To Abram, who is henceforth to be called Abraham (⁵), God reveals Himself under a new name (¹), entering into a covenant with him (2–8), of which the sign is the rite of circumcision (9–14). The heir of this covenant is to be a son born to Sarai (whose name is changed to Sarah) in the following year (15–22). Abraham immediately circumcises all the males of his household (23–27).—To the writer of the Priestly Code the incident is important (1) as an explanation of the origin of circumcision, which in his day had become a fundamental institution of Judaism; and (2) as marking a new stage in the revelation of the true God to the world. The Abrahamic covenant inaugurates the third of the four epochs (commencing respectively with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses) into which the Priestly theory divides the history of mankind. On the ethnic parallels to this scheme, Gunkel’s note (page 233 ff.) may be consulted.
Source.—The marks of Priestly-Code’s authorship appear in every line of the chapter. Besides the general qualities of style, which need not again be particularised, we may note the following expressions: אלהים (throughout, except verse ¹, where יהוה is either a redactional change or a scribal error); אל שדי, ¹; הקים ברית, נתן ב׳, 2. 7. 19. 21; במאד מאד, 2. 6. 20; אתה וזרעך אחריך, 7. 8. 9. 10. 19; לדרתם, 7. 9. 12; מגרים, ⁸; ארץ כנען, ⁸; אחזה, ⁸; כל־זכר, 10. 12. 23; מקנה, 12. 13. 23. 27; בן־נכר, 12. 27; ונכרתה הנפש וגו׳, ¹⁴; פרה ורבה, ²⁰; נשיאם, ²⁰; הוליד, ²⁰; בעצם היום הזה, 23. 26; see Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel. References to the passage in other parts of Priestly-Code are 212. 4 28⁴ 35¹², Exodus 2²⁴ 63 f. (Leviticus 12³ ?).
The close parallelism with chapter 15 makes it probable that that chapter, in its present composite form, is the literary basis of Priestly-Code’s account of the covenant. Common to the two narratives are (a) the self-introduction of the Deity (17¹ ∥ 15⁷); (b) the covenant (17 passim ∥ 159 ff.); (c) the promise of a numerous seed (17⁴ passim ∥ 15⁵); (d) of the land (17⁸ ∥ 15¹⁸), (e) of a son (1719. 21 ∥ 15⁴); (f) Abraham’s incredulity (17¹⁷ ∥ 153. 8). The features peculiar to Priestly-Code, such as the sign of circumcision, the etymology of יִצְחָק in verse ¹⁷, the changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind to suggest the existence of a separate tradition independent of Yahwist and Elohist.
1–8. The Covenant-promises.—These are three in number: (a) Abraham will be the father of a numerous posterity (2b. 4–6); (b) God will be a God to him and to his seed (7b. 8b); (c) his seed shall inherit the land of Canaan (8a). We recognise here a trace of the ancient religious conception according to which god, land, and people formed an indissoluble triad, the land being an indispensable pledge of fellowship between the god and his worshippers (see Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 92 f.).—1. appeared to Abram] i.e., in a theophany, as is clear from verse ²². It is the only direct communication of God to Abram recorded in Priestly-Code. Priestly-Code is indeed very sparing in his use of the theophany, though Exodus 6³ seems to imply that his narrative contained one to each of the three patriarchs. If that be so, the revelation to Isaac has been lost, while that to Jacob is twice referred to (35⁹ 48³).—I am ’El Shaddai] The origin, etymology, and significance of this title are alike obscure: see the footnote. In Priestly-Code it is the signature of the patriarchal age (Exodus 6³); or rather it designates the true God as the patron of the Abrahamic covenant, whose terms are explicitly referred to in every passage where the name occurs in Priestly-Code (28³ 35¹¹ 48³). That it marks an advance in the revelation of the divine character can hardly be shown, though the words immediately following may suggest that the moral condition on which the covenant is granted is not mere obedience to a positive precept, but a life ruled by the ever-present sense of God as the ideal of ethical perfection.—Walk before me (compare 24⁴⁰ 48¹⁵)] i.e., ‘Live consciously in My presence,’ 1 Samuel 12², Isaiah 38³; compare 1 John 1⁷.—perfect] or ‘blameless’; see on 6⁹.—2. On the idea and scope of the covenant (בְּרִית), see page 297 f. below.—4. father of a multitude (literally tumult) of nations] In substance the promise is repeated in 28³ 48⁴ (קְהַל עַמִּים) and 35¹¹ (ק׳ גּוֹיִם); the peculiar expression here anticipates the etymology of verse ⁵. While Yahwist (12² 18¹⁸ 46³) restricts the promise to Israel (גּוֹי גָּדוֹל), Priestly-Code speaks of ‘nations’ in the plural, including the Ishmaelites and Edomites amongst the descendants of Abraham. See, however, on 28³.—5. Abram’s name is changed to Abraham, interpreted as ‘Father of multitude.’ Compare Nehemiah 9⁷.
The equation אַבְרָהָם = אַב הֲמוֹן [גוים] is so forced that Dillmann al. doubt if a serious etymology was intended. The line between word-play and etymology is difficult to draw; and all that can safely be said is that the strained interpretation here given proves that אַבְרָהָם is no artificial formation, but a genuine element of tradition. (1) The form אַבְרָם is an abbreviation of אֲבִירָם (Numbers 16¹ etc.: compare אַבְנֵר, 1 Samuel 14⁵¹ etc., with אֲבִינֵר, 1 Samuel 14⁵⁰; אַבְשָׁלוֹם, 2 Chronicles 1120. 21, with אֲבִישָׁלוֹם, 1 Kings 152. 10), which occurs as a personal name not only in Hebrew but also as that of an Assyrian official (Abî-râmu) under Esarhaddon, B.C. 677 (see Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 482)¹. (2) Of אברהם, on the other hand, no scientific etymology can be given. The nearest approach to Priestly-Code’s explanation would be found in the Arabic ruhām = ‘copious number’ (from a √ descriptive of a fine drizzling rain: Lane, s.v.).² Delitzsch thinks this the best explanation; but the etymology is far-fetched, and apart from the probably accidental correspondence with Priestly-Code’s interpretation the sense has no claim to be correct.—With regard to the relation of the two forms, various theories are propounded. Hommel (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 275 ff.; Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, ii. 271) regards the difference as merely orthographic, the ה being inserted, after the analogy of Minæan, to mark the long ā (אַבְרָהם), while a later misunderstanding is responsible for the pronunciation ־רָחָם. Strack and Stade (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 349) suppose a dialectic distinction: according to the latter, אברהם is the original (Edomite) form, of which אברם is the Hebraïzed equivalent.³ Winckler (Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 26) finds in them two distinct epithets of the moon-god Sin, one describing him as father of the gods (Sin abu ilâni), and the other (‘father of the strife of peoples’) as god of war (Sin ḳarib ilâni). The possibility must also be considered that the difference is due to the fusion in tradition of two originally distinct figures (see Paton, The Early History of Syria and Palestine 41). It is quite a plausible supposition, though the thoroughness of the redaction has effaced the proof of it, that אברם was peculiar to Yahwist and אברהם to Elohist.—Outside of Genesis (with the exception of the citations 1 Chronicles 1²⁷, Nehemiah 9⁷) the form Abraham alone is found in Old Testament.
1. אֵל שֶׂדַּי] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 293 ff., or Kautzsch in Encyclopædia Biblica, iii. 3326 f. (compare Cheyne ib. iv. 4419 f.); on the renderings of the ancient versions, see the synopses of Dillmann (259), Driver (404 f.), and Valeton (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xii. 11¹).—It is unfortunately impossible to ascertain whether שֶׂדַּי was originally an independent noun, or an attribute of אֵל: Nöldeke and Baethgen decide for the latter view. The traditional Jewish etymology resolves the word into שׁ = אֲשֶׁר and דַּי,—‘the all-sufficient’ or ‘self-sufficient’ (Bereshith Rabba § 46: compare Rashi אני הוא שיש די באלהותי לכל בדיה). Though this theory can be traced as far back as the rendering of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (ἱκανός), it is an utterly groundless conjecture that Priestly-Code used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the other hand, it seems rash to conclude (with Nöldeke al.) that the Massoretic punctuation has no better authority than this untenable interpretation, so that we are at liberty to vocalise as we please in accordance with any plausible etymological theory. The old derivation from √ שׁרד = ‘destroy,’ is still the best: it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at least some support in Isaiah 13⁶, Joel 1¹⁵, and is free from difficulty if we accept it as an ancient title appropriated by Priestly-Code without regard to its real significance. The assumption of a by-form שׁרה (Ewald, Tuch, al.) is gratuitous, and would yield a form שֶׂדָּי, not שֶׂדַּי. Other proposed etymologies are: from שֵׁד originally = ‘lord’ (Arabic sayyid), afterwards = ‘demon’ (pointing שֵׁדִי or שֵׁדַי [plural majority]: Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 735 f., xlii. 480 f.); from √ שׁדה (Arabic ṯadā) = ‘be wet’ (‘the raingiver’: The Old Testament in the Jewish Church², 424); from Syrian (‡ Syriac word), ‘hurl’ (Schwally, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, lii. 136: “a dialectic equivalent of יהוה in the sense of lightning-thrower” [שֶׂדָּי]). Vollers (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xvii. 310) argues for an original שֵׁד (√ שׁוד), afterwards, through popular etymology and change of religious meaning, fathered on √ שׁדד. Several Assyriologists connect the word with šadû rabû, ‘great mountain,’ a title of Bêl and other Babylonian deities (Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 109 f.; Zimmern, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 358): a view which would be more plausible if, as Friedrich Delitzsch (Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament 95 f.) has maintained, the Assyrian √ meant ‘lofty’; but this is denied by other authorities (Halevy, Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung, ii. 405 ff.; Jensen Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, i. 251). As to the origin of the name, there is a probability that אֵל שֶׂדַּי was an old (compare Genesis 49²⁵) Canaanite deity, of the same class as ’El ‛Elyôn (see on 14¹⁸), whom the Israelites identified with Yahwe (so Gunkel 235).—4. אֲנִי] is casus pendens (Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 197 (4)), not emphatic anticipation of following suffix (as Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 f).—5. את־שמך] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 121 a, b; but את is omitted in some MSS and in The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch.
6. The promise of kings among Abraham’s descendants is again peculiar to Priestly-Code (35¹¹). The reference is to the Hebrew monarchy: the rulers of Ishmael are only ‘princes’ (נְשֵׁיאִם, verse ²⁰), and those of Edom (36⁴⁰) are styled אַלּוּף—7. to be to thee a God] The essence of the covenant relation is expressed by this frequently recurring formula.¹ It is important for Priestly-Code’s notion of the covenant that the correlative ‘they (ye) shall be to me a people,’ which is always added in other writings (except Ezekiel 34²⁴), is usually omitted by Priestly-Code (except Exodus 6⁷, Leviticus 26¹²). The bĕrîth is conceived as a self-determination of God to be to one particular race all that the word God implies, a reciprocal act of choice on man’s part being no essential feature of the relation.—8. land of thy sojourning] 28⁴ 36⁷ 37¹ 47⁹, Exodus 6⁴ (all Priestly-Code).
6. ממך] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) = מִמֵּעֶיךָ; see on 15⁴.—8. אֲחֻזָּה] a common word in Priestly-Code; elsewhere only Psalms 2⁸, Ezekiel 44²⁸, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸.
9–14. The sign of the Covenant.—To the promises of verses 2–8 there is attached a single command, with regard to which it is difficult to say whether it belongs to the content of the covenant (verse ¹⁰), or is merely an adjunct,—an external mark of the invisible bond which united every Jew to Yahwe (¹¹): see page 297. The theme at all events is the institution of circumcision. The legal style of the section is so pronounced that it reads like a stray leaf from the book of Leviticus (note the address in 2nd person plural from ¹⁰ onwards).—9. And God said] marks a new section (compare ¹⁵), וְאַתָּה being the antithesis to אֲנִי in ⁴.—keep my covenant] שָׁמַר is opposed to הֵפַֽר, ‘break,’ in ¹⁴; hence it cannot mean ‘watch over’ (Valeton), but must be used in the extremely common sense of ‘observe’ or ‘act according to.’ The question would never have been raised but for a disinclination to admit anything of the nature of a stipulation into Priestly-Code’s idea of the covenant.—10. This is my covenant] Circumcision is both the covenant and the sign of the covenant: the writer’s ideas are sufficiently vague and elastic to include both representations. It is therefore unnecessary (with Olshausen and Ball) to read זאת אֹת בריתי (see verse ¹³).—11. for a covenant-sign] i.e., after the analogy of 912 f., a token by which God is reminded of the existence of the covenant. The conception rises out of the extraordinary importance of the rite when the visible fabric of Hebrew nationality was dissolved, and nothing remained but this corporal badge as a mark of the religious standing of the Jew before Yahwe.—12a. at the age of eight days] connected with the period of the mother’s uncleanness: Leviticus 121. 3; compare Genesis 21⁴, Luke 1⁵⁹ 2²¹, Philippians 3⁵; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 214.—12b, 13 go together (Delitzsch), extending the obligation to slaves, who as members of the household follow the religion of their master.—The penalty of disobedience is death or excommunication, according as one or the other is meant by the obscure formula: be cut off from its kindred (v.i.).
10. ובין זרעך אחריך] LXX + εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν. The whole is possibly a gloss (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel), due to confusion between the legislative standpoint of 10 ff. with its plural address, and the special communication to Abraham; see, however, verses 12 f.—המול] infinitive absolute used as jussive; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 cc, gg: compare Exodus 12⁴⁸, Leviticus 6⁷, Numbers 6⁵.—11. וּנְמַלְתֶּם] treated by TargumOnkelos-Jonathan as active, from √ נמל, but really abbreviated Niphal of √ מלל (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 dd), a rare by-form (Joshua 5²) of מוּל.—והיה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch והיתה, adopted by Ball.—12. יליד בית] see 14¹⁴.—מקנת כסף] only verses 13. 23. 27 and Exodus 12⁴⁴.—מזרעך is the individualising use of 2nd person singular, frequently alternating with 2nd plural in legal enactments. So verse ¹³.—14. ערלתו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + ביום השמיני (Ball).—ונכרתה—מעמיה] So Exodus 3033. 38 31¹⁴, Leviticus 720 f. 25. 27 17⁹ 19⁸ 23²⁹, Numbers 9¹³,—all in Priestly-Code, who employs a number of similar phrases—‘his people,’ ‘Israel,’ ‘the congregation of Israel,’ ‘the assembly,’ etc.—to express the same idea (see Driver 187²). עַמִּים is here used in the sense of ‘kin,’ as occasionally in Old Testament (see 19³⁸ 25⁸). It is the Arabic ‛amm, which combines the two senses of ‘people,’ and ‘relative on the father’s side’: see Wellhausen Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1893, 480, and compare Driver on Deuteronomy 32⁵⁰ (page 384); Krenkel, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, viii. 280 ff.; Nestle, ib. xvi. 322 f.; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 480 f. With regard to the sense of the formula there are two questions: (a) whether it embraces the death-penalty, or merely exclusion from the sacra of the clan and from burial in the family grave; and (b) whether the punishment is to be inflicted by the community, or by God in His providence. The interpretation seems to have varied in different ages. Exodus 3113 f. clearly contemplates the death penalty at the hands of the community; while Leviticus 179 f. 203. 6 point as clearly to a divine interposition. The probability is that it is an archaic juridical formula for the punishment of death, which came to be used vaguely “as a strong affirmation of divine disapproval, rather than as prescribing a penalty to be actually enforced” (Driver). See Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 421 f.; Holzinger page 127 f.—הֵפַֽר] pausal form for הֵפֵר (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 q).
15–22. The heir of the Covenant.—The promise of the birth of Isaac is brought into connexion with the main idea of the chapter by the assurance (19. 21) that the covenant is to be established with him and not with Ishmael.—15. Sarai’s name is changed to Sarah. The absence of an etymological motive is remarkable (v.i.).—16b. In LXX, Jubilees, Vulgate and Peshiṭtå, the blessing on Sarah is by slight changes of text turned into a blessing on the son whose birth has just been foretold (v.i.). The Massoretic Text, however, is more likely to be correct.—17. Abraham’s demeanour is a strange mixture of reverence and incredulity: “partim gaudio exultans, partim admiratione extra se raptus, in risum prorumpit” is Calvin’s comment. It is Priestly-Code’s somewhat unnatural clothing of the traditional etymology of Isaac (יִצְחָק, verse ¹⁹); compare 18¹² (Yahwist), 21⁶ (Elohist).—18. The prayer, O that Ishmael might live before thee!—under Thy protection and with Thy blessing (Hosea 6²)—is a fine touch of nature; but the writer’s interest lies rather in the ‘determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,’ which overrides human feeling and irrevocably decrees the election of Israel (¹⁹).—19a. Compare the language with 16¹¹, and observe that the naming of the child is assigned to the father.—20. שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ] a remote allusion to the popular explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל, ‘May God hear’ (compare 16¹¹ 21¹⁷). Ishmael is to be endowed for Abraham’s sake with every kind of blessing, except the religious privileges of the covenant.—twelve princes] (compare 25¹⁶) as contrasted with the ‘kings’ of 6. 16.—22. The close of the theophany.—וַיַּעַל—מֵעַל as 35¹³.
15. שָׂרַי (LXX Σάρα) and שָׂרָה (LXX Σάῤῥα)] According to Nöldeke (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 183, xlii. 484), ־ַי is ♦an old feminine terminator surviving in Syrian, Arabian and Ethiopian. On this view שָׂרַי may be either the same word as שָׂרָה, ‘princess’ (√ שרר), or (as the differentiation of LXX suggests) from √ שרה, ‘strive,’ with which the name Israel was connected (Genesis 32²⁹, Hosea 12⁴: see William Robertson Smith Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 34 f. [Nöldeke dissents]). On Lagarde’s (Mittheilungen ii. 185) attempt to connect the name with Arabic šaraʸ = ‘wild fertile spot,’ and so to identify Abraham (as ‘husband of Sarai’) with the Nabatean god Dusares (ḏū-ššaraʸ), see Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 269 f., who thinks the conjecture raised beyond doubt by the discovery of the name Šarayat as consort of Dusares on an inscription at Boṣra in the Ḥaurân. The identification remains highly problematical.—16. וברכתיה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch וברכתיו. So LXX, Jubilees, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, which consistently maintain the masculine to the end of the verse.—17. ואם—הֲ׳] a combination of the disjunctive question with casus pendens; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 150 g.
19. אבל] ‘Nay, but,’—a rare asseverative (42²¹, 2 Samuel 14⁵, 2 Kings 4¹⁴, 1 Kings 1⁴³) and adversative (Daniel 107. 21, Ezra 10¹³, 2 Chronicles 1⁴ 19³ 33¹⁷) particle. See the interesting note in Burney, Notes on Kings, page 11; and compare König, ii. 265.—לזרעו אחריו] LXX καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ’ αὐτὸν appears to imply a preceding clause εἶναι αὐτῷ θεός, which is found in many cursives. This is probably the correct reading.—20. נשיאם] LXX ἔθνη.
23–27. Circumcision of Abraham’s household.—23. on that very day (compare 7¹³)] repeated in verse ²⁶. Throughout the section, Priestly-Code excels himself in pedantic and redundant circumstantiality of narration. The circumcision of Ishmael, however, is inconsistent with the theory that the rite is a sign of the covenant, from which Ishmael is excluded (Holzinger, Gunkel).—25. thirteen years old] This was the age of circumcision among the ancient Arabs, according to Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews i. 214. Origen (Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica vi. 11:¹ compare Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums² 175³); and Ambrose (de Abraham ii. 348) give a similar age (14 years) for the Egyptians. It is possible that the notice here is based on a knowledge of this custom. Among the modern Arabs there is no fixed rule, the age varying from three to fifteen years: see Dillmann 264; Driver in A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 504ᵇ.
Circumcision is a widely diffused rite of primitive religion, of whose introduction among the Hebrews there is no authentic tradition. One account (Exodus 424 f.) suggests a Midianite origin, another (Joshua 52 ff.) an Egyptian: the mention of flint knives in both these passages is a proof of the extreme antiquity of the custom (the Stone Age).¹ The anthropological evidence shows that it was originally performed at puberty, as a preliminary to marriage, or, more generally, as a ceremony of initiation into the full religious and civil status of manhood. This primary idea was dissipated when it came to be performed in infancy; and its perpetuation in this form can only be explained by the inherited belief that it was an indispensable condition of participation in the common cultus of the clan or nation. ♦Passages like Deuteronomy 10¹⁶ 30⁶, Ezekiel 447. 9, show that in Israel it came to be regarded as a token of allegiance to Yahwe; and in this fact we have the germ of the remarkable development which the rite underwent in post-Exilic Judaism. The new importance it then acquired was due to the experience of the Exile (partly continued in the Dispersion), when the suspension of public worship gave fresh emphasis to those rites which (like the Sabbath and circumcision) could be observed by the individual, and served to distinguish him from his heathen neighbours. In this way we can understand how, while the earlier legal codes have no law of circumcision, in Priestly-Code it becomes a prescription of the first magnitude, being placed above the Mosaic ritual, and second in dignity only to the Sabbath. The explicit formulating of the idea that circumcision is the sign of the national covenant with Yahwe was the work of the Priestly school of jurists; and very few legislative acts have exercised so tremendous an influence on the genius of a religion, or the character of a race, as this apparently trivial adjustment of a detail of ritual observance. For information on various aspects of the subject, see Ploss, Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Völker² (1894), i. 342–372; Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums² 174 f., Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels⁶ 338 ff.; Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vi. 132–143; the articles in A Dictionary of the Bible (Macalister) and Encyclopædia Biblica (Benzinger); and the notes in Dillmann 258; Holzinger 129; Gunkel 237; Driver 189 ff.; Strack², 67; Matthes, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxix. 70 ff.
The Covenant-idea in Priestly-Code (see also page 290 f. above). In Priestly-Code’s scheme of four world-ages, the word בְּרִית is used only of the revelations associated with Noah and Abraham. In the Creation-narrative the term is avoided because the constitution of nature then appointed was afterwards annulled, whereas the Bĕrîth is a permanent and irreversible determination of the divine will. The conception of the Mosaic revelation as a covenant is Jehovistic (Exodus 243–8 3410 ff. etc.) and Deuteronomic (Deuteronomy 410 ff. 52 ff. 99 ff. etc.); and there are traces of it in secondary strata of Priestly-Code (Leviticus 26⁴⁵ [Priestly-Codeʰ], Exodus 3116 f.¹ [Priestly-Codeˢ]); but it is not found in the historical work which is the kernel of the Code (Priestly-CodeKernel). Hence in trying to understand the religious significance of the Bĕrîth in Priestly-CodeKernel, we have but two examples to guide us. And with regard to both, the question is keenly discussed whether it denotes a self-imposed obligation on the part of God, irrespective of any condition on the part of man (so Valeton, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xii. 1 ff.), or a bilateral engagement involving reciprocal obligations between God and men (so in the main Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament 183 ff.). The answer depends on the view taken of circumcision in this chapter. According to Valeton, it is merely a sign and nothing more; i.e., a means whereby God is reminded of the covenant. According to Kraetzschmar, it is both a sign and a constituent of the covenant, forming the condition on which the covenant is entered into. The truth seems to lie somewhere between two extremes. The Bĕrîth is neither a simple divine promise to which no obligation on man’s part is attached (as in 15¹⁸), nor is it a mutual contract in the sense that the failure of one party dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determination of God’s purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate; but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude the individual from its benefits. It is perhaps an over-refinement when Kraetzschmar (l.c. 201) infers from the expressions הֵקִים and נָתַן that for Priestly-Code there is only one eternal divine Bĕrîth, immutably established by God and progressively revealed to man.
24. שנה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch שנים.—בהמלו] The Niphal is here either reflexive or passive; in ²⁵ it is passive.—26. נמול] irregular perfect Niphal; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 ee. Peshiṭtå takes it as active. (√ נמל?) with Ishmael as object; and so LXX in verse ²⁷ (περιέτεμεν αὐτούς).
Under the terebinths of Mamre, Abraham hospitably entertains three mysterious visitors (1–8), and is rewarded by the promise of a son to be born to Sarah in her old age (9–15). The three ‘men,’ whose true nature had been disclosed by their supernatural knowledge of Sarah’s thoughts, then turn towards Sodom, accompanied by Abraham (¹⁶), who, on learning Yahwe’s purpose to destroy that city (17–21), intercedes eloquently on its behalf (22–33).
The first half of the chapter (1–16) shows at its best the picturesque, lucid, and flexible narrative style of Yahwist, and contains many expressions characteristic of that document: יהוה, 1. 13. 14; רוּץ לִקְרַאת, ² (only in Yahwist 24¹⁷ 29¹³ 33⁴); מָצָא חַן, ³; נָא, 3. 4; עַבְדְּךָ (for 1st person), 3. 5; כִּי־עַל־כֵּן, ⁵; לָמָּה זֶּה, ¹³; השקיף, ¹⁶. The latter part (17–33) is also Yahwistic (יהוה, 20. 22. 26. 33; [הִנֵּה]־נָא, 27. 30 ff.; חָלִלָה, ²⁵; הַפַּעַם, ³²), but contains two expansions of later date than the primary narrative. Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 27 f.) appears to have proved that the original connexion between 18¹⁵ and 19¹ consists of 16. 20–22a. 33b; and that 17–19. 22b–33a are editorial insertions reflecting theological ideas proper to a more advanced stage of thought (see below). A more comprehensive analysis is attempted by Kraetzschmar in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvii. 81 ff., prompted by the perplexing alternation of the singular ([יהוה] 1. 3. 10. 13. 14. 15. 17–21. 22b–33) and plural (2. 4. 5. 8. 9. 16. 22a)¹ in the dialogue between Abraham and his guests. The theory will repay a closer examination than can be given to it here; but I agree with Gunkel in thinking that the texture of 1–16 is too homogeneous to admit of decomposition, and that some other explanation of the phenomenon in question must be sought than the assumption of an interweaving of a singular and a plural recension of the legend (see on verse ¹ and page 303 below).² With Gunkel also, we may regard the chapter as the immediate sequel to 13¹⁸ in the legendary cycle which fixes the residence of Abraham at Hebron (YahwistHebron). The conception of Abraham’s character is closely akin to what we meet throughout that section of Yahwist, and differs appreciably from the representation of him in 1210–20 and 16.
1–8. The entertainment of the three wayfarers.—The description “presents a perfect picture of the manner in which a modern Bedawee sheikh receives travellers arriving at his encampment. He immediately orders his wife or women to make bread, slaughters a sheep or other animal, and dresses it in haste; and, bringing milk and any other provisions that he may have at hand, with the bread and the meat that he has dressed, sets them before his guests: if they are persons of high rank he also stands by them while they eat” (Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians⁵ i. 364: from Driver).—1. Yahwe appeared, etc.] This introductory clause simply means that the incident about to be related has the value of a theophany. In what way the narrator conceived that Yahwe was present in the three men—whether He was one of the three, or whether all three were Yahwe in self-manifestation (Delitzsch)—we can hardly tell. The common view that the visitors were Yahwe accompanied by two of His angels does not meet the difficulties of the exegesis; and it is more probable that to the original Yahwist the ‘men’ were emissaries and representatives of Yahwe, who was not visibly present (see page 304 f.).—כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם] at the hottest (and drowsiest) time of the day (2 Samuel 4⁵).—2. and behold] The mysteriously sudden advent of the strangers marks them as superhuman beings (Joshua 5¹³), though this makes no impression on Abraham at the time. The interest of the story turns largely on his ignorance of the real character of his guests.—3. The Massoretic pointing אֲדֹנָי implies that Abraham recognised Yahwe as one of the three (Tuch, Delitzsch, al.); but this we have just seen to be a mistake. The correct form is either אֲדֹנִי (as 236. 11, etc.: so Dillmann, Driver), or (better, as 19²) אֲדֹנַי: Sirs!—restoring (with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch) the plural throughout the verse.—The whole of Abraham’s speech is a fine example of the profuse, deferential, self-depreciatory courtesy characteristic of Eastern manners.—4. wash your feet] Compare 19² 24³² 43²⁴, Judges 19²¹, 2 Samuel 11⁸, Luke 7⁴⁴, 1 Timothy 5¹⁰.—recline yourselves] not at meat (Gunkel), but during the preparation of the meal. Even in the time of Amos (6⁴) reclining at table seems to have been a new-fangled and luxurious habit introduced from abroad: contrast the ancient custom 27¹⁹, Judges 19⁶, 1 Samuel 205. 24, 1 Kings 13²⁰.—5. support your heart] with the food, Judges 195. 8, 1 Kings 13⁷, Psalms 104¹⁵; compare bread the ‘staff’ of life, Leviticus 26²⁶, Isaiah 3¹.—seeing that, etc.] Hospitality is, so to speak, the logical corollary of passing Abraham’s tent.—6–8. The preparation of a genuine Bedouin repast, consisting of hastily baked cakes of bread, flesh, and milk in two forms. On the items, v.i.—8. and they ate] So 19³—the only cases in Old Testament where the Deity is represented as eating (contrast Judges 620 f. 13¹⁶). The anthropomorphism is evaded by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews i. 197: οἱ δὲ δόξαν αὐτῷ παρέσχον ἐσθιόντων; compare Tobit 12¹⁹), TargumJonathan, Rashi, al.
1. יהוה] LXX ὁ θεός.—In אליו the suffix may refer back directly to 13¹⁸ (see on the verse).—באלני ממרא] LXX πρὸς τῇ δρυῒ τῇ Μαμβρῇ; see on 13¹⁸.—3. Read with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch בעיניכם, תעברו, עבדכם.—5. אחר תעברו (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, TargumOnkelos-Jonathan) is the better reading, to which LXX adds εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῶν (compare 19²).—כי־על־כן is not to be resolved into כִּי and עַל־כֵּן, denn eben desshalb (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴, 308 a; Delitzsch, al.); but is a compound conjunction = quandoquidem, ‘inasmuch as’ (Tuch, Dillmann, Driver), as usage clearly shows; compare 19⁸ 33¹⁰ 38²⁶ Numbers 10³¹ 14⁴³ (all Yahwist), Judges 6²², 2 Samuel 18²⁰, Jeremiah 29²⁸ 38⁴†; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 158 b³; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 475 b.—עברתם על LXX ἐξεκλίνατε πρός = סַרְתֶּם אֶל (192 f.), which is too rashly accepted by Ball.—וַיֹּאמְרוּ] LXX has the singular wrongly.—6. Three seahs would be (according to Kennedy’s computation, A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 912) approximately equal to 4½ pecks.—קמח סלת] LXX σεμιδάλεως, [Vulgate similæ] which might stand either for קמח (1 Samuel 1²⁴) or סלת (as in every other instance). The latter (the finer variety) is here probably a gloss on קמח.—עגות] (LXX ἐγκρυφίας, Vulgate subcinericios panes) are thin round cakes baked on hot stones or in the ashes (Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 64).—8. חמאה is the Arabic laban, milk slightly soured by fermentation, which is greatly esteemed by the nomads of Syria and Arabia as a refreshing and nourishing beverage (see Encyclopædia Biblica, iii. 3089 f.).
9–15. The promise of a son to Sarah.—The subject is introduced with consummate skill. In the course of the conversation which naturally follows the meal, an apparently casual question leads to an announcement which shows superhuman knowledge of the great blank in Abraham’s life, and conveys a first intimation of the real nature of the visitors. See Gunkel’s fine exposition, 172 f.; and contrast the far less delicate handling of an identical situation in 2 Kings 413–16.—9. The question shows that Sarah had not been introduced to the strangers, in accordance probably with Hebrew custom (Gunkel).—10. I will return] The definite transition to the singular takes place here (see on verse ³). In the original legend the plural was no doubt kept up to the end; but the monotheistic habit of thought was too strong for Hebrew writers, when they came to words which could be properly ascribed only to Yahwe.—On כָּעֵת חַיָּה, v.i.—Sarah was listening] with true feminine curiosity; compare 27⁵. The last two words should probably be rendered: she being behind it (the tent or the door); compare the footnote.—11. A circumstantial sentence explaining Sarah’s incredulity (verse ¹²).—after the manner of women (compare 31³⁵)] “quo genere loquendi verecunde menses notat qui mulieribus fluunt” (Calvin); LXX τὰ γυναίκια; Vulgate muliebria.—12. Sarah laughed (וַתִּצְחַק) within herself] obviously a proleptic explanation of the name יִצְחָק (see on 17¹⁷), although the sequel in this document has not been preserved.—waxed old] literally ‘worn away,’ a strong word used, e.g., of worn out garments (Deuteronomy 8⁴ 29⁴ etc.).—עֶדְנָה (only here), ‘sensuous enjoyment’ (Liebeswonne).—13. This leads to a still more remarkable proof of divine insight: the speaker knows that Sarah has laughed, though he has neither seen nor heard her (בְּקִרְבָּהּ, verse ¹²). The insertion of Yahwe here was probably caused by the occurrence of the name in the next verse.—14. Is anything too strange for Yahwe?] As the narrative stands, the sentence does not imply identity between the speaker and Yahwe, but rather a distinction analogous to that frequently drawn between Yahwe and the angel of Yahwe (see on 16⁷).—15. Sarah denied it] startled by the unexpected exposure of her secret thoughts into fear of the mysterious guests.
From the religious-historical point of view, the passage just considered, with its sequel in chapter 19, is one of the most obscure in Genesis. According to Gunkel (174 ff.), whose genial exposition has thrown a flood of light on the deeper aspects of the problem, the narrative is based on a widely diffused Oriental myth, which had been localised in Hebron in the pre-Yahwistic period, and was afterwards incorporated in the Abrahamic tradition. On this view, the three strangers were originally three deities, disguised as men, engaged in the function described in the lines of Homer (Odyssey xvii. 485 ff.):
Καί τε θεοὶ ξείνοισιν ἐοικότες ἀλλοδαποῖσιν,
παντοῖοι τελέθοντες, ἐπιστρωφῶσι πόληας,
ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίην ἐφορῶντες.¹
Dr. Rendel Harris goes a step further, and identifies the gods with the Dioscuri or Kabiri, finding in the prominence given to hospitality, and the renewal of sexual functions, characteristic features of a Dioscuric visitation (Cult of the Heavenly Twins, 37 ff.). Of the numerous parallels that are adduced, by far the most striking is the account of the birth of Orion in Ovid, Fasti, v. 495 ff.: Hyrieus, an aged peasant of Tanagra, is visited by Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes, and shows hospitality to them; after the repast the gods invite him to name a wish; and he, being widowed and childless, asks for a son. ‘Pudor est ulteriora loqui’; but at the end of ten months Orion is miraculously born. The resemblance to Genesis 18 is manifest; and since direct borrowing of the Bœotian legend from Jewish sources is improbable, there is a presumption that we have to do with variations of the same tale. The theory is rendered all the more plausible by the fact that a precisely similar origin is suggested by the leading motives of chapter 19 (see below).—Assuming that some such pagan original is the basis of the narrative before us, we find a clue to that confusion between the singular and plural which has been already referred to as a perplexing feature of the chapter. It is most natural to suppose that the threefold manifestation is a remnant of the original polytheism, the heathen deities being reduced to the rank of Yahwe’s envoys. The introduction of Yahwe Himself as one of them would thus be a later modification, due to progressive Hebraïzing of the conception, but never consistently carried through. An opposite view is taken by Fripp (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xii. 23 ff.), who restores the singular throughout, and by Kraetzschmar, who, as we have seen, distinguishes between a singular and a plural recension, but regards the former as the older. The substitution of angels for Yahwe might seem a later refinement on the anthropomorphic representation of a bodily appearance of Yahwe; but the resolution of the one Yahwe into three angels would be unaccountable, especially in Yahwist, who appears never to speak of angels in the plural (see on 19¹). See Gunkel 171, and Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, iv. 4667 f.
9. ויאמרו] LXX ויאמר (wrongly).—אֹליֹוֹ] The superlinear points (compare 16⁵) are thought to indicate a reading לו.—10. כָּעֵת חַיָּה] This peculiar phrase (recurring only verse ¹⁴, 2 Kings 416 f.) is now almost invariably rendered ‘at the (this) time, when it revives,’ i.e., next year, or spring (so Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra; compare Gesenius Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti 470; Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴, 202 a; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 312 a; Ewald Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes § 337 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 u; König Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache § 387 e); but the sense is extremely forced. It is surprising that no one seems to suspect a reference to the period of pregnancy. In New Hebrew חַיָּה means a woman in child-birth (so perhaps חָיָה in Exodus 1¹⁹ [Holzinger ad v.]); and here we might point כְּעֵת חַיָּה or כּ׳ חָיָה, rendering ‘according to the time of a pregnant woman,’ or 9 months hence. לַמּועֵד in verse ¹⁴ is no obstacle, for מוֹעֵד is simply the time determined by the previous promise, and there is no need to add הַזֶּה (LXX after 17²¹). 2 Kings 4¹⁶ (לַמּ׳ הַזֶּה) does present a difficulty; but that late passage is modelled on this, and the original phrase may have been already misunderstood, as it is by all versions: e.g. LXX κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας; TargumOnkelos ‘at a time when you are living’; Peshiṭtå ‘at this time, she being alive’; Vulgate tempore isto, vita comite. Ball also points as construct, but thinks חַיָּה an old name for spring.—והנה] LXX, Peshiṭtå read וְהָיָה.—והוא אחריו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch והיא א׳; so LXX οὖσα ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ. Massoretic Text is perhaps a neglect of the Qĕrê perpet (וְהִוא).—11. באים בימים] compare 24¹, Joshua 13¹ 231. 2, 1 Kings 1¹.—ארח כנשים] Ball, Kittel more smoothly, כְּאֹרַח נָשִׁים.—12. אַֽחֲרֵי—עֶדְנָה] LXX Οὔπω μέν μοι γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ νῦν presupposes an impossible text בִּלְתִּי הָֽיְתָה לִי עֲדָנָה. The change is perhaps alluded to in Mechilta on Exodus 12⁴⁰ (see page 14 above; Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums 439, 442).—אַֽחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי] Aquila μετὰ τὸ κατατριβῆναί με; Symmachus (less accurately) μετὰ τὸ παλαιωθῆναί με.—14. היפלא מן] Jeremiah 3217. 27, Deuteronomy 17⁸ 30¹¹.
16–22a. The judgement of Sodom revealed.
The soliloquy of Yahwe in 17–19 breaks the connexion between ¹⁶ and ²⁰, and is to all appearance a later addition (see page 298). (a) The insertion assumes that Yahwe is one of the three strangers; but this is hardly the intention of the main narrative, which continues to speak of ‘the men’ in the plural (22a). (b) In ¹⁷ Yahwe has resolved on the destruction of Sodom, whereas in 20 f. He proposes to abide by the result of a personal investigation. (c) Both thought and language in 17–19 show signs of Deuteronomic influence (see Holzinger and Gunkel). Dillmann’s assertion (265), that 20 f. have no motive apart from 17–19 and 23 ff., is incomprehensible; the difficulty rather is to assign a reason for the addition of 17 ff.. The idea seems to be that Abraham (as a prophet: compare Amos 3⁷) must be initiated into the divine purpose, that he may instruct his descendants in the ways of Yahwe.
16. and looked out in view of Sodom (compare 19²⁸)] The Dead Sea not being visible from Hebron, we must understand that a part of the journey has been accomplished. Tradition fixed the spot at a village over 3 miles East of Hebron, called by Jerome Caphar Barucha, now known as Beni Na‛im, but formerly Kefr Barîk, from which the Sea is seen through gaps in the mountains (see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 490 f.; Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 158 f.).—17. But Yahwe had said] sc. ‘to Himself’; the construction marking the introduction of a circumstance.—18. Seeing Abraham, etc.] Yahwe reflects, as it were, on the religious importance of the individual beside Him.—and all nations, etc.] See the notes on 12³. בּוֹ possibly refers not to Abraham but to גּוֹי; compare 22¹⁸ (Wellhausen).—19. Compare Deuteronomy 61–3.—For I have known (i.e. ‘entered into personal relations with’: as Amos 3², Hosea 13⁵) him in order that, etc.] There is a certain incongruity between the two parts of the verse: here the establishment of the true religion is the purpose of Abraham’s election; in 19b the end of the religion is the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham.—20. Resuming verse ¹⁶. An earlier form of the story no doubt read וַיֹּאמְרוּ instead of וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה].—On the peculiar construction, v.i.—21. Restoring the plural as before, the verse reads as a disjunctive question: We will go down that we may see whether ... or not: we would know.
16. סְדֹם] LXX + καὶ Γομόρρας.—17. After אַבְרָהָם LXX, Peshiṭtå read עַבְדִּי.—19. ידעתיו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate omit the suffix, while LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå treat what follows as an object clause (quod, etc.), through a misunderstanding of the sense of ידע.—20. זעקת] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch צעקת as verse ²¹.—כִּי (bis)] TargumOnkelos ארי. The particle is ignored by LXX, Vulgate; also by Peshiṭtå, which supplies (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) and omits כִּי רַבָּה. If the text be retained the כִּי is either corroborative (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 148 d, 159 ee), or causal (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 473 b); but neither construction is natural. Moreover, the parallelism of clauses is itself objectionable; for whether the ‘sin’ actually corresponds to the ‘cry’ is the very point to be investigated (verse ²¹). This material difficulty is not removed by the addition of שָׁמַעְתִּי (Olshausen) or בָּאָה אֵלַי (Kittel). Its removal is the sole recommendation of Wellhausen’s proposal to omit וְ before חַטָּאתָם and render, ‘There is a rumour about Sodom and Gomorrah that their sin is great, that it is very grievous.’—21. Read with LXX, TargumOnkelos הַכְּצַֽעֲקָתָם.—On הַבָּֽאָה for הַבָּאָֽה, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 k.—כָּלָה is difficult: compare Exodus 11¹, another doubtful passive. Wellhausen here suggests כֻּלָּהּ, Olshausen כֻּלָּם.
22b–33. Abraham’s intercession.
The secondary character of 22b–33a (see page 298) appears from the following considerations: (a) In 22a ‘the men’ (i.e. all three) have moved away to Sodom; in 22b Yahwe remains behind with Abraham. That Yahwe was one of the three is certainly the view of the later editors (see on 19¹); but if that had been the original conception, it must have been clearly expressed at this point. (b) In 20 f. we have seen that the fate of Sodom still hangs in the balance, while in 23 ff. its destruction is assumed as already decreed. (c) The whole tenor of the passage stamps it as the product of a more reflective age than that in which the ancient legends originated. It is inconceivable that the early Yahwist should have entirely overlooked the case of Lot, and substituted a discussion of abstract principles of the divine government. Gunkel points out that the most obvious solution of the actual problem raised by the presence of Lot in Sodom would have been a promise of deliverance for the few godly people in the city; that consequently the line of thought pursued does not arise naturally from the story itself, but must have been suggested by the theological tendencies of the age in which the section was composed. The precise point of view here represented appears most clearly in such passages as Jeremiah 15¹, Ezekiel 1414 ff.; and in general it was not till near the Exile that the allied problems of individual responsibility and vicarious righteousness began to press heavily on the religious conscience in Israel.
22b contains one of the 18 תִּקֻּנֵי סֹפְרִים (corrections of the scribes). The original reading ויהוה עדנו עמד לפני אב׳ is said to have been changed out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg, Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible 352 f.). The worth of the tradition is disputed, the present text being supported by all versions as well as by 19²⁷; and the sense certainly does not demand the suggested restoration (Tuch, Dillmann, against Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel, al.).
23. Wilt thou even sweep away, etc.] The question strikes the keynote of the section,—a protest against the thought of an indiscriminate judgement (compare Job 9²²).—24. Suppose there should be fifty, etc.] A small number in a city, but yet sufficient to produce misgiving if they should perish unjustly.—and not forgive the place] In Old Testament, righteousness and clemency are closely allied: there is more injustice in the death of a few innocent persons than in the sparing of a guilty multitude. The problem is, to what limits is the application of this principle subject?—25. Shall not the Judge, etc.] Unrighteousness in the Supreme Ruler of the world would make piety impossible: compare Romans 3⁶.—27. I have ventured] compare Jeremiah 12¹. הוֹאִיל expresses the overcoming of a certain inward reluctance (Joshua 7⁷).—dust and ashes] an alliterative combination (Job 30¹⁹ 42⁶, Sirach 40³). As a description of human nature, the phrase recurs only Sirach 10⁹ 17³².—28. בַּחֲמִשָּׁה] literally ‘on account of the 5’; a somewhat paradoxical form of expression.—30–32. Emboldened by success, Abraham now ventures on a reduction by 10 instead of 5 (Delitzsch); this is continued till the limit of human charity is reached, and Abraham ceases to plead.—33. went] not to Sodom, but simply ‘departed.’—33b would be equally appropriate after 33a or 22a.
23, 24. האף] TargumOnkelos הבירגז, mistaking for אַף = ‘anger’: so Peshiṭtå, TargumJonathan.—23 end] LXX + καὶ ἔσται ὁ δίκαιος ὡς ὁ ἀσεβής (25a).—24. תשא] sc. עָוֹן = ‘forgive’: Numbers 14¹⁹, Isaiah 2⁹, Hosea 1⁶ etc.—25. חָלִלָה] literally ‘profanum (sit),’ construed with מִן, as 447. 17, often. The full formula is ח׳ ל׳ מיהוה (1 Samuel 24⁷ 26¹¹ etc.).—לא יעשה משפט] Vulgate (nequaquam facies judicium hoc) and Peshiṭtå (which takes השׁפט as vocative) mistake the sense.—28. יחסרון] The regular use of the ending וּן (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 m) from this point onwards is remarkable (Dillmann). The form, though etymologically archaic, is by no means a mark of antiquity in Old Testament, and is peculiarly frequent in Deuteronomic style (Driver on Deuteronomy 1¹⁷).—32. הפעם] see on 2²³.