Genesis 15:10

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 (διχοτομησει) 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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15:10 Obeying God’s instructions, Abram gathered three herd animals for the ceremony and cut them in half. Cutting the animals symbolized the oath, indicating that the covenant maker staked his own life on his word (Jer 34:18).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

This was the old custom in making covenants, Jer. 34:18, to the which God added these conditions, that Abram’s posterity should be as torn in pieces, but after they should be coupled together: also that it should be assaulted, but yet delivered.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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 μεσουσ διατεμειν, 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 μεσον διατεμειν, 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.

Μηρους τ' εξεταμον κατα τε κνισοῃ εκαλυψαν,

Διπτυχα ποιησαντες, επ' αυτων δ' ωμοθετησαν.

"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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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, (Jeremiah 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

And when the fowls came down upon the carcasses,.... Upon the birds, as Aben Ezra and Ben Melech interpret it, whose carcasses were whole; or rather upon the divided carcasses of the animals, and indeed on both: this is to be understood of birds of prey, as eagles, vultures, kites, crows, &c. and are an emblem of the Egyptians chiefly, and other enemies of Israel, who came upon them to devour them; so the Targum of Jonathan,"and the idolatrous nations descended, who were like to an unclean fowl, to spoil the goods of the Israelites;''and likewise the Targum of Jerusalem,"this unclean fowl are the idolatrous kingdoms of the earth:"

Abram drove them away: that they might not settle upon the carcasses, and devour them: the Septuagint version is, "Abram sat with them"; he sat by the carcasses and watched them, that no hurt came to them, and to take notice of them, and consider and learn what they were an emblem of. The Jews (l) also observe, that"Abram sat and waved over them with his napkin or handkerchief, that the birds might not have power over them until the evening.''This may respect not the merit of Abram, as the above Targums, by which his posterity were protected, and the designs of their enemies frustrated; but the effectual fervent prayer of Abram, his prayer of faith for them, in answer to which they were delivered out of the hands of the Egyptians, and other enemies, whom Abram foresaw they would be distressed with.

(l) Pirke Eliezer, ut supra. (c. 28)

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 כרת ברית, 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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he took unto him all these, and divided (a word occurring only here in Genesis, and supposed by Michaelis to have been taken by Moses from the ancient document from which he transcribed this portion of his work. The word is afterwards found in Son_2:17, and (Jer_34:18) them in the midst, mesa (LXX); in equal parts (Onkelos)and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. So afterwards in the Mosaic legislation. (Lev_1:7) Wordsworth detects in the non-dividing of the birds an emblem of "the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of peace and love; which is a Spirit of unity, and of "Christ"s human spirit, which was not divisible." Kalisch, with more probability, recognizes as the reason of their not being divided the fact that such division was not required, both fowls being regarded as one part of the sacrifice only, and each, as the half, being placed opposite the other. Wordsworth numbers seven parts in the sacrifice, and sees a symbol of completeness and finality, the number seven being the root of shaba, to swear (Gesenius, p. 802); Kalisch reckons four, which he regards as "denoting perfection, but rather the external perfection of form than the internal one of the mind," and pointing "to the perfect possession of the Holy Land." The ritual here described is the same which was afterwards observed among the Hebrews in the formation of covenants, (cf. Gen_34:18) and appears to have extensively prevailed among heathen nations (cf. "Iliad," b. 124, "orkia pistantev;" and the Latin phrase, foedus icere").

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ויבתר אתם AND HE SPLIT THEM — He divided each into two portions. This verse does not lose its literal meaning although there are various Midrashic explanations of it. Since He was making a covenant with him to keep His promise to give the land as an inheritance to his children — as it is written (Genesis 15:18), “In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying …” — and as it was the custom for parties to a covenant to divide an animal and to pass between its parts, as it is said elsewhere (Jeremiah 34:19) “who passed between the parts of the calf”, so also here the smoking furnace and the flaming torch which passed between the pieces (Genesis 15:17) were representative of the Divine Shechinah which is spoken of as fire.

ואת הצפור לא בתר BUT THE BIRDS SPLIT HE NOT — Because other nations are compared to bulls, rams and goats, as it is said (Psalms 22:13) “Many bulls have encompassed me”, and it says, (Daniel 8:20) “The ram which thou sawest having two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia” and it further says, (Daniel 8:21) “And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece” — and Israel is compared to young doves, as it is written, (Song 2:14) ‘‘O my dove that art in the clefts of the rock” — he therefore divided the animals indicating that other nations will gradually perish, ואת הצפור לא בתר but “the birds split he not”, suggesting thereby that Israel will live forever (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 28).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND HE DIVIDED THEM IN THE MIDST. This he did in order that He make the covenant with him, to pass between these parts.He thereby alluded to Abraham that all sacrifices of cattle and fowl will be from these species since the gozeil (young pigeon) mentioned here is identical with the ben yonah (young pigeon) mentioned in the Book of Leviticus. Here it is called gozeil to indicate that only the young of this specie are fit for sacrifices. Now even though all young fowl are called gozlim — as it is said, As an eagle that stirreth up her nest, hovereth over ‘gozalav’ (his young ones) — Abraham understood on his own that the command of the Eternal applied to the kind which was to be selected [by the Torah, namely, young pigeons]. It may be that Abraham followed his own will in offering a young pigeon, and Scripture selected forever the specie which the patriarch had offered.Thus did Abraham know that the sacrifices would be of these species and that all of them would be divided into parts: the Whole-offering into its pieces, the Peace-offering into the breast, shoulder and fats, 7:30-32 and the Sin-offering and the Guilt-offering into their fats., 4:31; 7:2-5.

BUT THE BIRD HE DID NOT SPLIT. He placed the turtle-dove and the young pigeon opposite each other for they too were in the covenant, but Abraham did not split them in the middle since concerning all fowl offered on the altar it says, He shall not separate it., 1:17. In Bereshith Rabbah the Sages said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, indicated to him that in a bird Whole-offering, the ministering-priest severs both the gullet and the windpipe, but in a bird Sin-offering he does not sever” [the head from the body, as he must cut one and not both of the organs]. [hatzipor — singular] he did not split? This is to indicate that of the two kinds of sacrifices to be brought from fowl, namely, the Sin-offering and the Whole-offering, only one would be subject to the injunction not to separate it, and Scripture later specifies that this is the bird Sin-offering. (Leviticus 5:8.)

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ויבתר אותם בתוך, both what he cut in half and what he did not cut was at the command of G’d, even though the Torah did not mention this specifically, The reason for cutting something in half was to show that G’d was making a covenant with Avram, as we already explained on verse 9. G’d hinted to Avram, by means of these carcasses being cut in half, that all the nations exiling the Jewish people, would suffer a fate as that suffered by these sacrificial animals. They would successively fight wars, the younger one against the older one, one wiping out the other eventually. All those nations represented different cultures, both in their secular outlook as well as in their religious orientation. All of this would be caused due their competitive spirit, each nation trying to achieve dominance over the others. Such behaviour is not typical of the Jewish people, although, for a brief period in our history, the tribe of Ephrayim competed violently with the tribe of Yehudah for pre-eminence among the 12 tribes of the Jewish people. Even during such periods, these tribes would not remain divided culturally or religiously. (compare Isaiah 11,13) אפרים לא יקנא את יהודה ויהודה לא יצר את אפרים, “Ephrayim will not be jealous of Yehudah, nor will Yehudah oppress Ephrayim.” To signify this difference between competition among the gentile nations, and tribal warfare in Israel, G’d told Avram not to cut the bird in half, seeing that it represented the nation that would emerge with Avram as their founding father. Therefore, the Torah reported ואת הצפור לא בתר, that Avram did not cut the bird in half. The word הצפור includes both the pigeon and the turtle dove, תור וגוזל, seeing that the Jewish people are scattered in the four directions of the globe and have yet remained a single people, clinging to their Torah and their faith in spite of being scattered all over the world. The people of Israel did not trade their religion for another in spite of the heavy burden involved in enduring exile.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.