Why didn't Abram cut the birds in half?

[David Pettigrew]

I recently preached from Genesis 15, and was asked this question - why, when Abram cut the mammals in half for the covenant ceremony, did he not also cut the birds in half? I googled it and couldn't come up with anything reasonable.

[Jon Bemis]

Maybe they were really small birds? Best I could do . . .

[Andy Mistak]

Maybe they were really small birds? Best I could do . . .

That was the first thing I thought of.

[Larry Parsons]

I recently preached from Genesis 15, and was asked this question - why, when Abram cut the mammals in half for the covenant ceremony, did he not also cut the birds in half? I googled it and couldn't come up with anything reasonable.

This was the 5th step of the blood covenant and the two covenant partner had to literally walk through the blood of the animal that was cut in half . according to law the bird was not to be cut in half. see Lev,1:17 and the bird or dove may have repersented Israel some how.
Thanks
Larry P.

[David Pettigrew]

Ok, but at least according to the narrative, Abram's covenant would have taken place at least 450 years before the Levitical code was given.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ok, but at least according to the narrative, Abram's covenant would have taken place at least 450 years before the Levitical code was given.

God's consistent?

[David Pettigrew]

I'm surrounded by wise guys.

[Jon Bemis]

Are you meaning persons exuding wisdom?

[Shea Zellweger]

Ok, but at least according to the narrative, Abram's covenant would have taken place at least 450 years before the Levitical code was given.

The authors would have written after the code was given, and would probably have allowed the code to influence their understanding of the process involved in creating the blood path. It may, however, stem from simple logistics. There's not really any logical place to cut a bird in half. A 4 legged animal could be split basically in two at the bottom (or back end) of the rib cage. Severing a bird at the base of the ribs leaves pretty much a pair of spindly legs, especially since the birds in question were probably "free range," as opposed to domestically bred and fattened.

[Ryan Scott]

Ok, but at least according to the narrative, Abram's covenant would have taken place at least 450 years before the Levitical code was given.

I've been reading through the Torah over the last couple of months; a few chapters a day. I'll just say it makes a lot more sense if you come at it from the perspective of an oral tradition that was codified during or shortly after the exile to Babylon.

[David Troxler]

I've been reading through the Torah over the last couple of months; a few chapters a day. I'll just say it makes a lot more sense if you come at it from the perspective of an oral tradition that was codified during or shortly after the exile to Babylon.

You're just sticking with the Sinai code...

[David Pettigrew]

I understand the Pentateuch and Deuteronomic history were post exilic, and came from various sources. I was just curious as to why the tradition stated specifically that the birds were not cut in half. I suppose since that was later part of the sacrificial code, the authors didn't want it to appear that father Abraham was violating the as yet ungiven(?) Law. Seems to me there's something more here, though. Oh well, I won't be preaching it for another seven years, so maybe we'll get to the bottom of it by then.

[Jay Stiegelmeyer]

Funny. I was reading that a couple weeks ago and had the exact same question...

[Todd Erickson]

Something important to realize here is that a lot of the sacrificial methods and practices put into legal practice within the bible pre-existed the Abrahamic Covenant.

These people were, as a culture, entirely familiar with sacrifice. It was a normal part of the culture. In fact, sacrifice of the first born by burning was entirely normal throughout the region.

Additionally, in order for there to be enough blood for the sprinkling, walking, etc. after dividing the critter in half, you'd need a bird the size of an ostrich or wild turkey, which simply didn't exist in that region. Most birds used in sacrifice were tiny, and unusable for such purposes. But it's still also likely that there was a specific cultural bent toward using herd animals. Please correct me, scholars, if this is incorrect.

[Cynthia Prentice]

Hey David,

If you cut the bird in half there may not have been enough blood to reach the bottom of the small ravine before it coagulated...that is why I believe the birds were left whole...more blood running down the slope.