Note.—We never (save the sanctifying the seventh day) get holiness brought out as an attribute of God, nor of anything in connection with Him in the book of Genesis. But it is a mistake to suppose that it is the law which makes the difference, as if it expressed God's personal character; in us holiness must be holiness to the Lord. God is holy because He abhors evil, and delights in good according to His nature, but we can be nothing but evil without being consecrated to God—all else is evil.
Adam was innocent (not consecrated to God, so as to follow good, and be far from evil when knowing good and evil) for he did not know good and evil. One day was consecrated to God—was sanctified; but redemption consecrates a people to God. Hence you find a holy nation before the law was given—a people purchased to Himself and set apart to Him—brought to Himself. And God was glorious in holiness in the Red Sea in judgment.
In this chapter holiness was put upon the ground of obedience, but that alters nothing. He had brought forth the people which He had redeemed-He had guided them by His strength to His holy habitation. The terms on which they foolishly put themselves (v. 8) did not alter the fact of the thought of consecration to God, see Lev. 11:44, and chap. 19: 7, 8, 26, et seq. But this leaves the extremely interesting question: "what is the principle of relationship with God in Genesis?" which I here reserve, only remarking that the same principle applies to God's dwelling with man. It never took place till redemption gave occasion to it, this is also brought out in Exodus, chapter 15, where we first find the other, already noted.
I apprehend that the notion of redemption makes the difference, not simply in itself, but because, as by the work of God, it brings, according to its power, to Himself—"I have borne you on eagles' wings, and brought you to myself"—so His dwelling among them.
Now Abraham, the brightest of saints (I do not of course speak of the ground of his everlasting hopes, as known to us, but of the principles of his history) of that time, did not stand on that ground. He was chosen—called—and the promises given to him—called to go out to a land which God would show him, but he is not presented to us as brought to God by redemption, and hence consecrated to Him. He was blessed—cared for by the Almighty—visited—made a friend of God, but God did not dwell with him. He quitted his country on a promise, and call, he was not redeemed, by a mighty hand, from the midst of enemies, blood being on the door to shelter him. Calling, promise, blessing, care was there (not redemption) walking before God as a stranger.
Abel's sacrifice might seem to present this (redemption, but Abel's sacrifice is an offering to God, not redemption by God; he could come with and by this, and be received by faith, and so it is used in Heb. 11 It was Abel's offering, not God's redemption. All this as to the value of redemption, and its character and effect is full of interest.
Note, that the people really undertook (only that the communications were necessarily such as suited an earthly state) what Christ undertook in Psa. 40 but what a difference! He there is the real Servant, and that, as in everything, by previous title; though Israel came in to put man to the test by it. But in the volume of the Book, He was the real and willing Servant of God, glorious in this place, who had the true title to all glory. For the willingness was in divine and perfect love, as the competency to accomplish all equally perfect; the competency to obey as great as the willingness, the principle of obedience. As perfect, the coming and all He came for, was the divine will—yet as perfect in love in doing it; it had the stamp of what was divine upon it, although the manner of manifestation was human and subject. How different the undertaking of those who must be kept by a barrier from God, when undertaking to earn a title to be near; Christ went forth from God—they, outside, could not even be allowed to come near.