Genesis 15:10

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;

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. Divided them in the midst - i:e., into halves.

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, , 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, , 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, ,17.

Genesis 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 and Gentiles, as it is to be seen in Virgil, 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. 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. Aeneid., lib. viii.

(9, 10) Take me an heifer . . . —This form of making a covenant was probably that usual in Babylonia, and thus Abram received the assurance of his inheritance by means of a ceremonial with which he was familiar. But in most ancient languages men are said to cut or strike a covenant, because the most solemn formula involved either the cutting of victims in two, or striking them dead, as was the Roman manner. The severing of the bodies was not, as some suppose, to represent the two parties; but, as explained in Jeremiah 34:18-20, it set forth the penalty of perjury, and was usually accompanied by the imprecation upon the covenant-breaker of a destruction as complete as that which had befallen the slaughtered animals. There is no mention in this place of a sacrifice, although the animals are those subsequently set apart for sacrifice by the Levitical law. The heifer, she-goat, and ram at three years old would each have attained its full maturity; but there may be a further symbolic meaning in there being three animals each three years old. Laid each piece . . . —More exactly, and laid each half over against the other. The birds were not divided; but as there were two, Abram probably placed one on one side and one on the other.

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 Genesis 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, Genesis 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 Matthew 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 μεσουσδιατεμειν, 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 μεσονδιατεμειν, 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 Daniel 2:5; Daniel 3:29. Story of Susanna, verses 55, 59. See farther, 2 Samuel 12:31, and 1 Chronicles 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. Μηρουςτ' εξεταμονκατατεκνισοῃεκαλυψαν, Διπτυχαποιησαντες, επ' αυτωνδ' ωμοθετησαν.

7–19. The Ratification of the Promise by a Solemn Covenant The occasion of the covenant is distinct from that described in Genesis 15:1-6; but the connexion of thought is obvious. It is the man of faith who has the privilege of vision and is admitted into direct covenant relation with his God.

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 λψϊαψιϊ, to cut a covenant.