And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
Lord God - not Yahweh (H3068) 'Elohiym (H430), as formerly, but 'Adonaay (H136) Yahweh (H3068), my Lord Yahweh. The first word is a plural form, put for the singulular, as spoken of the divine majesty. Others regard it as strictly a suffix plural, so that as, pluralis excellentiae, it would be a reverential expression, signifying my Lord, Yahweh (cf. Genesis 18:27; Genesis 18:30; Genesis 18:32); or, the force of the suffix being neglected, Yahweh, Lord.
What wilt thou give? To his mind the declaration, "I am thy exceeding great reward," had but one meaning, or was viewed but in one particular light, as bearing on the filfillment of the promise, and he was still experiencing the sickness of hope deferred.
And the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus. This is an obscure and difficult passage; but part of the obscurity and difficulty arises from the incorrect translation in our version. The proper rendering is, 'and the son of possession - i:e., the possessor of my house, or of my personal property-will be this Damascene, Eliezer' (Gesenius). There is an alliteration in the original words which is not seen in the English form. The Septuagint, regarding the two rare words in the passage as proper names, translates the clause thus:-`And this son of Masek is Dammesek Eliezer.'-Jerome, Lee, and others, follow them in the belief that the two latter words constitute the man's name. The common view of this vexed passage is that Eliezer was the oldest, at all events the confidential, slave of Abram (Genesis 24:1-67), and that, according to an ancient usage in nomadic tribes, when the master or chief was childless, the steward or servant "who was over his house" fell heir to all his property. But there is no ground for either opinion-no evidence that Abraham in this passage referred to his steward; and no instance on record that, in default of a natural heir, the right of inheritance among the nomads of the East belonged to the steward. Besides, Lot, who was living at no great distance from Hebron, was a near kinsman of Abram. But the probability is, as has been suggested by Kitto, that Eliezer was some nearer relative, whom Abram regarded as his heir-at-law, then residing at Damascus, while some have identified Lot, with Eliezer-a name (my God helps) given to him in reference to his recent deliverance. But that is no more than a conjecture. Abram's language betrayed a latent spirit of fretfulness, or perhaps a temporary failure in the very virtue for which he is so renowned-an absolute submission to God's time as well as way of accomplishing His promise.