John Calvin Commentary Genesis 15:2

"And Abram said, O Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" — Genesis 15:2 (ASV)

And Abram said, Lord God. The Hebrew text has יחוה אדונת (Adonai Jehovah). From this title it is inferred that some special mark of divine glory was stamped upon the vision, so that Abram, having no doubt about its author, confidently broke out in this expression. For since Satan is a wonderful adept at deceiving, and deludes people with so many deceptions in the name of God, it was necessary that some sure and notable distinction should appear in true and heavenly oracles, which would not allow the faith and the minds of the holy fathers to waver.

Therefore, in the vision that is mentioned, 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 to the extent that 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 until now 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, that Abram raised, by disparaging the incomparable benefit offered to him and refusing to be content until he receives offspring, appears to lack reverence. Yet the liberty 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 purpose of the complaint is to be considered. For he does not simply declare that he is alone, but, seeing that the fulfillment of all the promises depended upon his seed, he, not improperly, requires that such a necessary pledge should be given to him. For if the blessing and salvation of the world were not to be hoped for except through his seed, when that principal point seemed to fail him, it is not surprising that other things would seem to vanish from his sight, or at least would not appease his mind nor satisfy his desires.

And this is the very reason why God not only regards with favor the complaint of his servant, but immediately gives a favorable answer to his prayer. Moses indeed attributes 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 these promises is so connected to all the rest, that if it is 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 everything that 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 proceeded so far 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), about the meaning of which word grammarians do not agree. Some derive it from שקק (shakak), which means to run to and fro, and translate it steward or superintendent, because he who manages a large house runs here and there attending to his business.

Others derive it from שוק (shook), and render it cup-bearer, which seems incongruous to me. 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 think he is 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.’

However, it is asked how he could be both a Damascene and a home-born slave of Abram. There are two solutions to 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.