Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.

k Lev. ch. 11.

restraints should continue, and desired while he and his little household were mercies be delayed.' Henry.

That is, they rushed not out confusedly together, but in exact order, the several pairs with the increase which may have accrued to them in the ark. Families are here attributed to brute creatures, as before man and wife, ch. 7. 2.

now the sole survivors of an extinguish

19. After their kinds. Heb. 'accord-ed race; to see the whole face of creaing to their families.' tion so entirely changed, and no trace of former scenes remaining; and then to think of what he owed to the preserving goodness of God, that had kept him safe in the midst of such an awful catastrophe ;-all this could not but inspire him with the most melting and overwhelming emotions of thankfulness, which he would naturally make his first business suitably to express.

20. Builded an altar. The Heb. term for 'altar,' properly signifies a sacrificatory, or place for slaying sac-it rifices. The Eng. word altar, comes from the Lat. altus, high, elevated, because they were originally made of high-raised mounds of earth, Ex. 20. 24, or built on the tops of hills and mountains. The 'high places' so frequently mentioned in the subsequent Scriptures, signify either such altars themselves, a kind of tumuli, or the eminences on which they were built. As altars and sacrifices were undoubtedly common before the flood as a part of the system of religious worship, Noah had no occasion to wait for a particular command relative to this mode of expressing his gratitude for the signal mercies he had experienced; and it was no doubt of so much more value in the sight of God, as he went about it, not of constraint, but willingly.' God is peculiarly pleased with free-will offerings, and with praises spontaneously prompted. And surely if ever an occasion existed for the exercise of grateful and adoring sentiments the present was one. To look back upon the world, and reflect that in so short a space of time all his cotemporaries were blotted from existence,

Offered burnt-offerings. Heb. ascensions or rise-offerings, so called because they went up to the Lord in fire; every part except the skin. was consumed; whence they were called in Gr. Xoxavpara whole burntofferings, which the Apostle teaches, Heb. 10. 6, 10, were a prefiguration of the sacrifice of the body of Christ. As to the exact nature of the sacrifice now offered, it probably partook of the twofold character of eucharistic and expia-. tory; the occasion giving it the one, and the material the other; for under the law thank-offerings were not usually of the bloody kind. But in this instance, the offering was probably designed as an atonement in behalf of the remnant that was left, and also as a significant testimonial of Noah's believing respect to the Great Sacrifice afterwards to be made, and on the ground of which he would now acknowledge Jehovah's intention to deal with his creatures in all future periods of the renovated earth. The act also is to be viewed in close connection with the covenant engagement mentioned below. 21. Smelled a sroeet savour. Heb..

21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again m curse the ground any more for

1 Lev. 1. 9. Ezek. 20. 41. 2 Cor. 2. 15. Eph. 5. 2. m ch. 3. 17. & 6. 17.

savour of rest; having thus a verbal reference to Noah's name, ch. 5. 29. Chal. the Lord accepted with favour his oblation.' Gr. the Lord God smelt a savour of sweetness, (un evoodia).' The meaning is, that Noah's sacrifice was as grateful and acceptable to the Lord as sweet odours are to a man. Thus I Sam. 26. 19, "If the Lord have stirred thee up against me let him accept (Heb. ~~ smell) an offering.' Lev. 26. 31, 'I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours;' i. e. I will reject your sacrifices. In order however that sacrifices should be thus acceptable to Jehovah it was requisite both that they should conform to his appointment, and that the offerer should be himself a believer, and should present them in faith of the great atonement of the Messiah; as otherwise instead of coming up as fragrant odours before the Lord, they should be to him as a nauseous smell which he abhorred; 'I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt-offerings and your meat-offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts.' Am. 5. 21, 22. That the sacrifice of Noah on this occasion prefigured that of Christ is evident from the words of Paul Eph. 5. 2, 'Who hath loved us and iven himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour (oμn εvwotus); where the phrase used by the apostle is the very phrase used by the Septuagint in this place.- T The Lord said in his heart. Heb. to his heart;

man's sake; for the "imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth: neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as 1 have done.

n ch. 6. 5. Job 14. 4. & 15. 14. Ps. 51. 5. Jer. 17. 9. Matt. 15. 19. Rom. 1. 21. & 3 3. 0 ch. 9. 11, 15.

i. e. to himself; he inwardly determined. Another meaning, but one less probable, may be that 'the Lord spake to his (Noah's) heart;' i. e. the Lord comforted him, as the phrase sometimes implies, Jud. 19. 3. Ruth 2. 13. Is. 40. 2. Hos. 2. 14. Thus too the Arab. 'God said to his prophet.' But on the contrary the Syr. 'the Lord said in his heart.' Chal.' the Lord said in (or by) his word.' Gr. 'and the Lord God considering said,' which last undoubtedly gives the true sense. The expression is perhaps equivalent to an oath; the very one, it may be, to which God alludes by the prophet, Is. 54. 9, 'For as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more govern the We know of no other earth,' &c. time but this when this swearing can be supposed to have occurred.-¶ Will Heb. not again curse the ground. 'will not add to curse;' i. e. as I have done now, by a general deluge. The words are to be considered not as canceling the general curse inflicted upon the earth for man's sin, Gen. 3. 17, nor as precluding a future destruction by fire, but simply as declaring that the judgment of a universal deluge shall not be repeated, though there might still be partial inundations in particular regions that would be marked by very desolating effects. ¶ For the imagination of man's heart, &c. Rather, Heb. ki, though the imagination (or fabrication, ),' &c. Thus Josh. 17. 13, 'Thou shalt drive out the Canaanites though () they have iron chariots.' As if he should say, 'Notwithstanding I see man's heart is still the same as

--

[blocks in formation]

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.

The deliverance of the earth from the dominion of the overflowing waters was a sort of second creation. Noah and his sons accordingly were introduced into the possession and lordship of this new empire with very nearly the same form of benediction as that which was bestowed upon Adam at the beginning. The prerogatives of Noah were indeed enlarged beyond those of Adam by the grant of animal food, but like the first father of the race he receives an assurance of blessing and a command to be fruitful, to multiply, and to replenish the earth. In connection with this he is formally invested with a renewed dominion over the creatures, and comforted with the assurance that the earth should not again be destroyed by a like catastrophe. But in order to gain a still fuller view of the scope of the opening part of this chapter, we must tevert to the circnmstances, in which

containing the command, or the prom-
ise 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 formida-
ble 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 in-
fants issuing from the second cradle of
the human race. To obviate the appre-
hensions arising from this source, God
is pleased, in the first instance, to as-
sure them that he would henceforth so
impress the spirits of the brute creation
with a fear and dread of man that, as a
general fact, they might promise them-
selves abundant security on this score,
and not only so, but by giving them
permission to kill the animals for food,
they should have a still farther guar-
anty of safety, as they would in this.
way be imposing a continual check up-
on their too rapid increase. But, the
depredations and ferocity of wild beasts
were not all that Noah and his family
would feel that they had reason to
fear. The wrathful passions of men
as well as the destructive instincts of
animals were to be dreaded. Societies
in a state of lawless misrule marked
by deeds of violence and blood had no

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

2 And the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea;

b ch. 1. 28. Hos. 2. 18.

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 apparently 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

[blocks in formation]

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 kind (Gr. pvois nature) of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind (Gr. proci avowin 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

of, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

4 But flesh with the life there- hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require: at the

f Lev. 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.

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 celebrated John Hunter in the middle of the last century have gone far to establish the point, that the blood is strictly a vital 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
off any limb of a living animal and
eating it while the life, i. e. the life-
blood, is in it. Maimonides speaks of
a fierce and barbarous people, who after
cutting pieces of flesh from a living an-
imal, devoured it raw with the blood
streaming from it, as a part of their
idolatrous worship; and that this hor-
rid practice is kept up to this day
among the Abyssinians is placed be-
yond the reach of controversy by the
reports of Mr. Bruce and Mr. Salt,
confirmed by the statements of a still
later traveller, Mr. Madden, whose re-
lations on this subject may be seen in
my 'Illustrations of the Scriptures,'
p. 17. But this, though perhaps indi-
rectly involved in the spirit of the pro-
hibition, does not seem to be its prima-

to be noticed, however, that according
to the distinction of the Heb. accents
which, though not infallible guides to
the sense, are always entitled to res-
pect as giving the readings of the an-
cient Jews, this verse in connection
with the preceding requires to be ren-
dered and pointed as follows: 'As the
green herb have I given you all, (all
kinds of animals for food, yet not all
parts of the animal alike, but) only the
flesh the life thereof, (which is) the
blood thereof, ye shall not eat.' Ac-
cording to this construction, which we
have little doubt is the true one, the
preposition before life serves
both to designate the accusative of the
object, as it does repeatedly after this
very verb to eat (Ex. 12. 43-45.
Lev. 22. 11), and also to point out the
internal nature and quality of the sub-ry drift. This was undoubtedly to for-
ject to which it applies, and its virtual
identity with the blood. It cannot
perhaps be positively affirmed that Mo-
ses here intended to assert the physio-
logical fact, that the blood is the seat

bid the use of blood in its simple un-
mixed state as an article of diet, and
for this the grand reason is to be sought,
not so much from its tendency to beget
a cruel, ferocious, and blood-thirsty dis

« AnteriorContinuar »