Vers. 9-15. Defiance grows with sin, and punishment keeps pace with guilt. Adam and Eve fear before God, and acknowledge their sin; Cain boldly denies it, and in reply to the question, " Where is Abel thy brother?" declares, ^^ I know not, am I my brothei's keeper?" God therefore charges him with his crime: " What hast thou done! voice of thy brother s blood crying to Me from the earth." The verb ^'crying" refers to the ^^ blood" since this is the principal Avord, and the voice merely expresses the adverbial idea of "aloud," or ''listen" {Ewald, § dlld). D^p-=J (drops of blood) is sometimes used to denote natural hemorrhage (Lev. xii. 4, 5, xx. 18); but is chiefly applied to blood shed unnaturally, i.e. to murder. " Innocent blood has no voice, it may be, that is discernible by human ears, but it has one that reaches God, as the cry of a wicked deed demanding vengeance" (Delitzsch). Murder is one of the sins that cry to heaven. " Primum ostendit Deus se de factis hominum cognoscere utcunque nullus queratur vel accuset; deinde sibi jnagis charain esse hominum vitam quam ut sanguinem innoxium impune effundi sinat; tertio curam sibi piorum esse non solum quamdiu vivunt sed etiam post mortem " (Calvin). Abel was the first of the saints, whose blood is precious in the sight of God (Ps. cxvi. 15); and by virtue of his faith, he being dead yet speaketh through his blood which cried unto God (Heb. xi. 4). — Vers. 11, 12. " And now (sc. because thou hast done this) be cursed from the earth." From: i.e. either awai/ from the earth,. driven forth so that it shall no longer afford a quiet resting-place (Gerlach, Delitzsch, etc.), or out of the earth, through its withdrawing its strength, and thus securing the fulfilment of perpetual wandering (Baumgarten, etc.). It is difficult to choose between the two; but the clause, "which hath opened her mouth" etc., seems rather to favour the latter. Because the earth has been compelled to drink innocent blood, it rebels against the murderer, and when he tills it, withdraws its strength, so that the soil yields no produce; just as the land of Canaan is said to have spued out the Canaanites, on account of their abominations (Lev. xviii. 28). In any case, the idea that " the soil, through drinking innocent blood, became an accomplice in the sin of murder," has no biblical support, and is not confirmed by Isa. xxvi. 21 or Num. xxxv. 33. The suffering of irrational creatures through the sin of man is very different from their participating in his sin. " A fugitive and vagabond CJ^ ^3, i.e. banished and homeless) shall thou be in the earth" Cain is so affected by this curse, that his obduracy is turned into despair. "My sin" he says in ver. 13, "is greater than can be borne." flV ^'^\ signifies to take away and bear sin or guilt, and is used with reference both to God and man. God takes guilt away by forgiving it (Ex. xxxiv. 7); man carries it away and bears it, by enduring its punishment (cf. Num. V. 31). Luther, following the ancient versions, has adopted the first meaning; but the context sustains the second: for Cain afterwards complains, not of the greatness of the sin, but only of the severity of the punishment. " Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth, and from Thy face shall I be hid;... and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me" The adamah, from the face of which the curse of Jehovah had driven Cain, was Eden (cf. ver. 16), where he had carried on his agricultural pursuits, and where God had revealed His face, i.e. His presence, to the men after their expulsion from the garden; so that henceforth Cain had to wander about upon the wide world, homeless and far from the presence of God, and was afraid lest any one who found him might slay him. By "every one that findeth me" we are not to understand omnis creatura, as though Cain had excited the hostility of all creatures, but every man; not in the sense, however, of such as existed apart from the family of Adam, but such as were aware of his crime, and knew him to be a murderer. For Cain is evidently afraid of revenge on the part of relatives of the slain, that is to say, of descendants of Adam, who were either already in existence, or yet to be bom. Though Adam might not at this time have had " many grandsons and greatgrandsons," yet according to ver. 1 7 and chap. v. 4, he had undoubtedly other children, who might increase in number, and sooner or later might avenge Abel's death. For, that blood shed demands blood in return, " is a principle of equity written in the heart of every man; and that Cain should see the earth full of avengers is just like a murderer, who sees avenging spirits (EpLvve<i) ready to torture him on every hand." — Ver. 15. Although Cain expressed not penitence, but fear of punishment, God displayed His long-suffering and gave him the promise, " Therefore (1?^ not in the sense of I5 ^■'j but because it was the case, and there was reason for his complaint) whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall he taken on him sevenfold^ \'}> J?.'"'"''3 is cas. ahsolut. as in chap. ix. 6; and D,"?!! avenged, i.e. resented, punished, as Ex. xxi. 20, 21. The mark which God put upon Cain is not to be regarded as a mark upon his body, as the Rabbins and others supposed, but as a certain sign which protected him from vengeance, though of what kind it is impossible to determine. God granted him continuance of life, not because banishment from the place of God's presence was the greatest possible punishment, or because the preservation of- the human race required at that time that the lives of individuals should be spared, — for God afterwards destroyed the whole human race, with the exception of one family, — but partly because the tares were to grow with the wheat, and sin develop itself to its utmost extent, partly also because from the very first God determined to take punishment into His own hands, and protect human life from the passion and wilfulness of human vengeance.
Vers. 16-24. The family of the Cainites. —Yer. 16. The geographical situation of the land of Nod, in the front of Eden (nonip, see chap. ii. 14), where Cain settled after his departure from the place or the land of the revealed presence of God (cf. Jonah i. 3), cannot be determined. The name Nod denotes a land of flight and banishment, in contrast with Eden, the land of delight, where Jehovah walked with men. There Cain knew his wife. The text assumes it as self-evident that she accompanied him in his exile; also, that she was a daughter of Adam, and consequently a sister of Cain. The marriage of brothers and sisters was inevitable in the case of the children of the first men, if the human race was actually to descend from a single pair, and may therefore be justified in the face of the Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons and daughters of Adam represented not merely the family but the genus, and that it was not till after the rise of several families that the bands of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct from one another, and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the violation of which is sin. (Comp. Lev. xviii.) His son he named Ilanoch (consecration), because he regarded his birth as a pledge of the renovation of his life. For this reason he also gave the same name to the city which he built, inasmuch as its erection was another phase in the development of his family. The construction of a city by Cain will cease to surprise us, if we consider that at the commencement of its erection, centuries had already passed since the creation of man, and Cain's descendants may by this time have increased considerably in numbers; also, that '^''V does not necessarily presuppose a large town, but simply an enclosed space with fortified dwellings, in contradistinction to the isolated tents of shepherds; and lastly, that the words np ""n^lj " he was building," merely indicate the commencement and progress of the building, but not its termination. It appears more surprising that Cain, who was to be a fugitive and a vagabond upon the earth, should have established himself in the land of Nod. This cannot be fully explained, either on the ground that he carried on the pursuits of agriculture, which lead to settled abodes, or that he strove against the curse. In addition to both the facts referred to, there is also the circumstance, that the curse, " the ground shall not yield to thee her strength," was so mollified by the grace of God, that Cain and his descendants were enabled to obtain sufficient food in the land of his settlement, though it was by dint of hard work and strenuous effort; unless, indeed, we follow Luther and understand the curse, that he should be a fugitive upon the earth, as relating to his expulsion from Eden, and his removal ad incertum locum et opus, non addita ulla vel promissione vel mandator sicut avis qucB in libera ccelo incerta vagatiir. The fact that Cain undertook the erection of a city, is also significant. Even if we do not regard this city as " the first foundation-stone of the kingdom of the world, in which the spirit of the beast bears sway," we cannot fail to detect the desire to neutralize the curse of banishment, and create for his family a point of unity, as a compensation for the loss of unity in fellowship with God, as well as the inclination of the family of Cain for that which was earthly. The powerful development of the worldly mind and of ungodliness among the Cainites was openly displayed in Lamech, in the sixth generation. Of the intermediate links, the names only are given. (On the use of the passive with the accusative of the object in the clause " to Hanoch was born (they bore) Irad^^ see Ges. § 143, 1.) Some of these names resemble those of the Sethite genealogy, viz. Irad and Jared, Mehujael and Mahalaleel, Methusael and Methuselah, also Cain and Cainan; and the names Enoch and Lamech occur in both families. But neither the recurrence of similar names, nor even of the same names, warrants the conclusion that the two genealogical tables are simply different forms of one primary legend. For the names, though similar in sound, are very different in meaning. Irad probably signifies the townsman, Jered, descent, or that which has descended; Mehujael, smitten of God, and Mahalaleel, praise of God; Methusael, man of prayer, and Methuselah, man of the sword or of increase. The repetition of the two names Enoch and Lamech even loses all significance, when we consider the different places which they occupy in the respective lines, and observe also that in the case of these very names, the more precise descriptions which are given so thoroughly establish the difference of character in the two individuals, as to preclude the possibility of their being the same, not to mention the fact, that in the later history the same names frequently occur in totally different families; e.g. Korah in the families of Levi (Ex. vi. 21) and Esau (chap, xxxvi. 5); Hanoch in those of Reuben (chap, xlvi, 9) and Midian (chap. xxv. 4); Kenaz in those of Judah (Num. xxxii. 12) and Esau (chap, xxxvi. 11). The identity and similarity of names can prove nothing more than that the two branches of the human race did not keep entirely apart from each other; a fact established by their subsequently intermarrying. — Lamech took two wives, and thus was the first to prepare tlie way for polygamy, by which the ethical aspect of marriage, as ordained by God, was turned into the lust of the eye and lust of the flesh. The names of the women are indicative of sensual attractions: Adah, the adorned; and Zillah, either the shady or the tinkling. His three sons are the authors of inventions which show how the mind and efforts of the Cainites were directed towards the beautifying and perfecting of the earthly life. Jahal (probably = jehul, produce) became the father of such as dwelt in tents, i.e. of nomads who lived in tents and with their flocks, getting their living by a pastoral occupation, and possibly also introducing the use of animal food, in disregard of the divine command (Gen. i. 29). Juhal (sound), the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe, i.e. the inventors of stringed and wind instruments. "ii33 a guitar or harp; 33iy the shepherd's reed or bagpipe. Tubal- Cain, "hammering all kinds of cutting things (the verb is to be construed as neuter) in brass and iron; " the inventor therefore of all kinds of edge-tools for working in metals: so that Cain, from rip to forge, is probably to be regarded as the surname which Tubal received on account of his inventions. The meanincj of Tubal is obscure; for the Persian Tupal, iron-scoria, can throw no light upon it, as it must be a much later word. The allusion to the sister of Tubal-Cain is evidently to be attributed to her name, Naamah, the lovely, or graceful, since it reflects the worldly mind of the Cainites. In the arts, which owed their origin to Xiamech's sons, this disposition reached its culminating point; and it appears in the form of pride and defiant arrogance in the song in which Lamech celebrates the inventions of Tubal-Cain (vers. 23, 24): "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: Men I slay for m,y loound, and young men for my stripes. For sevenfold is Cain avenged, and Lamech seven and seventy-fold" The perfect ''^'^'}[} is expressive not of a deed accomplished, but of confident assurance (Ges. § 126, 4; Ewald, § 135c); and the suffixes in ^rrinn and 'V^^ are to be taken in a passive sense. The idea is this: whoever inflicts a wound or stripe on me, whether man or youth, I will put to death; and for every injury done to my person, I will take ten times more vengeance than that with which God promised to avenge the murder of my ancestor Cain. In this song, which contains in its rhythm, its strophic arrangement of the thoughts, and its poetic diction, the germ of the later poetry, we may detect " that Titanic arrogance, of which the Bible says that its power is its god (Hab. i. 11), and that it carries its god, viz. its sword, in its hand (Job xii. 6) " {Delitzsch). — According to these accounts, the principal arts and manufactures were invented by the Cainites, and carried out in an ungodly spirit; but they are not therefore to be attributed to the curse which rested upon the family. They have their roots rather in the mental powers with which man was endowed for the sovereignty and subjugation of the earth, but which, like all the other powers and tendencies of his nature, were pervaded by sin, and desecrated in its service. Hence these inventions have become the common property of humanity, because they not only may promote its intended development, but are to be applied and consecrated to this purpose for the glory of God.
Vers. 25, 26. The character of the ungodly family of Cainites was now fully developed in Lamech and his children. The history, therefore, turns from them, to indicate briefly the origin of the godly race. After Abel's death a third son was born to Adam, to whom his mother gave the name of Seth (OK', from n^K'j a present participle, the appointed one, the compensation); '^for," she said, " God hath appointed me another seed (descendant) for Abel, because Cain slew him" The words " because Cain slew him " are not to be regarded as an explanatory supplement, but as the words of Eve; and ^3 by virtue of the previous rinn is to be understood in the sense of "3 rinn. What Cain (human wickedness) took from her, that has Elohim (divine omnipotence) restored. Because of this antithesis she calls the giver Elohim instead of Jehovah, and not because her hopes had been sadly depressed by her painful experience in connection with the first-born. — Ver. 26. " To Seth, to him also (S^n DSj intensive, vid. Ges. § 121, 3) there was born a son, and he called his name JEnosh." tJnJX, from K*3iJ to be weak, faint, frail, designates man from his frail and mortal condition (Ps. viii. 4, xc. 3, ciii. 15, etc.). In this name, therefore, the feeling and knowledge of human weakness and frailty were expressed (the opposite of the pride and arrogance displayed by the Canaanitish family); and this feeling led to God, to that invocation of the name of Jehovah which commenced under Enos. nin^^ Dt^3 anp, literally to call in (or by) the name of Jehovah, is used for a solemn calling of the name of God. When applied to men, it denotes invocation (here and chap. xii. 8, xiii. 4, etc.); to God, calling out or proclaiming His name (Ex. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 5). The 7iame of God signifies in general "the whole nature of God, by which He attests His personal presence in the relation into which He has entered with man, the divine self-manifestation, or the whole of that revealed side of the divine nature, which is turned towards man" (Oehler). We have here an account of the commencement of that worship of God which consists in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, or in the acknowledgment and celebration of the mercy and help of Jehovah. While the family of Cainites, by the erection of a city, and the invention and development of worldly arts and business, were laying the foundation for the kingdom of this world; the family of the Sethites began, by united invocation of the name of the God of grace, to found and to erect the kingdom of God.
geneeations from adam to noah. — chap. v.
The origin of the human race and the general character of its development having been thus described, all that remained of importance to universal or sacred history, in connection with the progress of our race in the primeval age, was to record the order of the families (chap, v.) and the ultimate result of the course which they pursued (chap. vi. 1-8). — First of all, we have the genealogical table of Adam with the names of the first ten patriarchs, who were at the head of that seed of the woman by which the promise was preserved, viz. the posterity of the first pair through Seth, from Adam to the flood. We have also an account of the ages of these patriarchs before and after the birth of those sons in whom the line was continued; so that the genealogy, which indicates the line of development, furnishes at the same time a chronology of the primeval age. In the genealogy of the Cainites no ages are given, since this family, as being accursed by God, had no future history. On the other hand, the family of Sethites, which acknowledged God, began from the time of Enos to call upon the name of the Lord, and was therefore preserved and sustained by God, in order that under the training of mercy and judgment the human race might eventually attain to the great purpose of its creation. The genealogies of the primeval age, to quote the apt words of M. Baumgarten, are " memorials, which bear testimony quite as much to the faithfulness of God in fulfilling His promise, as to the faith and patience of the fathers themselves." This testimony is first placed in its true light by the numbers of the years. The historian gives not merely the age of each patriarch at the time of the birth of the first-bom, by whom the line of succession was continued, but the number of years that he lived after that, and then the entire length of his life. Now if we add together the ages at the birth of the several first-born sons, and the hundred years between the birth of Shem and the flood, we find that the duration of the first period in the world's history was 1656 years. We obtain a different result, however, from the numbers given by the LXX. and the Samaritan version, which differ in almost every instance from the Hebrew text, both in chap. v. and chap. xi. (from Shem to Terah), as will appear from the following table: —
1 The numbers in brackets are the reading of the Cod. Alexandrinvs of the LXX. In the genealogical table, chap. xi. 10 sqq., the Samaritan text is the only one which gives the whole duration of life.
The principal deviations from the Hebrew in the case of the other two texts are these: in chap. v. the Samaritan places the birth of the first-born of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech 100 years earlier, whilst the Septuagint places the birth of the firstborn of all the other fathers (except Noah) 100 years later than the Hebrew; in chap. xi. the latter course is adopted in both texts in the case of all the fathers except Shem and Terah. In consequence of this, the interval from Adam to the flood is shortened in the Samaritan text by 349 years as compared with the Hebrew, and in the Septuagint is lengthened by 586 {Cod. Alex. 606). The interval from the flood to Abram is lengthened in both texts; in the Sam. by 650 years, in the Sept. by 880 (Cod. Alex. 780). In the latter, Cainan is interpolated between Arphaxad and Salah, which adds 130 years, and the age of the first-born of Nahor is placed 150 years later than in the Hebrew, whereas in the former the difference is only 50 years. With regard to the other differences, the reason for reducing the lives of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech in the Samaritan text after the birth of their sons, was evidently to bring their deaths within the time before the flood. The age of Methuselah, as given in the Cod. Alex, of the LXX., is evidently to be accounted for on the same ground, since, according to the numbers of the Vatican text, Methuselah must have lived 14 years after the flood. In the other divergences of these two texts from the Hebrew, no definite purpose can be detected; at the same time they are sufficient to show a twofold tendency, viz. to lengthen the interval from the flood to Abram, and to reduce the ages of the fathers at the birth of their first-bom to greater uniformity, and to take care that the age of Adam at the birth of Seth should not be exceeded by that of any other of the patriarchs, especially in the time before the flood. To effect this, the Sept. adds 100 years to the ages of all the fathers, before and after the flood, whose sons were bom before their 100th year; the Sam., on the other hand, simply does this in the case of the fathers who Hved after the flood, whilst it deducts 100 years from the ages of all the fathers before the flood who begot their first-born at a later period of their life than Adam and Seth. The age of Noah alone is left imaltered, because there were other data connected with the flood which prevented any arbitrary alteration of the text. That the principal divergences of both texts from the Hebrew are intentional changes, based upon chronological theories or cycles, is sufficiently evident from their internal character, viz. from the improbability of the statement, that whereas the average duration of life after the flood was about half the length that it was before, the time of life at which the fathers begot their first-bom after the flood was as late, and, according to the Samaritan text, generally later than it had been before. No such intention is discernible in the numbers of the Hebrew text; consequently every attack upon the historical character of its numerical statements has entirely failed, and no tenable argument can be adduced against their correctness. The objection, that such longevity as that recorded in our chapter is inconceivable according to the existing condition of human nature, loses all its force if we consider " that all the memorials of the old world contain evidence of gigantic power; that the climate, the weather, and other natural conditions, were different from those after the flood; that life was much more simple and uniform; and that the after-effects of the condition of man in paradise would not be immediately exhausted" (Belitzsch). This longevity, moreover, necessarily contributed greatly to tlie increase of the human race; and the circumstance that the children were not born till a comparatively advanced period of life, — that is, until the corporeal and mental development of the parent was perfectly complete, — necessarily favoured the generation of a powerful race. From both these circumstances, however, the development of the race was sure to be characterized by peculiar energy in evil as well as in good; so that whilst in the godly portion of the race, not only were the traditions of the fathers transmitted faithfully and without adulteration from father to son, but family characteristics, piety, discipline, and morals took deep root, whilst in the ungodly portion time was given for sin to develop itself with mighty power in its innumerable forms.
The heading in ver. 1 runs thus: "This is the book (sepher) of the generations (tholedoth) of Adam." On tholedoth, see chap, ii. 4. Sepher is a writing complete in itself, whether it consist of one sheet or several, as for instance the "bill of divorcement " in Deut. xxiv. 1, 3. The addition of the clause, " in the day that God created man^^ etc., is analogous to chap. ii. 4; the creation being mentioned again as the starting point, because all the development and history of humanity was rooted there. — Ver. 3. As Adam was created in the image of God, so did he beget " in his own likeness, after his image; " that is to say, he transmitted the image of God in which he was created, not in the purity in which it came direct from God, but in the form given to it by' his own self-determination, modified and corrupted by sin. The begetting of the son by whom the line was perpetuated (no doubt in every case the first-born), is followed by an account of the number of years that Adam and the other fathers lived after that, by the statement that each one begat (other) sons and daughters, by the number of years that he lived altogether, and lastly, by the assertion nb*1 " and he died.'^ This apparently superfluous announcement is " intended to indicate by its constant recurrence that death reigned from Adam downwards as an unchangeable law (yid. Rom. v. 14). But against this background of universal death, the power of life was still more conspicuous. For the man did not die till he had propagated life, so that in the midst of the death of individuals the life of the race was preserved, and the hope of the seed sustained, by which the author of death should be overcome." In the case of one of the fathers indeed, viz. Enoch (vers. 21 sqq.), life had not only a different issue, but also a different form. Instead of the expression " and he lived" which introduces in every other instance the length of life after the birth of the first-born, we find in the case of Enoch this statement, " he walked tvith God (Elohim); " and instead of the expression " and he died" the announcement, "and he was not, for God (Elohim) took him." The phrase " walked with God," which is only applied to Enoch and Noah (chap. vi. 9), denotes the most confidential intercourse, the closest communion with the personal God, a walking as it were by the side of God, who still continued His visible intercourse with men (yid. iii. 8). It must be distinguished from "walking before God" (chap. xvii. 1, xxiv. 40, etc.), and " walking after God " (Deut. xiii. 4), both which phrases are used to indicate a pious, moral, blameless life under the law according to the directions of the divine commands. The only other passage in which this expression " walk with God " occurs is Mai. ii. 6, where it denotes not the piety of the godly Israelites generally, but the conduct of the priests, who stood in a closer relation to Jehovah under the Old Testament than the rest of the faithful, being permitted to enter the Holy Place, and hold direct intercourse with Him there, which the rest of the people could not do. The article in DTifj^n gives prominence to the personality of Elohim, and shows that the expression cannot refer to inter course with the spiritual world. — In Enoch, the seventh from Adam through Seth, godliness attained its highest point; whilst ungodliness culminated in Lamech, the seventh from Adam through Cain, who made his sword his god. Enoch, therefore, like Elijah, was taken away by God, and carried into the heavenly paradise, so that he did not see (experience) death (Heb. xi. 5); i.e. he was taken up from this temporal life and transfigured into life eternal, being exempted by God from the law of death and of return to the dust, as those of the faithful will be, Avho shall be alive at the coming of Christ to judgment, and who in like manner shall not taste of death and corruption, but be changed in a moment. There is no foundation for the opinion, that Enoch did not participate at his translation in the glorification which awaits the righteous at the resurrection. For, according to 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23, it is not in glorification, but in the resurrection, that Christ is the first-fruits. Now the latter presupposes death. Whoever, therefore, through the grace of God is exempted from death, cannot rise from the dead, but reaches d(f>6apaia, or the glorified state of perfection, through being " changed " or " clothed upon " (2 Cor. v. 4). This does not at all affect the truth of the statement in Rom. v. 12, 14. For the same God who has appointed death as the wages of sin, and given us, through Christ, the victory over death, possesses the power to glorify into eternal life an Enoch and an Elijah, and all who shall be alive at the coming of the Lord without chaining their glorification to death and resurrection. Enoch and Elijah were translated into eternal life with God without passing through disease, death, and corruption, for the consolation of believers, and to awaken the hope of a life after death. Enoch's translation stands about half way between Adam and the flood, in the 987th year after the creation of Adam. Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Jared were still alive. His son Methuselah and his grandson Lamech were also living, the latter being 113 years old. Noah was not yet bom, and Adam was dead. His translation, in consequence of his walking with God, was " an example of repentance to all generations," as the son of Sirach says (Ecclus. xliv. 16); and the apocryphal legend in the book of Enoch i. 9 represents him as prophesying of the coming of the Lord, to execute judgment upon the ungodly (Jude 14, 15). In comparison with the longevity of the other fathers, Enoch was taken away young, before he had reached half the ordinary age, as a sign that whilst long life, viewed as a time for repentance and grace, is indeed a blessing from God, when the ills which have entered the world through sin are considered, it is also a burden and trouble which God shortens for His chosen. That the patriarchs of the old world felt the ills of this earthly life ill all their severity, was attested by Lamech (vers. 28, 29), when he gave his son, who was born 69 years after Enoch's translation, the name of JVoah, saying, " This same shall comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed^ Noah, ni^ from n^3 to rest and n''Jn to bring rest, is explained by dm to comfort, in the sense of helpful and remedial consolation. Lamech not only felt the burden of his work upon the ground which God had cursed, but looked forward with a prophetic presentiment to the time when the existing misery and corruption would terminate, and a change for the better, a redemption from the curse, would come. This presentiment assumed the form of hope when his son was born; he therefore gave expression to it in his name. But his hope was not reahzed, at least not in the way that he desired. A change did indeed take place in the lifetime of Noah. By the judgment of the flood the corrupt race was exterminated, and in Noah, who was preserved because of his blameless walk with God, the restoration of the human race was secured; but the effects of the curse, though mitigated, were not removed; whilst a covenant sign guaranteed the preservation of the human race, and therewith, by implication, his hope of the eventual removal of the curse (ix. 8-17). — The genealogical table breaks off with Noah; all that is mentioned with reference to him being the birth of his three sons, when he was 500 years old (ver. 32; see chap. xi. 10), without any allusion to the remaining years of his life, — an indication of a later hand. " The mention of three sons leads to the expectation, that whereas hitherto the line has been perpetuated through one member alone, in the future each of the three sons will form a new beginning (yid. ix. 18, 19, x. 1)." — M. Baumgarten.
MAKRIAGE OF THE SONS OF GOD AND THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN. — CHAP. VI. 1-8.
The genealogies in chap. iv. and v., which trace the development of the human race through two fundamentally different lines, headed by Cain and Seth, are accompanied by a description of their moral development, and the statement that through marriages between the " sons of God^^ (JElohim) and the " daughters of men" the wickedness became so great, that God determined to destroy the men whom He had created. This description applies to the whole human race, and presupposes the intercourse or marriage of the Cainites with the Sethites. — Ver. 1 relates to the increase of men generally (D']^'^, without any restriction), i.e. of the whole human race; and whilst the moral corruption is represented as universal, the whole human race, with the exception of Noah, who found grace before God (ver. 8), is described as ripe for destruction (vers. 3 and 5-8). To understand this section, and appreciate the causes of this complete degeneracy of the race, we must first obtain a coiTect interpretation of the expressions
" sons of God" (oM^t^n ijn) and " daughters of men" (mxn n"i3a). Three different views have been entertained from the very earliest times: the " sons of God" being regarded as (a) the sons of princes, (b) angels, (c) the Sethites or godly men; and the " daughters of men," as the daughters (a) of people of the lower orders, (b) of mankind generally, (c) of the Cainites, or of the rest of mankind as contrasted with the godly or the children of God. Of these three views, the first, although it has become the traditional one in orthodox rabbinical Judaism, may be dismissed at once as not warranted by the usages of the language, and as altogether unscriptural. The second, on the contrary, may be defended on two plausible grounds: first, the fact that the " sons of God," in Job i. 6; ii. 1, and xxxviii. 7, and in Dan. iii. 25, are unquestionably angels (also D vi< ''p3 in Ps. xxix. 1 and Ixxxix. 7); and secondly, the antithesis, " sons of God" and " daughters of men." Apart from the context and tenor of the passage, these two points would lead us most naturally to regard the "sons of God" as angels, in distinction from men and the daughters of men. But this explanation, though the first to suggest itself, can only lay claim to be received as the correct one, provided the language itself admits of no other. Now that is not the case. For it is not to angels only that the term " sons of Elohim," or " sons of Elim," is applied; but in Ps. Ixxiii. 15, in an address to Elohim, the godly ai'e called " the generation of Thy sons," i.e. sons of Elohim; in Deut. xxxii. 5 the Israelites are called His (God's) sons, and in Hos. i. 10, " sons of the living God;" and in Ps. Ixxx. 17, Israel is spoken of as the son, whom Elohim has made strong. These passages show that the expression " sons of God" cannot be elucidated by philological means, but must be interpreted by theology alone. Moreover, even when it is applied to the angels, it is questionable whether it is to be understood in a physical or ethical sense. The notion that *' it is employed in a physical sense as nomen naturce, instead of angels as nomen officii, and presupposes generation of a physical kind," we must reject as an unscriptural and gnostic error. According to the scriptural view, the heavenly spirits are creatures of God, and not begotten from the divine essence. Moreover, all the other terms applied to the angels are ethical in their character. But if the title " sons of God" cannot involve the notion of physical generation, it cannot be restricted to celestial spirits, but is applicable to all beings which bear the image of God, or by virtiTo of their likeness to God participate in the glory, power, and blessedness of the divine life, — to men therefore as well as anf^els, since God has caused man to " want but little of Elohim," or to stand but a little behind Elohim (Ps. viii. 5), so that even magistrates are designated " Elohim, and sons of the Most Pligh" (Ps. Ixxxii. 6). When Delitzsch objects to the application of the expression " sons of Elohim" to pious men, because, " although the idea of a child of God may indeed have pointed, even in the O. T., beyond its theocratic limitation to Israel (Ex. iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 1) towards a wider ethical signification (Ps. Ixxiii. 15; Prov. xiv. 26), yet this extension and expansion were not so completed, that in historical prose the terms ' sons of God' (for which ' sons of Jehovah' should have been used to prevent mistake), and ' sons (or daughters) of men,' could be used to distinguish the children of God and the children of the world," — this argument rests upon the erroneous supposition, that the ex pression " sons of God" was introduced by Jehovah for the first time when He selected Israel to be the covenant nation. So much is true, indeed, that before the adoption of Israel as the first-born son of Jehovah (Ex. iv. 22), it would have been out of place to speak of sons of Jehovah; but the notion is false, or at least incapable of proof, that there were not children of God in the olden time, long before Abraham's call, and that, if there were, they could not have been called " sons of Elohim." The idea was not first introduced in connection with the theocracy, and extended thence to a more universal signification. It had its roots in the divine image, and therefore was general in its application from the very first; and it was not till God in the character of Jehovah chose Abraham and his seed to be the vehicles of salvation, and left the heathen nations to go their own way, that the expression received the specifically theocratic signification of " son of Jehovah," to be again liberated and expanded into the more comprehensive idea of vlodeaia tov 0€ov {i.e. Elohim, not rov Kvpiov = Jehovah), at the coming of Christ, the Saviour of all nations. If in the olden time there were pious men who, like Enoch and Noah, walked with Elohim, or who, even if they did not stand in this close priestly relation to God, made the divine image a reality through their piety and fear of God, then there were sons (children) of God, for whom the only correct appellation was " sons of Elohim," since sonship to Jehovah was introduced with the call of Israel, so that it could only have been proleptically that the children of God in the old world could be called " sons of Jehovah." But if it be still argued, that in mere prose the term " sons of God" could not have been applied to children of God, or pious men, this would be equally applicable to " sons of Jehovah." On the other hand, there is this objection to our applying it to angels, that the pious, who walked with God and called upon the name of the Lord, had been mentioned just before, whereas no allusion had been made to angels, not even to their creation.
Again, the antithesis " sons of God" and " daughters of men" does not prove that the former were angels. It by no means follows, that because in ver. 1 Dixn denotes man as a genus, i.e. the whole human race, it must do the same in ver. 2, where the expression " daughters of men" is determined by the antithesis " sons of God." And with reasons existing for understanding by the sons of God and the daughters of men two species of the genus Disn, mentioned in ver. 1, no valid objection can be offered to the restriction of D^NH, through the antithesis Elohim, to all men with the exception of the sons of God; since this mode of expression is by no means unusual in Hebrew. " From the expression ' daughters of men,' " as Dettinger observes, " it by no means follows that the sons of God were not men; any more than it follows from Jer. xxxii. 20, where it is said that God had done miracles 'in Israel, and among men,' or from Isa. xliii. 4, where God says He will give men for the Israehtes, or from Judg. xvi. 7, where Samson says, that if he is bound with seven green withs he shall be as weak as a man, or from Ps. Ixxiii. 5, where it is said of the ungodly they are not in trouble as men, that the Israelites, or Samson, or the ungodly, were not men at all. In all these passages ms (men) denotes the remainder of mankind in distinction from those who are especially named." Cases occur, too, even in simple prose, in which the same term is used, first in a general, and then directly afterwards in a more restricted sense. We need cite only one, which occurs in Judg. xix.-xxi. In chap. xix. 30 reference is made to the coming of the children of Israel (i.e. of the twelve tribes) out of Egypt; and directly afterwards (chap. xx. 1, 2) it is related that " all the children of Israel," " all the tribes of Israel," assembled together
(to make war, as we learn from vers. 3 sqq., upon Benjamin); and in the whole account of the war, chap. xx. and xxi., the tribes of Israel are distinguished from the tribe of Benjamin: so that the expression " tribes of Israel" really means the rest of the tribes with the exception of Benjamin. And yet the Benjamites were Israelites. Why then should the fact that the sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men prove that the former could not be men? There is not force enough in these two objections to compel us to adopt the conclusion that the sons of God were angels.
The question whether the " sons of Elohim " were celestial or terrestrial sons of God (angels or pious men of the family of Seth) can only be determined from the context, and from the substance of the passage itself, that is to say, from what is related respecting the conduct of the sons of God and its results. That the connection does not favour the idea of their being angels, is acknowledged even by those who adopt this view. " It cannot be denied," says Delitzsch, " that the connection of chap. vi. 1-8 with chap. iv. necessitates the assumption, that such intermarriages (of the Sethite and Cainite families) did take place about the time of the flood (cf. Matt. xxiv. 38; Luke xvii. 27); and the prohibition of mixed marriages under the law (Ex. xxxiv. 16; cf. Gen. xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1 sqq.) also favours the same idea." But this " assumption " is placed beyond all doubt, by what is here related of the sons of God. In ver. 2 it is stated that " the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose," i.e. of any with whose beauty they were charmed; and these wives bare children to them (ver. 4). Now HE'K nj?? (to take a wife) is a standing expression throughout the whole of the Old Testament for the marriage relation established by God at the creation, and is never applied to iropveia, or the simple act of physical connection. This is quite sufficient of itself to exclude any reference to angels. For Christ Himself distinctly states that the angels cannot marry (Matt. xxii. 30; Mark xii. 25; cf. Luke xx. 34 sqq.). And when Kurtz endeavours to weaken the force of these words of Christ, by arguing that they do not prove that it is impossible for angels so to fall from their original holiness as to sink into an unnatural state; this phrase has no meaning, unless by conclusive analogies, or the clear testimony of Scripture/ it can be proved that the angels either possess by nature a material corporeality adequate to the contraction of a human marriage, or that by rebellion against their Creator they can acquire it, or that there are some creatures in heaven and on earth which, through sinful degeneracy, or by sinking into an unnatural state, can become possessed of the
^ We cannot admit that there is any force in IlofmanrCs argument in his Schrifibeweis 1, p. 426, that "the begetting of children on the part of angels is not more irreconcilable with a nature that is not organized, like that of man, on the basis of sexual distinctions, than partaking of food is ■with a nature that is altogether spiritual; and yet food was eaten by the angels who visited Abraham." For, in the first place, the eating in this case was a miracle wrought through the condescending grace of the omnipotent God, and furnishes no standard for judging what angels can do by their own power in rebellion against God. And in the second place, there is a considerable difference between the act of eating on the part of the angels of God who appeared in human shape, and the taking of wives and begetting of children on the part of sinning angels. We are quite unable also to accept as historical testimony, the myths of the heathen respecting demigods, sons of gods, and the begetting of children on the part of their gods, or the fables of the book of Enoch (chap. vi. sqq.) about the 200 angels, with their leaders, who lusted after the beautiful and delicate daughters of men, and who came down from heaven and took to themselves wives, with whom they begat giants of 3000 (or according to one MS. 300) cubits in height. Nor do 2 Pet. ii. 4 and Jude 6 furnish any evidence of angel marriages. Peter is merely speaking of sinning angels in general {pLyyihuv u.i/.xpTmctvTuv) whom God did not spare, and not of any particular sin on the part of a small number of angels; and Jude describes these angels as rovg f^ii TYiptiaecvroi; r^u t»VTUV ecpx'>li>, a,'K'ha, otTro'KiTroi/rxs to i'liov olx,yniipiQv, those who kept not their princedom, their position as rule?s, but left their own habitation. There is nothing here about marriages with the daughters of men or the begetting of children, even if we refer the word Tovroi; in the clause toj/ ofioiov rovroi; rpo'^ov sKTropuBvanacci in ver. 7 to the angels mentioned in ver. 6; for SK-Tropusvuv, the commission of fornication, would be altogether different from marriage, that is to say, from a conjugal bond that was permanent even though unnatural. But it is neither certain nor probable that this is the connection of rovrotg. Huther, the latest commentator upon this Epistle, who gives the preference to this explanation of TowTO/f, and therefore cannot be accused of being biassed by doctrinal prejudices, says distinctly in the 2d Ed. of his commentary, "tos/to/j may be grammatically construed as referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, or per synesin to the inhabitants of these cities; but in that case the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah would only be mentioned indirectly." There is nothing in the rules of syntax, therefore, to prevent our connecting the word with Sodom and Gomorrah; and it is not a fact, that '•'• grammaticse et logical preecepta compel us to refer this word to the angels," as G. v. Zeschicitz says. But power, which they have not bj nature, of generating and propagating their species. As man could indeed destroy by sin the nature which he had received from his Creator, but could not by his own power restore it when destroyed, to say nothing of implanting an organ or a power that was wanting before; so we cannot believe that angels, through apostasy from God, could the very same reason which Huther assigns for not connecting it with Sodom and Gomorrah, may be also assigned for not connecting it with the angels, namely, that in that case the sin of the angels would only be mentioned indirectly. "We regard PhilippVs explanation (in his Glaubenslehre iii. p. 303) as a possible one, viz. that the word tovrotg refers back to the uvdpuvot daO^yug mentioned in ver. 4, and as by no means set aside by De Wette's objection, that the thought of ver. 8 would be anticipated in that case; for this objection is fully met by the circumstance, that not only does the word oJto/, which is repeated five times from ver. 8 onwards, refer back to these men, but even the word rovrot; in ver. 14 also. On the other hand, the reference of rovrot; to the angels is altogether precluded by the clause Koc\ o.'KiKQovaat.i o-ttIisu axpnog kripx;, which follows the word ixvopvevaxaeit. For fornication on the part of the angels could only consist in their going after flesh, or, as Hofmann expresses it, " having to do with flesh, for which they were not created," but not in their going after other, or foreign flesh. There would be no sense in the word iripctg unless those who were kxTropvivcoivTig were themselves possessed of 00,0^; so that this is the only alternative, either we must attribute to the angels a axp^ or fleshly body, or the idea of referring Tovroig to the angels must be given up. When Kurtz replies to this by saying that " to angels human bodies are quite as much a hipx <rcip^, i.e. a means of sensual gratification opposed to their nature and calling, as man can be to human man," he hides the difficulty, but does not remove it, by the ambiguous expression " opposed to their nature and calling." The iTBox (jap^ must necessarily presuppose an /S/« axp^. — But it is thought by some, that even if toinotg in ver. 7 do not refer to the angels in ver. 6, the words of Jude agree so thoroughly with the tradition of the book of Enoch respecting the faU of the angels, that we must admit the allusion to the Enoch legend, and so indirectly to Gen. vi., since Jude could not have expressed himself more clearly to persons who possessed the book of Enoch, or were acquainted with the tradition it contained. Now this conclusion would certainly be irresistible, if the only sin of the angels mentioned in the book of Enoch, as that for which they were kept in chains of darknes still the judgment-day, had been their intercourse with human wives. For the fact that Jude was acquainted with the legend of Enoch, and took for granted that the readers of his Epistle were so too, is evident from his introducing a prediction of Enoch in vers. 14, 15, which is to be found in chap. i. 9 of Dillmann's edition of the book of Enoch. But it is admitted by all critical writers upon this book, that in the book of Enoch which has been edited by Dillmann, and is only to be found in an Ethiopic version, there are contradictory legends concerning the fall and judgment
Ver. 3. The sentence of God upon the " sons of God" is also appropriate to men only. " Jehovah said: My spirit shall not rule in men for ever; in their wandering they are jteshV The verb r''^=r"^. signifies to rule (hence li^^ the ruler), and to judge, of the angels; that the book itself is composed of earlier and later materials; and that those very sections (chap, vi.-xvi. 106, etc.) in which the legend of the angel marriages is given without ambiguity, belong to the so-caUed book of Noah^ i.e. to a later portion of the Enoch legend, which is opposed in many passages to the earher legend. The fall of the angels is certainly often referred to in the earher portions of the work; but among all the passages adduced by DUhnann in proof of this, there is only one (chap. xix. 1) which mentions the angels who had taken wives. In the others, the only thing mentioned as the sin of the angels or of the hosts of Azazel, is the fact that they were subject to Satan, and seduced those who dwelt on the earth (chap. liv. 3-6), or that they came down from heaven to earth, and revealed to the chUdren of men what was hidden from them, and then led them astray to the commission of sin (chap. Ixiv. 2). There is nothing at all here about their taking wives. Moreover, in the earlier portions of the book, besides the fall of the angels, there is frequent reference made to a fall, i.e. an act of sin, on the part of the stars of heaven and the army of heaven, which transgressed the commandment of God before they rose, by not appearing at their appointed time (vid. chap, xviii. 14, 15, xxi. 3, xc. 21, 24, etc.); and their punishment and place of punishment are described, in just the same manner as in the case of the wicked angels, as a prison, a lofty and horrible place in which the seven stars of heaven lie bound like great mountains and flaming with fire (chap. xxi. 2, 3), as an abyss, narrow and deep, dreadful and dark, in which the star which fell first from heaven is lying, bound hand and foot (chap. Ixxxviii. 1, of. xc. 24). From these passages it is quite evident, that the legend concerning the faU of the angels and stars sprang out of Isa. xxiv. 21, 22 (" And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shaU visit the host of the height (DiltSH i?2X, the host of heaven, by which stars and angels are to be understood) on high (i.e. the spiritual powers of the heavens) and the kings of the earth upon the earth, and they shall be gathered together, bound in the dungeon, and shut up in prison, and after many days they shall be punished"), along with Isa. xiv. 12 (" How art thou fallen from heaven, thou beautiful morning star!"), and that the account of the sons of God in Gen. vi., as interpreted by those who refer it to the angels, was afterwards combined and amalgamated with it. Now if these different legends, describing the judgment upon the stars that fell from heaven, and the angels that followed Satan in seducing man, in just the same manner as the judgment upon the angels who begot giants from women, were in circulation at the time when the Epistle of Jude was written; we must not interpret the sin of the angels, referred to by Peter and as the consequence of iniling. rri"! is the divine spirit of life bestowed upon man, the principle of physical and ethical, natural and spiritual life. This His spirit God will withdraw from man, and thereby put an end to their life and conduct. DaB'li is regarded by many as a particle, compounded of 3, K' a contraction
Jude, in a one-sided manner, and arbitrarily connect it with only such passages of the book of Enoch as speak of angel marriages, to the entire disregard of all the other passages, which mention totally different sins as committed by the angels, that are punished with bands of darkness; but we must interpret it from what Jude himself has said concerning this sin, as Peter gives no further explanation of what he means by «^a/jT^ff«/. Now the only sins that Jude mentions are fi^ rnpr,axt rviu iecvruv dpx'»l'> and d.Tro'hi'Xilv 70 ttiov olKYirt]piov. The two are closely connected. Through not keeping the dpx*} (i.e. the position as rulers in heaven) which belonged to them, and was assigned them at their creation, the angels left " their own habitation" (jhiov otKyiTiipiQv); just as man, when he broke the commandment of God and failed to keep his position as ruler on earth, also lost " his own habitation" (<'B<o» o'lKriTTjpiov), that is to say, not paradise alone, but the holy body of innocence also, so that he needed a covering for his nakedness, and will continue to need it, until we are " clothed upon with our house which is from heaven" {oUriTtipiov ijfcZv s| ovpxvov). In this description of the angels' sin, there is not the shghtest allusion to their leaving heaven to woo the beautiful daughters of men. The words may be very well interpreted, as they were by the earher Christian theologians, as relating to the fall of Satan and his angels, to whom all that is said concerning their punishment fully applies. If Jude had had the Tropvsix of the angels, mentioned in the Enoch legends, in his mind, he would have stated this distinctly, just as he does in ver. 9 in the case of the legend concerning Michael and the devil, and in ver. 11 in that of Enoch's prophecy. There was all the more reason for his doing this, because not only do contradictory accounts of the sin of the angels occur in the Enoch legends, but a comparison of the parallels cited from the book of Enoch proves that he deviated from the Enoch legend in points of no little importance. Thus, for example, according to Enoch liv. 3, " iron chains of immense weight " are prepared for the hosts of Azazel, to put them into the lowest hell, and cast them on that great day into the furnace with flaming fire. Now Jude and Peter say nothing about iron chains, and merely mention "everlasting chains under darkness " and " chains of darkness." Again, according to Enoch x. 12, the angel sinners are " bound fast under the earth /or seventy generations, till the day of judgment and their completion, till the last judgment shall be held for all eternity." Peter and Jude make no allusion to this point of time, and the supporters of the angel marriages, therefore, have thought well to leave it out when quoting this parallel to Jude 6. Under these circumstances, the silence of the apostles as to either marriages or fornication on the part of the sinful angels, is a sure sign that they gave no credence to these fables of a Jewish gnosticizing tradition.
«f "'?'??5 find Dj (also), used in the sense of quoniam, because, (^3 = IK'S'?, as K' or Kj' = im Judg, v. 7, vi. 17; Song of Sol. i. 7). But the objection to this explanation is, that the D|, " because he also is flesh," introduces an incongruous emphasis into the clause. We therefore prefer to regard DSK' as the in/, of ii^ __ nJK' with the suffix: " in iJieir erring (that of men) he (man as a genus) is Jlesh;^'' an explanation to which, to our mind, the extremely harsh change of number (theyy he), is no objection, since many examples might be adduced of a similar change {vid. Hupfeld on Ps. v. 10). Men, says God, have proved themselves by their erring and straying to be flesh, i.e. given up to the flesh, and incapable of being ruled by the Spirit of God and led back to the divine goal of their life, l^f is used already in its ethical signification, like crdp^ in the New Testament, denoting not merely the natural corporeality of man, but his materiality as rendered ungodly by sin. " Therefore his days shall be 120 years:" this means, not that human life should in future never attain a greater age than 120 years, but that a respite of 120 years should still be granted to tiie human race. This sentence, as we may gather from the context, was made known to Noah in his 480th year, to be published by him as " preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet. ii. 5) to the degenerate race. The reason why men had gone so far astray, that God determined to withdraw His spirit and give them up to destruction, was that the sons of God had taken wives of such of the daughters of men as they chose. Can this mean, because angels had formed marriages with the daughters of men? Even granting that such marriages, as being unnatural connections, would have led to the complete corruption of human nature; the men would in that case have been the tempted, and the real authors of the corruption would have been the angels. Why then should judgment fall upon the tempted alone? The judgments of God in the Avorld are not executed with such partiality as this. And the supposition that nothing is said about the punishment of the angels, because the narrative has to do with the history of man, and the spiritual world is intentionally veiled as much as possible, does not meet the difficulty. If the sons of God were angels, the narrative is concerned not only with men, but with angels also; and it is not the custom of the Scriptures merely to relate the judgments which fall upon the tempted, and say nothing at all about the tempters. For the contrary, see chap. iii. 14 sqq. If the " sons of God" were not men, so as to be included in the term Q'lfc*, the punishment would need to be specially pointed out in their case, and no deep revelations of the spiritual world would be required, since these celestial tempters would be living with men upon the earth, when they had taken wives from among their daughters. The judgments of God are not only free from all unrighteousness, but avoid every kind of partiality.
Ver. 4. " The Nepliilim were on the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they hare children to them: these are the heroes (D''"]3an) who from the olden time (^^iJ^P, as in Ps. xxv. 6; 1 Sam. xxvii. 8) are the men of name'''' (i.e. noted, renowned or notorious men). C?''?^, from?B3 to fall upon (Job i. 15; Josh. xi. 7), signifies the invaders {eTnirLirTovre^ Aq., ^laiot, Sym.). Luther gives the correct meaning, "tyrants:" they were called Nephilim because they fell upon the people and oppressed them.^ The meaning of the verse is a subject of dispute. To an unprejudiced mind, the words, as they stand, represent the Nephilim, who were on the earth in those days, as existing before the sons of God began to marry the daughters of men, and clearly distinguish them from the fruits of these marriages, vn can no more be rendered " they became, or arose," in this connection, than HNT in chap. i. 2. vn^ would have been the proper word. The expression " in those days" refers most naturally to the
1 The notion that the Nephilim were giants, to which the Sept. rendering yiyxures has given rise, was rejected even by Luther as fabulous. He bases his view upon Josh. xi. 7: " Nephilim non dictos a magnitudine corporum, sicut Rabbini putant, sed a tyrannide et oppressione quod vi grassati sint, nulla habita ratione legum aut honestatu^, sed simpliciter indulgentes suis voluptatihus et cupiditatihus^ The opinion that giants are intended derives no support from Num. xiii. 32, 33. When the spies describe the land of Canaan as " a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof," and then add (ver. 33), " and there we saw the Nephilim^ the sons of Anak among (|D lit. from, out of, in a partitive sense) the Nephilim," by the side of whom they were as grasshoppers; the term Nephilim cannot signify giants, since the spies not only mention them especially along with the inhabitants of the land, who are described as people of great stature, but single out only a portion of the Nephilim as "sons of Anak" (pjy ">33), i.e. long-necked people or giants. The explanation " fallen from heaven" needs no refutation; inasmuch as the main element, " from heaven," is a purely arbitrary addition.
time when God pronounced the sentence upon the degenerate race; but it is so general and comprehensive a term, that it must not be confined exclusively to that time, not merely because the divine sentence was first pronounced after these mar riages were contracted, and the marriages, if they did not produce the corruption, raised it to that fulness of iniquity which was ripe for the judgment, but still more because the words " after that" represent the marriages which drew down the judgment as an event that followed the appearance of the Nephilim. " The same were mighty men:" this might point back to the Nephilim; but it is a more natural supposition, that it refers to the children born to the sons of God. " These,* i.e. the sons sprung from those marriages, " are the heroes, those renowned heroes of old.'^ Now if, according to the simple meaning of the passage, the Nephilim were in existence at the very time when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, the appearance of the Nephilim cannot afford the slightest evidence that the " sons of God" were angels, by whom a family of monsters were begotten, whether demigods, daemons, or angelmen.^
^ How thoroughly irreconcilable the contents of this verse are with the angel-hypothesis is evident from the strenuous efforts of its supporters to bring them into harmony with it. Thus, in Reuter^s Repert., p. 7, Del. observes that the verse cannot be rendered in any but the following manner: " The giants were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, these they bare to them, or rather, and these bare to them; " but, for all that, he gives this as the meaning of the words, " At the time of the divine determination to inflict punishment the giants arose, and also afterwards, when this unnatural connection between super-terrestrial and human beings continued, there arose such giants;" not only substituting "arose" for "were," but changing "when they connected themselves with them" into "when this connection continued." Nevertheless he is obliged to confess that " it is strange that this unnatural connection, which I also suppose to be the intermediate cause of the origin of the giants, should not be mentioned in the first clause of ver. 4." This is an admission that the text says nothing about the origin of the giants being traceable to the marriages of the sons of God, but that the commentators have been obliged to insert it in the text to save their angel marriages. Kurtz has tried three different explanations of this verse, but they are all opposed to the rules of the language. (1) In the History of the Old Covenant he gives this rendering: " Nephilim were on earth in these days, and that even after the sons of God had formed connections with the <iaughters of men;" in which he not only gives to D3 the unsupportable
Vers. 5-8. Now when the wickedness of man became great, and " every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil the whole day" i.e. continually and altogether evil, it repented God that He had made man, and He determined to destroy them. This determination and the motive assigned are also irreconcilable with the angel-theory. " Had the godless race, which God destroyed by the flood, sprung either entirely or in part from the marriage of angels to the daughters of men, it would no longer have been the race first created by God in Adam, but a grotesque product of the Adamitic factor created by God, and an entirely foreign and angelic factor" {Phil.).^ The force of Dna^., « it repented the Lord,"
meaning, " even, just," but takes the imperfect Ji^h'' in the sense of the perfect!iK3. (2) In his Ehen der Sohne Gottes (p. 80) he gives the choice of this and the following rendering: " The Nephilim were on earth in those days, and also after this had happened, that the sons of God came to the daughters of men and begat children," where the ungrammatical rendering of the imperfect as the perfect is artfully concealed by the interpolation of " after this had happened." (3) In " die Sohne Gottes" p. 85: " In these days and also afterwards, when the sons of God came (continued to come) to the daughters of men, they bare to them (se. Nephilim)," where:i5<h\ they came, is arbitrarily altered into KU? ^S^DS'', they continued to come. But when he observes in defence of this quid pro quo, that " the imperfect denotes here, as Hengstenberg has correctly affirmed, and as so often is the case, an action frequently repeated in past times," this remark only shows that he has neither understood the nature of the usage to which H. refers, nor what Ewald has said (§ 136) concerning the force and use of the imperfect.
^ When, on the other hand, the supporters of the angel marriages maintain that it is only on this interpretation that the necessity for the flood, i.e. for the complete destruction of the whole human race with the exception of righteous Noah, can be understood, not only is there no scriptural foundation for this argument, but it is decidedly at variance with those statements of the Scriptures, which speak of the corruption of the men whom God had created, and not of a race that had arisen through an unnatural connection of angels and men and forced their way into God's creation. If it were really the case, that it would otherwise be impossible to understand where the necessity could lie, for all the rest of the human race to be destroyed and a new beginning to be made, whereas afterwards, when Abraham was chosen, the rest of the human race was not only spared, but preserved for subsequent participation in the blessings of salvation: we should only need to call Job to mind, who also could not comprehend the necessity for the fearful sufferings which overwhelmed him, and was unable to discover the justice of God, but who was afterwards taught a better may be gathered from the explanatory 3?fyjpl, " it grieved Him at His heart." This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in His nature or His purposes. In this sense God never repents of anything (1 Sam. xv. 29), "quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non prcevisum accidit" (^Calvin). The repentance of God is an anthropomorphic expression for the pain of the divine love at the sin of man, and signifies that " God is hurt no less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His heart with mortal anguish" (Calvin). The destruction of all, " from man unto beast," etc., is to be explained on the ground of the sovereignty of man upon the earth, the irrational creatures being created for him, and therefore involved in his fall. This destruction, however, was not to bring the human race to an end. " Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." In these words mercy is seen in the midst of wrath, pledging the preservation and restoration of hinnanity.
The important relation in which Noah stands both to sacred and universal history, arises from the fact, that he found mercy on account of his blameless walk with God; that in him the human race was kept from total destruction, and he was preserved from the all-destroying flood, to found in his sons a new lesson by God Himself, and reproved for his rash conclusions, as a suflBcient proof of the deceptive and futile character of all such human reasoning. But this is not the true state of the case. The Scriptures expressly aflBrm, that after the flood the moral corruption of man was the same as before the flood; for they describe it in chap. viii. 21 in the very same words as in chap. vi. 5: and the reason they assign for the same judgment not being repeated, is simply the promise that God would no more smite and destroy all living, as He had done before — an evident proof that God expected no change in human nature, and out of pure mercy and long-suffering would never send a second flood, " Now, if the race destroyed had been one that sprang from angel-fathers, it is difiicult to understand why no improvement was to be looked for after the flood; for the repetition of any such unnatural angel-tragedy was certainly not probable, and still less inevitable" {Philippi).
beginning to the history of the world. The piety of Noah, his preservation, and the covenant through which God appointed him the head of the human race, are the three main points in this section. The first of these is dismissed in a very few words. The second, on the contrary, viz. the destruction of the old world by the flood, and the preservation of Noah, together with the animals enclosed in the ark, is circumstantially and elaborately described, " because this event included, on the one hand, a work of judgment and mercy of the greatest significance to the history of the kingdom of God " — a judgment of such universality and violence as will only be seen again in the judgment at the end of the world; and, on the other hand, an act of mercy which made the flood itself a flood of grace, and in that respect a type of baptism (1 Pet. iii. 21), and of life rising out of death. " Destruction ministers to preservation, immersion to purification, death to new birth; the old corrupt earth is buried in the flood, that out of this grave a new world may arise " (Delitzsch).
Vers. 9-12 contain a description of Noah and his contemporaries; vers. 13-22, the announcement of the purpose of God with reference to the flood. — ^Ver. 9. " Noah, a righteous man, was blameless among his generations:" righteous in his moral relation to God; blameless (rekeco^;, integer) in his character and conduct. nhMj yeveai, were the generations or families " which passed by Noah, the Nestor of his time." His righteousness and integrity were manifested in his walking with God, in which he resembled Enoch (chap. v. 22). — In vers. 10-12, the account of the birth of his three sons, and of the corruption of all flesh, is repeated. This corruption is represented as corrupting the whole earth and filling it with wickedness; and thus the judgment of the flood is for the first time fully accounted for. " The earth was corrupt before God (Elohim points back to the previous jEZo/wm in ver. 9)," it became so conspicuous to God, that He could not refrain from punishment. The corruption proceeded from the fact, that " all flesh " — i.e. the whole human race which had resisted the influence of the Spirit of God and become flesh (see ver. 3) — " had corrupted its wayV The term " flesh " in ver. 12 cannot include the animal world, since the expression, " corrupted its way," is applicable to man alone. The fact that in vers. 13 and 17 this term embraces both men and animals is no proof to the contrary, for the simple reason, that in ver. 19 " all flesh" denotes the animal world only, an evident proof that the precise meaning of the word must always be determined from the context. — Ver. 13. " The end of all flesh is come before Me"?i? i<i3, when applied to rumours, invariably signifies " to reach the ear" (vid. chap, xviii. 21; Ex. iii. 9; Esth. ix. 11); hence "'^S^' ^? in this case cannot mean a me constitutus est (Ges.). YP., therefore, is not the end in the sense of destruction, but the end (extremity) of depravity or corruption, which leads to destruction. " For the earth has become full of wickedness Dn\3Qlp," i.e. proceeding from them, " and I destroy/ them along with the earth." Because all flesh had destroyed its way, it should be destroyed with the earth by God. The lex talionis is obvious here. — Vers. 14 sqq. Noah was exempted from the extermination. He was to build an ark, in order that he himself, his family, and the animals might be preserved. nari, which is only used here and in Ex. ii. 3, 5, where it is applied to the ark in which Moses was placed, is probably an Egyptian word: the LXX. render it Ki^cora here, and Ol^r] in Exodus; the Vulgate area, from which our word ark is derived. Gopher-wood (ligna bifuminata; Jerome) is most likely cypress. The air. Xey. gopher is related to "133, resin, and KvrrapLcrao^; it is no proof to the contrary that in later Hebrew the cypress is called berosh, for gopher belongs to the pre-Hebraic times. The ark was to be made cells, i.e. divided into cells, C^i? (lit. nests, niduli, mansiunculce), and pitched (123 denom. from IM) within and without with copher, or asphalte (LXX. dacpaXro^, Vulg. bitumen). On the supposition, which is a very probable one, that the ark was built in the form not of a ship, but of a chest, with flat bottom, like a floating house, as it was not meant for sailing, but merely to float upon the water, the dimensions, 300 cubits long, 50 broad, and 30 high, give a supei'ficial area of 15,000 square cubits, and a cubic measurement of 450,000 cubits, probably of the ordinary standard, " after the elbow of a man" (Deut. iii. 11), i.e. measured from the elbow to the end of the middle finger. — Ver. 16. " Light shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit from above shalt thou finish it" As the meaning light for "ins is established by the word
^""."l"!?!?) " double-liglit " or mid-day, the passage can only signify that a hole or opening for light and air was to be so constructed as to reach within a cubit of the edge of the roof. A window only a cubit square could not possibly be intended; for nnx is not synonymous with |i?n (chap. viii. 6), but signifies, generally, a space for light, or by which light could be admitted into the ark, and in which the window, or lattice for opening and shutting, could be fixed; though we can form no distinct idea of what the arrangement was. The door he was to place in the side; and to make " lower, second^ and third (sc. cells)," i.e. three distinct stories.^ — Yers. 17 sqq. Noah was to build this ark, because God was about to bring a flood upon the earth, and would save him, with his family, and one pair of every kind of animal. 70Pj (the flood), is an archaic word, coined expressly for the waters of Noah (Isa. liv. 9), and is used nowhere else except Ps. xxix. 10. Yl^'^ ''V ^1'? is in apposition to mabhul: '' I bring the flood, waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is a living breath^' (i.e. man and beast). With Noah, God made a covenant. On n"'"i3 see chap. xv. 18. As not only the human race, but the animal world also was to be preserved through Noah, he was to take with him into the ark his wife, his sons and their wives, and of every living thing, of all flesh, two of every sort, a male and a female, to keep them alive; also all kinds of food for himself and family, and for the sustenance of the beasts. — ^Ver. 22. " Thus did Noah, according to all that God commanded him," (with regard to the building of the ark). Cf. Heb. xi. 7.
^ As the height of the ark was thirty cubits, the three stories of cells can hardly have filled the entire space, since a room ten cubits high, or nine cubits if we deduct the thickness of the floors, would have been a prodigality of space beyond what the necessities required. It has been conjectured that above or below these stories there was space provided for the necessary supplies of food and fodder. At the same time, this is pure conjecture, like every other calculation, not only as to the number and size of the cells, but also as to the number of animals to be collected and the fodder they would require. Hence every objection that has been raised to the suitability of the structure, and the possibiUty of collecting all the animals in the ark and providing them with food, is based upon arbitrary assumptions, and should be treated as a perfectly groundless fancy. As natural science is still in the dark as to the formation of species, and therefore not in a condition to determine the number of pairs from which all existing species are descended, it is ridiculous to talk, as Pfaff and others do, of 2000 species of mammalia, and 6500 species of birds, which Noah would have had to feed every day.
The account of the commencement, course, and termmation of the flood abounds in repetitions; but although it progresses somewhat heavily, the connection is well sustained, and no link could be erased without producing a gap. — Vers. 1-16. When the ark was built, and the period of grace (vi. 3) had passed, Noah received instructions from Jehovah to enter the ark with his family, and with the animals, viz. seven of every kind of clean animals, and two of the unclean; and was informed that within seven days God would cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights. The date of the flood is then given (ver. 6): " Noah was six hundred years old, and the flood was (namely) water upon the earth;" and the execution of the divine command is recorded in vers. 7-9. There follows next the account of the bursting forth of the flood, the date being given with still greater minuteness; and the entrance of the men and animals into the ark is again described as being fully accomplished (vers. 10-16). — The fact that in the command to enter the ark a distinction is now made between clean and unclean animals, seven of the former being ordered to be taken, — i.e. three pair and a single one, probably a male for sacrifice, — is no more a proof of different authorship, or of the fusion of two accounts, than the interchange of the names Jehovah and Elohim. For the distinction between clean and unclean animals did not originate with Moses, but was confirmed by him as a long established custom, in harmony with the law. It reached back to the very earliest times, and arose from a certain innate feeling of the human mind, when undisturbed by unnatural and ungodly influences, which detects types of sin and corruption in many animals, and instinctively recoils from them (see my hiblische Archdologie ii. p. 20). That the variations in the names of God furnish no criterion by which to detect different documents, is evident enough from the fact, that in chap. vii. 1 it is Jehovah who commands Noah to enter the ark, and in ver. 4 Noah does as Elohim had commanded, whilst in ver. 16, in two successive clauses, Elohim alternates with Jehovah — the animals entering the ark at the command of Elohim, and Jehovah shutting Noah in. With regard to the entrance of the animals into the ark, it is worthy of notice, that in vers. 9 and 15 it is stated that "thej/ came two and two" and in ver. 16 that "the coming ones came male and female of all flesh" In this expression " they came " it is clearly intimated, that the animals collected about Noah and were taken into the ark, without his having to exert himself to collect them, and that they did so in consequence of an instinct produced by God, like that which frequently leads animals to scent and try to flee from dangers, of which man has no presentiment. The time when the flood commenced is said to have been the 600th year of Noah's life, on the 17th day of the second month (ver. 11). The months must be reckoned, not according to the Mosaic ecclesiastical year, which commenced in the spring, but according to the natural or civil year, which commenced in the autumn at the beginning of sowing time, or the autumnal equinox; so that the flood would be pouring upon the earth in October and November. " The same day were all the fountains of the great deep (Dinn the unfathomable ocean) broken up, and the sluices (windows, lattices) of heaven opened, and there was (happened, came) pouring rain (DK'Ji in distinction from ">99) '^pon the earth 40 days and 40 nights" Thus the flood was produced by the bursting forth of fountains hidden within the earth, which drove seas and rivers above their banks, and by rain which continued incessantly for 40 days and 40 nights. — Ver. 13. " In the self-same day had Noah... entered into the ark;" K3, pluperfect " had come," not came, which would require i<i\ The idea is not that Noah, with his family and all the animals, entered the ark on the very day on which the rain began, but that on that day he had entered, had completed the entering, which occupied the seven days between the giving of the command (ver. 4) and the commencement of the flood (ver. 10).
Vers. 17-24 contain a description of the flood: how the water increased more and more, till it was 15 cubits above all the lofty mountains of the earth, and how, on the one hand, it raised the ark above the earth and above the mountains, and, on the other, destroyed every living being upon the dry land, from man to cattle, creeping things, and birds. " The description is simple and majestic; the almighty judgment of God, and the love manifest in the midst of the wrath, hold the historian fast. The tautologies depict the fearful monotony of the immeasurable expanse of water: omnia pontus erant et deerant litera ponto^ The words of ver. 17, " and the flood was (came) upon the earth for forty days" relate to the 40 days' rain combined with the bursting forth of the fountains beneath the earth. By these the water was eventually raised to the height given, at which it remained 150 days (ver. 24). But if the water covered " all the high hills under the whole heaven" this clearly indicates the universality of the flood. The statement, indeed, that it rose 15 cubits above the mountains, is probably founded upon the fact, that the ark drew 15 feet of water, and that when the waters subsided, it rested upon the top of Ararat, from which the conclusion would very naturally be drawn as to the greatest height attained. Now as Ararat, according to the measurements of Perroi, is only 16,254 feet high, whereas the loftiest peaks of the Himalaya and Cordilleras are as much as 26,843, the submersion of these mountains has been thought impossible, and the statement in ver. 19 has been regarded as a rhetorical expression, like Deut. ii. 25 and iv. 19, which is not of universal application. But even if those peaks, which are higher than Ararat, were not covered by water, we cannot therefore pronounce the flood merely partial in its extent, but must regard it as universal, as extending over every part of the world, since the few peaks uncovered would not only sink into vanishing points in comparison with the surface covered, but would form an exception not worth mentioning, for the simple reason that no living beings could exist upon these mountains, covered with perpetual snow and ice; so that everything that lived upon the dry land, in whose nostrils there was a breath of life, would inevitably die, and, with the exception of those shut up in the ark, neither man nor beast would be able to rescue itself, and escape destruction. A flood which rose 15 cubits above the top of Ararat could not remain partial, if it only continued a few days, to say nothing of the fact that the water was rising for 40 days, and remained at the highest elevation for 150 days. To speak of such a flood as partial is absurd, even if it broke out at only one spot, it would spread over the earth from one end to the other, and reach everywhere to the same elevation. However impossible, therefore, scientific men may declare it to be for them to conceive of a universal flood of such a height and duration in accordance with the known laws of nature, this inability on their part does not justify any one in questioning the possibility of such an event being produced by the omnipotence of God. It has been justly remarked, too, that the proportion of such a quantity of water to the entire mass of the earth, in relation to which the mountains are but like the scratches of a needle on a globe, is no greater than that of a profuse perspiration to the body of a man. And to this must be added, that, apart from the legend of a flood, which is found in nearly every nation, the earth presents unquestionable traces of submersion in the fossil remains of animals and plants, which are found upon the Cordilleras and Himalaya even beyond the limit of perpetual snow.^ In ver. 23, instead of nSM (imperf. Niplial) read no>J {imperf. Kal): " and He (Jehovah) destroyed every existing thing" as He had said in ver. 4.
Chap. viii. 1-5. AVith the words, ^Hhen God remembered Noah and all the animals.,. in the arh^' the narrative turns to the description of the gi'adual decrease of the water until the ground was perfectly dry. The fall of the water is described in the same pictorial style as its rapid rise. God's " remembering" was a manifestation of Himself, an effective restraint of the force of the raging element. He caused a wind to blow over the earth, so that the waters sank, and shut up the fountains of the deep, and the sluices of heaven, so that the rain from heaven was restrained. " Then the waters turned (^'^^\ i-e. flowed oii)from the earth, flowing continuously (the inf. absol. 2iK^ '^'Oi^ expresses continuation), and decreased at the end of 150 days" The decrease first became perceptible when the ark rested upon the
1 The geological facts which testify to the submersion of the entire globe are collected in Buckland^s reliquias diluv., Schubert s Gesch. der Naiur, and C. V. Raumer''s Geography, and are of such importance that even Cuvier acknowledged " Je pense done, avec MM. Deluc et Dolomieu, que s'il j a quelque chose de constate en geologie; c'est que la surface de notre globe a ete victime d'une grande et subite revolution, dont la date ne pent remonter beaucoup au delb, de cinq ou six mille ans " (Discours sur les revol. de la surface du globe, p. 290, ed. 6). The latest phase of geology, however, denies that these facta furnish any testimony to the historical character of the flood, and substitutes the hypothesis of a submersion of the entire globe before the creation of man: 1. because the animals found are very different from those at present in existence; and 2. because no certain traces have hitherto been found of fossil human bones. "We have already shown that there is no force in these arguments. Vid. Keerl, pp. 489 sqq.
mountains of Ararat on the 17tli day of the seventh month; i.e., reckoning 30 days to a month, exactly 150 days after the flood commenced. From that time forth it continued without intermission, so that on the first day of the tenth month, probably 73 days after the resting of the ark, the tops of the mountains were seen, viz. the tops of the Armenian highlands, by which the ark was surrounded. Ararat was the name of a province (2 Bangs xix. 37), which is mentioned along with Minni (Armenia) as a kingdom in Jer. li. 27, probably the central province of the country of Armenia, which Moses v. Chorene calls Arairad, Araratia. The mountains of Ararat are, no doubt, the group of mountains which rise from the plain of the Araxes in two lofty peaks, the greater and lesser Ararat, the former 16,254 feet above the level of the sea, the latter about 12,000. This landing-place of the ark is extremely interesting in connection with the development of the human race as renewed after the flood. Armenia, the source of the rivers of paradise, has been called " a cool, airy, well-watered mountain-island in the midst of the old continent; " but Mount Ararat especially is situated almost in the middle, not only of the great desert route of Africa and Asia, but also of the range of inland waters from Gibraltar to the Baikal Sea — in the centre, too, of the longest line that can be drawn through the settlements of the Caucasian race and the Indo-Germanic tribes; and, as the central point of the longest land-line of the ancient world, from the Cape of Good Hope to the Behring Straits, it was the most suitable spot in the world, for the tribes and nations that sprang from the sons of Noah to descend from its heights and spread into every land (yid. K. v. Raumer, Palast. pp. 456 sqq.).
Vers. 6-12. Forty days after the appearance of the mountain tops, Noah opened the window of the ark and let a raven fly out {lit. the raven, i.e. the particular raven known from that circumstance), for the purpose of ascertaining the drying up of the waters. The raven went out and returned until the earth was dry, but without being taken back into the ark, as the mountain tops and the carcases floating upon the water afforded both resting-places and food. After that, Noah let a dove fly out three times, at intervals of seven days. It is not distinctly stated that he sent it out the first time seven days after the raven, but this is implied in the statement that he stayed yet other seven days before sending it ont the second time, and the same again before sending it the third time (vers. 10 and 12). The dove, when first sent out, ^^ found no rest for the sole of its foot;*^ for a dove will only settle upon such places and objects as are dry and clean. It returned to the ark and let Noah take it in again (vers. 8, 9). The second time it returned in the evening, having remained out longer than before, and brought a fresh (cina freshly plucked) olive-leaf in its mouth. Noah perceived from this that the water must be almost gone, had " abated from off the earth," though the ground might not be perfectly dry, as the olive-tree will put out leaves even under water. The fresh olive-leaf was the first sign of the resurrection of the earth to new life after the flood, and the dove with the olive-leaf a herald of salvation. The third time it did not return; a sign that the waters had completely receded from the earth. The fact that Noah waited 40 days before sending the raven, and after that always left an interval of seven days, is not to be accounted for on the supposition that these numbers were already regarded as significant. The 40 days correspond to the 40 days during which the rain fell and the waters rose; and Noah might assume that they would require the same time to recede as to rise. The seven days constituted the week established at the creation, and God had already conformed to it in arranging their entrance into the ark (chap. vii. 4, 10). The selection which Noah made of the birds may also be explained quite simply from the difference in their nature, with which Noah must have been acquainted; that is to say, from the fact that the raven in seeking its food settles upon every carcase that it sees, whereas the dove will only settle upon what is dry and clean.
Vers. 13-19. Noah waited some time, and then, on the first day of the first month, in the 601st year of his life, removed the covering from the ark, that he might obtain a freer prospect over the earth. He could see that the surface of the earth was dry; but it was not till the 27th day of the second month, 57 days, therefore, after the removal of the roof, that the earth was completely dried up. Then God commanded him to leave the ark with his family and all the animals; and so far as the latter were concerned, He renewed the blessing of the creation (ver. 17 cf. i. 22). As the flood commenced on the 17th of the second month of the 600th year of Noah's life, and ended on the 27th of the second month of the 601st year, it lasted a year and ten days; but whether a solar year of 360 or 365 days, or a lunar year of 352, is doubtful. The former is the more probable, as the first five months are said to have consisted of 150 days, which suits the solar year better than the lunar. The question cannot be decided with certainty, because we neither know the number of days between the 17th of the seventh month and the 1st of the tenth month, nor the interval between the sending out of the dove and the 1st day of the first month of the 601st year.
Two events of Noah's life, of world-wide importance, are recorded as having occuri-ed after the flood: his sacrifice, with the divine promise which followed it (chap. viii. 20-ix. 17); and the prophetic curse and blessing pronounced upon his sons (ix. 18- 29).— Vers. 20-22. The first thing which Moses did, was to build an altar for burnt sacrifice, to thank the Lord for gracious protection, and pray for His mercy in time to come. This altar — D^tPj iit- a place for the offering of slain animals, from HIT, like Ovcnaarrjpiov from Oveiv — is the first altar mentioned in history. The sons of Adam had built no altar for their offerings, because God was still present on the earth in paradise, so that they could turn their offerings and hearts towards that abode. But with the flood God had swept paradise away, withdrawn the place of His presence, and set up His throne in heaven, from which He would henceforth reveal Himself to man (cf. chap, xi. 5, 7). In future, therefore, the hearts of the pious had to be turned towards heaven, and their offerings and prayers needed to ascend on high if they were to reach the throne of God. To give this direction to their offerings, heights or elevated places were erected, from which they ascended towards heaven in fire. From this the offerings received the name of n6j? from n?iy, the ascending, not so much because the sacrificial animals ascended or were raised upon the altar, as because they rose from the altar to heaven (cf. Judg. xx. 40; Jer. xlviii. 15; Amos iv. 10). Noah took his offerings from every clean beast and every clean fowl — from those animals, therefore, which were destined for man's food; probably the seventh of every kind, which he had taken into the ark. " And JeJiovah smelled the smell of satisfaction,^^ i.e. He graciously accepted the feehngs of the ofiferer which rose to Him in the odour of the sacrificial flame. In the sacrificial flame the essence of the animal was resolved into vapour; so that when man presented a sacrifice in his own stead, his inmost being, his spirit, and his heart ascended to God in the vapour, and the sacrifice brought the feeling of his heart before God. This feeling of gratitude for gracious protection, and of desire for further communications of grace, was well-pleasing to God. He " said to His heart " (to, or in Himself; i.e. He resolved), " I will not again curse the ground any more for maiCs sake, because the image (i.e. the thought and desire) of man^s heart is evil from his youth up (i.e. from the very time when he begins to act with consciousness)." This hardly seems an appropriate reason. As Luther says: " Hie inconstantisB videtur Deus accusari posse. Supra puniturus hominem causam consilii dicit, quia figmentum cordis humani malum est. Hie promissurus homini gratiam, quod posthac tali ira uti nolit, eandem causam allegat." Both Luther and Calvin express the same thought, though without really solving the apparent discrepancy. It was not because the thoughts and desires of the human heart are evil that God would not smite any more every living thing, that is to say, would not exterminate it judicially; but because they are evil from his youth up, because evil is innate in man, and for that reason he needs the forbearance of God; and also (and here lies the principal motive for the divine resolution) because in the offering of the righteous Noah, not only were thanks presented for past protection, and entreaty for further care, but the desire of man was expressed, to remain in fellowship with God, and to procure the divine favour. ^^ All the days of the earth;^' i.e. so long as the earth shall continue, the regular alternation of day and night and of the seasons of the year, so indispensable to the continuance of the human race, would never be interrupted again.
Chap. ix. 1-7. These divine purposes of peace, which were communicated to Noah while sacrificing, were solemnly confirmed by the renewal of the blessing pronounced at the creation and the establishment of a covenant through a visible sign, which would be a pledge for all time that there should never be a flood again. In the words by which the first blessing was transferred to Noah and his sons (ver. 2), the supremacy granted to man over the animal world was expressed still more forcibly than in chap. i. 26 and 28; because, inasmuch as sin with its consequences had loosened the bond of voluntary subjection on the part of the animals to the will of man, — man, on the one hand, having lost the power of the spirit over nature, and nature, on the other hand, having become estranged from man, or rather having rebelled against him, through the curse pronounced upon the earth, — henceforth it was only by force that he could rule over it, by that " fear and dread" which God instilled into the animal creation. Whilst the animals were thus placed in the liand (power) of man, permission was also given to him to slaughter them for food, the eating of the blood being the only thing forbidden. Vers. 3, 4. " Every moving thing tliat liveth shall he food for you; even as the green of the herb have I given you all (73"nK =?3n)." These words do not affirm that man then first began to eat animal food, but only that God then for the first time authorized, or allowed him to do, what probably he had previously done in opposition to His will. " Only flesh in its soul, its blood (i^T in apposition to 1^*333)^ shall ye not eat;" i.e. flesh in which there is still blood, because the soul of the animal is in the blood. The prohibition applies to the eating of flesh with blood in it, whether of living animals, as is the barbarous custom in Abyssinia, or of slaughtered animals from which the blood has not been properly drained at death. This prohibition presented, on the one hand, a safeguard against harshness and cruelty; and contained, on the other, " an undoubted reference to the sacrifice of animals, which was afterwards made the subject of command, and in which it was the blood especially that was offered, as the seat and soul of life (see note on Lev. xvii. 11, 14); so that from this point of view sacrifice denotes the surrender of one's own inmost life, of the very essence of life, to God " (Ziegler). Allusion is made to the first again in the still further limitation given in ver. 5: " and only Q\i^]) your blood, with regard to your souls (? indicative of reference to an individual object, Ewald, § 310a), will I seek (demand or avenge, cf. Ps. ix. 13) from the hand of every beast, and from the hand of man, from the hand of every one, his brother;" i.e. from every man, whoever he may be, because he is his (the slain man's) brother, inasmuch as all men are brethren. The life of man was thus made secure against animals as well as men. Gcd would avenge or inflict punishment for every murder, — not directly, however, as He promised to do in the case of Cain, but indirectly by giving the command, " WIioso sheddeih marHs blood, hy man shall his blood be shed" and thus placing in the hand of man His own judicial power. " This was the first command," says Luther, " having reference to the temporal sword. By these words temporal government was established, and the sword placed in its hand by God." It is true the punishment of the murderer is enjoined upon " man " universally; but as all the judicial relations and ordinances of the increasing race were rooted in those of the family, and grew by a natural process out of that, the family relations furnished of themselves the norm for the closer definition of the expression "man." Hence the command does not sanction revenge, but lays the foundation for the judicial rights of the divinely appointed "powers that be" (Rom. xiii. 1). This is evident from the reason appended: " for in the image of God made He man." If murder was to be punished with death because it destroyed the image of God in man, it is evident that the infliction of the punishment was not to be left to the caprice of individuals, but belonged to those alone who represent the authority and majesty of God, i.e. the divinely appointed rulers, who for that very reason are called Elohim in Ps. Ixxxii. 6. This command then laid the foundation for all civil government,^ and formed a necessary complement to that unalterable continuance of the order of nature which had been promised to the human race for its further development. If God on account of the innate sinfulness of man would no more bring an exterminating judgment upon the earthly creation, it was necessary that by commands and authorities He should erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil, and thus lay the foundation for a well-ordered civil development of humanity, in accordance with the words of the blessing, which are repeated in ver. 7, as showing the intention and goal of this new historical beginning.