Abram said, “Lord Yahweh, what will you give me, since I go childless, and he who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” Abram said, “Behold, you have given no children to me: and, behold, one born in my house is my heir.”
Behold, Yahweh’s word came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir, but he who will come out of your own body will be your heir.” Yahweh brought him outside, and said, “Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” He said to Abram, “So your offspring will be.”
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv2, 4 2. And Abram said, Lord God. The Hebrew text…
2. And Abram said, Lord God. The Hebrew text has יחוה אדונת (Adonai Jehovah.) From which appellation it is inferred that some special mark of divine glory was stamped upon the vision; so that Abram, having no doubt respecting its author, confidently broke out in this expression. For since Satan is a wonderful adept at deceiving, and deludes men with so many wiles in the name of God, it was necessary that some sure and notable distinction should appear in true and heavenly oracles, which would not suffer the faith and the minds of the holy fathers to waver. Therefore in the vision of which mention is made, the majesty of the God of Abram was manifested, which would suffice for the confirmation of his faith. Not that God appeared as he really is, but only so far as he might be comprehended by the human mind. But Abram, in overlooking a promise so glorious, in complaining that he is childless, and in murmuring against God, for having hitherto given him no seed, seems to conduct himself with little modesty. What was more desirable than to be received under God’s protection, and to be happy in the enjoyment of Him? The objection, therefore, which Abram raised, when disparaging the incomparable benefit offered to him, and refusing to rest contented until he receives offspring, appears to be wanting in reverence. Yet the liberty which he took admits of excuse; first, because the Lord permits us to pour into his bosom those cares by which we are tormented, and those troubles with which we are oppressed. Secondly, the design of the complaint is to be considered; for he does not simply declare that he is solitary, but, seeing that the effect of all the promises depended upon his seed, he does, not improperly, require that a pledge so necessary should be given him. For if the benediction and salvation of the world was not to be hoped for except through his seed; when that principal point seemed to fail him, it is not to be wondered at, that other things should seem to vanish from his sight, or should at least not appease his mind, nor satisfy his wishes. And this is the very reason why God not only regards with favor the complaint of his servant, but immediately gives a propitious answer to his prayer. Moses indeed ascribes to Abram that affection which is naturally inherent in us all; but this is no proof that Abram did not look higher when he so earnestly desired to be the progenitor of an heir. And certainly these promises had not faded from his recollection; ‘To thy seed will I give this land,’ and ‘In thy seed shall all nations be blessed;’ the former of which promises is so annexed to all the rest, that if it be taken away, all confidence in them would perish; while the latter promise contains in it the whole gratuitous pledge of salvation. Therefore Abram rightly includes in it, every thing which God had promised.
I go childless. The language is metaphorical. We know that our life is like a race. Abram, seeing he was of advanced age, says that he has so far proceeded, that little of his course still remains. ‘Now,’ he says, ‘I am come near the goal; and the course of my life being finished, I shall die childless.’ He adds, for the sake of aggravating the indignity, ‘that a foreigner would be his heir.’ For I do not doubt that Damascus is the name of his country, and not the proper name of his mother, as some falsely suppose; as if he had said, ‘Not one of my own relatives will be my heir, but a Syrian from Damascus.’ For, perhaps, Abram had bought him in Mesopotamia. He also calls him the son of משק(mesek,) concerning the meaning of which word grammarians are not agreed. Some derive it from שקק (shakak,) which means to run to and fro, and translate it, steward or superintendent, because he who sustains the care of a large house, runs hither and thither in attending to his business. Others derive it from שוק (shook,) and render it cup-bearer, which seems to me incongruous. I rather adopt a different translation, namely, that he was called the son of the deserted house, (filius derelictionis), because משק mashak sometimes signifies to leave. Yet I do not conceive him to be so called because Abram was about to leave all things to him; but because Abram himself had no hope left in any other. It is therefore (in my judgment) just as if he called him the son of a house destitute of children, because this was a proof of a deserted and barren house, that the inheritance was devolving upon a foreigner who would occupy the empty and deserted place. He afterwards contemptuously calls him his servant, or his home-born slave, ‘the son of my house (he says) will be my heir.’ He thus speaks in contempt, as if he would say, ‘My condition is wretched, who shall not have even a freeman for my successor.’ It is however asked, how he could be both a Damascene and a home-born slave of Abram? There are two solutions of the difficulty, either that he was called the son of the house, not because he was born, but only because he was educated in it; or, that he sprang from Damascus, because his father was from Syria.
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.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On v2 His fear was not only lest he should not…
His fear was not only lest he should not have children, but lest the promise of the blessed seed should not be accomplished in him.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv2–5 Gen 15:2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt…
Gen 15:2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house [is] this Eliezer of Damascus?
Ver. 2. Lord God, what wilt thou give me, &c.] Dominator Iehovah. Adonai cum Camets sonat Dominator . A stately style. We must magnify God when we have got him into our hearts, and enlarge his room there when we conceive of him, as much as may be: do our utmost, and then say, Claudicat ingenium, delirat linguaque, mensque .{ a}
Read full note →
Seeing I go childless.] He had no great joy of his former victory, or the present promise, because childless. His mouth was so out of taste with the sense of his want that he could relish no comfort. This was his fault, and is often ours: like children, if we have not that piece we would have, we grow sullen, and will have none. Had not God been to Abram instead of ten children? Is he not all in all to his?
And the steward of my house.] Filius discursitationis, vel derelictionis domus meae . He that now runs about my business, and to whom I am likely to leave all. A faithful steward he was, and fearing God, {Gen 24:2-3, &c.} and therefore might look not to live long in a low place. {Pro 22:29}
This Eliezer of Damascus.] Or Eliazar, as Exo 6:25. Whence Lazarus, said in the parable to be in Abraham’s bosom, {Luk 16:23} as dear to him, and set next him in heaven.
{a} Lucret.
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.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv2–5 What pleasure can I take in any other gifts,…
What pleasure can I take in any other gifts, so long as thou dost withhold from me that great and promised gift of that blessed and blessing Seed, in the giving of whom thy honour and the world's happiness is so highly concerned? Gen 12:3.
Seeing I go childless; either,
Read full note →
1. I pass the time of my life, going on and growing in years, and hastening to my long home. Or,
2. I die, i.e. am about to die, or likely to die.
Going is ofttimes put for dying, as 1Ch 17:11, compared with 2Sa 7:12; Job 10:21; 14:20; Mat 26:24. What good will the world do me, if I have no heir to possess it? If God lose the glory of his truth in making good his promise, and I lose the comfort of my long hoped-for child, and that such a child the effect of a Divine promise, one out of whose loins he must come, in whom all nations shall be blessed?
The steward of my house; Heb. The son of the care, or government, or management of my house, i.e. he who manageth the affairs of my house. A usual Hebraism, as captives are called children of captivity, Ezr 4:1, and afflicted persons, children of affliction, Pro 31:5. Others read the verse thus,
And the steward of my house, this Eliezer of Damascus, understand, shall be my heir; which words may easily be supplied out of Gen 15:3. And such supplements of a word or short sentence out of a member or verse either foregoing or following, are frequent in Scripture, as Num 24:22; Zec 14:18; Neh 5:2; Hab 2:3; Eph 2:1.
Damascus may be the name either of a man, or of a place so called.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v2 We have here the assurance given to Abram of…
We have here the assurance given to Abram of a numerous offspring which should descend from him, in which observe,
I. Abram's repeated complaint, Gen 15:2, Gen 15:3. This was that which gave occasion to this promise. The great affliction that sat heavy upon Abram was the want of a child; and the complaint of this he here pours out before the Lord, and shows before him his trouble, Psa 142:2. Note, Though we must never complain of God, yet we have leave to complain to him, and to be large and particular in the statement of our grievances; and it is some ease to a burdened spirit to open its case to a faithful and compassionate friend: such a friend God is, whose ear is always open. Now his complaint is four-fold: - 1. That he had no child (Gen 15:3): Behold, to me thou hast given no seed; not only no son, but no seed; if he had had a daughter, from her the promised Messiah might have come, who was to be the seed of the woman; but he had neither son nor daughter. He seems to lay an emphasis on that, to me. His neighbours were full of children, his servants had children born in his house. "But to me," he complains, "thou hast given none;" and yet God had told him he should be a favourite above all. Note, Those that are written childless must see God writing them so. Again, God often withholds those temporal comforts from his own children which he gives plentifully to others that are strangers to him. 2. That he was never likely to have any, intimated in that I go, or "I am going, childless, going into years, going down the hill apace; nay, I am going out of the world, going the way of all the earth. I die childless," so the Septuagint, "I leave the world, and leave no child behind me." 3. That his servants were for the present and were likely to be to him instead of sons. While he lived, the steward of his house was Eliezer of Damascus; to him he committed the care of his family and estate, who might be faithful, but only as a servant, not as a son. When he died, one born in his house would be his heir, and would bear rule over all that for which he had laboured, Ecc 2:18, Ecc 2:19, Ecc 2:21. God had already told him that he would make of him a great nation (Gen 12:2), and his seed as the dust of the earth (Gen 13:16); but he had left him in doubt whether it should be his seed begotten or his seed adopted, by a son of his loins or only a son of his house. "Now, Lord," says Abram, "if it be only an adopted son it must be one of my servants, which will reflect disgrace upon the promised seed, that is to descend from him." Note, While promised mercies are delayed our unbelief and impatience are apt to conclude them denied. 4. That the want of a son was so great a trouble to him that it took away the comfort of all his enjoyments: "Lord, what wilt thou give me? All is nothing to me, if I have not a son." Now, If we suppose that Abram looked no further than a temporal comfort, this complaint was culpable. God had, by his providence, given him some good things, and more by his promise; and yet Abram makes no account of them, because he has not a son. It did very ill become the father of the faithful to say, What wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, immediately after God had said, I am thy shield, and thy exceedingly great reward. Note, Those do not rightly value the advantages of their covenant-relation to God and interest in him who do not think them sufficient whatever. But, (2.) If we suppose that Abram, herein, had a eye to the promised seed, the importunity of his desire was very commendable: all was nothing to him, if he had not the earnest of that great blessing, and an assurance of his relation to the Messiah, of which God had already encouraged him to maintain the expectation. He has wealth, and victory, and honour; but, while he is kept in the dark about the main matter, it is all nothing to him. Note, Till we have some comfortable evidence of our interest in Christ and the new covenant, we should not rest satisfied with any thing else. "This, and the other, I have; but what will all this avail me, if I go Christless?" Yet thus far the complaint was culpable, that there was some diffidence of the promise at the bottom of it, and a weariness of waiting God's time. Note, True believers sometimes find it hard to reconcile God's promises and his providences, when they seem to disagree.
Read full note →
II. God's gracious answer to this complaint. To the first part of the complaint (Gen 15:2) God gave no immediate answer, because there was something of fretfulness in it; but, when he renews his address somewhat more calmly (Gen 15:3), God answered him graciously. Note, If we continue instant in prayer, and yet pray with a humble submission to the divine will, we shall not seek in vain. 1. God gave him an express promise of a son, Gen 15:4. This that is born in thy house shall not be thy heir, as thou fearest, but one that shall come forth out of thy own bowels shall be thy heir. Note, (1.) God makes heirs; he says, "This shall not, and this shall;" and whatever men devise and design, in settling their estates, God's counsel shall stand. (2.) God is often better to us than our own fears, and gives the mercy we had long despaired of. 2. To affect him the more with this promise, he took him out, and showed him the stars (this vision being early in the morning, before day), and then tells him, So shall thy seed be, Gen 15:5. (1.) So numerous; the stars seem innumerable to a common eye: Abram feared he should have no child at all, but God assured him that the descendants from his loins should be so many as not to be numbered. (2.) So illustrious, resembling the stars in splendour; for to them pertained the glory, Rom 9:4. Abram's seed, according to his flesh, were like the dust of the earth (Gen 13:16), but his spiritual seed are like the stars of heaven, not only numerous, but glorious, and very precious.
III. Abram's firm belief of the promise God now made him, and God's favourable acceptance of his faith, Gen 15:6. 1. He believed in the Lord, that is, he believed the truth of that promise which God had now made him, resting upon the irresistible power and the inviolable faithfulness of him that made it. Hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Note, Those who would have the comfort of the promises must mix faith with the promises. See how the apostle magnifies this faith of Abram, and makes it a standing example, Rom 4:19-21. He was not weak in faith; he staggered not at the promise; he was strong in faith; he was fully persuaded. The Lord work such a faith in every one of us! Some think that his believing in the Lord respected, not only the Lord promising, but the Lord promised, the Lord Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant. He believed in him, that is, received and embraced the divine revelation concerning him, and rejoiced to see his day, though at so great a distance, Joh 8:56. 2. God counted it to him for righteousness; that is, upon the score of this he was accepted of God, and, as the rest of the patriarchs, by faith he obtained witness that he was righteous, Heb 11:4. This is urged in the New Testament to prove that we are justified by faith without the works of the law (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6); for Abram was so justified while he was yet uncircumcised. If Abram, that was so rich in good works was not justified by them, but by his faith, much less can we, that are so poor in them. This faith, which was imputed to Abram for righteousness, had lately struggled with unbelief (Gen 15:2), and, coming off a conqueror, it was thus crowned, thus honoured. Note, A fiducial practical acceptance of, and dependence upon, God's promise of grace and glory, in and through Christ, is that which, according to the tenour of the new covenant, gives us a right to all the blessings contained in that promise. All believers are justified as Abram was, and it was his faith that was counted to him for righteousness.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv2–5 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give…
And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless,.... As if he should say, what signifies what thou givest me of temporal blessings, if thou withholdest from me the blessing of a child; from whom it might be hoped and believed would spring the promised Messiah, in whom all nations of the earth shall be blessed. All my wealth and riches, victories and honours, are of no avail to me, while I am deprived of this favour; and since I am advanced in years, and going the way of all the earth; or out of the world, as the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase it, and which is the sense of the word in many places, see Jos 23:14. Should I depart from hence childless, as I am like to do, what pleasure can I take in them, and comfort from them, when I have none to inherit them?
and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus; who was his head servant, perhaps the same with him in Gen 24:2 called the eldest servant of his house, who had the care of it, of providing food for it, and supplying with it, and giving to everyone their portion in due season. Some render it, "the son of leaving my house" (y); to whom he left the care of his house, and should leave the administration of all things in it after his death, making him heir should he die childless; and so it may be supplied, "he Eliezer of Damascus is" or "shall be my heir". Strange and various are the fancies of the Jewish writers concerning this Eliezer; the Targum of Jonathan on Gen 14:14 calls him the son of Nimrod; others say he was the grandson of Nimrod, and others, a servant of his, who gave him to Abram for a servant; and when Isaac married Rebekah he was made free, and through Abram's influence became a king, and was Og king of Bashan (z); and others say he was Canaan the son of Ham (a); and others again, that he was Lot, who was very desirous of being Abram's heir (b): but with neither of these wilt this description of him agree, who is said to be of Damascus; either he was born there, or his parents, one or other, were from thence, who very probably were Abram's servants; and this Eliezer was born in his house, as seems from Gen 15:3, or the words may be rendered Damascus Eliezer (c), that is, Damascus the son of Eliezer; so that Eliezer was his father's name, and Damascus the proper name of this servant: and some say Damascus was built by him, and had its name from him, which is not likely, since we read of it before, and it is ascribed to another builder; see Gill on Gen 14:15. Indeed Justin (d) says it had its name from a king of it, so called; but who, according to him, was much more ancient than Abram, whom he also makes to be a king of Damascus: after King Damascus, he says, was Azelus, then Adores, and Abram and Israel were kings in that place. And Nicolas of Damascus (e) relates, that Abram reigned at Damascus, when with an army he came out of the land of Chaldea, beyond Babylon; and that the name of Abram was still famous in the region of Damascus, and a certain village was shown, called Abram's habitation: and the Jewish writers say (f), that the servants of Abram built Damascus, and he reigned over it: that Abram lived there some time seems reasonable from this Eliezer, who was born in his house, being called Eliezer of Damascus; for which no other reason can well be assigned than his being born there, which must be therefore when Abram dwelt there, since he was born in his house; and this might be the foundation of the above traditions.
Read full note →
(y) "is cui relinquetur domus mea", Junius & Tremellius; Heb. "filius derelictionis domus meae", Piscator; so Joseph Kimchi and Abendana. (z) Pirke Eliezer, c. 16. (a) Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 2. 1. (b) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 43. fol. 39. 1. (c) "Damascus Eliezer", V. L. Pagninus, Montanus, Cocceius. (d) E Trogo, l. 36. c. 2. (e) Apud Euseb. Evangel. Praepar. l. 90. c. 16. p. 417. (f) Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 77. 1.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv3, 5 Behold to me thou hast given no seed -…
Behold to me thou hast given no seed - Not only no son, but no seed. If he had had a daughter, from her the promised Messias might have come, who was to be the Seed of the Woman; but he had neither son nor daughter.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv2, 5 Verse 2. What wilt thou give me, seeing I…
Verse 2. What wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless] The anxiety of the Asiatics to have offspring is intense and universal. Among the Hindoos the want of children renders all other blessings of no esteem. See Ward.
And the steward of my house] Abram, understanding the promise as relating to that person who was to spring from his family, in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed, expresses his surprise that there should be such a promise, and yet he is about to die childless! How then can the promise be fulfilled, when, far from a spiritual seed, he has not even a person in his family that has a natural right to his property, and that a stranger is likely to be his heir? This seems to be the general sense of the passage; but who this steward of his house, this Eliezer of Damascus, was, commentators are not agreed. The translation of the Septuagint is at least curious: Ὁδε υἱος Μασεκ της οικολενους μου, οὑτος Δαμασκος Ελιεζερ. The son of Masek my homeborn maid, this Eliezer of Damascus, is my heir; which intimates that they supposed משק meshek, which we translate steward, to have been the name of a female slave, born in the family of Abram, of whom was born this Eliezer, who on account of the country either of his father or mother, was called a Damascene or one of Damascus. It is extremely probable that our Lord has this passage in view in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Lu 16:19. From the name Eliezer, by leaving out the first letter, Liezer is formed, which makes Lazarus in the New Testament, the person who, from an abject and distressed state, was raised to lie in the bosom of Abraham in paradise.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv3, 5 Gen 15:3. Behold, to me thou hast given no…
Gen 15:3. Behold, to me thou hast given no seed — Not only no son, but no seed. If he had had a daughter, from her the promised Messias might have come, who was to be the seed of the woman; but he had neither son nor daughter.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On v2 I shall go. To what purpose should I heap…
I shall go. To what purpose should I heap up riches, since I have no son to inherit them? Abram knew that God had promised him a numerous posterity; but he was not apprized how this was to be verified, and whether he was to adopt some other for his son and heir. Therefore, he asks modestly, how he out to understand the promise. --- And the son, &c. Hebrew is differently rendered, "and the steward of my house, this Eliezer of Damascus." We know not whether Eliezer or Damascus be the proper name. The Septuagint have "the son of Mesech, my handmaid, this Eliezer of Damascus." Most people suppose, that Damascus was the son of Eliezer, the steward. The sentence is left unfinished, and must be supplied from the following verse, shall be my heir. The son of the steward, filius procurationis, may mean the steward himself, as the son of perdition denotes the person lost. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–4 Lord God, what wilt thou give?--To his mind the…
Lord God, what wilt thou give?--To his mind the declaration, "I am thy exceeding great reward" [Gen 15:1], had but one meaning, or was viewed but in one particular light, as bearing on the fulfilment of the promise, and he was still experiencing the sickness of hope deferred.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv2–5 2. Abram said — Abram’s words here betray a…
2. Abram said — Abram’s words here betray a sort of doubt and some trouble.
Lord God — Hebrews, Adonai Jehovah, words occurring in this connexion here for the first time. The same combination of the words occur elsewhere in the Pentateuch only at Gen_15:8; Deu_3:24, and Gen_9:26; and in all these instances the words are a direct address to God.
Read full note →
What wilt thou give me — What is that “great reward” to be? All the riches of the earth are worthless to me without an heir.
I go childless — The expression may mean either, I continue childless, that is, go on in life without issue; or, I go forth childless; that is, as one of the Targums has it, go forth out of the world without an heir.
The steward of my house — Hebrews, A son of possession of my house. The one who would have the possessions of my house, on my decease, would be my principal servant, and overseer of my entire household.
This Eliezer of Damascus — Hebrews, this Damascus Eliezer; or, he of Damascus, Eliezer. This Eliezer is commonly supposed to be the eldest servant of Abram’s house mentioned in Gen_24:2, and the supposition is every way probable. When Abram departed from Haran and came into the land of Canaan he would naturally have passed through Damascus. An old tradition related by Nicolaus of Damascus, (see Josephus, Ant. 1:7,) associates the Hebrew patriarch with that city, and this Eliezer may have been born in Abram’s household while he tarried in or near Damascus, and thence have been known afterward as the Damascene. Kitto’s notion, (see Kitto’s Cyc.,) that he was a relative of Abram nearer than Lot, and therefore first heir to his possessions, seems far-fetched, and altogether unnecessary. The patriarchal law of inheritance seems to have preferred the members of the household before any other relations. The Mosaic law of inheritance (Num_27:8-11) was a later institution; but even if prevalent in Abram’s time, it applied to landed estates rather than moveable possessions. Abram was now utterly cut off from native land and kindred, and not yet owning a foot of land, he would not contemplate the passing over of his flocks and herds and other riches to any but his own dependents.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 5 2. Lord God] God = Heb. Jehovah, as in…
2. Lord God] God = Heb. Jehovah, as in other places where it is put in capitals. “Adonai Jehovah”: this combination of sacred names occurs only here, Gen_15:8, and Deu_3:24; Deu_9:26, in the Pentateuch. It is, however, not uncommon in the prophetical writings; and is especially frequent in Ezekiel. The Hebrew student will notice that the sacred name JHVH receives here the vowel points “e” “o” “i” of Elohim, because the word “Adonai,” whose pronunciation it generally receives, immediately precedes it. Where the full word “Adonai” precedes JHVH, the Jewish scribes, in order to prevent profane repetition of the word “Adonai,” punctuate and pronounce JHVH as if it were “Elohim”; hence they would read here Adonai Elohim, not Adonai Adonai.
seeing I go childless] R.V. marg. go hence. LXX ἀπολύομαι, Lat. ego vadam. “I go” is generally understood to mean here, “I depart this life.” Cf. “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart,” Luk_2:29 (νῦν ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλόν σου, δέσποτα). But it might mean, “I take my ordinary path in life, childless.”
Read full note →
The misfortune of having no children was acutely felt by the Israelite: see Num_27:4, “Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family, because he had no son?”
possessor of my house] i.e. my heir.
The conclusion of this verse, in the original, gives no sense. The R.V. probably furnishes the general meaning. The confusion is apparent in LXX, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς Μάσεκ τῆς οἰκογενοῦς μου, οὗτος Δαμασκὸς Ἐλιέζερ = “And the son of Masek, my slave born in the house, this is Damascus Eliezer.”
Dammesek Eliezer] R.V. marg., Targum of Onkelos, and Syriac, have Eliezer the Damascene. The text is corrupt. Literally the sentence runs: “and the son of the possession of my house is Damascus Eliezer.” Dammesek is the usual Hebrew word for “Damascus.” Attempts to restore the text have not been successful.
Ball conjectures, “And he who will possess my house is a Damascene, Eliezer.” Eliezer is probably the same as the faithful servant of Abram mentioned in Gen_24:2, where the name is not given. The possible reference to Damascus in this verse gave rise to the traditions connecting Abram with the conquest of Damascus; see Josephus (Ant. i. 7, 2), quoting Nicolaus of Damascus, who wrote in the days of Herod the Great; cf. note on Gen_12:5.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 5 (2) Lord God.—Not Jehovah Elohim, but Lord Jehovah, “Lord”…
(2) Lord God.—Not Jehovah Elohim, but Lord Jehovah, “Lord” being the ordinary title of respect. Usually Jehovah takes the vowels of ‘donai, “lord,” but as the two words occur here together, it takes the vowels of Elohim, whence the translation in our version, in obedience to a superstition of the Jews (Gen_4:1).
What wilt thou give me?—There is a slight tone of complaint in these words. Jehovah promised Abram a “reward great exceedingly.” He answers that no reward can really be great so long as he has no heir.
Read full note →
I go childless.—Either, I am going to my grave childless (Psa_39:13), or better, I continue to be, pass my days, in childlessness.
The steward of my house.—Heb., the benmeshek of my house. Ben-meshek is generally explained as meaning “the son of possession,” that is, the possessor, owner of my. house when I die. Other authorities derive meshek from a verb signifying “to run about,” as if it was Eliezer’s business to go to and fro in execution of Abram’s orders. The term is rare, and has evidently been chosen for the play of words upon Dammesek= Damascus. Perhaps this may also explain the last words, which literally are, he is Damascus Eliezer. Grammatically it should have been, “he is the Damascene Eliezer,” but this would have spoiled the assonance between ben-meshek (probably pronounced bemmeshek) and Dammesek.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv2–5 Ver. 2. And Abram said, Lord God. Adonai Jehovah;…
Ver. 2. And Abram said, Lord God. Adonai Jehovah; the first use of these terms in combination, the second, which usually has the vowel-points of the first, being here written with the vocalization of Elohim. Adonai, an older plural form of Adonim, pluralis excellentive (Gesenius), though by some the termination is regarded as a suffix (Ewald, Furst), is a term descriptive of the Divine sovereignty, from adan = dun, or din, to rule or judge; connected with which is the Phoenician aden, an honorary epithet of deity, and recognized as such in Deu_10:17. (vide Furst, "Hebrew Lexicon," sub voce) What wilt thou give me, seeing I go literally, and I going ejgw deomai (LXX, Jonathan); ex hac vita discedam (Rosenm but this, though the word "go" is sometimes used in the sense of "die", (Psa_39:1-4) does not seem necessarychildless solitary, desolate, hence devoid of offspring, as in Leviticus Lev_20:20, Lev_20:21; Jer_22:30 and the steward Ben-Meshek; either
(1) the son of running (from shakak, to run) = filius dis-cursitatis, i.e. the steward who attends to my domestic affairs (Onkelos, Drusius); or, and with greater probability,
Read full note →
(2) the son of possession (from mashak, to hold), . i.e. the possessor of my house, or heir of my property (Gesenius, Furst, Delitzsch, Keel, Halisch)of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus. Literally, Dammesek Eliezer. The paronomasia of this utterance is apparent, and was obviously designed to impart a touch of pathos to the patriarch s grief by ienting out the coincidence that the Ben-shek of his house was either Dammesek (Damascus) in the person of Eliezer (Delitzsch, Keil), or the Damascene Eliezer (Onkelos, Syriac, Aben Ezra, Calvin, Lange, Murphy), or Dammesek-Eliezer as one word (Kalisch).
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv2, 5 To me Thou hast given no seed
Gen_15:2-3
To me Thou hast given no seed
Read full note →
Abrams fear
God had given Abram everything but a child, and therefore it seemed to him that all this flow of Gods love was running into a pool where it could only stand still.
And Abram told God his fear in plain words. How true it is that we can say things in the dark that we dare not say in the light! For a long time Abram wanted to say this, but the light was too strong: he knew he would stammer and blush in the daytime, so he hid the fear in his heart. But now it is evening tide! The shadows are about, and the stars are coming! O sweet eventide, what words we have spoken in its dewy quietness--words that would have been out of place in the glare of open day. How the voice has become low, and the heart has told what was deepest and tenderest, sending it out as a dove that would find another soul to rest in! It was so that Abram talked to God in the vision that came at star time. He said, I have no child; all my goods are in the hands of a steward, a true enough servant, but still not a son; what is to become of all these tokens of Thy love? and whilst he was talking the stars came out more and more, all of them--millions of silvery eyes, throng upon throng, glowing overhead, sparkling over the distant hills, glittering in the east, throbbing like hearts on the western horizon, the singing Pleiades, the mighty Arcturus and his sons, Venus and Mars, and the Milky Way (names unknown then), there they were, angels talking in light, servants watching the Kings city. It was in that the Lord said to Abram, Look up; and Abram looked; and God said, Count them; and Abram said, My Lord, who can count that host? And the Lord said, So shall thy seed be. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v5 Gen 15:5 - Gen 15:18.
Genesis
GOD’S COVENANT WITH ABRAM
Read full note →
Gen 15:5 - Gen 15:18.
1. Abram had exposed himself to dangerous reprisals by his victory over the confederate Eastern raiders. In the reaction following the excitement of battle, dread and despondency seem to have shadowed his soul. Therefore the assurance with which this chapter opens came to him. It was new, and came in a new form. He is cast into a state of spiritual ecstasy, and a mighty ‘word’ sounds, audible to his inward ear. The form which it takes-’I am thy shield’-suggests the thought that God shapes His revelation according to the moment’s need. The unwarlike Abram might well dread the return of the marauders in force, to avenge their defeat. Therefore God speaks to his fears and present want. Just as to Jacob the angels appeared as a heavenly camp guarding his undefended tents and helpless women; so, here and always, God is to us what we most need at the moment, whether it be comfort, or wisdom, or guidance, or strength. The manna tasted to each man, as the rabbis say, what he most desired. God’s gifts take the shape of man’s necessity.
Abram had just exercised singular generosity in absolutely refusing to enrich himself from the spoil. God reveals Himself as ‘his exceeding great reward.’ He gives Himself as recompense for all sacrifices. Whatever is given up at His bidding, ‘the Lord is able to give thee much more than this.’ Not outward things, nor even an outward heaven, is the guerdon of the soul; but a larger possession of Him who alone fills the heart, and fills the heart alone. Other riches may be counted, but this is ‘exceeding great,’ passing comprehension, and ever unexhausted, and having something over after all experience. Both these aspects of God’s preciousness are true for earth; but we need a shield only while exposed to attack. In the land of peace, He is only our reward.
2. Mark the triumphant faith which wings to meet the divine promise. The first effect of that great assurance is to deepen Abram’s consciousness of the strange contradiction to it apparently given by his childlessness. It is not distrust that answers the promise with a question, but it is eagerness to accept the assurance and ingenuous utterance of difficulties in the hope of their removal. God is too wise a father not to know the difference between the tones of confidence and unbelief, however alike they may sound; and He is too patient to be angry if we cannot take in all His promise at once. He breaks it into bits not too large for our lips, as He does here. The frequent reiterations of the same promises in Abram’s life are not vain. They are a specimen of the unwearied repetition of our lessons, ‘Here a little, there a little,’ which our teacher gives His slow scholars. So, once more, Abram gets the promise of posterity in still more glorious form. Before, it was likened to the dust of the earth; now it is as the innumerable stars shining in the clear Eastern heaven. As he gazes up into the solemn depths, the immensity and peace of the steadfast sky seems to help him to rise above the narrow limits and changefulness of earth, and a great trust floods his soul. Abram had lived by faith ever since he left Haran; but the historian, usually so silent about the thoughts of his characters, breaks through his usual manner of narrative to insert the all-important words which mark an epoch in revelation, and are, in some aspects, the most significant in the Old Testament. Abram ‘believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.’
Observe the teaching as to the nature and object of faith in that first clause. The word rendered ‘believed’ literally means to steady oneself by leaning on something. So it gives in a vivid picture more instructive than many a long treatise what faith is, and what it does for us. As a man leans his trembling hand on a staff, so we lay our weak and changeful selves on God’s strength; and as the most mutable thing is steadied by being fastened to a fixed point, so we, though in ourselves light as thistledown, may be steadfast as rock, if we are bound to the rock of ages by the living band of faith. The metaphor makes it plain that faith cannot be merely an intellectual act of assent, but must include a moral act, that of confidence. Belief as credence is mainly an affair of the head, but belief as trust is an act of the will and the affections.
The object of faith is set in sunlight clearness by these words,-the first in which Scripture speaks of faith. Abram leaned on ‘the Lord.’ It was not the promise, but the promiser, that was truly the object of Abram’s trust. He believed the former, because he trusted Him who made it. Many confusions in Christian teaching would have been avoided if it had been always seen that faith grasps a person, not a doctrine, and that even when the person is revealed by doctrine, it is him, and not only it, which faith lays hold of. Whether God speaks promises, teachings of truth, or commandments, faith accepts them, because it trusts Him. Christ is revealed to us for our faith by the doctrinal statements of the New Testament. But we must grasp Himself, as so revealed, if we are to have faith which saves the soul. This same thought of the true object of faith as personal helps us to understand the substantial identity of faith in all ages and stages of revelation, however different the substance of the creeds. Abram knew very little of God, as compared with our knowledge. But it was the same God whom Abram trusted, and whom we trust as made known in His Son. Hence we can stretch out our hands across the ages, and clasp his as partaker of ‘like precious faith.’ We walk in the light of the same sun,-he in its morning beams, we in its noonday glory. There has never been but one road to God, and that is the road which Abram trod, when ‘he believed in the Lord.’
3. Mark the full-orbed gospel truth as to the righteousness of faith which is embedded in this record of early revelation, ‘He counted it to him for righteousness.’ A geologist would be astonished if he came on remains in some of the primary strata which indicated the existence, in these remote epochs, of species supposed to be of much more recent date. So here we are startled at finding the peculiarly New Testament teaching away back in this dim distance. No wonder that Paul fastened on this Gen 13:1-13">, which so remarkably breaks the flow of the narrative, as proof that his great principle of justification by faith was really the one only law by which, in all ages, men had found acceptance with God. Long before law or circumcision, faith had been counted for righteousness. The whole Mosaic system was a parenthesis; and even in it, whoever had been accepted had been so because of his trust, not because of his works. The whole of the subsequent divine dealings with Israel rested on this act of faith, and on the relation to God into which, through it, Abram entered. He was not a perfectly righteous man, as some passages of his life show; but he rose here to the height of loving and yearning trust in God, and God took that trust in lieu of perfect conformity to His will. He treated and regarded him as righteous, as is proved by the covenant which follows. The gospel takes up this principle, gives us a fuller revelation, presents the perfect righteousness of Christ as capable of becoming ours by faith, and so unveils the ground on which Abram and the latest generations are equally ‘accepted in the beloved.’ This reckoning of righteousness to the unrighteous, on condition of their faith, is not because of any merit in faith. It does not come about in reward of, but by means of, their faith, which is nothing in itself, but is the channel only of the blessing. Nor is it a mere arbitrary act of God’s, or an unreal imputing of what is not. But faith unites with Christ; and ‘he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit,’ so as that ‘in Him we have redemption.’ His righteousness becomes ours. Faith grafts us into the living Vine, and we are no longer regarded in our poor sinful individual personality, but as members of Christ. Faith builds us into the rock; but He is a living Stone, and we are living stones, and the life of the foundation rises up through all the courses of the great temple. Faith unites sinful men to God in Christ; therefore it makes them partakers of the ‘blessedness of the man, . . .to whom the Lord will not impute sin,’ and of the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord reckons his faith for righteousness. That same faith which thus clothes us with the white robe of Christ’s righteousness, in lieu of our own tattered raiment, also is the condition of our becoming righteous by the actual working out in our character of all things lovely and of good report. It opens the heart to the entrance of that divine Christ, who is first made for us, and then, by daily appropriation of the law of the spirit of life, is made in us, ‘righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.’ May all who read these lines ‘be found in Him,’ having ‘that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith!’
4. Consider the covenant which is the consequence of Abram’s faith, and the proof of his acceptance.
It is important to observe that the whole remainder of this chapter is regarded by the writer as the result of Abram’s believing God. The way in which Gen 15:7 and the rest are bolted on, as it were, to Gen 15:6, clearly shows this. The nearer lesson from this fact is, that all the Old Testament revelation from this point onward rests on the foundation of faith. The further lesson, for all times, is that faith is ever rewarded by more intimate and loving manifestations of God’s friendship, and by fuller disclosure of His purposes. The covenant is not only God’s binding Himself anew by solemn acts to fulfil His promises already made, but it is His entering into far sweeter and nearer alliance with Abram than even He had hitherto had. That name, ‘the friend of God,’ by which he is still known over all the Mohammedan world, contains the very essence of the covenant. In old days men were wont to conclude a bond of closest amity by cutting their flesh and interchanging the flowing blood. Henceforth they had, as it were, one life. We have not here the shedding of Abram’s blood, as in the covenant of circumcision. Still, the slain animals represent the parties to the covenant, and the notion of a resulting unity of the closest order as between God and Abram is the very heart of the whole incident.
The particulars as to the rite by which the covenant was established are profoundly illuminative. The significant division of the animals into two shows that they were regarded as representing the contracting parties, and the passing between them symbolised the taking up of the obligations of the covenant. This strange rite, which was widely spread, derives importance from the use of it probably made in Heb 9:16 - Heb 9:17. The new covenant, bringing still closer friendship and higher blessings, is sealed by the blood of Christ. He represents both God and man. In His death, may we not say that the manhood and the Godhead are parted, and we, standing as it were between them, encompassed by that awful sacrifice, and enclosed in its mysterious depths, enter into covenant with God, and become His friends?
We need not to dwell upon the detailed promises, of which the covenant was the seal. They are simply the fuller expansion of those already made, but now confirmed by more solemn guarantees. The new relation of familiar friendship, established by the covenant itself, is the main thing. It was fitting that God’s friend should be in the secret of His purposes. ‘The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth,’ but the friend does. And so we have here the assurance that faith will pierce to the discernment of much of the mind of God, which is hid from sense and the wisdom of this world. If we would know, we must believe. We may be ‘men of God’s counsel,’ and see deeply into the realities of the present, and far ahead into what will then become the certainties of the future, if only we live by faith in the secret place of the Most High, and, like John, lean so close on the Master’s bosom that we can hear His lowest whisper.
Notice, too, the lessons of the smoking furnace and the blazing torch. They are like the pillar of fire and cloud. Darkness and light; a heart of fire and a wrapping of darkness,-these are not symbols of Israel and its checkered fate, as Dean Stanley thinks, but of the divine presence: they proclaim the double aspect of all divine manifestations, the double element in the divine nature. He can never be completely known; He is never completely hid. Ever does the lamp flame; ever around it the smoke wreathes. In all His self-revelation is ‘the hiding of His power’; after all revelation He dwelleth ‘in the thick darkness.’ Only the smoke is itself fire, but not illumined to our vision. The darkness is light inaccessible. Much that was ‘smoke’ to Abram has caught fire, and is ‘light’ to us. But these two elements will ever remain; and throughout eternity God will be unknown, and yet well known, pouring Himself in ever-growing radiance on our eyes, and yet ‘the King invisible.’
Nor is this all the teaching of the symbol. It speaks of that twofold aspect of the divine nature, by which to hearts that love He is gladsome light, and to unloving ones He is threatening darkness. As to the Israelites the pillar was light, and to the Egyptians darkness and terror; so the same God is joy to some, and dread to others. ‘What maketh heaven, that maketh hell.’ Light itself can become the source of pain the most exquisite, if the eye is diseased. God Himself cannot but be a torment to men who love darkness rather than light. Love and wrath, life and death, a God who pities and who cannot but judge, are solemnly proclaimed by that ancient symbol, and are plainly declared to us in the perfect revelation in Christ Jesus.
Observe, too, the manner of the ratification of the covenant. The symbol of the Divine presence passed between the pieces. No mention is made of Abram’s doing so. Why this one-sided covenant? Because God’s gracious dealings with men are one-sided. He seeks no oaths from us; He does not exchange blessings for our gifts. His covenant is the free result of His unmotived love, and is ratified by a solemn sacrifice, which we do not offer. We have nothing to do but to take what He gives. All ideas of barter and bargain are far from Him. Our part is but to embrace His covenant, which is complete and ratified whether we embrace it or not. What a wonderful thought that is of a covenant-making and a covenant-keeping God! We do not hear so much of it as our fathers did. The more is the pity. It means that God has, as it were, buoyed out across the boundless ocean of His possible modes of action a plain course, which He binds Himself to keep; that He has frankly let us into the very secret of His doings; that He has stooped to use human forms of assurance to make it easier to trust Him; that He has confirmed His promise by a mighty sacrifice. Therefore we may enter into closest friendship with Him, and take for our own the exultant swan-song of Abram’s royal son: ‘Although my house be not so with God [although my life be stained, and my righteousness unfit to be offered to His pure eyes]; yet He hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v2 1 "Lord" (Heb. Adon, Adonai)
1 "Lord" (Heb. Adon, Adonai)
(1) The primary meaning of Adon, Adonai, is Master, and it is applied in the Old Testament Scriptures both to Deity and to man. The latter instances are distinguished in the English version by the omission of the capital. As applied to man, the word is used of two relationships; master and husband Gen 24:9; Gen 24:10; Gen 24:12 "master" may illustrate the former; Gen 18:12 "lord," the latter). Both these relationships exist between Christ and the believer Joh 13:13 "master"; 2Co 11:2; 2Co 11:3 "husband").
Read full note →
(2) Two principles inhere in the relation of master and servant:
(a) the Master’s right to implicit obedience Joh 13:13; Mat 23:10; Luk 6:46
(b) the servant’s right to direction in service Isa 6:8-11
Clear distinction in the use of the divine names is illustrated in Exo 4:10-12. Moses feels his weakness and incompetency, and "Moses said unto the Lord Jehovah, O my Lord Adonai, I am not eloquent," etc. Since service is in question, Moses appropriately addresses Jehovah as Lord. But now power is in question, and it not the Lord (Adonai) but Jehovah (Lord) who answers (referring to creation power)--"and Jehovah said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth?. . Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth." The same distinction in Jos 7:8-11. See, for other names of Deity:
(See Scofield "Gen 1:1") See Scofield "Gen 2:4" Gen 2:7 See Scofield "Gen 14:18" See Scofield "Gen 15:2" See Scofield "Gen 17:1" See Scofield "Gen 21:33" See Scofield "1Sa 1:3"
2 "Lord God" (Heb. Adonai Jehovah). When used distinctively, this compound name, while gathering into one the special meanings of each
(See Scofield "Gen 2:4") See Scofield "Gen 15:2"
will be found to emphasize the Adonai rather than the Jehovah character of Deity. (The following passages may suffice to illustrate this:) Gen 15:2; Gen 15:8; Deu 3:24; Deu 9:26; Jos 7:7; Jdg 6:22; Jdg 16:28; 2Sa 7:18-20,; 2Sa 7:28; 2Sa 7:29; 1Ki 2:26; Psa 69:6; Psa 71:5; Isa 7:7
See, for other names of Deity:
(See Scofield "Gen 1:1") See Scofield "Gen 2:4"
Gen 2:7
(See Scofield "Gen 14:18") See Scofield "Gen 15:2" See Scofield "Gen 17:1" See Scofield "Gen 21:33" See Scofield "1Sa 1:3"
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v4 Then, behold
Then, behold
The word "behold" emphasizes the fact that the word of Yahweh came to Abraham again.
Read full note →
the word of Yahweh came to him, saying, "This
The idiom "The word of Yahweh came to" is used to introduce a special message from God. See how you translated this idiom in Genesis 15:1. AT: "Yahweh gave him a message. He said, 'This" or "Yahweh spoke this message to him: 'This" (See: Idiom)
This man
This refers to Eliezer of Damascus.
the one who will come from your own body
"the one that you will father" or "your very own son." Abram's own son would become his heir.
number the stars
"count the stars"
So will your descendants be
Just as Abram would not be able to count all the stars, he would not be able to count all his descendants because there would be so many.
translationWords
word of God
heir
heaven
descend
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv2, 4 15:2-3 Using a wordplay, Abram expressed his concern that…
15:2-3 Using a wordplay, Abram expressed his concern that Eliezer of Damascus (Hebrew dammeseq), a man in Abram’s household, would be his heir (Hebrew ben-mesheq, “son of possession”), as was customary when there was no son.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.