The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 215

and (2) by m11n's cap_llbility of ~min,: e!1d were assigned for their food. (3) That shortly ao reducing to subjoct10n evory kmd of wild after the fall animals were slain by Divine beast-lions, tigers, &c. direction for sacrifice_, and probably also for Ver. 3.-Every-obviously admitting of food-at least this latter supposition is by 11 excoptions to be gathered both from the no means an umvarrantable inference from ne.turo of the case and from the distinction eh. iv. 4 (q. '!>. ). (4) That the words, "as of clean nnd unclee.n beasts mentioned be- the green herb," even if they implied the fore nnd nfterwards" (Poole)-moving thing existence of a previous restriction, do not that liveth-clearly excluding such as had refer to eh. i. 29, but to eh. i. 30, the green died of themselves or been slain by other herb in the latter verse being contrasted beasts (cf, Exod. ·xxii. 31 ; Levit. xxii. 8) with the food of man in eh. i. 29. Solomon -shall be meat for you. Literally, to you Glass thus correctly indicates the connection it shall be for meat. Though the distinction and the sense: "nt viridem herbam (illis), sic between unclean and clean animals as to ilia omnia dedi vobis" (' Sacr. Phil.,' lib. iii. food, e.fterwards laid down in the Mosaic tr. 2, c. xxii. 2). (5) That a sufficient reason code (Levit. xi. 1-31), is not mentioned here, for mentioning the grant of animal food in it does not follow that it was either unknown this connection may be found in the sub- to the writer or unpractised by the men joined restriction, without assuming tne before the Flood. Even as the green herb existence of any previous limitation. have I given you all.. things. An allusi_on Ver. 4.-But-1~, an adverb oflimitation to eh. i. 29 (Rosenmuller, Bush); but vide or exception, ·as in Lcvit. xi. 4, introducing a infra. The relation of this verse to the restriction on the foregoing precept-flesh former has been understood es signifying- with the life thereof, which is the blood I. That animal food was expressly prohibited thereof. Literally, with its soul, its blood; before the Flood, and now foi: the first time the blood being regarded as the seat of the permitted (Mercerus, Rosenmilller, Candlish, soul, or life principle (Levit. xvii. 11), and Clarke, Murphy, Jamieson, Wordsworth, even as the soul itself (Levit. xvii. 14). The Kalisch)-the ground being that such appears idea of the nnity of the soul and the blood, the obvious import of the sacred writer's on which the prohibition of blood is based, language. 2. That, though permitted from comes to light everywhere in Scripture. In the fil'st, it was not used till postdiluvian the blood of one mortally wounded his son\ times, when men were explicitly directed to flows forth (Lam. ii. 12), and he who volun- partake of it by God (Theodoret, Chrysostom, tarily sacrifices himself p0nrs out his soul Aquinas, Luther, Pererius)-the reason being unto death (Isa. liii. 12). The murderer of that prior to the Flood the fruits of the earth the innocent slays the soul of the blood of were more nutritious and better adapted for the innocent (,J,ux,jv a'iµa-co~ a0wou, Deut. the sustenance of man's physical frame, prop- xxvii. 25), which also cleaves to his (the ter excellentem terrm bonitatem prrestautem- murderer's) skirts (Jer. ii 34 ; cf. Prov. que vim alimenti quod fructus terrre suppedi- xxviii. 17, blood of a soul; cf. Gen. iv. 10 tabant homini, while after it such a change with Heh. xii. 2!; Job x..,:iv. 12 with Rev. passed upon the vegetable productions of the vi. 9 ; vide also Ps. xciv. 21 ; llfatt. :-.-:i:iii. ground as to render them less co.pable of sup- 35). Nor can it bo said to be e:s:clusively porting the growing feebleness of the body, peculiar to Holy Scripture. In ancient invalidam nd bene alendum hominem (Perc- Egyptian hieroglyphics the hawk, which rius). 3. That whether permitted or-not prior feeds on bloods, represents the soul. Virgil to the Flood, it was used, and is here for says of o. dying person, "purpnream vomit tho first time formally allowed (Keil, Alford, ille animam" (' .&neid,' ix. 3'19). The Greek 'Speaker's Commentary'); in support of which philosophers taught that the blood was either opinion it may be urged that the general the soul (Critins), or the soul's food (Pytha- tendency of subsequent Divine legislation, goras), or the soul's sent (Empedocles), or until the fulness of the times, wns ever in the the soul's producing cause (the Stoics) ; bnt direction of concession to the infirmities or only Scripture reveals the true relation be- necessities of human nature (cf. Matt. xix. tween them both when it cleclarcs the blood 8). 'l'he opinion, however, which appeo.rs to to be. not the soul absolutely, but the means be tho best supported is-4. That anim11l food of its self-attestation (vide Delitzsch's 'Bib. wns permitted before the fall, and th11t the Psychology,' div. iv. sec. xi. ). Shall ye not grant ishore expresslyroncwed(Justinllfortyr, eat. Not referring to, although certainly Calvin, Willet, Bush, Macdonald, Lnnge, forbidding, the eating of flesh taken from a Quarry). The grounds for this opinion nre living animal (Raschi, Cajetan, Delitzsch, -(1) Tllllt the lunguage of eh. i. 29 does not Luther, Poole, Jamieson)-a fiendish custom explicitly forbid the use of o.nimal food. (2) which may havo been p1uctised among the That science demonstrnto3 the existence of antedi!uviaus, ns, according to tru,cllers, it carnivorous nnimnls prior to tho upp·.o.rnnce is, or was, among modem Abyssiniuns; of man, nnd yot ngctn hlo product: alone rather interdicting the flesh of slaughtered 140 THE BOOK OF GENESIS. [en. Ill:. 1-7,