Genesis 7:2

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,.... From hence it appears, that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, at least for sacrifice, if not for food, was known before the

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens the male and his female: and of beasts that are not Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of

Obj. The distinction of clean and unclean beasts was not before the law. Answ. Some legal things were prescribed and used before the law, as abstinence from the eating of blood, , and, among other things, sacrifices, as learned men have sufficiently proved; and consequently the distinction of beasts to be sacrificed was then, in some measure, understood, which afterwards was expressed, , &c. Nor is this a good argument, This was not written before, therefore it was not commanded and practised before, especially concerning a time when no commands of God were written, but only delivered by tradition. By sevens; either, 1. Seven single, as most think. Or rather, 2. Seven couples, as may be gathered, 1. From the duplication of the word in Hebrew. If it be said seven seven signifies only seven of every kind, then it would have been said concerning the unclean beasts two two, i.e. two of each sort: whereas now there is an apparent difference; there it is said only by two, but here, by sevens, or seven seven, which difference of the phrase suggest a difference in the things. 2. By the following words, the male and his female, which being indifferently applied to the clean and unclean, plainly shows that none of them entered into the ark single, and therefore there was no odd seventh among them, but all went in by couples, which was most convenient in all for the propagation of their kind, and in the clean for other uses also; as for sacrifices to God, if not for the sustentation of men in the ark, and after they came out of it. Which gives us the reason why God would have more of the clean than of the unclean put into the ark, because they were more serviceable both to God and men.

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.Ver. 2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take by sevens.] Three pair for generation, and a single one for sacrifice, after the flood was past. Genesis 8:20 God must have a share; and good reason. But that two only of a sort, of the unclean hurtful creatures were preserved, note his fatherly providence. To this day we see, though sheep and birds be so killed up for man’ s use, yet there are far more of them, than of other unserviceable or cruel creatures. Besides, the weaker creatures go in herds together, the stronger and more savage go alone. For if they should go in multitudes, no man nor beast could stand before them. This you shall find set down to your hand. Job 37:8 Psalms 104:17-30 Ammianus Marcellinus writeth, "that in Chaldea there are a huge number of lions, which were like enough to devour up both men and beasts throughout the country. But withal, he saith, that by reason of the store of water and mud thereof, there breed yearly an innumerable company of gnats, whose property is to flee into the eye of the lion, as being a bright and orient thing, where, biting and stinging the lion, he teareth so fiercely with the claws, that he puts out his own eyes; and by that means many are drowned in the rivers, others starve for want of prey, and many the more easily killed by the inhabitants. Bodin telleth us, that the wolf never seeth his sire, his dam, nor his young: for that the herd of wolves set upon, and killeth that wolf, which by the smell they perceive to have coupled with the she wolf; which unless they did, what a deal of mischief would be done by them everywhere among cattle! Bodin. in Theatro., lib. iii.

(2) Of every clean beast—Heb., of all clean cattle—thou shalt take to thee by sevens—Heb., seven seven.—This probably does not mean seven pairs of each, though many commentators so interpret it, but seven of each kind. If, however, seven pairs be the right interpretation, but few species could have been included, as to attend properly to so large a number of animals would have been beyond the power of Noah and his sons. But which were the clean beasts? There can be no reference here to the Levitical law, which had respect to human food; nor to animals tamed and untamed, as all alike are called cattle; but probably the clean cattle were such as from the days of Adam ‘and Abel had been offered in sacrifice. Thus provision was made for Noah’s sacrifice on his egress from the ark, and also for his possession of a small herd of such animals as would be most useful to him amid the desolation which must have existed for a long time after the flood. The clean beasts would therefore be oxen, sheep, goats; the unclean, camels, horses, asses, and such other animals as stood in some relation to man. Of birds, the dove would especially be clean. It has been pointed out that these more full and specific orders are given in the name of Jehovah, whereas most of the narrative of the flood is Elohistic, and hence it has been assumed that some Jehovist narrator added to and completed the earlier narrative. These additions would be Genesis 7:1-6. the last clause of Gen 7:16, Noah’s sacrifice in Genesis 8:20-22, and the cursing of Canaan in Genesis 9:18-27. Now, it is remarkable that the sacrifice is as integral a portion of the Chaldean Genesis as the sending forth of the birds (Chaldean Genesis, p. 286), and is thus indubitably older than the time of Moses. Still, there is nothing improbable in Moses having two records of the flood before him, and while the division of Genesis into Elohistic and Jehovistic portions usually breaks down, there is a primâ facie appearance of the combination of two narratives in the present history, or, at least, in this one section (Genesis 7:1-6).

Verse 2. Of every clean beast] So we find the distinction between clean and unclean animals existed long before the Mosaic law. This distinction seems to have been originally designed to mark those animals which were proper for sacrifice and food, from those that were not. See Lev. xi.

2. Of every clean beast] The distinction is here made between the clean and the unclean animals. Categories of both kinds, according to the Levitical Law, are found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3-20. In the account given by P (Genesis 6:19) no allusion is made to this distinction. According to P, the distinctions of clean and unclean were for the first time laid down in the Mosaic legislation, and could not, therefore, be recognized as existing in the primaeval or patriarchal age. According to J, the distinction existed in pre-Mosaic times, and was to be presupposed as having existed side by side with the institution of sacrifice. seven and seven, the male and his female] By this is meant seven pairs. “The male and his female,” i.e. “each and his mate,” îsh v’ishtô, seems to make this clear. But some consider seven clean animals, and not seven pairs of clean animals, are intended. The words “the male and his female” are different from those rendered “male and female,” zâkâr un’ḳ ?êbah, Genesis 1:27, Genesis 6:19, Genesis 7:3; Genesis 7:9; Genesis 7:16. The reason why so many more clean animals than unclean are required is, presumably, because they would be wanted (a) for food, (b) for sacrifice, and (c) for domestic purposes. There is no reason to assume that the J tradition of the narrative shared the opinion of the P tradition, that before the Flood man subsisted on vegetable diet (see Genesis 1:29, Genesis 6:20, Genesis 9:2-3).

2. Every clean beast — “The objection that this was an anticipation of the Levitical distinction of beasts into clean and unclean, is wholly groundless. The boundary line between clean and unclean animals is marked by nature.