Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
2. Of every clean beast ] The distinction is here made between the clean and the unclean animals. Categories of both kinds, according to the Levitical Law, are found in Leviticus 11 and Deu 14:3-20. In the account given by P (Gen 6:19) no allusion is made to this distinction. According to P, the distinctions of clean and unclean were for the first time laid down in the Mosaic legislation, and could not, therefore, be recognized as existing in the primaeval or patriarchal age. According to J, the distinction existed in pre-Mosaic times, and was to be presupposed as having existed side by side with the institution of sacrifice.
seven and seven, the male and his female ] By this is meant seven pairs. “The male and his female,” i.e. “each and his mate,” sh v’isht, seems to make this clear. But some consider seven clean animals, and not seven pairs of clean animals, are intended. The words “the male and his female” are different from those rendered “male and female,” zkr un’bah, Gen 1:27, Gen 6:19, Gen 7:3; Gen 7:9; Gen 7:16.
The reason why so many more clean animals than unclean are required is, presumably, because they would be wanted ( a) for food, ( b) for sacrifice, and ( c) for domestic purposes.
There is no reason to assume that the J tradition of the narrative shared the opinion of the P tradition, that before the Flood man subsisted on vegetable diet (see Gen 1:29, Gen 6:20, Gen 9:2-3).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 2. Of every clean beast] So we find the distinction between clean and unclean animals existed long before the Mosaic law. This distinction seems to have been originally designed to mark those animals which were proper for sacrifice and food, from those that were not. See Lev. xi.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Obj. The distinction of clean and unclean beasts was not before the law.
Answ. Some legal things were prescribed and used before the law, as abstinence from the eating of blood, Gen 9:4, and, among other things, sacrifices, as learned men have sufficiently proved; and consequently the distinction of beasts to be sacrificed was then, in some measure, understood, which afterwards was expressed, Lev 1:1-17, &c. Nor is this a good argument, This was not written before, therefore it was not commanded and practised before, especially concerning a time when no commands of God were written, but only delivered by tradition.
By sevens; either,
1. Seven single, as most think. Or rather,
2. Seven couples, as may be gathered,
1. From the duplication of the word in Hebrew. If it be said seven seven signifies only seven of every kind, then it would have been said concerning the unclean beasts two two, i.e. two of each sort: whereas now there is an apparent difference; there it is said only by two, but here,
by sevens, or seven seven, which difference of the phrase suggest a difference in the things. 2. By the following words,
the male and his female, which being indifferently applied to the clean and unclean, plainly shows that none of them entered into the ark single, and therefore there was no odd seventh among them, but all went in by couples, which was most convenient in all for the propagation of their kind, and in the clean for other uses also; as for sacrifices to God, if not for the sustentation of men in the ark, and after they came out of it. Which gives us the reason why God would have more of the clean than of the unclean put into the ark, because they were more serviceable both to God and men.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2, 3. Of every clean beast . . .fowlsPairs of every species of animals, except the tenants ofthe deep, were to be taken for the preservation of their respectivekinds. This was the general rule of admission, only with regard tothose animals which are styled “clean,” three pairs were tobe taken, whether of beasts or birds; and the reason was that theirrapid multiplication was a matter of the highest importance, when theearth should be renovated, for their utility either as articles offood or as employed in the service of man. But what was the use ofthe seventh? It was manifestly reserved for sacrifice; and so thatboth during Noah’s residence in the ark, and after his return to dryland, provision was made for celebrating the rites of worshipaccording to the religion of fallen man. He did not, like many, leavereligion behind. He provided for it during his protracted voyage.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,…. From hence it appears, that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, at least for sacrifice, if not for food, was known before the flood, and so before the law of Moses; though some think this is said by anticipation, and as providing a large stock of such creatures for the propagation of their species; because they would be most serviceable to men both for food and sacrifice: but as it is certain that sacrifices were offered ever since the fall of man; by the same way, namely, by divine revelation, that men were taught to sacrifice creatures as typical of the sacrifice of Christ, they were directed what sort of creatures to offer, as were most suitable figures of him; those beasts that were clean, and used under the law, and so no doubt, at this time, were oxen, sheep, and goats: and these were to be taken into the ark by “sevens”, or “seven seven” p; either only three pairs, male and female, for procreation, and the seventh a male for sacrifice, when the flood was over; or rather fourteen, seven couple, an equal number of male and female, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom, that there might be enough for propagation; since a large number of them would be consumed, both for food and sacrifice:
the male and his female, or “the man and his wife” q; which confirms the sense given, that there were seven pairs, or otherwise, if there had been an odd seventh, there would not have been a male and his female:
and of beasts that are not clean by two, or only two:
the male and his female, or “the man and his wife”; which was a number sufficient for the propagation of creatures neither used for food nor sacrifice; and many of which are harmful to mankind, as lions, wolves, tigers, bears, c.
p “septena septena”, Pagninus, Montanus “septem septem”, Vatablus, Drusius. q “virum et uxorem ejus”, Pagninus, Montanus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2. Of every clean beast. He again repeats what he had before said concerning animals, and not without occasion. For there was no little difficulty in collecting from woods, mountains, and caves, so great a multitude of wild beasts, many species of which were perhaps altogether unknown; and there was, in most of them, the same ferocity which we now perceive. Wherefore, God encourages the holy man, lest being alarmed with that difficulty, and having cast aside all hope of success, he should fail. Here, however, at first sight, appears some kind of contradiction, because whereas he before had spoken of pairs of animals, he now speaks of sevens. But the solution is at hand; because, previously, Moses does not state the number, but only says that females were added as companions to the males; as if he had said, Noah himself was commanded not to gather the animals promiscuously together, but to select pairs out of them for the propagation of offspring. Now, however, the discourse is concerning the actual number. Moreover, the expression, by sevens, is to be understood not of seven pairs of each kind, but of three pairs, to which one animal is added for the sake of sacrifice. (276) Besides, the Lord would have a threefold greater number of clean animals than of others preserved, because there would be a greater necessity of them for the use of man. In which appointment, we must consider the paternal goodness of God towards us, by which he is inclined to have regard to us in all things.
(276) Le Clerc objects to this interpretation, and supposes that seven of each sex, of unclean animals, were admitted into the ark. Perhaps a skeptical objection to the use of the seventh animal, as a sacrifice, inclined him to adopt this interpretation. Commentators, however, have generally preferred the solution here given. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) Of every clean beastHeb., of all clean cattlethou shalt take to thee by sevensHeb., seven seven.This probably does not mean seven pairs of each, though many commentators so interpret it, but seven of each kind. If, however, seven pairs be the right interpretation, but few species could have been included, as to attend properly to so large a number of animals would have been beyond the power of Noah and his sons. But which were the clean beasts? There can be no reference here to the Levitical law, which had respect to human food; nor to animals tamed and untamed, as all alike are called cattle; but probably the clean cattle were such as from the days of Adam and Abel had been offered in sacrifice. Thus provision was made for Noahs sacrifice on his egress from the ark, and also for his possession of a small herd of such animals as would be most useful to him amid the desolation which must have existed for a long time after the flood. The clean beasts would therefore be oxen, sheep, goats; the unclean, camels, horses, asses, and such other animals as stood in some relation to man. Of birds, the dove would especially be clean.
It has been pointed out that these more full and specific orders are given in the name of Jehovah, whereas most of the narrative of the flood is Elohistic, and hence it has been assumed that some Jehovist narrator added to and completed the earlier narrative. These additions would be Gen. 7:1-6. the last clause of Gen. 7:16, Noahs sacrifice in Gen. 8:20-22, and the cursing of Canaan in Gen. 9:18-27. Now, it is remarkable that the sacrifice is as integral a portion of the Chaldean Genesis as the sending forth of the birds (Chaldean Genesis, p. 286), and is thus indubitably older than the time of Moses. Still, there is nothing improbable in Moses having two records of the flood before him, and while the division of Genesis into Elohistic and Jehovistic portions usually breaks down, there is a prim facie appearance of the combination of two narratives in the present history, or, at least, in this one section (Gen. 7:1-6).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Every clean beast “The objection that this was an anticipation of the Levitical distinction of beasts into clean and unclean, is wholly groundless . The boundary line between clean and unclean animals is marked by nature. Every tribe of mankind would distinguish between the sheep and the hyena, between the dove and the vulture. Whether animal food was eaten before the deluge or not, it is certain that flocks and herds were fed for the sake of their milk and wool, and that of them victims were offered in sacrifice. This alone would separate between the clean and the unclean. It is not improbable, that the distinction even of the names clean and unclean had been fully established by custom long before it was recognised and ratified by the law.” Speaker’s Com.
By sevens Heb, seven seven. Seven pairs of every clean beast is, doubtless, the meaning of the writer, as implied by the additional words, the male and his female. This statement Kalisch declares to be totally “irreconcilable with the preceding narrative,” and imagines that the discrepancy may be easily explained by the hypothesis of Elohistic and Jehovistic documents. He supposes that the Jehovist “prudently introduced the significant number of seven pairs” in order to provide for Noah’s offering of clean beasts and fowls after the flood. Gen 8:20. And yet he admits that the Jehovist “neither thought, nor did he in any way intend, to be in opposition to the statement of the Elohist . He understood the two animals which Noah was to bring, as merely signifying that always male and female were to be chosen, that they were to be pairs, without the number of these pairs being stated; for he writes: ‘Two and two went in to Noah into the ark, male and female, as Elohim had commanded Noah.’” Gen 7:9. Is it not strange that a writer who can so readily understand that this “Jehovist” (who wrote the narrative as it now stands, and “designed full harmony with the Elohist”) saw no discrepancy here, but “understood that they were to be pairs without the number of these pairs being stated,” will insist that the two statements are utterly irreconcilable with each other? If the “Jehovist” had no trouble in reconciling these statements, probably Moses had none; nor need we. “The command here is but an amplification of the former injunction, which had probably been given one hundred and twenty years before. In the first instance it was said that Noah’s family should be preserved, together with a pair of every kind of beast. In the second, that, while the general rule should be the saving of a single pair, yet, in the case of the clean beasts there should be preserved not one pair only, but seven.” Speaker’s Com.
Gen 7:2. Of every clean beastby sevensmale and female Seven pair of clean beasts were to be taken; the Hebrew is seven seven; by sevens. Of unclean beasts only one pair was to be taken: the reason for taking each sort is added, Gen 7:3 to keep seed alive upon the earth, to preserve the several species. And here we may remark God’s goodness in providing so superior a number of the clean or useful animals; a remark, which we cannot fail making, whenever we contemplate the animal world. “It is very evident from hence,” says Mr. Locke, “that the distinction of beasts, clean and unclean, was not first made by the law of Moses.” This appears also from Gen 8:20. The distinction indeed seems founded, in a great measure, in nature itself: but it is most probable, that God gave Adam directions concerning it, when he instituted sacrifice, and the other branches of religion relating to divine worship.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
Ver. 2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take by sevens. ] Three pair for generation, and a single one for sacrifice, after the flood was past. Gen 8:20 God must have a share; and good reason. But that two only of a sort, of the unclean hurtful creatures were preserved, note his fatherly providence. To this day we see, though sheep and birds be so killed up for man’s use, yet there are far more of them, than of other unserviceable or cruel creatures. Besides, the weaker creatures go in herds together, the stronger and more savage go alone. For if they should go in multitudes, no man nor beast could stand before them. This you shall find set down to your hand. Job 37:8 Psa 104:17-30 Ammianus Marcellinus writeth, “that in Chaldea there are a huge number of lions, which were like enough to devour up both men and beasts throughout the country. But withal, he saith, that by reason of the store of water and mud thereof, there breed yearly an innumerable company of gnats, whose property is to flee into the eye of the lion, as being a bright and orient thing, where, biting and stinging the lion, he teareth so fiercely with the claws, that he puts out his own eyes; and by that means many are drowned in the rivers, others starve for want of prey, and many the more easily killed by the inhabitants. Bodin a telleth us, that the wolf never seeth his sire, his dam, nor his young: for that the herd of wolves set upon, and killeth that wolf, which by the smell they perceive to have coupled with the she wolf; which unless they did, what a deal of mischief would be done by them everywhere among cattle!
a Bodin. in Theatro. , lib. iii.
clean. For sacrifice Lev 1:2, Lev 1:10, Lev 1:14, &c, sevens. For propagation.
two. See note on Gen 6:19; Gen 6:12.
clean beast
Cf. (See Scofield “Gen 6:19”).
every clean: Gen 7:8, Gen 6:19-21, Gen 8:20, Lev 11:1-47, Deu 14:1-21, Act 10:11-15
sevens: Heb. seven, seven
not: Lev 10:10, Eze 44:23
Reciprocal: Gen 7:14 – They Gen 7:16 – as Lev 11:4 – unclean unto you Jos 6:4 – seven times
Gen 7:2. Here are necessary orders given concerning the brute creatures that were to be preserved alive with Noah in the ark. He must carefully preserve every species, that no tribe, no, not the least considerable, might entirely perish out of the creation. Even the unclean beasts, that were least valuable, were preserved alive in the ark. For Gods tender mercies are over all his works, and not only over those that are of most use; yet more of the clean were preserved than of the unclean. 1st, Because the clean were most for the service of man; and therefore, in favour to him, more of them were preserved, and are still propagated. Thanks be to God, there are not herds of lions as there are of oxen; nor flocks of tigers, as there are of sheep. 2d, Because the clean were for sacrifice to God; and therefore, in honour to him, more of them were preserved, three couple for breed, and the odd seventh for sacrifice, Gen 8:20.
7:2 Of every {b} clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
(b) Which might be offered in sacrifice, of which six were for breeding and the seventh for sacrifice.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes