And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
Verse 10. Divided them in the midst] The ancient method of making covenants. as well as the original word, have been already alluded to, and in a general way explained. See Ge 6:18. The word covenant from con, together, and venio, I come, signifies an agreement, association, or meeting between two or more parties; for it is impossible that a covenant can be made between an individual and himself, whether God or man. This is a theological absurdity into which many have run; there must be at least two parties to contract with each other. And often there was a third party to mediate the agreement, and to witness it when made. Rabbi Solomon Jarchi says, “It was a custom with those who entered into covenant with each other to take a heifer and cut it in two, and then the contracting parties passed between the pieces.” See this and the scriptures to which it refers particularly explained, Ge 6:18. A covenant always supposed one of these four things:
1. That the contracting parties had been hitherto unknown to each other, and were brought by the covenant into a state of acquaintance.
2. That they had been previously in a state of hostility or enmity, and were brought by the covenant into a state of pacification and friendship.
3. Or that, being known to each other, they now agree to unite their counsels, strength, property, c., for the accomplishment of a particular purpose, mutually subservient to the interests of both. Or,
4. It implies an agreement to succour and defend a third party in cases of oppression and distress.
For whatever purpose a covenant was made, it was ever ratified by a sacrifice offered to God and the passing between the divided parts of the victim appears to have signified that each agreed, if they broke their engagements, to submit to the punishment of being cut asunder; which we find from Mt 24:51; Lu 12:46, was an ancient mode of punishment. This is farther confirmed by Herodotus, who says that Sabacus, king of Ethiopia, had a vision, in which he was ordered , to cut in two, all the Egyptian priests; lib. ii. We find also from the same author, lib. vii., that Xerxes ordered one of the sons of Pythius , to be cut in two, and one half to be placed on each side of the way, that his army might pass through between them. That this kind of punishment was used among the Persians we have proof from Da 2:5; Da 3:29. Story of Susanna, verses 55, 59. See farther, 2Sa 12:31, and 1Ch 20:3. These authorities may be sufficient to show that the passing between the parts of the divided victims signified the punishment to which those exposed themselves who broke their covenant engagements. And that covenant sacrifices were thus divided, even from the remotest antiquity, we learn from Homer, Il. A., v. 460.
‘ ,
, ‘ ‘ .
“They cut the quarters, and cover them with the fat; dividing them into two, they place the raw flesh upon them.”
But this place may be differently understood.
St. Cyril, in his work against Julian, shows that passing between the divided parts of a victim was used also among the Chaldeans and other people. As the sacrifice was required to make an atonement to God, so the death of the animal was necessary to signify to the contracting parties the punishment to which they exposed themselves, should they prove unfaithful.
Livy preserves the form of the imprecation used on such occasions, in the account he gives of the league made between the Romans and Albans. When the Romans were about to enter into some solemn league or covenant, they sacrificed a hog; and, on the above occasion, the priest, or pater patratus, before he slew the animal, stood, and thus invoked Jupiter: Audi, Jupiter! Si prior defecerit publico consilio dolo malo, tum illo die, Diespiter, Populum Romanum sic ferito, ut ego hune porcum hic hodie feriam; tantoque magis ferito, quanto magis potes pollesque! Livii Hist., lib. i., chap. 24.
“Hear, O Jupiter! Should the Romans in public counsel, through any evil device, first transgress these laws, in that same day, O Jupiter, thus smite the Roman people, as I shall at this time smite this hog; and smite them with a severity proportioned to the greatness of thy power and might!”
But the birds divided he not.] According to the law, Le 1:17, fowls were not to be divided asunder but only cloven for the purpose of taking out the intestines.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And he, i.e. Abram, who by Divine instinct and precept did all this which here follows,
divided them in the midst, into two equal parts. This was done for two reasons.
1. To represent the torn and distracted condition in which his seed was to lie for a season.
2. To ratify God’s covenant with Abram and his seed; for this was a rite used in making covenants, as appears both from Scripture, Jer 34:18, and other authors.
Laid each piece one against another, partly to encourage hope, that God would in his time put those parts together, and unite those dry bones, (to which the Israelites are compared, Eze 37:1-28), and clothe them with flesh; and partly that the persons entering into covenant might pass between those parts, and so testify their union and conjunction in one and the same sacrifice.
The birds divided he not, either because there were two birds, and the one was laid against the other, which answered to the division of the larger creatures; or because they belonged not to the ceremony of the covenant, but were for the use of sacrifice, wherein they were to be offered whole, as afterwards was prescribed, Lev 1:15,17.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And he took unto him all these,…. The heifer, goat, ram, turtle, and young pigeon, not to himself, but to the Lord, as he was bid, and offered them before him, as the above Targums paraphrase it; or however he took them for his use, and set them before him, and did with them as he directed him:
and divided them in the midst; that is, the three animals, the heifer, goat, and ram; he did not take off their several limbs, and cut them up in small parts, but cut them in halves;
and laid each piece one against another; one half against the other, the left side against the right, shoulder against shoulder, and leg against leg, so that they might seem to join, or might be easily joined together again, or however answer one another; though it is generally thought there was such a distance of the one from the other, as that there might be a passage between them; it being usual in making covenants for the covenanters to pass between the parts of a creature slain, signifying, that should they break the covenant made, they deserved to be cut asunder as that creature was, [See comments on Jer 34:18]. So a burning lamp, or lamp of fire, an emblem of the divine Being, is said,
Ge 15:17, to pass between those pieces: all this was expressive of the afflictions of the posterity of Abram, of their being distressed in the land of Egypt, cut as it were in twain there, and of their various dispersions in other countries; and yet, like the bones in Ezekiel’s vision, were gathered together, and united again: and it may be this may have respect to the division of the people of Israel into two kingdoms, in the times of Rehoboam, and their after reunion, and especially in the latter day, Eze 37:7:
but the birds divided he not; but laid them one against another, as the pieces were laid; so the birds used in sacrifice under the law were not to be divided, Le 1:17; which may signify, that when the people of the Jews, in the latter day, are converted, and brought together into their own land, when they will better answer the character of turtles and doves than they ever did, will be no more divided and separated from each other.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
10. And divided them in the midst. That no part of this sacrifice may be without mystery, certain interpreters weary themselves in the fabrication of subtleties; but it is our business, as I have often declared, to cultivate sobriety. I confess I do not know why he was commanded to take three kinds of animals besides birds; unless it were, that by this variety itself, it was declared, that all the posterity of Abram, of whatever rank they might be, should be offered up in sacrifice, so that the whole people, and each individual, should constitute one sacrifice. There are also some things, concerning which, if any one curiously seeks the reason, I shall not be ashamed to acknowledge my ignorance, because I do not choose to wander in uncertain speculations. Moreover, this, in my opinion, is the sum of the whole: That God, in commanding the animals to be killed, shows what will be the future condition of the Church. Abram certainly wished to be assured of the promised inheritance of the land. Now he is taught that it would take its commencement from death; that is that he and his children must die before they should enjoy the dominion over the land. In commanding the slaughtered animals to be cut in parts, it is probable that he followed the ancient rite in forming covenants whether they were entering into any alliance, or were mustering an army, a practice which also passed over to the Gentiles. Now, the allies or the soldiers passed between the severed parts, that, being enclosed together within the sacrifice, they might be the more sacredly united in one body. That this method was practiced by the Jews, Jeremiah bears witness, (Jer 34:18,) where he introduces God as saying, ‘They have violated my covenant, when they cut the calf in two parts, and passed between the divisions of it, as well the princes of Judas, and the nobles of Jerusalem, and the whole people of the land.’ Nevertheless, there appears to me to have been this special reason for the act referred to; that the Lord would indeed admonish the race of Abram, not only that it should be like a dead carcass, but even like one torn and dissected. For the servitude with which they were oppressed for a time, was more intolerable than simple death; yet because the sacrifice is offered to God, death itself is immediately turned into new life. And this is the reason why Abram, placing the parts of the sacrifice opposite to each other, fits them one to the other, because they were again to be gathered together from their dispersion. But how difficult is the restoration of the Church and what troubles are involved in it, is shown by the horror with which Abram was seized. We see, therefore, that two things were illustrated; namely, the hard servitude, with which the sons of Abram were to be pressed almost to laceration and destruction; and then their redemption, which was to be the signal pledge of divine adoption; and in the same mirror the general condition of the Church is represented to us, as it is the peculiar province of God to create it out of nothing, and to raise it from death.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
10. Divided them in the midst Cut them into two halves, and placed the portions opposite to each other, with space enough for one to walk between . This explains the Hebrew expression , to cut a covenant . See Gen 15:18. The two parts of the victim seem to have represented the two parties to the covenant; and when the two parties thus covenanting passed between the pieces, their union was represented as sealed by the blood of life. Comp. Jer 34:18, and see further on Gen 15:17.
Birds divided he not So also the Mosaic law, Lev 1:17. Probably Abram laid the dove on one side and the pigeon on the other, as if they were two pieces.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he took on his behalf all these and divided them in the middle and laid one half on one side and the other on the other. But he did not divide the birds.’
Abram does what God tells him. He takes the defined animals and slays them and cuts them in half and lays the halves on the ground to provide a way between them.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gen 15:10. He took and divided, &c. We have here the first and most ancient account of the manner by which many nations of the world entered into and ratified their covenants. It is alluded to again in Jer 34:18-19. The method was to divide the victims, and lay the parts divided asunder, when the covenanting parties passed between them, and used some expressions perhaps to this purpose: “Thus let me be divided and cut in pieces, if I violate the oath or break the covenant into which I now enter.” God condescended to ratify his covenant in that manner with Abram; who, by the divine command, prepared and divided the victims, except the birds, which were not divided; as neither were they under the law; see Lev 1:17 but, as we conceive, he laid them upon the divided parts of the victims: for this seems to be the sense of the following verse.
Lev 1:11. And when the fowls came down, &c. This verse gives us an account of what Abram did with the birds for sacrifice, the turtle-dove and pigeon; concerning which we otherwise hear nothing. And it may be rendered; and Abram caused to descend a bird upon the carcases [one upon each]; and placed, or fixed it upon them: that is, “he laid a bird upon each of the divisions of the victims.” This translation is justified by some of the most learned critics, and, I believe, is the best. If however this interpretation should not be admitted, let it be remarked, that the greatest part of the expositors have supposed, that the descent of carnivorous birds upon the carcases (which they suppose the text expresses) signifies the rapacity and cruelty wherewith Pharaoh and the AEgyptians treated the Israelites.
REFLECTIONS.As the seed is promised to Abram, the land is added moreover. If Christ be ours, heaven is ours. We have in the foregoing verses,
1. A remembrance of mercies already conferred on Abram; I brought thee out of that idolatrous land of thy nativity, as a brand snatched from the burning. And here is a promise of more; I brought thee hither to inherit this: thine it shall be; I am able to subdue all thine enemies, and I will fulfil my promises. Observe, (1.) Past mercies are usually the earnest of greater. (2.) Salvation is the crowning mercy.
2. Abram’s desire of some sign, for the more assured confirmation of his faith. Learn, (1.) The strongest believer has need to pray, Lord, increase my faith. We have need to make use of all means for the further confirmation of our hearts in the Divine promises. (2.) The best must be presented to God: negligent prayers and inattentive hearing, is like bringing the lame and the blind for a sacrifice.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gen 15:10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
Ver. 10. Divided them in the midst. ] In signum exitii foedifrago eventuri . This was the federal rite both among Jews Jer 34:18-19 and Gentiles, as it is to be seen in Virgil, a describing the covevant of Romulus and Tatius. God also threateneth to cut the evil servant in twain ( ) that forgetteth the covenant of his God. Mat 24:51 These dissected creatures are the oppressed Israelites; the parts laid each against other signify, that God will make them up again, though dissected; the fowls that came down upon them, are the Egyptians; Abram’s chasing them away, is their deliverance by Moses after four hundred years, signified by those four kinds of creatures, as Luther interpreteth.
a Aeneid., lib. viii.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
these. Five, the No. of Grace, because Covenant was unconditional. See App-10.
divided. So Covenants were made (Jer 34:18-20), midst, i.e. in half.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
divided them: Jer 34:18, Jer 34:19, 2Ti 2:15
the birds: Lev 1:17
Reciprocal: Deu 29:12 – enter
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
15:10 And he took unto him all these, and {c} divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
(c) This was the old custom in making covenants, Jer 39:18, to which God added these conditions, that Abram’s posterity would be as torn in pieces, but after they would be rejoined: also that it would be assaulted, but yet delivered.