Genesis 47:13–31

Care being taken of Jacob and his family, the preservation of which was especially designed by Providence in Joseph's advancement, an account is now given of the saving of the kingdom of Egypt too from ruin; for God is King of nations as well as King of saints, and provideth food for all flesh. Joseph now returns to the management of that great trust which Pharaoh had lodged in his hand. It would have been pleasing enough to him to have gone and lived with his father and brethren in Goshen; but his employment would not permit it. When he had seen his father, and seen him well settled, he applied himself as closely as ever to the execution of his office. Note, Even natural affection must give way to necessary business. Parents and children must be content to be absent one from another, when it is necessary, on either side, for the service of God or their generation. In Joseph's transactions with the Egyptians observe, I. The great extremity that Egypt, and the parts adjacent, were reduced to by the famine. There was no bread, and they fainted (Gen 47:13), they were ready to die, Gen 47:15, Gen 47:19. 1. See here what a dependence we have upon God's providence. If its usual favours are suspended but for a while, we die, we perish, we all perish. All our wealth would not keep us from starving if the rain of heaven were but withheld for two or three years. See how much we lie at God's mercy, and let us keep ourselves always in his love. 2. See how much we smart by our own improvidence. If all the Egyptians had done for themselves in the seven years of plenty as Joseph did for Pharaoh, they had not been now in these straits; but they regarded not the warning they had of the years of famine, concluding that tomorrow shall be as this day, next year as this, and much more abundant. Note, Because man knows not his time (his time of gathering when he has it) therefore his misery is great upon him when the spending time comes, Ecc 8:6, Ecc 8:7. 3. See how early God put a difference between the Egyptians and the Israelites, as afterwards in the plagues, Exo 8:22; Exo 9:4, Exo 9:26; Exo 10:23. Jacob and his family, though strangers, were plentifully fed on free cost, while the Egyptians were dying for want. See Isa 65:13, My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry. Happy art thou, O Israel. Whoever wants, God's children shall not, Psa 34:10. II. The price they had come up to, for their supply, in this exigency. 1. They parted with all their money which they had hoarded up, Gen 47:14. Silver and gold would not feed them, they must have corn. All the money of the kingdom was by this means brought into the exchequer. 2. When the money failed, they parted with all their cattle, those for labour, as the horses and asses, and those for food, as the flocks and the herds, Gen 47:17. By this it should seem that we may better live upon bread without flesh than upon flesh without bread. We may suppose they parted the more easily with their cattle because they had little or no grass for them; and now Pharaoh saw in reality what he had before seen in vision, nothing but lean kine. 3. When they had sold their stocks off their land, it was easy to persuade themselves (rather than starve) to sell their land too; for what good would that do them, when they had neither corn to sow it nor cattle to eat of it? They therefore sold that next, for a further supply of corn. 4. When their land was sold, so that they had nothing to live on, they must of course sell themselves, that they might live purely upon their labour, and hold their lands by the base tenure of villenage, at the courtesy of the crown. Note, Skin for skin, and all that a man hath, even liberty and property (those darling twins), will he give for his life; for life is sweet. There are few (though perhaps there are some) who would even dare to die rather than live in slavery, and dependence on an arbitrary power. And perhaps there are those who, in that case, could die by the sword, in a heat, who yet could not deliberately die by famine, which is much worse, Lam 4:9. Now it was a great mercy to the Egyptians that, in this distress, they could have corn at any rate; if they had all died for hunger, their lands perhaps would have escheated to the crown of course, for want of heirs; they therefore resolved to make the best of bad. III. The method which Joseph took to accommodate the matter between prince and people, so that the prince might have his just advantage, and yet the people not be quite ruined. 1. For their lands, he needed not come to any bargain with them while the years of famine lasted; but when these were over (for God will not contend for ever, nor will he be always wroth) he came to an agreement, which it seems both sides were pleased with, that the people should occupy and enjoy the lands, as he thought fit to assign them, and should have seed to sow them with out of the king's stores, for their own proper use and behoof, yielding and paying only a fifth part of the yearly profits as a chief rent to the crown. This became a standing law, Gen 47:26. And it was a very good bargain to have food for their lands, when otherwise they and theirs must have starved, and then to have their lands again upon such easy terms. Note, Those ministers of state are worthy of double honour, both for wisdom and integrity, that keep the balance even between prince and people, so that liberty and property may not intrench upon prerogative, nor the prerogative bear hard upon liberty and property: in the multitude of such counsellors there is safety. If afterwards the Egyptians thought it hard to pay so great a duty to the king out of their lands, they must remember, not only how just, but how kind, the first imposing of it was. They might thankfully pay a fifth where all was due. It is observable how faithful Joseph was to him that appointed him. He did not put the money into his own pocket, nor entail the lands upon his own family; but converted both entirely to Pharaoh's use; and therefore we do not find that his posterity went out of Egypt any richer than the rest of their poor brethren. Those in public trusts, if they raise great estates, must take heed that it be not at the expense of a good conscience, which is much more valuable. 2. For their persons, he removed them to cities, Gen 47:21. He transplanted them, to show Pharaoh's sovereign power over them, and that they might, in time, forget their titles to their lands, and be the more easily reconciled to their new condition of servitude. The Jewish writers say, "He removed them thus from their former habitations because they reproached his brethren as strangers, to silence which reproach they were all made, in effect, strangers." See what changes a little time may make with a people, and how soon God can empty those from vessel to vessel who had settled upon their lees. How hard soever this seems to have been upon them, they themselves were at this time sensible of it as a very great kindness, and were thankful they were not worse used: Thou hast saved our lives, Gen 47:25. Note, There is good reason that the Saviour of our lives should be the Master of our lives. "Thou hast saved us; do what thou wilt with us." IV. The reservation he made in favour of the priests. They were maintained on free cost, so that they needed not to sell their lands, Gen 47:22. All people will thus walk in the name of their God; they will be kind to those that attend the public service of their God, and that minister to them in holy things; and we should, in like manner, honour our God, by esteeming his ministers highly in love for their work's sake.

And all the land of Canaan fainted. It was a memorable judgment of God, that the most fertile regions, which were accustomed to supply provisions for distant and transmarine nations, were reduced to such poverty that they were almost consumed. The word lhh (lahah,) which Moses uses, is explained in two ways. Some say that they were driven to madness on account of the famine; others, that they were so destitute of food that they fainted; but whichever method of interpretation be approved, we see that they who had been accustomed to supply others with food, were themselves famishing. Therefore it is not for those who cultivate fertile lands to trust in their abundance; rather let them acknowledge that a large supply of provision does not so much spring from the bowels of the earth, as it distills, or rather flows down from heaven, by the secret blessing of God. For there is no luxuriance so great, that it is not soon exchanged for barrenness, when God sprinkles it with salt instead of rain. Meanwhile, it is right to turn our eyes to that special kindness of God by which he nourishes his own people in the midst of famine, as it is said in Psalm 37:19. If, however, God is pleased to try us with famine, we must pray that he would prepare us to endure hunger with a meek and equal mind, lest we should rage, like fierce, and even ravenous wild beasts. And although it is possible that grievous commotions were raised during the protracted scarcity, (as it is said in the old proverb that the belly has no ears,) yet the more simple sense of the passage seems to me to be, that the Egyptians and Canaanites had sunk under the famine, and were lying prostrate, as if at the point of death. Moreover, Moses pursues the history of the famine, with the intention of showing that the prediction of Joseph was verified by the event; and that, by his skill and industry, the greatest dangers were so well and dexterously provided against, that Egypt ought justly to acknowledge him as the author of its deliverance.

And Joseph gathered up all the money. Moses first declares that the Egyptian king had acted well and wisely, in committing the work of providing corn to the sole care and authority of Joseph. He then commends the sincere and faithful administration of Joseph himself. We know how few persons can touch the money of kings without defiling themselves by peculation. Amid such vast heaps of money, the opportunity of plundering was not less than the difficulty of self-restraint. But Moses says, that whatever money Joseph collected, he brought into the house of the king. It was a rare and unparalleled integrity, to keep the hands pure amidst such heaps of gold. And he would not have been able to conduct himself with such moderation, unless his divine calling had proved as a bridle to hold him in; for they who are restrained from thefts and rapaciousness by worldly motives alone, would immediately put forth their hand to the prey, unless they feared the eyes and the judgments of men. But inasmuch as Joseph might have sinned without a witness of his fault; it follows that the true fear of God flourished in his breast. Plausible and well coloured pretexts, in excuse of the theft, would doubtless present themselves. "When you are serving a tyrant, why may it not be lawful for you to apply some part of the gain to your own advantage?" So much the more does it appear that he was fortified by downright honesty; since he repelled all temptations, lest he should desire fraudulently to enrich himself at the expense of another.

And when money failed. Moses does not mean that all the money in Egypt had been brought into the royal treasury; for there were many of the nobles of the court free from the effects of the famine; but the simple meaning of the expression is that nearly all had been exhausted; that now the common people had not money enough to buy corn; and that, at length, extreme necessity had driven the Egyptians to the second remedy of which he is about to speak. Moreover, although, like persons driven to desperation, they might seem arrogantly to rise up against Joseph; yet the context shows that nothing was farther from their minds than to terrify, by their boldness, the man whose compassion they suppliantly implore. Wherefore the question, Why should we die in thy presence? has no other signification than that they felt themselves ruined, unless his clemency should afford them relief. But it may be asked how the Canaanites supported their lives. There is indeed no doubt that a grievous pestilence, the attendant on famine, would carry off many, unless they received assistance from other regions, or were miserally fed on herbs and roots. And perhaps the barrenness was not there so great, but that they might gather half, or a third part of their food, from the fields,

Give your cattle. It was a miserable spectacle, and one which might have softened hearts of iron, to see rich farmers, who previously had kept provision stored in their granaries for others, now begging food. Therefore, Joseph might be deemed cruel, because he does not give bread gratuitously to those who are poor and exhausted, but robs them of all their cattle, sheep, and asses. Seeing, however, that Joseph is transacting the business of another, I dare not charge his strictness with cruelty. If, during the seven fruitful years, he had extorted corn by force from an unwilling people, he would now have acted tyrannically in seizing their flocks and herds. But seeing that they had been at liberty to lay up, in their private stores, what they had sold to the king, they now pay the just penalty of their negligence. Joseph also perceived that they were deprived of their possessions by a divine interposition, in order that the king alone might be enriched by the spoils of all. Besides, since it was lawful for him to offer corn for sale, it was also lawful for him to exchange it for cattle. Truly, the corn belonged to the king; why then should he not demand a price from the purchasers? But they were poor, and therefore it was but just to succor them in their want. Were this rule to prevail, the greater part of sales would be unlawful. For no one freely parts with what he possesses. Wherefore, if his valuation of the cattle was fair, I do not see what was deserving of reprehension in the conduct of Joseph; especially as he was not dealing with his own property, but had been appointed prefect over the corn, with this condition, that he should acquire gain, not for himself, but for the king. If any one should object that he ought at least to have exhorted the lying to content himself with the abundant pecuniary wealth which he had obtained; I answer, that Moses relates, by the way, but a few things out of many. Any one, therefore, may easily conjecture, that a business of such great consequence, was not transacted by Joseph, without the cognizance and judgment of the king. But what, if it appeared to the king's counselors, an equitable arrangement, that the farmers should receive, in return for their cattle, food for the whole year? Lastly, seeing that we stand or fall by the judgment of God alone, it is not for us to condemn what his law has left undecided.

They came to him the second year. Moses does not reckon the second year from the date of the famine, but from the time when the money had failed. But since they knew, from the oracle, that the termination of the dearth was drawing near, they desired not only that corn should be given them for food, but also for seed. Whence it appears that they had become wise too late, and had neglected the useful admonition of God, at the time when they ought to have made provision for the future. Moreover, when they declare that their money and cattle had failed, they do it, not for the purpose of expostulating with Joseph, as if they had been unjustly deprived of these things by him; but for the purpose of showing that the only thing remaining for them was to purchase food and seed at the price of their lands, and that they could not otherwise be preserved, unless Joseph would enter into this compact. For it would have been the part of impudence to offer no price or compensation. They begin by saying, that they had nothing at hand, and that, therefore, their lives would be lost, unless Joseph were willing to buy their lands; and in order to excite his compassion, they ask again, why he would suffer them to die, and their very land to perish? For this is the death of the earth, when the cultivation of it is neglected, and when, being reduced to a desert, it can bring forth nothing more.

And Joseph bought all the land. Any one might suppose it to be the height of cruel and inexplicable avarice, that Joseph should take away from the miserable husband men, the very fields, by the produce of which they nourished the kingdom. But I have before showed, that unless every kind of purchase is to be condemned, there is no reason why Joseph should be blamed. If any one should say that he abused their penury; this alone would suffice for his excuse, that no wiles of his, no circumvention, no force, no threats, had reduced the Egyptians to this necessity. He transacted the king's business with equal fidelity and industry; and fulfilled the duties of his office, without resorting to violent edicts. When the famine became urgent, it was lawful to expose wheat to sale, as well to the rich as to the poor: afterwards it was not less lawful to buy the cattle; and now, at last, why should it not be lawful to acquire the land for the king, at a just price? To this may be added, that he extorted nothing, but entered into treaty with them, at their own request. I confess, indeed, that it is not right to take whatever may be offered without discrimination: for if severe necessity presses, then he who wishes, by all means, to escape it, will submit to hard conditions. Therefore, when any one thus invites us, to defraud him, we are not, by his necessities, rendered excusable. But I do not defend Joseph, on this sole ground, that the Egyptians voluntarily offered him their lands, as men who were ready to purchase life, at any price; but I say, this ought also to be considered, that he acted with equity, even though he left them nothing. The terms would have been more severe, if they themselves had been consigned to perpetual slavery; but he now concedes to them personal liberty, and only covenants for their fields, which, perhaps, the greater part of the people had bought from the poor. If he had stripped of their clothing those whom he was feeding with corn, this would have been to put them indirectly and slowly to death. For what difference does it make, whether I compel a man to die by hunger or by cold? But Joseph so succors the Egyptians, that in future they should be free, and should be able to obtain a moderate subsistence by their labor. For though they might have to change their abode, yet they are all made stewards of the king: and Joseph restores to them, not only the lands, but the implements which he had bought. Whence it appears that he had used what clemency he was able, in order to relieve them. Meanwhile, let those who are too intent on wealth beware lest they should falsely employ Joseph's example as a pretext: because it is certain that all contracts, which are not formed according to the rule of charity, are vicious in the sight of God; and that we ought, according to that equity which is inwardly dictated to us by a secret instinct of nature, so to act towards others, as we wish to be dealt with ourselves.

And as for the people, he removed them to cities. This removal was, indeed, severe; but if we reflect how much better it was to depart to another place; in order that they might be free cultivators of the land, than to be attached to the soil, and employed as slaves in servile work; no one will deny that this was a tolerable, and even a humane exercise of authority. Had each person cultivated his field, as he had been accustomed to do, the exaction of tribute would have seemed to be grievous. Joseph, therefore, contrived a middle course, which might mitigate the new and unwonted burden, by assigning new lands to each, with a tribute attached to them. The passage may, however, be differently expounded; namely, that Joseph caused all the farmers to go to the cities to receive the provisions, and to settle their public accounts. If this sense is approved, the fact that Egypt was divided into provinces, afterwards called nomes, may probably hence have received its origin. This removing from place to place would, however, have been alike injurious to the king and to the people at large, because they would not be able to make their skill and practice applicable to new situations. Yet, since the matter is not of great moment, and the signification of the word is ambiguous, I leave the question undecided.

Only the land of the priests. The priests were exempted from the common law, because the king granted them a maintenance. It is, indeed, doubtful, whether this was a supply for their present necessity, or whether he was accustomed to nourish them at his own expense. But seeing that Moses makes mention of their lands, I rattler incline to the conjecture, that, whereas they had before been rich, and this dearth had deprived them of their income, the king conferred this privilege upon them; and hence it arose that their lands remained unto them free. [187] The ancient historians, however, injudiciously invent many fables concerning the state of that land. I know not whether the statement that the farmers, content with small wages, sow and reap for the king and the priests, is to be traced to this regulation of Joseph or not. But, passing by these things, it is more to the purpose to observe, what Moses wished distinctly to testify; namely, that a heathen king paid particular attention to Divine worship, in supporting the priests gratuitously, for the purpose of sparing their lands and their property. Truly this is placed before our eyes, as a mirror, in which we may discern that a sentiment of piety which they cannot wholly efface, is implanted in the minds of men. It was the part of foolish, as well as of wicked superstition, that Pharaoh nourished such priests as these, who infatuated the people by their impostures: yet this was, in itself, a design worthy of commendation, that he did not suffer the worship of God to fall into decay; which, in a short time, must have happened, if the priests had perished in the famine. Whence we infer how sedulously we ought to be on our guard, that we undertake nothing with an indiscreet zeal; because nothing is more easy, in so great a corruption of human nature, than for religion to degenerate into frivolous trifles. Nevertheless, because this inconsiderate devotion (as it may be called) flowed from a right principle, what should be the conduct of our princes, who desire to be deemed Christians? If Pharaoh was so solicitous about his priests, that he nourished them to his own destruction, and that of his whole kingdom, in order that he might not be guilty of impiety against false gods; what sacrilege is it, in Christian princes, that the lawful and sincere ministers of holy things should be neglected, whose work they know to be approved by God, and salutary to themselves? But it may be asked, whether it was lawful for holy Joseph to undertake this office, for by so doing, he employed his labor in cherishing impious superstitions? But though I can readily grant that in such great, and arduous, and manifold offices of trust, it was easy for him to slide into various faults; yet I dare not absolutely condemn this act; nor can I, however, deny that he may have erred, in not resisting these superstitions with sufficient boldness. But since he was required by no law, to destroy the priests by hunger, and was not altogether allowed to dispense the king's corn at his own pleasure; if the king wished that food should be gratuitously supplied to the priests, he was no more at liberty to deny it to them than to the nobles at court. Therefore, though he did not willingly take charge of such dependents, yet when the king imposed the duty upon him, he could not refuse it, though he knew them to be unworthy to be fed on the dirt of oxen.

Then Joseph said unto the people. Here Moses describes the singular humanity of Joseph, which, as it then repressed all complaints, so, at this time, it justly dispels and refutes the calumnies with which he is assailed. The men, who were entirely destitute, and, in a sense, exiles, he reinstates in their possessions, on the most equitable condition, that they should pay a fifth part of the produce to the king. It is well known that formerly, in various places, kings have demanded by law the payment of tenths; but that, in the time of war, they doubled this tax. Therefore, what injury, can we say, was done to the Egyptians, when Joseph burdened the land, bought for the king, with a fifth part of its income; especially seeing that country is so much richer than others, that with less labor than elsewhere, it brings forth fruit for the maintenance of its cultivators? Should any one object that the king would have acted more frankly had he taken the fifth part of the land; the answer is obvious, that this was useful not only as an example, but also, for the purpose of quieting the people, by shutting the mouths of the captious. And certainly this indirect method, by which Joseph introduced the tax of a fifth part, had no other object than that of inducing the Egyptians to cultivate their lands with more alacrity, when they were convinced that, by such a compact, they were treated with clemency. And to this effect was their confession, which is recorded by Moses, expressed. For, first, they acknowledge that they owe their lives to him; secondly, they do not refuse to be the servants of the king. Whence we gather, that the holy man so conducted himself between the two parties, as greatly to enrich the king, without oppressing the people by tyranny. And I wish that all governors would practice this moderation, that they would only so far study the advantage of kings, as could be done without injury to the people. There is a celebrated saying of Tiberius Caesar, which savored little of tyranny, though he appears to have been a sanguinary and insatiable tyrant, that it is the part of a shepherd to shear the flock, but not to tear off the skin. At this day, however, kings do not believe that they rule freely, unless they not only flay their subjects, but entirely devour them. For they do not generally invest any with authority, except those who are sworn to the practice of slaughter. So much the more does the clemency of Joseph deserve praise, who so administered the affairs of Egypt, as to render the immense gains of the king compatible with a tolerable condition of the people.

there was no bread in all the land--This probably refers to the second year of the famine (Gen 45:6) when any little stores of individuals or families were exhausted and when the people had become universally dependent on the government. At first they obtained supplies for payment. Before long money failed.

And Joseph said, Give your cattle--"This was the wisest course that could be adopted for the preservation both of the people and the cattle, which, being bought by Joseph, was supported at the royal expense, and very likely returned to the people at the end of the famine, to enable them to resume their agricultural labors."

as for the people, he removed them to cities--obviously for the convenience of the country people, who were doing nothing, to the cities where the corn stores were situated.

Only the land of the priests bought he not--These lands were inalienable, being endowments by which the temples were supported. The priests for themselves received an annual allowance of provision from the state, and it would evidently have been the height of cruelty to withhold that allowance when their lands were incapable of being tilled.

Joseph said, Behold, &c.--The lands being sold to the government (Gen 47:19-20), seed would be distributed for the first crop after the famine; and the people would occupy them as tenants-at-will on the payment of a produce rent, almost the same rule as obtains in Egypt in the present day.

And there was no bread in all the land,.... The land of Egypt and the parts adjacent, but in Pharaoh's storehouses, all being consumed that were in private hands the first two years of the famine: for the famine was very sore; severe, pressed very hard: so that the land of Egypt, and all the land of Canaan, fainted by reason of the famine; that is, the inhabitants of both countries, their spirits sunk, as well as their flesh failed for want of food: or "raged" (b); became furious, and were like madmen, as the word signifies; according to Kimchi (c), they were at their wits' end, knew not what to do, as Aben Ezra interprets it, and became tumultuous; it is much they had not in a violent manner broke open the storehouses of corn, and took it away by force; that they did not must be owing to the providence of God, which restrained them, and to the care and prudence of Joseph as a means, who, doubtless, had well fortified the granaries; and very probably there were a body of soldiers placed everywhere, who were one of the three parts or states of the kingdom of Egypt, as Diodorus Siculus (d) relates; to which may be added, the mild and gentle address of Joseph to the people, speaking kindly to them, giving them hopes of a supply during the famine, and readily relieving them upon terms they could not object to. (b) "insanivit vel acta fuit in rahiem", Vatablus; "furebat", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. (c) In Sepher Shorash rad so Ben Melech in loc. (d) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 67.

And Joseph gathered up all the money,.... Not that he went about to collect it, or employed men to do it, but he gathered it, being brought to him for corn as follows: even all that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: by which means those countries became as bare of money as of provisions: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house: into his repository, as the Targum of Jonathan, into his treasury, not into his own house or coffers, in which he acted the faithful part to Pharaoh; for it was with his money he bought the corn, built storehouses, kept men to look after them to sell the corn; wherefore the money arising from thence belonged to him; nor did he do any injury to the people: they sold their corn in the time of plenty freely; he gave them a price for it, it then bore, and he sold it out again to them, at a price according to the season; nor was it ever complained of, that it was an exorbitant one; it was highly just and necessary it should be at a greater price than when it was bought in, considering the great expense in the collection, preservation, and distribution of it: it must be a vast sum of money he amassed together, and Dr. Hammond (e) thinks it probable that this Pharaoh, who, by Joseph's advice, got all this wealth, is the same with Remphis, of whom Diodorus Siculus (f) says, that he spent his time in minding the taxes and heaping up riches from all quarters, and left more behind him than any of the kings that reigned before, even in silver and gold four million talents, the same that Herodotus (g) calls Rhampsinitus, who, he says, had the greatest quantity of money of any of the kings of Egypt. (e) Annotat. on Acts 7.43. (f) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 56. (g) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 121.

And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan,.... It had been all spent in the third, fourth, and fifth years of the famine; for it seems to be at the end of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth year of the famine, that this was the case, since we after read of a second or following year, which was very plainly the last, since seed was given them to sow the land with, which shows the time of drought to be near at an end: all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, give us bread; freely, for nothing, since they had no money to buy any with: no mention is made of the Canaanites, who could not presume to come and ask for corn on such a footing: for why should we die in thy presence? before his eyes, he not relieving them when it was in his power to do it; they knew such an argument as this would work upon a mind so humane, tender, and generous as was Joseph's: for the money faileth; all was gone, they had none left to purchase corn with; or they suggest they should not have desired to have had it at free cost.

And Joseph said, give your cattle,.... Oxen, sheep, horses, asses, as follows: and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail; that is, corn for cattle, if they had no money to give.

And they brought their cattle unto Joseph,.... Which they might the more readily do, since there was scarce any grass to feed them with; and though some of them were creatures used for food, yet might be so lean and poor for want of grass, as not to be fit to eat; and besides, they could do better without flesh than without bread: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses; with which Egypt abounded, to which many places of Scripture have respect, Deuteronomy 17:16, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds; the sheep and the oxen; which shows that these creatures were bred and fed by them, and were, no doubt, slain, and used for food: and for the asses; which were used for carrying burdens: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle, for that year; which seems to be the sixth year of the famine: one would wonder what Joseph should do with all their cattle, where put them, and feed them, in such a time of drought; though it is probable the number was not exceeding large, since they only fetched one year's provision of bread.

When the year was ended, they came unto him the second year,.... Which seems to be the seventh and last year of the years of famine; not the second year of the famine, as Jarchi, but the second year of their great distress, when having spent all their money they parted with their cattle; for it cannot be thought that they should be drained of their money and cattle too in one year: and said unto him, we will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; both these were well known to Joseph, and therefore cannot be the things which they say they would not hide: Musculus thinks it should be rendered in the past tense, "we have not hid"; this they told him the last year, that their money was gone, and he knew he had their cattle for their last year's provision: the sense seems to be this, that seeing their money was spent, and their cattle were in the hands of Joseph, they would not, and could not conceal from him what follows: there is not enough left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies and our lands; and the one were starving and the other desolate.

Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land?.... Beholding their miserable condition, and not helping them; die they must unless they had bread to eat, and their land die also if they had not seed to sow; that is, would become desolate, as the Septuagint version renders it; so Ben Melech observes, that land which is desolate is as if it was dead, because it produces neither grass nor fruit, whereas when it does it looks lively and cheerful: buy us and our land for bread; they were willing to sell themselves and their land too for bread to support their lives, nothing being dearer to a man than life: and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh; both should be his; they would hold their land of him, and be tenants to him: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land may not be desolate; entirely so; some parts of it they could sow a little upon, as on the banks of the Nile, or perhaps that river might begin to overflow, or they had some hopes of it, especially from Joseph's prediction they knew this was the last year of famine, and therefore it was proper to sow the ground some time in this, that they might have a crop for the provision of the next year; and they had no seed to sow, and if they were not furnished with it, the famine must unavoidably continue, notwithstanding the flow of the Nile.

And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh,.... Not for himself, nor did he entail it on his posterity, but for Pharaoh, who became sole proprietor of it: for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them; everyone that had a field sold it to buy bread for his family, so great was the famine; no mention is made of their houses, either because these went with their lands, or they were so mean that they were of little account, and would scarce bear any price; for as Diodorus Siculus (h) reports of the Egyptians, they were less careful of the structure of their houses, and exceeded all bounds in the magnificence of their sepulchres: so the land became Pharaoh's; not only with respect to dominion and government, so it was before, but with respect to property; before, every man's field, and garden, and vineyard were his own, and he was in possession thereof for his own use, but now being sold, were Pharaoh's; and they held them of him, and paid a rent for them in a manner hereafter directed by a law. (h) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 47.

And as for the people, he removed them,.... From the places where they dwelt, that it might appear they had no more property there, and might forget it, and be more willing to pay rent elsewhere; and their posterity hereafter could have no notion of its being theirs, or plead prescription; and besides, by such a removal and separation of the inhabitants of cities, some to one place, and some to another, sedition and mutiny might be prevented: he had them to cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt, even unto the other end thereof; according to the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, those that dwelt in provinces, or in country towns and villages, he removed to cities, and those that dwelt in cities he removed into provinces, and placed them at the utmost distance from their former habitations, for the reasons before given; and the above Targums suggest another reason, to teach the Egyptians not to reproach the Israelites with being exiles and strangers, when they were all of them removed from their native places, and were strangers, where they were.

Only the land of the priests bought he not,.... Not from any special affection for them, or any superstitious veneration of them, which can never be thought of so good a man, but for a reason following, which shows they had no need to sell them: for the priests had a portion assigned them, by Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them; they had a certain allowance by the day of provision granted them, on which they lived; so Herodotus says (i) of the priests of Egypt, that they spend nothing of their own, but sacred food is provided for them, and great plenty of the flesh of geese and oxen is given daily to everyone of them. And this was a delicate affair, which Joseph could not intermeddle with, but in prudence must leave it as he found it, and do as had been used to be done; this depending on the will and pleasure of Pharaoh, if not upon the constitution of the land, as it seems to be from Diodorus Siculus (k), who divides Egypt into three parts; and the first part he assigns to the priests, who, according to him, were maintained out of their own revenues. Some understand this of "princes" (l), the word sometimes being used of them, and interpret it of the officers and courtiers of Pharaoh, his nobles, that dwelt in his palace, and had their portion of food from him; but the former sense seems best: wherefore they sold not their lands; they were not obliged to it, having provision from the king's table, or by his appointment. (i) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 37. (k) Ut supra, (Bibliothec. l. 1.) p. 66. (l) "agros praesidum", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.

Then Joseph said unto the people,.... After he had bought their land, and before the removal of them to distant parts: behold, I have bought you this day, and your land, for Pharaoh: which he observes to them, that they might take notice of it, and confirm it, or object if they had anything to say to the contrary: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land: by which it should seem that they were not removed from the spot where they lived, but retained their own land under Pharaoh, and had seed given them to sow it with, which may seem contrary to Genesis 47:21; wherefore that must be understood of a purpose and proposal to remove them, and not that it was actually done; or, as Musculus gives the sense, Joseph by a public edict called all the people from the extreme parts of Egypt to the cities nearest to them, and there proclaimed the subjection of them, and their lands to Pharaoh, but continued them to them as tenants of his; unless it should be said, that in those distant parts to which they were sent, land was put into their hands to till and manure for the king, and have seed given them to sow it with; but this seems to be said to them at the same time the bargain was made.

And it shall come to pass, in the increase,.... When the land shall produce an increase, and it shall be gathered in: that you shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh; a fifth part of the increase: and four parts shall be your own; for the following uses, one part for seed of the field: to sow again with for the next year: a second part for your food; for food for themselves: a third part for them of your household; their servants and maids: and the fourth part for food for your little ones; for their children, be they young or old; or however four parts of five he proposed they should have for their own use, and for the maintenance of their families, which was a kind and generous proposal, when all might have been demanded, and they and theirs treated as slaves.

And they said, thou hast saved our lives,.... Preserved them from death through famine, by laying up stores of corn, which he had sold out to them for their money, cattle, and land, or otherwise they must have perished, they and theirs, and this favour they thankfully acknowledge: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants; signifying, that they esteemed it a great favour to be so on the foot of the bargain made with them, and they desired a continuance in it.

And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day,.... With the consent of Pharaoh, his nobles, and all the people of the land, who readily came into it; and so it became, a fundamental law of their constitution, and which continued to the times of Moses, the writer of this history: that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; that is, of the increase the whole land of Egypt produced: except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's; it not being bought by him; so Diodorus Siculus (m), as he assigns the first part of the land to the priests, so he says they were free from all taxes and tribute, and next to the king were possessed of honour and authority. (m) Ut supra. (Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 47.)

Observe, 1. The comfort Jacob lived in (Gen 47:27, Gen 47:28); while the Egyptians were impoverished in their own land, Jacob was replenished in a strange land. He lived seventeen years after he came into Egypt, far beyond his own expectation. Seventeen years he had nourished Joseph (for so old he was when he was sold from him, Gen 37:2), and now, by way of requital, seventeen years Joseph nourished him. Observe how kindly Providence ordered Jacob's affairs, that when he was old, and least able to bear care or fatigue, he had least occasion for it, being well provided for by his son without his own forecast. Thus God considers the frame of his people. 2. The care Jacob died in. At last the time drew nigh that Israel must die, Gen 47:29. Israel, a prince with God, that had power over the angel and prevailed, yet must yield to death. There is no remedy, he must die: it is appointed for all men, therefore for him; and there is no discharge in that war. Joseph supplied him with bread, that he might not die by famine; but this did not secure him from dying by age or sickness. He died by degrees; his candle was not blown out, but gradually burnt down to the socket, so that he saw, at some distance, the time drawing nigh. Note, It is an improvable advantage to see the approach of death before we feel its arrests, that we may be quickened to do what our hand finds to do with all our might: however, it is not far from any of us. Now Jacob's care, as he saw the day approaching, was about his burial, not the pomp of it (he was no way solicitous about that), but the place of it. (1.) He would be buried in Canaan. This he resolved on, not from mere humour, because Canaan was the land of his nativity, but in faith, because it was the land of promise (which he desired thus, as it were, to keep possession of, till the time should come when his posterity should be masters of it), and because it was a type of heaven, that better country which he that said these things declared plainly that he was in expectation of, Heb 11:14. He aimed at a good land, which would be his rest and bliss on the other side death. (2.) He would have Joseph sworn to bring him thither to be buried (Gen 47:29, Gen 47:31), that Joseph, being under such a solemn obligation to do it, might have that to answer to the objections which otherwise might have been made against it, and for the greater satisfaction of Jacob now in his dying minutes. Nothing will better help to make a death-bed easy than the certain prospect of a rest in Canaan after death. (3.) When this was done Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head, yielding himself, as it were, to the stroke of death ("Now let it come, and it shall be welcome"), or worshipping God, as it is explained, Heb 11:21, giving God thanks for all his favours, and particularly for this, that Joseph was ready, not only to put his hand upon his eyes to close them, but under his thigh to give him the satisfaction he desired concerning his burial. Thus those that go down to the dust should, with humble thankfulness, bow before God, the God of their mercies, Psa 22:29.

And Israel dwelt in the land. Moses does not mean that Jacob and his sons were proprietors of that land which Pharaoh had granted them as a dwelling-place, in the same manner in which the other parts of Egypt were given to the inhabitants for a perpetual possession: but that they dwelt there commodiously for a time, and thus were in possession by favor, provided they continued to be peaceable. Hence the cause that they so greatly increased, in a very short space of time. Therefore, what is here related by Moses belongs to the history of the following period; and he now returns to the proper thread of his narrative, in which he purposed to show how God protected his Church from many deaths; and not that only, but wonderfully exalted it by his own secret power.

And Jacob lived. It was no common source of temptation to the holy old man, to be an exile from the land of Canaan, for so many years. Be it so, that on account of the famine, he was compelled to go to Egypt; why could he not return when the fifth year was passed? For he did not stupidly lie there in a state of torpor, but he remained quiet, because free egress was not allowed him. Wherefore, also, in this respect, God did not lightly exercise his patience. For, however sweet might be the delights of Egypt, yet he was more than miserable to be deprived of the sight of that land which was the lively figure of his celestial country. With the men of this world, indeed, earthly advantage would have prevailed: but such was the piety of the holy man, that the profit of the flesh weighed nothing against the loss of spiritual good. But he was more deeply wounded, when he saw his death approaching: because, not only was he himself deprived of the inheritance promised to him, but he was leaving his sons, of doubtful, or at least of feeble, faith, buried in Egypt as in a sepulcher. Moreover, his example is proposed to us, that our minds may not languish or become enfeebled by the weariness of a protracted warfare: yea, the more Satan attempts to depress them to the earth, the more fervently let them look and soar towards heaven.

And he called his son Joseph. Hence we infer, not only the anxiety of Jacob, but his invincible magnanimity. It is a proof of great courage, that none of the wealth or the pleasures of Egypt could so allure him, as to prevent him from sighing for the land of Canaan, in which he had always passed a painful and laborious life. But the constancy of his faith appeared still more excellent, when he, commanding his dead body to be carried back to Canaan, encouraged his sons to hope for deliverance. Thus it happened that he, being dead, animated those who were alive and remained, as with the sound of a trumpet. For, to what purpose was this great care respecting his sepulture, except that the promise of God might be confirmed to his posterity? Therefore, though his faith was tossed as upon the waves, yet it was so far from suffering shipwreck, that it conducted others into the haven. Moreover, he demands an oath from his son Joseph, not so much on account of distrust, as to show that a matter of the greatest consequence was in hand. Certainly he would not, by lightly swearing, profane the name of God: but the more sacred and solemn the promise was, the more ought all his sons to remember, that it was of great importance that his body should be carried to the sepulcher of his fathers. It is also probable that he prudently thought of alleviating any enmity which might be excited against his son Joseph. For he knew that this choice of his sepulcher would be, by no means, gratifying to the Egyptians; seeing it seemed like casting a reproach on their whole kingdom. This stranger, forsooth, as if he could find no fit place for his body in this splendid and noble country, wishes to be buried in the land of Canaan. Therefore, in order that Joseph might more freely dare to ask, and might more easily obtain, this favor from the king, Jacob binds him by an oath. And certainly Joseph afterwards makes use of this pretext, to avoid giving offense. This also was the reason why he required Joseph to do for him that last office, which was a duty devolving on the brothers in common; for such a favor would scarcely have been granted to the rest; and they would not have ventured on the act, unless permission had been obtained. But, as strangers and mean men, they had neither favor nor authority. Besides, it was especially necessary for Joseph to be on his guard, lest becoming ensnared by the allurements of Egypt, he should gradually forsake his own kindred. It must, however, be known, that the solemnity of an oath was designedly interposed by Jacob, to show that he did not, in vain, desire for himself, a sepulcher in the land where he had met with an unfavorable reception; where he had endured many sufferings; and from which, at length, being expelled by hunger, he had become an exile. As to his commanding the hand to be put under his thigh, we have explained what this symbol means in Genesis 24:2

But I will lie with my fathers [188] It appears from this passage, that the word "sleep," whenever it is put for "die," does not refer to the soul, but to the body. For, what did it concern him, to be buried with his fathers in the double cave, [189] unless to testify that he was associated with them after death? And by what bond were he and they joined together, except this, that not even death itself could extinguish the power of their faith; which would seem to utter this voice from the same sepulcher, Now also we have a common inheritance.

And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head. By this expression, Moses again affirms that Jacob esteemed it a singular kindness, that his son should have promised to do what he had required respecting his burial. For he exerts his weak body as much as he is able, in order to give thanks unto God, as if he had obtained something most desirable. He is said to have worshipped towards the head of his bed: because, seeing he was quite unable to rise from the bed on which he lay, he yet composed himself with a solemn air in the attitude of one who was praying. The same is recorded of David (1 Kings 1:47) when, having obtained his last wish, he celebrates the grace of God. The Greeks have translated it, at the top of his staff: which the Apostle has followed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Hebrews 11:21.) And though the interpreters seem to have been deceived by the similitude of words; because, with the Hebrews, mvth (mitah) signifies "bed," mvth (motah,) "a staff;" yet the Apostle allows himself to cite the passage as it was then commonly used, lest he might offend unskillful readers, without necessity. [190] Moreover, they who expound the words to mean that Jacob worshipped the scepter of his son, absurdly trifle. The exposition of others, that he bowed his head, leaning on the top of his staff, is, to say the least, tolerable. But since there is no ambiguity in the words of Moses, let it suffice to keep in memory what I have said, that, by this ceremony, he openly manifested the greatness of his joy. Footnotes: [183] Quod Joseph quinque ex fratrum extremitate adduxit In the text Calvin has it, "Et de extremis fratribus suis cepit quinque viros." The English version renders the passage, "some of his brethren." Other interpreters, a "definite part." Gesenius, however, translates the term mqtsh, "from the whole;" which perhaps gives the best sense. "And he took from the whole number of his brethren, five men, and presented them unto Pharaoh." -- Ed [184] The passage does not occur in any of the tragedies of Sophocles extant; but it is found among the fragments of lost plays, selected from different authors of antiquity by whom they had been quoted. The words here introduced are taken from Plutarch's Life of Pompey. It may be observed, that the word turannos is not necessarily to be understood in a bad sense. It sometimes merely means a king; but the idea of arbitrary power, whether well or ill used, is always involved in it. For the passage itself, see "Sophoclis Tragaediae Septem." Tom. Ii. Fragmenta, p. 95. Oxon., 1826. -- Ed [185] Usque ad os parvuli Even to the mount of the little one. lphy cht?, (Lephi chataph.) [186] Alii vertunt pubem; sed nescio quo sensu. [187] The following passage from Sir J. G. Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, will be read with interest. The priests "enjoyed important privileges, which extended to their whole family. They were exempt from taxes; they consumed no part of their own income in any of their necessary expenses; and they had one of the three portions into which the land of Egypt was divided, free from all duties. They were provided for, from the public stores, out of which they received a stated allowance of corn, and all the other necessaries of life; and we find that when Pharaoh, by the advice of Joseph, took all the land of the Egyptians in lieu of corn, the priests were not obliged to make the same sacrifice of their landed property, nor was the tax of the fifth part entailed upon it, as on that of other people." -- Vol. 1, p. 262 -- Ed. [188] Dormaim, "I will sleep." [189] The cave of Machpelah. See above, on Genesis 23:9. -- Ed. [190] The reasoning of Calvin, besides being in every respect unsatisfactory, is founded on a misquotation of the original. He appears to have put down the words from memory, or else his transcriber has made the mistake for him. The only difference between the words rendered "a bed" and a "staff" lies in the Masoretic punctuation; of which, it is well known, the authority is disputed. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments on the side of those opposed to the points, is derived from this passage and the Apostle's interpretation of it. If the word is not pointed, then it may mean either a bed or a staff; if, on the other hand, the present points are of equal authority with the text, the Apostle has quoted it wrong. The latter supposition is not to be endured. It seems to follow, then, that the original was either not pointed, or the copy used by St. Paul was pointed differently from the present text, or he knew that the points were not to be relied upon, for giving the precise meaning of the Holy Spirit in the word. -- Ed.

the time drew nigh that Israel must die--One only of his dying arrangements is recorded; but that one reveals his whole character. It was the disposal of his remains, which were to be carried to Canaan, not from a mere romantic attachment to his native soil, nor, like his modern descendants, from a superstitious feeling for the soil of the Holy Land, but from faith in the promises. His address to Joseph--"if now I have found grace in thy sight," that is, as the vizier of Egypt--his exacting a solemn oath that his wishes would be fulfilled and the peculiar form of that oath, all pointed significantly to the promise and showed the intensity of his desire to enjoy its blessings (compare Num 10:29).

Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head--Oriental beds are mere mats, having no head, and the translation should be "the top of his staff," as the apostle renders it (Heb 11:21). Next: Genesis Chapter 48

And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen,.... The historian returns to the account of the Israelites, having before observed the placing of them in Goshen by Joseph, at the direction of Pharaoh, in compliance with their own request; and here they continued until they were grown more numerous, when they were obliged to spread themselves further in this same country: and they had possessions therein; fields and vineyards, as the Targum of Jonathan; all the land was Pharaoh's, and they rented of him as his people did, it may be supposed: and grew, and multiplied exceedingly; even in Jacob's lifetime they grew rich and numerous.

And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years,.... He lived just the same term of years with Joseph in Egypt as he had lived with him in Syria and Canaan, Genesis 37:2; about two hours' walk from Fium are now to be seen the ruins of an ancient town, which the Coptics say was inhabited by the patriarch Jacob, and for this cause they name it, yet, Modsellet Jacub, or the tabernacle of Jacob (n), which place is supposed to be in the land of Goshen, see Genesis 47:11, so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years; he was one hundred and thirty when he stood before Pharaoh, Genesis 47:9; and now had lived in Egypt seventeen years, as in the above clause, which together make up the sum; and this exact time of the years of his life is given by Polyhistor from Demetrius, an Heathen writer (o). (n) Vansleb's Relation of a Voyage to Egypt, p. 167. (o) Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 21. p. 425.

And the time drew nigh that Israel must die,.... As all men must, by the appointment of God, even good men, the Israel of God; though they shall not die a spiritual death, nor an eternal one, yet a corporeal one, which is for their good, and is a blessing to them; the sting being removed, and so not a penal evil, which is owing to Christ's dying for them, who has abolished death as such; and there is a time fixed for their death, beyond which they must not live, and before which they must not die, but when the time comes there is no avoiding it; the time of Jacob's death was drawing on, as he perceived by the great decline of his natural strength, and perhaps by a divine impulse on his mind: and he called his son Joseph; sent for him, by a messenger, to come to him: and said unto him; when he was come: if now I have found grace in thy sight; which is not spoken in a way of submission, as from an inferior to a superior, as the phrase is sometimes used; or as signifying what would be esteemed as a favour should it be granted, but it is as if he should say, if thou hast any filial affection for me as a parent, and art willing to show love and respect to me, do as follows: put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: a gesture in swearing, as Jarchi observes, Genesis 24:2; adding, for explanation's sake: and deal kindly and truly with me; "kindly", by promising and swearing to do what he after desires; and "truly", by observing his oath, and fulfilling his promise: bury me not, I pray thee, in Egypt; not choosing to lie among idolaters at death, with whom he cared not to have any fellowship in life.

But I will lie with my fathers,.... Abraham and Isaac, whose bodies lay in the land of Canaan, where Jacob desired to be buried; partly to express his faith in the promised land, that it should be the inheritance of his posterity; and partly to draw off their minds from a continuance in Egypt, and to incline them to think of removing thither at a proper time, and to confirm them in the belief of their enjoyment of it; as well as to intimate his desire after, and faith in the heavenly glory he was going to, of which Canaan was a type: and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt; into the land of Canaan: and bury me in their burying place; in the burying place of his fathers, in the cave of Machpelah, near Hebron; see Genesis 49:30, and he said, I will do as thou hast said; Joseph promised his father to fulfil his request, and do as he had desired of him.

And he said, swear unto me,.... This he required, not from any distrust of Joseph, but to show his own eagerness, and the intenseness of his mind about this thing, how much he was set upon it, and what an important thing it was with him; as also, that if he should have any objections made to it, or arguments used with him to divert him from it, by Pharaoh or his court, he would be able to say his father had bound him by an oath to do it, which would at once stop their mouths, and be judged a sufficient reason for what he did, see Genesis 50:5, and he sware unto him; not only gave his promise, but confirmed it with an oath: and Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head: not in a way of civil respect to Joseph, giving him thanks for the assurance he had given him, that he would bury him, not in Egypt, but in Canaan; but in a religious way to God, giving thanks to him that he had lived to see his son Joseph, who, according to the promise, would close his eyes, and that he had inclined his heart to fulfil his request; though some think that no more is meant, than that after Jacob had spent himself in discoursing with Joseph, he sunk down and reclined on his pillow at his bed's head, to take some rest; for as for what the apostle says in Hebrews 11:21; that refers to another thing at another time; See Gill on Hebrews 11:21.