Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 47:13
And [there was] no bread in all the land; for the famine [was] very sore, so that the land of Egypt and [all] the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
13 27a (J (?)). The Famine in Egypt, and Joseph’s Policy
13. in all the land ] or “in all the earth.” LXX ; Lat. in toto orbe. Cf. Gen 41:54; Gen 41:57; Act 11:28, “a great famine over all the world.” “Very sore”: cf. Gen 12:10, Gen 41:31; Gen 41:56, Gen 43:1.
fainted ] A striking metaphor (the Heb. word not occurring again in O.T.) to express the complete collapse of the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan: LXX . Notice the association of Canaan with Egypt in these three Gen 47:13-15. Afterwards only Egypt is spoken of.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 47:13-26
Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the Land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaohs house
The morality of Josephs administration
The significance of the transaction is obvious; it brought men back to first principles; made them feel, in a very practical way, their absolute dependence on God, and on that one man through whom God was pleased to deal with them.
But what are we to think about its morality? Was Joseph right in buying men? The following considerations, are, to my own mind, satisfactory.
1. Joseph was acting under Divine guidance in an extraordinary emergency. It was not his own wisdom that foresaw the plenty and the famine, and which devised the plan he was raised up to carry out. It was God who gave him the message to Pharaoh, and it was God more than Pharaoh who exalted him to absolute power.
2. It is unreasonable to impute mean motives or cruelty to a man whose character, before this time and after it, was so singularly noble and good.
3. The people themselves proposed this arrangement, and they accepted it with gratitude. And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaohs servants.
4. Left to themselves, where would they have been? Even supposing that every farmer from the cataracts to the seaboard had been as fully persuaded that famine was coming as men generally are that they must soon die, yet greed and the craving for present indulgence would have got the better of their prudence during the years of plenty; and long before the fourth year of continuous famine, Egypt would have become one grave. As it was, Joseph saved their lives, and saved them also from the utter moral ruin into which years of indolent pauperism would have sunk them. As for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt, even to the other end. I understand this to mean, not that Joseph transported the population of the Delta to the vicinity of the Cataracts, and vice versa, but that he brought them in from the fields, where they could do nothing, and provided them some form of work in the towns. The fact is recorded to the honour of Joseph. When our own government has had to deal with famine, it has exhausted its ingenuity in making work for the relieved. So far, then, is Josephs plan of selling instead of giving the corn to the people, from being a matter of reprehension, that we ought to be astonished at a course of proceeding which anticipated the discoveries of the nineteenth century after Christ, and at the strength of mind which enabled the minister of the Egyptian crown to forego the vulgar popularity which profuse but unreasonable bounty can always secure.
5. The arrangement, as described by the sacred narrative, was a highly beneficent one. The record is very brief and subordinate, but its meaning becomes sufficiently clear on candid examination. (A. M.Symington, D. D.)
Josephs policy vindicated
1. The believer in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures is not bound to vindicate the policy of Joseph in every particular.
2. It would be manifestly unfair to judge Josephs policy by the principles of modern political economy or by those of New Testament enforcement and obligation. We must put him in the environment of his age, and we have no right to expect from him conformity to a standard which was not at that time in existence.
3. The policy itself was approved by those who had the best means of judging of its character, and who, as being directly and immediately concerned, would have felt its hardships if there had been any in the case. But, so far from regarding him as an oppressor, the people hailed him as a benefactor.
4. It must not be forgotten that Egypt is an exceptional country, and that, from the constant dependence of the people on the irrigation of their fields, and the continual changes made in the surface of the country by the annual inundation of the river, in the way of obliterating landmarks, and removing part of the soil from the one side of the Nile to the other, the holding of all the lands by the crown would have special public advantages which could not well be either enjoyed or appreciated by the inhabitants of other territories. In conversation upon this subject the other day with the venerable author of The Land and the Book, I discovered that he was inclined to find the explanation of Josephs settlement with the people for their lands in the unusual character of the country itself; and from what he then said I gathered that he would fully agree with Bishop Browne, when, in the Speakers Commentary, he alleges, The peculiar nature of the land, its dependence on the overflow of the Nile, and the unthrifty habits of the cultivators, made it desirable to establish a system of centralization, perhaps to introduce some general principle of irrigation, in modern phraseology, to promote the prosperity of the country by great government works, in preference to leaving all to the uncertainty of individual enterprise. If this were so, then the saying Thou hast saved our lives was no language of Eastern adulation, but the verdict of a grateful people.
5. For the rest, this policy of Josephs did not create a scarcity for the advantage either of himself or of the monarch, but it provided the means of meeting a scarcity; it did not withhold corn, and so earn the curse of the people, but it frankly brought it out as it was required, and sold it at a price that was mutually agreed upon; it did not insist on everything in the bond, no matter what hardship might be thereby occasioned, for, so far as appears, Joseph not only gave the people seed for their fields, but also gave them back their cattle, which he had meanwhile preserved to them; above all, it neither bought what was not in existence, nor sold what was not in actual possession, and so it had in it nothing which makes it in any respect a parallel case to those speculative combinations among ourselves with which some have sought to classify it. True, it left the government owners of the land, but, as we have seen, that was the most convenient settlement both for the carrying out of systematic works for the prevention of similar national calamities in the future, and for the stoppage of all litigation over matters of boundary; and one-fifth part of the produce, considering the fertility of the soil, was not an exorbitant rental, especially if it included all government imposts of every sort. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Josephs conduct
This part of Josephs conduct has been thought by some very exceptionable, as tending to reduce a nation to poverty and slavery. I am not sure that it was entirely right, though the parties concerned appear to have cast no reflection upon him. If it were not, it only proves that Joseph, though a good and great man, yet was not perfect. The following remarks, if they do not wholly exculpate him from blame, may at least serve greatly to extenuate the evil of his conduct:
(1) He does not appear to have been employed by the country, but by the king only, and that for himself. He did not buy up corn during the plentiful years, at the public expense, but at that of the king, paying the people the full price for their commodities, and as it would seem out of the kings private purse.
(2) In supplying their wants, it was absolutely necessary to distribute the provisions, not by gift, but by sale; and that, according to what we should call the market price; otherwise the whole would have been consumed in half(the time, and the country have perished.
(3) The slavery to which they were reduced was merely that of being tenants to the king, and who accepted of one-fifth of the produce for his rent. Indeed it was scarcely possible for a whole nation to be greatly oppressed, without being driven to redress themselves; and, probably, what they paid in aftertimes as a rent, was much the same thing as we pay in taxes, enabling the king to maintain his state, and support his government, without any other burdens. There is no mention, I believe, in history of this event producing any ill effects upon the country. Finally: Whatever he did, it was not for himself, or his kindred, but for the king, by whom he was employed. The utmost therefore that can be made of it to his disadvantage, does not affect the disinterestedness of his character. (A. Fuller.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Quest. Whence came it that the people in this extremity did not take the corn by force out of the several store-houses?
Answ. Besides that singular providence of God which watcheth over kings and rulers, and stilleth the tumults of the people, Joseph had no doubt foreseen this difficulty, and took due care to prevent it, partly, by disposing the stores in strong and well-guarded places; partly, by adding wealth and strength to the king, whereby he might more easily suppress any seditious risings; and principally, by not permitting the people to despair, or come to the utmost extremity, but giving them relief in all their exigences.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13-15. there was no bread in all thelandThis probably refers to the second year of the famine (Ge45:6) when any little stores of individuals or families wereexhausted and when the people had become universally dependent on thegovernment. At first they obtained supplies for payment. Before longmoney failed.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
To make the extent of the benefit conferred by Joseph upon his family, in providing them with the necessary supplies during the years of famine, all the more apparent, a description is given of the distress into which the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan were plunged by the continuance of the famine.
Gen 47:13 The land of Egypt and the land of Canaan were exhausted with hunger. – : from = , to languish, to be exhausted, only occurring again in Pro 26:18, Hithp. in a secondary sense.
Gen 47:14 All the money in both countries was paid in to Joseph for the purchase of corn, and deposited by him in Pharaoh’s house, i.e., the royal treasury.
Gen 47:15-17 When the money was exhausted, the Egyptians all came to Joseph with the petition: “ Give us bread, why should we die before thee ” (i.e., so that thou shouldst see us die, when in reality thou canst support us)? Joseph then offered to accept their cattle in payment; and they brought him near their herds, in return for which he provided them that year with bread. : Piel to lead, with the secondary meaning, to care for (Psa 23:2; Isa 40:11, etc.); hence the signification here, “to maintain.”
Gen 47:18-19 When that year had passed ( , as in Psa 102:28, to denote the termination of the year), they came again “the second year” (i.e., after the money was gone, not the second of the seven years of famine) and said: “ We cannot hide it from my lord ( , a title similar to your majesty), but the money is all gone, and the cattle have come to my lord; we have nothing left to offer to my lord but our bodies and our land.” is an intensified following a negation (“but,” as in Gen 32:29, etc.), and is to be understood elliptically; lit., “for if,” sc., we would speak openly; not “that because,” for the causal signification of is not established. with is constructio praegnans : “completed to my lord,” i.e., completely handed over to my lord. is the same: “left before my lord,” i.e., for us to lay before, or offer to my lord. “ Why should we die before thine eyes, we and our land! Buy us and our land for bread, that we may be, we and our land, servants (subject) to Pharaoh; and give seed, that we may live and not die, and the land become not desolate.” In the first clause is transferred per zeugma to the land; in the last, the word is used to describe the destruction of the land. The form is the same as in Gen 16:4.
Gen 47:20-21 Thus Joseph secured the possession of the whole land to Pharaoh by purchase, and “ the people he removed to cities, from one end of the land of Egypt to the other.” , not from one city to another, but “according to (= ) the cities;” so that he distributed the population of the whole land according to the cities in which the corn was housed, placing them partly in the cities themselves, and partly in the immediate neighbourhood.
Gen 47:22 The lands of the priests Joseph did not buy, “ for the priests had an allowance from Pharaoh, and ate their allowance, which Pharaoh gave them; therefore they sold not their lands.” a fixed allowance of food, as in Pro 30:8; Eze 16:27. This allowance was granted by Pharaoh probably only during the years of famine; in any case it was an arrangement which ceased when the possessions of the priests sufficed for their need, since, according to Diod. Sic. i. 73, the priests provided the sacrifices and the support of both themselves and their servants from the revenue of their lands; and with this Herodotus also agrees (2, 37).
Gen 47:23-27 Then Joseph said to the people: “ Behold I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh; there have ye ( only found in Eze 16:43 and Dan 2:43) seed, and sow the land; and of the produce ye shall give the fifth for Pharaoh, and four parts ( , as in Gen 43:34) shall belong to you for seed, and for the support of yourselves, your families and children.” The people agreed to this; and the writer adds (Gen 47:26), it became a law, in existence to this day (his own time), “with regard to the land of Egypt for Pharaoh with reference to the fifth,” i.e., that the fifth of the produce of the land should be paid to Pharaoh.
Profane writers have given at least an indirect support to the reality of this political reform of Joseph’s. Herodotus, for example (2, 109), states that king Sesostris divided the land among the Egyptians, giving every one a square piece of the same size as his hereditary possession ( ), and derived his own revenue from a yearly tax upon them. Diod. Sic. (1, 73), again, says that all the land in Egypt belonged either to the priests, to the king, or to the warriors; and Strabo (xvii. p. 787), that the farmers and traders held rateable land, so that the peasants were not landowners. On the monuments, too, the kings, priests, and warriors only are represented as having landed property (cf. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, i. 263). The biblical account says nothing about the exemption of the warriors from taxation and their possession of land, for that was a later arrangement. According to Herod. 2, 168, every warrior had received from former kings, as an honourable payment, twelve choice fields ( ) free from taxation, but they were taken away by the Hephaesto-priest Sethos, a contemporary of Hezekiah, when he ascended the throne ( Herod. 2, 141). But when Herodotus and Diodorus Sic. attribute to Sesostris the division of the land into 36 , and the letting of these for a yearly payment; these comparatively recent accounts simply transfer the arrangement, which was actually made by Joseph, to a half-mythical king, to whom the later legends ascribed all the greater deeds and more important measures of the early Pharaohs. And so far as Joseph’s arrangement itself was concerned, not only had he the good of the people and the interests of the king in view, but the people themselves accepted it as a favour, inasmuch as in a land where the produce was regularly thirty-fold, the cession of a fifth could not be an oppressive burden. And it is probable that Joseph not only turned the temporary distress to account by raising the king into the position of sole possessor of the land, with the exception of that of the priests, and bringing the people into a condition of feudal dependence upon him, but had also a still more comprehensive object in view; viz., to secure the population against the danger of starvation in case the crops should fail at any future time, not only by dividing the arable land in equal proportions among the people generally, but, as has been conjectured, by laying the foundation for a system of cultivation regulated by laws and watched over by the state, and possibly also by commencing a system of artificial irrigation by means of canals, for the purpose of conveying the fertilizing water of the Nile as uniformly as possible to all parts of the land. (An explanation of this system is given by Hengstenberg in his Dissertations, from the Correspondance d’Orient par Michaud, etc.) To mention either these or any other plans of a similar kind, did not come within the scope of the book of Genesis, which restricts itself, in accordance with its purely religious intention, to a description of the way in which, during the years of famine, Joseph proved himself to both the king and people of Egypt to be the true support of the land, so that in him Israel already became a saviour of the Gentiles. The measures taken by Joseph are thus circumstantially described, partly because the relation into which the Egyptians were brought to their visible king bore a typical resemblance to the relation in which the Israelites were placed by the Mosaic constitution to Jehovah, their God-King, since they also had to give a double tenth, i.e., the fifth of the produce of their lands, and were in reality only farmers of the soil which Jehovah had given them in Canaan for a possession, so that they could not part with their hereditary possessions in perpetuity (Lev 25:23); and partly also because Joseph’s conduct exhibited in type how God entrusts His servants with the good things of this earth, in order that they may use them not only for the preservation of the lives of individuals and nations, but also for the promotion of the purposes of His kingdom. For, as is stated in conclusion in Gen 47:27, not only did Joseph preserve the lives of the Egyptians, for which they expressed their acknowledgements (Gen 47:25), but under his administration the house of Israel was able, without suffering any privations, or being brought into a relation of dependence towards Pharaoh, to dwell in the land of Goshen, to establish itself there ( as in Gen 34:10), and to become fruitful and multiply.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Distressed Occasioned by the Famine. | B. C. 1706. |
13 And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. 14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. 15 And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth. 16 And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail. 17 And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. 18 When that year was ended, they came unto him the second 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; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands: 19 Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate. 20 And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s. 21 And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. 22 Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. 23 Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. 24 And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. 25 And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants. 26 And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.
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 (v. 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 to-morrow 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 10:23. Jacob and his family, though strangers, were plentifully fed on free cost, while the Egyptians were dying for want. See Isa. lxv. 13, My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry. Happy art thou, O Israel. Whoever wants, God’s children shall not, Ps. xxxiv. 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, v. 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, v. 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 villanage, 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. iv. 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, v. 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, v. 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, v. 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, v. 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.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 13-17:
Israel settled safely into their life in Goshen. And still the famine continued. Five more years of famine remained. And its severity would be felt in Egypt, even as it was in the surrounding regions, including Canaan.
When the crops failed, the people came to the royal granaries to buy food. Joseph placed the money from these sales in Pharaoh’s treasury. Soon the money supply was exhausted. The people were still in need, but there was no money to buy food. So, they came to Joseph for a solution. ,
Joseph offered to exchange grain for their livestock. This was not as harsh as it might sound. The famine meant that their cattle and horses were under-fed, and thus comparatively worthless. In this manner Pharaoh gained title to the livestock of the Egyptians. This arrangement provided food for the people for another year. It is likely this arrangement applied only to the Egyptians, and not to the Israelites.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
13. 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 להה ( 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 Psa 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.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 47:21. He removed them to cities.] Heb.According to the cities. Thus he distributed the population of the land in and around the cities according to the cities in which the grain was stored, so as to produce the easiest distribution of the supplies among them. (Jacobus.)
Gen. 47:22. Only the land of the priests bought he not.] The Egyptian priesthood was already placed by Pharaoh upon an independent and separate basis. Wilkinson shows from the monuments that only the kings and priests and the military (who held lands of the king) are represented as landowners. Heeren finds in his researches that a greater, perhaps the greatest and best, part of the land was in the possession of the priests. (Jacobus.)A portion assigned them of Pharaoh.] They had daily rations from the king. Thus they had no occasion to sell their land, though it was rendered useless by the famine.
Gen. 47:24. The fifth part unto Pharaoh.] The royalty here proposed for the occupiers of the land to pay does not, says Knobel, appear exorbitant. The tenth of the produce of the soil, and also of the flocks, seems to have been a common royal tribute (1Sa. 8:15; 1Sa. 8:17; Lev. 27:30). The kings of Syria received from the conquered Jews (1Ma. 10:3) a third part of the seed, (i.e. cereal crops), and half the fruit of the trees. (Alford.)
Gen. 47:26. Except the land of the priests only which became not Pharaohs.] Knobel remarks, that this account is confirmed by history. Diodorus Siculus relates that the only possessors of land in Egypt were the king, the priestly and the warrior-caste: from these the occupiers rented the land (Alford.)
Gen. 47:31. And Israel bowed himself upon the beds head.] On receiving the solemn promise of Joseph, he turns towards the head of the bed, and assumes the posture of adoration, rendering, no doubt, thanks to God for all the mercies of his past life, and for this closing token of filial duty and affection. The LXX has the rendering, on the top of his staff, which is given in Heb. 11:21. This is obtained by a mere change in the vowel pointing of the last word. (Murphy.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 47:13-26
JOSEPHS ADMINISTRATION IN EGYPT
I. He introduced a great political and social revolution. The famine was sore in the land. The private supplies of the people being exhausted, they were obliged to purchase. Josephs foresight had filled the granaries with corn, and therefore to him the people applied. The inhabitants, with the nations around, first parted with their money, for the necessaries of life must be had. This enriched the kings treasury; and without injustice, for the corn which was stored up was bought with his own private money. When the peoples money failed they brought their cattle. (Gen. 47:17.) And when they had parted with these, they brought their land; and, lastly, their persons. (Gen. 47:20-23.) The effect of all this was, that everything became the property of the state. The land became Pharaohs. On behalf of Pharaoh Joseph could say, I have bought you. But thereby they did not become bondsmen. The term signifies rather, I have acquired you. Nothing is said concerning servitude. There is simply to be a fixed income tax. They are not to be subject to arbitrary enactions, but to pay a fixed rent.
II. His conduct therein admits of justification. Joseph has been charged with being the tool of an ambitious and despotic ruler, using his foresight and skill in order to reduce a free people to poverty and slavery. But the following considerations may be urged in justification of the course he pursued.
1. He bought the corn by the kings command and not as ordered of the people. He paid full price for the corn during the plentiful years. The purchase-money came out of the kings private purse.
2. If the people had believed the word of God as the king did, they might have laid by grain for themselves. The straits to which they were put partook of the nature of a punishment. They had the same opportunity as the king, and they might have laid by for the years of famine. But they paid no regard to Josephs prophetic dreams. Even the years of plenty did not convince them. They mostly used it for purposes of luxury.
3. It was expedient that the peoples wants should be supplied, not by gifts, but by sale. Otherwise idleness would be encouraged, and the public peace endangered. Josephs policy promoted industry and loyalty.
4. This measure actually preserved the people from starvation, and provided them with securities for their future prosperity. They were hereby saved from famine. They had a regular tax to pay, and so were preserved from any arbitrary rule. They were, in every sense, a free people; for taxes do not make people slaves. Land, property, and labour must be protected by public authority and laws. For these necessary and beneficial purposes the people pay taxes. By means of Josephs measure the people were placed under the protection of a statute law. They knew the utmost extent of their liability.
5. The people were satisfied with Josephs administration. Thou hast saved our lives. (Gen. 47:25.) Such was the peoples verdict in favour of Josephs policy. They, who could best understand all the circumstances of the case, pronounce this favourable opinion. They were willing to render the required service to the king.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 47:13-26. From this time every man held his property and his life in fiefship to the king. This suggests to us two parallel cases, the constitution of ancient Israel and of modern England. In ancient Israel we find something parallel. When the destroying angel passed over the houses of the Egyptians, the firstborn of the Israelites were spared. It was then held that every Israelite was bought with blood, and the firstborn of every family offered sacrifice for himself. Afterwards, one tribe was substituted for the firstborn of Israel, consecrated to be priests. If we remember that the tribe of Levi represented the whole nation of Israel, we shall then understand the tenure upon which each man was in covenant with God. He was touched with blood, and thus every power was consecrated to Jehovahs service. We also find this principle in the constitution of England. The king is the supreme lord of all property; against the king every crime that is committed is considered to be done. This principle, in three different nations, rests on a separate historical fact. In the case of Egypt, it rested on the preserving the people from famine; in that of Israel, in passing over the first born, and in that of England, on the conquest of the country by one of its ancient kings. That which Joseph meant to teach was the right of monarchy and the duty of the people to their king. In the case of Israel, that which was to be taught was that God was their sovereign, representing to them the majesty of the law. And our loyalty we give to the sovereigns, not because they are the representatives of the majority of the people, but because they are the chosen symbols of that which assuredly came from no peoples will, the eternal law of God, the law of right and wrong.(Robertson.)
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
JOSEPH’S ADMINISTRATION DURING THE YEARS OF FAMINE, Gen 47:13-26.
13. Egypt and Canaan fainted Like an exhausted person, dying of thirst .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 47:13 And [there was] no bread in all the land; for the famine [was] very sore, so that the land of Egypt and [all] the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
Ver. 13. The famine was very sore. ] Of this famine mention is made by Justin, lib. i., and Orosius, lib. i., cap. 8.
So that the land of Egypt fainted.
a . So Gen 45:26 . . – Sept.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 47:13-19
13Now there was no food in all the land, because the famine was very severe, so that the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan languished because of the famine. 14Joseph gathered all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan for the grain which they bought, and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. 15When the money was all spent in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us food, for why should we die in your presence? For our money is gone.” 16Then Joseph said, “Give up your livestock, and I will give you food for your livestock, since your money is gone.” 17So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them food in exchange for the horses and the flocks and the herds and the donkeys; and he fed them with food in exchange for all their livestock that year. 18When that year was ended, they came to him the next year and said to him, “We will not hide from my lord that our money is all spent, and the cattle are my lord’s. There is nothing left for my lord except our bodies and our lands. 19Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we and our land will be slaves to Pharaoh. So give us seed, that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate.”
Gen 47:13-26 Many commentators have asserted that Joseph acted cruelly toward the people of Egypt. However, Joseph acted on the common theological assertion that Pharaoh, as the representative of the sun god Re, owned the land of Egypt, and brought it into reality.
Gen 47:13 “languished” This VERB (BDB 529, KB 520, Qal IMPERFECT) is found only here in the OT. Its basic meaning is “to faint.” The land of Canaan is unproductive. It is affected by the curse of Gen 3:17-19 (cf. Rom 8:20-22), part of which is the irregular cycles of nature. In this situation, YHWH is using (using not causing) this for His purposes. This control of the weather is also reflected in the “cursing and blessing” section of Deuteronomy (cf. Genesis 28-29). The famine was severe (cf. Gen 12:10; Gen 41:31; Gen 43:1; Gen 47:4; Gen 47:13).
Gen 47:16 “Give up your livestock” They had already sold everything (“give,” BDB 396, KB 393, Qal IMPERATIVE, cf. Gen 47:15-16) they had in order to buy food. Now, their livestock was in jeopardy. Really, the taking of the livestock, which they could not feed and which were going to die anyway, is an aspect of governmental mercy, not exploitation.
gathered up: i. e. caused it to be gathered up. Figure of speech. Metonymy (of Cause). App-6.
Egyptians Saved in Famine
Gen 47:13-26
The slender stores of the Egyptians were soon exhausted, and had it not been for Joseph the streets would have been filled with the dying and dead. His Egyptian name means the savior of the world; and the confession of the Egyptians proved how true it was: Thou hast saved our lives. How closely the parallel holds! Joseph rose from the pit and the prison to save his brethren as well as the myriads of his adopted fellow-countrymen: Jesus rose from the grave to be a Prince and a Savior. Josephs bread cost him nothing, while Jesus gave us that which cost him Calvary. Joseph sold his corn for money; our Lord gave himself without money or price. You may go to Him without reluctance, though your sack is empty and you have no money in your hand; but He will give and give again, without stint.
am 2300, bc 1704
so that: Gen 41:30, Gen 41:31, 1Ki 18:5, Jer 14:1-6, Lam 2:19, Lam 2:20, Lam 4:9, Act 7:11
fainted: Jer 9:12, Joe 1:10-12
Reciprocal: Gen 12:10 – was a Gen 41:36 – that the Gen 41:54 – and the dearth Psa 105:16 – brake
Joseph’s Stewardship
Joseph proved to be a good steward over the grain collected during the years of plenty. First, he sold grain for money until all the money in Egypt and Canaan was exhausted. Next, he took their livestock in exchange for grain to make bread. Then, he accepted their land and their very lives.
Having acquired everything in the land of Egypt in the name of Pharaoh, Joseph told the people his plan. From that time on, the people would work the land and give twenty percent of the harvest to Pharaoh. Only the land of the priests was exempted because Pharaoh had given them an allotment of grain and they did not have to sell their lands to his representative.
Joseph’s plan strengthened and enriched the government in Egypt. Willis wrote, “Egypt was apparently in a condition of unsettled disorganization during much of the period of Hyksos domination. The Egyptian people would have welcomed a stronger, more secure central government, especially in a national crises like a famine, even if this meant infringements on individual rights or privileges.” The fact that the statute remained until the time of the writer, likely Moses, is evidence of how valued this arrangement became ( Gen 47:13-26 ).
Gen 47:13. The land fainted So the Chaldee renders the word . That is, the spirits of the people were depressed and sunk within them, and their flesh also wasted for want of food. But many critics prefer translating the words, The land raged, or became furious. This is commonly the case with the lower class of people in a time of scarcity and famine. Instead of being humbled under the chastening hand of God, they are filled with rage both against him and their governors, and become furious.
Gen 47:19-25. Wherefore shall we die, we and our land? Land may be said to die when it is desolate and barren; or when the fruits of it die, or, which is the same in effect, do not live and flourish. Buy us and our land for bread The severity of the famine brought them to this. To obtain bread they not only readily parted with their money, their cattle, their lands, but even at last sold themselves nay, and thought themselves under great obligations to Joseph that they could, even on these apparently hard terms, obtain food! How thankful we ought to be in this country, that we seldom know, by experience, what either famine or scarcity means!
Gen 47:13-26. Joseph Takes Advantage of the Famine to Secure for the Crown the Money, the Cattle, and the Lands of the Egyptians.If this belongs to one of the main documents, J is the most probable. But it may be an independent piece. It is an tiological story (p. 134). The system of land tenure in Egypt must have struck the Hebrews as strange; they accounted for it in this way. The system is not attested in the inscriptions, but there is confirmatory evidence, and it probably existed much as represented. Apparently the events described belong to the closing years of the famine, for the distribution of seed was of no avail till the seven years of famine were drawing to an end (Gen 45:6). The money presumably lasted for about five years, the cattle paid for corn in the sixth, in the seventh year they sold their land and became serfs, on their own suggestion, the need was so desperate. The priests were exempt because Pharaoh supported them, so they had no need to sell their lands. Joseph allows the people to farm their lands on a 20 per cent, rental.
Gen 47:21. Read with VSS (mg.), he made bondmen of them, from, etc.
God’s provision of land and food for Pharaoh 47:13-27
This section demonstrates the fulfillment of Jacob’s blessing on Pharaoh (Gen 46:31 to Gen 47:6 and Gen 47:7-10). Joseph was able to save Egypt and its neighbors from a very severe famine and to alleviate the desperate plight of the Egyptians. Pharaoh received money from Egypt and Canaan (Gen 47:13-14), livestock (Gen 47:15-17), land and slaves (Gen 47:18-21; Gen 47:23; Gen 47:25), and 20 percent of future harvests (Gen 47:23-26). Such a tax was not out of line with what was common in that day in the ancient Near East. Really it was small since the average was 33 and one third percent. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 591; Thomas, pp. 451-52. See Brian Alexander McKenzie, "Jacob’s Blessing of Pharaoh: An Interpretation of Genesis 46:31-47:26," Westminster Theological Journal 45 (Fall 1983):386-99.] God blessed Pharaoh because he had blessed the Israelites with the best of Egypt. Later, in Moses’ time, God cursed another Pharaoh because he had dealt harshly with the Israelites (cf. Gen 12:3).
"This entire situation informs the meaning of Exo 1:8-11, which states that a new king came to power who did not know Joseph. Consequently-and ironically-that king began to enslave the Israelites to work in his projects. Had he remembered Joseph, he would have realized how loyal and faithful Israel could be in their sojourn in the land. Because this Pharaoh treated Israel well, they flourished, and he became powerful and wealthy; but because that new king treated Israel harshly, he would have none of the blessing of God, nor would he be able to hinder the prosperity of the people of God. From the beginning to the end of the Egyptian sojourn, prosperity and growth came from God’s blessing. Those who acknowledged it shared in it." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 687. Cf. 12:3.]
"It was axiomatic in the ancient world that one paid one’s way so long as one had anything to part with-including, in the last resort, one’s liberty." [Note: Kidner, p. 211.]
"Both Egyptian and Mesopotamian slavery differentiated generally between formerly free people who became debt slaves and foreigners (usually war captives) who were bought and sold as chattel. Mesopotamian laws and contracts indicate that creditors obtained the service of the debt slave until the debt was covered, but chattel slaves belonged to their owners without much chance of release. Although we cannot know from Genesis, there is reason to believe that the voluntary submission of the people assumes that the enslavement was not permanent (cp. the law established by Joseph, Gen 47:26)." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 851.]
"The idea of slavery is not attractive to the modern mind, but in the ancient world it was the primary way of dealing with the poor and destitute. If people became slaves of Pharaoh, it was Pharaoh’s responsibility to feed them and care for them. It was the best way for them to survive the famine." [Note: The NET Bible note on 47:19.]
This is the first mention of horses in the Bible, the primary beast of burden and military mechine at this time (Gen 47:17). Egypt was an important source of horses in Solomon’s day (cf. 1Ki 10:28-29).
JOSEPHS ADMINISTRATION
Gen 41:37-57, Gen 47:13-26
“He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance: To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom.” Psa 105:21-22.
“MANY a monument consecrated to the memory of some nobleman gone to his long home, who during life had held high rank at the court of Pharaoh, is decorated with the simple but laudatory inscription, His ancestors were unknown people.'” -so we are told by our most accurate informant regarding Egyptian affairs. Indeed, the tales we read of adventurers in the East, and the histories which recount how some dynasties have been founded, are sufficient evidence that, in other countries besides Egypt, sudden elevation from the lowest to the highest rank is not so unusual as amongst ourselves. Historians have recently made out that in one period of the history of Egypt there are traces of a kind of Semitic mania, a strong leaning towards Syrian and Arabian customs, phrases, and persons. Such manias have occurred in most countries. There was a period in the history of Rome when everything that had a Greek flavour was admired; an Anglomania once affected a portion of the French population, and reciprocally, French manners and ideas have at times found a welcome among ourselves. It is also clear that for a time Lower Egypt was under the dominion of foreign rulers who were in race more nearly allied to Joseph than to the native population. But there is no need that so complicated a question as the exact date of this foreign domination be debated here, for there was that in Josephs bearing which would have commended him to any sagacious monarch. Not only did the court accept him as a messenger from God, but they could not fail to recognise substantial and serviceable human qualities alongside of what was mysterious in him. The ready apprehension with which he appreciated the magnitude of the danger, the clear-sighted promptitude with which he met it, the resource and quiet capacity with which he handled a matter involving the entire condition of Egypt, showed them that they were in the presence of a true statesman, No doubt the confidence with which he described the best method of dealing with the emergency was the confidence of one who was convinced he was speaking for God. This was the great distinction they perceived between Joseph and ordinary dream-interpreters. It was not guesswork with him. The same distinction is always apparent between revelation and speculation. Revelation speaks with authority; speculation gropes its way, and when wisest is most diffident. At the same time Pharaoh was perfectly right in his inference: “Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art.” He believed that God had chosen him to deal with this matter because he was wise in heart, and he believed his wisdom would remain because God had chosen him.
At length, then, Joseph saw the fulfilment of his dreams within his reach. The coat of many colours with which his father had paid a tribute to the princely person and ways of the boy, was now replaced by the robe of state and the heavy gold necklace which marked him out as second to Pharaoh. Whatever nerve and self-command and humble dependence on God his varied experience had wrought in him were all needed when Pharaoh took his hand and placed his own ring on it, thus transferring all his authority to him, and when turning from the king he received the acclamations of the court and the people, bowed to by his old masters, and acknowledged the superior of all the dignitaries and potentates of Egypt. Only once besides, so far as the Egyptian inscriptions have yet been deciphered, does it appear that any subject was raised to be Regent or Viceroy with similar powers. Joseph is, as far as possible, naturalised as an Egyptian. He receives a name easier of pronunciation than his own, at least to Egyptian tongues-Zaphnath-Paaneah, which, however, was perhaps only an official title meaning “Governor of the district of the place of life,” the name by which one of the Egyptian counties or states was known. The king crowned his liberality and completed the process of naturalisation by providing him with a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On. This city was not far from Avaris or Haouar, where Josephs Pharaoh, Raapepi II, at this time resided. The worship of the sun-god, Ra, had its centre at On (or Heliopolis, as it was called by the Greeks), and the priests of On took precedence of all Egyptian priests, Joseph was thus connected with one of the most influential families in the land, and if he had any scruples about marrying into an idolatrous family, they were too insignificant to influence his conduct, or leave any trace in the narrative.
His attitude towards God and his own family was disclosed in the names which he gave to his children. In giving names which had a meaning at all, and not merely a taking sound, he showed that he understood, as well he might, that every human life has a significance and expresses some principle or fact. And in giving names which recorded his acknowledgment of Gods goodness, he showed that prosperity had as little influence as adversity to move him from his allegiance to the God of his fathers. His first son he called Manasseh, Making to forget, ” for God,” said he, “hath made me forget all my toil and all my fathers house”-not as if he were now so abundantly satisfied in Egypt that the thought of his fathers house was blotted from his mind, but only that in this child the keen longings he had felt for kindred and home were somewhat alleviated. He again found an object for his strong family affection. The void in his heart he had so long felt was filled by the little babe. A new home was begun around him. But this new affection would not weaken, though it would alter the character of, his love for his father and brethren. The birth of this child would really be a new tie to the land from which he had been stolen. For, however ready men are to spend their own life in foreign service, you see them wishing that their children should spend their days among the scenes with which their own childhood was familiar.
In the naming of his second son Ephraim he recognises that God had made him fruitful in the most unlikely way. He does not leave it to us to interpret his life, but records what he himself saw in it. It has been said: “To get at the truth of any history is good; but a mans own history-when he reads that truly, and knows what he is about and has been about, it is a Bible to him.” And now that Joseph, from the height he had reached, could look back on the way by which he had been led to it, he cordially approved of all that God had done. There was no resentment, no murmuring. He would often find himself looking back and thinking, Had I found my brothers where I thought they were, had the pit not been on the caravan-road, had the merchants not come up so opportunely, had I not been sold at all or to some other master, had I not been imprisoned, or had I been put in another ward-had any one of the many slender links in the chain of my career been absent, bow different might my present state have been. How plainly I now see that all those sad mishaps that crushed my hopes and tortured my spirit were steps in the only conceivable path to my present position.
Many a man has added his signature to this acknowledgment of Josephs, and confessed a providence guiding his life and working out good for him through injuries and sorrows, as well as through honours, marriages, births. As in the heat of summer it is difficult to recall the sensation of winters bitter cold, so the fruitless and barren periods of a mans life are sometimes quite obliterated from his memory. God has it in His power to raise a man higher above the level of ordinary happiness than ever he has sunk below it: and as winter and spring-time, when the seed is sown, are stormy and bleak and gusty, so in human life seed-time is not bright as summer nor cheerful as autumn; and yet it is then, when all the earth lies bare and will yield us nothing, that the precious seed is sown: and when we confidently commit our labour or patience of today to God, the land of our affliction, now bare and desolate, will certainly wave for us, as it has waved for others, with rich produce whitened to the harvest.
There is no doubt then that Joseph had learned to recognise the providence of God as a most important factor in his life. And the man who does so gains for his character all the strength and resolution that come with a capacity for waiting. He saw, most legibly written on his own life, that God is never in a hurry. And for the resolute adherence to his seven-years policy such a belief was most necessary. Nothing, indeed, is said of opposition or incredulity on the part of the Egyptians. But was there ever a policy of such magnitude carried out in any country without opposition or without evilly-disposed persons using it as a weapon against its promoter? No doubt during these years he had need of all the personal determination as well as of all the official authority he possessed. And if, on the whole, remarkable success attended his efforts, we must ascribe this partly to the unchallengeable justice of his arrangements, and partly to the impression of commanding genius Joseph seems everywhere to have made. As with his father and brethren he was felt to be superior, as in Potiphars house he was quickly recognised, as in the prison no prison-garb or slave-brand could disguise him, as in the court his superiority was instinctively felt, so in his administration the people seem to have believed in him.
And if, on the whole and in general, Joseph was reckoned a wise and equitable ruler, and even adored as a kind of saviour of the world, it would be idle in us to canvass the wisdom of his administration. When we have not sufficient historical material to apprehend the full significance of any policy, it is safe to accept the judgment of men who not only knew the facts, but were themselves so deeply involved in them that they would certainly have felt and expressed discontent had there been ground for doing so. The policy of Joseph was simply to economise during the seven years of abundance to such an extent that provision might be made against the seven years of famine. He calculated that one-fifth of the produce of years so extraordinarily plenteous would serve for the seven scarce years. This fifth he seems to have bought in the kings name from the people, buying it, no doubt, at the cheap rates of abundant years. When the years of famine came, the people were referred to Joseph; and, till their money was gone, he sold corn to them, probably not at famine prices. Next he acquired their cattle, and finally, in exchange for food, they yielded to him both their lands and their persons. So that the result of the whole was, that the people who would otherwise have perished were preserved, and in return for this preservation they paid a tax or rent on their farm-lands to the amount of one-fifth of their produce. The people ceased to be proprietors of their own farms, but they were not slaves with no interest in the soil, but tenants sitting at easy rents-a fair enough exchange for being preserved in life. This kind of taxation is eminently fair in principle, securing, as it does, that the wealth of the king and government shall vary with the prosperity of the whole land. The chief difficulty that has always been experienced in working it, has arisen from the necessity of leaving a good deal of discretionary power in the hands of the collectors, who have generally been found not slow to abuse this power.
The only semblance of despotism in Josephs policy is found in the curious circumstance that he interfered with the peoples choice of residence, and shifted them from one end of the land to another. This may have been necessary not only as a kind of seal on the deed by which the lands were conveyed to the king, and as a significant sign to them that they were mere tenants, but also Joseph probably saw that for the interests of the country, if not of agricultural prosperity, this shifting had become necessary for the breaking up of illegal associations, nests of sedition, and sectional prejudices and enmities which were endangering the community. Modern experience supplies us with instances in which, by such a policy, a country might be regenerated and a seven years famine hailed as a blessing if, without famishing the people, it put them unconditionally into the hands of an able, bold, and beneficent ruler. And this was a policy which could be much better devised and executed by a foreigner than by a native.
Egypts indebtedness to Joseph was, in fact, two-fold. In the first place he succeeded in doing what many strong governments have failed to do: he enabled a large population to survive a long and severe famine. Even with all modern facilities for transport and for making the abundance of remote countries available for times of scarcity, it has not always been found possible to save our own fellow-subjects from starvation. In a prolonged famine which occurred in Egypt during the Middle Ages, the inhabitants, reduced to the unnatural habits which are the most painful feature of such times, not only ate their own dead, but kidnapped the living on the streets of Cairo and consumed them in secret. One of the most touching memorials of the famine with which Joseph had to deal is found in a sepulchral inscription in Arabia. A flood of rain laid bare a tomb in which lay a woman having on her person a profusion of jewels which represented a very large value. At her head stood a coffer filled with treasure, and a tablet with this inscription: “In Thy name, O God, the God of Himyar, I, Tayar, the daughter of Dzu Shefar, sent my steward to Joseph, and he delaying to return to me, I sent my handmaid with a measure of silver to bring me back a measure of flour; and not being able to procure it, I sent her with a measure of gold; and not being able to procure it, I sent her with a measure of pearls; and not being able to procure it, I commanded them to be ground; and finding no profit in them, I am shut up here.” If this inscription is genuine-and there seems no reason to call it in question-it shows that there is no exaggeration in the statement of our narrator that the famine was very grievous in other lands as well as in Egypt. And, whether genuine or not, one cannot but admire the grim humour of the starving woman getting herself buried in the jewels which had suddenly dropped to less than the value of a loaf of bread.
But besides being indebted to Joseph for their preservation, the Egyptians owed to him an extension of their influence; for, as all the lands round about became dependent on Egypt for provision, they must have contracted a respect for the Egyptian administration. They must also have added greatly to Egypts wealth and during those years of constant traffic many commercial connections must have been formed which in future years would be of untold value to Egypt. But above all, the permanent alterations made by Joseph on their tenure of land, and on their places of abode, may have convinced the most sagacious of the Egyptians that it was well for them that their money had failed, and that they had been compelled to yield themselves unconditionally into the hands of this remarkable ruler. It is the mark of a competent statesman that he makes temporary distress the occasion for permanent benefit; and from the confidence Joseph won with the people, there seems every reason to believe that the permanent alterations he introduced were considered as beneficial as certainly they were bold.
And for our own spiritual uses it is this point which seems chiefly important. In Joseph is illustrated the principle that, in order to the attainment of certain blessings, unconditional submission to Gods delegate is required. If we miss this, we miss a large part of what his history exhibits, and it becomes a mere pretty story. The prominent idea in his dreams was that he was to be worshipped by his brethren. In his exaltation by Pharaoh, the absolute authority given to him is again conspicuous: “Without thee shall no man lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”
And still the same autocracy appears in the fact that not one Egyptian who was helpful to him in this matter is mentioned; and no one has received such exclusive possession of a considerable part of Scripture, so personal and outstanding a place. All this leaves upon the mind the impression that Joseph becomes a benefactor, and in his degree a saviour, to men by becoming their absolute master. When this was hinted in his dreams at first his brothers fiercely resented it. But when they were put to the push by famine, both they and the Egyptians recognised that he was appointed by God to be their saviour, while at the same time they markedly and consciously submitted themselves to him. Men may always be expected to recognise that he who can save them alive in famine has a right to order the bounds of their habitation; and also that in the hands of one who, from disinterested motives, has saved them, they are likely to be quite as safe as in their own. And it we are all quite sure of this, that men of great political sagacity can regulate our affairs with tenfold the judgment and success that we ourselves could achieve, we cannot wonder that in matters still higher, and for which we are notoriously incompetent, there should be One into whose hands it is well to commit ourselves-One whose judgment is not warped by the prejudices which blind all mere natives of this world, but who, separate from sinners yet naturalised among us, can both detect and rectify everything in our condition which is less than perfect. If there are certainly many cases in which explanations are out of the question, and in which the governed, if they are wise, will yield themselves to a trusted authority, and leave it to time and results to justify his measures, any one, I think, who anxiously considers our spiritual condition must see that here too obedience is for us the greater part of wisdom, and that, after all speculation and efforts at sufficing investigation, we can still do no better than yield ourselves absolutely to Jesus Christ. He alone understands our whole position; He alone speaks with the authority that commands confidence, because it is felt to be the authority of the truth. We feel the present pressure of famine; we have discernment enough, some of us, to know we are in danger, but we cannot penetrate deeply either into the cause or the possible consequences of our present state. But Christ-if we may continue the figure-legislates with a breadth of administrative capacity which includes not only our present distress but our future condition, and, with the boldness of one who is master of the whole case, requires that we put ourselves wholly into His hand. He takes the responsibility of all the changes we make in obedience to Him, and proposes so to relieve us that the relief shall be permanent, and that the very emergency which has thrown us upon His help shall be the occasion of our transference not merely out of the present evil, but into the best possible form of human life.
From this chapter, then, in the history of Joseph, we may reasonably take occasion to remind ourselves, first, that in all things pertaining to God unconditional submission to Christ is necessarily required of us. Apart from Christ we cannot tell what are the necessary elements of a permanently happy state; nor, indeed, even whether there is any such state awaiting us. There is a great deal of truth in what is urged by unbelievers to the effect that spiritual matters are in great measure beyond our cognizance, and that many of our religious phrases are but, as it were, thrown out in the direction of a truth but do not perfectly represent it. No doubt we are in a provisional state, in which we are not in direct contact with the absolute truth, nor in a final attitude of mind towards it; and certain representations of things given in the Word of God may seem to us not to cover the whole truth. But this only compels the conclusion that for us Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. To probe existence to the bottom is plainly not in our power. To say precisely what God is, and how we are to carry ourselves towards Him, is possible only to him who has been with God and is God. To submit to the Spirit of Christ, and to live under those influences and views which formed His life, is the only method that promises deliverance from that moral condition which makes spiritual vision impossible.
We may remind ourselves, secondly, that this submission to Christ should be consistently adhered to in connection with those outward occurrences in our life which give us opportunity of enlarging our spiritual capacity. There can be little doubt that there would be presented to Joseph many a plan for the better administration of this whole matter, and many a petition from individuals craving exemption from the seemingly arbitrary and certainly painful and troublesome edict regulating change of residence. Many a man would think himself much wiser than the minister of Pharaoh in whom was the Spirit of God. When we act in a similar manner, and take upon us to specify with precision the changes we should like to see in our condition, and the methods by which these changes might best be accomplished, we commonly manifest our own incompetence. The changes which the strong hand of Providence enforces, the dislocation which our life suffers from some irresistible blow, the necessity laid upon us to begin life again and on apparently disadvantageous terms, are naturally resented; but these things being certainly the result of some unguardedness, improvidence, or weakness in our past state, are necessarily the means most appropriate for disclosing to us these elements of calamity and for securing our permanent welfare. We rebel against such perilous and sweeping revolutions as the basing of our life on a new foundation demands; we would disregard the appointments of Providence if we could; but both our voluntary consent to the authority of Christ and the impossibility of resisting His providential arrangements, prevent us from refusing to fall in with them, however needless and tyrannical they seem, and however little we perceive that they are intended to accomplish our permanent well-being. And it is in after years, when the pain of severance from old friends and habits is healed, and when the discomfort of adapting ourselves to a new kind of life is replaced by peaceful and docile resignation to new conditions, that we reach the clear perception that the changes we resented have in point of fact rendered harmless the seeds of fresh disaster, and rescued us from the results of long bad government. He who has most keenly felt the hardship of being diverted from his original course in life will in after life tell you that had he been allowed to hold his own land, and remain his own master in his old loved abode, he would have lapsed into a condition from which no worthy harvest could be expected. If a man only wishes that his own conceptions of prosperity be realised, then let him keep his land in his own hand and work his material irrespective of Gods demands; for certainly, if he yields himself to God, his own ideas of prosperity will not be realised. But if he suspects that God may have a more liberal conception of prosperity and may understand better than he what is eternally beneficial, let him commit himself and all his material of prosperity without doubting into Gods hand, and let him greedily obey all Gods precepts; for in neglecting one of these, he so far neglects and misses what God would have him enter into.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary