the new charter of privileges was conferred upon him. The true clew to the scope of the first paragraph is contained in the first and seventh verses by which it is limited, and which it will be 22. While the earth remaineth, seed-perceived are of equivalent import, both time and harvest, &c. Six divisions of the natural year are here mentioned; and it seems that the Jews adopted the same divisions of the seasons, in reference to the labours of agriculture, which formed the principal employment of the mass of the population. The same divisions are still in use among the Arabs. The promise is clearly general in its import, and therefore partial failures are not inconsistent with it. CHAPTER IX. containing the command, or the promise rather, of an abundant increase. But to the accomplishment of such a promise the history of the past and the view of the present would suggest very formidable obstacles to the mind of Noah. The sole survivors of the former world were now but a feeble handful, and a natural ground of apprehension was, that in their weakness they would not be able to cope with the beasts of the field, who might soon be more than able to dispute the mastery with the adult inThe deliverance of the earth from fants issuing from the second cradle of the dominion of the overflowing waters the human race. To obviate the apprewas a sort of second creation. Noah hensions arising from this source, God and his sons accordingly were intro- is pleased, in the first instance, to asduced into the possession and lordship sure them that he would henceforth so of this new empire with very nearly the impress the spirits of the brute creation same form of benediction as that which with a fear and dread of man that, as a was bestowed upon Adam at the begin- general fact, they might promise themning. The prerogatives of Noah were selves abundant security on this score, indeed enlarged beyond those of Adam and not only so, but by giving them by the grant of animal food, but like permission to kill the animals for food, the first father of the race he receives an they should have a still farther guarassurance of blessing and a command anty of safety, as they would in this to be fruitful, to multiply, and to re- way be imposing a continual check upplenish the earth. In connection with on their too rapid increase. But the this he is formally invested with a re- depredations and ferocity of wild beasts newed dominion over the creatures, and were not all that Noah and his family comforted with the assurance that the would feel that they had reason to earth should not again be destroyed by fear. The wrathful passions of men a like catastrophe. But in order to gain as well as the destructive instincts of a still fuller view of the scope of the animals were to be dreaded. Societies opening part of this chapter, we must in a state of lawless misrule marked revert to the circumstances, in which | by deeds of violence and blood had no 2 ered. C And the fear of you, and | into your hand are they delivthe dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; b ch. 1. 28. Hos. 2. 18. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. e d race would probably long ere this have been destroyed by the beasts of the field. It is ordinarily but little considered what mercy God has shown to man in hiding from even the domestic animals the consciousness of their superior strength.-It is not to be inferred from the language of this passage that the same degree of the fear of man was impressed upon all the different species of animals; but that even the fiercest and most powerful possess more or less of it is certain. It is the instinct even of the lion, the tiger, and the wild elephant in ordinary circumstances and when not provoked, rather to flee from man than to attack him; thus acknowledging the majesty of his presence and the fact of his original lordship. This passage seems to be alluded to in James 3. 7, 'For every doubt been common before the flood, and how natural was it for Noah to give way to the fear that like scenes of cruelty, rapine, and murder would interfere with the promise now given of the plentiful increase of his seed? But here too the Lord meets his misgivings with a quieting assurance. He utters an edict against the shedder of man's blood which would at once erect a barrier against the inroad of evils otherwise to be anticipated from this source, and so having fully obviated these two grand tacit objections to the fulfilment of the gracious promise, he again repeats in v. 7, the benediction which he had first announced in v. 1, 'Be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply therein;' all the intermediate matter between these two verses being ap-kind (Gr. ovois nature) of beasts, and parently introduced for the sole purpose of removing the objections above stated. 2. The fear of you, &c. In these words is pointed out a striking difference in the nature of the dominion which was exercised over the brute creation by Adam in innocence and by Noah after the flood. Previous to the fall, man ruled the inferior animals by love and kindness, as then gentleness and docility were their principal characteristics. After that event, untractableness, savage ferocity, and enmity to man, prevailed among almost all orders of the animal tribes; and had not God in his mercy impressed them with the fear and terror of man, so that some submit to his will, while others flee from his abodes, the human of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind (Gr. pvoɛɩ av@pwnin by the human nature) ;' i. e. the nature of the one is constitutionally subject to the nature of the other. 3. Every moving thing that liveth. Heb. creeping thing. From the peculiar emphasis of the original the words would seem to imply, that the animals allowed for food were to be killed for this purpose, and that such as died of themselves, or were slain by other beasts, were excluded from the grant. This was afterwards expressly prescribed in the law; Lev. 22. 8, 'That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith.' Such general expressions 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require: at the fLev. 17. 10, 11, 14. & 19. 26. Deut. 12.. 23. 1 Sam. 14. 34. Acts 15. 20, 29. g Ex. 21. 28. as that here used are often to be understood with some exceptions, and the fact that certain species of reptiles were afterwards forbidden to be eaten, Lev. 11, is not to be constructed as militating with the drift of this passage. hand of every beast will I require h ch. 4. 9, 10. Ps. 9. 12. i Acts 17. 26. of vitality in the animal structure. He may have designed simply to convey the idea that the blood was ostensibly the grand medium of life, that upon which its continuance more especially depended; yet it is not a little remarkable that the discoveries of the celebra ted John Hunter in the middle of the last century have gone far to establish the point, that the blood is strictly a vi tal fluid, and is, in this respect, distinguished from every other part of the 4. But flesh with the life thereof, &c. animal economy. But upon this view Even as the green herb have I given you all things. Alluding to the primitive grant made Gen. 1. 29. The whole scope makes it evident that the use of animal food is here spoken of not as an injunction, but as a permission. .of the subject we cannot here enlarge | אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו .Heb only flesh with the life (or soul) thereof,-As to the true scope of the passage, the blood thereof, ye shall not eat. It is the Hebrew doctors generally under stand it as a prohibition against cutting to be noticed, however, that according bid the use of blood in its simple un- position, though such is the fact, as from the design of the Lawgiver to attach to blood a peculiar sacredness from its uses in religious worship. This we find expressly declared Lev. 17. 10, 11, 'Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.' The full force of this language cannot be appreciated without bearing in mind that the original word ( nephesh) or life and soul is the same; so that in saying that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and that it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul (i. e. the life), it is virtually said that life goes for life in the great scheme of expiation. Accordingly we find it prophetically af. firmed of Christ in undoubted allusion to this very language, Is. 53. 12, that he should pour out his soul (Heb. Gr.4x) unto death ;' i. e. should shed his vital blood, give his life. The same original Greek term occurs John, 10. 11, 17, 'I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life (or soulvxn) for the sheep.' As to the question whether this precept of abstaining from blood be at present binding upon Christians, see Barnes on Acts 15. 29. danger of being counteracted from this source, and the Most High accordingly here utters a decree well calculated to allay his apprehensions. The phraseology of the original is very peculiar, and our translation we think fails in giving its precise import. The Hel.. for your blood of your lives (DIŽ DOAT)' perhaps more properly signifies 'your blood for your lives;' i. e. your blood in return for the life-blood which you have shed. He says 'for your lives,' to intimate the close relation and identity, as it were, between men, as if in taking away the life of a brother they took that which was their own; so representing homicide as but another form of suicide, for he hath made of one blood all nations of men,' &c. Acts, 17. 26. The term require (7) implies a vindictive seeking or searching out, and consequently involves the idea of punishment. Thus Gen. 42. 22, 'Therefore behold also his blood is required. For this reason God is called Ps. 9. 12 (13), seeker out of 'He bloods, i, e. avenger; and when Moses says Deut. 18. 19, 'I will require it of him,' Peter in quoting and applying the sentence, Acts, 3. 23, says, shall be destroyed from among the people.'-¶ At the hand of every beast will Irequire it. This is generally interpreted of the punishment which was to be inflicted upon a beast that had in any way killed a man; and it is certain that a law was afterwards ordained requiring such a beast to be put to death, Ex. 21. 28, probably to inspire greater horror of every species of bloodshedding. And this may be the primary and most genuine sense of the words. At least, we would not exclude it from the scope of the sacred writer; at the same time we cannot avoid the impression that this does not 5. And surely your blood of your lives will I require. God having in the preceding verses given security to Noah and his posterity against any apprehended obstacle to their increase and multiplication from the ravages of wild beasts, comes now to make provision against another possible evil, viz. the violence of men towards each oth-exhaust the whole meaning of the Noah, from his experience of the past, would no doubt fear that the effects of the divine blessing would be in er. words. The phrase 'at the hand of' sometimes signifies 'by means of;' and a secondary idea, we are persuaded, is, that the shedding of human blood should be avenged by the agency or instrumentality, not only of every murdered man's brother, but even by that of the very beasts of the field. The will I require the soul (or life) of man.' That the idea here expressed is really conveyed by the words of the sacred writer we are not disposed to question; nor that they carry with them the clear whole creation, as it were, should be implication that every man is to considarmed against him who had violated er every other man as his brother, and the sanctity of human life. It is prob- to be as tender of his life as he would be able indeed that this ordinance contem- of that of one who acknowledges the plated primarily a state of society in same immediate parents as himself. which the institution of laws and ma- But the passage contains, we conceive, gistracy had obtained but a very im- much more than this. We here see, if perfect establishment, and therefore we mistake not, the origin of the instiamounts to a pledge on the part of the tution of Goëlism, or that feature of Most High that he would in some way, the patriarchal polity which provided and by the employment of such minis- for the punishment of crimes of blood. ters as he saw fit, take the work of ven- By the Goël (3 goël) is to be undergeance into his own hands. How stood the nearest relation of a person agreeable such extraordinary judgments murdered, whose right and duty it was, were to the general sense of mankind to avenge his kinsman's death with his we may learn from the striking incident own hand. The etymology of the Acts, 28. 4, where the barbarians, when word in this sense is not very well asthey observed the viper (the venomous certained, but as the root has the beast) hanging to the hand of Paul, at import not only of ransoming or reonce concluded that the man was a deeming, but also of polluting or stainmurderer, whom, though he had escap-ing, Michaelis suggests that the Goël ed the perils of the sea, justice would was so called from his being considernot suffer to live. In like manner in ed as stained with the blood of his murthe book of Job, which contains a pic-dered relative till he had washed it ture of society in its earliest and rudest away by avenging his death; and in stages, we find clear intimations of the this very light do the Arabs still regard same thing. Speaking of the favoured the kinsman of a person murdered. lot of the good man it is said, ch. 5. 22, The term, however, was afterwards 23, At destruction and famine thou extended to signify the nearest relation shalt laugh; neither shalt thou be afraid in general, although there was no murof the beasts of the earth. For thou der in the case, as may be seen in the shalt be in league with the stones of notes on Ruth, 4. 1. In Arabic, this the field; and the beasts of the field personage is called Tair or Tsair, i. e. shall be at peace with thee.' While, survivor, implying the surviving relatherefore, we admit that the phrase 'to tive, who was bound to avenge the require the blood at the hand of beast death of a murdered person; and in the or brother,' implies primarily inflicting writings of this people the mention of vengeance on the perpetrator, it involves the blood-avenger occurs far oftener also the secondary sense of enlisting than it does in Hebrew; no doubt for such executioners in the work as to di- the reason, that the usages of a rude vine wisdom might seem good. This is and primitive state of society have left confirmed by what follows. At more permanent traces among them than among the Hebrews, though even among them the relics of this system of retribution are still discoverable in the hand of every man's brother will I require it. Chal.' At the hand of the man who shall spill his brother's blood |