the night, they had better water the Hocks,
and drive them again to pasture. The shepherds might have
regarded this as a presumptuous interference on the part of a
perfect stranger, and taken it as a reproach for neglecting
their duty. But Jacob's deportment towaids them during their
•conversation was probably of such a nature, as to convince
them that he was of a kind disposition, and hence looked upon
what ho had said, as having been uttered in a friendly and well-
meaning spirit, and without being in the least offended, ex-
plained to him that they were obliged to wait "until all the flocks
are gathered," in order to roll the great stone from the mouth of
the well. Whilst Jacob was yet conversing with the shepherds,
" Rachel came with her father's .sheep, for she was a shep-
herde.ss " (v. 9). That the daughter of such a considerable per-
son as Laban was tending the Hocks, shows that the occupation
was not considered by feniales of distinction to be beneath their
station. From Exod. ii. IG, we learn that the priest of Midian
had seven daughters who attended to their father's Hock. And
the eminent traveller Burckhardt says : that the practice for
unmarried women to attend to the flocks still prevails among
the Arabs of the peninsula of Sinai. Three or four generally
go together, they set out early in the morning, and return in
the evening. They are said to bo very civil to strangers pas-
sing by, and gladly share with them their food and milk. They
are also spoken of as being exceedingly brave in defending their
flocks. (Burckh. Bedou. 283).

10. And wlien Jacob satv Rachel, the daughter of Laban, his moth-
er's brother and the sheep of Laban, his mothers brother, Jacob ap-
jrroached, and rolled the stone from the tvell's mouth, and loatered the
^fiock of Laban, his mother's brother.

The language in our verso admits of no doubt, that Jacob

people's commentary.

466

unaided by any ono rolled the j^reat stone from the mouth of
the well. We can easily imagine, that the sight of his beauti-
ful cousin would induce him to apply his utmost strength on
the occasion, still it was a feat which he couUl not possibly
have performed unless he had been supported by supernatural
aid. The achievment of such a wonderful act must have made
Rachel and the shepherds to look upon the stranger with
admiration and reverence as one bein<5 endowed with super-
natural strength. The reader in perusmg the verse will per-
ceive, that the phrase " his mother's brother," occurs no less
than three times. This evidently was designedly in order to
show that Jacob acted as a relative.

11. And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voter, and wept.

Viewed from our modern standard of eticjuette and customs,
Jacob kissing Rachel before he had made himself known as her
cousin, will appear as an undue liberty, if not as an insult ; but
we must be careful in reading the Scriptures, not to judge of
the acts of those ancient times, by the more restrained, and we
may add more refined manners and customs of modern civiliza-
tion. We are always ready in reading English history, to
make allowance for acts which do not come up to the standard
of the present prevailing laws of society. Jacob had been sud-
denly driven from the society of his loving mother, and seeing
now, after a long and weaiy journey through a strange land,
the daughter of his mother's brother standing before him, over-
whelmed by his feelings, " he kissed Rachel " in accordance
with the beautiful atiections and simple manners of the patri-
archial age. " And he lifted up his voice and wept." He wept
from his heart overflowing with joyful emotions. Thus we
read that Joseph fell upon his brother's neck, and wept (ch.
xlv. 14). So also when Joseph met with his father (ch. xlvi.
29).

12. And Jacob told Rachel that he wn^ her father^ s khismnn, and
that he was Rebekah's sun : and she ran and told her father.

Here again we have to draw the readers notice to the words
«T'n&^ TJ!}^ (ac/ii aviha), being in the Authorized and Revised
Versions rendered " her father's brother," instead of " her fath-
er's kinsman," which is apt to perplex the ordinary reader who
may not be acquainted with the Hebrew usage of expressing
"kinsman" by njj^ (ach), brother. He would naturally feel
puzzled, to see Laban no less than three times in verse 10 spoken
of as "his mother's brother," and in verse 12 Jacob call himself
" her father's brother."

456

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

Ill

h ■

As soon as Laban heard of the arrival of his sister's son, he
lost no time to bring him to his house ; " he ran to meet him,"
and heartily " embraced him and kissed him." Jacob told
Laban no'v " all these things " (v. 13.) What were these things ?
Evidently, all the circumstances connected with his leaving his
father's house with nothing but his staff, and the little prospect
he had of his soon returning home again. But Laban's kind
feelings towards his nephew were not in the least lessened on
account of his I'estitute condition, on the contrary, he seemed
even to feel more warmly for him, for he exclaimed : " Surely
thou art my bone and my flesh " (v, 14). " And he abode with
him a month's time," or more literally " a month of days," i. e.,
a full month (v, 14) ; by which we have to understand, that
Jacob rendered Laban a full month's service without receiving
any remuneration for it, for the context shows that he did not
leave his uncle's house. Bub Laban was too just to accept the
services of h'u relative without compensating him for it, and at
the end of the month he asked liim to fix his waues.

16. And Lahan had (wo dau< filters : the name cf the elder was.
Leah, and the name of the younger was Jiachel.

17. And the ei/es of Leah were tender ; but Rachel was beautiful in
form and beautiful in appearanee,

18. And Jacob loved Rachel, and said, I will serve thee seven years
for Rachel thy youm/er daughter.

Jacol:*, mindful of his paternfJ injunction, not to take a
wife from the daughters of the Canaanites, but to go to his
mother's fansily to choose a wife for himself (ch. xxviii. 1) and
loving Ro,chel for she was beautiful, at once offered to sei-ve
Laban seven years for her, The seven j'ears service was
intended instead of the us\ial dowry or presents which it was
customary to give to tlie pare" 's or relatives, as he had neither
mone}' nor goods to give. Thus Shecheni oflers Dinah's father
and brothers whatever do^ry and gift they might ask (ch.
xxxiv. 12). Compare also ch. xxiv. 33, 1 6am. xxiii. 23-25.
This custom existed among many eastern people, and still
prevails among the Bedouins. The celebrated eastern Traveller,
PJurckhardt, in his Travels in Syria says, " I once met with a
young ma,n who had served eight years for his food only ; at
the end of that peiiod he receive<l in marriage his master's
daughter, for whom he would otherwise have had to pay seven
or eight hundred piasters." And in his account of Kerek, he
mentions as a customary thing for a young man without any
propert}-, to serve five or six years as a servant instead of a
dowry for a girl. No doubt thia custom was liable to be
greatly abused by unfeeling and avaricious parents, but what

• iiiMiii,iww M ii» B i<wti»«i»«wiuiaiii«a

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

457

and
se)'ve

was

was
ither
ktlier

(ch.
3-25.

still
eller,
ith a

; at

ter's
even
c, he

any
of a
be

hat

custom is altogether safe against abuse ? Among the more
civilized tribes, however, it was the law that the consent of the
<iaughters must first be obtained, and among some of them it
was even customary to give the money or goods received by
the parents to the young married couple. Many commentators
have erroneously accounted for Laban accepting the seven
years service for each of his two daughters, that it was in accord-
ance with a prevailing custom amongst the ancient Hebrews of
selling dai ghters to husbands. But there is not the slightest
ground for supposing that such a custom existed among them.
The mere receiving of presents from a son-in-law can no more
reasonably be looked upon as selling a daiiglder, than we
would look upon the giving of a dowry as 'purchasing a hus-
band. Laban accepting such a long service, must bo ascribed
to his selfishness, for although the otTer came from his nephew
himself, he should have dealt more liberally. " And the eyes
of Leah were tender." This i-i especially mentioned, not only
as a contrast to the beautiful form and beautiful appearance of
Rachel, but also because among the Orientals, and especially
among the Arabs, bright, fiery, and lively black eyes are
regarded as the height of beauty of women. The name ^n"l
Rachel, signifies a lamb.

19. And Laban said, it is better that 1 give her to thee, than that I
shoidd give her to another vian : abide with me.

Even to the present day, among the Bedouin Arabs and
other tribes, mavriages between cousins are in special favour,
and they call themselves cousins even after their marriage.
Hence Laban says, " It is better," that is more in accordance
with the custom, "that I give her to thee, than that I should give
her to another man." "And Jacob served Laban seven years for
Rachel,'' but the seven long years appeared to j)ass so swiftly,
that they seemed to him but a few days, for the love he had
for her." The daily society of the object he loved, made him
happy and content, and with those that are happy and con-
tented, time never hangs wearily upon then\.

At the end of the .'-even years Jacob demanded Rachel for
his wife, and Laban, according to the custom of the age, made
a great feast, at which "all the men of the place" (v. 22),
'were invited. In the evening, as was customary in the East,
the bride was conducted to the bridal chamber in darkness,
and entirely covered by a veil. Under such favourable
circumstances, Laban could easily consummate the fraud of
substituting Leah for Rachel. Thus Jacob, who had practised
deceit upon his aged father, had now deceit p/actised upon
himself. He, who by subtilty had deprived hi.-^ brother of
the fatlier's blessing, is now in turn by subtilty, deprived of

I'i i

! i

r
r,

1 , 1.1

■.\

'■hj

458

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

the object he so dearly loved. When Jacob remonstrated with
Laban in having deceived him, the latter endeavoured to justify
his wicked act on the ground that it was contrary to the
custom of his country to give the younger before the elder in
marriage (v. 26). That such a custom may have prevailed in
Mesopotamia, is quite probable. Such a law certainly existed
in India (Manu. 3 160). But Laban should have informed
Jacob of the existence of such a custom at the time the latter
offered to serve seven years for Rachel, and refused to accept
his offer on that ground. We can, therefore, come to no other
conclusion, but that Laban, from the beginning, had made up
his mind to practise this fraud upon his nephew for selfish
purposes. The mild manner in which Jacob complained of the'
treatment he had received is deserving of the highest praise ;
" What is this thou hast done unto me ? did I not serve thee
for Rachel? Wherefore hast thou deceived me" (v. 26)?
Luther greatly admired Jacob's conduct on this occasion, and
considered it almost super-human, and confessed that under
similar circumstances he would hardly have been able to
display so much patience.

27. Fulfil her toeek, and we loill give thee this one also for the ser-
vice lohich thou shali serve with me yet seven other years.

" Fulfil her week." The feast which was made in celebra-
tion of a marriage generally lasted seven days. Thus according
to Judges xiv. 12, 17, 18, Samson's marriage feast lasted seven
days. So " Tobias's wedding was kept seven days with great
joy.'" (Tobit. xi. 18). And Laban here proposes that Jacob
should first finish the festive week for Leah, and that after that
he would give also Rachel for seven years more service. Laban
in accordance with the custom of the country gave to each of
his daughters a maid-servant, to Leah he gave Zilpah, and
Rachel he gave Bilhah. These servants form, as it were, a link
between the new home of the bride and the home she has left.
Very frequently the nurse also accompanies the young wife.
And, indeed, the maid-servant and nurse form the principle
part of the dowry. Jacob's afiecticms had first been bestowed
upon Rachel, no wonder then that he ! ved her more than
Leah. It is (|uite probable too, that he felt that Leah had
borne a voluntary part in the deception whicii had been prac-
tised upon l.im, and it certainly does not appear that she remon-
strated with lier father about the injustice he intended to per-
petrate. Still it is quite clear that when it is said: "And
when the Lord saw that Leah was hated " (v. ,'}1.), when taken
in connection with what is said in the preceding verse, that
Jacob " loved Rachel mon^ than Leah," it means nothing
moie than that Leah was less loved, and not actually hated.

-'-.Mtiatmiiigmiammi

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

459>

prac-

remon-

to per-

"And

taken

le, that

othing

hated.

ThcMo is nothing in the sequel of the narrative to show that
Jacob hated Leah, though he loved her less than Rachel. The
verb 5^3i2) {sana), to hate, seems to be used sometimes in such
comparative phrases to denote a less degree of love. Thus
Deut. xxi. 15: "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and
another hated," that is less loved, the first born son of the one
less loved was not to be defaived of his birthright and con-
ferred on " the son of the beloved " if he is younger, And so
we think may be explained the passage in Malachi i. 2, 8 ; yet
I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau " ; that is, God had shown a
greater degx'ee of love for .facob and his posterity, than for
Esau and his descendants, but not actually hated Esau.

The mode of expression is used in the New Testament thus :
Matt. vi. 24, " No man can serve two masters : for either ho will
hate the one, and love the other," which seems simply to mean,
that he can not bear an equal love for both masters, and have
their interest equally at heart. So again, Luke xiv. 26, " If
anj' man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
&c.;" this surely does not mean actually "hate" father and
mother, but love father and mother less. Leah natui-ally
felt deeply that she did not share equally in the affections of
her husband with her sister, and it was the cause of much grief
to her. We can, therefore, readily understand that anything
that was likely to gain for her a greater share of her husband's
love would be hailed with the greatest delight, and thus, when
the mortified Leah gave birth to her first-born son, she called
him "illi^"! " Reuben," i. e. see ye a son, expressive of her

thankfulness to God for this mercy, and the great joy of her
heart, " for she said, surely the Loud hath, looked upon my
affliction : for now my husband will love me " (v. 32). Her
second son she called ■ii5??2'J5 (Shimon) " Simeon," i. e. a hear-
ing ; "and she said, surely the Lord hath heard tlvA. T am
hated, and He hath given me this son also," (v. 33,) again ex-
pi'essing her thankfulness to God for having mercifully re-
garded her misery. The third son she called i-]^ "Levi," i. e.
joining or attachmf')d, for slie said, " Now this time will my
husband be joined to me ; " that is, will surely become fully
attached to me, " for I have born him three sons " (v. 34). Her
fourth son she called rmn'' i'Tehudah) " Judah," i. e. praise,
for she said, " This time I wiU praise the Lord," that is, express
her thankfulness to the Almighty, in wh;(h all other consider-
ations are absorbed. " And she ceased from bearing " (v. 35),
that is, ', ceased from bearing " for a time, for according to the
following chapter she had three more children.

'i :.

»l

,n'

1 'i'

I: \

Pi 5 -

lift? i

i' I

): *

*!'

460 PEOPLEi'S COMMENTARY.

CHAPTER XXX.

1. And ivhen Rachel smu tJuxt she bore to Jacob 'no children, RacJiel
envied her sister, and she said to Jacob, Give nie children : and if not,
I die.

One would have expected that Rachel being endowed with
surpassing beauty, and possessing the perfect love of her hus-
band, would have been contented and happy. But we perceive
from our verse that such was far from being the case. Seeing
that Leah had borne four sons, she envied her sister, and not
only displayed a want of sisterly love, but also a most impetu-
ous temper. " GiA^e me children," she demanded of her hus-
band, " or else I die" out of grief. In this unreasonable demand
Jacob very properly perceived a want of faith and submission
to the will of God on the part of Rachel, and did not allow the
great love he bore for her to hinder him from administering
the merited rebuke. Even his. afi'ectiops were for the time
changed into anger against the wife he doted upon, and said,
" Ain I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of
the womb " (v, 2) ? No doubt many in reading our verse will
see nothing in the conduct of Rachc] but what is blameable.
Such, however, would be taking an extreme view of the case.
We must alwajT^s, in judging of a,n act, carefully cxamirxe the
motive that prompted it. Now Rachel's great desire to have
children was quite in accordance with the eager desire for
offspring among.st the Hebrew women. Sterile people weve held
in contempt among the ancient Israelites, whilst the more chil-
dren a person had, the more he was honored, it being considered
as a mark of Divine favor. (Compare Ps. cxxvii. 3, tit seq.,
exxviii. 3, 4.) It has been very properly remarked that " the
eager desire for offspring among the Hebrew women is easily
accounted for if we bear in mind that the distinguishing bless-
ing to Abraham was a numerous posterity, and in particular
one illustrious person in whom all the nations of the earth
should be blessed. It was natural, then, that they should feel
a laudable ambition to contribute to the fulfilment of the
prophecy. It will probably be asked, How did the daughters
of Laban, who still had his h ousel lold gods, become acquainted
with the promises made to Abraham ? To this we reply, that
Jacob, during his many years abodtj in his uncle's family, no
doubt continually spoke of the God of his fathers, and narrated
the wonderful manifestations and the promises He had made to
them. He was, no doubt, assidious in instructing them in the
worship of his God, and we find that both Leah and Rachel
make reference to Jacob's God alone.

uM i mmM-mn mof

people's commentary.

461

The rivalry, and ill feeling, if not hatred, that sprung up
between the sisters after they became the wives of Jacob,
which put an end to the sisterly love that had before their
marriage existed between them, and also destroyed the domestic
peace of Jacob's household, demonstrate in a foi'cible manner,
the wisdom, and necessity of the prohibition, " And thou shalt
not take a wife unto her sister, to cause jealousy (or enmity),
besides the other rT^niH (heehaiyeha) in her life time." (Lev.
xviii. 18.

Rachel's envious spirit showed itself now in another way.
She gave her maid-servant Bilhah to Jacob for a wife. The
handmaid was the sole property of her mistress, and when
given by the mistress to her husband to wife, the children that
she bore became also the property of the mistress. Hence,
when Bilhah bore a son, " Rachel said, God had judged me, and
hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son ; therefore
she called his name Dan." (v. 16.) The name p " Dan." sig-
nifies judge, because God hath heard her prayer and procured for
her jusfice, by removing from her the reproach of childlessne.s.s.
It appears from Rachel's words, that after Jacob had admonished
her for demanding of him what was not in his power to give,
she prayed to God to grant her offspring. Envy, however, still
lingered in Rachel's heart, for when Bilhah bore a second son,
she exultingly exclaimed, " tvlth struggles of God have I
struggled with my sister and have prevailed ; and she called
his name '^blTlSi Naphtali," i e., my fought one. The meaning
of Rachel's exclamation evidently is, that by constant prayer
to God have I struggled with my sister, that is, to be made her
equal in being blessed with offspring, and have prevailed. It
is proper to mention that in the Authorized Version the words
C^nbfci ''binSD (napktvL Mokim) are rendered "great wrest-
lings," and in the Revised Version, " mighty- wrestlings," both
renderings are quite admissible, for we have already stated
that by a Hebrew idiom, one of the names of the Deity is used
to give intensity of meaning to the subject spoken of, forming
a superlative degree. Thus " cedars of God," i. e., the most
excellent cedars (Ps. Ixxx. 10). The rendering of the Autho-
rized Version is also adopted by many commentatoi's, but in
our pa.ssage, the rendering we have given is no doubt more
suitable. The other rendering would leave it altogether unde-
fined in what Rachel's wrestling consisted of. When Leah
ceased bearing, and probably fearing that she might lose gromid
in her husband's affections, adopted the plan of her sister, and
gave Zilpah, her maid, to her husband to wife. And when she
bore a son, she called him '^'j,"G'dd", that is good fortune, i'or

1 M

!•;

rV .1

462

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

she said, i:i2l* (begad), " with good fortune," or if we adopt the
marginal rending T^ ^^21 (^a gad), " good fortune has come "
(v. 11.), which certainly affords a better sense. Zilpah bare to
Jacob a second son (v. 12), and Leah called him I'^j^ "Asher," i. e.,
hrivger of happiness, for she said : " For my happiness ; for the
daughters will call me ha])py," (v. 13, that is, a happy mother
blessed with children.

14. And Reuben tcent in the days of wheat-harvest, and found man-
drakes in the field, and brought them to his mother Leah. And Rachel
said to Leali, Give vie, I fray thee, of thy son's mandrakes.

The Hebrew term for mandrakes is Qij^TiT (dndaim) love
apples, or love fniit, and no doubt so called from the conniion
belief, that both the root and fruit possess the properties excit-
ing the passions of love. The same notion was also entertained
among the Greeks and Romans. Dioscorides, a Greek physician,
who flourished in the first or second century of the Ch)-istian
era, says : That the root was used in philters or love potions,
And the emperor Julian in his epistle to Calixenes states, that
he drank the juice of the mandrake to excit'' love. A^enus her-
self was called Mandragorites. Greek {ihysicians employed the
root as a means for allaying pains. When the root is eaten
boiled, it produces madness, and hencc^ Pythagoras conferred
the name (nitkvopomorphos on the plant. The Arabs call it
tufah-al sheitan, i. e., the devils apple. The flowers are small,
and have a very fragrant odour, " the mandrakes give a smell "
(Cant. vii. 14). The fruit is the size of a small egg, and of a
yellow colour. Hasselquist, speaking of Nazareth in Galilee,
says : " What I found most remarkable at this village was the
great number of onandrakes which grew in a valley below it.
T had not the pleasure to see this plant in blossom, the fruit
now (May 5th) huuginj: ripe on the stems, which lay withered on
the ground." This agrees with the " wheat-harvest " mentioned
in our verse, which occurs generall}' in the month of Ma5^ In
Mesopotamia, however, the mandrakes are not plentiful, and
this circumstance will account for Rachel being so anxious to
obtain some. The root has some resemblance to the human
form, and is about four feet long. Its botanical name now is
mandragora venudls.

*The niiirgiiial i-cading ^^ 5^2^ (ha (jod), i. c, rfondforfioh' hafi come, is also'
found in some uiauuMcriptu, and liaa al.so been adopted l)y Onkelos in his

Chaldee Version, wli<> renders ^^ i^lni^ {atha gad), i.e., <joo(l fortune has come.
In tlie Authorized \ eraion the rendering "a troop ooineth," is given, the
translators have evidently followed the marginal reading, but have translated
nn {('(I'f) hy " tror)p " which is not admissible. In the Revised Version, it is
rendered in the text " Hud Leah said fortunate," and in the margin "with
fortune." So in the .Septtiagint tv rvxv w'dh good fortune, and in the Vulgate
"Feliciter" fortxttatehj.

tet'

people's commentary.

4G3

Leah bore now another son, and she called his name *l3'ffi'ffiT
( Yissoschar) " Issachar," meaning either there is reivard or he
brings or bears reward. She apparently gave that name
under the erroneous notion, that God hath bestowed this son
upon her as a reward for having given her maid to Jacob.
When she bore her sixth son, she called him "libit " Zebulun,"

denoting a dwelling, and she assigns as a reason for having
given that name, that " now will my husband dwell with me,"
that is, l)ecome more attached to her, " because I have borne
him six sons." Leah <ilso bore a daughter, and called her
name " Dinah." Although Jacob had, according to ch. xxxvii.
3.5 ; and ch. xlvi. 7, other daughters, yet this one is the only
one mentioned by name. The reason why the exception is
made in n ijard to Dinah seems to be, on account of the occur-
rence related concerning her in ch. xxxiv.

At length " God remembered Rachel, and God listened to
her prayer," and gave her a son also, and the happy mother,
seeing the desire; of her heart granted, joyfully exclaimed: "God
hath taken away my reproach," namely, the reproach of
barrenness.

24. And she called his name Joseph, saying, The Lord may add to
me another son.

Rachel, in calling her son f^'OV (Joseph) " Joseph," evidently
intended to combine in it the two ideas : the removal of her
reproach (v. 23), and the prayer that God may add another
son — both these meanings may be deduced from it. (See
note below.)

Jacob had now completed the fourteen years of servitude,
and having a large family of his own it was natural that he
would be desirous to return to his home, to look after his pater-
nal inheritance. Be it also remembered that Jacob had now
attained to the age of ninety years, and had nothing that he
could call his own, as he had been .serving Laban "the fourteen
years" for his twi . daughters. When Jacob, however, asked Laban
to send him away, the latter frauklyenough admitted that he had
learned by ex])erience that the Lord had blessed him for Jacobs
sake, and begged his nephew to remain yet longer with him,

I i

"iDtD'lD"' '•'^ either a oompound of 13"'J5 "O"! thtre is reivard, or of

T T

'y^m NtTgl /"' Mngs or hears reivard.

T T T •

DDT^ "i^'y ''c ''' contracted form of POJj^'' /"* will take niray, from DDi^ '
or it may he the fut. apoo. Hiphil, he mutf add of DO"'- The fut. apoc. n.sed tO'
express a nmh or desire. Oil examining verses 23, 24, it will at once he seen
that l)oth ideas are required to be conil)ined in the name.

464

people's commentary.

and to state himself what wages he demanded. Jacob, in reply,
reminded his uncle that when he came to serve him his cattle
were but few, but now by God's blessing they had increased
into a multitude, and it was now time to make provision for
his own household. When Laban, however, again pressed him
to state what remuneration he desired, Jacob replied that he
would only remain on the condition that a certain portion of
the cattle should become his own property. And now followed
the agreement which has brought upon Jacob the accusation of
duplicit3^ fraud, Jind cunningness.

32. / tuill pass through all thyjlock to-day, to remove from thence all
the speckled a)ul spotted cattle, and all the black cattle among the sheep,
and the spotted and speckled among the goats : and of such shall be my
hire.

33. And my righteousness shall answer for me in time to come,when
thou shall come concerning my hire that is before thee (i. e. when thou
comest to inspect my hire) : every one that is not speckled and spotted
among the goats, and black among the skeep, thai shall be accounted as
stolen ivith me.

34. And Laban said, Behold, may it be according to thy word.

The offer which Jacob made to his uncle, simply amounted
to this, namely, that after this all the sheep born, which were
either entirely black, or having black spots, and the goats
which were either entirely white, or having white spots were
to belong to him, as a reward for his services in tending the
flocks. This ofter, we perceive, was readily accepted by Laban.
And well it might, for in the ordinary nature of things the
advantage was all on his side. In the East the sheep are gene-
rally ivhite, hence the prophet Isaiah says, " Though your sins
be as scarlet, they shall become as white as snow ; though they
be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Is. 1. 18.) Whilst
the goats are generally black. Hence Solomon speaks of the
Shulamite's black and luxuriant abundance of 'lair :

Thy hair is like a flock of goats,

That repose on tlie side of Mount Gilead.

(Song of Solomon. Iv 2.)

And travellers likewise speak of the black and glossy hair of
the goats in Palestine. Sheep mai'ked with black spots, and
goats either entirely white or having white spots are rarely met
with. The reader will tlierefore perceive that the offer which
Jacob made to Laban was in itself altogether unselfish. As
this agreement was only to begin to take etiect from the day it
was concluded, Jacob proposed to Laban, that he would that
very day go through all the flock; and remove all such animala

lUfl iTiiii-fcilifaw^

people's commentary.

46^-

goats

the

which in future should become his property, so that it could
not 1)6 said that he had appropriated to himself a single one
that had been born before the agreement had been made.
Laban, however, seemingly possessed a mistrustful disposition,
and preferred to make the selection himself, and after having sin-
gled out all the colored and spotted among the sheep, and all'
the white and speckled among the goats, he gave them in
charge of his own sons, " and set a three days' journey "
between the Hocks in his son's charge, and the animals left in
charge of Jacob, so that there might be no intermingling
between the two flocks. Some commentators, and among them
Delitzsch.have indeed supposed that the abnormal colored ani-
mals now removed were also given to Jacob for his wages, but
the context is altogether against this supposition. According
to verses 3.5, 36, Laban himself removed the abnormal col-
oured animals, and gave them in charge of his own sons, and
took the precaution to send them far away. Jacob, who had
all his life been tending the flock — for 'we may reasonably suj)-
pose that he did so likewise when at home — must have well
known that the percentage of abnormal colored animals was
but small, and that he must therefore trust to unforeseen cir-
cumstances for i-emunerative wages. What, then, was his duty
on the present occasion ? Most assuredly to have put his
whole trust in God, who had promised him in the dream at
Beth-el that He would be with him, and keep him in all places
(ch. xxviii. 19), and left the issue in His hands. But Jacob, in
the weakness of human nature, rather liad recourse to a devise
by which he hoped to pervert the ordinary course of nature,
and by an artful contrivance produce abnormal colors in the
new-born animals. This was certainly taking undue advan-
tage of Laban, who was probably not even aware that such a
change could be eftected. The scheme which Jacob adopted was,
that he took fresh rods of " the poj/lar" (or storax tree), "and
of the hazel, and of the plantain tree " (or according to the Rab
binical writers, " the chestnut tree "), " and jjcalcd white stripes
in them," these mottled rods he planted " in the watering
troughs where the flocks came to drink," and the cattle brought
forth " ringstreaked, speckled, and sjiotted " (vers. 37-39). That
such an influence as here spoken of is capable of being exer-
cised seems to be an established fact, and has been fre([uently
noticed, especially among the sheej). The learned Bochart, in
his Hierozoicon or Scripture Zoology, to which work he
devoted many years of his life, has collected many proofs on
the subject (i. 618). Compare, also, Jerome in his rei^'^'ks
on our passage: Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 10: Oppian. Kync ■ .ca
1. 327, 353, who adduces several examples from animals.

■

Hi '

4GG

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

/: ii'

It is impossible to call in question the testimony of those
eminent writers, and of many others both ancient and modern
that could 1)0 mentioned. Still I have no hesitation in main-
taining — and I think most of my readers will agree with me
after carefully reading the next chapter — that Jacob's great
increase in cattle cannot be solely ascribed to the artifice of
the mottled rods, but was brought to pass by the immediate
agency of God, who had promised that He would be
with liim, and who now interposed in his behalf. Jacob him-
self acknowledged this Divine intervention ; " Your father," he
says to his wives, " hath deceived me, and changed my wages
ten times; but God did not sutler him to wrong me " (ch. xxxi. 7).
And again, in remonstrating with Laban he says : "Except the
God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac,
(/. c, God whom Isaac ft- vs and worships) had been with me,
surely thou wouldst now have sent me away empty " (v. 42).

1n ti

rv^J'^

CHAPTER XXXI.

1. And he heard the loords of Lahmi^s sons, saying, Jacob hath taken
atvay all that was our Jathers \ and oj that lohich was otir father's, he
hath acquired all this irealth.

The great increase of Jacob's wealth in cattle, at last aroused
the jealousy of Labaii's sons, who looked upon that property
as belonging to their father. They no doubt were aAvare of
the agreement that had been made, but looked upon the great
number of cattle belonging to Jacob as altogether too great a
reward for his services. Laban 's countenance also assumed a
sullen appearance, and very probably his demeanour Avas no
longer as friendly towards him as before (v. 2). But it may
well be asked, wh}' did Laban not tei'niinate the contract,
at the end of the first year, or second year, when he
saw the increase of abnormal animals so vastly in excess from
what it used to be ? Be it remembered, that there was no
stipulation as to the duration of the agreement, and might,
therefore, have been terminated b}^ either party at any time.

To find a satisfactory answer to this question, is evidently
not an easy matter for those critics who can see nothing but
"duplicity, fraud, and cunning," in the patiiarch's conduct.
Let us hear what Kalisch says, w^ho is most unsparing in his
censure upon Jacob's stratagem : " After the first few births of
•the cattle," he observes, " Laban might indeed have been sur-

wJi

SBK-"

PEOPLES COMMENTAUY.

♦67

prised at the great rminber of abnonual tsheop and goats ; but
he might attribute it to the interposition of God in favour of
Jacob ; he might regard it as a hint : how unjust, from an
ordinary point of view, the compact was which he had con-
cluded with his son-in-hiw, and lie eouhl not censure Jacob for
that which was a silent but j)owerful rebuke to himself "
(p. 548). But why was Lal)an not equally " surprised at the
great number of abnormal shee]) and goats," after the " first few
births of the cattle" ? And why, when he fuund it entailed a
loss to him, did he allow the agreement to go on for six whole
years ? And even then did not evince any desiie on liis part
to terminate the compact, but Jacob had actually to steal away
with his family. The fact of the matter strikes me to be, that
Laban after all did not find a material decrease in his Hocks,
and that it was only after Jacob's flocks had assumeil such
great ]>roportions that his and his son's jealousy was aioused.
We have no desire to shield Jacob from blame in having had
recourse to the stratagem of the pealed rods, instead of trusting
in the help of God. At the same time, we think it but right
to express our firm belief, that the great increase of abnormal
sheep and goats was not the result of the stratagem, but was
brought about by the will of the Almighty. (Conip. vers. 11, 12.)
Although Jacob nmst have felt greatly hurt at Laban's sons
■0))eidy accusing him of defrauding their father, and at seeing
his father-in-law's feelings changed towards him, still he would
probably have continued to serve him for some time longer,
ha!i not God in a vision connnanded hinx to return now to his
native land (v. 13).

Jacob at the time that he received the connnand was most
likely tending the flocks some considerable distance away from
his wives, he therefore sent for them to eonie to liiiu into the
field (v. 4>). He was unwilling to take any step without their
concurrence, thus proving not only his affection tovvards them,
but also their equality. In addressing his wives he did not mere-
ly inform them of his resolve to return to his native countr}^ but
fully explained to them the reasons that led h:m to take that
.step. He told them Mdiat probably they themselves hadah-eady
perceived, how their father's demeanour had been changed to-
wards him, how he had " changed his wages ten times" (I.e.
man}' times), although he had sei'ved him with all his " power,"
but that God did interpose in his behalf, and did not suffer
their father to wrong him (vv. 5-10). He also informed them
for the first time of a dream he had had at an earlier period
(vv. 10-13), and that God had now connnandeil him to return
to his native (!Ountr\^ Whatever discord and jealousy existed
among the two sisters, were now laid aside, and both only con-
siderino- their husband's and children's welfare without a

^..W.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

■^

> ^.

^ ^

1.0

I.I

1.25

UiOl |2.S

U IJ4

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

33 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO

(716) S73-4S03

^^^^"^

.%■

468

people's commentary.

moment's hesitation answered their husband : " Is there yet
any portion or inheritance for us in our father's house ? " (v. 14.)
As much as to say, what can we expect from such a selfish
father ? " Are we not counted by him as strangers ? for he
hath sold us, and hath also entirely eaten up our money"
(v. 15). Instead of having treated us as daughters, he has
dealt wiuh us as if we were slaves, by selling us for fourteen
years of labour. And this is not all, but " hath also entirely
eaten up our money," that is, appropriated to himself all the
gain that had accrued from their husbands' fourteen years
service, and from the services they had themselves rendered
during that period. They therefore not only readily acquiesced
in his proposal, but urged him to follow God's direction, " what-
ever God hath said to thee, do" (v. 16).

19. And Laban liad gone to sliear his aJteep : atvl Rachel ntole the
Teraphim which belonged to her fatJier.

The circumstance of Laban being from home, must have
greatl}'^ favoured Jacob's flight, and Rachel seized also the
opportunity of carrying away her father's idols. But here
arises the question, what were her motives in doing so ? It
is a question which has proved very perplexing to commenta-
tors, as there is nothing in the nan'ative that will enable us to
speak with any certainty on that point. As might therefore
be expected, various conjectures have been advanced, all of
which are plausible enough but none positive. Some have
supposed that she took them to cure her father of idol-worship.
If that were the case, her motive was certainly highly praise-
worthy. But why did she not inform her husband of her
having talcen them ? Or cast them in the Euphrates when
they were crossing it ? We fear her object was not of such a
praiseworthy nature. Others suppose that she took them, to

Erevent her father from consulting them as to what route they
ad taken, and so hinder him from pursuing them. Again,
some suppose her motive was to carry them with her, as
guardians, to protect them on their journey from evil ; whilst
others think, she hoped they would bring prosperity to her
household. There are indeed some writers also, who maintain,
that Rachel and her sister had not yet altogether relinquished
idol-worship, and that it was their desire to practise it also in
their new home. This supposition is, however, not reconci-
lable, with their devout conduct at the birth of \;heir children
acknowledging God as the author of their mercies. There are
a few writers who conjecture that they merely took the idols
for the precious metal of which they were made. Whatever
Rachel's real motive may have been, in bringing those idols
with her to her new home, certain it is, that they afterwards

there yet
)?"(v. 14.)
h a selfish
jrs? for he
ur money"
ers, he has
or fourteen
so entirely
self all the
teen years
s rendered
acquiesced
on, " what-

hel Htole the

must have

;d also the

But here

ing so ? It

commenta-

nable us to

it therefore

iced, all of

Some have

ol-worship.

Illy praise-

ind of her

•ates when

of such a

them, to

route they

Again,

th her, as

v'\\ ; whilst

ity to her

maintain,

linquished

it also in

)t reconci-

r children

There are

the idols

Whatever

;hose idols

ifterward»

people's commentabt.

4«9

prored productive of mischief in Jacob's family. (See ch.
XXXV. 1-3. The teraphim were household idols, apparently
varying in size, and very probably also in their form. The
one mentioned. 1 Sam. xix. 13, must have been of large size,
and had at least the head and face of a human being, for
Michal, David's wife, after she had let David down through
the window to escape from Saul, who sought to kill him. took
a teraphim and laid it in the bed, and told Saul's messengers
that David was sick. The teraphim which Rachel took must
have been small. These household idols were highly venerated
and used as oracles to reveal hidden things, and regarded as
bestowers of earthly prosperity, v;hich will explain way Laban
was so eagar to recover the idols again. Among the later
Hebrews they were used by persons who professed the worship
of Jehovah, they seemed to have reeaided the adoration of
the teraphim not so i-eprehensible as the worshipping of other
idols. (Comp. Judg. xvii. xviii.)

Laban did not hear of Jacob's flight until the third day after
his departure, but as soon as he heard of it, he took some of
his ^';7>Rmen with him and went in pursuit of the fugitives,
anci il>» "u ,5 uuercumbered, overtook them on the seventh day
" in the :. mi iilead," i. e., the mountainous regions of Oilead.
The name Gilead is here used proleptically, for as it will
presently be seen it originated afterwanis.

24. Aiid God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night, and
said to him, Take heed that t/iou do not »})eak to Jacob either good or bad.

Laban having taken with him some of his kinsmen seems to
indicate that he was bent upon using violence. The same is
also implied, by the warning Laban received in a dream, to take
heed not to speak to Laban " either good or civil," which is not
a prohibition that Laban was not at all to speak to Jacob, but
is a proverbial expression, meaning not to interfere with him,
or in any way oppose him. This supernatural admonition had
the effect to check Laban's anger, although it did not altogether
appease it. He angrily upraided Jacob for having clandestinely
stolen away without giving him an opportunity to kiss his
" sons {i. e., his grandsons) and daughters." Son is often used
for grandson. That had he told him of his wish to leave he
would have sent him away " with mirth, and with songs, with
timbrel and harp." The language of Laban seems to imply
that it was already in his time an established custom to accom-
pany friends when setting out on a long journey with song and
music, and apparently the practice still exists in the East (See
Rosenmuller, Morgenland i. 55). When the prefetto of Egypt
was preparing for his journey, he complained of his being in-
commoded by the song of his friends who in this way took leave
70

470

people's commsntart.

If-

|-!i

of their relatives and aoquaintances. (Harmer's Observations,
i. 415). Jacob answered nis father-m-law briefly and candidly,
that he was afraid to tell him of his desire to return to his
father's house, fearing lest he might take his wives from him by
force. Thus giving I^ban to understand, that his previous con-
duct towards him had been of such a selfish nature as to convince
him that if he saw it was in hb interest to detain him longer
in his service, he would have gone to the length of detaining
his daughters. As to the accusation of having stolen his gods,
Jacob at once indignantly repudiated the charge by declaring,
that " With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live :
before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and
take it to thee" (v. 32). " Before our brethren," it is, in the
presence of the kinsmen whom Laban had brought with him.
Jacob was not aware that Rachel had been the offender.

The language of Jacob : " With whomsoever thou findest the
gods, let him not live," like the language of Reuben : " Slay my
two sons, if I bring him not to thee " (ch. xlii. 37), must not be
taken in a literal sense, but must be regarded as being uttered
under highly excited feelings. Even if Jacob had been as sure of
the innocence of his whole household as he was of his own, it
would have been improper to make use of such language, for the
punishment would be greatly in excess of the guilt Ijaban
made a careful search in all the tents, but did not find his
teraphim, for Rachel hid them in the litter of the camel, and
sat upon them, and when her father came into her tent, she
made an excuse that she was unable to rise. " The litter of the
camel " is a kind of couch which Ls fastened on the saddle for
the greater comfort of ladies and children peforming long jour-
neys. Couches, used for such purposes, were generally made
of wicker, this would afiord a convenient place for concealing
the small idols, and as Rachel pretended to be ill, her sit-
ting or reclining on it aroused no suspicion. Most likely,
too, Laban never suspected that his daughter would be guilty
of such an impiety as sitting upon his teraphim, and therefore
readily accepted the excuse. Jacob naturally felt very greatly
aggrieved in being accused of theft, and administered a shaip
rebuke to his father-in-law. He demanded of him to point out
now in what he had offended against him, since he had care-
fully searched and found nothing that belonged to him. He
reminded him also of the faithful services he had rendered
him for tw^aty years, and the ill-treatment he had received at
his hands.

38. This twenty yeara I have been wUh thee ; thy ewes and thy she-
goats have not oast their young, and the rams ofihyfiock I have not
eaten.

On account of the careful treatment of the cattle under his

PEOPLB'S CO^'MINTABT.

: jour-
made

it out
care-
He
Idered
red at

the-
not

chai^, they did not miscarry. As in the East the shepherds
are obliged t? wander from place to place, often a great dis-
tance a|x&rt from one another, in search of pasture, a great deal
of travelling has to be done, which requires great care and
attention on the part of the shepheitis.

39. That which to(w torn by beasti / did not bring to thee ; even I
bore the lose of it ; at my hand thou didst require it, whether ttolen by
day, or etoUn by night.

It was customary, if an 8.nimal of the flocks was torn by a
wild beast, for the shepherd to bring to his master a part of the
torn animal as a proof, and having done so, he was no f ui ther
answerable ; but if he neglected to do it, he was obliged to
make good the loss. Jacob, in our verse, refers to this custom,
which proves its great antiquity. (Compare Exod. zxii. 12,
Auth. Vers., v. 13.) Some of the Jewish commentators suppose
that the prophet Amos refers to this custom, ch. iii. 12, " as the
shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the lion two legs, or a
piece of an ear." The Talmud lays down the rule, that the
keeper is only answerable for the loss where by ordinary care
it might have been prevented. Thus, for example, " animals
killed by a fox or marten must be paid for ; but animals torn
by a wolf, a lion, or bear, or serpent, must not be paid for." (Bab.
Kam. 15.) The custom to which Jacob refers was after-
wards embodied among the Hindoo laws relating to the duties
of shepherds.

U-:

'I .<■>'■

.'.-'•4/

his

40. Thus / toas: in tfte day the draught consumed me, and ihe/roU
by night; and my sUep departed from my eyes. . i >, » -

In many parts of the East a very great and sudden change
of temperature takes place at sunset. Oppressively hot days
are often followed by chilly and even cold nights. From these
sudden changes all those that are exposed to the night air
suffer very seriously. Most all eastern travellers speak of the
great sufferings they have experienced from the intense heat of
the day, with very little or no shelter, and from the cold or
heavy due by night. (See RosenmilUer, Altes und Neues Morg-
enland; Morier's Second Journey, p. 194. Wellsted, Arabia,
i. 64.) Indeed, often when a master reproves a servant for
being idle, the latter will answer, " What can I do ? The heat
eats me up by day, and the cold eats me up by night." (Com-
pare also Jer. xxxvi. 30.) " And the sleep departed from my
eyes:" the constant care and watchfulness which the flocks
required, to guard them against marauders and wild animals
by night He reminds him also, that he had not to thank
him for what hr now possessed ; that he had served fourteen

people's commentary.

llr

▼ears for his two daughters, and six years for the cattle which
he now has. That during the nix years he had no less than
ten times changed his wages, and if Uod had not interposed in
his behalf he would have sent him away empty (vv. 41,42).

43. And Laban atuwered and said to Jacob, The daughttrt are my
daughter*, amd the chUdnn are my children, and the cattle are my
cattle, and all thou meet is mine : and what can 1 do this day to tftete
my tUiHgkten, or to their children whom titey have bom f

Laban evidently felt the force of Jacob's statement, and did
not attempt to oner a word in justification of his conduct to-
wards his son-in-law. He now seeks to bring about a recon-
ciliation, but in doing so, he endeavours still to make it appear,
thai it is due U) his generosity if a friendly settlement is arrived
at. Rachel and LeaL are my daughters, and their children are
my grand-children, ** and what can I do this day to these," it
is, and how should I do any evil to them ? He also still per-
sists that Jacob's cattle are his cattle, as if Jacob had not ren-
dered him six years' services for them.

44. And new come, let u$ make a covenant, I and thou ; and let it
be for a wiinee* between me and Uiee.

45. And Jacob took a atone, and set it up for a pillar.

Jacob allowed Laban's boasting to pass without taking
further notice of it, and at once took a stone and set it up as a
memorial, showing by this prompt act, his earnest desire to be
on the most friendly terms with his father-in-law, notwith-
standing the ill-treatment he had received at hii hands.

46. And Jacob eaid to his kindred, Gather atones ; and they took
atones, and made a heap : and t/iey ate tltere upon tlie pile.

Although there is no mention made in our verse of any
sacrifices being oflTered on the occasion, yet it is most likely
Jacob consecrated the heap of stones also by offering sacrifices
upon it besides its being used an a table upon which they ate
the covenant repast. As the heap of stones was to serve as
witness of enduring friendship, Jacob gave it the appropriate
name "XSib^ Galed, which is compounded of bji (g^) ^ heap,
and "Xf (^) witness, whilst Laban gave it the Gnaldee name
KtllinV "0^ (y^w sahadutha) which is precisely of the same
import as the Hebrew name. From Laban bestowing a Chaldee
name upm the heap, we gather the information that Chaldee
or Aramsean was the language spoken in Abraham's family in
Mesopotamia, and that Abraham's family acquired the Hebrew
after his inmiigration into the land of Canaan. Laban called the
heap alao nSSTa ** Mizpah," i. e. watch or watch-place, *' for he

people's commentary.

473

said, may the Lord watch between me and thee, when ik <» are
hidden (i. e. far removed) from one another" (v. 49). In course of
time a town sprung up near the place where the heap had been
erected, which was also called Mizpah, and which became
afterwards celebrated by the sanctuary of Goil being erected
there (see Judg. xi. 11), and also by its having been the dwell-
ing place of Jephthah (see Judg. xi. 34). In verse 29 of the
last mentioned chapter, it is called " Mizpeh of Gilead," and
many writers regard it to be identical with Ranioth in Gileail
{Jom. xxi. 38), and also Ramath-niiz|)eh, (Josh. xiii. 26).

54. And Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mountain ; and called hia
kindred to eat bread : and they ate bread, and remained over night
on t/te mountain.

The offering of sacrifice, and the eating of bread together,
was no doubt intended as an additional pledge of mutual
friendship.

}priate

heap,

name

|e same

Ehaldee

thaldee

lily in

leorew

led the

for he

CHAPTER XXXII.

•I. And Laban rose early in the morning, and kittaed hin sons and
hi^ daughters, and blessed them : and Laban departed, and returned
to his place.

On account of the great heat during the day, the people in
the east rise early and do as much of their work as they pos-
sibly can before the intense heat commences, and take shelter
from the scorching sun during the hottest part of the day.
Those setting out on a journey generally start a little befoi-e
sunrise, and rest during the heat of the day. Hence we meet
so frequently with the expression in the Scriptures " rase early
in the morning." We have in our verse another instance of the
beautiful custom of the bestowal of a blessing upon those who
are about to be separated. All the angry feelings in the heart
of Laban were calmed and soothed by the mutual covenant of
love, and he now affectionately kissed his grandchildren and
his daughters and bestowed the paternal blessing upon them
ere he set out to return to his home. The sacred record does
not furnish any further account of Laban or of the family of
Nahor.

*The reader will please to liear in mind that this verse in the Authorized
Yersion forms the last verse of the preceding chapter.

474

people'^ commentary.

2. And Jacob irent on his way, and angeh of God met him.

3. And when Jacob saw them, he said, This \» tfie camp of God : and
he called the name of that place Mahatmim.

After the departure of Laban, Jacob also s&t out on his jour-
ney towards Shechem. Mizpah being the eastern boundary of
the promised land, hence, on leaving that place and proceeoing
in a south-westerly direction, he at once entered the country
again which was to become the inheritance of his descendants.
Here he was met b}-^ an array of the heavenly hosts, and when he
saw them he called the name of the place Qi^nJa (Mdchanayim)
" Mahanaim," i. e., doithle camp. It afterwards belonged to the
territory which fell to the lot of the tribe of Gad, and was set
apart as one of the Levitical cities. (See Josh. xxi. 38.) The
narrative merely states that " angels met him." They appar-
ently delivered no message, and yet the appearance of tnese
heavenly beings to the patriarch could not have been without
design. The sight of the angels was evidently intended to
recall in a most vivid manner the dream of the ladder and the
angels ascending and descending u|)on it, and the promise he
had received that God would be with him and bring him back
in peace (ch. xxviii. 15), and at the same time afford him the
assurance of God's i^rotection in the long journey he had yet
to make before he reached his father's dwelling. Jacob now
sent messengers to his brother Esau to the land of Seir, the
country of Edom, to inform him of his return from Mesopotamia,
that he h.id been sojourning with Laban the whole time, and
that he now possessed oxen, asses, flocks, men-servants, and
women-servants. He further charged the messengers to tell him
that he had sent them that he might find grace in his eyes. The
language which Jacob employed in the message, " Thy servant
Jacob," " Tell my lord," (v. 5, 6), was calculated to ap})ease Esau
AS it breathed humility, which the great chieftain — for such he
had now become — would interpret as an interior humbly seek-
ing a reconciliation with a superior.

7. And the messoigers returned to Jacob, saying, We cam,e to thy
brother Esau ; and he cotneih also to meet thee, and four hundred men
tcith him.

From our verse it appears that Esau made no reply to the
message, but immediately on receiving it collected four hundred
men together and set out to meet his brother. Now was this
intended as a hostile demonstration, or merely as a display of
his greatness and power ? Jacob evidently looked upon it in
the former light, for he was "greatly afraid and distressed" and
divided his people and flocks and herds into two camps, so that

Itr-.

people's commektabt.

475

yf God : and

m his jour-
ouiidarv of
proceeding
le country
ascendants.
i<l when he
"Jianayim)
iged to the
d was set
38.) The
ley appar-
e of these
n without
I tended to
n' and the
remise he
hiui back
1 him the
8 had yet
acob now
Seir, the
oputaraia,
bime, and
ants, and
tell him
yes. The
Y servant
;ase Esau
r such he
jly seek-

ne to thy
idredmen

y to the
lundred
was this
splay of
•n it in
ed" and
so that

if Esau was to smite one camp the other micht escape (vv. 8, 0).
This was a precaution which was generally adopted when a
sudden attack was expected. But from the affectionate man-
ner in which Esau met his brother he " ran to meet him, and
embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him : and they
wept" (ch. xlii. 4), it is more likely that the escort of four hun-
dred men he took with him was intended as a display of his
greatness. Jacob in his message had stated that he had oxen,
asses, Hocks, men-servants, and women-servants, and Esau
wished to show by the large escort what a great chieftain he
had become. Some writers have supf)osed that Esau on hear-
ing of his brother's return, was HudUunly seized with a desire
for revenge, and that he did actually set out with hostile inten-
tions, but on seeing 'his brother after such a long absence, his
ill-feelings suddenly gave place to brotherly affection. Such
may indeed have been the case, still, we think, that had his
intentions Ijecn inimical, he would have rather kept his move-
ments secret, in order that he might have fallen upon his
brother unawares. Jacob after having made all precaution-
ary arrangements in case of a hostile attack, offered up a
devout prayer for God's assistance in this emergency. In this
petition he first pleads the Divine promise, " O God of my father
Abraham, and God of my father Isaac ! O Lord who saidst
unto me. Return to thy country, and to thy birth-place, and I
will do well with thee.' " (v. 10.) Then he urges his own
utter helplessness and unworthiness, " I am too little for all
Thy mercies, and for all Thy truth which Thou hast shown
to Thy servant" (v. 11); and that although unworthy to
receive any mercy at God's hands. He would yet deliver him
now from the hand of his brother, of whom he stood in fear,
lest he would come and smite him,* " the mother with the
children " (v. 12). And, lastly, he pleads the covenant promise
which is still unaccomplished, " And Thou saidst, I \vill surely
do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which
cannot be numbered for multitude " (v. 13) ; as much as to say,
if I, the mother and children, are slain, how is the covenant
promise to be fulfilled ? But although Jacob had, in his fer-
vent petition, placed himself entirely under the merciful protec-
tion of the Almighty, yet he did not neglect, at the same time,
to use all means in his power to appease his brother. The plan
which he adopted was one which most likely would lead to a
favorable result. He selected " from that which came to his
hand" (v. 14), i. e.,from that which lie liad acquired, 550 head of

* The phrase Qn^jn ^y Q^ H^H (^*<^<^''^' ^"^ aihanim) " amito the mother
with the children, ia a proverbial expression, indicating the total destruction
of a family, or of a community regarded as forming one large family. (See
Ho(k X. 14.)

476

PKOPLUS COMMfiMIAKY.

Ij: i!

cattle, namely, " Two hundred she-goats, and twenty he-goats,
with two hundred ewv8, aitd twenty rams. Thirty milch camels
their young, forty cows, and ten bullH, twenty Hhe-nsHeN, and ten
foals ' (vv 15, 16). The proportion of the male and female
aninials is t>aid to bo in accordance with agricultural rule. (See
Varro De Ko Kustica, ii. 3.) Tlie milk of camolH, on account o£
its refrebhing and wholesome (qualities, is highly esteemed,
hence the nnlch-camels would lie CHpocially accei)table. The
means taken by Jacob to reconcile his brother by a muniiicunt
present dues not imply a doubt on the pai't of the patriarch as
to the success of his prayer, as some writers have erroneously
interi)reted it, for, as it has been well said, " when we pray, we
are not to expect to be answered by a miracle. God usually
works by means, and when we ask for guidance and deliver-
ance, the method by which wo generally receive it, is through
the intervention of our own mind, acted upon, no doubt,
although we cannot tell in what manner or to what extent, by
the operation of the spirit of God."

Jacob did not send all the animals in one drove, but divided
thenj, according to their species, in separate droves, in charge of
different servants, whom he instructed to allow a space to inter-
vene between each drove, and what to say when they met his
brother. Jacob may have had several reasons for adopting this
l^lan. In the first place, to make the present appear more con-
siderable as one drove after another would come up. In the
second place, by hearing the same humble message repeated,
" They are thy servant Jacob's ; it w a present sent to my lord
Esau ; and, behold, he is also behind us (v. 19), it would more
likely have the etlect to assuage his brother's anger if he cher-
is\ied any. And thirdly, it gave the others an opportunity to
escape in case the first drove was attacked. Jacob made the
servants also say that he himself was following them, in order
to show Ksau that he came to meet him without any appre-
hension of receiving harm at his hands. After the serv-
ants with the present had passed over the river Jabbok
Jacob himself with his wives, and children, and his flocks fol-
lowed later in the night (22, 23, 24). On account of the great
• heat during the day in Palestine, travelling by night is by no
"means an uncommon thing. Jacob appai'ently re-crossed the
river, probably to see whether nothing had been left behind,
and whilst there alone " a man wrestled with him until the
' rising of the morning dawn " (v. 25). Now although the per-
son who wrestled with Jacob is here termed 'O'^fci (i«/t) " «
man," yet it is evident from the sequel of the narrative, as we
shall presently point out, that it was God Himself in the form
6{ a man. Hosea, who refers to the incident, calls the Being
an angel. " Yea, he bad power over the angel and prevailed *'

ho-godts,
ch caiiiels
N, and ten
d female
ule. (See
ccount u£
esteemed,
ble. The
tunificunt
triarch as
roneously
pray, we

I usually
deliver-
through

o doubt,
xtent, by

b divided
charge of
to inter-
met his
^ting this
uore con-
In the
repeated,
my lord

II Id more
he cher-
unity to
lade the
in order
y appre-
le serv-
Jabbok
>eks fol-
ic great

by no

ed the

}ehind,

itil the

le per-

hK) " a

as we

! form

Being

ailed^*^

people's commbntart.

477

(ch. xii. 4.) The " angel " was not a created being, but the
Angel of Qod, the visible manifestation of Jehovah. Hence the
change of name from ^py " Jacob," a »upplanter,to *b»'Tto''

" Inrael," Ood' a fighter, i. e., fighter ivith Qod, or as some inter-
pret the name, u toarrior of Ood. The narrative itself assigns
the reason for the change of name, " for |n''"TID (saritha) thou
hast fought with God and with men and hast prevailed "(v. 29).
And hence, also, Jacob called the name of the place where the
conflict took place b&^''5fi) (Peniel) Peniel, i. e., face of Ood,
^' for, (Kiiil he, I have seen Ood face to face, and my life is pre-
served " (v. 31). These passages remove all doubt as to who
the 'B)'»fi^ (v*h) " man " was that struggled with Jacob.

20. And when He saw that He did not prevail against him. He
touctied tihe holloiv of his thigh; and the holtotv of Jacob's thigh was
brought otU oj' joint as He wrestled, ivith him.

The eminent writer, Heniy Kurz, remarks on this passage,
" Jacob's comluct ha<l hitherto been marked by falsehood and
deceit, by artiRce and guilt, by self-will and self-reliance,
as he employed these unholy means in fulfilling divine purpose,
he firofaned the holy ways of God, and seemed to involve God
in the dishonor resulting from the artswhich he ])ractised. Tliese
causes which exercised a disturbing influence on the covenant
between God and Jacob were abundantly sufficient to provoke
the wrath of God against the offender. Until this divine wrath
was appeased or suodued, Jacob could not trust to the protec-
tion of God against Esau or enter the land that had been
promised to him. Hence the Lord Himself appears here as his
enemy; Jacob resorts at first to the same weapons with which
he had hitherto contended against God — he employs carnal
weapons of his own natural strength. But when his own
strength abandons him he seizes the true spiritual weapons,
prayei's and supplications — "he had power with God: yea, he
had power over the angels, and prevailed; he wept and made
supplication unto Him." Hosea xii. 3,4; by these he subdues
the wrath of God and receives a divine blessing." The name
Jacob BUppUinter, expressing his former sinful conduct, is now
changed to the honorable one Israel Ood'a fighter, or ivarrior
of God, which was also transmitted to his descendants as the
covenant nation, and hence the term "children of Israel " is
almost invariably used to denote the chosen people of God.
Lest Jacob should attribute his success to his own strength,
God "touched the hollow of his thigh" so that it was put out
of joint, and rendered him lame. The dislocation of the thigh

*b»ltD'' from j-j-^^ (aarah) tojight and ^^ {Eti Ood.

i :

i
I'l

1
j

' i

47S

peoplb'8 commentary.

was thus afTected by a mere touch which otherwise requires
the application of extraordinary ntrength, and is of very rare
occurrence. Jacob was now no longer able to continue the
struggle, but he tenaciously retained his grasp upon the angel
until he received from him a blessing. "I will not let thee go
until thou bless me (v. 27). Jacob's wrestling with God as set
forth in the sacred narrative, teaches the highly important
lesson that Ood will not deny any blessing to persevering
prayer.

33. There/ortt the children of I»rael do not eat of the tinew of the
hip, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, to this day / btcav4e H«
toue/ied the hoUoti) ofJacoV$ thigh in the tinexo of the hip.

As Ood had touched " the sinew of the hip " it was considered
as holy, and the Israelites did therefore abstain from eating it.
This custom appears from our verse to have been observed in
the time of Moses, but has not been enjoined as a law among
the dietary precepts of the Pentateuch. The Talmud, however,
contains a number of precepts regarding the observance of the
custom. (See Treatise "lib^n Ckulin, ch. vii.) The custom is

at present still strictly observed among the orthodox Israelites,
and as they are not sure what sinew it was, or even which thigh
it was, they regard it as necessary to abstain from using both
hind-quarter.s. The ntt^H T3 (O^^l haggaaheh) is the nervua
ishiadicua, the thickest of all sinews, beginning in the thigh
and going through the leg to the ankle, the impairing of it
necessarily causes lameness. It is truly surprising that not-
withstanding the direct statement that Jacob s thigh was dis-
located, which caused perpetual lameness, so many of our
modern critics will persist in maintaining that the occur-
rence of Jacob's wrestling with God was merely a dream.
This hypothesis is too extravagant even for some of the
most pronounced rationalistic wnters to adopt The river
Jabbok evidently received its name in commemoration of
Jacob's wrestling there with the angel. Its Hebrew name
is p'2,1 (Yabbok), and the verb employed in the original for

"restled" (v. 25) is p!3fc^'' (yedvek). The name p;ii (yab^
hok) is no doubt a contracted form of the verb plfi^'i yedvek.
The natives call the river now Wady Serka, i. e., the blue river..

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.
CHAPTER XXXIIl.

471>

river.

1. And Jacob H/led up hx» eyet, atul lookfd, and behold haau
eam«, and with him/o%ir hundred men. And he divided the children
to Leah, and to Rachel, and to the two hnndninida.

2. And he jmt the handmaida and their children /oi'emost, and
Leah ami her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hiudermoat.

As Jacob continued the journey and looking in the direc-
tion where ho expected his brother would come, he saw
him now approaching accompanied by four hundred men.
When the messengera whom ho had sent brought him word
of his brother coming to meet him with four hundred
men," the reader will remember, " Jacob was greatly afraid
and dispirited" (ch. xxviii. 8), but now the sight of hift
brother, with his large band of armed men, inspired him with
no apprehension of evil. He had wrestled with God and pre-
vailea, and this gave him assurance that he would also prevail
with man (ch. xxxii. 29^. Yet although Jacob felt now strength-
ened by faith, he still considered it his duty to take all precau-
tions against any exigency, and thus we find him make such a
disposition of his family, as the most consummate prudence could
devise. In this disposition of his family he seemed to be alto-
gether guided by the dictates of his aft'ections, at least, we can
see no other motive for placing the handmaids and their chil-
dren first, then Leah with her children, and after them Rachel
and Joseph, placing those dearest to him in a less exposed posi-
tion.

3. And he passed over be/ore them, and bmved himself to the groitnd
seven times, until he came near his brot/iei'.

Jacob himself went fearlessly at the head of the caravan to
meet his brother, and as he advanced he bowed seven times.
We have already stated, as the number seven was, among the
Hebrews, regarded as a sacred number.it is frequently employed
to express an indefinite 7iumber. We need not therefore sup-
pose that Jacob bowed just seven times, but as he was advancing
he stood still at intervals and made a low bow, and this he did
until he came near his brother. The expression nSlS^ inntj"^
{yiahtachu artm), " bowed himself to the ground," employed
in our verse, denotes a low how, such as is made by the Orient-
als, by which they bring the head near to the ground, but do
not touch it. It difiers therefore from nS"lfi^ Q''B5^ (appayim
artsa), the face to the ground (ch, xix. 11), which means a com-
plete prostration. Jacob did not for a moment doubt that God
would protect him, if his brother had any evil designs against

480

PEOPLE' S COMMENTARY.

|!!'i'

I-; '!!

hiVA, but he is desirous to use all possible means to conciliate his
brother. It was.merftly as a mark of profound respect, hop-
ing by this humble demeanor, to arouse a kindly leeling in
his brother's heart. '

4. And Esau ran to meet him, ami embraced him, and fell on
his neck, and kissed him: and they ivept, , "

It is impossible to conceive a more affectionate reception than
that which Esau according to our verse accorded to Jacob.
Whatever ill-f3elings may have lingered in Esau's breast, they
vanished as if by magic force at the sight of his brother, from
whom he had now been twenty years separated. The conduct
of Esau on this occasion cannot help but to enlist our warmest
admiration. He does not wait until his brother, who had so
greatly wronged him, comes u}> to him, but runs to meet him,
and falls on his neck and kisses him, showing thereby his
great delight at seeing him again, and that all that had passed
was now forgotten. Th«) Hebrew student will have observed
that the letters in the word lrii!5'lS''T (waii/ishsluikehii) "and he
kissed him" are marked with pancta extraordinaria, the Mas-
orites seemed to have doubted whether Esau's kiss was gen-
uine, or whether ho was capable of sincere affection. (See
Bereshith Rabba on our verse). The Rabbis however had not
the slightest ground for doubting the sincerity of Jacob's
affection, his subsequent conduct showed that his emotions
were genuine. When Esau saw the women and children he
inquired "Who are these with thee," to which Jacob replied
they are "the childi-en whom God had graeiously given to thy
servant" (v. 5). After this the mothers with their children
passed by in the order in which Jacob had arranged them and
reverentially bowed (vv. G, 7). Esau next inquired about the
drove of cattle which he had met, to which Jacob replied that
they were intended as a present, but Esau politely refused to
accept them saying, "I have much, my brother ^ keep t'lat
which thou hast to thyself." (v. 9).

10. And Jacob said, Xay, I pray thee, if now I Juive found grace
in thy eyes, then receivi my present at my hand ; for therefore I
have seen thy face, as one sees the face of God, and thou hast been
gracious to vie.

The refusal of a present or the returning of a gift according
to eastern custom, is a sign that the friendship of the giver is
not desired, or that his request will not be granted. Jacob,
therefore, although his brother had expressed a very good rea-
son for not accepting the present, being himself rich, yet per-
sisted in pressing it upon him as a proof of a complete recon-

people's commentary.

481

grace

fore I

been

Irding

rev is

[acob,

rea-

per-

fcon-

ciliation. "I pray thee, receive my present at my hand." The
meaning of the statement in the latter part of the verse, "for
therefore* I have seen thy face as one seeth the face of God,"
is not very clear, and consequently various explanations have
been given of it. But the meaning which the language seems
most readily to suggest appears to be, that in the kind reception
his brother had given him he discerned fieacenly friendliness ;
he looked upon it as a token of the divine favor towards him.
Jacob recognized in the change of his brother's disposition
towards him, the constraining power of the Almighty, and
could therefore well say, "I have seen thy face, as one seeth the
face of God." .

11. Take, I pray thee, my blessing which is brought to thee: becmtse
God hath been inercifnl to me, ami because I have every thing. And
/te urged him, and /le took it.

" Take, I pray thee, my blessing," i. e., take my gift. From
n3"\2l {berach(ih), blcsmiuj, being here used in the sense of gift
no doubt originated afterwards the usage of denominating a
(/i/< a blessing. Thus Abigail, the wife of Nabal, in present-
ing a present which she brought to David, said : " And now
riDian {halheracha) this blessing (i. e., the gift) which thy
handmaid has brought unto my lord, let it even be given to
the young men that walk at the feet of my lord " (i. e., that
follow my lord). (1 Sam xmv. 27.) See also 2 Kings v. 15.
As the presenting of a present was usually accompanied by
expressions of good wishes, hence the term blessimj itself was
used for a gift. I believe that in middle ages certain gifts were
called " benedictiones."

£sau, although aware that his brother with his children and
number of cattle w'ould not be able to travel as quickly as him
self, who was not so encumbered, yt in order to give still further
proof of his good will and sincerity of reconciliation, he offered
to accompany him and his family as a protection through a
region with which ho had become familiar ; but Jacob politely
declined the offer on the ground that " the children are tender
and the herds young," and require great care and precaution
that they may not be over driven. He begged his brother not
to delay his return home on his account, i>ut that he would
follow him in his usual slow pace, and visit him in his home at
Mount Seir. Whether Jacob ever carried out his intention of
visiting his brother at his home the narrative does not inform
us. Esau, Doing well acquainted with the country that his
brother had to travel through, and the danger that he may have

* "fl'^fi^l 13 D5 ^3 ^^ /or therefore 1 have «een." mt^y he rendered "because
I have seen."
72

482

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

to encounter from marauding Bedouins, offered next to leave-
at least some of his men with him as an escort ; but Jacob, .
trusting in the promise of the Lord that He would guard him
and bring him back to his native country, declined this kind,
oftbr also with the remark, " Wherefore this, may I only find
grace in the eyes of my lord " — as much as to say, what need
is there for putting you to this unnecessary trouble ; all I desire
is, that I may find grace in your sight. It is strange that our
modern adverse critics are always ready to put an unfavourable
constraction upon the language and actions of Jacob, even where
there is not the slightest ground for doing so. Jacob's polite
refusal of his brother's company in the journey is ascribed to
mistrust of his sincerity. Thus Dr. Kalisch, who echoes the
views of other writei-s of this class, remarks : " Does not again
a spirit of suspicion and reserve overshadow the mind of Jacob ?
Is he incapable of rising to the natural purity of his disinterested
brother ? Or does his keen intellect teach him how imprudent
it would be unguardedly to rely upon the falacious calmness of
a passionate mind ? " There is nothing in Jacob's language
which would justify such a construction being put upon it.
His refusal was solely upon the ground of not wishing to put
his brother to unnecessary trouble and inconvenience, and,
therefore, so far from being blameable, it was highly commend-
able. No proper minded person will subject a friend to unne-
cessary trouble.

16. And Esau returned that dai/ on his way to Seir,

17. And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built a house for himself y
and made booths for his cattle: tlt&refore the name of the place is
called Succoth. •'

The same day that Esau had proposed to his brother to
travel in company together, and his kind otter having been
politely declined, he took leave of his brother to return to his
adopted country. Jacob also set out on his journey, probably
with the intention to proceed immediately to Shechem, but for
some reason or other which the narrative does not record, when
he arrived in the neighborhood of the river Jordan he made a.
halt there, " and built a house for himself, and made booths for
h's cattle." This seems to imply that he intended at least to-
remain there for some time, whether he did so or not is uncer-
tain. Some commentators indeed suppose that the " house "
was nothing more than a tent ; now, whilst no doubt the term
f^ijl (hayitfi) house is also sometimes applied to a tent, yet the
verb nsa (banah) to build would hardly be used in connection
with the pitching of a tent. The erecting of huts for the cattle
also indicates that he intended to remain in the place for some

people's commentary.

483

time. From the circumstance 6f Jacob having erected " booths"
in the place, it obtained the name t1l3D (^uccoth) i.e. booths. It
was situated east of Jordan, between the brook Jabbok and
Jordan. The city which afterwards sprang up on this spot
was by Joshua assigned to ^'^e tribe of Gad. When Gideon
pursued the Midianites, he iw<ved the inhabitants of the town
to give to his followers who were faint some bread, but they
treated him with disdain. For this ciniel conduct he vowed
that after God had delivered his enemies into his hands he
would tear the flesh of the elders of the place with thorns and
briars, and he did so after having defeated the Midianites. (See
Judg. viii. 4-16.)

18. And Jacob came in safety to the city oj Shechem, which is in
the land oJ Canaan, fhen he came from Podan-aram ; and he pitclted
his tents before the city.

Jacob, on leaving Succoth, crossed the river Jordan, and like
his gi-andfather Abraham, when he first entered the promised
land, repaired to Shechem. In the Authorized Version, follow-
ing the Septuagint and Vulgate Versions, 'q^xO (Sludein) is taken
AS a proper name, Salem or Jerusalem, like ch. xiv. 18 ; but it
is not easily seen how Jerusalam could be called " the city of
Shechem." The word SJ'aj (sltalem) is evidently to lie taken
here as an adjective in peace or in safety, equivalent to DTbtJ3
(beshalom) " in ])eace," ch. xxviii. 21, when Jacob vowed : "And
I return again to my father's house in peace," and to which no
doubt reference is here made, to show that what Jacob then
asked at Beth-el was now literally fulfilled, that he had now
returned in safety to his native country. Shechem was founded
by Hamor, a Hivite prince, who called it after his son Shechem,
hence here spoken of as " the city of Shechem." It is situated
in the very centre of Palestine. At Shechem, Jacol) bought the
piece of the field upon which he encamped from the children of
Hamor for a hundred kesitahs. The precise value of the j^tD'^tjO

(kesitah)iii impossible now to determine. According to the ancient
versions it was a piece of silver of the value of a lamb. Some
of the Rabbinic commentators render the word by " lamb," and
explain that it was a coin or piece of silver bearing the figure
of a lamb. And MUnster thought he had discovered the kesitah
in a coin of Cyprus, which bore the figure of a lamb. The
ancient Athenians had a coin called ySow {ox), because it bore
the image of that animal. According to Job xlii. 11, all Job's
brothers and sisters and his former acquaintances came to him,
and every one gave him a kesitah and a ring of gold. The
kesitah being mentioned in connection with a ring of gold,
would indicate that it was a piece of silver or gold of some

(I'M

"Ml

484

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

value. Upon the piece of land which Jacob bought he erected
an altar, and called it b»"liD'' Tlbfi^ b» (^^ Elolie Yisrael) i. e.
God, the God of Israel, or the omnipotent God of Israel. When
Abraham immigrated into the land of Canaan it was at Shechem
where he built the first altar in commemoration of God hav-
ing there appeared to him, and gave him the promise that his
seed should inheiit the land (ch. xil 7); his grandson now built
an altar here in commemoration of God's merciful dealing with
him whilst a fugitive in a foreign country. He had lett his
native land with nothing but the staff in his hand, a fugitive
from the wrath of his brother ; he now returns to it, reconciled
with his brother, with a large family of children, numerous ser-
vants, and a large possession of cattle. The building of an altar
implies also the offering up of sacrifice and prayer, or what con-
stituted at that time public worship.

CHAPl'ER XXXIV.

1. And Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob,
went out to see the daughters of the land.

2. And Shechem, t/ie son of Humor the Hivite, prince of the country
sate her, and lie took Iter, and lay with Iter, ami humbled her.

We have here at the outset to comTmt the arguments adduced
by infidel and rationalistic writers endeavouring to show the
improbability of the account contained in this chapter. They
maintain that Dinah at that time could not have been more than
from five to seven years old, inasmuch as Jacob obtained Leah
to wife after the first seven j^ears service, that Dinah was the
seventh child of Leah, and the whole time that Jacob served
Laban was only twenty yeai"s. This is all quite true, but those
writers have quite forgotten to take into account the time that
Jacob may have dwelled at Succoth, and the time he may
have sojourned at Shechem, before the event took place. At
Succoth he built a house for himself and booths for his cattle,
which certainl}' implies a stay for some length of time, and he
may have dwelled several years at Shechem before the event
took place. Supposing then that Dinah was six or seven years
old when Jacob left Laban, and that he had sojourned at Suc-
coth and at Shechem seven or eight 3'ears — we have no means
of obtaining the precise time — this would give Dinah an age of
fourteen or fifteen yeai-s when the event took place. In support
of this statement we may also remark that Joseph and Dinah

people's commentary.

485

le erected
srael) i. e.
el. When
Sliechem
God hav-
e that his
now built
ling with
id left his
% fugitive
•econciled
Bi'ous ser-
f an altar
vhat con-

to Jacob,

le country

adduced
how the
They
ore than
ed Leah
was the
served
t those
e that
ie may
le. At
cattle,
land he
event
years
it Sue-
means
age of
lupport
1 Dinah

were about of the same age, and that the former was sold into
Egypt when seventeen years old (ch. xxxvii. 2). Now if we
place the event recorded in our chapter two years before the
selling of Joseph by his brethren, Dinah would at that time
have been fifteen years old. And be it remembered that all
thai transpired between the event recorded in our chapter and
the selling of Joseph may have easily taken place in the two
intervening years. But supposing Dinah had only been thirteen
or fourteen years old, it would not have been an extraordinary
thing for Shechem asking her for wife, for marriages at the age
of twelve to fourteen are by no means uncommon in the East
even at the present time. Nay more, travellers of unquestion-
able authority mention instances of girls having been married
at the age of ten years. Niebuhr, in his account of Arabia,
says : " 1 knew a man whose wife was no more than ten
years old when the marriage was consummated." Dr. Shaw,
in his Travels and Observations, also mentions that " It some-
times happens that a girl is a mother at the age of eleven,
and a grandmother at two-and-twenty." Indeed, it is univer-
sally admitted that Oriental women attain the full charm
of their beauty about the age of fourteen or fifteen. From
the above remarks, the unbiased refid^r will now perceive
that the opponents of Scripture have altogether taken a one-
sided view of the subject. In the case oi Dinah, no super-
natural protection was vouchsafed as was to Sarah and Rebekali,
for Dinah deliberatelj' and in a careless manner, put hereelf in
the way of b(-ing seen by the prince of the ])lace. Nay more,
her visiting the daughters of the land, was no doubt in direct
opposition to the wishes of her father, who we may rest assured
continually impressed upon his household the necessity of a
perfect separation from tKe idolatrous people. Those who de-
liberately expose themselves to danger, need not expect a
miracle in their behalf to shield them from evil results. Jose-
phus, in speaking of the occurrence, says, " Now as the
Shechemites were keeping a festival, Dinah, who was the only
daughter of Jacob, went into the city to see the finery of the
women of the country " (Ant. ch. xxi. par. 1) ; but the expres-
sion, " went out to see the daughters of the land," rather im-
plies that she had entered into a friendly intercourse with the
daughters of the land, and made a practice of visiting them.
The ardent affection which Shechem entertained for Dinah was
more likely, too, of gradual growth, having often seen and met
with her, than a suddenly conceived passion.

When Jacob heard what hatl taken place, " he held his
peace" (v. 5), that is, he took no steps in the matter, for his sons
were in the field tending the flocks, and it was the duty of the
brothers to avenge the dishonour of a sister. Before the

48C

PEOPLE 8 COMMENTARY.

brothers, however, returned home — for they may have been
tending the flocks at some distance away from home — Shechem
b^ged his father to obtain Dinah to wife for him, and Hamor
went to Jacob to obtain his consent. It appears from verses
11, 12, that Shechem accompanied his father in order to
add his entreaties, " Ask of me ever so much dowry and
gift, and I will give you according as you will say to
me : but give me the damsel to wife." Shechem had allowed
himself to become a victim to his passion, but his subse-
quent conduct was honorable, and showed that he was willing
to make any honorable reparation in his power, and that his
ardent affection for Dinah was sincere. Whilst Hamor was
jet speaking to Jacob, the sons returned from the field, and
when they heard what had occurred, "they were very wrath,
because he had wrought folly in Israel." This is the first time
that the faniilj' of Jacob is designated by the distinguished
name "Israel" which afterwards was applied to Jacob's posterity
when they became a nation. The phrase " wrought folly in
Israel" is in the Scriptures sometimes used in reference to the
commission of a disgraceful sin. (compare Deut. xxii. 21; Judg.
XX. 10; Jer. xxix. 23). Jacob could never consent to a union
of his daughter with a Canaanite, and there was no alternative
but to reject tlie very considerable worldly advantages offered
by Hamor and his son. But what was under the circumstances
to Ije done ? The mere rejecting of the proposal would have
left the guilty party unpunished for the hideous crime he had
committed; and Jacob who wa.s a mere sojourner in the country
was |x)werless to inflict a punishment upon the son of the
princeof the land; and be it also remembered, that Shechem
had still detained Dinah at his house, (v. 26). It is quite proper
that we bear all this in mind when |)assing judgment upon the
atrocious acts of Jacob's son, which we shall immediately have
to notice. Had Jacob not allowed hi 3 sons to take such a
prominent part in the transaction, an amicable settlement
might possibly have been arrived at. Certain it is the dreadful
slaughter of the innocent citizens of Shechem would have been
averted. Though brothers were considered the guardians of
their sisters, they had no right to disregard the coun-
sel or wishes of their father, or supercede his authority. Jacob's
son.s, however, took the matter altogether out of their
father's hands, they answered Shechem and his father
deceitfully (v. 13), and concocted a plan by which
they hoped successfully to carry out their wicked design.
They proposed to Shechem and Hamor that they and all the
males of Shechem should become circumcised : that it was only
upon that condition they could consent to contract intermar-
riage with them. The proposal can only be characterized as

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

487

kave been

-Shechem

id Hamor

om verses

order to

3wry and

U say to

i allowed

lis subse-

ns willing

[1 that his

imor was

field, and

ry wrath,

fii*st time

inguished

posterity

it folly in

ice to the

21; Judg.

' a union

ternative

88 offered

I Distances

)uld have

le he had

3 country

1 of the

Shechem

te proper

ipon the

ely have

such a

element

readful

ve been

ians of

coun-

Jacob's

their

father

which

design.

all the

as only

ermar-

zed a9

the vilest hypocrisy. They knew very well that circumcision
would still leave them Catiaanites and idolators. We have
already shown that circumcision was, at a later time, also
adopted by heathen people. Circumcision alone would, there-
fore, not have brought them any nearer to God than they were
before. But besides that, it was also an act of gross profanity
in making use of the sacred sign of the covenant as a means to
carry out their atrocious design. Hamor and his son accepted
the proposal, and by their influence and promise of worldly gain
and advantages — " Will not their cattle and their property and
all their beasts be ours (v. 2.3) ? " — they obtained also the com-
pliance of the citizens of Shechem to their proposal. The cun-
ning and cruel plot had so far proved successful, and there was
now nothing more to do than to await for the opportune
time to arrive, which would enable Jacob's sons, without any
risk of failure to accomplish their horrible design. Accordingly
on the third day, when the Shechemites w^ere in an extremely
weak state and suffering great pain, Simeon and Levi, full
brothers of Dinah — and most likely accompanied by their ser-
vants — with their swords in their hands, fell upon the city and
slew Hamor and his son and all the males, and took Dinah out
of Shechem's house (vv. 25, 26). It will thus be seen, that al-
though according to verse 1.3, all the sons of Jacob took part
in making the proposal to Hamor and his son, only Simeon and
Levi carried out the massacre. The narrative affords no infor-
mation why the other sons of Jacob took no part in the car-
• nage, but we may reasonably infer from their taking part in
the plundering of the city (v. 27), that during the several days'
interval between their treating with Hamor and his son, and
the day when the massacre took place, they considered the
matter over, and in calmer moments came to the conclusion.
that the slaughter of the Shechemites was not justifiable,
though they were no doubt unanimous in taking vengeance on
the detiler of their sister. Some writers have indeed supposed,
that although only Simeon and Levi are mentioned, j-et the
other brothers also took part in the slaughter. But why should
just these two be mentioned ? Dinah had other full brothers.
Besides, it is clear from Jacob's prophetic declarations upon his
death -bed concerning Simeon and Levi (chapter xlix. 5-7),
where he denounces in severest terms their merciless slaughter
of the Shechemites, that only these two of his sons were ac-
tually engaged in the atrocious bloodshed :

*' Simeon and Levi are brethren ;
Instruments of violence are their swords ;"

exclaimed the dying patriarch, that is, they not only are chil-
dren of thp same mother, but likewise possess the same wicked

488

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

character and disposition. This they evinced in their being
a.ssc)ciate(l in the treacherous murder of the Shechemites.

" In their counsel enter not my soul ; '

In their asnemhly do not join, my heart s ,, r

\''_ , For in their anger they slew a man,

And in their wantonness they buughed an ox.
Cursed he their anger, for it was tierce, '

' ' ' And their wrath, for it was cruel ; ,!

I will disperse them in Jacob,
I will scatter them in Israel. "

This p&ssage will hereafter be more fully explained, and the
deviation of the rendering in the English version noticed, we
shall only here remark that the term " ox " is here employed
figuratively to denote a man of distinction, and refers to
.Hamor, the prince of the country, or Shechem his son. Many
commentatoi-s, indeed, take the nouns (ish) " a man," and (shor)
" an ox " collectively, and explain the first noun as referring to
the citizens of Shechemj and the latter noun as referring to
Shechem, his son and other dignitaries of the place. But whilst
only Simeon and Levi were the perpetrators of the slaughter,
it is clear from the narrative that the other sons took part in
the spoiling of the population, " The sons of Israel came upon
the slain, and spoiled the city " (v. 27).

30. Aiul Jacob said to Sivieon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to
bring me into ill-odour among the inhabitants of the land, among the
Canaanites and the Perizzites : and I am /em in mtmbei', and they
will gat/ier themselves against me, and ivill slag me, and I shall be.
destroyed, I and my hotise.

From the mild reproof contained in our verse one would be
apt to infer that the only reason for Jacob's disapprobation of
the cruel, rapacious, and perfidious acts of his two sons, was a
fear of a terrible revenge at the hands of the powerful Canaan-
ites and Perrizzites, and that the immoral and wicked aspect
of the deed was altogether left out of consideration. It will,
however, be seen from the unmeasured terms with which he
denounced the acts of his two sons in the last moments of his
life, that the pain and sorrow they caused him must indeed
have been great, and he regarded their acts of such horrible
nature as deserving of severe and lasting punishment;

"I will disperse them in Jacob, *

y I will scatter them in Israel;"

•

that is, I predict they shall surely be dispersed; a homeless
dispersion shall be their dreary lot. And this prophecy of
Jacob regarding Simeon and Levi was indeed literally fulfilled
as we shall hereafter show. Jacob, in reproving Simeon and

people's commentary.

489

Levi, probably represented to them here only the imminent
danger of destruction, in which their actions have placed his
whole family, as being most likely to arouse them from their
guilty apathy, and make them feel the enormity of their crime.
Hardened sinners as they must have been, yet they would not
be so utterly devoid of all human feeling as to view with heart-
less indifference the imminent danger in which they had
plunged their whole family. The answer they made to their
father's reproof, "should he deal with our sister as with a
harlot" (v. 31)? would indeed have been a satisfactory one,
had they inflicted a deserved punishment upon Shechem alone,
but why destroy the innocent citizens who had no part in the
crime ? It is human nature to keep even little misdoings in
a family from obtaining publicity, or if such be not possible,
to make them at least appear as insignificant as can be. Moses,
however, though of the tribe of Levi, does in no way endeavour
to spare the character of his progenitor, but narrates his
atrocious acts with all the simplicity of truth. This affords
another striking proof of the veracity of the sacred narrative.

was a

maan-

laspect

It will,

ich he

>f his

Indeed

rrible

^eless

2y of

illed

and

CHAPTER XXXV.

1. And God said to Jacob, Rise, go up to Beth-el, and dinell there;
and make there an altar to God, that appeared unto thee when tfiou
fledstfroin the face of Esau thy brother.

After the occurrence narrated in the preceding chapter, there
was now no longer any safety for Jacob to remain in the neigh-
bourhood of Shechem. The Canaanites would certainly have
avenged the slaughter of their countrymen. The distressed

1>atriarch was no doubt greatly perplexed to know what was
)est to do under the harrowing circumstances, but God had
promised to be with him and protect him wherever he went,
and now when all human wisdom and power failed to avert the
impending danger, He appeared to him and directed him what
to do. God by His almighty power might have shielded him
from harm, but this would have involved the performance of
a miracle, and miracles as we have already shown, were never
resorted to as long as the desired object could be obtained
otherwise. God directed him to remove to Beth-el situated
about thirty miles south of Shechem, and there build the altar
in accordance with the vow which he had made when on his
way to Mesopotamia (ch. xxii. 20-22.J
73

490

people's commbntauy.

2. And Jiicoh $aid to his honwhuhl, and to all that wore with him,
Put away the ilranffe goda which are aviony yoit, ami be clean and
change your garments.

Before ri'iiioving to tho sacrc<l spot which he had declared to
l)e " none other than the house of God," and " tl>e gate of hea-
ven" (xxviii. 17), ho commanded his household to put away
133n ^nb8< (<'iohe hannevhar) " tho strange gods " or as it may
be rendered " the gods of the stranger," L c, those worshipped
by foreign people. By " the strange gods " is evidently niore
meant than merely the Teraphim which Ilachel had brought
with her, for we have seen that those were alway spoken of by
that designation. The use of the term " strange Gods," would
imply that other idols had found their way into the patriarch's
household either by some of the servants which he had acquired
in Mesopotamia, who were heathens, or among the spoils which
had been taken at Shecheni, or had been brought in by those
who had been captured. Jacob was determined that every-
thing savouring idolatry was to be entirely done away with,
there was hereafter to be an exclusive acknowledgment of his
God. They were also connnanded to cleanse them.selves and
change their garments, to impress them more forcibly with the
ott'ensive nature of idolatry.

4. And they gave Jacoh all the strange gods that were in their
hands, and their ear-rings ivhich were iit their ears ; and Jocob hid
tfieni tinder the oak which whs by Shechent.

It must have been highly gratifying to the patriarch to see
his command so willingly obeyed. Idols of any kind are not
always readily relinquished. But why the ear-rings which
were in their ears ? By these are evidently only meant such
as were u.sed as amulets, upon which were often engraved alle-
gorical figures. They were believed to possess supernatural
powers to avert evil and protect from harm. These amulets
seem to have always been in common use in the East; they are
mentioned by the prophet Isaiah among the objects which en-
snared tho faith of the Hebrews (Is. iii. 20) ; they were even
for a long time used among the early Ohristians. " And Jacob
hid them under the oak which was in Shechem"; the use of
the article, " the oak," seems to imply that reference is made to
a particular and well known tree, and is most probably the
same oak which was afterwards called 0133^5)3 "lib^ (elon

meonenim), the oak of the sorcerers (Judg. xi. 37). But it
may be asked, why hide them, and why just under this tree ?
It appears from Jacob's action of hiding the idols instead of
melting them, and making use of the silver and gold, that

1'koplk's commentary.

491

> urit/i him,
clean and

jclarctl to
be of heu-
put away
i8 it may
srsliippud
itly inoro
brouglit
ten of by
i," would
itri arch's
acquired
lis which
by those
it every-
ay with,
nt of his
lives and
with the

> in their
Jocub hid

h tf) see
are not

which
xit such
ed alle-
natural
mullets
ley are
ich en-
even

Jacob

use of
lade to
)ly the

(elon

But it
tree?
ead of
, that

already in the patriarchal timos, oven the metals of which the
idols were formed were regarded as an abomination. Under
the Mosaic laws it was directly prohibited to appropriate to
one's use thu silver or gold of idols. '* The graven images of
their gods, shall ye burn with tire, thou shalt not covet the
silver or gold that is in them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou
bo snared therein : for it is an abomination to the Loud " (Deut.
vii. 25). Then as regards the hiding of the idols under this
particular tree. Jacob no doubt selected this spot as aflbrding
the safest hiding place, since the oak was among the Canaanites
dedicated to religious purposes, and anything buried under it
would not likely be discovered.

T). And they journeyed: and t/te terror 0/ God was ui)Ou the citiea
tfiat were round them, they did not pursue after the sons 0/ Jacob.

The expression QTlbfi^ flSnn {chlttaih Eloliim)," the terror af
God," may either mean a terror which God had sent upon the
people in order to protect Jacob and his family, or, according
to a Hebiew idiom, wliich wo have already explained, it may
mean "a mighty terror" seized the people around them. The
former rendering is more suitable to the context, for if the lat-
ter rendering is adopted, " the terror" must still be regarded to
have been a supernatural one. When Jacob arrived at Beth-el
he built there an altar, and called it ]);s^ fii^l b&^ {El-Beth- El),
"El-beth-el," i.e. God of Beth-el. Jacob had already called the
place Beth-el, but now, in order to impart more sanctity to the
place, he added the appellation "El " God to it, so that the lite-
ral rendering of the place now would be " God of the house of
God."

8. ,And Deborah, Rebekah'n nurse died, and she was buried b<,neath
Beth-el under an oak; and its nani<i was called Allonbachuth {'Jak of
Weeping.)

The mentioning of the death and burial of Rebekah's nurse
here naturally leads one to suppose that she was at the time
with Jacob. But the narrative nowhere informs us how
and when she got into his household. Some writers, therefore,
suppose that her death had taken place some time before, but
is only now mentioned, as no appropriate place had offered itself
previously. They conjecture that Isaac, during Jacob's twenty
years absence, may, in the course of his wandering in the land,
have come to Beth-el, and whilst there the death of the nur.se
took place. But it certainly w^ould be very strange, and quite
unaccountable, that if Deborah had died whilst with the family
of Isaac, that her death should be mentioned, and that of her
mistress passed over unnoticed. It is therefore more likely

492

people'h commentary.

tliat Deborah had been Rent to Jacob during bin protracted Ntay
at Suceotb. Tbu niuntiuning of the nurneH duatli iif tor Jacob h
removal to Betb-el would then be chnmologically correct. Jacob
would naturally bo greatly aH'ected by the death of Iuh mother's
faithful and aged nurNC, who niUNt now have U'cn upwards of
a hundred and Hfty years ol<l, nio.st of which were Hpent in her
service, and pay to her memory all the reHnect that he could ;
he not only wept over her grave, but called the tree, which
marked her resting place," Ellon-bachuth," i. e. the Oak of Weep-
ing.

9. A nd (iod appeared tmto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-
ar(»», and bteaned him.

Ood had appeared to Jacob at tluH place when he wan on his.
way to Padan-aram, and now he appeared again to him on his
return, and renewed to him all tne promises which He had
previously made to him and to his ancestors. In commemora-
tion of this manifestation, the patriarch " sot up a pillar " and
consecrated it \)y pouring wine ami oil upon it, and called it
also Beth-el (vv. 14, 15).

Jacob set out on his journey again, and when ho arrived in
the neighbourhood of Ephrath, which is Bethlehem (comp. v.
19), an event took place which was the cause of both great joy
and grief to the patriarch. Rachel, at the birth of Joseph, ex-
pressed the wish that Ooil would give her another son : " The
Lord shall add to mo another son " (ch. xxx. 24; ; this wish was
now fulfilled about fourteen years after it had been made. She
did, however, not enjoy the pleasure which the birth of another
son would have afforded her, for she died at the time of his
birth. When Rachel felt that her end was drawing near, she
bestowed upon the new-born child the name " Ben-oni," i. c,
8071 of my a0iction,hut Jacob called him ■li)a'i32i {Benyamin)

" Benjamin," i. e., son of the right hand, which according to
Scripture usage of the phrase means, that he was very dear to
him. Some ancient interpreters explain the name, aon of old
age, as if written Qi^a^Sa (Benyamim) i. e., aon of days, that
is, a aon obtained in advanced age, which is certainly very ap-
propriate. And indeed in chapter xliv. 20, Benjamin is spoken
of as QijpT lb"! iyeled zekunini),

" son of old age."

19. And Rachd died, and tvas buried on the tuay to Ephrath, which
is Bethlehem.

'iVv

20. And Ja£ob set up a pillar upon her grave : tluit is tlie pillar of
Ba^hePs grave to this day.

PKOPLKH COMMRNTAItV.

40.'{

was

Sho

ther

his

she

min)

ig to

ir to

old

<hat

Although the procise meaning of the wonln Vij^n mi33
nmifi^ 6^^lb {Kivratli lnidretn lavo Ephnif/tuh), " a <li.stanco
of land to comt' to Kphrath " v. 1(5, is not wvy clear, as the
derivation of the word fil^J {hivrafh), is very (louhtfnl. it is
still certain that llachel died, uiul was huried in tlir Htiifhhor-
lnHxl of Bethlehem. The pillar which Jaeol) erected on the
grave was always greatly revere*! hy tlw ancient Ih'hrewM.
When Rahhi llenjamin, otTudela, visited the place ahoiit 11(50,
the monument on the grave consisted of "leven stones sur-
mounted hy a cuixila resting on four pillars. Petachia, who
also visiti'd tlio place* in the same century, states that at the top
there was a twelfth stone, on which Jacolt's name was engraved.
Several later travellers givei a similar account. In the seven-
teenth century the Turkish government had a small scjuare
Imilding erected over the grave, and surrounded it hy a wall.
Mr. Buckingham has given a full description of this structure.
He remarks : " We entered it on the south side by an apt^rture
through which it was difficult to crawl, as it has no doorway,
and found the insidu a square mass of masonry in the centre,
huilt up from the floor nearly to the roof, and of such a size as
to leave barely a narrow paHsago for walking r(»(uid it. It is
plastered with wliite stucco on the outer surface, and is suffici-
ently large and high to enclose within it any ancient pillar that
might have been found on the grave of Rachel." (Trav. p. 217.
See also Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Geogr. II, ii. 287.) The Mohamme-
dans evince a great desire to be buried in the precincts of
Rtichel's grave. Mr. Caine says: "All round this simple tomb lie
strewn the graves of the Mussulmans. No slender pillars of
wood or stone, with inscriptions in letters of gold, are liere :
not a single memorial, which this people are otherwise so fond
of erecting in their cemeteries. It seems to be sufficient that
they are phiced beneath the favorite sod: the small and
numerous mounds mark the places of their graves." (Recollec-
tions of the East, p. IGO.) Bethlehem was situated in the
territory of the tribe of Judah. It is sometimes called "Beth-
lehem- Judah" to distinguish it from another town of that
name in the territory of Zebulun, ('Josh. xix. 15). It is also
frequently spoken of as "the city of David " who was born and
brought up there. The name t3nb tT'S (Beth-lechem) " Bethle-
hem' denotes house of bread, and was no doubt so called from
the great fertility of the surrounding plains. Hence also its
earlier name nfllBi* (Ephrathah), i.e., the fertile town. It is now
only a small town of about 3,000 souls, but is constantly
visited by numerous pilgrims, and by all eastern travellers.
The natives still call it by its ancient name Beit-lahvi.

Jacob again continued his journey, and spread his tent beyond
the tower of y^y blV2 Migdal Eder, i. «., the tower of the Jlock
74

494

people's commentabt.

(v. 21). Travellers have not been able to fix the situation of
this place. The prophet Micah, indeed, mentions a " Migdal
Eder " in connection with Zion : " And thou O (Migdal Eder)
tower of the flock the hill of the daughter of Zion," (ch. iv. 8,)
and tradition has pointed out a tower on the eastern side of
Mount Zion as being the tower where Jacob had " spread his
tent ;" but the place where Jacob spread his tent, after leaving
Bethlehem, must have been south of that town, and could not
have been in ttie proximity of Jerusalem. Such towers from
which shepherds watched their flocks were most likely very
common, like the towers in the vineyards (comp= Isa. v, 2,) or
huts in the garden (see l8a.i.8). The narrative does not inform us
how long Jacob remained in this place, but during his stay there
another sore affliction came upon him, Reuben his eldest son
committed incest (v. 22). From the fact that the hideous crime is
only mentioned as having been perpetrated,and not the slightest
allusion being made as to what Jacob did or say when he heard
of it, we may infer that he was so astounded and overwhelmed
with grief that he was unable at the time to give utterance of
his horror of the deed and pronounce the merited punishment.
But although the punishment was for some years deferred, it
came at last. When the sons of Jacob were standing around
his death-bed to hear from his lips the prophetic declarations
what would befall them in later days, the dying patriarch
deprived Reuben of his birth-right and all the privileges ap-
pertaining to it. (See ch. xlix. 3, 4.) We may remark that
in the Hebrew Bible there is a space left after the words,
bfi^lfe'^ y^aiD^T (vaiyiahma Yisrael) "And Israel heard it," as if
something had been omitted, and in the Greek version the
words: "And it appeared evil in his sight," are inserted. There
is, however, no authority for .such an addition to the text ; and
the interpolation is not found in any other ancient version.

The sacred historian, after enumerating the twelve sons of
Jacob, adds, verse 26 : " These are the sons of Jacob, who were
bom to him in Padan-aram." Benjamin, we have seen, was
bom in Canaan, and the language must therefore be regarded
rather as popular than exact, not thinking it necessary to men-
tion Benjamin particularly as forming an exception. The
Scriptures abound with such popular language. Thus, the
apostle Paul, Heb. xi. 1-13, after enumerating the ancient pious
men, says : " These all died in faith," but Enoch, who was one
of them (v. 5), did not die, but was translated. Again, 1 Cor.
XV. 5, it is said that Christ appeared " to the twelve," and yet
the suicide of Judas had reduced the number of the apostles
to eleven.

Jacob set out on his journey again, and came to Hebron,
where his father sojourned. As n< mention is made of

tiM !■!

t&mf'fnmtm'^ m fm m 'K.v u ar' mi ^ t r' VK -

PEOPLS'S CIOMMBNTABT.

495

Rebekah, it is generally supposed that she was dead when
Jacob returned home. According to a Hebrew tradition ahe
4ied at the same time as her nurse Deborah, soon after having
sent her to Jacob to invite him to come home, in accordance
to her promise, (ch. xxvii. 45.)

28. And the days of Isaac were a hundred and eighty years.

29. And Isaac expired and died, and was gathered to his people^
old emd fuU of days ; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.

Although Isaac's death did not occur until twenty-two years
after Jacob's return home, the sacred writer mentions it here, so
that the history of Joseph, which follows, may not be inter-
rupted. If recorded in chronological order, it would come in
about the time of Joseph's elevation in Egypt. Isaac was one
hundred and thirty-eight years old when Jacob departed from
home, and as the latter remained twenty years in Mesopotamia,
on his return into Canaan Isaac must have been one hundred and
fifty-eight years old ; and as his death took place when he was
one hundred and eighty years old, it follows that he survived
his son's return twenty-two years. Esau, coming from the dis-
tant mountains of Seir to take part in the burial of his father,
affords another proof of his forgiving spirit, that he cherished
no ill-feelings towards his father or his brother.

|ns of

Iwere
was

^rded
len-
The
the

fious
one

iCor.
yet

itles

>n,
ot

CHAPTER XXXVI.

In this chapter the sacred historian gives the genealogy of
Esau, which clearly shows the fulfilment of the promise made
to Isaac respecting him (Gren. xxvii. 30-40). The list of Esau's
descendants is remarkable for its regularity of arrangement,
being divided into six sections: 1. The children from his three
wives (1-8). 2. The families of his children (9-14). 3. The
dukedoms arising from the families (15-19). 4. The descen-
dants of Seir, the Horite (20-30). 5. The kings of the land of
Edom (31-39). 6. The dukedoms of the Edomites, according to
their habitations (40-43).

1. And these are the generations of Esau, that is Edom.

Esau, we have seen from ch. 'xxv. 30, received the surname
" Edom " from hw inordinate craving after the mess of red
poUage, the term 0*7^ {Edoni'), denoting red. The surname

496

people's commentart.

Edom is, in our verse, appropriately added to the name Esau,
because it became the national designation of his descendants.

2. Esan took his wives of tJ^e daughters of Canaan ; Adah the
daughter of Eton the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of AnaK
the grand-daughter of Ziheon the Hivite.

3. And Bashemath Ishmad's daughter sister a/ ITebajoth.

The names of Esau's wives given in the above verses differ
from those given in previous accounts, and in one instance also
the name of the father. According to ch. xxvi. 34, and ch.
xxviii. 9, the names of Esau's wives were " Judith the daughter
of Been the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon tlm
Hittite," and " Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael." On com-
paring the two accounts it will be seen that two of the names
are entirely different, namely : instead of " Judith " and " Ma- .
kalath " in the former accounts, we have in our verses " Adah"
and " Aholibamoth " ; and although the name " Bashemath '*
occurs in both accounts, yet in the former account she is said to
be the daughter of " Elon," whilst in our account she is spoken
of as " the daughter of Ishmael." The difference in the twa
accounts has proved greatly perplexing to critics in their
endeavour to reconcile them. The difficulty, however, in har-
monizing the two statements arises chiefly frotn the great
■ antiquity of the records, and the sparsity of information they
contain, whilst there are no other sources from which any
information on the subject might be drawn. To this we may
add too, our want of knowledge as to the customs and usuages
of those very remote times. Our infidel and rationalistic
writers were therefore not justified in resorting to such extreme
views as delaring the accounts to contain either irreconcilable
contradictions, or that they betray two distinct authors wh»
drew their information from different traditions.

Now, although we may not be able to speak with any
certainty on the subject in question, yet the remarks we shall
offer will, we are sure, commend themselves to the reader as
being at least plausible. When we take into consideration that
other Scripture personages appear under two different names^
much of the difficulty which our subject presents will at once
disappear. Thus we have Esau and Edom ; Jacob and Israel ;
Benjamin and Benoni ; Mash, fourth son of Aram (Gen. x. 23),
called in 1 Chron. i. 17, Meshech ; Jachin, son of Simeon (Gen.
xlvi. 10), called in 1 Chron. iv. 24 Jarib. Sarah was also called
Iscah ; Maacha, daughter of Abishalom, wife of Rehoboam (1
Kings XV. 2), is in 2 Chron. xiii. 2, called Michaiah the
daughter of tlriel of Gibeah. Other examples of persons
bearing two different names might be adduced. Here requirea

people's commentary.

407

I any
shall

■also to be mentioned that it was no uncommon thing to bestow
new names on women when they were married. The Arabs, at
the present day, often give surnames, and are sometimes called
by one name, and sometimes by the other. Michael's conjec-
tures, that Esau's wives were sometimes called by the names
they bore in Idumea, and sometimes by the names that were
given to them in Palestine. As regards " Anah," the father of
Abolibamah, being, in ch. xxvi. 34, called " Beeri," the acute
writer, Hengstenberg, supposes that he received the latter name
from his having discovered the warm springs mentioned in ch.
xxxvi. 24, the name "116^3 {Beeri) donoting spring finder.
From the foregoing remarks it will be seen that the tiyo
different accounts, although they present difficulties, yet do not
preclude the possibility of reconciliation.

6. And Esau took his wives, arid his soiis, and his dauglUerSj and
all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all
his substance, which he had acquired in the land of Canaan ; and
went into another eountry on account of his brot/ier Jacob.

7. For their riches ?ems more than thai they might dwell together ;
and the land wherein they were strangers cotdd not bear titetn, because
of their cattle.

Esau's removal from home, and his taking up his abode in
Mount Seir, must have taken place before Jacob's return to his
father's house, for we have seen that when Jacob returned from
Mesopotamia he "sent messengers before him to Esau his brother,
to the land of Seir, the country of Edom " (ch. xxxii. 4), from
which it is evident that Esau had already emigrated. But as
the sacred writer, in our chapter, gives the political history of
Esau in order to render it more complete, he goes back to his
emigration which had taken place many years before.
Nachmanides, and other Rabbinic writers explain that Elsau
sometime after the (light of Jacob from home had removed
with part of his cattle to the land of Edom and occupied
the low lands of Seir, and that after his brother's return
finding that there was not sufficient pasture for their large
number of cattle, he removed, with the other part of his pos-
session, and conquered the mountainous districts. But our
passage clearly speaks of one emigration only with all belonging
to his household, and with all the wealth he had acquired in
the land of Canaan. Seir was the name of a chief of the Hor-
ites, and the mountainous district was called after him. Gk>d
had ordained that the region of Mount Seir should become the
inheritance of Esau, hence the positive command to the Israel-
ites when they were passing through the border of the children
of Esau, " Meddle not with them ; for I vnll not give yon of

498

people's CX>10f ektabt.

their land, no, not so mnch as a foot's breadth, because I have-
given Mount Seir unto Eeau /or a possession," (Deut il 5). In
verses 2, 14, " Aholibamah" is said to be the daughter of Anah
the daughter of Zibeon; but the Hebrew wora {^21 (hath),
daughter, is also used in the sense of grandrdaugkter, so that
we should translate " the daughter of Anah the grand-daughter
of Zibeon." The Hebrew word Cjibfi^ (aUuph), translated in
the Authorized Version " duke," properly signifies a leader or
chieftain, called by the Arabians Sheikh. In verse 22, " Timna"
is mentioned as tne "sister of Lothan." The reason why she
is especially noticed is, because she became famous as being the
mother of the Amalekites.

24. And thite are <A« children (^Zibeon, both Ajah and Anah ; this
was that Anah who found the hot {or sulphur) springs in the desert^
when he fed the aswe of Ziheon his father.

As there was another Anah, namely, the fourth son of Seir
(v. 20), hence it is said in regard to the son of Zibeon that " this
VX18 that Anah who found the hot springs." In the Authorized
Version it is rendered, " This vxu that Anah who found the
mules." It is not easily seen how the translators obtained the
signification of " mules " from the Hebrew word Q"»73"» (yemim),
which is now generally acknowledged to denote " hot springs,"
hence correctly rendered in the Vulgate " aquce codidas" The

{iroper Hebrew word for imdes would be Q'^TiB {"peradim).
t is now generally believed that the hot springs which Anah
found are the hot sulphurous springs of Calirrhoe. about one
hour and a half east of the Dead Sea. These springs became
in after time celebrated for their salubrity, and large buildings
were erected for the reception of invalids, of which, however,
nothing remains but some scattered fragments of pottery and
tiles. Josephus, in speaking of Herod's distemper, remarks
* that hd bathed himself in warm baths that were in Calirrhoe,
which, besides their other general virtues, were also fit to drink,
which water runs into the lake called Asphaltitis " CAnt. xvii.,
ch. vi. par. 5.) There were also some ancient Roman copper
coins found there. According to an ancient tradition " Jabab,^
the son of Zerah " (v. 33), the second king who reigned in the
land of Edom, was Job, and that he received the name ^H'^K
(lyov) Job, i. e., one persecuted after his trial.

peoplk's oommentabt.

499

the

CHAPTER- XXXVII.

1. And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein hie father woe a etranffer,
in the land of Canaan.

The sacred narrative enters in this chapter on the histoiy of
Joseph the favorite son of Jacob. The history is replete with
moral lessons, and is acknowledged to be the most beautiful
piece of biography in the Bible. It has been well observed that
we behold in Joseph, " one who in every period of life, in every
change of condition, in every variety of relation, secures our
confidence, our respect, our love. In adversity, we see him
evincing the most exemplary patience, and resignation ; in
temptation, the most inflexible firmness ; in exaltation the most
unaffected simplicity, integrity, gentleness, and humility.
Whether as a son, a brother, a servant, a father, a master, a
ruler, we behold him exhibiting a deportment equally amiable
and praiseworthy." The history of Joseph illustrates al^so in
the most striking manner Qod's providential dealings in bring-
ing to pass from apparently trivial occurrences the greatest
results.

Jacob had now taken up his abode at Hebron, and from that
place his flocks in charge of his sons, went from place to place
in quest of pasturage.

2. This is the history qfJtusob. When Joseph was seventeen years
old, he was feeding thejlock with his brothers ; and he was a lad with
the sons o/ Jiilhah, and ivith the sons of Zilpah, his father's ivives; and
Joseph brought to their father their evil report.

The rendering of the Authorized and Revised Versions " These
are the generations of Jacob" is not suitable to the context, as
no genealogical account of Jacob either immediately precedes
or follows. We have already stated that the Hebrew word
fm^tn (toledoth) denotes generations, genealogy, histoi^j, fam-
ily history, and that the word must accordingly be rendered as
best suits the context. As the events in the life of Joseph hence-
forward form the chief topics of the narrative, we would
naturally have expected to read, "This is the history of Joseph ;"
but as long as the father lived the events occurring in his
family were reckoned with his history. "And he was a lad." The
Hebrew word 155 (nadr) a boy or lad, is evidently here used in
the aenae ot shepherd-hoy, "and he was a shepherd-boy with the
the sons of Bilhah." " And Joseph brought to their father their
evil report;" not a few of our modem critics have in unmeasured
terms censured this conduct of Joseph, and charged him with
bei> g a tattle-bearer, wishing to ingratiate himself m his father's

soo

pboplb's commentary.

favour, by bringing idle tales to him. These critics, however,
have evi'lently neglected to consider the true import of the lan-
<ruage euiploved in the original, which is very emphatic. Tlie
sacred historian says, that " Joseph brought n5l Dna^"n55
(eth dilAHdhain radii), their very evil report." The noun nST
Id'ibtmh), itself denotes an evil repoH, and the use of the adjec-
tive n5T (radh) evil, in connection with it, was evidently
designed to indicate that his brothers had committed some
jlagrant act which he considered himself in duty bound to
make known to his father. The language employed in the
original, we maintain, entirely clears Joseph from the charge of
tattle-bearing.

.3. A'oir Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, heaatue he
was the son of his old Oige ; and he made him a long robe.

The reason assigned in our verse for Jacob bestowing a
greater degree of love u|K)n Joseph than his other children was,
" because he was the son of his old age " ; but here it may justly
be a^ked, was not Benjamin rather " the son of his old age," as
he was the youngest of Jacob's sons ? We think, therefore,
that the true import of the words i3 D''DpT""l!2"^3 (.ch^ V'-**
zekuniia to) is afforded in the Chaldee Version, where the pus"
.•<age is paraphrased, " for he was a wise son to him," which
cei-tainly presents a more worthy reason for Jacob evincing a
gi-eater degree of love for Joseph than his other sons. The
translator has r^ai-ded the expression, " son of old age," to he
employed here, in the .sense of wise or sagacious son, that is,
Joseph having displayed in his youth the w^isdom of one
advanced in years. This would indeed be a reasonable motive
for a gi^eater share of love being lavished upon him. Although
a parent ought to bestow an equal share of affection upon all
his children, yet it frequently happens that one child by its
conduct will endear itseli above the others. But Jacob did not
show his partiality, merely by his demeanour towards Joseph,
but in a more marked manner, by making for him " a long
robe," such as was generally worn by persons of wealth or
distinction-
It was this mark of distinction which aroused the jealousy
of his brothers, and it was certainly an unwise act on the part
of Jacob, for it was sure to lead to envy and domestic strife.
In the Authorized Version d''QS tl3t^3* (kethoneth passim) is
rendered a coat of many colours, which is not admissible. The
proper meaning of the phrase is either " a robe of pieces," it is
a robe made of pieces sewed together. It is, however, mere

*Q*iOg (pamriin) either from the Chaldee OS (P<m) the palm of the hand,
aho a }Mece;or from ^Q {paaas) to expand.

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

conjecture, that the pieces were of different colours, or "a kmg
robe," such as was worn as a mark of distinction. The latter
rendering is now generally adopted, and certainly accords bet-
ter with the prevailing custom of those times when such long
robes were worn as a mark of distinction. The phrase occurs
only again in 2 Sam. xiii. 18, where it is used in reference to a
long robe worn by Tamar, the daughter of David. (Gomp.
Josph. Ant. b. vii. ch. viii. par. 1.) Such aristocratic robes we
iina depicted on Egyptian monuments, and were also common
among the Greeks. In the Septuagint the phrase is rendered
p^tTO)!/ 7rotActXo9, variegated coat: in the Vulgate, Tunica
polymita, embroidered coat. " And he made him a loag
robe ;" that is, he ordered it to be made. We have already had
occasion to state, that according to Scripture usage, a person
that orders a thing to be done, is said to be the doer of it.

When Joseph's brothers saw that he stoo<l in greater favour
with their father they conceived a hatred again.st him, so that
they could not speak in a friendly manner with him. This
hatred was greatly increased by the dreams which Joseph
dreamt, and which ne told to his brothers.

6. And lie said to them, Hear, 1 pray you, this dream which I hart;
dreamt.

7. For behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, hehotd, my
sheaf rose, and also stood upright ; and behold, your sheaves stood nmnd
about, and bowed down to my sheaf.

We have already drawn attention to the fact, that super-
natural dreams designed to presage some future important
event, left a deep impression on the dreamers to assure them
that they are no ordinary meaningless dreams. The dream
which Joseph dreamt evidently made such a deep impression
on his mind as to induce him to tell it to his brothers. But
although he could not have failed to perceive, that the dream
foreboded some future advancement above his brothers, yet
his gentle and kind nature precludes the idea of having told
the dream in a boastful spirit, but that it was rather done in
the simplicity of his youthful heart. The nature of the dream
was, however, well calculated to increase the hatred which the
brothers cherished towards Joseph. That they fully perceived
the scope of the dream is evident from their rebuke, " Wilt
thou indeed reign over us ? or wilt thou indeed have dominimi
over us ? (v. 8.)

602

PEOPLE S COMMBNTABT.

9. And h» dreamt yet another dream, and told it to hit brothers, and
rnndt Behold, I have dreamt a dream more ; and, behold, the »tm and
the moon and eleven etara made obeitance to me.

This dream is precisely of the same import as the pre-
ceding one, being, however, somewhat enlarged in its scope so
as to include also his parents, symbolized by " the sun and the
moon," who were to pay homage to him. In the Authorized
Version the article " the " is also expressed before " eleven
stars," which makes it appear as if eleven particular stars were
referred to, but in the original the article is not given befoie
eleven. When Pharoah dreamt two different dreams, but both
forboding one and the same future event, Joseph declared to
the king that it was doubled " because the thing is established
by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass " (ch. xli. 32) ;
and so, no doubt, the duplication of Joseph's dream was to
indicate that the matter was firmly established before God.
We may also remark that sheaves of corn are symbolic of pros-
perity, whilst the heavenly bodies symbolize dmninion and
power.

10. And he told it to his/at/ier and to his brotliers : and his father
rebuked him, and said unto him. What is this dream which thou hant
dreamt t Shall I and thy mother and thy brothers indeed come to
bow ourselves down to thee to the earth?

Jacob interpreted the dream correctly although Rachel, the
mother of Joseph, was already dead. RosenraUUer, and many
other commentators explain that Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid, is
meant by " mother," but surely this is a very forced interpre-
tation ; now could Bilhah be reasonably spoken of as Joseph's
mother ? Some writers have supposed that Leah was meant,
but the same objection holds good with regard to her also.
Delitzsch says "Rachel is meant, who, although dead, was neither
forgotten nor lost." But this does by no means obviate the
diificulty, for although Rachel no doubt lived in the memory
of Jacob, still he could not consistently speak of her as coming
and bowing down before Joseph. The most reasonable inter-
pretation seems to be, that "the sun the moon and eleven
stars" in the dream symbolize the whole family. The sheaves
in the firat dream represent only the brothers as forming
Jacob's family, but in the second dream to make the repre-
sentation of the house of Jacob more complete, the parents
are added. The scope of the dream merely is, that the whole
household of Jacob then alive should pay homage to Joseph,
for it is by no means certain that any of the patriarchs
wives went down to Egypt with him. They are certainly no-
where mentioned as having done so. Jacob, althougn he

people's commemtart.

603

no-
he

rebuked Joseph, evidently did not regard the dreams as mean-
ingless or idle, for "inn pfc^ yt^lt (shamar eth haddavar) "ho
kept the matter," that is, he laid it to heart, and seriously

Sondered over it as being possibly of prophetic signiticanee.
acob probably administered the rebuke in the hope of dispel-
ling the ill-feeling which his sons had conceived towards Joseph
on account of the dreams, in this, however, as the sequel of the
narrative shows, he was sorely disappointed.

12. And his brothers went to feed their J ather'e flock in Shechem.

This verse furnishes the first step towards the fulfilment of
the dreams. The pasturage in the valley of Hebron, where
Jacob had then been dwelling became exhausted, and his sons
ha<l gone with their flocks to Shechem, very likely to the field
which their father had bought (ch. xxxiii. 19). For some rea-
son or other Jacob appears to have become anxious about the
welfare of his sons and the flocks, probably being absent longer
than usual, and requested Joseph to go- to Shechem and see
whether all is well, and bring him word. This is the second
step towards the fulfilment ot the dreams. Before Joseph,
however, arrived at Shechem his brothers had removed from
there ; but he did not return to his father and inform him of
their removal, but went in search of his brothers, and whilst
thus wandering about a man met him, who asked him what he
was seeking ; and upon Joseph informing him that he was in
search of his brothers, the stranger told him that he had
heard them say "Let us go to Dothan;" and Joseph went after
them, and found them in that place. Dothan was about seven-
teen miles north of Shechem, and not less than seventy miles
from Hebron. It was situated on the great caravan road
leading from Gilead into Egypt. In all this we cannot fail to
perceive the guiding hand of the Almighty to carry out His
design. God had destined Joseph to become a ruler over E^pt,
and the preserver of his father's house ; and we now find him
following his brothers to Dothan on the caravan road to Egypt,
where an opportunity would readily offer itself to bring him
down into that country.

18. And when they saw him at a distance, and be/ore he came near
to them, they conspired against him to kill him,

19. And they said one unto another, Behold, this dreamer cometh.

20. Com^ now, there/ore, and let us slay him, and east him into one
of the pits, and we wUl say. Some tnld beast hcth devoured him : and
tve shaU see what toUl become oj .is dreams.

There seems to have been no bounds to the wickedness of
Jacob's sons. Even the closest tie of relationship afiforded na

504

people's commentary.

barrier to their wicked designs. What an awful spactaole doe.s
the sacred narrative here present to us ? Nine brothers de-
liberately conspiring togetner to kill their younger brother,
who4e only offence was. that he had dreamed two dreams. Not
for a moment considering, too, that this murder might also bring
about the premature death of their father on hearing of the
loss of his beloved son. " Behold the dreamer cometh : " in the
original it is ^|^'3b^^ b^S {badt Iiachalomoth), " the master
of areanui," an idiomatic expression implying one who is ad-
dicted to dreaming, or makes a practice of it. Thus a greedy
person is called ^53 ^53 {b%dl nepJiesh), a master of appetite
(Prov. xxxiii. 2). — " And cast him into one of the pits.' The
Hebrew word "na (bor) signifies a pit, a cistern, a grave ; and
the reading of tn"lS {horoth) in our passage by " cisterns,"
instead of " pits," would certainly be more suitable, as along
the caravan roads cisterns were constructed in which, during
the rainy season, water was collected for the use of travellers.

21. And Reuben heard it, and fie delivered him ou,t of their hands,
and said, Let us not kill him.

22. And Reuben said to them, Sfied no blood ; cast him into this pit
which is in th-i wilderness, but lay no hind upon him : that he might
deliver him out of their hand, to bring him to his father.

Reuben, who was the eldest, and whose duty it was to exer-
cise a supervision over the younger brothers, now determined,
if possible, to save the life of Joseph. He had inflicted on his
father a great injury, and had caused him an immeasurable
amount of grief (ch. xxxii. 23), which could not be undone, but
here was an opportunity to render him a great service by sav-
ing the life of his beloved son. In this undertaking, however, he
knew that it was necessary to act very cautiously, for he was
aware that his brothers were bent upon killing Joseph, and
that it was of no use to endeavour to dissuade them from it.
He therefore had recourse to a stratagem. Knowing that the
council of the eldest son is always respected, he advised them
to cast him into one of the cisterns, so that their hands might
at least be free from the shedding of their brother's blood.
The plan was one which would readily commend itself to their
approval, as it w^ould insure the death of Joseph without them-
selves shedding his blood. Reuben, on the other hand, hoped
to find an opportunity to be able to restore him safely to his
father. Reuben's proposal was readily accepted, and at once
acted upon, for no sooner had Joseph come up to his brothers
than they seized him, stripped him of the long robe, and cast him
into the pit. The narrative states that " tne pit was empty
Uiere was no water in it" (v. 24), as no rain tails during the

people's commentary.

505

)y sav-
jver, he
le was
>h, and
[om it.
it the

them
I might
I blood.

their
Ithem-

koped
his

once
fthers
It him

jpfcy

the

summer months, the water in the cisterns becomes gradually
exhausted. Joseph, however, must have soon perished in the
pit from thirst, and hunger, and exposure. Although the nar-
rative does not here mention that Joseph entreated his broiherii
to have pity upon him, yet from their own confession after-
wards, it is evident that he besought them in tears to spare hin
life : " And they said one to another, we are verily guilty con-
cerning our brother in that we saw the* anguish of his soul
when he besought uh, and we would not hear." (eh. xlii. 21).
The heartless brothers having got rid, as they supposed, of the
object of their hatred, and proved his dreams to be meaning-
lets, they sat down " to eat bread," that is, to take one of the
regular menls. The atrocious act they had just perpetrated
did not deter them from enjoying themselve.H ; they ate and
drank, regardless of the piteous tears and anguish of their
young and gentle brother.

26. And they sat down to eat bread : and they lifted ttp their eyea,
and looked, and, behold, a company of lehinaeliteg came from Oileod
with their camels bearing tragacanth, and balsam, and ladanuin, going
to carry it down to Egypt.

From the most ancient times a cnravan trade was carried on
between Arabia and Egypt, and in order to facilitate commerce,
and to render the passing through the Arabian desert less pre-
carious, stations were formed at suitable distances, and cisterns
or reservoir's for collecting water during the rainy season were
dug. (See Wilkinson's Manners and Customs i. 45, 46). Egjpt
had in the time of Joseph already reached a high state of civi-
lisation, and the various varieties of spicery, and [jerfumes, the
products of Arabia found a ready market in Egypt. The arti-
cles most in demand were spicery and perfumes, such as were
required for domestic use, festivals, or embalming, or medicinal
purposes. Those used for embalming were exceedingly fragrant,
and enabled friends to keep the mummies for generations in
their houses. The articles mentioned in our verse, were of the
costly products of Arabia. The tirst in Hebrew called * fiitso
{nechoth), is now generally believed to denote the gum traga-
canth, which is highly valued on account of its madicinal pro-
perties. (Dioscor iii. 23). This gum exudes from the thorny
shrub Astragalus tragacaniha, and is found in Arabia and
Palestine. The second article mentioned is, in Hebrew, called
i*''1S {ts^Ti), and is no doubt the balsam which is mentioned by
the prophet Ezekiel as forming one of the articles which Israel

*riK33 {nechoth) is a noun of the inf. form from |^3^ (nacha) to grind.

t*^"^!S (tKeri) from tV^'H (tsarah), if from the Chaldee, to make an inci««ion^
to cleave ; but, if. from the Ambio, to flow.

«06

pboplb's commentary.

and Judah brought to the market of Tyre. (Ezek. xxvii. 17).
The prophet Jeremiah speaks of it as an ointment used in healing
of wounds, (ch. viii. 22 ; oh. li. 8). On account of its healing
properties it found a ready market in E^rypt (Comp. Jer. xlvi.
11). It was most abundantly found in Qilead, and nence usu*
ally spoken of in IScripture as " the balm of Qilead." The
balsam-tree was not a native of Judea, but was introduced
there, and successfullv cultivated in the vicinity of Jericho.
Vespasian and Titus brought specimens from there to Rome,
which they exhibited as a great curiosity. The balsam is
obtained by making an incission in the trunk or branches, but
the cuts must be made very carefully, and either with a glass
or bone knife. The use of an iron instrument is injurious to the
plant. The juice, which is also called opobalsamum, exudes in
small drops, and is carefully collected in wool. It is of exceedingly
sweet odour, and on account of its scarcity demands a high price.
In Alexander the Great's time it was sold at double its weight
in silver. Human ingenuity, even in those days, found soon a
a mode to adulterate it, by which fraud great fortunes were
made. The third article mentioned is in Hebrew called t^b
(lot) ladanum, Greek Xr^Savop, a product common in Arabia.
It is an odoriferous gum which exudes from the shrub ciatua
creticiia, of Linneeus, or ci8tu8 ladanifera. It is much used
in Egypt as a medicine and an aromatic, and Grand Cairo still
affords a ready market for it. It is said that the ladanum
was accidentally discovered by shepherds from their goats
cropping the shoots of the shrub. The merchants are in one
verse called " Ishmaelites," but in verse 28 they are called
" Midianites." This is no discrepancy, but arises from the
Ishmaelites and Midianites, being both descendants from Abra-
ham, but the former being the more powerful (with the excep-
tion of the Hebrews), and commanded by far the chief trade,
hence other tribes inhabiting the same region and carrying
on the same pursuits were sometimes also called Ishmaelites.
Indeed, all the Arabians at the present day boast of having
descended from Ishmael.

The fulfilment of the dream rendered it necessary that
Joseph should be carried down to Egypt, and Providence
ordered it so that Reuben's good intention to restore him
to his father was not to be carried out. Judah, who was
also anxious to save Joseph's life, and who apparently was an
eloquent speaker, proposed to his brothers that they should sell
him to the Midianitish merchants, pleading as a reason that
he was their brother and their flesh. They readily consented
to Judah's proposal, no doubt thinking that in that distant
country, and among entire strangers, there would be but little
chance of his dreams becoming realized. When the Ishmael-

people's (X)MlfENTART.

507

goats
in one

called
t>na the

Abra-

was
vas an
d sell

that
ented
stant
little
mael-

ites drew near, they lifted Joseph out of the pit, and wid him
to them f»)r " twenty shekeln of silver " (v. 28). According to
Lev. xxvii. 5, the estimation of a male " from five to twenty
years was twenty sheckels," whilst from twenty to sixty the
estimation was fifty shekels " (v. 3). The price paid for Joseph,
although amounting only to about five dollars of our money,
yet it appears to have been the ordinary price for a servant
not twenty years old.

29. And Rttubtn retwmed to the pit; and, behold, Joteph was not in

the pit ; and he rent hie clotfiet,

30. Andht returned to hi* brothers, and said, the child is not there,
and I, whither shcdl I go f

It appears from this passage that Reuben was not
when Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites. He must have kf t
his brotherH immediately after the youth was cast into the >i^
no doubt with the intention of assisting him out of it, ana
restore him to their father. In order not to arouse any suspi-
cion on the part of his brothers, he probably made a detour in
going to the pit, which would account for his ignorance of
Joseph having been taken away and sold by his brothers, they
having taken the nearest way to the pit, and removed him
before Reuben came up to it. We can readily understand his
great horror when he found that in the short time that had
elapsed since the youth had been cast into the pit, he had
already disappeared. He at once hastened to his brothers, and
in anguish exclaimed, " The child is not there, and 1, whither
shall I go," an idiomatic expression coriesponding to our expres-
sion, " and now what shall or can I do ?"

In order to conceal the wicked deed, the brothers had
recourse to falsehood and hypocrisy. And when was ever a
crime commit'^ed when the criminal had not recourse to lying
in order to shield himself from its consequences ? They killed
a kid of the goats, and dipped the long robe in the blood, and
sent it to their father with the message : " This we have
found : recognize now whether it be thy son's coat or not ?"
It appears that they were afraid to bring the coat themselves,
their language or actions, when standing face to face with their
sorrowing father, might betray them, they therefore sent the
coat by messengers. Jacob at (mce recognised the coat as the
one he had made for his favourite son Joseph, and naturally
concluded that he must indeed have been torn in pieces by a
wild beast. Qreat as must have been the grief of the aged
patriarch at seeing the evidence of his beloved son's death, it
would be still more intensified by the thought that he himself
had sent him unprotected on his journey ; and when the mem-

508

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

isiiini

bers of his family tried to soothe his grief with consoUng \^ cfds
he refused to be comforted, and in bitter anguish exclaimed.
" I shall indeed go down into Hades to my son mourning " (v.
35). This solemn declaration of Jacob clearly implies that he
looked forward to meet with his son after he himself had
departed this life, or else he would merely have said, / shall
go down mourning to the grave. In the original the term
'blft^lD {Slieol) is employed, which, throughout the Old Testa-
ment is generally used to denote the abode of the departed spirits,
or Hades, whilst grave is either expressed by i^p (kever) or

-|^5l (bor). That Jacob should hope to meet with his son in
Sheol, the spirit world, we can readily understand ; but he
could surely not have expected to meet him in the grave, for
he thought he had been devoured by wild beasts. The passage,
therefore, affords another unquestionable proof that the Old
Testament is not silent in respect to the declaration of the
doctrine of & future state, as so many writers insist upon.

36. Arui the Midianites sold him into Egypt, to Potiphar, an
officer of Pharaoh, chief of the guards.

The name "lB'^t3^S {Potiphar), given in our passage, is a con
tractedform of 5")h "'tO'S (Poti-pkera) (see ch. xli. 45 ; xlii. 20),
and denotes one devoted to the sun, it was therefore an appro-
priate name of the priests of On {HeliopoUs). The name is
often found in hieroglyphic inscriptions. Potiphar is, in our
verse, said to have been " an officer of Pharaoh " ; the primary
meaning of Oi"nO [saris), is eunoch. It is, however, evident
that the term in course of time was applied also to an officer in
the royal service. (Gomp. 1 Sam. viii. 15 ; 1 Kings xxii. 9 ;
Jer. xxxix. 3). The officer of Pharaoh is described to have been
dTHatDH itU i^^'*' hattabbachim), a designation which prima-
rily denotes chief of the slaughterers, or chief of the executioners,

* The term Sheol is, in the English Version, always rendered either by pit,
ijrave, or hell, but never by its proper meaning, the realm or abode of departed
■tpitifn ; in order, therefore that the reader — who may perhaps have become
somewhat rusty in his Hebrew— ;iiay be enabled to judge for himself from the
context which would be the most suitable rendering of the Hehrew term in any
passage where it is employed, I will give here a list of all the places where the
word occurs in the Old Testament, so that the reader will only have to sub-
stitute the word Sheol, instead of the word grave, pit, or hell, as the case may
lie : Gen. xxxvii. 35 ;* xlii. 38 ; xliv. 29, 31 ; Num. xvi. 30, 33 ; Deut. xxxii.
'22 ; I Sam. ii. 6 , 2 Sam. xxii. 6 ; 1 Kings ii. 6, 9 ; Job. vii. 9 ix. 8 ; xiv. 13 ;
.wii. 13, 16 ; xxi. 13 ; xxiv. 19 ; xxvi. 6 ; Ps. vi. 6, (Eng. Vers. v. 5) ; ix. 18,
(Eng. Vers. v. 17) ; xvi. 10; xviii. 6, (Eng. Vers. v. .'>); xxx. 4, (Eng. Vers.
V. 3) ; xxxi. 18, (Eng. Vers. v. 17) ; xlix. 15, 16, (Eng. Vers. 14, 15) ; Iv. 16.
(Eng. Vers. v. 15); Ixxxvi. 13; Ixxxviii. 4, (Eng. Vers. v. 3); Ixxxix. 49,
(Eng. Vers. v. 48) ; cxvi. 3 ; cxxxix. 8 ; oxli. 7 ; Prov. i. 12 ; vii. 27 ; ix. 18 ;
XV. il, 24 ; xxiii. 14 ; xxvii. 20 ; xxx. 16 ; Eccles. ix. 10 ; Is. v. 14 ; xiv. 9, 11,
15; xxviii. 15, 18; xxxviii. 10; Ivii. t ; Ezek. xxx. 15, 16, 17; xxxii. 27;
Uos. xiii. 14 ; Amos ix. 2 ; Jon. ii. 2 ; Hab. ii. 5.

ing wcrds
xclalrned.
■ning " (v.
i that he
iself had
, / shall
the term
Id Testa-
d spirits,
kever) or

is son in
; but he
rave, for
! passage,
the Old
n of the
lon.

iphar,

, IS a con
xlii. 20),
a appro-
name is

in our
primary
evident
)fficer in
xxii. 9 ;
ve been

prima-
tioners,

l)y pit,
departed
become
from the
■m in any
here the
to sub-
case may
xxxii.
XIV. 13;
ix. 18,
Vers.
Iv. 16,
xix. 49,
ix. 18 ;
V.9, 11,
■xii. 27:

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

509

hut from other places of the Old Testament where the title
occurs, it is certain it was applied to an important officer of
Htate. According to ch. xl. 3, 4, Potiphar had charge of the
Htate prison. In 2 Kings, ch. xxv. 8, the title is ai)plied to
Nebuzaradan a general of Nebuchadnezzar, who marched with
a part of the Babylonian army against Jerusalem, which he
captured and destroyed. In Daniel, ch. ii. 14, the title is
applied to Arioch, who was entrusted with the carrying out of
the King's decree to slay the wise men of Babylon. From these
passages it is clear that QTIltDn "1W ('S'«** hattahhachim) does,
not denote the chief cook (apxi/jLayeipo<i) as the Septuagint has-
lendered it.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

1. And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from
Jits brethren, and turned in to an Adullaniite, whose name was Hirah.

2. And Judah saw there a daughter of a Canaanite whose name
was ShvMh ; and he took her, and uxnt to her.

The reader will perceive, that this chapter interrupts the
narrative of Joseph merely for the purpose of introducing
some particulars connected with the family history of Judah,
which are chiefly important as showing the origin of the three
leading families of the royal tribe Judah. (Comp. Num. xxxvi.
19 22.) The chapter was probably introduced here as beinjj^
the most convenient place, although as we shall presently
show, the events narrated in it mast have transpiied some
years before. Judah s conduct in taking to wife the daughter
of a Canaanite is most unaccountable. He evinced a desire
to preserve the purity of his family by joining with the rest of
his brothers in strenuously objecting to the alliance of his
sister Dinah with Shechem, yet he himself deliberately enters
into a union with a Canaanitish woman. This act of Judah
affords a striking proof of the wisdom and necessity of the
Mosaic precautionary laws to prevent the social intercourse of
the Hebrews with the idolatrous nations by which they were
surrounded, and whose seductive practices induced so many of
the Israelites to forsake the worship of Jehovah. Judah left
his brothers and went to AduUam, one of the most ancient cities
*n the plain of Judah. In the time of Joshua, it was the seat
of Canaanitish Kings. (See Josh. xii. 15.) The cave in which
David took refuge when persecuted by Saul was in the neigh-
bourhood of this city. At Adullam, Judah made the acquaint-
76

■

510

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

ance of one of the citizens whose name was Hirah, with whom
he took up his abode. The entrance into bad company, is the
beginning of a downward career. During his stay with his
acquaintance, Judah saw " the daughter of a Canaanite whose
name was Shuah " and took her to wife." We can readily
imagine, that this marriage must have caused intense grief to
the aged patriarch. And how frequently do we at the present
<lay see young men following their own inclinations, regardless
of the bitter anguish they may give to their parents. The
(Janaanitish woman bore to Judah three sons, Er, Onan, and
Shelah. The evil results from this unhallowed marriage soon
became apparent.

When Er, the first-born, was grown up, Judah selected a wife
for him, " whose name was Tamar," (v. 6). The name "i^Jn
(Tainar) denotes a palm. She, very probably, was also a
Canaanite. There is, however, nothing known of her parentage.
Er acted wickedly in the sight of Go 1, and the Almighty
slew him. The narrative does not inform us what the wicked
deeds of Er had been, but that the}^ must have been of an
atrocious character, may be gathered from the severity of the
punishment, in thus being cut off by a special stroke of Divine
judgment : " and the Lord slew him," (v. 7). Judah now desired
his second son to marry the childless widow of his brother, to
raise up offspring for him, in order that his name might be pre-
served. But the wicked act of Onan, as recorded in verse 9,
kindled the anger of God, and the Lord slew him also, (v. 10).
The mentioning of Onan marrying, as brother-in-law, the widow
of his deceased brother, is very important, as it shows that such
seemed already an established custom in the time of Jacob, and
did not originate with the Mosaic matrimonial laws. Moses,
however, incorporated the custom into his code, in order to
prevent the landed property from passing out of a family
thi'ough want of an heir, and thus preserve more the equality
of the citizens. We can readily understand too, that the allot-
ted portion of the sacred soil would be highly prized, and its
loss bv passing out of the family be regarded as a great misfor-
tune. The law by which a man is obliged to marry the widow
of a deceased brother, if he died without issue, is distincti}' laid
down in Deut. xxv. 5-10, and is by modern writers frequently
spoken of as the Levirate-laiv, from the old Latin word levir
which, according to Festus, signifies a hushand'a brother. By
this law the first-born son of such a marriage, becomes the
rightful heir of the deceased brother : he is, in fact, re^^arded
as the deceased's brother's son. Lest, however, the law
might in some instances prove oppressive, for a brother may
sometimes have good grounds for objecting to marry the
widow, provision is made by which the brother may release

PEOPLE!;! COMMENTARY.

511

Base

himself from the obligation, not, however, without submitting
to a ceremony by which he was made an object of contempt.
This was absolutel}.' necessary to guard against brothers endea-
vouring to put otjf their obligation on mere flimsy grounds.
Similar customs existed among the Persians, Indians, and some
Italian tribes, (Diod. Sic. xii. 18) ; and are still practised by the
Gal las in Abyssinia, the Afghans, and by some other nations.
(Comp. Benary, DeHebneor. Leviratu). Judah apparently
entertained now a superstitious fear that he would lose his
third son also, if he gave him to Tamar (v. 1 1), and put her ofl"
with the promise that he would gi'"^ her Shelah as soon as he
was grown up, at the same time ordering her to remain in the
meantime in her father's house, as was the custom for widows
who had no children (see Lev.xxii. 13), but to consider herself the
affianced wife of Shelah. Judah thus prevented her from con-
tracting an alliance with any other person. Tamar did as Judah
had requested her, but finding, after waiting in vain for a long
time, that Judah did not fulfil his promise, she determined to
ensnare her father-in-law himself. The circumstance that
the wifa of Judah had died, and he was now a widower, favour-
ed her design.

12. And in prxeas of time, the daughter of Shuak, Judah' s wife
died : and Judah was comforted, awl went up to his sfteep-shearing to
Timnath, he and his friend Uirah t/ie Adullamite.

" Judah was comforted," that is, he had performed the cus-
tomary ceremonies of mourning, and the usual time of lamen-
tation for the dead had passed. " And he went up to his sheep-
shearing." Sheep-shearing was from the most ancient times
attended with great festivities (compare 2 Sam. xiii. 23). It
would, therefore, not have been proper for Judah to attend the
sheep-shearing during the time of mourning. When Tamar
heard of Judah's intention to go up to Timnath — a town in the
district of Judah — she seized the opportunity of cariying out
her scheme, which, as the sequel shows, proved entirely success-
ful. (See vv. 15-18). About three months after that Judah
was informed that his daughter-in-law was with child, and he
ordered her to be brought forth and burned. As the head of
his family, he had perfect control over the members of the
family. This was an exceedingly severe sentence, although
being the affianced wife of Shelah, she had actually com-
mitted adultery. Under the Mosaic Law the punishment
of burning was only inflicted in the case of a priest's daughter.
(See Lev. xxi. 9) ; the usual punishment was stoning.
(See Deut xxii. 2*3, 24 ; John viii. 4 7.) When the sentence
was about to be carried out, Tamar sent the signet, the

u .:

512

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

. ■[?

! I

bracelets, and staff which Judah had given her as a pledge,
(v. 18.) The signet-ring was by a silk string suspended from
the neck, and worn in the bosom between the two piincipal
garments, and was highly prized, the utmost care being taken
that it may not be lost. The signet-ring in Scripture is
regarded as a symbol of affection and faithfulness, (see Cant,
viii. 6) ; as the image of Divine love, (see Jer. xii, 24) ; and
denotes election and elevation, hence the beautiful simile,
Haggai ii. 23 : " In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I
take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith
the Lord, and will make thee as a signet : for I have
eliosen thee, saith the Lord of Hosts." According to Hero-
dotus, it was indispensably worn by the ancient Babylonians.
(Herod, i. 195.) The device upon the signet ring varied
according to the different natiims. The bestowal of the seal
empowered the person who received it to transact business
for the donor. (See Esther iii 10.) When the King appointed
a viceroy he gave to that dignitary his ring or signet. (See
Esther viii. 2.) According to Herodotus, the staff which was
ornamented with some device, was in the hand of every Baby-
lonian. (Herod, i. 165.) Tamar bore to Judah two sons, Perez,
denoting a breach, and Zerah, denoting splendour ; from the
former descended King David in a direct line.

The critics of the so-called " higher school of criticism*
strenuously maintain that there is a discrepancy in the chrono-
logy of this chapter, which is altogether irreconciliable. Bishop
Colenso reproduced the arguments of the German neological
writers in his book on "the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua,
pp. 60, 61, 62." The alleged discrepancy, it is maintained, con-
sists in the time that elapsed between the selling of Joseph and
the immigration of Jacob into Egypt being too short, amounting
only to twenty-two years, for all the events as stated in the
narrative to have taken place. Joseph, according to ch. xxxvii.
2, was seventeen years old when he was sold by his brothers ;
according to ch. xli. 46, he was thirty years old when he stood
before Pharaoh, that i> thirteen years after he was brought into
Egypt, if we now add the seven years of plenty, and two years
of the famine, at the end of which Jacob descended into Egypt,
(comp. ch. xlv. 6, et seq.,) we have the twenty-two 3'ears as stated
above. Now during the twenty-two years., the following events
transpired : Judah married the daughter of Shuah by whom he
had three sons; two of the.se, Er and Onan also married; Judah
afterwards had two sons, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-
law ; and the former according to ch. xlvi. 12, had also two sons
Hezron and Hamul at the time when the family of Jacob went
down to Egypt. It is maintained that it is impossible for all
these events to have taken place in twenty-two years, and that

people's commentary.

51S

the

therefore " one of the two accounts must be untrue." Here
again the opponents of Scripture have evidently merely taken
a cursory view of the subject, for if we look into it more
closely, we will find that there is no absolute necessity for sup-
posing all the events to have taken place in the twenty-two
years. The alleged discrepancy may be reconciled in two
ways, namely, either by supposing that Hezron and Hamul,
the sons of Perez, were born in Eg3'pt after Jacob's immigra-
tion, or that tho events recorded in chapter xxxviii. took place
some years before the selling of Joseph, either of these two
suppositions will effectually remove the difficulty if they can
be substantiated. Let us see. It will probably be urged
against the first proposition that Hezron and Hamul are dis-
tinctly enumerated among the seventy persons (including
Jacob himself and Joseph and his two sons) who came
down to Egypt with the patriarch, (ch. xlv. 27.) In reply
to this objection it may however be said, that the design
of the sacred writer evidently was to give the number of
Jacob's family living at the time of his death, in order to show
the wonderful increase of the Israelites during their stay in
Egypt. Hence we read in Exod. i. 5 : " And all the souls that
come out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls," and in verse
7 : " And the children of Jacob were fruitful, and increased
abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty,
and the land was filled with them." (Comp. also Deut x. 22.)
The occurrence of the names of Hezron and Hamul in the gene-
alogical account of Jacob's family, does not necessarily imply
that they went with him into Egypt. Indeed it is very
doubtful whether the four sons of Reuben given in the list had
all been born at the time of the descent into Egypt, for we read
in Genesis xlii. 37 : " And Reuben spake unto his father, say-
ing. Slay my two s. »ns, if I bring him (Benjamin) not xuiUy
thee " ; from which it would appear that at that time he had
only two sons, or he would not have limited tne offer to that
number. The same may be said as regards some of the sons of
Benjamin : he is constantly represented as a young man (see
Gen. xliii. 8, 29 ; xliv. 20, 30, 31), that one can hardly conceive
that he should at that time have had already ten sons, when at
he most he could only have been twenty-four years old.
Bishop Colenso laid much stress upon the expression : " All tne
souls that came %vith Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his
loins, were threescore and six " ; but we have already on several
occasions pointed cut that the term " all " is frequently used in
Scripture — as it is often with us — in a limited sense, referring
often only to the greatest part of the things spoken of. That
such is clearly the case here, is quite evident from ch. xlvi. 27,
where it is said that " ^3 (col) all the souls of the house of

f 1

'■''i

514

fkople'h communtauy.

Jacob which caoiQ into Egypt were threoHcoro and ton " ; bub
in this nuDil>er are included Jouuph and hiH two HonH, who-
were there ulreiidy — the two latter, indeed, were born there.
Ah regards the second propoHition, that the evnntH related in our
chapter may have taken place some years before Joseph was
soKI into Egypt, we may observe that the expression : " And it
catnc to pass at that time," (v. 1), may Im taken in a larger
sense, referring to some time after Jacob's return from Meso-
potamia. The acute Rabbinic writer, Aben-E/ra, has pointed
out that thd phrnse " at that time," is sometimes used in an
indefinite sense, refeiTing to occurrences which hud taken place
many years ago, as for example, Deut. x. 7, it is said : " From
thence they journeyed unto Oudgo<lnh," and in verse 8, the sacred
writ(;r goes on to say : " At that time the Loud separated the
trilx; of Levi, to bear the urk of the covenant of the LoUD,"
which, however, according to Num. iii. G, had taken place
thirty-eight years before. Le Clark, nl.so shows that the
expressions " then " — " at that time " — " in those days," must
Im> taken sometimes with considerable latitude of meaning.
From the foregoing remarks the reader will now perceive tliat
the statement in the Mosaic narrative does not involve a mani-
fest control] iction as the opponents of Scripture so pertinaciously
persist in, but that, on the contrary, it admits of ready and
satisfactory solution.

CHAPlUai XXXIX.

1. Aiid JoHeph was i/rought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an
officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an JCgyj)lian, bovght hint of
the ItanJt of the. hhrnaeliteti, which hail brought him down thitfter.

As the history of Joseph has been interrupted by the intro-
duction of some incidents in the family history of Judah ; the
sacrcfl historian, on resuming the narrative again, repeats there-
fore fVivnc of the cliief features which had been ttlrett<ly men-
tioned. Jt is here expressly stated that Potiphar was '»1^'»3 "©ifcft
(is!i vnitmi) an hJijyjdian man, ns there was a great admixture
of Arabians among the population of Heliopolis from very
remote times (Flin. vi. 34).

2. A tut the Lord vmui unth Joseph, and lui wa* a prosperous man ;
amd he was in the /wuse of his master tfui Egyptian.

The Egyptians held those who followed the occupation of
shepherds in great contempt, Joseph would, therefore, have

people's <;i )M m knta u v.

515

intro-
; the

/here-
in en-
Is tD'^K

xture
very

man;

remained a Hiave in the houne of his nia.stcr, if OchI h:ul not
been with him, and made all his undertnkin^rM to piOHixr.
Without J)ivino intervention, there would havi; \n'vu no eliai c*^
of hin Hnding favour in the eyes of the E^y|»tinn grandee. liut
the extraordinary HUceeHs whieh attended all that Jos<'|)li did,
soon attracted the attention of Potiphar, who at oneu r« coj^-
nized in it u sunernatural power, lookinj^ ufMUi his servant
probably as one of those favoured human lM>in;rH who according
to tfie doclrine of fiUidimn, were b«;li<^ved not only t<» \m' sue-
cessful in nil tliey undertook to do, but also to spn-n*! ^iros-
perity around them. Potiphar was not slow in takinj.; advan-
tage of the circumstance, an<l " made Josi-ph overseer over his
house, and all that he had he gave into his liand." (v, 4.) It is
necessary to observe, that it must not l>e infi,-rre«l liom the
words: " And his master saw that the Loud iran with him"
(v. 3), that Potiphar had any knowledge of Jehovah, thiseotild
hardly be expected from an Egyptian idolater : he c»*rtainly
r.'cognized a supernattiral power in Joseph's succ<'ss, but it is
tlie sacred historian who ascribes it to its true source, an<l not
Poiiphar.

6. And it cume to putmfrovi the, time tliat he hudmade him vrerneer
in his houHCf and over all that he had, that the Lori> ItlenHfl the Etjyp-
tian's ht'Uae/or JoHeph'n sake; and the UtHniiiy oj the Ix>KU uuh tijton aJI
l/ml tis had in the houne, and in thejield.

Although Potiphar was an officer of high rank in the army,
he also had landeil property. In ancient times each Egyptian
soldier received twelve *auroras of lan<l free from all charge
and tribute ; officers would of course obtain more according to
their rank. Tlu; i'rca gilt of land to the .»Joldiers was founded
upon the principle that the owners of the soil are most inter-
ested in the safety and welfare of the country. The gift of
land would also induce nuuiy to join the army, as in time of
peace they were allowed to attend to their land. Furth* rmore,
no civil authority had the pow»!r of arresting and imprisoning a
soldier for debt. The Egyptian army lM>ing .si> very nuni«-rous,
will account for Pl^iraoh being able, in such a short inti-rval. to
collect and pursue the Israelites with so large an army.

6. And he left all that he had in JoHojih'n hand ; and hf cared for
notfiiny that was with him, nave the, hre.iul irhirh he alt- ; and Joneph
was beautiful of form, and beautiful of appeamnre.

In the Authori?i«^d as well as the Revised Versions, the words
•iSli^ 'S'V ^^ {v^^o ytJi'da itto), are rendered, " he knew not

•The aurora -jtm a iKjuare of land containing 10,000 <.-iil>iU or 1.5,000 fe«!t.

oie

PEOPLE S COMMEM'AUY.

|i "'

M :i

aught that ivas with him," but it cannot for a moment be sup-
posed that Potiphar did not know what he possessed. The
meaning evidently is, that he did not care or trouble himieff
nbout anything that belonged to him ; he gave Joseph entire
and unrestricted control over all his possessions. The verb yyt
iyada) to know, is, in other places, used in the sense to care for,
to regard, to see after. Thus Job says : "I am innocent ;
^15* Kb ('o eda), I regard not my life," (ch. ix. 21.) So, also,
Prov. ix. 13.

" A fooliah woman i" clamorous ;
. She i« simple rj73 nSI"* b'D,'\ ("""^ yadeah viah), and cares for nothing."

The rendering in the Authorized and Revised Versions, '• she
knoweth nothing," affords but a feeble sense. "Save the bread
which he ate," that is, Potiphar had given Joseph full control
over his domestic affairs ; out as the food of the Egyptians
diffeied from that of the Hebrews, (see ch. xliii. 32.) he was not
allowed to interfere in any way with what came upon his
master's table.

7. And it. came to pass after tfiese things, that his master's wife cast
/ier eyes upon Joseph ; and she said, lie with me.

The immoral proposal of Potiphar's wife, as set forth in our
verse, is quite in accordance with what is said of the conjugal
faithlessness that prevailed among the Egyptian women. It is
related that Pheron, the son of the famous Egyptian monarch
Sesostris, searched for a long time to find a woman who had
remained faithful to her husband ; and when he at last found
one, he burned the faithless women in the town of Erytrebolus as
a terrible example. (Herod, ii. 111.) Joseph's moral principles
were, however, too firmly implanted to listen to the persistent
solicitations of his master's wife, and represented to her that it
would be base ingratitude towards his master, who had placed
such implicit confidence in him as to entrust him with all he
possessed, as well as sinning against God. " Behold," he said,
" my master careth not about what is with me in the house,
and he hath given all that he hath into mv hand. There is
none greater in this house than I; nor hath he withheld any-
thing from me, but thee, because thou art his wife ; how then
can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God ?" (vv. 8,
9.) When the faithless wife saw that her pressing solicitations
were of no avail, and fearing lest her husband would hear of
her shameful conduct, she adroitly threw the blame upon him
for having introduced a young Hebrew servant into the house
to assail her honour, " And she called to the men of her house,
and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought a Hebr

people's commentary.

unto lis to mock us." (v. 14.) And when her husband came
home, and she repeated her concocted story to him, she said,
" The Hebrew servant whom thou hast brought to us, came in
to me to mock me." (v. 17) This portion of th.. sacred narra-
tive has also been enlisted by our modem adverse critics in their
endeavours to impugn the truthfulness of the Mosaic narrative.
They strenuously insist upon, "that from the well-known strict
seclusion of Oriental women in their harems, and the great care
that is taken in watching those places, it was utterly impossi-
ble for Joseph to come into contact with his mistress, as is
stated in the narsative. Now, if it could be satisfactorily
established, that this cruel practice of shutting up women in
their harems, and setting watches over them, already existed
in those ancient times, the veracity, not only of this portion of
Scripture, but of many others, would indeed be severely shaken ;
but we have, on the contrary, unquestionable proofs that such
was not the case. Hvery ordinary reader of the Bible cannot
have failed to perceive, that from the beginning to the end
there is not a single instance of such a custom of secluding
women in their harems, as is now commonly practised among
orientals, but they are, on the contrary, constantly represented as
enjoying perfect freedom, and even taking part in some of the
piiblic and religious ceremonials. Among the Chaldeans also,
it appears from Dan. v. 2, 3, that women were not excluded
from the society of men, but were permitted to sit with thera
in the banqueting hall. But it will perhaps be urged, that
tlie non-existing of such a custom among the Hebrews and
Chaldeans does by no means prove that it did not prevail
among the Egyptians ; it will, therefore, be incumbent on us to
show that, although it is now a deeply rooted custom among
them, it was not so in ancient times. The testimony which
we are able to adduce is of the most unquestionable kind, for
it is the direct testimony of the ancient Egyptians themselves,
who, although more than three thousand years have passed
away, still speak to us through their monuments, and testify
that the women in Egypt enjoyed even greater freedom than
the women in Greece. Taylor says : ''■ In some entertainments
we find ladies and gentlemen of a party in different rooms, but
ill others, we find them in the same apartment, mingling
together with all the social freedom of modern Europeans.
The children were allowed the same liberty as the women,
instead of being shut up in the harem, as is now usual in
tlie East, they were introduced into the company, and were
permitted to sit by the mother, or on their father's knee."
(Taylor's Illustrations of the Bible from the Monuments of
Egypt,^. 171.) w - -•■«> ' \->

518

PEOPLES COMMENTAUY.

1 I

■I!

On a monument from Thebes, and now in the British
Museum, there is depicted a party of guests entertained with
music and dance. Men and women are seen seated tojrether at
the feast ; there is another group of women singing and clap-
ping their hands to the sound of the double pipe ; and besides
these, there are two dancing girls. On another monument
from Thebes, and now also in the British Museum, is depicted
an Egyptian dinner. There we see a maid-servant presenting
a cup of wine to a lady and gentleman seated on chairs ;
another holding a vase of ointment, and a garland before other
guests, and another female attendant oilers wine to anothei-
guest : in her left hand is a napkin, for wiping the mouth after
drinking. The tables are furnished with bread, meat, geese,
and other birds, figs, baskets of grapes, flowers, and other
things. Beneath the tables are seen glass bottles of wine.
Wood-cuts of the monuments above referred to, are given by
Wilkinson in his work entitled, " Manners and Customs of the
Ancient Egyptians," in the second volume, nages 390 and 393.
In speaking of a party, Wilkinson also observes : " At an Egyp-
tian party, the men and women were frequently entertained
separately in a different part of the same room, at the upper
end of which the master and mistress of the house sat close
together on two chairs, or on a large fauteuil; each guest as he
arrived presented himself to receive their congratulatory wel-
come, and the dancers and the musicians hired for the occasion,
did obeisance before them previous to the performance of their
part. Tothelegof the fauteuil a favourite monkey, dog, gazelle,
or some other pet animal was tied, and a young child was per-
mitted to bit on the ground at the sid3 of its mother, or on the
father's knee. In some instances we find men and women
sitting together, both strangers, as well as members of the same
family, a privilege not conceded to females among the Greeks,
except with their relatives. And this not only argues the great
advancement in civilization, especially in an Eastern nation,
but proves, like many other Eastern customs, how far this
people excelled the Greeks in the habits of social life." (Vol ii.,

{)p. 388, 389.) Surely such unquestionable testimony as we
lave above adduced, must satisfy every unbiased and impartial
reader, that the objection raised by modern critics in respect to
the impossibility of Joseph coming into contact with his master's
wife, according to the prevailing customs in the East, is
altogether groundless. Our remarks on the subject will also
sufficiently show how careful persons should be in allowing
themselves to be influenced by any arguments they nmy read
or hear advanced to impugn the truthfulness of any Biblical
statement. The arguments, in all cases are put forward in the
most convincing manner, so that those who aie not able to con-

people's commentart.

61^

|>wing
read

)lical

the

con-

trovert them, stand in great danger of being carried away by
them. Persons hearing or reading such arguments should
therefore always endeavour to find out whetljer there is any
possibility of reconciling the apparent discrepancies. The
objections raised against the portion of the nanative repre-
senting Joseph as being able so easily to fall in with his mas-
ter's wife would, no doubt, by most readers be regarded as a
very plausible objection, tor taking into consideration the pre-
sent custom in the East, such an occurrence would be highly
improbable if not, indeed, impossible. And when we see this
objection brought forward by so many eminent writers, we can
hardly wonder that many should be influenced; and yet, it will
be seen, how completely the truthfulness of the narrative may
be sustained.

19. And when hia master heard the words of his wife, which she
spake to him, saying, 'After this manner did thy servant to me, his
anger was kindled.

20. And Joseph's master took him, and put him into prison, a
place where the king's prisoners were bound ; and he toas there in the
prison.

Joseph no]doubt pleaded his innocence of the charge brought
against him ; yet it was quite natural that Potiphar would
rather believe his wife's statement, than anything that the
servant would say in his defence. We can also readily under-
stand that such an assertion against his steward in whom he
had placed the highest confidence, would arouse the most
intense anger. And yet Potiphar, by no means, inflicted such
a severe punishment as was generally imposed for such a
crime, probably taking Joseph's long and faithful services into
account, he "put him into the prison, a place where the
king's prisoners were bound (or imprisoned.)' The verb "lOj^
(aaar), to bind, is sometimes used in the sense to imprison
without fettering, as was the case with the butler and baker,
who were merely put into custody in the same prison where
Joseph was incarcerated. Still, it appears from Psalms cv. 18,
that Joseph was at least for a time bound, " his feet they hurt
with fetters."

The expression inOSl t)**^ {beth haaaohar) which wo have
rendered " prison," literally denotes round house, and was pro-
bably so called from its circular form. Prisons of this form
are still to be seen in some parts of Europe. The prison
was attached to the house of the captain of the guard, but there
was an officer who had supervision of the prison and prisoners,
called "inon tT^a TOD i^^'*' ^^t^ haasohar) captain or governor
of the prison, {\. 21). The mercy of God which had lightened

4)20

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

Joseph's atUiction when sold to Potiphar by giving him favour
in the eyes of his master, now followed him also into the place
of his confinment. God inclined the heart of the governor
of the prison to treat Joseph with kindness.

22. And the governor of the pi
the prisoners tluit were in the pri
fie was the Josr of it.

committed to Joseph's hand all
and whatsoever they did tJiere,

" Whatsoever they did there, ho was the doer of it," that is,
whatever they did, was by his direction, or immediate super-
vision. We have already stated that, according to Scripture
language, a person that orders a thing to be done, is said to be
the doer of it.

CHAPTER XL.

S>K

' H

1 . And it /lappened after these
Eyypt, and his baker offended ay

7», that the butler of the king of
*heir lord, the king of Egypt.

All the occurrences that transpired since Joseph had dreamed
his dreams seem to render the realization of the dreams appa-
rently impossible. He was now not only far removed from his
father and brothers who, according to the dreams, were to make
obeisance to him, but he was even incarcerated in an Egyptian
prison. Instead of the greatness which the dreams portended,
he was now a slave to an Egyptian gi-andee. And yet, by
Divine direction, every occurrence as it took place was a step
nearer to their accomplishment. During Joseph's imprisonment,
it so happened, that the chief butler and chief baker — for such
was their actual office, according to verse 2 — offended against
their lord the king of Egypt, and they were placed in the same
prison where Joseph was confined.

4. And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he
served them ; and tliey remained some time in the ward.

Although it had already been stated in verse 22 of the pre-
ceding chapter that all the prisoners were given in Joseph's
charge, yet it is in our verse distinctly stated that the two
officers of the royal household were also placed under Joseph's
care, " and he served them," that is, he saw or directed that
they were properly cared for, not that he necessarily himself
attended K> them. It happened that both the butler and the
baker dreamt a dream on the same night, and when Joseph

PKOPLE8 t'OMMKNTAKY.

521

visited them in the morning, ho perceived that they were
greatly dejected, and on asking them " Why in your face so
sad to-<hiy V (v. 7), they replieil that they had dreamt a dream,
and that there was no one who is able to interpret it (v. 7).
Their dejection and anxiety to have the dream interpreted,
shows that they were impressed with the idea that the dream
was of momentous import. " Do not interpretations l>elong to
(Jod ?" (V. 8), as much as to say, it is folly to look for the inter-
pretation of dreams to the wise men and magicians, as is the
practice among you, the foretelling of future occurrences, belongs
to (jlod only. He wished them to understand, also, that by
declaring to them the import of the dreams, he lays no claim
to any personal merit, or to the possession of superior wisdom,
but that it was God who enabled him to do so.

9. And the chiej' butler told hia dream to Joseph, and said to him,
in my dream, behold a vine was fce/we mt ;

10. A7id on the vine were three branches ; and it was as if it bndded ;
and its bloKsoms shot forth ; and its clusters matured ripe grapes ;

11. And PharaoKs cup vtasin my hand ; and I took the grapes, and
pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's
hand.

The dream plainly suggested the restoration of the butler to
his butlership, but whether the three " brancnes" represented
three days, or three months, or three years, no hitman sagacity
could have divined, and that knowledge could only have been
imparted by Him from Whom nothing is hid. Our modern ad-
verse critics, upon the authority of Herodotus, who states that
in Egypt the vine was not cultivated (ii. 77) ; and upon the
statement of Plutarch, that the kings of Egypt previous to
*Psammaticus were altogether forbidden to drink wine (Isis, 6),
have not hesitated to question the accuracy of this portion of
the sacred narrative. But these statements have been proved
to be entirely erroneous, both from ancient Egyptian monu-
ments and ancient writers. According to Champollian^ " repre-
sentations of the culture of the vine, the vintage, the strij)-
ping off the grapes, the carrying away the bunches of giapes,
the two kinds of pi-esses, one moved with the hands, and the
other by mechanical power, the putting up the wine in jars,
the removing it into the cellar, the preparation of boiled
wine, are seen depicted on monuments of the earliest dynasties
found in the grottoes of " Beni Hassan," a village of Upper

* Psammeticus, is the name of three kings of Egypt of the 26th dynasty.
The moat notable of these three kings was the son of Necho I., who, according
to the Egyptian historian Manetho, reigned 54 years. He died about 610 B. C.

, n

522

PEOPLE 8 COMMENTARY.

Egypt on the east bank of the Nile, and celebrated for the
numerous interesting grottoes in its vicinity. Rosellini ob-
serves : " Numerous are the representations in the tombs,
which relate to the cultivation of the vine, and these are
found not merely in the tombs of the time of the 18th and
some later dynasties, but alsr in those which belong to the
time of the most ancient dynasties." (Vol. il. 1, p. 365, et aeq.)
And, at page 373, he remarks : " The described pictures show
more decidedly than any ancient written testimony, that in
Egypt, even in the most ancient times, the vine was cultivated
and wino made." Seven different kinds of wine of Lower and
Upper Egypt are represented in the inscriptions of the times
of the Pharaohs. Wilkinson, too, gives the engraving and des-
cription of an ancient vineyard, and the different kinds of
labour bestowed on it. In a painting of Thebes, "boys are seen
chasing away the birds from the clusters of grapes." (Vol. ii.
p. 143, et seq.) These proofs from the ancient monuments show
that the statement of Herodotus that, " the vine was not culti-
vated in Egypt" is altogether incorrect. Indeed, Herodotus

dried

grapes appear

the things

among

'*ered to Isis,

himself states that

which are placed in the body of the bullock
together with bread, honey, &;c. Diodorus goes so far as to
attribute to tlie Egyptian deity Osiris, the discovery of the
cultivation of the vine. Athenaeus, born at Naucratis in Egypt,
and who flourished at the end of the second century, states in
his work Deipnosophista, (Banquet of the Learned) i. 61, that
the first vine was discovered in the Egyptian town Plinthinus ;
and the philosopher Dion, speaks of the Egyptians as fond of
vfine and of drinking. It is also well known that the vine
flourishes in Egypt in the water like an aquatic plant, and
consequently does not suffer from the inundations of the
Nile. With such direct testimony before them as to the culti-
;'5».tion of the vine in Egypt from the most ancient times, it is
certainly quite unaccountable, that those adverse critics should
have allowed themselves to be influenced by the mere state-
ment of a few Greek writers.

After Joseph had interpreted the butler's dream, and glad-
dened his heart with the hope of a speedy release from
imprisonment, he entreated him, that when he was restored to
his former office, he would also show him a kindness, and bring
him to the notice of Pharaoh, that he might be brought out of
this dungeon. In order to enlist more readily the sympathy
of the butler, he informed him, that he had indeed been stolen
from the land of the Hebrews, and that here also he had given
no cause for being placed in confinement, (v. 14.) But the
butler in his prosperous state altogether forgot his former fel-
low prisoner, although the very act of handing the wine cup

people's commentary.

523

vine

and

the

mlti-

it is

lould

^tate-

to the king, should have reminded him of the interpretation of
his dream. Joseph might justly say that he was indeed stolen,
for he had been abducted by force by his brothers without the
knowledfice of his father.

16. When the chief baker saw tlmt the interpretation wa^ favourable,
he said to Joseph, I also was in my dream, and, hehotd, I had three
baskets of white bread on my head.

17. And in tlie uppermost basket, there was all kind of food for
Pharaoh: the work of the baker ; and tfte birds ate tltem out of the
basket upon my head. .

The favorable interpretation of the butler's dream, encour-
aged the baker to tell his dream also. The adjective ^^t^ ('oy),
good, is evidently here used in the sense of favourable, for tlie
chief baker could not have known whether the interpretation
was good until it had been accomplished. The words i-|n "^bO
(salle chori) have been rendered in two different ways. Some
understand, by the expression, " three baskets of white bread,"
whilst others understand it to denote " three white baskets."
The former rendering is adopted by most of the ancient ver-
sions. Thus the Targum has "three baskets of the best bread;"
the Septuagint " three baskets of tine bread ;" the Vulgate,
" three baskets of tine flour;" and so the Revised Version " three
baskets of white bread." It will be seen as the word bread is
printed in italics, it is not in the original, and hence many of
the Rabbinic commentators have rendered merely " three white
baskets," namely, such as are made of twigs, and are white
when the bark is peeled off. This rendering is adopted in the
Authorized Version, and favoured by the context, for in verse
17 it is said, that in the upper basket was all kind of food for
Pharaoh the work of the baker," wnich seems to imply that
the two lower ones were empty. We may here also state, that
the art of making confectionery apparently obtained great
attention among the ancient Egyptians. The various opera-
tions which the art involves are delineated with great minute-
ness on many monuments. We see there, how the flour was
sifted, how the pastry was worked, either with the hands or
feet, how seeds were sprinkled upon the pastry, how the pastry
was mixed with other ingredients, and sometimes made in the
shape of an ox, a sheep, a tish, a star, or some other favorite
object. (See Wilkinson, vol. ii. p. 384-388 ; also Rosellini ii.
464.) Indeed, the ancient Egyptians made bread and pastry
the chief article of food, and hence they were by the Greeks
called apTo^ayot bread eaters. Burdens were, by the Egyptian
men, borne on the head, whilst the women carried them on
their shoulders. (See Herodotus 2, 25.) Joseph's interpreta-

524

PEOPLE'S COMMENTARY.

tions of the dreams were literally fulfilled. The third day being
Pharaoh's birthday, he restored the butler to his fomier office,
whilst the baker he hanged. We learn from our narrative
that the celebration of the birthday is of great antiquity ; ib
was afterwards kept as a day of joy and feasting among most
eastern nations.

CHAPTER XLI.

-ill!

til

1. And it came to pass at the end of two /nil years that Pharavh
dreamt : and, behold, he toas standing hy the river.

Pharaoh's dreams are the last step towards the fulfilment
of Joseph's greatness. " At the end of two full years," that is,
most probably from the time when Joseph had interpreted the
dreams of the two officers, Pharaoh dreamed, that he was
.standing by the river Nile. The word here used in the original
for " river," is lu^i (y^or) and is an Egyptian word denoting
tlm Jlofving river. As in many parts of Egypt, rain never, or
at least very rarely falls, the fertility of the soil entirely de-
pends upon the annual overflowing of the river, and hence the
J>file is spoken of as " the rival of the clouds." Its waters are
conducted into distant parts of the country, by extensive canals,
spoken of in Isaiah xiv. 18, as " the rivers of Egypt." As the
river Nile is the principal source of the great fertility of the
country, it was made the object of veneration, and a gi-eat
festival was annually celebrated in its honour. Some writers
consider that there is still a trace of the abundant years in
Joseph's time to be found in the marks left by the highest rise
of the river in each year at Senne. (See Osburn, Israel in
Egypt, p. 63.)

2. And, behold, there came up out of the river seven cows, fine in
appearance and fiat in flesh ; and they fed in the Nile-grass.

3. And, behold, seven other co^js came up after them out of the river,
bad in appearance and lean in ,1esh ; and they stood by t/ie other cows
upon the bank of the river.

i. And the cows bad in ajrp ictrance and lean in flesh, devoured the
9wen cows fine in appearance and fat. And Pharaoh awoke.

The term nn^^ (Achu) ^v.2)rendered in the Anthorized Version
" a meadow," is a pure iy Egyptian word denoting the reed or

people's commentary.

525

lit

marsh-grass which so abundantly grows on the banks of the
river Nile. The word occurs only again in Job. viii. 2.

" Can the papyrus grow up without mire ?
Can the reed-grasa grow without water ? "

In this passage the Authorized Version has rendered the word
by " flag." The circumstance that both the fat and lean cows
came out of the Nile, has reference to the fact that the fertility
of the land entirely depends upon this stream, and that as soon
as it fails, famine is sure to be the consequence. It is also im-
portant to observe here, that the Egyptians regarded the cow
as the symbol of the earth and of fertility. Clemens Alexan-
drinus, observes : " The cow is the symbol of the earth and
its cultivation, and of food." (Strom. B. V. p. 671.) Plutarch
also remarks: " They (the Egyptians) consider the cow as the
image (i. e., the symbol) of Isis, and the eprth." Isis is the
goddess of the earth and of fertility. Phai'aoh, oherefore,
although he could not divine the whole import of the dream,
yet could not fail to perceive that it must have reference to
the produce of the field upon which the prosperity of the coun-
try depends. This would naturally increase his anxiety to
learn the full meaning of the dream, " and in the morning his
spirit was troubled," (v. 8). Hengstenberg has very pertinently
remarked : " It is scarcely conceivable that a foreign inventor
should have confined himself so closely to the peculiar Egyp-
tian sj^mbols."

5. And he slept and dreamt a second time ; and, behold, seven ears
of corn came up on one stalk, rank and good.

6. And, behold, seven ears thin and blasted by the east wind sprung
up after them.

7. And the seven thin ears devoured the seven rank and /uU ears.
And PJiaraoh awoke, ami, behold, it was a dream.

That Pharaoh dreamed a second dream in the same nijjht of
the same import as the first dream, Joseph afterwards inter-
preted to signif}' tliat the thing is established by God, and
God will speedily bring it to pass (v. 32). In this dream
instead of the sj'mbols of fertility, the produce of the earth
itself is employed. The full ears and the thin and blasted ears
very appropriately rejiresent plenty and dearth. By the " seven
ears of corn on one stalk," we cannot fail to perceive a reference
to the famous Egyptian wheat, Triticum convpositum or
many-eared wheat, so extensively cultivated in the Valley of
the Nile, and furnishing one of the principal means of subsist-
ence to the rich and poor. The " seven thin ears," are said to
have been " blasted by the east wind " ; a wind which blows
78

TSfi

SS6

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

from the Desert of Shur and the Desert of Paran, it is so hot,
that it destroys vegetation in a very short time. (Com p. Ezek.
xix. 12 ; Hos. xiii. 15). The dreams left a deep impression on
the mind of Pharaoh that thej'^ foreboded some important
events, and " his spirit was troubled ; and he sent and called
for all the soothsayers of Egypt, and all her wise-men " (v. 8),
but they were not able to interpret them. The fact that
Pharaoh at oncn summoned all the magicians and wise- men of
Egypt, forcibly'' shews his great anxiety to find out the meaning
of the drp"m. The Hebrew term for Magicians Qi)at3"in
(chartiiinmim) has been derived in different ways. Some
derive it from i?in {chur) to explain and n^t3 (turn) (equiv-
alent to V2'D {taman) to conceal, hence persons who pro-
fess to be able to explain or make known mysterious things.
This affords a very appropriate derivation. Others regard it
as merely another fonn of the Egyptian word Erthoni, a jyer-
former of miraculous deeds. More commonly, however,
the word is regarded as a contractior of t31D (^^"^^'^0 ^^
engrave,to lurite, and Qin (charam) to he sacred, so that the word
would denote sacred scribes, corresponding to the Greek Upojpafi
fiareh. Whatever may be the proper derivation of the word,
certain it is, that the persons denoted by it were of the priestly
cast, and professed to be able to foretell events, interpret
dreams, and to be learned in all the arts and sciences of the
Egyptians. They were held in great esteem, and much reliance
placed upon their declarations. Thus, for example, in cases
of severe sickness, a sacred scribe was called in with the doctor,
who from a book of astrological signs decided whether the
})atient would recover or not.

The butler seeing that none of the wise men were able to
interpret the dreams, and that the king was greatly troul)led,
and impatient to find out their meaning, he seized the oppor-
tunity to ingratiate himself still more in his royal master's
favour by informing him, how a Hebrew servant of the cajitain
of the guard had iuterpreteil his and the chief baker's dreams,
ard that it came to pass just as he had explained them. We
cannot credit the butler with having been actuated by a desire
to render Joseph a good service in return for having inter-
preted his dream, for he had, during the past two years, ample
opportunity to bring him to the notice of the king Pharaoh
at once sent for Joseph. " And they hastened to bring him out
of the dungeon " (v. 14). Before presenting himself before the
king, " he shaved himself, and changed his garments " (v. 14).
Joseph in shaving himself before coming in the presence of the
king, followed the custom of the country. Herodotus mentions
as one of the distinguishing peculiarities of the Egyptians, that

people's commentary.

527

the

able to

ouliled,

oppor-

aster's

aptain

earns,

esire

inter-
ample

aiaoh
m out

e the
.'. 14).
of the
iitions

, that

they allowed their beards to grow only in mourning, but that
ordinarily they always shaved. Wilkinson says : " So particu-
lar were they on this point, that to have neglected it was a
subject of reproach and ridicule ; and whenever they intended
to convey the idea of a man of low condition, or a slovenly
person, the artist represented him v^rith a beard." (Vol. III. p.
357). The Hebrews, on the contrary, cultivated the beard with
great care, and often swore by it, and looked upon its mutila-
tion as an extreme ignominy. (Conip. 2 Sam. x. 4, 5.) In mourn-
ing, however, they shaved their beards and hair. (Comp. Is.xv. 2 ;
Jer. xli. 5). When Pharaoh told Joseph he had heard it said of
him that he was able to interpret dreams, Joseph, as on a former
occasion, disclaimed all ability to be able to do so of himself:
" Mot I," he said, " God will answer for the peace of Pharaoh " ;
as much as to say, I trust God will give Pharaoh an answer of
peace. The king in relating his dreams to Joseph, stated them
more fully than they were given in the beginning of the chap-
ter ; he mentions, in addition, that the lean cows were such as
he had never seen in all the land of Egypt for badness, and
that when they had consumed the fat cows, their appeai"ance
remained as bad as at the lieginniiig (vv. 19-21). It wa.s
important that Pharaoh should be very precise in relating his
dreams ; the addition indicated, that the seven yeai-s of famine
were to be so great that " all the plenty will be forgotten in
the land of Egypt ; and the famine will consume the land " (v.
30). After the king had finished relating his dreams, he added,
" and I told this to the magicians ; but there was none who
coiild declare it to me " (v. 24). When, many centuries after
this, the wise men and magicians of Babylon were unable to
tell and interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream, he connnanded them
to be put to death, and their houses to be made a dung-hill.
Pharaoh acted differently ; he merely declared the incompetency
of the wise men an'l magicians of Egypt. Joseph .seized every
opportunity to endeavour to lead the king to the knowledge of
God. Before connnencing to interpret the dream, he impressed
upon Pharaoh that " God hath shown to Pharaoh what he is
about to do " (v. 25). Aftor he had partly interpreted the
dream, he again tells the king: "This is the thing which I
have spoken to Pharaoh : What God is about to do he hath .shown
to Pharaoh " (v. 28) ; theieby impressing upon the king, that
what he hath spoken was revealed to him by God. Joseph seeing
the necessity of proper steps being taken during the seven years
of plenty, in order to save the people from starving during the
seven years of terrible famine, ventured of his own accord to
advise the king what would, under the circumstances, l»e best
to do to avert as much as possible the suffei'ing from want of
food. He most likely feared also that the king might be iutlu-

528

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

1-1

! i

enced by his counsellors to make light of the matter. He
therefore counselled Pharaoh to look out an intelligent and
wise man, and set him over the land of Egypt, and also to
appoint officere over the land in the seven years of plenty,
whose duty should be to take up the tenth part in the land,
and to gather all the food of those good years, and lay it up in
the cities. The object of this was to prevent the people from
selling the produce into foreign countries. That Joseph gave
the counsel without any selfish motives cannot, for a moment,
be doubted. As a perfect stranger in the country, and a pur-
chased servant, having that very day been brought out of the
prison where he had been confined for an alleged misconduct,
the thought of aspiring to such a high offict and trust as he
advised the king to establish, could never have entered his
mind. But Pharaoh was satisfied that Joseph had given him
the right interpretation of his dreams, and as all the wise men
and magicians of Egypt had teen unable to explain them, he
felt now convinced that the Hebrew youth could not have dis-
covered the meaning of the dreams by his own sagacity. The
advice, too, which he gave him, was so judicious as to prove
him to be endowed with extraordinary wisdom. We can there-
fore readily understand that, under the circumstances, the king
would be eager to obtain the services of Joseph, seeing he was
*'a man in whom the spirit of God is" (v. 38). As Pharaoh
was an idolater, it is a question whether diplbi^ (ElohiTn)
would not be more suitably rendered by gods in the foregoing
passage. This rendering is favoured by several parallel pas-
sages in Daniel. Thus, in chapter v. 11, the queen says to
B«lshazz.ar : " There is a man in thy kingdom in whom is
VnbK nn (i'uach Elakin), " the spirit of the gods." And so
again, in vei"se 14, Belshazzar says to Daniel : " I have even
heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee." "l^nbi^
(Eltthin) is only the Chaldeeform of the Hebrew term QTlbi^
{Elohirn). If, however, Pharaoh used the term QTibi^ {Elohim)
in reference to the true God, then he must have accepted
Joseph's statements, that it was God who had enabled him to
intei-pret the dreams, and that it was God who hath shown to
Pharaoh what He was about to do.

41. And PJmraoh said to Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the
land of Egypt.

42. And Pharaoh took off his ring frotn his hand, and put it upon
Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a
gold chain round his neck.

The office to which Joseph was appointed was next to the
king in power and dignity. He became, in fact, the viceroy of

fA -

people's commentary.

529

Egypt, and all the people were implicitly to obey him. As he
now represented the king in all public transactions, he received
the royal signet, which gave validity to the documents to which
it was affixed. In the east no documents are signed, but the
names and titles are engraven on signet-rings ; hence, in giving
the seal to a person, is, in fact, investing him with one's own
power. Thus Ahasuerus, in like manner, " took his ring from
his hand, and gave it to fiaraan" (Esth. iii. 10). When he after-
wards installed Mordecai in the office of prime minister in the
place of Haraan, he "took off the ring, which he hath taken
from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai " (ch. viii. 2.) ; and in
verse 8, it is distinctly stated, that " the writing which is writ-
ten in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may
no man reverse." In the middle ages the investiture by a ring
to a high office of state was still quite common. We can, there-
fore, readily understand that the loss of a seal was quite a
calamity. Fortunately, the seals had, besides the name, also
the date engraved upon them, so that a person who lost his
seal could have another engraved with the new date, and
acquaint his correspondents with the fact. As .seals were
easily counterfeited, the punishment for such a crime was very
severe ; in Egypt it was punished with the loss of both hands.
The seal-engraver was also obliged to keep a register for every
seal he made, and if he had been discovered to have duplicated
exactly a seal, he would have forfeited his life. The " vestures
of line linen," Hebrew ^XO ■'irHH {h'lgde shesh) — rendered in the
the Septuagint cttoXtjv ^vcraivq robe or stole of bysse — were of
the finest fabric, and exquisite white, and worn onl}' as a mark of
rank by the priests and kings. These garments were by the
Egyptians considered as pure and holy. (See Herod, ii. 37 ; Plin.
xix. 2). The wearing of a gold chain round the neck was also a
mark of rank and eminence, the ordinary people seldom wore
such an ornament. The chains were of ditferent form, accord-
ing to rank. On the tombs of Beni Hassan are pictorial repre-
sentations of slaves, each bearing in hi.s hands an article of
ornament or dress belonging to his master. The first slave
bears the gold chain or necklace.

43. And he made him ride in the secorul chariot ichich he had ; and
they called out before him, Bow down ; and he placed him over all the
land of Egypt.

The grand- vizier, when attending the king on public occa-
sions, rode in a second carriage after the king. Pharaoh in
publicly proclaiming Joseph as grand-vizier of Egypt, made
him ride in the carriage used by that high dignitary, and heralds
going before the chariot proclaimed his dignity by ordering

ts** ''^*fjggifflig'g''''^''^-'f 'i*?'

fl I

(. i,

11 It

530

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

the people to " bow down." The procession was no doubt
attended with all oriental pomp. The term* tl^lSS^ (avrech)
" hpiv down" is, no doubt, an Egytian word denoting how the
head, or lei every one how down !

■i

44. And Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh ; htit toithout thee
no man shall lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt.

Pharaoh seems desirous to impress upon Joseph, that although
he was king, and as such the absolute ruler of the land, yet he
invested him with full and complete power to rule his people.
" Without thee no man shall lift up his hand or foot," a pro-
verbial expression, meaning that he should have absolute control
of everything.

45. And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphenath Paneach ; and
he gave him to tvife Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah, p7'iest of On.

Pharaoh still more shewed his gratitude for the service which
Joseph had rendered him, by bestowing upon him a new name
expressive of the service he rendered the king and the country.
He called his name n55>5 t\'^'B'^( Zaphenath 'paneach), which all
Jewish writers regard as of Hebrew origin, deriving fl^BS
(jijaphenath) horn "ig^ (zaphan), to hide, and nSIPS (paneach)^
from "i^S (padn) to reveal, hence revealer of secrets. This

meaning of the name has been adopted also by Theodoret,
Chrysostom, and many modern commentators. Most modern
critics following Jerome, regard the name as of Egyptian
origin, denoting saviour or deliverer of the world. Or, as some
render it, the salvation of the world or empire. (See Jablonski,
Op. I. 207-216 ; Rosellini, Moimm. I. 183.) Gesenius gives the
meaning the preserver of the world. (Thes. pp. 1181, 1182), all
these different meanings are appropriate. Pharaoh bestowed
yet another honour upon Joseph, by giving him the daughter
of the priest of On to wife. By this alliance he became related
to one of the noblest and most influential families of the

* Most of the ancient translators havei'egardedj^'^jQJj^ (avrech) as a Hebrew

word, in th.at case it would be an irregular form for 7I"liin (havrech) ; similar

irregular forms sometimes occur. Thus Jer. xxv. 3, we have Q'^jlDi^ (ascliem)

for Q'^SlQjn (hashchem). Or it may be regarded as a Chaldee form. Some of

the ancient translators have taken the word as if compounded of jQJj^ (av)
father and ^^ (rech) mild, i. e. mild father or gentle rnkr. But this derivation is
very far fetched, and as we have above stated, the word is without doubt an
Egyptian word. .

PEOlrLE S COMMENTARY.

531

thee

country. The pov/er of the chief priest was very parent : his
office was hereditary in his family, and his statue, like that of
the king, was set up in the temple. " On" was situated on the
east side of the Nile in the land of Goshen, about five miles
from modern Cairo. It is, in Ezek. xxx. 17, called " Aven ;" the
Greeks gave it the name Heliopolis, i. e., city of the sun, and the
Hebrews called it Beth Shemesh, i. e., house of the sun. There
is only a colunni of granite seventy feet high covered with
hyroglyphics remaining of its former grandeur. Many will
feel inclined to blame Joseph for marrying an idolatrous wife,
but they should consider that in yielding to the wishes of
Pharaoh, he may have hoped to bring his wife to the knowledge
of the true God. He had the example of his own mother
before him, who was also the daughter of an idolater, but who
was brought to the knowledge of God by his father. We have
an instance of a similar marriage in the case of Moses marry-
ing the daughter of Jethro, priest of Midian.

46." And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh
King oj Egypt ; and Joseph ivent out from the presence of Pharaoh,
and went throughout the land of Egypt.

As Joseph was seventeen years old when sold by his brotliors,
it follows that he was thirteen years a slave, three of which at
least he passed in the prison. He had now been raised to the
highest office which lay in the power of the king to confer ;
but the office in this case involved uncommon responsibilities.

the

{av)

mis

47. And in the seven years of j)lenty the earth brought forth hand-
fuls, (i. e. in great abundance).

The immense increase of Egyptian corn, obtained some time
ao-o a complete confirmation in a curious manner. In the
year 1849, five grains of wheat which had been found in an
Egytian tomb were sown in France, and it is stated to have
given a yield of 1200 for 1. Some few years later compara-
tive experiments were made in different localities in France,
and the result was, that the Egyptian corn roughly sown in
one-half of the field gave a yield of sixty to one, while the
ordinary French corn in the other half of the field produced
only fifteen for one. It is further said, when the Egyptian
grain was sown one by one in a line, it produced upwards of
five hundred to one. Many travellers speak of the great yield
of the Egyptian wheat even at the present time. Mr. Jowett,
in his " Christian Researches," observes : " We counted the
number of stalks which sprouted from single grains of seed,
carefulfy pulling to pieces each root, in order to see that it was

■■xBf unw w m in

532

people's commentary.

i'i
'.I,-.

one plant The first had seven stalks ; the next throe ; then
eighteen ; then fourteen. Each stalk would bear an ear."

49. Attd Joseph stored up grain as the sand of tlte sea, very much,
until he ceased numbering ; for it was without number.

" Until he ceased numbering " ; that is*, keeping any further
account of the immense quantity of grain that was brought
into the storehouses. The Egyptians were very fond of keep-
ing records of almost everything. On many monuments there
is to be seen a person with writing materials engaged in writ-
ing down something. In the tomb of Amenembe, nt Beni
Hassan, there is a pictorial representation of a great storehouse,
with a large heap of grain lying before tlie door. A man fills
a measure in order to pour it into sacks to be carried to the
storehouse. The carrier lays down the sack before an officer,
and near him is the measure with which it is to be measured,
and a registrar takes an account of it. In a tomb at Eiethya
there is also a man represented who is apparently engaged in
taking an account of what another man measures. Otlicr men
carry it in sacks to the storehouse. These remarks will throw
light upon the above pas,sage.

Before the years of famine came, Joseph had two sons born
to him. His first-born he called rTttJ^^ {Menashsheh) Menasseh,
i. e. causincf to forget : " For, said he, God hath made mo forget
all my toil, and all my father's house " (v. 51). Jose])li recog-
nized the hand of God in all that had happened to him, and
now on the birth of his first son, he gave him a name expres-
sive of his gratitude to the Almighty for the happy change in
his condition, which in a measure made him to forget all the
misery he had experienced through so many year.s. ]3uring
the long period of servitude in a strange land, the ha})py days
he had passed in his father's house would naturallj' con.stantly
recur to his mind, and the thought of the kindnesses which a
loving father had showered upon him, would ever be in his
memory, and tend to make him feel his condition more severely;
but now, when his adversity was changed to prosperity, iind he
himself was in the enjoyment of his own home, the memory of
his father's house did no longer occupy his mind to the extent
as it had done before. In this sense must Joseph's statement,
" God hath made me forget all my father's house," be taken,
and not that he had entirely forgotten his loved home. The
second son he called d''"lS&5 (Ephrayim) Ephraim, i. e., double
frmf/idness. Although Joseph, as far as we possess any infor-
mation, had only these two sons, yet through them he obtained
afterwards a numerous progeny, especially through Ephraim.

people's commentary.

633

then

nnj;

im.

Honce, Jacob, in bestowing his l)lossing upon Joseph, prophetl •
cally declared :

" Joseph ia a fruitful bough,
A fruitful bough by tho well ;
His branch»!8 Hpretid over the wall."— (Ch. xlix. 22.)

When the seven years of plenty were ended, tho seven years
of famine immediately followed. The famine, according to our
narrative, was not confined to Egypt, but extended also to other
countries. But through the wise provision which Joseph had
made, there was bread in all the land of Egypt, But when the
famine began to make itself felt, and " all tlie land of Egypt
was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread ;" but the
king having placed the entire governmont of tho country in
the hands of Joseph, and being convinced that in this critical
state of the land its administration demanded the soundest
judgment, he commanded the people to go to Joseph, and act
according to his advice.

56. A lid the Jcimirie loas over a/l the face of the earth, atui Joseph
opened all the storeliouscs in ivhich there was corn, and sold it to the
Egyptians : and the Jainine became great in the land of Egypt.

It is doubtful whoLhor by tho statement "over all tho face
of the earth," are to be understood tho neiiihbourinj' countries
as Nubia, Arabia, Canaan, and Syria, certainly not tho whole
world, or whether the words yij^n iDS'bs bV ('*^ ^"'^^ peiie

hadrets) are to be rendered " over ail tho face of the land,"
i. e., Egypt. The word V"|5^ (eretfi) denotes both the earth, and
also a land, a countnj, and .sometimes collectively, countries,
as in verse 57, "And all V"15<n {" fMarets") tho countries came

into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn." Egypt has frequently
boon visited with fearful famines. The famines may have been
caused by a deficiency in the increase in the waters of tho Nile,
or by a too great inundation of it, which is e(|ually destructive.
Macrizi has written a whole volume on tho famines with which
Egypt was visited fron» time to time ; and history furnishes
some fearful accounts of suffering caused by some of those
famines. The Arabian writer, AbdoUatif Jbn Jusuf, in his com-
prehensive work on Egypt, relates that in the year 1190,
the river Nile rose to almost an unprecedented height,
and the consequence was a fearful famine. The sufleringa
of the people were indescribably great, so much so indeed,
that parents consumed their children, and human flesh be-
came a common article of food, which they prepared in
various ways. Man-catching became an ordinary business.
The greater part of the population were swept away. The
79

\}:

i,'.

* ,.

I!-".

584

PKOPLEH COMMKNTAUY.

following year, tho iniimlution did not reach its prop-^r hoight,
anil only tho low lands woro ovorrtowod, and niiK'li of those
parts which were innndatod could not he sown for want of
lahourers and seed, and much was destroyed hy worms which
dovoiM'ed the seed corn, also of tho se(;d which escaped this
destruction, a great part protluced only meagre shoots which
periKhed." An equally severe famine is mentioned by Macrizi
as having taken ])laco about a century before, in which the
Calif himself nearly perished with hungur. (Hengstenberg ; De
Sacy.) Wo have given tho above accounts in ordiu- to show
more forcibly tho wisdom and importance of the steps which
Joseph took to alleviate the sufferings of tlie Egyptians as much
as possible during the fearful years of famine Sduio of the
adverse critics have not hesitated to chargo " tho autlior " with
ignorance of tho natural condition of Kgypt, in stating that
the famine extended also to tho neighbouring countries which
owe their product! vonoss to rain-falls, whilst tho productiveness
of Egypt entirely depends upon tho overflowing of the Nile.
(See ^on Bohlen Oomt. on Gens, p. 421.) But hert; again our
adverse critics have evidently made tho charge, without giving
the subject a proper and impartial examination. It is an estab-
lisiied fact that tho inundations of the Nile are occasioned by
tho tropical rains which fall upon the Abysinian mountains.
It is also well known these rains have the same oritiin with
tho.se of Palestine. " It is now decided," says Lc Pure, " that
the Nile owes it> increase to tho violent rains which proceed
from tho clouds that are formed upon tho Mediterranean Sea,
and carried so far by the winds, which annually, at nearly tho
.same time blow from the north." There are not wanting talso
other examples of years of dearth which wore common in
Egypt with the adjoining countries. Thus Macrizi describes " a
famine which took place in Egypt, on account of the deficiency
in the increase of the Nile, in the year of the Hejira, 444, which

at the .same time extended ovo
Le Pere Descr. p. 573 ;
stenberg, Egypt ■<
adverse critics tr
that with the A

,1 t'

;hty

•^^

si^
ling

nd even Bagdad." (See
' Ik undo i. p. <S*}5 ; Hong-
Moses, pp. 35, 3G.) Our
of the fundamental truth,
impossible, and that the

accomplishment oi ITis pii i poses does not depend upon natural
means.

«^

PEOPLE S COMMENTAnY.

:v r

CHAPTER XLII.

1. And Jamh mir thtil there wa» corn in K>ji/pt ; nnd Jacob said to
hi$ tnn8, Why do ye look one upon unot/ier t

I)e

Our

luth,

the

mral

learned by having
verl) rifiil {y<idli) to

" And Jac(>b saw," that is, he heard or
obtained information to that ett'ect. Tho
see, is ofton used in the sense to learn, to underHtan<l. Thus
Eccl. i. 16, "my heart ns^l (t'^'di) hiith seen nuicli wisdom,"
i. e., hatli learned nnich wisdoni. " Why do ye look upon one
another," i. e., why do ye Unis stand gazing upon one atutther
in such an undecided and helpless manner ? Some critics have
chargefl Joseph with unfilial conduci in not informing his aged
father of his advancement in Egypt ; and on taking a mere
cursory view of his action, it certaiidy appears strange that he
should have neglected to do so, when he nnist have )>een well
aware that his father, who loved him so dearly, must have
experienced great grief at the loss of him. But when we come
to examine the subject more closely, we soon discover that it
was not from want of filial affection that he withheld from his
father the information, but that, on the contrary, there were
cogent reasons for his acting as he did. Let us see. .Joseph
had dreamed two dreams, both clearly foreboding his future
greatness. Everything that snbsequently happened to him,
distinctly tended to bring about the realization of his dreams.
He felt, therefore, that all these occurrences were brought
about by the interference of Divine Providence, and that he was
merely the instrument for the accomplishment of God's pur-
pose. By Divine guidance of affairs, he had now become viceroy
of Egypt, and there was nothing more wanting for the complete
accomplishment of the dreams than the homage which his
family was to pay him, and this he felt satisfied would also be
brought about in God's own way, and at the proper time. Then
again, if Joseph had informed his father of his abode in Egypt,
and of the great dignity conferred upon him, he would liuve
been compelled to disclose the wicked conduct of his brothers
towards him. To hear such a terrible accusation, would have
intensely aggravated the grief and pain which his brothers
inflicted upon their aged father by their former evil conduct,
/.s an affectionate son he wished to spare his father this addi-
tional anguish, and rather trust to God to bring about what
still was wanting to complete the realization of the dreams.
We contend, therefore, that under the circumstances, Joseph's
conduct was rather praiseworthy than blaraable. At the
request of Jacob ten of his sons went down to Egypt,
Benjamin alone remaining with his father, he being tne

■636

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

youngest and tho full brother of Joseph, and the only remain-
m<j; sou of his beloved wife Rachel, he entertained an especial
fondness for him, and fearing lest any evil might befal him on
the way, ho would not allow him to accompany his brothera.
Tho sons of Jacob came to Egypt among other strangers who
came to buy corn. ,

6. Ami Joseph was the (fovernor over the land, and it was he that
told to all the j>eople of the land ; and Joaeph'n brothers came, aiid pros-
trated theuiselvcs before him with their faces to the (jromid.

The Hebrew word for " ruler,' in our verse is, "(isibtlj (f^hallit)
one ivho haii (l<»nii)ion, from which is derived the Chaldee
word ntiblD {>'^fioltan) ; and the Arabic and Turkish word
Sultan, the title of the supi-emo ruler of the Ottoman
empire. " And it was he that sold to all the people of the
laud;" that is, the se' ling was made under his direct super-
vision. "And Joseph's brothers came and prostrated them-
selves before him, with their faces to the ground ;" here
then wo biwe the literal t'uHilment of Joseph's dreams as far
as his brothers are concerned ; they reverentially bow down
Vietbre the ruler of the land, and tluis unwittingly fulfil the
dreams at v.'hieh they had scoffed, and on account of which
they had conceivc^l such an intense hatred against their
brother. Joseph knew his brothers as soon as he saw them,
but thoy did not recognize him ; they had now not seen him
for twenty years, during wliich time his countenance would
have undergone some change, and besides this, he had become
quite Egyptianized, having shaved his beard, for as we have
ah'eady stated, the Egyptians allow only their beard to grow
in mourning. Ilis dress appertaining to his high office would
also contribute to alter his appearance.

9. And Joseph remembered the dreams which he had dreamt of them,
and said unto them, ye are spies ; to see the nakedness of the Ihnd ye
are come.

" And Joseph remembered the dreams," seeing his brothers
pi'ostrated before him, he perceived in the act a literal fulfil-
ment of his dreams. " Ye are spies ; to see the nakedness of
the land ;" that is, to spy out the unprotected parts of the
coiuitry. This accusation was (piite a natural one, as Egypt
for a very long time hatl been exposed to hostile attacks from
the east and north-east, his brothers would therefore hardly be
surprised at the accusation. The answer which the brotliers
gave to the charge was such as would most likelj"^ prove satis-
factory, " We are," they said, " all one man's sons," (v. 11), and
thereforo not likely to enter upon such a hazardous undertak-

people's commentary.

537

thers
ulfil-
HS of
'. the

rom

lers

itis-

Jand

Itak-

ing, which, if discovered, would deprive the father of all his
children. It will ])robably be said, that Jose])h ought to have
acted more magnanimouMly towards his brothers than he did,
but Joseph evidently wished to find out whether their char-
acter had changed for the better, and perhaps more particularly,
whether they entertained any jealousy also towards their
father's favourite son Benjamin. He persisted, therefore, in
charging them with being spies. " Nay, but to see the naked-
ness of the land ye are come" (v. 12.) In order to convince the
ruler of the truth of what they had stated before, they now
give a more precise description of their family.

13. And they said Thy servants aro twelre brethren, the sons of one
man in the land of Canaan ; and, behold, the youngest is this day ivith
his father, and one is no more.

The information that his father was still alive, and that his
brother Benjamiii is now with him, which accounted for his not
being present with them, must have been exceeding joyful
tidings to Joseph, The statement afforded him an opportunity
to discover whether they entertained any jealousy towards
their youngest brother, their father's cherished favourite. He
persisted therefore, in his accusations that they were spies.

14. And Joseph said to them, That is it that I sjiake to you, saying,
Ye are 8}>ies.

As much as to say, your own statement proves that what I
have said to you is true. Your father knows the <langer of
your entiirprise, and therefore would not allow the youngest son
to accomj)any you.

1/). Hereby shall ye be proved : by the life of Pharaoh, ye shall not
go forth hence, except your younger brother come hither.

" By the life of Pharaoh," among the eastern nations, it was,
and still is, the common custom to swear \)y iho hrjul, the heart,
or the life of the k'lmj. The eastern people regai'ded their mon-
arch not only as being all powerful, but as possessing also divine
authority. Among the Hebrews the usual oaths were, " As the
Loud liveth," or " bj^ the help of the Loud," or "as thy soul
liveth." Only in addressing the king himself they swore by
the king. (Comp. 1 Sam. xvii. oo ; 2 Sam. ii. 11.) Joseph pro-
posed now to them that they should send one of themselves
home and bring their brotht r, that their statement might be
verified. To this proposal they apparently would not agree,
and we can readily understand that none of them would be
willing to go home alone to their father, and induce him to send

,..'.-,?"

588

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

"s ^

i *

Benjamin, whilst the rest were kept in prison in Egypt. He
therot'oro " put tliem all together into ward three days." In
adopting this apparently harsh treatment, he may have had tw^o
objects in view ; in the first place to give them an opportunity
to consult together what would be best to do under the circum-
stances, for it will be seen, " hi put them all together " ; and,
.secondly, he may have hopet' tliis trouble would awaken in
them a sense of their wicked conduct towards him. And such
was actually the case, for according to verse 21, " they said one
to another, We art 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."

18. Ami Joseph said unto them on the third day, This do and live/
for / fi'nr Cod.

" This do and live," it is, by doing as I say, you may escfipe
the punishment inflicted upon spies. "For I fear God";
Joseph evidently addetl this, to assure them that it was his
earnest desire to deal justly with them, and that they need not
fear any unjust or cruel treatment at his hands. He now
greatly moditied his demand by requiring only one of them to
remain as a hostage. To this proposal the brothers seemed to
have readily agreed, and ho took bimeon.anu bound him before
their eyes. But it may be asked why just Simeon ? The
answer is no doul)t to be found in the prominent part that
Simeon took in the selling of Joseph. He had on a former
occasion, in the affair at Shechem, proved that he was capable
of the most atrocious wickedness, and from his being now
singleil out we may reasonably infer that he took a prominent
part in the selling of Joseph. When Joseph heard his brothei's
reproaching one another for the barbarous conduct towards
him, ho was greatly moved by their expression of contrition,
and to prevent premature discovery, he turned away from them
and wept. After having regained control over his feelings, he
retunu'il to his brothers and conversed with them, and having
taken Simeon from them, and bound him before their eyes, to
be retained as a hostage, he permitted the others to depart.
He had, however, given orders that their vessels should be tilled
with corn, and that every mans money should be restored into
his sa "k, and also that they be provided with provision for the
journey. The brothers now started on their way home, their
asses laden with corn. When they arrived at the iirst " halt-
ing-place," and on one of them 0])ening his sack to give his ass
provender, he found his money ' in the mouth of his sack,"
and when he mentioned the circumstance to his brothers,
■" their hearts failed them," or as the original more forcibly

people's commentary.

539

es, to

lepart.

[ tilled

(1 into

)!' the

their

I halt-

li.s ass

tack,"

bhers,

I'cibly

expresses it Q^b i^S'^T {vaiyeUeUhham) " their heart went out."
They seeiu to have liad two kinds of sacks, one for the corn call-
ed nbS {keli, V. 25) ; and the other for provender called nn?l?a!S^
(amtacluith, v. 27). It was in the latter that the money was
found, it was evidently placed on })ur|)ose in the sacks contain-
ing the provendei-, so that it may be found before the>' reached
home, as they had no occasion to open the sacks containing the
corn. When they came home they told their father all that
happened to them in Egypt, how the lord of tlie country had
taken them for spies, and insisted upon their bringing their
youngest brother as a proof of fheir being true men. That if
they brought their l)rother, Simeon would be delivered to them,
and they miglit then also freely traiic in the land (v. S-t.)

'^n. Ami it came to pass as t/iei/ emptied tliclr sacks, and behold, every
vuuis liund/e of moiifi/ was in his sack: and iclten both the ij and
their father saio their bundles of money, they icere afraid.

The brothers knew they had paid for the corn, they would
therefore naturally conclude that tlieir money had been placed
in their sacks for the purpose of bringing some other accusation
against them. Under these circumstances Jacob had little hope
of having Simeon ajrain restored to him, and in the anuuish of
his heart exclaimed, 'Me have \q bereaved of my children :
Joseph is not, and Simeon />>• not, and ye will take Benjamin
away ; all this cometh upon me" (30).

37. And Reuben said to his fiitlmr, snyiny, I'hox mayest slay my
tico so)is, if J do not briny him to thee: deliver him into my hand, and
J ttill briny him to thee ayain.

Reuben who had done his utmost to frustrate the wicke<l
design of his brothers against Joseph, and to restore him to
his father, now exerts himself also to the utmost to save
Simeon. He goes eveii so far as to offer his two sons as guar-
antees for the safe return of Benjamin. The rash statement,
"Thou maja^st slay nw two sons," must of course be regarded
as having been uttered under the influence of an excited mind,
and is not to be understood in the literal sense, but rather as
expressing Ids great anxiety to save the life of Simeon, and the
lives of his whole family, fur they certainly could not appear in
the presence of the luler of the land again without bringing
Benjamin. In a similar manner Jacob in the anxiety to free
hi", hoMooho'd from the imputation nf hnvipc' «*^olen Laban's
imayes, use«j the vnsti iaiii;VUige, 'With \vli..ni.-oe^-er thou tind-
est ihy gods let Iiim not live" I'Gen. xxxi.o2;. .Jacob did not
listen to Reuben's earnest ejitreatie.%.
' -t . : - ,1 .i. t ,11.. -- i ..j^jL u. .-■ •.' i,,

540

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

im II

I M

38. And he said, My son shall not go doivn with you ; for his
brother is dead, and he is left alone to me ; if mischief befall him by the
way in which ye go, then s/uill ye bring down my gray hairs with sor-
row to (^Tij^'SJ sheol) Iiades.

When Jacob said "ho is left alone," he meant of the sons of
his beloved wife Rachel, for the other brothers were his sons
as well as Benjamin, though bom of different mothers.

CHAPTER XLIIT.

1. And the famine icas sore in the land.

The famine continued to afflict the land of Canaan, so that
no food could be obtained in that country, there remained there-
fore, no alternative but to look to Egypt for a further supply.

2. Aiul it came to pass, ichen 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.

" When they had eaten up the corn," that is, when their
corn had become nearly exhausted, for it is not likely they
would wait until it had been entirely consumed, since the jour-
ney to Egypt and back would occupy some time. We have on
several occasions pointed out that a great portion of anything
is often .spoken of as a tokole. As Reuben had failed to obtain
the consent for Benjamin to accompany them, Judah now
represented in more forcible language to his father the utter
impossibility of appearing before the ruler of the land witnout
Benjamin, for " The man solemnly protested to us, saying, ye
shall not see my face, except your brother be with you."
When Judah tells his father that, "The man solemnl}- protest-
ed," ' > refers to Joseph's oath, "by the life of Pharaoh," (ch.
xlii. i ). Jacob reproached his sons for h.aving told the ruler
that they had yet another brother, but the}^ justified themselves
by saying, that " The man asked us clo.sely about ourselves and
about our kindred, saying. Is your father yet alive ? have ye
another brother ? " We were therefore bound to tell the truth.
Besides, "could wo iiidet-d hrive known thab be wouM .say,
Bring your brother down •" (v. 7.)

Joseph did not indeed directly a.sk them about their family
at home, but when he chars^ed thcin with being spies, they gave
the information in order to show that it is not likely that a

■•"%;

now

iter

pg. ye
you."

I'otest-
}," (ch.
ruler
[selves
Bs and
|,ve ye
truth.

liiuily

gave

liftfc

people's commentary.

StiL

father would allow all of his sons but one to enter upon such a
dangerous undertaking. When Judah saw that his father still
hesitated to give his consent, he implored his father to send the
lad, that they might live and not perish. " I will be surety foi*
him " : he pleads, " of my hand thou mayest demand him : if I
bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then will I
have sinned against thee for ever (vv. 8, 9,). Judah's earnest
entreaties at last prevailed, Jacob consented to let Benjamin
go, and chai'ged them to take double money with them,
and also some of the choicest products of the country, (Heb.
"T'lfi^n m?3T^ mizzimrath haarets, i. e., of the praised of the

land), as a present to the ruler. Three of the articles which
they were to take as a present, namely, " balsam, tragacanth,
and ladanum," are the same as those mentioned in ch. xxxvii.
25, which the Ishmaelites were taking as merchandize into
Egypt, and of these we have already given an explanation.
Besides these they were also to take " honey, nuts, and
almonds" (v. 11). "Honey" is, in Hebrew, called XD'21 (devash),
it denotes both bee-honey, (see Jud. xiv. 8) and a S3rrup
boiled from the grapes, by the Arabians called Dibs, and
also the syrup of dates. Modem travellers often mention the
great number of bees still found in Palestine, and they were
no doubt far more plentiful in ancient times when the land
was under general cultivation. Yet when the land of Canaan is
spoken of as a land "flowing with milk and honey," the syrup
honey is no doubt included. " Nuts." The word occurs in Scrip-
ture only in this place. The Hebrew term here used is Q'^DtSS.
(botnim) by which is no doubt meant the pistachio-nut, found
wild in Palestine, but is more common in Syria, especially in the
cooler parts. The pistachio-nuts are either eaten uncooked,
or fried with pepper and salt. They are much relished both
by the Orientals and Europeans on account of their spicy taste,
and highly valued, as the kernel was su^ o'sed to possess the
property of a tonic, also to be a specific against the bite of
serpents, (Comp, Plin. xiii. 10). The pistachio-tree resembles
very much the terebinth. " And almonds" ; the almond-tree is,
in Hebrew, called iptP (sha/cad), the walcer, as this tree above

all other trees awakes the earliest from its winter repose. In
Ecc. xii. 5, the profuse white flowers of the almond-tree are
beautifully compared to the hoary head of the old man. It
has been asked, hov Jacob co.ild send these productions, when
the land was so sorely afliicted with famine and dearth. But
all the productions mentioned were such as would keep for
years, and may have been stored up from previous years.

We must not omit here to offer a word of praise for the
respectful and considerate manner with which both Reuben
80

i_ i"^

.sr,^

i ..

y f

542

people's commentary.

' 1

and Judah pleaded with their aged father. They uttered not
a word of reproach for his making such a distinction between
the children of Rachel and his other children. They did not
remind him that as their common father the lives of all should
be equally precious to him, but merely represented w him, that
their lives would be endangered in appearinjr again in the
presence of the ruler without their brother Benjamin. On the
other hand, we are bound to saj', that Jacob's persistent refusal
to let Benjamin go was, under the circumstances, highly blame-
able. One of his sons was held as a hostage, whose life might
have been endangered by withholding his consent. Nay, more,
his whole family was placed in danger of perishing by famine.
In his conduct he again displayed human infirmity, in-
stead of putting his trust in' God who had so often delivered
him out of trouble. When Jacob, however, at last gave his
consent, he offered up the devout prayer: "And may God
Almighty give you mex'cy before the man., that he may send
your other brother and Benjamin," and then with a full resig-
nation to the Will of God, added, " and I, if I am bereaved,
I am bereaved" (v. 14) ; as much as to say, if it is the Will of
God that I lose my children. His Will must be done. So
Esther, before venturing unbidden in the presence of the king,
exclaimed, " If I perish, I perish." (Esther iv. 16).

The brothers arrived in Egypt without any mishap having
befallen them on the way, and no doubt anxious to release
their brother from confinement, immediately presented them-
selves before the ruler, to convince him that they had stated
the truth. When Joseph saw Benjamin, he ordered his stew-
ard to bring the men to his house, and prepare a meal ; for they
were to dine with him at noon. As the nan*ative does not
record anything to have been said either by Joseph or his
brothers on this occasion, we may take it for granted that no
conversation took place. Joseph probably fearing not being
able to control his emotions at the sudden sight of Benjamin,
ordered his brothers to be instantly taken to his house, which
would give him time to compose himself before he met his
brothers at dinner time. The brothers, naturally looked upon
their being taken to the ruler's house, as an omen of coming
evil, and said : " On account of the money that was returned
in our sacks at the first time we are brought in ; that he may
throw himself upon us ;" or, as the original more forcibly
expresses it,' ^5'»i27 bbrinnb (lehithyolel alenu) "to roll himself
upon us," i. e., crush us like a stone rolling over anything ;
" and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our asses."
(v. 18.) The brothers, therefore, before they entered the house,
took the precaution to speak to the stewai-d " at the door of
the house," that it was altogether unaccountable to them how

PEOPLE S COHMENTABT.

543

release

[ them-

stated

is stew-

or they

loes not

or his

Ithat no

t being

ijamin,

wliich

luet his

upon

fcoming

burned

ke may

[)rcibly

liuiself

thing ;

isses."

^louse,

)or of

how

their money got into their sacks ; that they first discovered it
when they came to the halting place on opening their sacks,
and that they now brought the money back again, besides
other money to buy more corn. This was very judicious on
the part of the brothers, for after this open declaration they
could not well be accused of having designedly gone away
without paying for their corn. The steward at once quieted
their fears by telling them that he had received their money,
and that it was their God who had given them their treasure,
(v. 23.) The statement of the steward, "your God and the
God of your father," may be accounted for ; that although he
may not have known that they were his master's brothers, yet
he knew that they were his countrymen. It is also quite pro-
bable that Joseph, in order to carry out his plan successfully,
may have informed the steward, and instructed him how to act.
The steward set their minds further at ease by bringing Simeon
out of prison, and restoi*ing him to his brothers. As this could
have been done only by the order of the ruler, they would
naturally conclude that he was now perfectly satisfied ; and
that they had nothing more to fear from him. Still they
must have wondered why they should have been singled out
from the many strangers that had come to buy corn, to have
the great honour conferred upon them as to be invited to dine
with the viceroy of the land. The steward now brought them
into Joseph's house, " and gave them water, and they washed
their feet," accordijig to the common custom in the Eastern
countries, and he aLso gave provender to their asses. When
Joseph came home, they presented him with the presents they
had brought for him, bowing themselves at the .same time to
the earth. Jose|jh now asked after the welfare of their
aged father of whom they had spoken, and they reverentially
answered : " Thy servant our father is well." This affability
on the part of the viceroy must have entirely banished any
fear which may have made them feel uneasy. At the sight
of Benjamin, Joseph was no longer able to control his emotions,
and fearing the plan which he had devised might be frustrated
before it was entirely carried out, he hastened away into his
private chamber, and wept. After a while he returned again,
and ordered the table to be set.

32. A^id they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves,
and for the Egyptians ivho rcere eating with him, by themselves : Jor
the Egyptians cannot eat food with the Hebrews ; for that is an abomi-
nation to the Egyptians.

In the disposition of the guests at this entertainment, Joseph
strictly adhered to the customs of the country. The Egyptians
cherishei' a great dislike to strangers, and on no account would

;rt

544

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

^; 1.

i ■

ll ^ ■■■:':

iBH^Jv

^HbbJn^^

I^UT^ i

^|; ;;

ElS^

■

^i^i

^^^^

H ' '

Hi,

H i^ '

they eat with them at the same table. Herodotus speaks of
the Egyptians abstaining from familiar intercourse with for-
eigners, because they looked upon them as unclean, since they
killed and ate the animals which were held as sacred among
the Egyptians. The same author further remarks, that since
the Egyptians show great reverence to cows which are sacred
to Isis, no Egyptian man or woman will kiss a Greek upon the
mouth, or use a knife, or fork, or kettle of a Greek, and will
not even eat any flesh of a clean beast, if it has been cut up
with a Greek knife (ii. 41). Although the Egyptians who
dined with Joseph were no doubt men of high rank, yet as they
probably did not belong to the same caste as Joseph who by
his marriage with the daiighter of the priest of On belonged to
the caste of 'priests, they ate at a separate table, for the same
spirit of caste prevailed among the Egyptians as among the
Hindoos.

33. And they sat before him, the first-horn according to his birth-
right, and the youngest according to his youth : and the men marvelled
one at another. , ,

In every particular the Egyptian custom was strictly adhered
to. The ancient Hebrews, like many other eastern nations,
reclined during their meals (see ch. xviii. 4), but the Egyptians,
although they had couches, are always represented as sitting
at table. And so we find the brothers here sitting before
Joseph. But what must not a little have astonished the
brothers was, they having their seats assigned to them accord-
ing to their age ; no wonder, indeed, that they " marvelled one
at another." They must have come to the conclusion, either
that he knew them, or that he was a diviner. The object of
Joseph placing his brothers in this manner is not quite clear,
but most likely it was to make himself appear in the sight of
his brothers as being endowed with extraordinary gifts.

34. And he took and sent portions to them from be/ore him : but
Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs. And they
drank, and were merry with him.

Joseph, in accordance with the ancient custom of the East,
in order to show his regard for his guests, sent portions to his
brothers from his own table. This custom still prevails if the
master of the house wishes to do special honour to his guest.
Many travellers speak of this mark of regard having been
shown to them by their hosts. The sending of a larger portion
at a meal to a guest, was a common mode of .showing prefer-
ence or confering a distinguishing mark of honour. It was
practised not only among the ancient Hebrews, but also among

people's commentary.

545

peaks of
yith for-
nce they
1 among
lat since
•e sacred
upon the
and will
(n cut up
ans who
t as they
who by
longed to
ihe same
nong the

hia birth-
marvelled

r adhered
nations,
gyptians,
IS sitting
ig before
[ihed the
accord-
led one
either
>bject of
:e clear,
ight of

Mm: hut
And they

le East,
s to his
if the
guest,
been
portion
prefer-
It was
among

other ancient nations. (Comp. 1 Sam. ix. 23, 24. Hom. Odyss.
iv. 65, 66 ; xiv. 437. Iliad vii. 321.) Joseph probably sent
thla large portion to Benjamin, as it would naturally be noticed
by the other brothers, and wished to see, whether this special
mark of honour would arouse any jealousy in them.

CHAPTER XLIV.

1. And he commanded the steward of his house, saying, Fill the
m^n's sacks with food, as much as tliey can carry, and put every man's
money in his sack's mouth

2. And put my cup, the silver cup, into the mouth of the sack of the
youngest, and his com money. And lie did in accordance vnth the
word that Joseph futd spoken.

The preference and mark of honor shewn to Benjamin at the
meal by a much larger portion being sent to him than to
the other brothers apparently did not arouse any jealousy
amongst them. Joseph now had recourse to the well devised
scheme recorded in the above passage in order to test their
temper, and see what their conduct would be, if Benjamin was
placed in danger. It appears that the brothers did not only
dine with Joseph at noon, but remained in his house until the
following morning, when he sent them away early at daybreak
on their journey homeward. But soon after they had departed,
and before they had time to go any distance from the city, he
ordered his steward to pursue them, and when he had over-
taken them to say to them, " Wherefore have ye rewarded evil
for good ? Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and
whereby he indeed divineth ? Ye have done evil in what ye
did," (vv. 4, 5). It is a well established fact that the ancient
Egyptians practised a mode of divination by means of a cup.
This mode of divination was carried on even to a greater
extent among the Persians. Jamblicus, in his work on the
Mysteries of the Egyptians, says, that future events were fore-
told by means of certain figures reflected by the rays of light
in clear water, (Lib. iii. sect. 14). Another mode of foretelling
future events, or for obtaining any particular infor-
mation was, by throwing small pieces of gold or silver,
together with precious stones, on which were marked
certain strange figures into a cup, and over which certain incan-
tations were repeated, and the evil demon invoked. The answer
was expected to be given either in intelligible words, or by

646

people's commentary.

some signs appearing on the surface of the water, or by the
appearance of the image of the person about whom enquiries
were made, or by some other mysterious way. Sometimes melted
wax was thrown into a goblet filled with water, and the answer
inferred from the forms which the wax assumed. (See Corne-
lius Agrippa, de Occulta Philosophia, Lib. I. cap. 57).

This superstitious practice of divining by a cup .still exists
in Egypt and Nubia. Nor den, in his Travels, relates, that when
he and his companions had arrived at Derri in Nubia, where
they were able to deliver themselves from a perilous condition
only through great presence of mind, they sent one of their
company to a powerful and malicious Arab, to threaten him.
He answered them : " I know what sort of people you are. I
have consulted my cup, and found in it that you are from a
people of whom our prophets had said : There will come Franks
of every kind of pretence to spy out the land. They will bring
a great multitude of their countrymen to conquer the country,
and to destroy all the people." (Vol. viii., p. 68. Quoted by
Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 39). It must not
be inferred from the words, " and whereby he indeed divineth,"
that Joseph actually practised divination, he had merely recourse
to this device to accomplish a certain purpose. We have stated
that Joseph wanted to test his brethren, how they would act
towards Benjamin if placed in a dangerous position, and the
words were therefore intended to impress upon them that by
stealing the cup they had committed a very great crime, as it
was a sacred vessel, by which secret things could be discovered,
and was therefore of great value to Joseph. Some of the
ancient versions have added, " why did you steal the
cup " ; for which there is no authority, and is not at all
required. The brothers repelled the charge of the steward
with indignation. " Wherefore saith my lord these words ?
Far be it from thy servants that they should do according to
this thing" (v. 7). They reminded him, that the money which
they had found in their sacks they had again brought back,
that it was therefore not likely that they would steal from his
master's house either silver or gold. And in order to convince
him that they felt perfectly innocent of the charge laid against
them, they themselves declared that not only should he die
with whom the cup was found, but all would be willing to
become slaves to his master. The steward, however, excepted
their proposal only so far as to have their sacks searched, but
did not deem it in accordance with justice that all should be
punished, or that even he with whom the cup was found should
suffer death, the one who has committed the theft, he alone
" shall be my servant, but ye shall be blameless " (v. 10). The
brothers, confident to be able to establish their innocence,

people'l commentary.

647

le, as it
overed,
of the
al the
at all
eward
■ds ?
ing to
which
hack,
m his
ivince
jainst
die
jng to
jepted
but
3 be
lould
done
The
jnce,

" hastened and took down every man his sack to the ground,
and opened every man his sack" (v. 11). The steward then
commenced his search, beginning with the eldest and finishing
with the youngest. As he hnnself had put the cup into
Benjamin's sack, he might have saved himself the trouble to
search so many sacks by beginning with the youngest, but this
might have aroused some suspicion in the minds of the brothers,
that he himself had put it there, or that it was done bv his
order, he, therefore, for appearance sake, began with the eldest.
Great indeed must have been the astonishment of the brothers
as one sack after another was opened, and each one's purchase
money was again found in the mouth of his sack ; but who can
picture to himself their consternation when the cup was dis-
covered in Benjamin's sack ? Though no expressions of grief
are recorded, yet their feeling on this trying occasion may bo
inferred from their action, " they rent their clotlies," an act
indicating the greatest grief, and practised only at the death of
a near relative. (Comp. ch. xxxvii. 34). As their money had
also been placed in. their sacks, they could come to no oth'^r
conclusion, but that the cup had likewise been designedly put
in Benjamin's sack, but for what reason it was impossible for
them to conjecture. They acted, however, an innocent men
would act, facing a false accusation boldly. They at once
loaded their asses again, and returned to the city.

14. A tid Judah and his brothers came to Joseph^s house; and he
was still there ; and the]) fell before him to the (ji'ound.

As Judah had persuaded his father to let Benjamin accom-
pany them, and had become surety for his safe return, he is
particularly mentioned as the leader of his brothers. When
they arrived at Joseph's house, " he was still tliei-e," having
probably remained at home on purpose, expecting their return.
The brothers fell down before him entreating for mercy.

15. And Joseph said to them, What deed is this that ye have done?
Dill ye not knoxo, that such a man as I can certairdy divine ?

We must not interpret Joseph's words as claiming to be a
diviner, but having successfully inter{)reted dreams, he had
obtained among the Egyptians the reputation of being capable
to reveal secret things. " Did ye not know," that is, did you
not hear. We have already stated that the verb y^i (yada)
to hnoiv, is sometimes used in the sense to Learn, to know, from
having heard it. Joseph merely avails himself of the reputa-
tion ho had gained among the people as a diviner to carry out
the trial of his brothers. Judah, though perfectly convinced of
Benjamin's innocence, did not attempt to deny the charge of

64S

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

theft, or offer any excuse. How could he well have done so ?
It was apparently a clear case, the cup was found in Benjamin's
sack: how did it get there ? He could not say that it must
have been designedly placed there, this would criminate the ruler
of the land. Well might Judah be at a loss what to say under
such harrassing circumstances. " What shall we say unto my
lord ? what shall wo speak ? or how shall we justify our-
selves ? God hath found out the iniciuity of thy servants ; "
it is, in having sold our brother, ana is now punishing it,
" behold we are my lord's servants, both we, and he in whose
hand the cup hath been found " (v. 16).

17. And he said, Far be it from me that I should do so : tlie man in
whose hand the cup hath been found, he sludl be my servant : but ye
go up in peace to your father.

Judah's self-imposed punishment, " behold, we are my lord's
servants," afforded Joseph now an opportunity to bring the
test to a close. Far be it from mo to act so unjustly as to
punish the innocent with the guilty ; let him who committed
the theft be my servant, but ye return to your home in peace.
He would now see what were their feelings towards their
father's favourite son, whether they would, without any effort
on their part, leave Benjamin to his fate. They, however,
stood the test in a highly praiseworthy manner. Judah, who
had become surety for the safe return of Benjamin, approached
the ruler of the land, and in an address which has been char-
acterized as the most simple, and at the same time the most
persuasive piece of oratory that has ever come from the lips of
man, pleaded for the liberation of Benjamin. Luther remarked,
in regard to Judah's address, " I would, indeed, give very much
if I were able to pray to God as well as Judah prays to Joseph
here ; for it is a perfect specimen of prayer, the true feeling
that there should be in prayer." He commenced his address
with a humble entreaty that he might be permitted to speak
a word to one who is equal to Pharaoh, and who could, there-
fore, like the king himself, either pardon or condemn (v. 18).
He then recapitulates the past incidents, which led to Benja-
min having been brought down with them, and dwelling in
a most forcible manner on the great diflSculty they had experi-
enced in obtaining their aged father's consent to bring him, as
he is the child of his old age, and the only one of two sons left
him whom a beloved wife had borne to him. He assures the
ruler, that the father's life is so bound up in the lad's life, tliat if
he saw on their return, that the lad was not with them, he would
die, and they would then be guilty of bringing the gray hairs
of their father with sorrow to the grave. He then implores the

people's commentary.

549

done so ?
cnjamin's
'> it must
i the ruler
lay tinder

unto my
tify our-
rvants ; "
shinL' it,
in whose

^ man in

t : but ye

ry lord's

ring the

\y as to

mmitted

n peace,

ds their

ly effort

owever,

ah, who

roach ed

n char-

e most

lips of

larked,

Y much

Joseph

Peeling

dress

speak

;here-

V. 18).

Benja-

ng in

peri-

m, as

sleft

the

mtif

'^ould

hairs

8 the

ruler, that, as he had became surety for the lad's safe return, to
accept him as a substitute.

33. Now, therefore, I pray thee, let thy aervant remain instead of
the lad a bondman to my lord, and let the lad go up *mth hia brethren,

34. For how shall J go up to my father, and the lad lie 7iot with
me t lest peradventure 1 see the evil that shall come on my father.

If Judah's conduct on previous occasions demanded our
severest condemnation, his conduct on the pres<!itt occasion
calls for our highest praise and admiration. Ho I iid made
himself answerable for Benjamin's safe return, an«l '!oes not
shrink now from making the greatest sacrifice in 'm\vr to
restore him into his father's arms. Had Judah beer) unmar-
ried, it would have been no small thing to give np lihcrty for
life-long servitude to an Egyptian grandee ; but in Km t^iine it
meant in addition the renouncing of wife, children, and rela-
tives. He nobly offered to relinquish everything that tended
to make life happy, rather than witness the grief of his aged
father, which would bring him to a premature grave.

CHAPTER XLV.

1. And Joseph could not refrain himself before all those who stood
by him ; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me : and there
stood no man with him, wlien Joseph made himself known to his
brethren.

The severe test to which Joseph had subjected his brothers
was now successfully brought to an end. What unspeakable
joy it must have afforded him to find such decided proofs of
his brothers' filial affection towards their aged father. The
affectionate manner in which they spoke of their father, and
their anxiety to shield their brother from harm, could not fail
but to convince him of their true conversion, and of their sin-
cere sorrow for the grief they had caused their aged father.
Judah's powerful and kind intercession for Benjamin had the
immediate effect that Joseph could no longer refrain himself from
giving vent to his feelings. But before making himself known
to his brothers he ordered the officials and domestics that
attended on him to withdraw. This he evidently did that
they might not hear the barbarous treatment he had received
at their hands, which would only have tended to increase their
aversion against foreigners.
81

m
1;^

550

people's commentary.

2. And he wept aloud; and the Egyptians and the lumae of
Pharaoh heard it.

" And he wept aloud," according to the literal rendering of
the original, *' A.nd he gave forth his voice in weeping," an
Oriental mode of expressing loud weeping. Thus they would
say, " this child is continually giving forth its voice," i. e., for
ever crying. Joseph wept so loud that the Egyptians outside
heard it. " And the house of Pharaoh heard it," that is, the
royal family was told of it.

3. A7id Joseph said to his brethren, I am Joseph , doth my father
yet live f And his brethren could not answer him, for they were
troubled before him. ^

No sooner had the words, "I am Joseph," escaped his mouth,
than he abruptly enquired after his father. He had, indeed,
repeatedly heard from his brothera that his father was yet
alive ; but he would show his brothers that, althoiigh Le was
now second in dignity in Egypt, his filial affection v^as as great
as ever. The brothers could not make an answer to Joseph's
aifectic.nate en([uiry, for "they were troubled, or, as it may be
rendered, "were confounded before him." And well they might
be, — they had sold him for a slave into Egypt, and now he
stood before them the viceroy of that country.

4. And Joneph said to his brethren, Gome near to me, I pray you ;
and they camii near : and he said, T aai Joseph your brother, lohoia,
ye sold into Egypt.

Joseph, perceiving the great perplexity of his brothers,
endeavours to dispel all doubt and fear from their minds. They
Ijad remained standitig at a respectful distance from the great
man ; he r)ow bids them to come nearer, as an assurance of his
good will and friendship; and w^hen they had approached
nearer, he again assuie them that he was Joseph their brother,
adding at the sann^ time the oi!-(;uraatan.oe, "whom ye sold into
Egypt," not as a repi'oach, but in contirmatii>ti that he was
really theii* liroclier.

5. And now be not grieved, nor angry tvith yourselves, that ye sold
7M hither : for God did send me before you to preserve life.

Joseph lifvifig alluiod to the wicked act of his brothers
(v. 4). ho enti-'^ats them now in a kind and affectionate mjinner
that they shoujd not on thnt account be grieved or angry with
themselves, since God had turned it, into a means of preserving
life. He is evidently anxious to impress this upon them in
order to dispel all fear from their minds, and to reassure their

■■■ ••*>ft»*»*;*«-*«r¥*tt=ns^»rw«*«iw'»i

people's commentary.

551

confidence, for, in verses 7 and 8, he repeats more emphatically,
"And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the
earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now
it was not you that sent me hither, but God." But we must
not interpret Joseph's language that his brothers sold him into
bondage by God's direction, for that act cannot possibly be
divested of its criminality: he refers rather to God's overruling
power, in making good come out of evil.

9 Hasten ye, and go up to my father, and say to him, Thus said
thy son Joseph, God Itath made me lord of all Eyypt ; come dovm unto
me, tarry not: ' ■ • •■ ■

10. And thou shah dwell in the land oj Goshen, 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.

No sooner had Joseph finished to speak the consoling words
to his brothers, than he bids them to hasten back to their honies,
and tell his father the great things God had done for him.
Though Joseph was indebted for his greatness to Pharaoh, yet
be felt assured that it was brought about by the direction of
God, who endowed him with knowledge and wisdom, and
enabled him to interpret the dreams. He, therefore, requests
his brothers to tell his father that, " God hath made me lord
of all Egypt." Tlie message contained also the earnest
and affectionate request, that his aged father with his
whole family, and with all their possessions, might with-
out delay, come down to him, so that he might pass
the few remaining years of his life near him. Joseph chose
for his family's future residence, " the land of Goshen." the
most fertile part of Egypt, and especially famous for its rich
pastures. The name "itD!! (Goshen) is apparently of Semitic
origin, for it occurs also as the name of a city and its environs
in the south of Palestine. (Josh, xiii., 2; 1 Sam. xvii., 8.) As
the name is not mentioned by any of the Greek geographers,
various opinions existed at one time as to its exact locality.
The prevailing opinion, however, at the pvc.-ont time among
scholars is, that it was the name of that part of Lower Egypt
east of the Pelusian branch of the Nile, comprehending the
modern province of Esh-Shurkijeh. This province answers
in every respect to the allusion made to fhe land of Goshen
in Scripture. Jacob and his family dwelling in this province
might well be said to be " near Joseph," whether the court of
Pliaraoh was at Memphis, or what is more probable at Zoan,
i e., Tania, where, according to Psalm Ixxvii., 12, the miracles
of Moses were performed. When Jacob went down into
Egypt, '■ he sent judah before him unto Joseph, to direct his

.1"
in

552

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

face unto Goshen ; and they came into the land of Goshen."
(Gen. xlvi., 28.) And, in verse 29, it is said that Joseph went
up to meet his father unto Goshen ; this shows that the terri-
tory must have been situated between the frontier of Palestine
and the residence of Joseph ; and points clearly to the pro-
vince of Esh-Shurkijeh. Dr. Robinson says, " during my stay
in Cairo, I made many enquiries respecting this district; to
which the uniform reply was, that it was considered as the best
province in Egypt." (Bib. Researches, vol. I., p. 78.)

12. And, heliold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother JSenjamin^
that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you.

From this verse it would appear, that the brothers were still
doubtful whether what they had heard and seen was indeed a
reality. The unexpected disco veiy had so taken them by sur-
prise, that they stood in perfect amazement not knowing what
to make of the whole affair. In order to dispel their misgiv-
ings, Joseph asks them to look at him more particularly and
they would then become convinced that it was his mouth that
speaketh to them and no other. Even his brother Benjamin,
though he was young at the time when Joseph left his home,
would not fail to recognize him. Joseph had already by words
endeavoured to convince his brothers that he entertained no
ill-feelings towards them on account of the barbarous treatment
he had received at their hands, but actions express more forcibly
the emotions of the heart, he affectionately " kissed all his
brothers, and wept upon them." This expression of love seems
to have had the effect to remove all fear and doubt from the
brothers' minds, for after this they conversed freely with Joseph.
When the report of the arrival of Joseph's brothers reached the
palace, Pharaoh and his household were greatly pleased, and
the king shewed his gratitude for the great services which
Joseph had rendered him and his country, by the munificent
treatment he extended to his benefactor's family. He requested
Joseph to tell his brothers to load their animals, and to return
to the land of Canaan, and bring their father and their house-
holds into Egypt, that he would give them the best part of the
country to dwell in, and that they should eat the best things
of the land. But this is not all ; tio king further commanded
that they should take carriages up with them for the more
convenient conveyance of their wives and children.

19. Now thou art commanded, say to thy brethren, this do ye, take
you carriages out of Die land of Egypt for your little ones and for
your wives, and bring your father, and come.

The passage is evidently elliptical, the words 3ini5* bi^ 1)36^
{emor el achecha) soy to thy hroVtersy must be supplied from

wwXMirMiif >!«.«.

people's commentary.

553

seems

m the

oseph.

hed the

ed, and

which

aificent

uested

return

house-

of the

things

anded

from

verse 17 to complete the passage, and I have inserted them in
italics. " Now thou art commanded ;" Pharaoh had indeed
placed every thing under the control of Joseph, but he was too
conscientious to take undue advantage of the power with
which his royal master had invested him. He would not,
without direct orders from the King, supply his brothers with
carriages. From the circumstance that Pharaoh ordered
Joseph's brothers to take carriages up with them to bring their
families into Egypt, it would appear, that carriages were not
then in use in Palestine, or if in use, they were not so comfort-
able for travelling as those from Egypt. In Egypt cliariots
and carriages were in use from the earliest times, as the countiy,
on account of its general flatness, was well adapted to their
use. It is by some even supposed that they originated in that
country. But as the country became gradually more and more
intersected by canals, carriages fell in disuse, and now, according
to recent travellers, neither waggons nor carriages are to be seen.
And Joseph did as Pharaoh had commanded him, and he gave
also to each of his brothers " changes of laiment," according to
the custom in oriental countries ; but to Benjamin he gave
three hundred shekels of silver, and five changes of raimant.
To his father he also sent ten asses laden with the choicest
produce of Egypt, and she asses laden with corn, bread, and
meat. Before he sent his brothers away, he entreated them
" not to fall out by the way," on account of their past conduct
towards him. He had observed the agitation of their minds
when he made himself known unto them, and he had heard
Reuben upbraiding his brothers fjr not having listened to him
when he entreated them not to " sin against the child," and he
requests them now to let by-gone be by-gone, and not stir up
any ill-feelings among themselves. When the brothers arrived
home, and told their father that Joseph was alive, and that he
was governor over the land of Egypt, ^^ib !lS^1 {waiyaphag
libho) and his heart remained cold (v. 2(5), that is, it did not
warm up with the joyful news his sons told him, for he did not
believe them. The tidings were of such a startling nature, he
could not realize that they were actually true. The bloody
coat which had been sent to him, was suthcient proof to con-
vince him that Joseph had been torn in pieces by wild animals,
but now his sons tell him not only tha; he was still living, but
that he was also viceroy of Egj'pt. But when his sons told
him all that Joseph had said to theiu, and he saw the presents
and the carriages which he had sent him, he couM no longer
doubt tho truth of their report, and his spirit revived, and
with a heart overflowing with joy, he exclaimed : "It is enough,
Joseph my son is yet alive : T will go down ind see him before
I die." (v. 28.)

4' ^!M'7' ■ '•>.' ''•■:'■

people's commentary.

CHAPTER XLVI.

1. And Israel journeyed icith all that he had, and came to Beer-
aheha, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac.

As might be expected when the doting father heard, after a
lapse of so many years, that his favourite son was still alive,
he would lose no time in setting out on his journey, and thus
we see, that the declaration, " I will go and see him before I
die," which concludes the preceding chapter, is immediately
followed in the beginning of this chapter by the statement,
" And Israel journeyed with all he had." There is not a word
as to any preparation for the journey, nor of any delay for
his departure. Leaving HebroU; where he had been dwel-
ling, (see eh. xxxvii. 14), and travelling southward he came
to Beer-sheba, which afterwards formed the southern frontier-
town of the promised land. Beer-sheba, as we have seen, had
already become a consecrated spot by Abraham and Isaac,
having offered up sacrifices and prayers in that place, and
received the promise of God's favour and protection ; and now
Jacob, on leaving the tenitory of Canaan, also offered up
sacrifices, and invoked God's blessing and protection. And God
answered the devout prayer of the pious patriarch. Appearing
to him in the vision of the night He gave him the encouraging
and consoling promise, " fear not to go down into Egypt ; for 1^
will there make of thee a great nation : I will go down with
thee into Egypt : and will also surely bring thee up again :
and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes " (vv. 3, 4).
The promise, " and will surely bring thee up again," must not be
uiiderstood to mean that he was to return again alive into the
land of Canaan, but that although he would die in a strange
country, he would be buried in the promised land. And the
promise was literally fulfilled when Joseph brought up the
body of his father from Eg3'pt, and buried him in the cave of
Machpelah., (See ch. 1. 7-13). The promise may, however, in
a larger sense lefer also to his posterity who were to grow into
a " great nation " in Eo-ypt, and whom God would bring up in
His appointed time to take possession of the promised land, as
He had promised to Abraham, " and in the fourth generation
they shall return hither " (ch. xv. 16). God gives Jacob also
the consolatory assurance that Joseph would in the hour of his
dissolution stand by his bed-side, and perform the sad office of
affection and love of cloising his eyes when his spirit would have
left its mortal habitation. This promise conveyed to Jacob
the further assurance that ho was not again to be separated
from his loved son. Among the ancient Greeks, it appears

mmmatmmmm'^ii.ieM.

people's commentary.

555

likewise to have been considered a happy circumstance to have
the eyes closed after death, by a loving relative, especially by
an affectionate child.

5. And Jacob rose up from JBeer-aheba : and t/ie $on» of Israd car-
ried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives, in tlie
waggons which Pliaraoh had sent to carry him. •'•'".:

6. And they took their cattle, and their goods which they had
acquired in t/ie land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all
his seed with him.

7. His sons, and his son's sons with him, and his daughters, and
his son's daughters, and all his seed brought he with him into Egypt.

The narrative does not state how long Jacob remained at
Beer-sheba, but we may rest assured that his desire to see
Joseph would not permit him to remain longer than was abso-
lutely necessary. Having now attained to the age of 130
years, he was unable to journey on foot, his sons, therefore, car-
ried him with their little ones and wives in the waggons which
Pharaoh so very considerately had provided. Among the fam-
ily of Jacob who went down into Egypt with him are men-
tioned " his daughters " (v. 7), but as he had only one daughter,
Dinah, so far as can be gathered fronj the narrative, we must
take the term fnsa (hanotfi), as including his daughtei-s-in-
law. It is not an uncommon thing among us to speak of a son-
in-law and daughter-in-law as son and daughter. Jacob, how-
ever, may have had other daughters, though thej' are nowhere
mentioned, since females are not commonly mentioned unless
there is some special reason for it. Thus Serah, the daughter
of Asher, is the only one of his sons' daughters mentioned (v.
17), evidently for some special reason, of which, however, the
narrative affords no information. In the list of Jacob's family,
mentioned in verses 8-28, the sons are arranged according to
their mothers, and aa the children of the maid.s were regarded
as belonging to their mistresses, the offspring of Zilpah follow
those of Leah, and the sons of B Ihah follow those of Rachel.
In verse 27 the total number of souls of the house of Jacob that
came into Egypt with him is stated to have been " seventy."
This number is made up as follows: Of Leah there are given 6
sons, 23 grandsons, 2 great-grandsons (namely, Hezron and
Hamul, sons of Pharez, whilst Er an Onan, the sons of Judah,
were dead), 1 daughter, Dinah, and their father Jacob, in all
thirty-three souls. Of Leah's maid Zilbah are mentioned,
two sons, eleven grandsons, two great-grandsons, and one
daughter, in all sixteen souls. Of Rachel's are given two
sons, twelve grandsons (of whom, however, according to Num.
XX vi. 40, two were great-grandsons, in all fourteen souls. Of

566

people's commentary.

] .;

Bilhah, Rachel's maid, are named two sons, and five grandsons,
in all seven aouda, making a total of seventy souls. Neither the
wives of Jacob's sons, nor the daughters of his sons, except
Serah the daughter of Asher, are mentioned in the list, which
may be accounted for as not being founders of separate houses.
The number seventy, is also given in Exod. i. 5 ; and Deut. x,
22 ; but the Septuagint gives the number as seventy-five, and
so does Stephen, Acts viii. 14, who evidently followed the
Septuagint. There is, however, no discrepancy in the two
ditferent numbers, for the number reventy-five is made up by
adding the five sons of Ephraiin and Manasseh, bom in Egypt,
upon the authority of Chron. vii. 14-20. As regards the dis-
crepancy which the opponents of Scripture discover in the two
sons of Pharez being reckoned among the number that went
into Egypt with Jacob, though bom afterwards in that country,
we have already fully explained it in our remarks on chapter
XXX viii. (p. 512 et seq.) The promise which God made to
Jacob : " I will make of thee a great nation " (v. 3) was
literally fulfilled in the immense increase of the children
of Israel in their land of bondatj^e. In Exod. ch. i. 7, we
read: "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased
abundantly, and multiplied, and grew exceeding mighty,
and the land was filled with them." The language, the
reader will perceive, implies an unprecedented, we may
almost say miraculous, increase ; and this circumstance I
desire the reader particularly to bear in mind in reading
the remarks that follow. Now, according to Exod. xii. 27,
the number of the children of Israel that went out of Egypt
were " about six hundred thousand (600,000) on foot that
were men, besides children." This would imply a population
including their wives and children of about 2,000,000 souls. This
great increase has not been allowed to go unchallenged by the
opponents of Scripture. Indeed, we may safely say that none
of the Biblical subjects which had to bear the onslaught of the
rationalistic writers, there is none that has been so fiercely
a.ssailed a.s the increase of the Israelites during their stay in
Egypt. When half a century ago some German writers dis-
turbed the quiet of the religious world with their attacks
upon the Bible, the immense increase of the Israelites in
Egypt was evidently considered by them as the sharpest
weapon with which to strike the most effective blow at the
Scriptures. Since then the attack has been constantly kept up
by writers beionginj^ to the rationalistic school in different
countries. Bishop Golenso devoted no less than twenty pages
in his book, entitled " The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua
Critically Examined," in discussing this subject, in which
he, however, only followed the footsteps of the neological

randsons,
iither the
3, except
st, which
e houses.
Deut. X.
•five, and
wed the
the two
rJe up by
n Egypt,
1 the dis-
the two
lat went
country,
I chapter
made to
3) was
children
i. 7, we
ncreased
mighty,
age, the
we may
itance I
reading
. xii. 27,
Egypt
>ot that
ulation
[Is. This
by the
at none
t of the
[fiercely
stay in
rs dis-
.ttacks
lites in
arpest
at the
ept up
Ifferent
pages
Foshua
[which
logical

PEOPLES COMMENTAUY.

657

■writers of the continent of Europe, except that he treated
the subject somewhat ditferently tliAn they did, without
however bringing forward any original arguments. And
the reader must not suppose that the war-cry is now
hushed, for such is really not the case : it is still sent
forth, and that by men, too, of no ordinary Uilent^s. We will,
therefore, carefully and impartially examine the arguments
which our adverse critics bring forwaid on the subject.
The first ar^-nnont advanced against the verity of the sacn;d
narrative is, ihut amoiKj all the sixty-nine children iin-L
grandchildren of Jacob loho ivent dotmi with him into Jufi/pt,
only one dmiyhtev and one (jranddauyhtc)' are mentioned.
Th((t the very nnmherina of these tiio amomj the seventy
Souls shows that the females irere not emitted intentionally.
To this we reply, there is nothing whatever strange in the
omission. We have alieady on several occisions noticed
that the .sacred writer mentions only such names as are
necessary to the full comprehension of the narrative, and we
may rest assured that, whenever a female name is given exclu-
sive of others, there existed some reason for it which was well
understood then, althougli it may not appear (juite evident to
us at this distant period o£ time. That .such was the constant
practice, will be seen on comparing other genealogical lists.
Thus, among the descendants of Esau (Gen. xxxvi.), oidy one
daughter is mentioned, verso 22. Again, among the huntlreds
of the sons named in 1 Cliron. vi.-ix., there are onlv two dan<;h-
ters mentioned, ^o amoii;' all the names and irenffilotjies in
the first elt ven chapters of Genesis, only five names of females
occur. Will our opponents say, that in all these cases there
were no other females thin those who are mentioned \ Cer-
tainly not, it would be absurd to do sj; and there is, therefoie,
no ground fur saying that the meatloni n;/ of only one daxiyhter
and one granddaughter In the hoasehold of Jacob is onli/
another indication if the unhlstorical character of the icliole
aecouHL The next argnnitnt is a vor\' ingenious one, and is
apt to be by many looked u|Jon as being a very forcible one.
The twelve sons of Jacob as appears from the narrative, they
&r>^yie, had bet nee 1 1 them fifty-three sonsJhU is on an, averaye of
four and a half each. Notv sitfiposiny that they increased hi
this ivay from yeneratioii to generation, then the first genera-
tion,, that of Kohath, there would he fifty-four males; in the
second, that of Amram,.J4'-''> ^'^ the third, that of Moses and
Aaron, lOOJi- : and in th^^ fourth, that of Joshua and Eleazar,
4923 : that is, instead of '100,000 men in tlte prime of life, there
could not have been 5,000.

In order to strengthen their argument, they bring forward
some other fau^ilies, who, as Uiey say, " wi'.l give a fairer average,
82

' !

558

people's commentary.

because they lived at different times during the interval between
Jacob's migration into Egypt and the Exodus." The families
generally selected are : " Zelophehad, who had five daughters,
but no sons (Num. xxvii. 1); Amram had two sous and
one daughter (Num. xxvi. 59) ; Moses had two sons and no
diiughter (Exod. xviii. 3, 4); Aaron had four sons and no daughter
(Exod. xxvi. GO) ; Izhar, Amram's brother, had three sons (Exod.
vi. 21) ; Uzziel had three sons (Exod. vi. 22) ; Korah had three
sons (Exod. vi. 24) ; Eleazar had one son (Exod. vi. 25)." In the
last four cases it is admitted, that it is in) possible to say whether
there were any daughters. From these eight families out of
many thousands, they endeavour to form an estimate of the
increase of the Israelites during a period of 215 years. Now
we may justly ask, what would be thought of the account of
any statistical writer who calculated the probable increase of
the population of some county in England, say from the time
of Queen Elizabeth to George III., from a dozen families ? It
would be absolutely worthless. Having made this calculation,
our adverse critics come to the conclusion, " that in order to
produce 000,000 fighting men, which implies a population of
2,000,000, we must suppose that each man had 4(3 children (23
of each sex). As we have stated, the argument is no doubt
ingenious, but we will now show, that it crumbles to pieces at
the mere touch. In ch. xv. 13-16, God made the solemn decla-
ration to Abraham that his seed should be a stranger in a
strange land " four hundred years " ; that they should be
oppressed, but that they should come out of their land of bond-
age in " the fourth generation," or in other words, at the end of
the four hundred years. But by a singular mode of interpre-
tation our adverse critics will make us believe, that " the four
hundred years " cr.nmenced when Abraham left Haran, whilst
" the fourth generaoion " is to be reckoned from the going
down of Jacob into Egypt. It is hardly credible, that our
adverse critics should not have perceive' that the two periods
mentioned, though expressed in different i erms, are one and the
same period, and, therefore, must commence and end at the
same time. The truth is, the Hebrew word "m {doi'), sig-
nifies a revolving period of time ; hence, an age, a geveration.
In the long-lived patriarchial age, a generation seems to have
been computed at 100 years, and thus " the four generations,"
in verse 16, are equivalent to the " four hundred years iv verse
13. At a later period of time, however, the Israelites stemed
to have reckoned the duration of a generation, as is now dono
with us, from 30 to 40 years. Thus, for example, Job xlii. 16,
we read, " after this Job lived an hundeed and forty years, and
saw his sons, and his son's sons, even four generations, i. e., 35
years to a generation ; and from certain statements in the book

WKiii nri

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

559

going

sig-

pions,

verse
iemed

don<>
|ii. 16,

3, and
\e., 35

book

of Job itself, we may infer that Job must have lived in the ^ J \
period between Abraham and Moses. As the period of life at /
'♦,he time of the Egyptian bondage had become greatly abridged, ^
it is of course necessary to reckon the duration of a generation
at from thirty to forty years. If wo now allow *U years for a
generation, the 215 years of actual residence of the Israelites in
Egypt will give us seven generations, and not four generations,
as our adverse critics will have it. Indeed, in Chron. vii. 20-27,
we are told Joshua was the tenth in descent from Joseph, so
that we here have ten generations within the 215 years bond-
age. But we are quite content to base our calculation upon
seven generations. Now " all the souls of the house of Jacob
who came into Egypt were tliree score and ten " ; from this
number we have to deduct Jacob, his daughter, and grand-
daughter, which leaves 67 souls. Now, let us suppose that each
of those, and their male descendants, had, on an average, four
sons and four daughters at the age of thirty — Bonjamin had
ten sons at that age — and counting seven generations, each of
thirty-one years, the total number of souls at the time of the
Exodus would be as follows, namely :

1st generation

2nd cfeneration

268
4

1,072
4

3rd generation 4,288

4th generation 17,152

5th generation 68,608

6th generation 274,482

7th generation 1,097,728 males.

1,01)7728 females.

Total 2,195,456

These figures, however, take only into account the number
of children born up to the age of thirty, and we may reason-
ably suppose that a great many may have been born after the
father had attained that age, which will greatly reduce the

660

PEOPLE S COMMENTAllY.

■■ ■

averjigo of four sons and four dauylitors. But is it not surpris-
ing lluit tlio iticrciiHi- of tlic Israolitos .slioulil pru'o .such a
stuii.bliiig-block, AvliL'U we find even iustancivs of yrcnter incri'uso
in ni'Mlern times, An island in the Scuith S.a, first occupied by
a few Hhipwrecked English, in 1581), and discovered by a Dutch
vessel, in 1007, is said to have been found jieopled after 78
years, by liJ.OOO souls, nil descendants of four niothers. (See
Cardinal Wiseman's " Science and Kevelation," vol. i., p. 22(S.)
This rate of increase is more than d(»uble that which I liave
assigned to the Israelites in Egypt. In the statistical accounts
of Hiodein nations we often meet with instances of rapid and
extraordinary increase of population ; and, as an example, I
may mention liere, that in the jcar 1785 the pojmlation of
Ireland was estimated on the basis of returns obtained from
hearth-money collectors, at a medium of six inhabitants to a
houj,e at 2,84r),9a2 • and in 1788, Mr. Walter Bushe estimated
it fr«an the hearth-money returns and other data, at 4,()40,()U0.
(See McCuIloch's statistical account of the Biitish Empire, vol.
i., p. 4i}0). The table e.xhibiting the population of the different
counties (p. 4;}7), shows also a remarkable inciease in some of
the counties. It will probal»ly be said, that this increase is
owing to an influx of eminiants ; Mr. McCuUoch does certainly
not assign this as one of the causes, but ascribes it chieHy to
the splitting up of largi' estates into .small portions, to early
maniages, &c. We irequently, too, liear of cases of extensive
prog'uy. I nuiy mentioii two which have been brought to our
notice by some of the public jouinals. One is that of " Mr.
Lemay Dcloane, who at his death ha<l a ])Osterity of 225 child-
ren and grandchildren." The other is that of " Madam Rosalie
Oagiie Talbot, who had 17 children, and reckoned at the time
of lier death an addition of 188 grand and great-graiidchildreu
all alive. Instances of such rapid nudtiplication arc apparently
not confined to any particular country. On the monument of
the Ilev. Dr. Honey wood. Dean of Lincoln, in tho Cathedral of
that diocese, is the following inscription :

" Here lieth the Lddy of Miilmel Hmieywood, D. D.,
Wlio was graiukliilil aiul diiu of the
'J'lnce huiiilreil and sixty-seven jieisons
'J'hat Mary, the Mite of Uobert lloueywoud Esq., ' ,
l)id «ee before .she died,
Lawfully descendeil from her," &c.

On a monument at Hevden is the followino- inscription :

" JHere lyeth the body of William .Stnitton, of Paddingtoii,
Who had by hi.s first wife twenty eight children.
And by a Hccond seventeen ;
Own father to forty-tive,
(Jiandfathur to eighty-six,
(Jreat-grandfather to ninety -seven,
And 'ireat-great-grandfather to twenty'three,
'"!7.' In al. two hnndred and tifty-one."

— (I'ottigrew'a Chronicles of the Tombs, pp. 215, 505, oOG. )

■m^^r^<ii^

PEOPLES COMMENTAUY.

561

Wo mij^lit give many oihor similar examples, but theso will
suffice ; ami our adverse ciMtie.s will surely allow the possil ility
of such cases having occurii^d among the Hebrew familirs in
Egypt. From the foregoing remarks the readtir will now per-
ceive that ev(m this stronghold of tho op|)onentsof Scripture is
hy no means impregnable, and that tin; ditheulties with which
they invest th(> subject after all admits of a ready solution.
The adverse critics have <iUoteil the extravagant inter|>ieta-
tions of the celebrated Rabbi .Solomon Jarchi, Bishop Pat'"ick,
and others, as proofs of the unsoundness of their position, and
of course to show how much more reasonable their argun^ nits
are ; but surely the wisest and most l(iarne<l is apt to say some-
times an unreasonable thing. Yet whilst we readily allow flio
explanations given on Exoil. i. 7, by these commentators to be
extravagant, it is nevertheless an undoubted fact, that it is not
an uncommon thing for Egyptian women to give birth to twins,
and even to three or four children at a time. This is attested
both by ancient and modern writers. Pliny remarks: "That
three are born at a birth is undoubted, to bear above that r\um-
ber is considered as an extraordinary phenomenon, except in
Egypt, where the waters of the Nyle are fructifying." (Hist.
Nat. vii. 3). Aristotle observes: " Often the women givel irth
to twins as in Egypt, and even to three or four children at a
time." (Hist. Anim. vii. 4) Mallet in his Drscrlption of I'^/j/pt,
p. 18, ascribes this fertility "to the uncommon salubrity of the
air in Egypt." (See also Stalberg, History of Religion, i., p.
252.) (Resonmiiller Orient, i. 252, 253). (J. D. Michaels, in
his note on Exd. xii. 37).

28. And he sent Jadah heforii him to Joseph to direct his fa'e to
Goshen ; and they cam", into the land of Goshen,

When Jacob, with his family, drew near unto Egypt he
sent Judah to Joseph to inform him of their arrival, and
flDtDtl T^iSb Iniinb (lehoroth lephanav Ooshenah) literally, " to
direct his lace to Godien," /. e., that Joseph might direct him
as to what part of Goshen he was to proceed as the place of
their future abode. As soon as Joseph heard of his fatbor's
arrival, he at once made ready his chariot to meet him at
Goshen. It was proper for Joseph, as viceroy, to travel in a
carriage suitable to his high station ; hence, we read, he made
ready iril3"l?a {mercauto), "his chariot" (v. 29.) The E,i;yp-
tians despised strangers, especially shepherds ; but the natives
of Goshen would recognise the high office of Joseph by his
equipage, and would command proper treatment and respect
towards his family among the inhabitants. The narrative
describes the scene of meeting briefly, yet graphically : " And

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

iJ/

%£(.

1.0

I.I

1^12^ |2.5
'^ 1^ 12.2

140

2.0

ii£

|l.25 ||U III 1.6

►

Hiotographic

Sciences
Corporation

33 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. I4S80

(716) 872-4S03

^"1&

'4^^^

562

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

he appeared before him, and he fell on his neck, and vrept on
his neck a long time. And Israel said unto Joseph, now let
me die, since 1 have seen thy face, that thou art yet alive " (vv.
29, 30). In seeing and embracing again his favourite son, for
whom he had so long mourned as dead, the aged patriarch
found the greatest earthly joy he could have hoped for, and
is now willing to die since, by a merciful Providence, he was
permitted to enjoy this happiness. Joseph then told his
brothers that he would go and inform Pharaoh of the arrival
of his family, and instructed his brothers that if the king
should call for them, and ask them about their occupation they
were to tell him that they had been breedera of cattle from
their youth, as also had been their fathers before them, in order
that they might have the land of Goshen a^isigned to them for
a dwelling place. And in order to impress upon them the
necessity of following his advice, he gives as a reason, " for
every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians." From
this we may infer, by their dwelling in the land of Goshen,
they would not come into close intercourse with the Egyptians.
It is not easily accounted for, the Egyptians having entertained
such intense contempt against shejpherds, since many of the
natives followed that occupation. Indeed, the pastors m Egypt
formed a considerable portion of the fourth caste. And it is
certain, also, that the rearing of cattle itself was not looked
upon as degrading, fcr, according to ch. xlvii. 6, Pharaoh him-
self was a possessor of tattle, and even requests Joseph that if
he knew any men of ability among his brothers, to make them •
overseers over his cattle. It is, therefore, most probable that
the hatred of the Egyptians to shepherds extended only to
foreign ones who roamed about with th<nr flecks. The origin
of the animosity to foreign shepherds may, no doubt, be traced
to the occupation of Egypt by the *Hyksos, generally known
as the shepherd kings, who practised great cruelty during
their occupation of the country. (See Wilkins. ii., 16.) The
animosity thus engendered became gradually more and more
intensified by the constant invasions of the eastern boundaries
of the country by nomadic shepherds, against whom the
Egyptians were obliged to send armies. (See Rosenmuller,
Morgenland, i. 219). , ,. ,

* HyksoB or Hykehoa, from hyk, a ruler, and ahos, a thepherd ; according to
JosepnuB, there were six or eight kings of them.

PEOPLE !? COMMENTAllY.

503

i wept oi>
I, now let
Jive " (vv.
e son, for
patriarch
I for, and
>. he was

told his
le airival
the king
tion they
ttle fi'om
, in order
them for
hem the
wn, " for
From

Goshen,
^yptinns.
ertained
7 of the
n Egypt
nd it is
> looked
^h him-

that if

e them>
le that
)nly to

origin

traced

mown

luring

The

jdaries

the

liiller,

ling to

CHAPTER XLVII.

1. And Jcaeph came andtdd Pharaoh, and said, My /ather and my
brethren, and their ffvcka 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.

2. And from the whole number of his brethren he took Jive men, and
presented the,, unto Pharaoh.

Though Pharaoh had invested Joseph with the entire control
of the aflairs of the country, yet he would not take upon him-
self to place his family in possession of a tract of lan^l without
first obtaining the king's permission to do so. Ho therefore
went to inform Pharaoh of the arrival of his family, taking at
the same time with him five of his brothers as representatives
of the whole family. As Joseph had anticipated, Pharaoh
asked them about their occupation, and they answered accord-
ing as Joseph had instructed them that they were shepherds,
as their fathers had been, and added that they hnd come to
sojourn in the land, bs *h«>re was no pasture for their flocks in
the land of Canaan, ^n --uut of the famine with which
that country was sorely ai.'. ed, .tnd that they therefore be
permitted to take up their abode in ^\\q land of Goshen.

5. And Pharaoh spake to Joseph, aayiny. Thy father and thy breth-
ren are come unto thee.

6. The land oj Egypt is before thee ; in the best of the land make thy
father and thy brethren dwell ; in the land of Goshen let them dtvell ;
and if thou knowest any men of ability among them, then make them
overseers over my cattle.

Phamoh was evidently not only of kindly disposition, but
also very grateful for the great services which Joseph had
rendered him. " Thy father and thy brethren are come unto
thee," said the kind-henrted king, it is therefore your duty to
see that they are properly cared for. There shall be no obsta-
cles put in your way to do so, the whole land of Egypt is before
you, select the best of the country for then», even the most
fertile parts of Goshen, and should there be any capable men
among your brethren, make them "ty^ (save) ovei'seers or con-
trollers over my cattle. The term TOpTa (viikneh) is evidently

here used in the comprehensive sense, as inclu<ling also the
shepherds, like ch. xxix. 3, and is therefore well rendered in the
Arabic Version : " Make them rulers over those who are set
over my cattle." The oflice of controller of the shepherds and
flocks of eastern princes seems to have been of a high order, for
in 1 Chron. xxvii. 25-31, it is enumerated among the chief
public officials.

oOi

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

Some of ouv modem critics regard it as very strange that
Joseph did not present his father to Pharaoh before he pre-
sented his Itrotliers, or at least at the same time with them.
But Joseph hud no doubt good reasons for acting as he did,
thouglj his motives may not be apparent to us. It is, however,
(piite probable, that as the introduction of his brothers partook
of a business character to obtain a certain favour from the king,
out of respect to his father being the chieftain of his family, he
did not wish him to be present on the occasion of soliciting the
favour ; but as soon as their request had been granted, then, as
a token of respect to the king, he presented his father to him.

7. And Joseph brought Jacob, hia father, ami placed him before
Pharaoh : and Jacob blessed Pharaoh.

Jacob showed himself grateful for the many kindnesses
which he and his family had received at the hand of Pharaoh
by bestowing a solemn blessing. The blessing was, no doubt,
a fervent prayer for the welfare of the king. In later times,
the ordinary salutation to a king was. Dbl^b nb^Sn TJ^ iyechi
hammeleck leolam), may the king live forever. (See 1 Sam. x.
34 ; 1 Kings i. 2:}).

8. And Pharaoh, said itnto Jacob, How many are the years of thy
life? (Or more literally, "How many are the days of t/ie years of
thy life I")

It would appear from the king's question that he was par-
ticularly struck with the venerable appearance of Jacob. Pro-
bably th»; ELjyptians did not attain to such a great age. He
may also have expected that the question would elicit in the
reply .some information regarding his past life.

9. A nd Jacob said to Pharaoh, The days ofth<', years of my pilgrimage
are a hundred and thirty years : feto and evil have the days of the years
of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of tho years of the
life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

The comparison of life to pilgrimage was common among
the eastern people. Thus the Psalmist saj's,

"For I am a stranger with thee, .,

■ A Bojouruer, a» iHl my fathers were."

(Pa. xxxix. 1.3, J'ug. Ver. v. 12.)

Compare, also, Ps. cxix. S^ Heb. xi. 13. The Persians have
a saying that " The world is >t, cir-ivansary, we are a caravan in
it, but never do the pilgrims tarry long in the caravansary."
The Egyptians called the dwellings of the living inxM, to

people's commkntary.

the

indicate that they are only for a short occupation ; whilst they
called the tombs of the dead eternal homes. (Diod. Siculus,
i. 51.) Jacob, on leaving the presence of Pharaoh, again
bestowed lis blessing. Joseph, in compliance Avith Pharaoh '.s
command, made his father and his brothers dw« II " in the land
of Ramesis " (v. 11), which is synonymous with " in the land of
Go.shen " (v. 4). This tract of land was not riven to them
merely for temporary occupation, but as a posse '-^ion, and there
their descendants dwelled, and multiplied exct't-dingly (v. 27).
Joseph also supplied his father's household with all the
necessaries of life during the continuation of the famine (v. 12).

13, Ayid there wns «o hreadin all theland ; for tin famine yf an very
heavy, and the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan were exhausted
on account of the famine.

The narrative now retums again to the terril le famine, giv-
ing a brief account of what took place during the remaining
years.

Only two years of famine had as yet past, and already
the land of Egypt, and the land of Canaan were exhausted from
its eft'ects. The money realized fn^m the sale -f corn Jo.seph
paid into " the house of Pharaoh " (v. 14), i. e., into the royal
treasury. When the Egyptians had spent their money they
demanded that bread might be given to them to ■ ave them from
starvation, " why should we die in thy presence ' ? (v. \'i), they
exclaimed. But whatever counnisseration Josej)"i ma}' have felt
for the people, the corn they demanded did not belong to him,
it was the king's property, and as his steward he could not give
it away. He, therefore, told the people, if their money is spent,
to bring their cattle, and he would give them coiii in exchange,
With this proposition the people seemingly comjjlied rea«lily.
They brought their horses, and flocks of sheep, and herds of
cattle, and asses ; for which Joseph supplied th-Mn with bread
that 3'ear (vv. IG, 17).

Our adverse critics liave charged Joseph with cruel treat-
ment of the people in order that he might enrich his benefactor
the king; but a nu^re cursory view of the deplorable state of
affairs will show (piite the contrary to be the case. The people
niu.st inevitably have lost their cattle, not haviuL' the means to
provide them with food ; by selling them to Joseph, they had a
chance to recover them after the famine, very pr bably on rea-
sonable terms, in the same manner as they afterwards recovered
their landed property again. The people seemtd to have had
perfect confidence in Joseph, that he was doing the best both
lor the people and the country, and appeared to ! ave submitted
to his directions without a murmur.
«3

560

PEOPLE S COMMEM'AUY.

18. And when that year wa« ended, they came to him the tecond
year, and mtid to him. We will not hide ii, from my ford : but our moneif
is spent ; and the herds of cattle belong to my lord ; there is nothing
left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies and our lands :

19. Where/ore shall tt-e die be/oi'e thine eyes, both we and our land f
buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants
unto Phanu'h : and give Uhseed, that we may live, and not die^ ami
that the land be not desolate.

" They came to him the second year," that is, not the second
year of the famine, but from the failing of their money. " We
will not hide it from my lord." Why should they wish to hide
it ? But the fact is, it appears that it was then, as it is now,
those who have lived in amuence, or even in easy circumstances,
are loth to make confession of poverty unless driven to it
by extreme necessity. The language of the Egyptians implies
that if it had been |)ossible to keep the knowledge of their re-
duced state from Joseph they would have done so. " Where-
fore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land ?" that
is. Why should we die, and our land become desolate ? Uncul-
tivated land was by the Hebrews and Arabians looked upon
as dead, hence to cultivate a desolate field is spoken of as
l/riitffing it to life. (Koran, Sur. xxv. 51.) " Buy us and our
land for bread," &c. The people of their own accord offer their
land and themselves in exchange for bread ; " Skin for skin,
yea all that a man hath will he give for his life," (Job ii. 4^.
They are willing to become servants to Pharaoh, and work
their lands for him, merely asking that they might be provided
with seed. Our adverse critics have characterized Joseph's
conduct as extremely tj^rannical and heartless, as evincing no
commisseration for the people, but rather taking advantage of
the miserable condition to which the famine had reduced them
to enrich and increase the power of an ambitious tyrant. But
whatever unfavourable view the opponents of Scripture may
take of Joseph's conduct, certain it is that the Egyptians them-
selves looked upon him as the preserver of their lives. ** And
they said, thou has saved our lives : let us find grace in the
sight of my lord, and we will be servants to Pharaoh," (v. 25).
Joseph, at the request of the people, bought their land for
Pharaoh, .so that it became his property, (v. 20). It will, how-
ever, be seen from verse 24 that the land was again restored
to the people, and that only a tax of one-fifth was imposed
upon them.

21. And as fi/r the people, he removed them to the cities from one
end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end of it.

In this removal of the people to the cities, our adverse critics

people's commentary.

667

'^« •eamd
our moHetf
it itothing

our land f

^ tercanU

die^ aiul

le second
y. "We
n to hide

is now,
nstances,
en to it

implies
their re-

Where-
d ?" that

ITncul-
Jd upon
;n of as
and our
Jer their
or skin,
) ii. 4).
\ work
rovided
oseph's

ing no

age of
d them
But
may
them-
And
the
•. 25).
id for
how-
tored

ritics

can find nothing but heartless conduct on the part of Joseph.
Thus *Dr. Kalisch, who echos the sentiments of the Qeminn
rationalistic writers, observes, " Joseph, impatient to pursue
his policy to the utmost consequences, and enger to use the
opportunity which, perhaps might never recur, indeed, bought
both lands and owners, but heartlessly separating the one from
the other, transplanted the people ' from one end of the boundary
of Egypt to the other,' anxious to create and to keep alive in
their minds a feeling of perfect dependence, unconcerned at
tearing asunder all the dear and sacred tics which for genera-
tion had bound the families to their hereditary soil, and
indifferent at the sight of wandering millions becoming stran-
gers in their own country." (Com. on Genesis, p. 703.) It is
really strange that our advei-se critics will only take a one-
sided view of Biblical subjects. It is surely the duty of an
impartial critic to set before his readers what may be said in
favour as well as what may be said against a subject, and in
the case before us it is not very difficult to discover the motive
for Joseph removing the people to the cities or to their neigh-
borhood. It was evidently done in order to facilitate the
distribution of the provisions among the millions of people by
bringing them nearer to the store-houses. An unbiased critic
would look upon it as an exceeding wise act. if, indeed, it was
not absolutely a necessary one. The land of the priests Joseph
did not buj', for these lands were not alienable, they being
assigned to them by the king. From the landed property the
priests obtained their revenue, and from it thoy were obliged,
by the constitution of the kingdom, to furnish the sncri^ces
and provide all the expenses of the national religion. (Comp.
Diod. Siculus, i. 73.)

23. And Joseph said to tfie people. Behold, I have hotiyht you this
day and your land for Pharaoh ; lo, here is seed /or you. and ye shall
sow the land.

24. And it shall come to pass in (he increase (/. e., in the harvest),
that ye shall give thejij'th jiart unto Pharaoh, and four p{nts shall be
your otvn, for seed ofthejif.ld, and for your food, and for those of your
households, and for food for your little ones.

It is evident from our passage that although the people had
sold themselves and their lands to Pharaoh, they weie by no
means treated as slaves. When the famine was drawing to a
close, they were furnished with seed to sow their land, and all
they had to pay to the king was ** one fifth," which certainly

•I have quoted firm Dr. Knluch's cdimtntnry in i reference to from a
German or.e, uecauee it Lb written in English and waa publiiihed in Loudon
(England).

5G8

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

waa not a heavy tax, where the increase is genenlly thirty-fold,
and compares very favoural)ly with the tax levied under some
despotic governments even at the present time. In order to
assure the regular and ready payment of the yearly tax, Joseph
made it a law over the land of Egypt, exempting only the land
which had been ceded to the priests, and which they held by
inalienable right, and could therefore not bo interfered with
even by the king.

The narrative now returns again to the history of Jacob,

f riving the closing account of his life. The patriarch had
ived seventeen years in Egypt, and had attained to the age of
a hundred and forty-seven years. Increasing infirmities now
warned him that the days of his pilgrimage on earth were
drawing to an end, and anxious that he might not be buried in
Egypt, but be joined in burial with his fathers in Caman, the
land of promise, he sent for Joseph, in order to obtain from him
the solemn promise that his wishes would be faithfully fulfilled,
and Joseph gave him the assurance that he would do in accord-
ance with his words (v. 30).

31. And he said, Swiarto me : and he swore to him.
bowed himself upon the bed's head.

And Israel

It may perhaps be regarded as somewhat strange that Jacob
should have demanded an oath from Joseph after having pledged
his word that he would do according to his father's wishes. But
he may have feared that Pharaoh migiic probably object to
Joseph leaving Egypt unless he was bound by an oath which
he knew would be respected. When Joseph had given the
solemn promise, " Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head,"
that is, he bowed himself towards the head of the bed, and
worshipped God, giving thanks for the promise he had received
from his son. The verb inD'O"' Qflshtachii), bowed himself,
usually includes the idea of worshipping. So David in his old
age, and confined to his bed, " bowed himself upon the bed," and
worshipped God (I Kings i. 47). In the Septuagint, however,
it is rendered, " bowed himself upon the top of his staff," read-
ing nE>''a (niatteh), staffs, instead of T\lSil2 {mUtah), bed. As the

consonants are the same, befoi'e the introduction of the vowel
points, the word could be read either way. But most critics
regard the present reading of the Hebrew text as the correct
one. And Symmachus and Aquila have also rendered " bed."
The statement in Hebrews xi. 21, does not favour the Septua-
gint reading, for that statement refers to Jacob blessing the two
sons of Joseph recorded in chapter xlviii.

■■•»=:

PEOPLES COMMKNTAllV.

6C&

CHAPTER XLVIII.

1. And it crime to pass after these thiiujs, that ono tuhl Joseph, lie-
hold, thy father !w sick : and he took with him his two sons, Jliinuaseh
and £phraim.

Wc have seen, at the close of the preceding chapter, when
Jacob felt that his life was tlnnving to a close, he sent for
Joseph in order to obtain from him the solemn promise that ho
would bury hini with his fathers. Although at that time in a
feeble state, he was apparently not actually' ill. Some time,
however, after Jo.seph had given the promise — the narrative
does not state what length of time had intervened — he was
informed that his father was sick, and at once hastened to his
father's bedside, taking with him his two .sons, no doubt that
they might obtain their grandfather s blessing before his death.

2. Avd *oue told Jacob, and said, Behold thy son Joseph cometh
unto thee ; and Israel stremitheiied himself, and sat upon the bed.

Joseph, not knowing how ill hi.s fatlier might be, and fear-
ing lest the siiddtnapiieamnce with his two .sons before him
might be productive of evil conso(jueiicos, very consideiatcly
took tho precaution to have his aiiival (juietly annoimced to
him. The news of his son's coming to see liim revived the
spirit of the feeble patriarch, and he exerted hini.self to sit up
on the bed.

act

3. And Jacob said to Joseph, Cod Almiyhty appeared to me in Luz,
in the land of Canaan, and blenscd me,

4. And said vnto me, Behold, I tcill make thee fmifftil, and multiphf
thee, and I ivill make of thee a mnllilnde of people ; and will give this
land to thy seed ifter thee, for an everlasliuy possession.

No doubt Jacob had often spoken of this manifestation and
promise made to him to hi.s household, but as he was now
about to adopt Joseph's two eldest sons iis his own, and make
them equal sharers with his sons in the promised inheritance,
he very appropriately reverts to it again to impress upon
Joseph that in virtue of that promise made to him he was en-
titled to divide the promi.sed land among his progeny.

•The verb '*|)255'^T {waiyomei-) must here be taken impersonally — as is often
the case with the tliird peis. fut. of verbs — and rendered " and one told" ; cor-
responding to the impersonal German expression man eaijt, or that of the
French on dit.

670

PROPLLS COMMISNTARY.

5. A nd now thy tioo $om, who were horn to thee in the lan-l of Ejifpt
before I cumi to th'^e into Ejiffft, aro tniius ; Eithraim anJ AVatuuash
$haU be mine, like Reuben and Siin;on.

6. But thy iasHf which thou h't$t bejittten after them shall be thitte ;
they ah'dl be called after the nam-i of t/mr brethren in their inhtritanee.

In tho adoption, it will be seen that Ephraim and Manasseh
wero to rank liko tho two oldest sons of Jacob ; but, as Reubon
was deprived of his birthright and the descendants of Simeon
wero to bo scattered ainontr the other tribes, as we shall here-
after see, Joseph actually obtained the position of the firstborn,
so far as re(]fards the inheritance of the promised land. The
sons who were born to Joseph after Jacob came into Esjypt
were not to become heads of tribes, but their descendants were
to be included in the families of Ephraim and Manasseh, and
have their inheritance with them.

7. And as for me, when / ciinf from Padan, R'lchel died by my
aide in the land of Canaan, in the way, when yet there was a little way
to come to E/>hrath : and I buried her there in the M%y of Ephraih, the
same is Bethlehem.

The reader will perceive that this allusion to Rachel's death
has no connection whatever either with what precedes or fol-
lows. It can therefore only be regarded as the last tribute of
affection to Rachel, his beloved wife. It may probably also
have been intended to increase Joseph's love for the country
where his beloved mother is buried, and kindle in him an
earnest desire to have his remains also brought uf) into tlie
promised land. It must be remembered Joseph's ties to the
land of Egypt were not of an insignificant nature. He had
been raised from a slave to the viceroy of the country, and had
become in close relationship by marriage to one of the most
noble and infiuential families of the land. Jacob's eyesight
being dim from old age, he did not recognize Joseph's two
sons ; but, on being told who they were, he asked Joseph to
bring them to him that he might bless them. When the lads
cam3 near him, he embraced and kissed them ; and, with a
grateful heart for this token of God's morcy. he exclaimed, " I
had not hoped to see thy face agalii, attd lo, God has permitted
me to see thy seed also " (v. 11). Joseph, in arranging his sons
for the reception of the blessing, placed them in such a manner
that Jacob's right hand would come upon the head of his
eldest son Manasseh and the left hand upon the head of
Ephraim ; but Jacob deliberately laid his right hand upon the
head of Ephraim and his left hand upon the head of Manasseh.
In doing so he was obliged to cross his arms.

PKOPLKS COMMKNTARY.

•n

a
I

■13

When Joseph perceived what his father had done, ho deemed
it his paternal duty to protect tho birthright of his eldest son,
and held up his father's hand to retnovc* // from Kphraiin's
head unto Manassoh's head. " And Josoph said unto liis father,
Not HO, my father, for this iH the Hrst horn ; put thy right hand
upon his head" (vv. 17, IH). But although Jacob's eyesight
was dim, the vision of his prophetic eye was strong. The bless-
ing which he was al)nut to Wstow was not an ordinary bless*
ing, or he would douijtless have respected the right of priujo-
gcnitun?. It was a prophetic blessitig, and in the l>estowal of it
the patriarch was under the guidance of Him who alone
knows what will hap|x>n in the f ut ure. Jacob, therefore, refused
to remove his hand, and said to Joseph, " I know it my son, I
know it : he also shall become a people, and he also shall lie
great ; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he,
and his seed shall become a multitude of nations" (v. 19).

15. Aii'l he h/^gsmi Jincph, ami snid, Gitl, before whom m;f fathen
Abraham and Iguac imilkud, the God who fed me from my birth unto
this day.

16. The nngel who redeemed me from all evil, may Mens the lad$,
and let in them my name, he cuffed, and the name of' my fathers Abra-
ham and lamic : and let them increase into a multitude in the midst
of the earth.

" And he blessed Joseph," that is, he blessed Joseph in bestow-
ing a blessing upon his sons. A parent will be as grateful for
the blessing Ijestowed upon his children as if it were bestowed
upon himself. "The vod who fed me from my birth."
The phrase ifjj^ njlH (haroeli othi) implies more than merely
to feed ; it means t<» guide, to watch over, and to provide for,
as a shepherd. (C'omp. Ps. xxiii. 1 ; xxviii. 0.) " The angel
who redeemed me. " The act ascribed to the angel shows clearly
that it was not a created angel, but the same who in other
places is spoken of .'is " the angel of the Lord," Jehovah mani-
fested in the form of an angel. (Comp. my note on ch. xvi. 7.)
Spoken of also in Isaiah Ixiii. i) as " the angel of his face," to
whom is ascribed there likewise saving and redeemirg power.
" And let in them my name be callecl," that is, not oidy be
called b>' my name " Israel," V)ut also be partukei-s in the bless-
ings promised to me and to my fathers Abraham and Isaac. It
is only by their becoming heirs of the promise that it can bo
said that the name of Abraham and Isaac is called in Ephraim
and Manas.seh. " And let them increase into a multitude."
The rendering " increase " does not convey an adequate mean-
ing of th J Hebrew verb •\-y\ (dugu), which means to multiply
lUceJish. This is the only place in the Old Testament where

572

PEOPLES CUMMENTAKY.

tho verb :h eiiii loyed, an*! is no doubt <!erivoil from the uouii
y^ (''«i/). « A'W' An«l. in«U-«l. aIn-;Mly ia tli<' tiiiio of Moses
the dcHCcn'ltuil.. of JiKtepli by his two Hons nuiulMjnjd 8.),"J()()
wftiriors, 8urp(i.<<iing in nuniber any of tho other tribes. (Soo
Num. xxvi. 22. 34, 37).

20. Atul ha ifftted iKrm oh that ftttff, »at/iug, Itif t/iee g/iall Itirael
bless, saying, Mo^ (iod wuiie ikte a* Ejtfiruiin utul Mamisseh : and he
jmt Ephraim bfjvn Jiatuutek.

How literall , has all this been fulfilled. * " May God niako
thee a.s Ephraii.i and Ma]ias.>4.-h," has aiwa^'s ainon^ thu llebruw.s
been used lus liic j'uriu of blcsnin^. Even to this day the ortho-
dox Jew.s use iv at stated tiiucs in blessing tlieir sons. Whilst
in blcssinj^ their daughters, they make use of t/te form, " may
(»od make the like Rachel and Leah." Tlicn as regards the
distinction coii..nv«l on Ephruiiu in the blessing, wo find that
shortly after tlu- exodus from Eg_vpt at the first numbering of
Israel in the wil)lem»», the Ephraimites exceeded tho uion of
Manasseh by U|jward.s of eight thousand soldiers, and bore one
of the four gr- at standards of tlie Hebrew hosts, whilst tho
tribes of M.-tnu." r,e\\ and Benjamin followeil tho standard of tho
tribe of Ephraiiiu • (See Num. iL lS-24). It is true, that inimo-
diately before ilie entrance into Canaan, the iribe of Manasseh
outnuml»ercd the tribe of Ephraim, V»y upwards of 20,000 nioii
(see ch. xxvi. ti [, 37) ; but this increase was merely temporary,
and may have i.>oen cau-sed by some of the younger families of
Joseph's doscenlant-> having for a time cast thtir lot with tho
tribe of Mauju^seh. Jinshua, the conqueror of Canaan, who
belonged to th* trilje of Ephraiiii, allotted to tho Ephraintites
&s their portion, one of the most fertile parts of Palestine,
extending from the Mediterranean Sea on the west, to tho river
Jordan on the e;u>t (Jo>»h. xvi. 1). In the time of tho Judges,
the tribe of E^ihraim increased greatly, both in number and
power, and tiiially Vtecame the hea»l of the ten tribes. Tho
haughty and d«)mineering spirit of the Ephraimitcs is indicated
in several places. (Comp. J««h. xviL H; Judg. viii. 1-3 ; xii. 1).
The tabernaelo and the ark were for a long time deposited
at Shiloh, which was within the limits of the tribe of Ephraim.
This possession of the sacerdotal establi.diment which was the
centml object of attraction to the other tribes, must have
greatly contributetl to incrca.<c the importance anrl wealth
of the tribe oi Ephraim. Within its territory Deborah, the
prophetess anil heroine, judged Israel. But what gave the

*The auxiliary verbs ma^, eomlJ, womld^ are wanting in Hebrew, they are
expressed by luiug the fatore of the Terh, hence CTI^X Tl^TT^ " may God
m:ike thee.

n the noun
c of Mosos
tnjil 8.>,L'()0
ribcs. (SotJ

' sJuiU Israel
laseh : and he

^ God niako

iho llebrewH

y the ortho-

n.s. Whilst

unn, "may

rugan.l.s tho

.'0 find that

iinbeiing of

tho iiion of

id horu ono

, whilst the

idard of tho

that iinme-

»f Maiiasseli

20,000 men

temporaiy.

famiiie.s of

with the
naan, who
phraimites

Palestine,
tho river
ho Judi^es,
inibor and
ibes. Tho
i indicated
-3;xii. 1).

deposited

Ephraim.
1 was the

uist have

I wealth
)orah, tho
gave the

jw, they are
"may God

people's commentary.

573

tribe of Ephraim afterwards Hueh great promineneo was, that
Jeroboam, tho first king of Israel, was of that tribe, and that
the seat of tho new kingdom was establisheil in it. Hence
tho term " Ephraim" is often used to signify " tho kingdom of
Israel." Tho custom of tho imposition of hands as tho symbol
of conferring blessings, powers, or authority, we porcoiv), dates
back to the patriarchal age. It formed afterwards a part also
of tho sacrificial ritual, and bo(;anio in time a usual mode of
initiation into sacred offices both among tho Jews and Christians.
Tho rhtfit hand was always regarded as superior to the left.
(Comp. 1 Kings ii. 11); Ps. xl. 10; ex. 1 Isa. Ixii. 8.) Tho right
hand was lifted up on all occasions, especially in performing on
oath, which will explain tho words of the Psalmist:

•'Their inou*li speaketh vanity,
Ami tliuir riglit liuiul ia u right iiuiul uf fulsvhouil."
„. . (Pt.cxli. 8.)

That is, they lift up their right hand in sv/earing to lies.

21. And Israel sail \into Joseph, Rfhohl I die ; but God will be vr,th
you, and briwj you again unto the land of your fathers.

Seventeen years had now elapsed since Jacob came down
into Egypt ; they must have been years of mutual pleasure to
father nnd son. But tho aged patriarch's pilgrimage upon earth
was tlrawing to a close, and he is preparing his affectionate son
for the stroke of affliction, but adding tho consolation, " God
will be with you," as much as to say, God who had renewed
the promi.so to me which He had made to my fathers Abraham
and Isaac to possess the land of Canaan, He will be with you,
and surely fulfil that promise by bringing you up again into
the land of your fathers.

22. And I (jive to thee one jwrtion above thy brethren, xohich I took
out of the lutnda of the Amorite toith my sivord and with my botn.

In the Authorized and Revised Versions the words n^ ■'tlflD
(nathattl lecha) are rendered, " I have given tf. thee," but
though the original admits of this rendering, yet it is quite
unsuitable to the context. It is only now by adopting tho
two sons of Joseph, and makitig them co-heirs with his other
sons that he assigns to Joseph through his sons, ono portion
above what his other Itrothers receive each as a single tribe.
" One portion above thy brethern ;" in the original, we have
the peculiarity of the term 'uy^ (shechem) a moulder, being
here used metaphorically to express "a portion" o/'/ct/u/, or
tract of country. So the Arabians sometimes call a tract of
land a shoulder. As the Hebrew term is similar to the name

. t
«

-^ ir '■*-

t >

574

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

of the town Shechem, and as that town was situated in the
portion which was afterwards assigned to the tribe of Ephraim,
many commentators have erroneously interpreted our verse to
refer to the slaughter of the Bhechemites, and the ])lundering
of that town ; but such an application of the passage would
imi)ly that Jacob approved of the atrocious act committed by
his sons Simeon and Levi, whereas he condenmed it in the most
severe terms. Besides Jacob did not keep possession of
Shechem ; but, on the contrary, innuediately after the perpe-
tration of the crtel deed, dejjartcd from the place, for fear of
vengeance being taken upon his family by the neighbouring
tribes. No moi*e happy is the application of other connnentators
who explain it, to refer to the piece of ground near Shechem
where Jacob dwelled, and where afterwards Joseph was buried,
for this piece of ground was not obtaineil by his sword and his
bow, but was purchased from Hamor for a hundred kesitahs.
The writers who adopted this application in order to get over
this difficulty, say that the Amorites most likely had taken
possession of the piece of ground after the removal of Jacob from
the ])lace, and that the patriarch was obliged to wrest it again
from them by force of arms. But this is mere conjecture, there
is not the slightest allusion in the sacred nurative to any such
occurrence having taken place. The proper interpretation of
our verse doubtless is, that it contains a prophetic declaration
of the conquest of the promised land with the sword and with
the boM'. The use of the jyveterifc for the future, is very com-
mon, in prophetic fleclai-ations. The proi>hets in speaking of
future events, frequently speak of them as having ah'eady,
taken place, or as taking place at the time, being so sure of
their fultilment. They see with prophetic eyes tlie events
as if actually passing before their vi.sit>n. Conq)are Isa. v. 13;
ix. 2, 6 ; and so in many other place.s ; and so tlio verb ijnnpb
(lakackti) "I took," or "I have taken," is prophetically employed
for " I will take" that is, through my descendants. "Out of the
hand of the Amorite " ; we have already stated that the Amor-
ites were the most powerful of all the diUerent tribes inhabit-
ing the promised land ; they are therefore sometinies employed
as representatives of the heathen inlial»itants of Canaan in
general. In this sense the term " Amorite " is evidently em-
ployed in our passage.

•"•^rr

people's commentary.

575

buated in the
eof Ephraim,
I our verse to
e ])lunderinff
)assage would
coiuinitted by
it in the most
possession of
ter the perpe-
ce, tor fear of
neighbouring
connnentiitors
near Shechein
ph was buried,
sword and his
idred kesitahs.
ler to get over
Lt'ly had taken
1 of Jacob from
wrest it again
jnjecture, there
,e to any such
iterpretation of
J tic dccUiration
word and with
•e, is very com-
u speaking of
aving ah'eady,
eing so sure of
•es the events
)are Isa. v. 13 ;
le verb -ipinpb
|cally employed
"Out of the
,lmt the Amor-
tribes inhabit-
,imes eniployed
of Canaan in
evidently em-

CHAPTER XLIX.

, // ij . . p ■ ... -"i

. T 111.. I I t I 4 I t I . / k I ». M

1. And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves to-
■gether, and I vnll declare to you that which shallhefall you in future
days.

\ 1 .1 r . iH

2, Gather yourselves together, and liear, ye sons of Jacob ; and
hearken to Israel your father.

The sons of Jacob having large possessions of cattle, were
necessarily scattered with tlieir families over the land of Goshen.
The patriarch perceiving that the days of his life were drawing
to a close " called unto his sons," that is, he sent messengers to
the dift'erent parts were they were residing, and summoned
them before him. The object of the patriarch was not merely
to take his last farewell of them, but more particularly that he
might make known to them what should happen to their pos-
terity " in future days." The comnr.mication of those prophetic
declarations, gave additional solemnity to this last meeting,
whilst the utterances coming from the lips of their dying father,
could not fail to become indelil)ly impressed upon the minds of
the assembled sons. The expression Q'^^'^n !n''"in!s^3 (heacha-
rith haiyaminii), which we have above rendered, " in future
days," though often used without having reference to any pre-
cise or limited time, as in the passage before us, also Numb. xxiv.
14, and now, behold I am going to my people; come, I will inform
thee what this people shall do mito thy people " in future days,"
(Auth. Ver. " in the latter days,") see also Deut. iv. 30 ; yet
unquestionably also refers sometimes to the time of the Messiah,
and in that case it is rightly translated, in the last days. Thus,
for instance, Isa. ii. 2; " and it shall come to pass in the last days,
the mountain of the house of Jehovah shall be established in
the top of the mountains, an<l shall be exalted above the hills ;
and all the nations shall flow to it." So Micah iv. 2. Althou;^'h
Jacob's pr'^phetic declarations liad tlieir fulfilment only soma
centiries afterwards, yet they were addressed to his sons per-
sonally as the founders of the tribes. The language too, in
which the blessings are couched possesses all the characteristics
of Hebrew poetry.

3. Reuben my first horn art thou.

J\fy might, and the }>eginning of my strength.

The excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power :

4. A boiling up as ofioater art thou, 'hou shalt not excel ;
For thou nscendest the bed of thy father,

Then thou didst defile it .•
My cmich he hath ascended.

5T6

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

I I

-^. 't

-if:

*' Reuben," Hebrew "1^16^1 (Reiiven), i. e., see ye a son, was
probably an expression of joy which Leah made use of at the
birth of her fix'st-born son, and which she imposed on the child
as his name. " My might," that is, the child begotten in the
full vigour of manhood, " And the beginning of my strength ; "
this expression is nearly of the same import as the preceding,
and was employed to denote the Jirst-horn. Perhaps from the
idea of the first born son possessing more strength than the
other childrer. It is several times found as a parallelism with
first-horn, as Deut. xxi. 17 ; Ps. Ixxviii. 51, and again Ps. cv. 36.

Ami he smote all the first-born la their laud,
All the btigiiiiiiiig of their strength.

From these passages it is evident that the phrases, beginning
of my strength and first-born, are synonymous terms, and the
sense of the passage is therefore correctly conveyed in the
Septuagint rendering apyi) tckvcov fiov, i. e., " the beginning of
my children." " The excellency of dignity, and the excellency
of power" ; in the first expresj^ion, allusion is evidently made
to the priesthood, an honour and prerogative pertaining to the
birthright in those times, before the regular institution of the
priesthood under the Mosaic law. The latter expression refers
to the rule and government of the family, which likewise de-
volved upon the first-born, and to the double portion of the
inheritance which by right he would have received. Onkelos in
his Chaldee version {Targwm) has ]>araphrased verse 3, " Reu-
ben, my first-born art thou, my might and the beginning of
my strength ; thou wouldst have received three portions, the
birth-right, {i. e., the double portion of the inheritance), the
priesthood, and the kingdom." The Jerusalem Targum, has
paraphrased it : " And for the sin of my son Reuben, the birth-
right is given to Joseph, the kingdom to Judah, and the priest-
hood to Levi." " A boiling up as of water ait thou " ; that is,
thou didst boil up like water with lust, alluding to Reuben's
incestuous connection with his father's concubine Bilhah. (See
Gen. xxxv. 22.) The crime which Reuben had committed was
one of the deepest dye, and the pain and grief which the act
caused to the pious and aged patriarch, must indeed have been
great in the extreme. Such a deed demanded the severest
punishment that the father could inflict, and consequently he
deprives him of his birth-right. "Thou shalt not excel"; i. e.,
thou art cut oft from t'le prominence which would have be-
longed to the first-born. And how literally was this fulfilled !
To Joseph was gi\ en the double portion (compare 1 Chron. v.
1-2) ; on Levi was conferred the priesthood, (for the tribe of
Levi was sot apart for the service of God, and to the family of
Aaron was given the right of the priesthood ; whilst Judah

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

577

a son, was
ise of at the
on the child
)tten in the
r strength ; "
e preceding,
,p3 from the
th than the
illelism with
,in Ps. cv. 30,

33, beginning
rms, and the
^eyed in the
beginning of
le excellency
idently made
lining to the
itution of the
ression refers
likewise de-
prtion of the
i. Onkelos in
;rse 3, " Reu-
Deginning of
)ortions, the
eritance), the
Targum, has
en, the birth-
id the ])riest-
(m " ; that is,
to Reuben's
Bilhah. (See
)mmitted was
irhich the act
sed have been
the severest
isequently he
excel" ; i. c,
uld have be-
this fulfilled!
re 1 Chron. v.
the tribe of
the family of
whilst Judah

obtained the pre-eminence, as we read in 1 Chron. v. 2, " For
Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the
prince." The tribe of Reuben never obtained any importance,
and at no time made a figure in the history of the natio*!. It pro-
duced neither kings nor heroes, and so far from perfo ing any
great exploits, it was reproached by Deborah for the want of
courage. (See Judg. v. 16.) At the numbering of the children
of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai, the second year after they
came out of Egypt, the tribe of Reuben numbered 4G,r)00 adult
males (Num. i. 22), and accordingly ranked as seventh in
population ; but from the census taken in the plains of Moab..
before entering into the land of Canaan (Num. xxiv. 7), it
appears that its number had decreased, amounting only to
4Ji,7oO, which made it rank the ninth as to population. Let
the doom of Reuben serve as a warning, that many pleasures of
this world, like some poisonous fruits which appear attractive
to the sight, will, when tasted, i)rove highly injurious, if not
altogether fatal to him that allows himself to be enticed by their
external api)earance.

Reuben's conduct in regard to Joseph, however, presents to us
a brighter picture of his character. His endeavour to save
Joseph's life when the brothei's consjHred to kill liim, indicates
an improved state of mind, and leaves us to hope that he had
sincerely repented of his former guilt. He well knew how
great a service he would render his father by the saving of his
most dearly beloved son, and thus make at least some amends
for the injury he had inflicted on him. It was no doubt in con-
sideration of this laudable conduct, that Moses in his blessings
of the twelve tribes (Deut. xxxiii. G,) declared : " Let Rueben
live and not die ; and let not his men be few." As much as to
say, the tribe of Reuben shall exist, and not become extinct.
Accordingly, we find that it received as its inheritance the tract
of country now called Al Belka: also, by the Arabs Belad al
Kafer, i.e., the land of the iinhelievers, because it was at one
time inhabited by many Christians. Its southern boundary
was the river Arnon, which separated it from Moab ; to the
west it bordered on the Dead Sua ; and to the north and east
it was bounded by the tribe of Gad."

5. Simeon and Levi are brethren ;
Instruments of violence are their snwda,

6. In their council enter not, my soul,

In their assembly do not join, my heart ;

For in their amjer they slew a man.

And tn their wantonness they haughed an ox.

ll^' '

578 people's commentary.

7. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce,
And their lorath, for it xoaa cruel :
J will disperse them in Jacob,
I will scatter them in Israel.

We have already given the meaning of the names of Simeon-
and Levi, and pointed out why they were so called. " Simeon
and Levi are brethren," that is, they not only are children oi
the same mother, but likewise possess the same wicked charac-
ter and disposition. This they evinced in their being associatt'tl
in their treacherous murder of the Shechemites ; and, according
to the uniform tradition of the Jews, they were the chief in-
stigators of the conspiracy against Joseph. " Instrvnnents
of violence are their swords ;" owing to the Hebrew word
DtT^fllS^a {mecherothehe'ni < , ffhxch. I have rendered by "their

swords," occurring only in this place, the passage has been
variously translated. The English Version has 'instruments of
cruelty are in their habitation," deriving the word from n"nij)a
(mechurah), which, however, denotes birth, or nativity, aiid
not hahiiation. In the margin, the passage is rendered, " their
swords are weapons of violence," which shows that the trans-
lators thought such a rendering admissible, and is precisely the
same as I have given. Others derive the word in question
from the Arabic or Ethiopic, and attach to it the signification
of consultations, and read :i^2 (Idllii), they accomplish, in-
stead of 1^3 (kele) instruments ; the passage would then read

they accomiMsh the violence of their consultations.

This emendation, although authorized by the Samaritan and
Greek Versions, is very far fetched, and does not convey a clear
meaning. Besides there is no doubt a distinct allusion in our
passage to Gen. xxxiv. 25, "Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren,
took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and
slew all the males." The rendering which I have given, is
adopted by Luther, in the Revised Version, and by most com-
mentators. " In their council enter not, my soul : in their
assembly do not join, my heart." This refers to the planning
of the daring project to kill the Shechemites. The Hebrew
word TiiS (cavod), honour, glory, is in poetry often emploj^ed
to denote the heart, the spirit, as the noblest part cf man. Thus,
for instance, Ps. xvi. 9, "Therefore my heart is glad, and my
spirit rejoiceth." The rendering in the English version, " My
glory re' "i," does not afford a clear meaning. " For in their
anger tl .lew a man, and in their wantonness they haughed
an ox." The last clause of the passage is given in the Eng-
lish Version : "and in their selfwill they digged down a wall,"

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

579"

is of Simeon-
I. " Simeon
children of
iked charae-
g associated
d, according
he chief in-
fnstnnnents
)bre\v word

I by " their

e has been
truments of
rom n"n5?3
divity, aiid
3red, " their
b the trans-
recisely the
n question
ignification
iplisk, in-
then re;i .1

iritan and

'ey a clear

ion in oiu*

brethren,

)Idly, and

given, is

nost com-

in their

planning

Hebrew

mplojed

n. Thus,

and my

n, "My

in their

aughed

he Eng-

a wall,"

the transuvtcrs muit have read ITO (fhur), a wall, instead of
"iITD (ahor). an ox, adopting merely a dittorent pointing of the
word from that which exists in the present editions of the
Hebrew Bible, in which they have evidently followed the
Chaldee, Syriac, and Vulgate Versions. There are, however,
several strong objections to such a rendering. In the first place,
there is no allusion in the narrative of the occurrence to which
the passage refers, to the digging down of any wall or the
destruction of the city, it is merely said " they spoiled," (t. e.,
they plundered) the city. (See Gen. xxxiv. 27). Secondly
the verb-|p5' {akar)\n tho Piel conjugation, occurs only in the
sense to haugh, to hdiasfri ng, i. g.,to cut the l)ack sinews of the
legs of horses, by which they are rendered useless. (See Josh,
xl. G, J) ; 2 Sam. viii. 4 ; 1 Chro. viii. 4.) The rendering " an
ox," is unquestional)!}' the correct one, which is here employed
figuratively to denote d man of distinction, and refers to
Hamor, the prince of the country, or to Shechem, his son, whom
the sons of Jacob induced to be circumcise<l, and whilst thus
disabled, fell upon thvm and slew them. We may remark here
that hulls in seveial places in the Old Testament are figura-
tively used for nobles or grcdt men, as for exatnple : Ps. xxii.
13, (Eng. Ver. v. 12 ;) Ps. Ixviii. 31 ; (Eng. Ver. v. 30.) Many
commentators take the nouns i^ij^ (ish), "a man," and "ivjj
(shor), " an ox," collectiviily ; and explain the tirsfc to refer to
the male population of Shechem, and the second to the cattle
which Jacolj's sons destroyed, as it was impossible to drive all
away. " I will dispeise them in Jacob, I will scatter them in
Israel ;" that is, I predict that they shall surely bi' dispensed.
The prophets, in order to give greater force to their declara-
tions, sometimes declare to do themselves what they merely
predict will come to pass. So Ezekiel xliii. 3 : "When I came
to destroy the city," i. e., when I cp*ne to prophecy that the
city should be destroyed. Sometini^'s they are represented as
performing what they merely foretell ; as Isa. vi. 10 : " Make
the heart of this people fat, and make their ears dull, and close
up their eyes, lest they see with their eyes," kc. It must not
be understood that the prophet was to do this by an act of his
ministr}-, but merely that he speaks of the event as a fact
which would surely happen.

The prophecy of Jacob regarding Simeon and Levi was lite-
rally fulfilled. The punishment for their ciuel and wicked
conduct towards the Shechemites was indeed delayed, but it
came at last. Simeon is not mentioned at all by Mo.ses in his
blessing of the twelve tribes. Deut. xxxiii. The portion which
was assigned to this tribe was in the midst of that of the tribe
of Judah, for we read in Joshua xix. 9 : " Out of the portion of
the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of

580

PEOPLES COMMENTAKY.

Simeon, for the part of the children of Judah was too much
for them : therefore the children of Simeon hail their inheri-
tance within the inheritance of them." Accordintr to 1 Chron.
iv. 41-i'3, there was an emigration from this tribe, owing,
pfrliaps, to the increase of the populaticm of the tribe of Judah,
wliich made those belonging to the tribe of Simeon give way to
its superior strength. The tribe of Simeon at tlie time of the
exode, contained o9,.*U)0 men able to go forth to war, (see Num.
i. 22, 23), according to which it ranked third in !iuml>er; but
Ix'fore entering Palestine its number was reduced to 22,200,
(see Num. xxvi. 14), Avhich made it rank the lowest of all the
triJies.

The descendants of Levi were likewise dispersetl among the
otlier tribes, the forty-eight cities which were set apart for them
beini; scattered over the wdiolc land of Caiman, so that in their
ca.se also the prophecy of Jacob was literally fultilletl. The
promptness of the sons of Levi in gathering themselves to Moses,
when he stood at the gate of the camp and said, " Who i.^ on
the Lord's side ? let him come to me;" and the willingness which
the\' evinced to execute his command, converted his dispersion
into a benefit and blessing, in having the honour of the priest-
ho<Hl bestowed upon them. (Exod. xxxii. 2G-2D.) The Levitical
cities were distributed among the tribes, nine of them receiving
four each, whilst the tribe of Judah, whose portion wa.s very
large, and in whose territory the tribe of Simeon ha<l his in-
heritance, received nine, the tribe of Napthali receiving three
only.

8. Judah thou art, thy brethren shall praise thee ;
Thy hand .shall be on the neck of thine enemiea ;
The children of thy father shall bow Jon-n to thee.

9. A Liangs whelp is Judah :

From the prey, my son, thou haat gone up ;
Ue stoopeth damn he coucheth, as a lion.
And as a lioness ; ivho shall route him up ?

10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
Xor a lawgiver from between his feet,
Until Shiloh come ;

Ami u)ito him shall be the obedience of the nations.

11. Bituling to the vine his foal,

And his ass^s colt to the choice %nne ;
lie washes in wine his garment,
And in the blood oj grapes his vesture

12. Sparkling are his eyes from wine,
And whitt his teeth from milk.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

581

ras too much
their inheri-
f to 1 Chron.
iribe, owing,
ibc of Judah,
1 give way to
i time of the
ar, (see Num.
!iuHil>er; but
eJ to •22.200,
est of Jill the

id aiuong the
ipait for them
. that in their
uitilkMl. The
Ives to Moses,
, " Who is on
ingiiess which
lis dispersion
of the priest-
The Levitical
lem receiving
ion was very
I had his in-
ceiving three

n».

Judah was the fourth son of Jacob by Leah, and, as we have
already exphiined, the name signifies praise. (See Gen. xxix.
35.) " Thy brethren shall praise thee ; " that is, they shall
acknowledge thee ns their superior, and honour thee for the
high distinctions conferred upon thee. Froin Judah descended
the roj'al House of David, and he was the progenitor, accord-
ing to the flesh, of the Messiah. Indeed, already after the
exodus from Egypt the tribe of Judah took the lead of the other
tribes. When after the death of Joshua the children of Isi'ael
asked of the LoRD, " Who shall go up for us against the Cauaan-
ites first, to fight against tlieni ^ The Lord said, Ju<lah shall
go up." (Juilg. i. 1, 2.) The heroic ex|iloit8 of this tribe, which
it achieved at that time, are faithfully recorded in Judg. i.
3-20. When afterwards the children of Israel were, on account
of their wickedness, delivered into the hand of Cushan-risha-
thaim, king of Mesopotamia, whom they served eight yoars ;
and when they crie<l unto the Loud to deliver them, God chose
Othniel of the tribe of Judah, as theii' first Judge, who, by his
glorious victories delivered them from the Mesopotamian
oppression. (See Judg. iii. 9, 10.)

In the phrase "T^n^ I'lTl"' npS^ rmfT' (Yehiidah attah
yoducha acheelui), " Judah thou <irt, thy brethren sliall praise
thee." There is evidently a play upon the name of Judah,
which signifies j)r((i,sv3, as much as to say, thi/ name is Judah,
denoting pvaue, and thy brefhven nh(dl pralsfi thee. And so
has the passage been interprete<l b}'^ the eminent Rabbinic com-
mentator Ebeu Ezra : " Judah ayf thou : according to thy name,
and thus shall thy l>rethron praise thee." " Thy hand shall be
on the neck of thine enemies ;" this refers to the victorious
career of the tribe of Judah. It is a figurative expression
denoting conquest, conveying the idea of a person Hying, and
the party pursuing putting his hand upon the shoulders of the
fugitive to arrest his flight. In the reign of David, the ene-
mies of Judah were brought in complete subjection to him, and
he evidently refers to this prophecy when he says: Ps. xviii.
41, (Eng. Ver. v. 40), "And thou hast given me the neck of
mine enemies." Onkelos, in his Targum, has given the sense
rather than the literal translation, he rentiers: "Thy hand .shall
prevail against ihine enemies." " The children of thy father
shall bow down to thee," i. c, they shall pa}' to thee the respect
and honour, which are due to one who possesses 4;he highest
dignity. The fulfilment of this prophecy may be said to have
begun at the death of Joshua, when the tribe of Judah by
direct command of God took the precedence of the other tribes
in the war against the Canaanites, (see Judg.i. 2.) It was still
more developed in Judah's assuming the sceptre in the person
of David; but, as a writer has well observed, "its complete
85

H::' *

582

people's commentary.

'*!•■ i

•^•1

nccoinplishinent was to be realized only in the Nressiali, in that
transcendent dignity with wliich he is invest«'il as Kinij of
kings and Lord of lords." In Revelations v. a-H, a syndiolical
respresentation is given of its spiritual fulfilment, when the
lion of the tribe of Judah and the root of David took the
book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down in
adoration at his feet.

We n)ay remark, that the Hebrew verb niTd {nhaclidh),
signifies both to how down, as before superiors, to pay respect
or honour, and to how down to worship God, and there can
therefore be no objection to the spirituid interpretation of the
passage. " A lion's whelp is Judah." In the ])oetical writings
of the Old T»!stament are to be found many beautiful and strik-
ing figures drawn from the habits of the lion. This animal
being at once powerful, daring, and imposing ; bene*! it has
always been the emblem of warlike v.alour and strength among
the eastern nations. In the Idessing of Judah, the figures pre-
sent to us a most graphic description of the gradual growth of
that tribe in strength and power. At first Judah is compared
to a li'jiifi whiip, indicating its; infanc}', and probably rufers to
the perioeJ of time when it first assumed the leadershij* of the
others tribes. Next he is compared to a Hon that bowed and
crouched down. The Hebrew word n^li^ ('"V/''^') denotes a full
grown lion, one that has obtained its full vigour and strength.
It is derived from the verb ni55 {ardh) to tear, so that the
word properly means (i tearer in pieceh\ In this figure, wo have
evidently depicted the reign of David, who stibdued many
nations, and became a mighty monarch, and like a full grown lion
whicli by all other animals is held in fear, he became a terror to
his enemies. Lastly, he is compared to a lioness, which, satiated
with her prey, composedly lies down in her den, but whose
rest, especially when with her young, no one may disturl) with-
out suffering for his temerity. This figure evidently portrays
the peaceful reign of Solomon, who in calm repose enjoyed
with the nation, the fruit of David's victories, but wlio would
have dared to disturb that repose ? In the English Version the
word jj^^nb (l(tvi) is rendered by "old lion;" but Bochart, the
best authoi'ity on the natural history of the Bible, very pro-
perly holds the word to denote a lioness, and not a male
lion. Gesenius, too, assigns several cogent reasons for adopt-
ing the same view ; as, for instance, " it being coupled with
other names denoting a lion, where it can hardly be a mere
synonym ; " also that the passages in Job iv. 11 ; xxxviii.
39, and others, accords much better with the lioness than with
a lion. It is very probable that Jerusalem may have received
the appellation " Ariel," i. e., the lion of God, from its having
been the dwelling ])lace of David. See Lsaiah xxix. 1 : " Woo

people's commentary.

-kSS

ial), in that
ns Kiiii,' of
symbolical
., wli(!n tlio
(I took the
oil down in

{Hhachali),
pay respect
[ there can
tion of the
;al writinL,rs
1 aiul strik-
rhis animal
iiice it has
it;th aniont^
fij^'ures pre-

I growth of
s compared
)ly refers to
slii,* of the
bowed and
motes a full

II strength.

o that the

re, we have

ued many

grown lion

a terror to

h, satiated

)ut whose

turl) with-

y portrays

(' enjoyed

ho would

^'rsion the
ichart, the
very pro-
)t a male
or adopt-
led with
be a mere
xxxviii.
han with
B received
IS having
1: "Woe

to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelled." " From the
prey, my son, thon Imst gone up." Many commentators take the
verb nbS? {<~dali) in the sense to (jnnvup, and render " From thy
prey, my son, thou hast grown up," which would then ref(?r to
the great power which Judah should ac<|uire by his con(|iiests.
But as the verl) is generally used only in this sense in reference
to plants and grass, I think it is better to take ihv verb hen' in
its ])riniary meaning to (jo vp ; the expression will then refei-
to the lion's returning to his den in the ni<Mintains with his
l^rey, and applied to Judah, it would convey the idi'a that he
should return victorious to his secure home with the spoils of
his enemies. Inverse 10, " The sceptre shall not depiirt from
Judah,'" (.Vc, we have the prophetic declaration, that tlm t(!m-
poral dominion or prcveminenco of .ludah should not cease
until the fulness of time, when the Messiah slutuld come, to
whotu all nations shouM render homage. Now, although the
prophecy is perfectly plain, yet tliere are not a few commt^nta-
tors who have endeavoured to constru*; it in such a maimer as
would entirely divest it of its Messianic character; aiul this
they do by attaching to some of tin; words in the original such
meaning as will more readily favour their views. It is (piite
certain that the prophecy admits of but one interpretation, the
question then arises, which is the correct one : the Messianic, or
anti-Messianic? In ordt^r to give a satisfactory repl}' to this
highly important ((uestion, it will bo necessary in the fiist
place to turn to the original and investigate the true uieaiiing
of the words employed ; secondly, to examine which of the inter-
pretations agrees be.st with the context; and thirdly, to consult
the various ver.sions that Ave may see what w(!re the opinions
of the ditfei'ent translators from time to time.

The lirst word we have to consider, is, the word tOUt!? {»he"*'t)
which we have rendered in our i)assage by " sceptre." The
primary meaning of the woid is a t>t(i(i\>r roil, but like very
many other Hebrew words, has various other meanings, which
are deduced from the primary signiticatitm ; thus it denotes ft
sliephcnVs crook, a »ta(J^ of olJitr, as of a leader or judge, and
hence also a sceptre of a king. Jt denotes also (( frihr, a signi-
fication which probably became attached to the word from the
circumstance recorded in Numbers xvii., when Moses was c<ini-
manded to speak to the children of Israel, and to take of every
one of thenj a rod accoiding to tlie house ot their fathers ; of
all their princes according to their fathers, twelve roils; corrtis-
ponding to the number of tribes, and to writts (weiy man's
name upon his rod. These rods Moses laid up in the taberna-
cle, and it was afterwards perceived that Aaron's rod had
budded. Now, as these rods represented the tribes, it is not
unlikely that the Hebrew word for iwZ became also to donote a

584

people's commentary.

I 1

tribe. Some Jewisli writers take the word here in its primnry
signification, ami rendfir " the rod shall not depart from Judah,"
and explain, that the Hohrows shall be an oppressed and afflic-
ted people until the Messiah shall come. But this certaiidy
cannot l>o the meaning ; the context altogether forbids sucli an
exposition, since the text speaks of the rule which the tribe of
Judah should exercise, and not of a foreign rule, it speaks of
Judah under the figure of a lion going forth to prey upon for-
eign nations, and not of foreign nations preying upon Judah.
Some interpreters take the word in the sense of tribe, but
regard it here as eijuivalent to tribeship, implying that the
tribe of Judah should continue in the exercise of its wonted
trilial authority till the coming of Messiah, however the other
tribes might be scattered by conijuest or captivity. Of course
it would be altogether incongruous to say, the tribe shall nut
depart from Judah, and for attaching to the word the mean-
ing of triheship, there is no authority whatever. The true
meaning of the word in our passage no doubt is sceptre, as it
is rendered in the English Version, and we do not see the
slightest reason for departing from that translation, as it is
frequently used in that sense, as evei-y Hebrew scholar well
knows, and perfectly agrees with the context.

The next word we shall have to notice is ppn^l {uinecho-
kek), which has also been variously rendered. Onkelos, in
his Targum, (Chaldee version) renders it by fc^lBO (saphra)
scribe. In the Jerusalem Targum, it is rendered by skilful
teachers of the latv ; in the Syrian version, by an interpreter ;
in the Septuagint, by ^ovfievo^, i. e., a leader ; in the Vulgate,
by dux, i. c., a leader ; and in the Authorized Vei'sion, by a
lawr/iver. The proper way to decide which of these various
renderings is correct, is to examine in what sense the word
is employed in other parts of the Old Testament, which will
leave us only the option between the renderings given in the
Septuagint and Vulgate Versions, and that given in our
Authorized Version, and we consider it of but little importance
which of the two we adopt, although we should prefer that
of the latter, since that of the former is already implied by
the expression sceptre. The Hebrew word is the participle
Piel, but is used substantively, which is very common in the
Hebrew. It denotes, Ist., a laivgiver, as in Deut. xxxiii, 21,
Isa. xxxiii. 22 ; "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our
lawgiver ;" 2nd, a leader, as in Judg. v. 14, " Out of Machir,
{the name of the son of Manasseh, and father of Gilead, but
is here used poetically to denote that portion of Manasseh
which inhabited Gilead beyond Jordan) came down rulers,"
(Eng. Ver., " governors.") But in the sense of scribe, skilful
teaclier, or interpreter, it is nowhere used in the Old Testa-

people's commentahy.

685.

I in its prininry
t from Judalj,"
sssed and afflic-
t thi.s certainly
forbids siicli an
ich tho tril)t« of
• It Npouks of
proy upon for-
g upon Judah.
of tribe, but
ying that tlie
of its wonted
ever the other
ty. Of course
tribe shall not
ord the mean-
er. Tlie true
s sceptre, as it

not see tlie
lation, as it is
r scholar well

n?3T {umecho-

Onkclos, in

ISO (saphra)

3d by skilful

1 interpreter ;
the Vulgate,

''ersioii, by a
lese various
ise the word
which will
given in the
ven in our
importance
prefer that
implied by
participle
men in the
xxxiii, 21,
lORD is our
of Machir,
Gilead, but
■ Manasseh
wn rulers,"
ibe, skilful
Old Testa-

ment. From the foregoing renuirks, tho reader will now per-
ceive that the rendering of the two words which we have
given, in our translation is authorized by Scri|>tural usage.
" From between his feet," this is a mtitaphorical expression,
denoting /ro7U hia seed, or from his o^'sjn'iixj, (for a similar
expression, see l)eut. xxviii. 57), and is rendered in the'I'argiim
of OnkeloH, as well as in the Jerusalem Turgum, by " from his
children's children."

The word that comes next under our consideration is nb''13
{Shiloh), which has called forth a great deal of diHcussion, both
as regards its meaning and application in our passage. Some
commentators, both Jewish and Christian, have taken tho word
Shiliih as the name of the city mentioned in Joshua xviii. 1 ;
1 Sam. iv. 3, 12, and in other places ; and translate the passage
" until he come to Shiloh," which they explain, that Judah
should have precedence until there should come a king out of
Judah to renew tho kingdom of Shiloh, which is near Shechem.
The fulfilment of this they find in Rehoboam, the son of Solo-
mon coming to Shechem where all Israel had assend)led to make
him king, but on refusing to listen to their ])vayer to lighten
their yoke, acting rather upon the advice of thoughtless young
men who had grown up with him, than upon the advice of the
old men who stood before his father, the ten tribes rebelled
against him, and invited Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, of the
tribe of Ephraim, to be their king. (See I Kings xii.) The
words '• unto him shall be the obeilience of the nations," the}'
explain by the subjection of the surrounding nati(jns to Solomon,
and of Israel assembling at Shechem to crown Rehoboam.
Against the above mode of interpreting the ]»as.sago, wo may in
the first place remark, that although the ten triljes did throw
off their allegiance to tho house of David, it cannot be said that
the sceptre departed from J iidah. Rehoboam and his successors, •
were as much kings after the rebellion of the ton tribes as
those who reigned befoie them. All that can be said is, that the
dominion was greatly curtailed b}' that event. And, after all,
the kingdom of Judah was by no means insignificant, as it
embraced, besides the tribe of Judah, which in itself was very
large, also the tribe of Benjamin, and the priests and Levites
who rallied around the house of David.

Rehoboam could still muster " a hundred and fourscore
thousand cho.sen men, which were warriors," (see 1 Kings xii.
21), Avhich he would have led against the ten tribes in order
to bring them again under his sway, had he not received a
message from the Lohd through Sheniaiah, a prophet, eoni-
manding him to desist from his design. In the second place,
we may observe, that all the most ancient Jeiuish authorities,
as well as many of the most able modern Jewish conunenta-

'II'

t i

58G

people's commentary.

toi-s iiinlerstorHl by the w«inl T\b'*XD {i^fiiloh), the Messiah. And,
in the thinl place, we may reinnrk, that the passage cannot
possihly r«*fer to Ileliolnwuii an«l the rebellion of the ten triben,
inasmuch ojt Reholioam c<iine to Shechcm an<i not to Hhiluh, to
uu;vt the nsscnible*! I.sraelitos. Ami as for the alleged prox
iniity of the two places, so that any thin|^ done in Shechem
mij^dit W' said t*> liavc been thme in Shiloh, is a supposition
altogether too futile to be worthy of any notice. The ruins of
SSiilun, whicli mark the ancient site of Shiloh, are at least ten
or twelve miles from Shechein or Neapoiis ; and Joshua xxiv.
upon w!)ich those commentators found their supposition, does
not in the least indicate that the two places were nearer to
each other.

Other commentators attach to the word nb"'D ('*>'''''<>/' ) the
signitication rest, and explain the ])assage, that Judah .should
retain the sceptre as, leader of the tiilies until they should come
to their tinal i^est in the promised land, when the other tribes
would .separate from him to receive their own portion. Hut
the argument we have adduced against the fonner exposition
applies with equal force also to this one. Judah did not lay
aside the sceptre when thej" took po.sse.ssion of the land of
Canaan. And further, according to this interpretation, tlie
words, " unto him shall be the obedience of the nations," would
be altogether meaningless. By far the greatest lunuber of com-
mentators, luiwevever, understand by the word Shiloh, the
Me-ssiah, and interpret the passage, that the dominion should
not Cease from the pf*steritj^ of Judah until the Messiah should
come, who should estaldish a kingdom which would have no
end. This is no doubt the true import of the phrase l)efore us,
and harnu>nize.s Ijeautifully with the other parts of the prophecy.
The word nb"- {Shiloli) is derived from the verl) nblD (Shalafi)
to he at rest, and signifies o»e that tjives rest or yeace, and thus
is synonymous to ^*b3 13 ("«'" sknlom) prince of peace, one
of the titles applie«l to the Messiah (Isaiah ix. 6) In the Targum
of Onkelos, which is the earliest of the Chaldee versions, and
whicii is held in the highest estimation Itoth by the Jews as
well as by Christian scholars, the pas.sage is rendered as follows :
" One having dominion shall not depai't from Judah, nor a
scribe from his childi-en's children forever, nn"it2373 "'tT'"'! 15
{ad deyethe Meshicha) until the Messiah comes, whose is the
kingdom, and Him .shall the nations obey."

The Jerusalem Targum, another Chaldee version of the
Pentateuch, and which, as alrea*!}' stated, is supposed to have
been wiitten aljout the sixth centurv of the Christian era, if
not Uiore recently, likewise inteqjrets the passage of the com-
ing of the Messiah, and rendei-s " Kings shall not fail from the
hou.se of Judah, nor skilful teachers of the law from his chil-

I*K< UM.t S « UMMKNTAUY.

587

^Icssiah. And,
passa^'u cannot
the ten tribes,
ot to Shiloh, to
I allege* 1 jnox
le in Sheehenj
i a supposition
The ruins of
iro at least ten
.1 Joshua xxiv.
ipposition, does
were nearer to

O (Shiloh) the

: Judah .should

ey should come

he otlier trihes

portion. Hut

•nier exixtsition

lali did nut lay

of the land of

irpretiitioii, the

nations," would

tuunlter of com -

rd Shiloh, the

)ininion should

lessiah should

vould have no

irase hefore us,

the prophecy.

nbtD {Shulah)

>eace, and thus

e of peace, one

n the Targuni

versions, and

r the Jews as

ed as follows :

Judah, nor a

whose is the

ersion of the
posed to have
ristian era, if
e of the corn-
fail from the
Tom his chil-

dren's chiltlren, ujitil thr time that the King Messiah couie,
whose is the kingdom, and \vhi»m nations shall servo.

In the Syrian W-rsion, geiierally called Prshlto, i.e., the liteful
or ti'HC, and whieh is one of the oldest translations of the OU\
Testament, the passiige is translated: ''The sceptre shall not
fail from iludah, nor the Interjjreter or expounder from his feet,
until he come whose it is, and for him the nations shall wait."
This version was prohahly made in the latter part of the .secoml
century, or the earlier part of the third century.

In the Septiiagint, which is tlu* (thlest version of the Old
Testament, the passai^'e is ren.'.ered: " A ])rinee shall not fail
from 'hidah, nor a lender out of his loins, mitil the things come,
.vhieh are laid up for him," and acct»r(ling to others, " for whom
it is laid up." Some of the fathers might well havu racked
their brains in endeavouring to make sense of this obscure
translation, for it would be no easy matter to say with cer-
tainty, what is to b(j understood by the word " things," whieli
is not in the Hebrew ♦ext. But obscure as this ren<lering is,
We nevertheless can perceive in it an evident allusion to the
coming of the Messiah. IJy the expression, "until the things
come which are laid up" or " reserved for him," the author or
authors of this version may probably have meant the things
api>ertaining to the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah, whieh
was to be estal)lished instead of the secular kingdom of Judah.

From the foregcjing (lUotations of the ditferont versions, it
will be .seen that they all, more or less, pointedly refer the pas-
.sage, to the coming of the Messiah, but as so many of our
modern writers strenuously labour to divest the ])assage of its
Messianic character, we will adduce a few (piotations from the
Rabbinical writers, ma)>y of whom are equally explicit in their
views upon the subject before us. In tin; Talmud, frr/c/ Stin-
hedriiH, fol. 1)8, col. 1, we read Kabbi Milai in the name of Kal»')i
Eleazar, the son of Simeon .saitl, " The .son of David " (/. e., the
Messiah) " does not come until all the judges an<l rulers eease
from Israel." This opinion was, no doubt foruied upon the
prophecy of Jacob, " The sceptre shall not depart," iic. llabbi
Abraham Seba, observes in his book, Tueror ILiimnoi', fol. 37,
col. 2, Paraxhdlt v<i)/t>tne : " Shiloh, signifies the Messiah." The
same view is expressed l)y the celebrated llaV)bi Jjeehai in his
commentaryon the live books of Moses, /oL r)9,Vol. 2, Parashah
vayeki. Besidi.'s these we might cite other Jewish commentators,
AS Jarohi Naohmanides, kc, but these will sulHce to show, that
although they differ from the Ciu'istiau eommentators as to the
fulfilment of the prophecy, they at least agree with them as to
its application to the Messiah. Even tliu *Cabulists find that

* See for a full jiccouut of the Cabbaliatic school, vol. I.

588

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

> t

the letters in the words jj^^'' Hb'^'O (Shiloh Vtiro) " Shiloh shall
come," afford the same number as the letters in the word rT^IDTa
(Meshiach) Messiah, as 55 1, 5 2, 1 10, r7'''>,'3^0, 1 10, © 300=358;
n 8, 1 10, xi 300, )3 40=358, from which they conclude, that
Shiloh and the Messiah are the same

" And unto him shdl he the obedience of the nations," as
the root of the word finp"^ (i/lkh<((h) which wo have
rendered by " obedience," occurs nowhere in the Old Tes-
tament, it is not veiy eary to determine what may be
its real meaning in our passage. Accordingly we find that
various renderings have been given of it. In the Septuagint
the word is rendered by TrpoaSoKia, ie.,expccf<ition, and so in
the Vulgate, expectat'w ; and he shall be the expectation of
nations, which certainly aftbids a suitable meaning. But it is
not easily to be seen how this meaning can bo obtained. The
translators have evidentl}'- derived the word from nip (kawah)
to wait for, but then the proper form of the noun would be
mpr\ (tiJavah), i.e., hope, expectation, see Job v. 16 ; Prov. xxiii,
18, etc., quite a different word from Jnnp'^ {yihhath) as the
reader will perceive. And further, to render ib") ('W^o), which
signifies, and to him, or, and for him, by " and he " is alto-
gether arbitrary, for in that case j^im (u'chit). i.e., and he,
should have been employed. In the Syriac Version the word
is rendered by " shall wait," as, "and for him tlie nations shall
wait," which conveys precisely the same meaning as that given
in the Septuagint and Vulgate, but is decidedly preferable, as
it is not open to the last objection advanced against the others.

Still if we admit this translation, v/o must suppose the
word in question to be derived from a verb jTinp (kahath),
signifying to wait, which does not exist, at least not in any
Hebrew writings now extent. Onkelos in his Chaldee Versior»
has rendered the word by " shall obey," as " and him the nations
shall obey," a signification which he could only have obtained
by deriving the word from the Arabic verb (ivakiha) i.e. to
obey.

In the English Version the word is rendered by "gathering,"
as " and unto him shall the gathering of the people be," a
rendering which has also been ad.ipted by many Jewish com-
mentators. The translators must have derived the word from
the Chaldee verb nnp (keha) i.e.' to gather, or havo supposed
that such a verb as tinp {kahath) having the meaning to gather
at one time existed, which would then have been synonymous
with the verb ^np (kahal), i.e. to call together, to assemble, the
verb commonly employed.

Now as the derivation of the word is uncertain, and tl\e con-
text in this instance fails to guide us in determining its

) " Shiloh shall

he word n'^X0l2
10, -a3 300=3r)8;

conehule, that

le nations," us
lich we have
tlio Old Tos-
what may be
- we find that
the Septuagint
tion, and so in
expectation of
ling. But it is
obtained. The
Li nip (jMwah)
noun would lie
16 ; Prov. xxiii.
iWiatk) as the
•) {ivelo), which
id he" is alto-
(,). i.e., and he,
ii-sioii the word
\e nations shall
inr as that given
r pi-eferable, as
inst the others,
suppose the

Snnp (A'tt'itt^'O.

ast not in any

laldee Version

lim the nations

have obtained

ivakiha) i.e. to

)y "gathering,"
people he" a
Jewish com-
the word from
havi supposed

auing to gather
n synonymous
o asstimhle,i\iQ

n, and the con-
iterniining its

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

58^

meaning here, perhaps Prov. xxx. 17, may assist us in ascer-
taining its true meanin;;', it being the otdy other place in the
Old Testament where it occurs. We read there, " The eye that
mocketh at a father, and tlespiseth Q^^ rinp"^b (fH^'hath evi)

the obedience of a mother," /. e., due to a mother (English
Version, " to obey his mother)," " the ravens of the valley shal'
pick it out." Now, as the meaning "obedience" is very suit-
able in both passages, it appears to us, there can be but little
doubt that it is the true import of the word in question. The
application of the word is, however, not in the least affected,
no matter which of the above renderings of the word we
adopt, as they all with ecjual force ajtply to the Messiah ;
still the reader will agree with us, that it is hardl}* consistent
to translate a word in one ])lace as a noun, and in another
place as a verb, as the authors of the English Version have
done in these two instances. In verses 11, 12, the great
fertility of the country which was to fall to the lot of Ju<lah
is sot forth in higldy figurative an<l poetical language.
" Binding to the vine his foal, and his ass's colt to the choice
vine;" the vine will be so plentiful in the country which
Judali would inherit, that the people would tie their asses to
it as they would to a conunon tree. Sir John Chardin, in
speaking of the vines of this place, says, they were so large
that he coidd scarcely encompass them witii his two arms.
Especially noted ivere the vineyards in the environs of Hebron
and in the valley of Eshcol. The immense clustei\s of grapes
which the spies brought back (see Nmn. xiii. 24), afford us
some idea of the luxuriant growth of the vine in the last men-
tioned place, "lie washes in wine his garments;" this is a
hyperbolical expression, implying the great fertility of the soil,
and the immense productiveness of the vineyards. Modern
travellers speak of the bunches of grapes in the vp.l'ey of
Eshcol as being of prodigious size. ])aubdon assures us that
some of the bunches weighing from 10 to 12 pounds. (Voyage
de la Terre Sainte, ch. xxi.) Foster tells us, that he was
informed by a Religious who lived many j'cars in Palestine,
that there were bunches of grapes in the valley of Hebron, so
large, that two men could scarcely carry one. The wine would
be so plentiful that the people w^ould use it to wash th.eir
clothes as if it were water, A similar hyperbole W(^ have,
1 Kings X. 27; when it is said, that Solomon nuule silver to
be as stones in the streets of Jerusalem, implying the great
prosperity during his leign. " Sjiarkling are liis eyes from
wine, and white are his teeth from milk." Although " the
sparkling of the eyes" is used in Proverbs xxiii. 29, in reference
to the intemperate use of wine, yet it would be altogether

690

people's commentary.

I I

!i:

iii

fin

I' I

i! i

Iii
1.

■

• i '

I i

unsuitable to the context to attach such a meaning to it in our
passage, where it undoubtedly is only expressive of great
abundance. And so the phrase, " And white are his teeth
from milk," is expressive of the luxuriant pasture with which
the territory of the tribe of Judah would abound, and there-
fore there would be an abundance of milk.

13. Zebulun shall dwell on the coast of the *8ea8 ;
And he shall htij'or a hatxn of sh!/js ;
And his border sliall extend unto Zidon.

Tha name lbll3T (Zebidun) denotes a divelling. Why so called
see Gen. xxx. 20. Jacob, in his prophetic vision, foresaw that
Zebulun would occupy a much greater political i)Osition than
Issachar, we therefore find him here introduced before his elder
brother. Indeed, in the time of Moses, the tribe of Zebulun
had already increased so greatly above the tribe of Issachar,
that Moses, in the blessing of the tribes, in pronouncing the
benediction conjointly on the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar,
apparently addressed the former alone ; " And of Zebulun he
said." (Deut. xxx. 18). The tract of country' which fell to the
lot of the tribe of Zebulun was very extensive, extending in the
east to the sea of Tiberias, and in the west to Mount Carmel
and the Mediterranean, or the borders of Pluienicia, here 'repre-
sented like in other places by Zidon. The tribe of Zebulun
was brave, and is spoken of in the song of Deborah with great
j)raise; "Zebulun is a people delivering up his soul in the heights
of the field." (Judg, v. 18). But besides being a warlike people,
it engaged also extensively in mercantile pursuits, and seems to
have enjoyed great prosperity. The great prosperit}^ of the
tribe of Zebulun was briefly though emphatically foretold by
Moses : " Rejoice Zebulun in thy going out." (Deut. xxx. 18).
In the Talmud the great wealth of . this tribe is also often
spoken of. The chief article of their commerce seems to have
been costly purple dyes called "l^a^lli^ ((irfjernan) Argnnian, or
stuff coloured with it. The dye was obtained from the juice of
.shell-fish conunon on the Syrian coast. It is also by many
believed that they manufactured and exported glass, supposed
to be alluded to by Mjses in the words :

" For they shall seek the abundance of the seas,
And the hiddeu treasures of the saud."

(Deut. xxxiii. 19.)

*Both in the Authorized Version and in the Revised Version, the singular
*' sea " is given, but in the original the plural noun Q"')^'^ (yavitnim) ' ' seas " is
•employed, which is explained by the territory extending from the sea of Tibe-
rias to the Mediterranean.

5-1^

PEOPLE S COMMENTARY.

591

ming to it in our
•ressive of great
ite are his teeth
^ture with which
)ound, and there-

14. Issachar is a bony (robust) ass,
Lying dotim between tivo folds :
And he saw rest that it was good,
And the land that it was pleasant ;
And he bowed his shoulder to bear,
And became a servant (subject) to tribute.

ng. Why so called
>ioii, foresaw that
:al jjosition than
d before his elder
tribe of Zebulun
rribe of Issachar,
pronouncing the
un and Issachar,
d of Zebulun he
which fell to tlie
, extending in the
to Mount Carmel
nicia, here 'repre-
tribe of Zebulun
borah with great
oul in the heights

a warlike people,

nits, and seems to

osperity of the

cally foretold by
(Deut. XXX. 18).

De is also often
seems to have

)i) Argaman, or

roni the juice of

s also by many

glass, suppo-sed

seas,
)eut. xxxiii. 19.)

Version, the singular
iyamniim) ' ' seas " is
om the sea of Tibe-

Issachar, the name denotes, he will bring reward, and why
so called, see Gen. xxx. 18. In this prophetic declaration
Jacob not only indicates the fertile and beautiful territory
which vTonld fall to the lot of the tribe of Issachar, but also
the character of its people. There is nothing disparaging
much less offensive in Issachar being compared to a bony or
robust ass, as this animal w%as rather held in esteem by the
ancient Hebrews, and peo])le of the first quality rode on asses,
(Comp. Judg. V. 10 ; X. 4 ; xii. 14.) The simile is intended
merely to conveythat the men of Issachar would be distinguished
for their gentleness, patience, and capability of endurance.
" Lying down between two folds." The ancient folds were made
into two compartments, one for the large cattle, and the other
for the small, and between the two the .shepherd laid down at
night, and thus the expression " to lie down between two folds,"
gradually became a proverbial saying, expressing ease and com-
fort. In the Authorized ^^ersion tiie word D'^flStD^ (mish-
pethayim) which has the dual form, is rendered by " two
burdens," but in Judg. v. 16, the same w^ord is rendered by
" sheepfolds." Hheepfolds is, no doubt, the proper nieaning of
the word, as derived fi'om the verb JnBtlJ (shapluit) to place, to
fix, and the passage is correctly rendered in the Revised Ver-
sion : " Couching down between the sheepfolds." There are
other renderings given of the word, but with which we need
not trouble the reader. We may, however, notice the ingeni-
ous explanation given of our passage by Gcethe, who takes the
two folds to refer to the two ranges of mountains enclosing the
beautiful and fertile vale of Esdraelon, which the tribe of Issa-
char received for its inheritance, and thus Issachar might be
said to have lain down between two folds. " And lui saw rest
that it ivas good." The territory which was allotted to the
tribe of Issachar, was mountainous in tlie eastern and southern
parts, but in the centre it contained the most delightful and
fertile valleys of the Holy Land, the chief of these being Jezreel,
Megiddo, and Esdraelon. (See Joseph. Wars of the Jews, B. iii.
eh. iii. par. 2). The whole territory aVjounded in richest pasture,
the hilly parts as well as the plains, and this, no doubt, induced
the tribe of Issachar to follow to a great extent a pastoral life,
which is aptly expressed in Jacob's prophetical declaration :
■" Lying down between two folds." In the territory of Issachar

592

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

was fought the chief battle against Sisera by the waters of
Megiddo (see Judg, v. 19), and the bravery of the men of this
tribe is spoken of with great praise by Deborah (see Judg. v.
15). Indeed, it is generally believed that the heroine herself
belonged to this tribe, for in Judg. v. 1.5, she speaks of the
nobles or leaders of Issachar as n^^ (Sarai), " ray nobles " or
" leaders."

In course of time, however, their peaceful occupations of
tending the flocks and agricultural pursuits, made them gradu-
ally lose their warlike propensities, and made them indifferent
to military fame. Josephus, speaking of Issachar's inheritance,
says : " It is fruitful to admiration, abounding in pastures and
nurseries of all kinds, so that it would make any man in love
with husbandry." We can, therefore, readily understand
Joseph's prophetic declaration, " and he saw rest that it was
good," &c., " and became a servant (subject) to tribute." Many
commentators explain this passage merely to mean that the
tril)e having given itself up to agricultural pursuits, it became
subject to the hard labour attending husbandry. But the
language undoubtedly implies the payment of self-imposed
tribute for some benefits or services received. It is, therefore,
highly probable, that although the men of the tribe of Issachar
were always ready to come forward in the defence of the
country, yet preferring to enjoy ease to taking part in warlike
pursuits which were often necessary in order to repel the
attacks of hostile neighbours, or marauding hordes, they found
it necessary to place themselves under the protection of the
more warlike tribes of Zebulun and Ephraim, who are specially
spoken of as " mighty men of valour, and as men that would
set the battle in array," (1 Chron. 30, 33.) and for the services
rendered by these tribes, they paid a tribute, and thus it may
be said of Iss.achar that he " became subject to tribute." The
men of the tribe of Issachar seemed to be also distinguished for
shrewdness, so much so, that the other tribes sought their
councils, for we read in 1 Chron. xii. 32, " And of the children
of Issachar, vjhowere men that had understanding of the times,
to know what Israel ought to do ; the heads of them ^vere two
hundred, and all their brethren u'cre at their command (or as
the original has it DrTiS bS DrpilX bsi (wechol achehem al
inhem) "and all their bretliren ivere at their mouth," i. e.,
followed the words of their "mouth. The bony a.ss, quietly
lying down between two folds, to which Issachar is compared,
forms a most vivid contrast to the is^lS (;pere) wild ass, which
roams about, and is attacked by every one that meets it, and ta
which Ishmael is con; pared, (see Gen. xvi. 12).

16. Dmi sliall judtje hia people
As one of the tribes of Israel.

the waters of
e men of this
li (see Judg. v.
tieroine herself
speaks of the
my nobles " or

occupations of
le them gradu-
em indifferent
r's inheritance,
n pastures and
ly man in love
ly understand
st that it was
bribute." Many
mean that the
uits, it became
idry. But the
of self-imposed
It is, therefore,
nhe of Issachar
defence of the
part in warlike
r to repel the
des, they found
otection of the
10 ai'c specially
en that would
or the services
d thus it may
tribute." The
stinguished for
sought their
of the children
g of the times,
ihem ivere two
ommand (or as
ol acheheni al
mouth," i. e.,
ly ass, quietly
ir is compared,
ild ass, which
neets it, and to

people's commentary. 593

17. Ban shall be a serpent by the way,
An adder in the path,
That biteth the heels of the horse.
So tluit its rider falleth backward.

We have in the words "iiii "i^ {Dan yaclin) " Dan shall
judge," a paranomasia or play of words which cannot be ex-
pressed in the translation ; the ncnne and the verb being derived
from the same root. The meaning of the jtassage, " Dan shall
judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel," is not very clear.
As Dan was the son of Bilhah, many commentators explain the
passage merely to declare, that though only the son of Rachel's
maid, yet was to be on the same equality with the sons of
Rachel and Leah. Whilst others explain that Dan would be as
able as anj' of the other triljcs to govern himself by his own
Judges, and maintain his own interest. But all this would
hold equally good with the other sons born by the maid servants.
It is therefore more likely that the passage has a direct refer-
ence to the hero Samson who belonged to the tribe of Dan,
of whom it is said that " he judged Israel in the days of the
Philistines twenty years," (Judg. xv. 20.) The words " Dan
shall judge his people," must, therefore, not be understood
merely to mean, the j)eoi')le of Dan, but the whole of Isrcel.
That the ancient Jews understood our passage to refer to
Samson, is evident from the paraphrase that is given of it in
the Targum of Onkelos : " In the tribe of Dan there shall be
chosen and raised up a man, and in his days his people shall
be delivered." In like manner the most eminent Rabbinic
commentators, as well as many modern Christian interpreters,
have held the passage to refer to Samson, and we may there-
fore safely conclude that in this illustrious son of the tribe
of Dan we have the fulfilment of the Patriarch's prophetic
declaration regarding the tribe of Dan, which although couched
in highly poetic diction is yet quite clear. The portion which
fell to the tribe of Dun, had the country of the Philistines on
the west. The proximity of the Philistines who were constantly
at war with the Israelites, explains many circumstances in the
history of Samson, and affords also an explanation of verse 17,
in which Dan is compared to a serpent lurking in the way side.
The Philistines were a powerful enemy with which the tribe of
Dan could hardly hope to cope successfully in open warfare,
it was therefore obliged to have recourse to cunningly devised
strategy. As a proof of the cunning devices adopted by this
tribe in warfare, we may refer to Samson who always conquers,
and yet there is no record of his ever having led an army
of his countrymen against the enemy, but by cunning devices
and personal exertions achieved the most memorable and daring

W i

594

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

I !

i'l

'=1

i 1 '
1 '

I'M

deeds. A striking illustration of the artful mo«le of warfare
carried on by the people of Dan is given in Judges xviii. It
ap|>ears that in course of time the tribe of Dan had so greatly
increased in population, that the territt.y originally assigned
to it, proved too small, and as there was no possibility of
extending its territory, as it v/as on three sides bounded by
other tribes, and on the fourth by the Philistines, who were
too powerful for them, they determined to seek for a suitable
settlement in the far north. For this purpose they sent five
spies who came to the city Laish, whose inhabitants were
Sidonians, a quite, inoffensive people, and who having no
enemies near them, and trusting in the protection of Sidon,
thought themselves perfectly secure. The spies at once per-
ceived that there was a favourable opportunity of taking the
place by surprise, they therefore returned to their bretJiren,
and reported what they had seen, urging them to go up against
the people; that the land was very good and large, and that
the people " dwelled very carelessly." Accordingly thej- sent
six hiindred armed men who surprised the city, .smote its
inhabitants, and burned the city. Here we have the viper
lurking in the path, inflicting a deadly blow on the unsuspect-
ing victim. The serpent to which Dan is compared is in the
original called "liBiBtD (fihejMphon) which Bochart, the best

authorit}^ on the natural history of the Bible clearly shows to
be the cerastes or arrow snake (serpens jaculus) which lurks in
the sand, and frequently in the tracks of wheels, and which,
on account of its grey colour, is not easily seen, but -suddenly
darts forth, and attacks with a deadly bite anything that
comes near it. So deadly has the bite of this sei'pent been
regarded among the ancients, that they superstitiously believed
that if a man on horseback was to kill one with a spear, " the
poison would run up the weapon, and kill both hoi-se ahd rider."
(Pliny viii. 38. See also the reference given in Gesenius's Thes.)
Those of the tribe of Dan who took up their alxxie in the
conquered northern district, built a city, and called its name
" Dan, after the name of their progenitor," which gave rise to
the familiar proverbial expression, " from Dan to Beereheba,"
(Judg. xxi. 1.) indicating the extent of the Promised Land,
Beersheba being situated in the southernmost part of Canaan.
The city Dan became afterwards noted for the worship of the
golden calf which Jeroboam set up, (see 1 Kings xviii. 29-31,)
and this leaning towards idolatry gradually led to private and
social intercourse between the Philistines and the Danites,
which resulted in the tribe sinking into such utter insignifi-
cance, that its name was altogether omitted in later enumera-
tions of t^e tribes. (See 1 Chron. iv., and following chapters ;
and Rev. vii.)

! of warfare
ges xviii. It
!id so greatly
ally assigned
K)ssibility of
boiinde*! by
es, who were
3r a suitable
liey sent five
jitants were
► having no
on of Sidon,
at once per-
f taking tlie
?ir brethren,
[o up ag<ainst
•ge, and that
jiv they sent
,y, smote its
ve the viper
le unsuspect-
ed is in the
lart, the best

rly shows to

lich lurks in

and which,

»ut suddenly

ything that

>ei'pent been

isly believed

spear, " the

? ahd rider,"

nius's Thes.)

xxle in the

d its name

gave rise to

Beereheba,"

nised Land,

of Canaan.

•ship of the

viii. 29-31,)

private and

he Danites,

?r insignifi-

enumera-

g chapters ;

PEOPLES COMMENTAUY.

595

18. For thy mlvntion I have waited (or looked for) Lord

The reader will perceive tliat this devout ejaculation is here
abruptly introduced apparently without any connection with
Avhat precedes or ibllows : this has led many of our modern
commentators to regar<l the whole veise as an interpolation of
a copyist. Thus, for instance, Vater, Bauer, Maurer, Von
Bi)hlen, &c. They say that "the pious acclamation was proba-
bly placed by some devout Hebrew in the margin of his manu-
script, and through the carelessness of some cop3'ist has made
its wav into the text." Now, whilst we admit that at first
sight its introducticm there is anything but clear, yet when we
come to examine the context more closely, it will be found that
it harmonizes beautifully with what i)recedes. The supposition
that it is an interpolation we may at once say is altogether
refuted by the fact that the passage occurs in all the ancient
versions, which fully establishes its authenticity. The abrupt
introduction of the passage, we think, is best explained : that
tlie pious patriarch, in predicting what would befall his des-
cendants after they had taken possession of the promised land,
plainly saw the severe conflicts that awaited the Lsraelites, but
remembering the many dangers from which he had been deli-
vered by the Divine aid of Jehovah, he express(!s here his
confidence that the .same Divine protection would also be
vouchsafed to his descendants. The prayer is ver}' appro-
priately offered up immediatel}' after the ])roplietic declaration
regarding the tribe of Dan, who, as we have above stated, from
the close vicinity of the Philistines, was in constant danger of
being attacked by them, and who, indeed, never ceased to vex
them whenever the slightest opportiniity offerecl itself. It has
been well said that " in this j)rayer Jacob fmnished his sons
with both .shield and sword." Some connnentators find in our
passage the theme of the prayer uttenul l»y Samson when
brought before the assembled Philistines: "O Loud God remem-
ber me. I pray thee," &c. (Judges xvi. 2S.) Otheis again
account for the introduction of the passage here, that "the
decrepit patriarch, fearing his strength might fail him before
he could finish his blessings, uttered this prayer for ( Jod's help."
But the explanation we have given seems to us to be the correct
one. And further, we can even see no objection to extend the
application, that whilst pra^'ing for the as.sistancc of Jehovah
to his harrassed descendants, the dying patriarch's mind was
at the same time occupied with the contemplation of that
eternal deliverance which was to be wrought by the Messiah.
Indeed the ancient Hebrews have apparently regarded this
pious ejaculation of Jacob as Messianic, for the 1'argums of
Jerusalem and Jonathan, which generally reflect the views of

inrr

people's commentary.

I i

l,M !!

the ancient Hebrews, have paraphrased the passaj^o as follows,
•' I look for thy salvation, O Lord, said our father Jacob. I
look not for the deliverance of Gideon, the son of Joash, because
it is a temporal deliverance; nor for the deliverance of Samson,
the son of Manoah, because that is transitory ; Init I look for
the Messiah, the son of David, which thou through thy woid
hast ))romised to l)ring to thy peoi)Ie the children of Israel :
for this thy redemption my soul longs for." The word ns^lti"'
(yeskuah) signifies both temporal and spiritual delivcvanct'-

19. Gad, a troop will i>resa on him,

Hilt he will prcxs them on their heel (i. e., in the rear.)

The tribe of Gad, at the time of the conquest of the promised
land, counted 45,()r)() warriors. The Gadites were a warlike
people, and formed the vanguard of the army of the Israelites.
Moses, in blessing the children of Israel before his death, bo
stowed nearly as much eulogy on the tribe of Gad as on the
tribe of Judah (see Deut. xxxiii. 20, 21). In reward for the
bravery which they had shown they were allowed to choose as
their portion of inheritance a famous pastoral district in Gilead
beyond Jordan, to which they returned after having assisted
their brethren to conquer the country west of Jordan, and ga\e
thcTuselves up to breeding cattle, for which the country was
particularly suitable. This occupation, laid them open to con-
stant trouble from their neighbouring enemies, and wandering
Arabian hoi'ds, and particularly from the Annnonites, who
looked upon the Gadites as having deprived them of their coun-
try. In Josh. xiii. 25, the land of Gad is spoken of as " half the
land of the children of Amnion." The Ammonites were a con-
stant scourge to the Gadites who had always to be ready, and
on the alert. Indeed, the Annnonites at one time succeeded to
force the Gadites for a short time into servitude, but by their
bravery, and with the assistance of the tribes of Reuben and
Manasseh they again gained their libert3^ (Compare 1 Chron.
v. 18-22). " But he will press them on their heel," (i. e., in the
rear) ; this has evidently reference to the tactics they would
make use of in their warfare with their enemies, in enticing
them into their country, and then attack them in the rear.
Later the Gadites distinguished themselves by the assistance
they rendei'ed to David, who rewarded them for it by bestow-
ing upon them some important ofiices. Thus we read, 1 Chron.
12, 8, " And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto
David, to the hold in the wilderness, men of might, and men of
war^!^ for battle, that could handle shield and spear, whose
faces were like the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the
roes upon the mountains." Moses, in his blessing the Israelites,

,go as follows,
lier Jacob. I
Foash, because
ce of Samson,
ut I look for
ugh thy word
•en of Israel :
word nS'TO'^
leliverancd'

', rear.)

the promised
>re a warlike
the Israelites,
lis death, be-
tad as on the
eward for the
d to choose as
itrict in Gilead
aving assisted
dan, and gave
! country was
I open to con-
id wandering
inonites, who
of their couii-
• as " half the

were a con-
ic ready, and
succeeded to
but by their
lleubeu and
iare 1 Chron.
(i. e., in the
they would
in enticing
in the rear,
le assistance
by bestow-
ead, 1 Chron.
nselves unto
(mermen of
spear, whose
swift as the
he Israelites,

people's commentary.

597

had already compared the Gadites to " a lion," " Blessed is ho
that enlargeth Gad: he dwelleth as a lioness, and teareth the arm,
yea, the crown of the head." (l)etit. xxxiii. 20). The territory of
the tribe of Gad contained .several cities famous in the history
of the patriarchs, but what invested this territory with pecu-
liar sanctity and reverence was, that it contained the grave of
Moses, and was, therefore, looked upon as one of the most
honoured parts of the Holy Land.* ,

20. Out of Anher fiis lyrmd tinll he, fat,
And he shnll yietd ruyal dainties.

This prophetic declaration clearly foretells that the inheri-
tance which fell to the lot of the tribe of Asher, was to be of
extraordinary fertility. Moses repeats the blessing in Deut.
xxxiii. 24, in different words :

" Blessed be Asher with children (or ahoi't nons).
He shall be the dtligiit of his brethren,
And shall dip his feet in oil."

The territory of the tribe of Asher was .situated in the north-
western part of Palestine, bordered on the west by the Medi-
terranean, anil on the north by Lebanon. Although the
maritime position of this tribe was favourable for carrying on
an extensive commerce, yet the extraordinary richness of the
soil, .seemed to have atforded greater inducements in the culture
of the land. The products of the country were wine, corn, and
oil, which were produced not only in great abundance, but also
in such great excellence as to be fit for the .supplying of the
royal tables. The dainties which Asher was able to sup|)ly
made him " the delight of his brethren." We have already
stated that "bread is often u.sed for all kinds of food," and
" fat" expresses great excellency of anything,

21 JVaj)Jitali is a hind let loose :
That uttereth words of beaiiti/.

" Naphtali is a hind let loose," (or a freely roaming, or as it
may be rendered also, " a fleet hind,") in these words the Patri-
arch predicts that the men of Naphtali would be distinguished
for their activity. Yet although celebratetl for activity, they

* We h.ave in our verse the most beautiful /inrauo7naxia, or play of words,
found in Scripture. Of the six words contained in the verse, four bear a similar

sound, though of different meaning. ip3? IT i<^'^^^ ^'31'^y m:i III

(Gad i/edud ye<iudennu wehu yai/nd akev). The reader not familiar with Hebrew
will perceive the play of words from the Hebrew words expressed in English.
Gad, Gad; nedud, a troop; ytyudeimu, shall press on him; (teAif, but he ; yagud,
shall press (them on their) akev, rear.

698

'%-,'^

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

apparently wanted self-reliance. According to Judges i. 33,
they left several of their cities in the hands of the Canaanites.
This want of self-assurance is strikingly apparent in the conduct
of Barak from the town of Kedesh in the tribe of Naphtali.
The reader will remember when he was invited by Deborah to
take the leadership of the Hebrew army, ho said : " If thou
wilt go with m<>, then I will go : but if thou wilt }iot go with
me, I will not go." (Judg. iv. 8.) Still, when the men of Naph-
tali were once in action they not only displayed great activity,
but also great courage, they were "a people that jeoparded
their lives unto the death, upon the high places of the tield."
(Judg. v. 18.) The territory which this tribe inherited, was a
wooded mountainous country in the northern part of Palestine,
exceedingly fertile, so that Moses in his blessing of the tribe,
.says : " Naphtali, .satisfied with favour, and full with the blessing
of the Lord." (Deut. xxxiii. 23.) Josephus furnishes a most
glowing description of the almost unprecedented productive-
ness of this part of the country. He remarks: " Its nature is
wonderful as well as its beauty ; its soil is so fiuitful, that all
sorts of trees can grow upon it." And fuithor on he remarks :
" One may call this place the aml)ition of nature, where it forces,
those plants which are naturally enemies to one another to
agree together : it is a happy combination of the seasons, as if
every one of them laid claim to this country : for it not only
nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men's expec-
tation, but preserves them a great while ; it supi)lies men with
the principal fruits, with gi-apes and figs continually during
ten months of the year, and the rest of the fruits as they
become ripe together, through the whole year, for besides the
good temperature of the air, it is also watered from a most
fertile fountain." Well, indeed, might Moses say : " Naphtali,
satisfied with favour, and full with the blessing of the Lord."
" That uttereth words of beauty " ; these words have no
doubt reference to some poetical or oratorical talent for which
the people of this tribe were to be noted. The fine scenery
and great fruitfulncss of their territory, their active life, may
have largely contributed to foster a taste among them for
poetry. Though Scripture affords us no information to enable
us to speak positively on this .subject, yet we have at least a fine
specimen of high poetical genius in the eloquent and stirring
triumphal song, (Judges v.,) which was sung by Deborah and
Barak me son of Abinoam after the victory obtained over
Jabin and Sisera. Barak, as we have already stated, belonged
to the tribe of Naphtali. We may here also note the para-
phrase given of our passage in the Jerusalem Targura (a
Chaldee version'of the Pentateuch) which originated about the
sixth century of the Christian era, it is as follows : " And when

people's commentary.

699

Judges 1. 33,

lie Canaan itcs.

in tho conduct

e of Naphtali.

by Deborali to

aid : " If thou

It not go with

men of Naph-

great activity,

bat jeoparded

I of the Held."

lerited, was a

t of Palestine,

f of the tribe,

\\ the blessing

•nishes a most

\ j)roductive-

Its nature is

litful, that all

1 ho remarks :

^here it forces,

le another to

seasons, as if

)r it not only

men's expec-

ies men with

ually during

uits as they

r besides the

from a most

: "Naphtali,

f the Lord."

ds have no

yit for which

fine scenery

ve life, may

g them for

an to enable

least a fine

and stirring

)eborah and

tained over

d, belonged

the para-

Targum (a

d about the

' And when

he (Naphtali) opened his mouth in tho congregation of Israel
his tongue was sweet as honey." This rendering at least shows
that there existed among the Jews at that time a tradition,
that tlie tribe of Naphtali had been noted for its poetical
genius.

22. A fruitful botujh i.s Joseph,
A fruitful bouf/h by a well ;

Hit branches s^rreact over the wall.

23. And the archers harassed him,
And shot at him, and hated him.

24. But his bow abode in strength ;

And the aiins of his hands remained firm,
From the hands of the Miijhty One of Jacob,
From tlience, Jrom the shepherd, the Rock of Israel.

2ii. From the God of thif father who shall help thee,
And by the Almighty, irho shall bless thee,
With blessings of heaven from above.
And with blessings of the deep lying beneath,
With blessings of the breasts and oj the ivomb.

2G. The blessings of thy father prevail

Above the blessings of the eternal mountains,

Above the delight of the everlasting hills :

May they come on the head of Joseph,

And on the crown of the head of the prince among his brethren.

Jacob now turns to his favourite son Joseph, who stands
among his brethren a ruler of Egypt, and awanls to him, in his
sons, the double portion which he had taken from his first-
born son Reuben. The benediction bestowed on Joseph
embraces a variety of blessings. " A fruitful bow (lit. a fruit-
ful son) is Joseph " ; by a Hebrew idiom, a branch of a tree
being dependent upon the trunk, is said to be the son or
daughter of it. The declaration in the pa.ssage predicts the
rapid growth of the population of the tribes of Ephraim and
Manasseh. A similar figurative expression implying fecundity
occurs in Ps. cxxviii. 8, " Thy wife shall he as a fruitful vine
on the sides of thy house." " A fruitful bough Ijy a well (or
fountain)," the moisture which the " well" attbrds not only
prevents the foliage from withering from the great heat of the
summer months -without any rain, but increases also the fruit-
fulness. In Psalm i. 3, the righteous is compared to " a tree
planted by the streams of water." And in Jeremiah xvii. 7, 8,
" the man that trusteth in the Lord," is said to be " as a tree
planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out his roots by the
river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but his leaf shall

600

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

be j^ruen : anil shall not be careful in tho year of drought,
neither shall cease from yiehlin;^ fruit." " His branclies
(Heb. ** ilauj^htors *") sprt>a<l over the wall;" watered by the
fountain, and protecteil by the wall, the branches luxuriantly
s{>rea«l over the walL The stronj; " l)ouj^h " in the Hrst clause is
in the original exprwwed by '* 13" {ben) a son, whilst the

young and tender " bmnche.s" in the jsecond clause are benuti-
tully expreHse<l by " ni33 *(fHinoth) daiiifhtern. The braticlu;s
spreatling over the wall, forcibly ilepicts the swelling of the
populations of the trilx*.s of Ephraini and Miinasseh, which
rtjudeivd an extension of their allotted territory necessary.
And how literally this pre<liction has l)een fultilled, may
be seen from Jo«ihua xvii. 14-18, t;» which wu refer the* reader.
" And the archers harass him " ; this prediction plaiidy refers
to the constant attacks to which Kphraini and iManasseh
would Ihj exposed Iroiu the neighbouring Arabian tribes and
the Canaanites The Arabians were proverbially expert bow-
men, we can, therefore, understand why the enemies with whom
Ephraim and Manasseh would have to contend, are spoken of
as "archers." But though the conllicts would be frequent, anrl
the foes powerful and expert ; yet by the help of " the Mighty
One of Jacob, the wea|)ons of the nnnies of the tril)es would
" abide in strength," an«l the arms of their hands " remain firm,"
so that they wuuld alwa^'s be victorious. "With 1 blessings of
heaven from above," that is, with rain in its proper season
and with copi«)Us dew, without which every thing would be
burned up during the hot summer months when no rain falls.
Moses repeats this bles.sing more in deUiil in Dent, xxxiii. 13-17,
to which we refer the reader, " And with blessings lying
beneath," that is. with springs, brooks, and rivers, to render the
land more proiluctive and sure. '' With blessings of the breaNts
and of the womb," it is a numerous posterity ; conjpare the
opposite expression, Hosea ix. 14. " The blessings of thy father
Tl3!k (gavcru) prevail, or " they are strong," or " durable above
the blessings of the eternal mountains," &c. ; various interpre-
tations have been given of these words, but the rendering of
the Septuagint Version no doubt conveys the proper meaning
of the patriarch's deelaration, '* He had made the blessings of
thy father and thy mother more durable than the blessings of
perpetual mountains, and more permanent than the blessings

* It will be seen on referring to the original that tlie plural noun IHI^S
(banoth) dawjhttr* is followed bj- the singular verb Jin^U (tsaadah) spread,
it is a Hebraism which occurs some times when the noun does not denote a
ptrson. For other examples sec Ps. xviii. 35 ; Job xxvii. 20 ; Ezck. xxvi. 2 ;
and in a few other places. m33 {banoth) being here figuratively used to
express braneht^.

lar of drought,
" Mis branclies
vatered l»y the
lies luxuriantly
10 first clause is
ton, whilst the

luse aro benuti-
Thc branches
iwelliiig of the
aiiasseh, wliich
tory necessary,
fulfilled, may
jfer tli(( reader.
1 plainly refers
and Manasseh
bian tribes and
ly expert bow-
lies with whom
, are spoken of
le frequent, and
)f " the Mi<,dity
le tribes would
" remain firm,"
th lilt'ssinijs of
proper season
ling wouhl l)e
no rain falls,
t. xxxiii. 13-17,
)lessings lying
, to render the
of the breasts
compare the
of thy father
lurable above
ious interpre-
renderiiifj of
oper meaning
le blessings of
e blessings of
the blessings

ural noun flT^S
{(samlah) upreail,
loes nut denote a
Ezck. xxvi, '2 ;
ratively used to

rEOI'LKM COMMKNTARV.

601

of everlasting hills." And many modorn interpreters have
adopted a similar rendering. The Septu-igint an<l Samaritan
V^ersions liave added " thy mother," which, however, does not
occur in any Hebrew eopv. In the Authorized and Revised
Versions, verse 25 is roiulered somewliat dilfereiitly to the n-n-
<h>ring whieli we have given, namely : " The blessings of thy
father liave prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors,
unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills " ; tliougli the
latter Version in a marginal note; says: "According to some
ancient authorities, the, hli'sulmjn of the, anricvt moftnfaiih'^, the
desire (or desirableness) ot the everlasting hills."

The rendering of the Knglish Version has been adopted from
the (vhaldec! V(n-.sion of Oid^elos, the Syriae and Vulgate
Versi(ms, where tlio word "^lln (/lorai) is rendered by "my

progenitors," and the word ^^ {<id) regarded as the preposition
" unto" and read with the following words. Ijuth(!r, in his
(icrnian Version, has also adopted this rendering, and so like-
wise .some modern commentators. There aic, however, several
cogent reasons why this rendering is not admissihle. In the
first place, it is very ambiguous. What are we to understand
by Jacob's blessings prevailing above the blessings of Ids pro-
genitors? Those commentators who adopted this rendering
were evidently at a loss how to explain it, for they mensly
suggest that the meaning probably is, "that the blessing
of Jacob when superadded to those of his forefathers, formed as
it were a l)lessing cumulative that made it emphatieally strong."
We need hardly say that the rendering given in tlu; Knglish
Version admits of no such construction being forced upon it. If
the language there given means anything, it implies that JacoV)'s
ble.s.sings are superior to those of his forefathers, and we can
hardly think it probable that Jacob would magnify the bless-
ings he bestowed on Josepli above those wliieh had been made
to himself, or above the glorious promises which his forefather
Abraham had ree(iived from (Jod. In the second place, the
rendering of the Authorized Version would destroy the beau-
tiful parallelism " (eternal mountains " and "everlasting hills,"
and we have alreaily had occasion to stale that in the poetical
writings, parallelism must not be left out of consideration in
cases where the meaning of a |>assago may be doubtful. In tlio
third place, in the corres[)onding blessing of Moses (i)eut. xxxiii.
15), the expressions Qlp i"|"in (/'<nr>r kc(krn) "ancient moun-
tains," and tDDlS' kll^i!! (giroth olam) "everlasting liills," are
employed, which alone is sufficient to determine that the words
*iy "^lin (Jiorai ad) in our passage must lie rendered by

• As regards the peculiar form of "l^lln (horai) it must bo regarded as a

€02

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

" eternal mountains," as corresponding to " ancient mountains "
in the blessing of Moses. In Hab. iil 6, a similar parallelism
occurs :

"And the eternal mountains wer'- sciattered,
The everlasting hills did bow.'

'* And on the crown of the head of the prince among his
brethren" ; Joseph stood among his brethren the viceroy of
Egypt. The word Tit5 (nes'ir) is evidently a denominative of
"lT3 (neaer) a diadem, and thus denotes owe who wears a crown

a prince. In the Targum of Jonathan it is paraphrased, " The
man who is prince and ruler in Egppt."

27. Benjamin is a wolf that tvill tear in 2yiece8 :
In the morning he will devour the prey :
And at even he loill divide the spoil.

In this prophetic declaration the patriarch foretells in the
most graphic manner possible the warlike character of the
tribe of Benjamin. " Benjamin is a wolf ;" the habits of the
wolf are so well known that a lengthy explanation is unneces-
sary. The appetite of the wolf for animal food is most vehe-
m'^nt, and tli3 means he takes to satisfy his appetite are the
most various. Nature has furnished this animal with all the
requisites for overtaking and conquering its prey, with strength,
cunning, and agility. When pressed with hunger it is heedless
of danger. The tribe of Benjamin was situated between the
two powerful tribes of Ephraim and Judah, and, therefore,
could hardly be expected ever to attain any considerable power.
Indeed it required great energy even to hold its own, and pre-
serve its independence. It was but a small tribe, but what it
lacked in numerical strength, was to a very great extent made
up by its indominable courage and energy. A striking example
is furnished in Judg. xix.-xxi., where we find this insignificant
tribe not hesitating to combat against all the other tribes,
and indeed gaining at first several great victories over vastly
superior armies than their own. They would, however, at the end
have been annihilated, had it not been for the forbearance of the
other tribes. Another instance of great bravery we have in the
daring act of the Benjamite Ehud, a judge of Israel, who by a
cunningly devised plan slew Eglon, king of Moab, to whom the

poetical form for I'^H (hare), and that "nJl (l>^or) is an old form for *in (har).
The word '^m (ad) is not the preposition tnito, but the substantive of the same
form denoting eternity, everlaafhuj, equivalent to t2Dl5 {olam). (Comp. Deut.
xxxiii. 15 ; Ps. ix. 19. ) According to the Masoretic accentuation *^y (ced) is
read with the following m ords, but there are other instances of palpable wrong
accentuation, no doubt caused through the carelessness of th'' copyists.

t mountains "
ar parallelism

ce among his
he viceroy of
lominative of
!eara a crown

jhrased, " The

retells in the

.racter of the

habits of the

3n is unneces-

is most vehe-

petite are the

1 with all the

^ith strength,

it is heedless

between the

d, therefore,

|erable power.

wn, and pre-

but what it

extent made

ing example

insignificant

other tribes,

over vastly

r, at the end

ranee of the

have in the

1, who by a

o whom the

for "in (*«»•).

t^e of the same
(Comp. Deut.
Ion 'ly (ad) U
palpable wrong
pyists.

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

603

Israelites were tributary, through which deed they obtained
their independence which they enjoyed for eighty year's. (See
Judg. iii. 15-30). The ambition of this little tribe, however, was
gratified in the royal dignity conferred on Saul, The men of Mie
tribe of Benjamin were famous as being excellent archei-s, and
expert in slinging stones at a hair's breadth, and not miss. (See
Judg. XX. 16). The fertility of the territory of the tribe of Benja-
min was not inferior to any of the possessions of the other tribes ;
it was rich in springs, and contained several beautiful valleys,
and abounded in palm and balsam trees, and even the rocky
hills were rendered exceedingly fertile by industry. The fact
also that the hills of Zion and Moriah partly belonged to this
tribe as well as to Judah, increased greatly its importance, and
thus it is, that Jerusalem is sometimes ascribed to Judah and
sometimes to Benjamin. Compare Josh. xv. 63 ; xviii. 28 ;
Judg. i. 21 ; Ps. Ixxiii. 68). It enables us also to understand
the blessing pronounced by Moses upon this tribe :

" Of Benjamin he said,
Tlie blessed of the Lord shall dwell in safety by him :
He covered him all the day long,
And he dwelleth between his shoulder. " (Deut. xxxiii, 12. )

Rendered by Luther in his German Version : " The beloved
of the Lord will dwell srfely, he will protect him at all times,
and dwell between his loulders," Similar, Rabbi Shalom
Hakkohen in his German V^ersion for the Jews: "The beloved of
the Lord, protected by Him, will dwell in safety," &;c. Onkelos
explains : " For the Divine Majesty shall iwell in his country,"
that is, in the temple upon Mount Moriah in the tribe of Ben-
jamin. " In the morning he will devour the prey, and at even
he will divide the spoil." The wolf generally goes in search of
prey in the evening or at night ; hence Jeremiah says: "Where-
fore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, a wolf of the
evening shall spoil them," (ch. v. 61); and Habakkuk says:
" Theii" horses also are swifter than leopards, and are more
fierce than the evening wolves," (ch. i. 8). But he will attack
and tear his victim, whenever an opportunity offers. The pas-
sage as applied to the tribe of Benjamin, denote its pertinacious
addictedness to warfare, which it will display, already at the
' morning " or beginning of the Jewish state, and continue to
practise it to " the evening," or end of it.

28. All these are the twelve tribes of Israel : and this is it tliat their
father spoke unto them, and blessed them : every one, according to his
blessing, he blessed them.

" All these are the twelve tribes of Israel," &c., that is, all
these are the heads or founders of the twelve tribes, and the

ti!

-«M?

604

people's cohmentabt.

prophetic declarations which he made to them were precisely
in accordance to what would happen to them in future days.
Our adverse critics have urged that the language " every one,
according to his blessing/ was not appropriate at least as
regards Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, since tliese received unfavor-
able predictions; but we have already shown, that general
assertions are sometimes made of a whole body which do not
strictly apply to eveiy individual of it. Yet, even in respect
to these three, it cannot be said that the predictions were
wholly devoid of blessing. True, Reuben was not to excel,
being deprived of his birthright, still he formed one of the
twelve tiibes, and had a share in the allotment of the promised
land. So Simeon and Levi, though scattered, still had their
inheritance »»mong their brethren.

Modern critics have laboured hard and displayed much
ingenuity in their endeavour to divest the predictions contained
in our chapter of their prophetic character, but so far have not
adduced a single substantial argument. Their theory which
assigns to the chapter a later date, is altogether based upon
mere conjecture. The fact that Jacob uttered the prediction
merely to the founders of the tribes, and several centuries be-
fore they were accomplished, remains still unshaken.

29. And he charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered
unto my people : bur,y me with my fathers in the cave which is in tJie

field of Ephron the Hittite.

Jacob had already charged Joseph to bury him in the land
of Canaan, in the cave which is in t' e field of Ephron, and
made him solemnly promise that he would carry out his wishes
(see ch. xlvii. 20-31), but he now makes the same charge to all
his sons, requesting them all to take part in his burial, wishing
no doubt thereby to shew them that he cherished no ill feelings
towards any one of them, but loved them all. He may have
also hoped t^at by their uniting in the performance of the
solemn act, their brotherly feeling might become more firmly
cemented. v^^.t.

30. And when Jacob had finished cJiarging his sons, he gat/iered his
feet into the bed, and expired, and was gathered to his people.

" He was gathered to his people" ; this language clearly indi-
cates the existence of a future state : it clearly implies that
" his people" exisoed, or how could he be said to have been
gathered to them. It is quite evident that the expression,
" he was gathered to his people," cannot mean he was buried
with his people, for it stands in close connection with Jn^i"
(waiyigiva) " and he expired", whereas his removal from Egypt

t*E0^L£^8 COlfkENtAttt.

60d

ere precisely

future days.

" every one,

at least as

ved unfavor-

bhat general

vhich do not

n in respect

ictions were

lot to excel,

one of the

ihe promised

ill had their

tlayed much
ns contained
far have not
heory which
based upon
le prediction
lenturies be-

to be gathered
hich is in the

in the land
Ephron, and
it his wishes
jharge to all
rial, wishing
o ill feelings
e may have
lance of the
nore firmly

! gathered his
)ple.

clearly indi-
mplies that
have been
expression,
wa8 buried
with '$yyi'\
rom Egypt

to the land of Canaan for burial did not take place until the
seventy days of mourning bad passed. The language can
thetelore mean nothing else but that as soon as Jacob had
breathed out his life, his spirit was gathered with the spirits of
his people in b^ifD (tiheoL), the blessed region of departed souls.

CHAPTER L.

1. And Joseph /ell upon his father's /ace, and wept upon him, and
kissed him.

The language in our verse describes in a most forcible manner
bow deeply Joseph felt the death of his father. No sooner are
the eyes oi; his beloved parent closed in death thau he throws
himselt upon the lifeless body, weeping upon it, and kissing it.

2. And Joseph commanded his servatiia the physicians to embalm
his /other : and the physicians embalmed Israel.

*■ His servants the physicians," that is, the physicians attached
to his family, and are therefore here spoken of as "his servants."
It may, pernapsi, appear strange that Joseph should have a
number of family pnysicians, but this is accounted for that
in Egypt a physician attends only to one kind of disease (comp.
HerocL li. b^j, and therefore every great family, as well as every
city, must neuessarily require a laige number of doctors.

3. And forty days were /ul/Uled /or him; for so are /vJ/Ultd the
days o/t/ujse t/iot are embaimed: and the Egyptians mourned /or him
seventy days.

The time mentioned in our verse as occupied in embalming
Jacob, comcides with the time mentioned by Diodorus in his
account of the Egyptian mode of embalming. He observes :
" Tbey prepare the body first with cedar oil and various other
substance-*, more than thirty da^^s, (according to another reading
forty days), then, after they have added myrrh and cinnamon
ftnd other drugs which have not only the power of preserving
the body tor a long time, but of imparting also a plea-
saut odoi to it, they give it to the relatives of the deceased.
(Coap. Diod. i. 91. ^ee also Hengstenberg, Eg^pt and the
Books of Moses, p. 71.) Herodotus, iu his account of the
Egyptian mode of embalming, gives "seventy days" as the
time generally occupied in emoalmiug, but he evidently refers
88

(

606

t>EOPL£*S COMMENTARY.

to some other mode of embalming, probably one practised at a
different period. There seems to have been three different
modes of embalming or mummification. The cost of the most
expensive one was about $1,2U0. The second mode of embalm-
ing v^as a far more inexpensive process, costing only about
$i)OU. The third mode, which was employed by the poor
classes, was a very cheap process, no cosily articles being
employed. The seventy days of mourning includes the forty
days occupied in the process of embalming. The mourning fur
the patriarch was not confined merely to his family, but,
according to our verse, all £gypt participated in it, " and the
Egyptians mourned for him seventy days," whicn was the
customary time among the ancient Egyptians for lamentation
for the dead. Joseph had been a great benefactor to Egypt,
and the inuabitants evidently felt gratefui for what he nad
done for them, and seeing how greatly their lord loved his
father, they thought that this tribute of respect to his deceased
parent could not fail to be highly pleasing to him. It was an
expression of love and gratitude which must indeed have been
exceedingly gratifying to Joseph. Modern rulers might well
draw a wholesome lesson from the conduct of the Egyptians
on this occasion. - : ?>;

4. And when the days of his mourning were passed, Joseph spake
unto tlte house of Pharaoh saying, ij\ I pi'ay you, J have found grace
in your eyes, speak, I pray you, in the ears oj Pharaoh, saying,

5. My /other made me swear, saying. Behold, I die : in my grave
which I have digged for me in the land of Canaan, t/iere shalt thou
bury me. Now, therefore, let me go up, I pray thee, and bury my

father, and I will return again.

It may appear strange that Joseph, who was next to the king
in power, sfiould ask tfie intervention of subordinate officers to
obtain permission from the king to go and bury his father ; and
some writers have erroneously supposed that Joseph's power
had been curtailed after the famine had passed. The true
explanation no doubt is, that it was not permissible to appear
in mourning attire in the presence of royalty, and he therefore
asked the courtiers to obtain the permission for him. So Mor-
decai could not come in the king's presence so long as he wore
mourning apparel, "for none might enter the king's gate clothed
with sackcloth." (Esth. iv. 2 ; compare also Gen. xii. 14).

^. And Pharaoh said. Go up, and bury thy father, according at he
made thee swear.

" A'MSording as he made thee swear." Pharaoh, in his reply,
seems to lay stress on the oatli which Joseph had made, as much

people's commentary.

607

u:tised at a
le ditl'erent
)t' the most
of embaltu-
only about
y the poor
icles being
!s the forty
)urning for
imily, but,
b, "and the
in was the
simentation

to Egy[»t,
lat he nad

loved his
is deceased

It was an

have been
might well

Egyptians

oseph spake
found grace
lyiag,

n my grave
i shalt thou
i bury my

> the king
officers to
ther ; and
's power
The true
to appear
theiet'ore
!So Mor-
he wore
;e clothed
14).

'ing at he

lis reply,
as much

as to sny, thou hnst made a solemn oath to thy father, nnd it
must not be violated, therefore, " Go up, and bury thy father."

7. And Joseph went up to bury his father : and with him went up
all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of
the land of Egypt.

Pharaoh not only readily gave his consent for Joseph to go
u|) into the land of Canaan to bury his father, hut he further
showed his esteem for his viceroy by ordering all the officers
of his court, and the officers of state, to accompany the funeral
train, which was composed of Joseph's household, the house-
holds of his brothers, and the household of the deceased patri-
arch (v. 8), which altogether formed "a very jjreat company"
(v. 9). The luneral procession was rendeied still more imposing
by its being accompatiied by " chariots and horsemen " (v. 9).
It must indeed have been a great gratification to Joseph to see
the memory of his beloved parent so greatly honoured.

10. And they cnme to the threshing-Jlnor of Atnd, which is beyond
the Jordan, and there they lamented with a r/reat and very vehement
lamentation : and he made a mourning for his father seven days.

The locality of the threshing-floor of Atad cannot now be
fixed with any certainty. It was, however, evidently situated
within the borders of the land of Canaan, for according to verse
11, the Canaanites saw the great lamentation. The journey
from the district of Goshen would occupy from eight to ten
days. The threshing-floors were flat places in open fields, and
were often called after the owners. When the funeral train
arrived at the threshing-floor, it halted, and renewed the
mourning for seven days.

11. And lohen the inhahitantn of the land, the Canaanites, saw the
viournhuf in the Jloor of Atad, then ^(tid. This is a vehement mourning
to the Egiiptinns: where/ore was its name called Abel-mizraim, which
is beyond the Jordan. ■■ ^. ■ . . ..-

The vehement expression of grief evinced by the Egyptians
seems to have astonished the Canaanites, for they exclaimed,
"This is a vehement mourning to the Egyptians," showing that
it was something unusual to that which was practised among
them. Now here again our narrative perfectly coincides with
the custom that prevailed among the ancient Egyptians. The
pictorial representations on the monuments show how violent
and solemn the lamentations were among the Egyptians. Clas-
sical writers, too, furnish accounts of the great grief exhibited
by the Egyptians in their mourning for friends or relations
Diodorus observes, " If any one dies among theni, all his

608

people's commentary.

relatives and friends cover their heads with mud. nnd go ahont
the Rtreet<» with loud lamentations until the hoily is hurled.
In the meantime they neither use baths nor take wine, or anv-
thinsf but common food: they also do not put on beautiful
parmentfl " (B. i. c. 94 ; see also Hensrst., Eeypt and the
Books of Moses, p. 74.) A similar account is piven by Hero-
dotus. (B. ii. c. 8o,) Biodorus also says : " When a kini^
die<l, all the Egyptians raised a g'eneral lamentation, tore their
garments, closed the temples, offered no sacrifices, celebr>ited
no festivals, for seventy-two days." (i. 72.) From the great
grief exhibited by the Esrvptians on the occasion recor»le«l in
our verse, the place was afterwards called •"Abel-mizraim," i.e.,
the woumiriff of the K'-yptiavff.

When the seven davs of mourning were ended, Joseph and
his brothers carried the body to the cave of Mnchpelah and
there buried it, as their fnthcr had commanded them. Having
performed this melancholy duty, thev returned again to the
threshing floor of Atad, where the Eirvptians had remained,
and the whole company then returned back to Egypt.

It appears from verse 15, that Joseph's brf>thers feared that,
as their father was now dead, Joseph would avenge the ill-
treatment he had received at their hands (v. 15).

16. And they sent a mettage unto Joseph, saying. Thy father did
command before he died saying,

17. f^n tihaUye say unto Joseph, Forgive, 1 pray thee, the trespass of
thy brethren and their sin ; for they did unto thee evil: and fiow. xte
pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father.
And Joseph wept when tliey spoke to him.

There is no mention made, in the previous history, of Jacob
having left such an injunction as the one recorded in verse 17 ;
and yet we are loth to believe that it was a mere f«brication
of Joseph's brothers. They had only just retume<l from per-
forming the solemn duty of burj'ing their father, and we can
hardly conceive their acting so wickedly as to connect their
father's name with a deliberate falsehood. We are rather in-
clined to believe that tho t)rothers may have mentioned their fears
to their father, and though he himself was satisfie«l that their
apprehensions were entirely groundlcs.s, yet, in order to quiet
their fears, he left this message to be delivered to Joseph.
The request was well adapted to quell the fears of the brothers,
for they well knew, that Joseph would on no account ilisrogard

* It is quite evident from the context that instend <f *J2Si (AM), which
denotes a grassy place, it should read ^35^ (tJhel), i.e., mourning. There
could be no rca«ou why the place should be called the ijixumit jiiact o/E/j^jA.

\ 1

d eo ft^nt
'Is buried,
riP, or anv-
I beautiful
>t and the
I by Hero-
en a kins;
, tnre their
celebrjited
the ^rreat
ecnrrle*] in
Eraim, i.e.,

oseph and
ipelah and
I. Having
nin to the
remained,
>t.

eared that,
tge the ill-

y father did

trespata of
nd ttow. tee
^ thy father.

of Jacob
verse 17;
ibrication
rom per-
d we can
ect their
rather in-
theirfeai>i
that their
r to quiet
Joseph,
brothers,
ilisro^ard

1^*/), whu-h
'\t>Q. There

%k..

people's comhentart.

609

the wisliltof hia father. " And Joseph wept when they spoke
to him ;** Hiis shows how intensely pained Joseph was that his
brothers should think him capable of playing the hypocrite not-
withstanding the manv proofs he had jjiven them of his
brotherly afJection durinjj their seventeen years residence in
Esrypt. He felt naturally greatly grieved that his brothers
should have considered that all he had done for them was
merely to please his father, and that he had never forgiven
them the treatment he had received at their hands.

18. And hilt brethren aho went and fell down lefore hia face: and
they said, Behold we are thy servants.

The message was probably intrnsted to Benjamin, whom
they knew Joseph loved dearly, and to Judah, who had always
acted as their spokesman. The message apparently was merely
preparatory to their going themselves and humbling themselves
before Joseph ; " they also went and fell down before his face :"
this action was the final fulfilment of Joseph's dreams recorded
in chapter xxxvii.

19. And Joseph said unto them, Fear not ; for am / in the place
of God f ,

•

It would be impossible to conceive a more convincing proof
that the thought of vengeance had never entered Joseph's
mind than is conveyed in his reply: "Fear not: for am I in the
place of God ?" Although he was the ruler of the conntiy, and
by virtue of his ofllice had a right to punish evil-doers, yet he
would not presume to pnt himself in the place of God, to whom
alone vengeance belongeth. " Vengeance is mine ; I will repay,
saith the Lord."

20. But as for you, ye thought evil aqainst me / but God meant it
unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people
alive.

Joseph had in substance told this to his brothers on a former
occasion (see ch. xlv. o, 7.) but evidently repeats it here to set
their minds at rest, by showing them that he still viewed their
evil design in the same light as he had done seventeen years
ago; and then adds :

21. N'ow, therefore, fen r ye not: f will vnnnith yov, and your little
ones. And he coinfoi'ted them, and spohe hindhj unto them.

The promise, " T will nourish you, and your little on'^s" must
have convinced the brothers of the sincerity of Joseph'.', kind
and comforting words, and completely banished all fears from
their minds.

610

PEOPLES COMMENTARY.

22. And Jnaaph dimlUd in Fgifpt, ht and hU fiUhtr'a houte; and
Joseph lived an hundred and ten years.

23. A nd Joseph saw Ephraim'a children of the third generation :
the children also of Maohir, the son of Afanaaseh, were bom upon
JosepKs knees.

The sacred narrative passes now briefly over the rest of the
life of Joseph. Though ho lived fifty-four years after the
deati) of Jacob, nothing of importance apparently transpired
during that time worthy of notice. "The children also of
Machirwere born upon Joseph's knees:" this does not menn, as
mnny have explained, that Joseph caressed them on his knees ;
but that ho ncknowledped them as his own legitimate otfspring.
This is evidently the meaning of the passage, for in chapter
XXX. 3, we read that Rachel said to Jacob, " Behold my nmid
Bilhah, go to her, and she shall bear upon my knees." It was
customary among some of the ancient nations for the father,
or grandfather, to take the new-born child upon his knees, and
by the act ho acknowledged the child ns his own, and pledged
himself to provide and cafe for it, Machir was the first-born
son of Manasseh, and his name is sometimes used as repre-
senting the tribe of Manasseh. Thus, in Judges v. 14-, we read,
" out of Machir {ifi. Manasseh) came down governors." Machir
had by his first wife one son, namely. Gilead, who greatly dis-
tinguished himself by valour in the conquest of the promised
land. By his second wife he had two sons. (See 1 Chron.
vii. 16.)

26. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, sayiny, God
will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.

"God will surely visit you." In these words Joseph expressed
his faith in God's promise to Abraham. (See eh. xv. 13, 14.)
Joseph, of course, did not expect that any of his bri)thei's then
living would be alive to carry his bones up into the land of
Canaan when the end of the appointed time of bondage would
have arrived ; but he took an oath from his brothers, being
assured that it would be respected by their descendants. The
promise under an oath would be heltl sacred, and be handed
down from one generation to another. And so we find that
when Moses left Egypt, though in great haste, yet he did not
forget the bones of Joseph.

21). So Joseph died a hundred and ten years old : and they
embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Xgypt-

The death of Joseph took placi' sixty-four years before the
birth of Moses, and 14* years before the departure of the

^ou$e : and

eneration ;
hofm upon

3»t of the
after the
rannpired
n also of
: nienn, as
lis knees ;
ottspriiig.
I chapter
my maid
' It was
le father,
nees, and
\ pledged
fii'st-born
as re pre -
we read,
Machir
eatly dis-
promised
1 Chron.

/iny, God
iJice.

cpressed
13. 14.)
rs then
I land of
would
\, being
The
[lianded
id that
llid not

id they

Ire the
k the

■M

People's coMAtENTAiilr.

Israelites from E^ypt. The Hebrew term pij^ (aron) which
we have rendered " cotiin," denotes a wooden cheat ; most fre-
quently, however, it denotes tlte sacred ark which contained
the two tables of the law.

We have now completed our remarks upon the Book of
Genesis, and trust to the satisfaction of our readers. It has
been our endeavour to make tlie Commentary in every respect
complete, in contested portions we have been particularly
careful to make our replies to adverse criticism as perfect as
possible ; yet should any of them h<i.ve failed to prove entirely
satisfactuiy to some of the readers, we trust they will consider
the fault lying with us, and not to be regarded as admitting of
no better defence, for we feel confident that all the objections
urged against some portions of the Book of Genesis admit of a
full and perfect explanation. We have studiously avoided to
say anything that might in the least give offence to our adverse
critics, although our opinions are in many instances as opposite
a? the poles to theirs, we still entertain the highest respect for
them as eminent scholars.

We may, sometimes, indeed, have made use of language,
which might probably be deemed as somewhat severe, but for
which we shall ofier no other apology than that we were de-
fending the sacred Scriptures.