Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 47:22

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.

22. Only the land of the priests ] The priests of Egypt enjoyed special privileges. They were greatly enriched by the kings of the 18th Dynasty (b.c. 1587 1328). It is doubtful whether their position was so favourable under the Hyksos (see Appendix E). But they were not under the necessity of selling their land. Erman quotes an inscription from which it appears that 185,000 sacks of corn were given annually by Rameses III (b.c. 1202 1171) to the Egyptian temples ( Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 129).

a portion ] Cf. the use of this word in the sense of a fixed rate or “due,” Lev 10:13; Pro 30:8 (marg.).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 22. The land of the priests bought he not] From this verse it is natural to infer that whatever the religion of Egypt was, it was established by law and supported by the state. Hence when Joseph bought all the lands of the Egyptians for Pharaoh, he bought not the land of the priests, for that was a portion assigned them by Pharaoh; and they did eat – did live on, that portion. This is the earliest account we have of an established religion supported by the state.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The priests: under this name he understands chiefly those who administered the worship of the gods or idols of Egypt, and withal those who applied themselves to the study of the arts and virtues, called their wise men and magicians; though some understand it of the princes (as that word sometimes signifies) or officers of Pharaoh, who were nourished out of the kings treasures. And possibly the same Hebrew word may here comprehend both, viz. the ministers of the king, and of their idols too, for both enjoyed the same privileges, as Diodorus Siculus relates. And that the priests are included, if not mainly intended here, will be evident enough to any one that considers the state of Egypt, how mad that people universally were upon their idols, how numerous their priests were, and in how great honour and veneration both with prince and people: besides, reason of state obliged Pharaoh to engage and secure to himself that sort of men, which bore so great sway with the old inhabitants of their several places, and were likely to have the same authority with the new inhabitants, to quiet and satisfy them at their first change, which must needs be very ungrateful to them.

Of this immunity of the priests, that ancient writer Diodorus Siculus makes mention. But this is not to be ascribed to Josephs will or choice; for he who abhorred their idolatry, could not have a kindness for, nor would have given encouragement to, the great upholders and promoters of it; but in this he was overruled either by Pharaohs express command, (it being not probable that so great an interest as that of the priests should not have friends at court, or that their friends should not plead for them, or that their pleas and desires should not be granted by an idolatrous king,) or by the laws of Egypt, or by their customs and usages in things of a like nature, which would have the force of a law among them.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

22. Only the land of the priestsbought he notThese lands were inalienable, being endowments bywhich the temples were supported. The priests for themselves receivedan annual allowance of provision from the state, and it wouldevidently have been the height of cruelty to withhold that allowancewhen their lands were incapable of being tilled.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

22. 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.

(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.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(22) The priests had a portion assigned to them of Pharaoh.Herodotus (ii. 37) mentions that it was still the custom in Egypt for the priests to have a daily allowance of cooked food. Very probably this usage began in Josephs time; but it is not here ascribed to him, but to the king himself. Being thus supplied with food, they did not sell their lands; and with this, again, the Greek accounts tally, as they represent the king, the priests, and the warriors as the only landholders in Egypt. The last class, however, held their land from the king.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

22. Land of the priests bought he not Pharaoh’s reverence for the ministers of religion would not allow an alienation of their land from them .

Their portion which Pharaoh gave them During the years of famine he ordered them to be supplied from the public treasury, without money and without price . This is represented as Pharaoh’s act rather than Joseph’s . The latter, of course, would not interfere . He had married the daughter of one of the priests . But the sacred writer clearly intimates that the reverence shown to the Egyptian priesthood by this measure was for Pharaoh’s sake, not for his own .

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Only the land of the priests he did not buy. For the priests had a portion from Pharaoh and ate their portion which Pharaoh gave them, and for that reason they did not sell their land.’

The priests were powerful and influential. Furthermore they were provided with their food by Pharaoh. Thus they did not need to sell their land and remained semi-independent. We know that in the later so-called New Kingdom this was so. The extensive Temple lands were not formally included in Pharaoh’s right of possession. This is further support for the view that this was not under the Hyksos. They would not have given such benefits to the priests who were opposed to them, the priests of Re and Atum.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Gen 47:22. Only the land of the priests bought he not Lord Shaftesbury has from this circumstance taken occasion to observe, in his usual way, “to what height of power the established priesthood was arrived, since the crown offered not to meddle with the church-lands: and that, in this great revolution, nothing was attempted, so much as by way of purchase or exchange, in prejudice of this landed clergy; the prime minister himself having joined his interest with theirs, and entered, by marriage, into this alliance.” But his lordship seems to have forgotten, 1st, That the priesthood, in those days, was confined to the heads of families who were persons of the highest rank and power, almost equal to the king, consulted upon all matters of consequence, and who, upon a vacancy, were often raised to the throne. 2nd, That in consequence of their birth and dignity, and not of their priesthood, this great privilege was founded long before Joseph’s time, and not by his indulgence and partiality to them. 3rdly, That out of their estates they defrayed all the charges of the sacrifices, ornaments, utensils, and other religious ceremonies, which were here performed with the highest and most costly splendor. And, 4thly, That they were the king’s chief assistant counsellors, ministers, recorders, &c. as well as the professors and teachers of all arts and sciences, and the judges, chief magistrates, and officers of the kingdom; whose estates, therefore, how great soever we suppose them, could hardly exceed the expence necessary to support them in all those offices. So that it could not but have been unjust, as well as imprudent and dangerous, for the king, or his prime minister, to have made such an attempt to have alienated them. Univ. Hist.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

In all places respect hath been thus paid to religion, Ezr 7:24 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Gen 47:22 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.

Ver. 22. Only the land of the priests bought he not. ] Ministers’ maintenance, we see, is of the law of nature. Jezebel provided for her priests; Micah for his Levite. “Do ye not know,” saith that great apostle, “that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar?” 1Co 9:13 Where, by “holy things,” St Ambrose understands the law of the Gentiles by “the altar,” the law of the Jews. Before them both, Melchizedek, , tithed Abraham; by the same right, whereby he blessed him. Heb 7:6 As after them, the apostle rightly infers, “Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” 1Co 9:14 But where hath the Lord ordained it? “The workman is worthy of his meat,” saith Matthew; Mat 10:10 “of his hire,” saith Luke: Luk 10:7 of both, no doubt; as the labourers in harvest, who have better fare provided than ordinary, and larger wages. See Nehemiah’s zeal for church maintenance, Neh 13:10 ; Neh 13:14 . He knew well that a scant offering makes a cold altar; and that, ad tenuitatem beneficiorum necessario sequitur ignorantia sacerdotum; as in Ireland, where, in former time, some of the bishops had no more revenue than the pasture of two milk cows, &c. In the whole province of Connaught the stipend of the incumbent is not above forty shillings; in some places but sixteen shillings. a Melancthon b complains of his Germany, that the ministers for most part were ready to say with him in Plautus: Ego non servio libenter: herus meus me non habet libenter, tamen utitur me ut lippls oculis. Such use Micah made of his Levite; more fit to have made a Gibeonite, to cleave wood, than to divide the word; and yet he maintained him; and doubted not, thereupon, to promise himself God’s blessing. He is a niggard to himself, that scants his beneficence to a prophet; Mat 10:41 whose very cold water shall not go unrewarded. Many rich refuse to give anything to the minister’s maintenance; c because they cannot be tithed. But “be not deceived; God is not mocked,” saith the apostle in this very case. “Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth in all his goods.” Gal 6:6-7 Such tribes as had more cities in their inheritance were to part with more to the priests: such as had fewer, with less. Num 35:8 The equity of which proportion is still in force. The Jews, d at this day, though not in their own country, nor having a Levitical priesthood, yet those who will be reputed religious among them do distribute, in lieu of tithes, the tenth of their increase unto the poor: being persuaded that God doth bless their increase the more; according to that proverb of theirs, Tithe and be rich. But how is both the word and the world now altered among us? All is thought by the most to be well saved that is kept from the minister; whom to deceive is held neither sin nor pity. Fisco potius apud multos consulitur quam Christo, ac tonsioni potius gregis quam attentioni; as one complaineth, e Covetous patrons care not to sauce their meat with the blood of souls; while by them, et succus pecori, lac et subducitur agnis, f Besides, they bestow their benefices, non ubi optima, sed ubi quaestuosissime; being herein worse than these Egyptians, shall I say? nay, than the traitor Judas. He sold the head, they the members: he the shepherd, they the sheep; he but the body, they the souls; like that Romish strumpet, Rev 18:13 of whom they have learned it. But let them look to it, lest they ruin their wages of wickedness, with Judas. In the meanwhile, let them give us a just commentary upon that in Pro 20:25 , and tell us who hath authority to take that, from a church, shall I say? nay, from God, that hath been once given him? We can tell them a sad story, of five servants of Cardinal Wolsey’s, employed by him, in tot piorum hominum donariis intervertendis, saith the annalist, g and came all to fearful ends. Two of them disagreed; and, challenging the field, one killed the other, and was hanged for it. A third drowned himself in a well. The fourth, from great riches, fell to extreme beggary and was starved with hunger. The last, one Dr Alan, being Archbishop of Dublin, was there cruelly murdered by his enemies. Now, if divine justice so severely and exemplarily pursued and punished these that converted those abused goods of the Church to better uses without question, though they looked not at that, but at the satisfying of their own greedy lusts, what will be the end of such sacrilegious persons as enrich themselves with that which should be their minister’s maintenance? Sacrum, sacrove commendatum qui clepserit rapseritque, parricida esto, said the Roman law. h It is not only sacrilege, but parricide, to rob the Church.

a Panormitan. Heyl., Geog., p. 524.

b Manlii, loc. com., 472.

c Perstringit tenaces. – Pareus.

d Godw., Heb. Antiq. , 277.

e Episc. Winton.

f Virgil.

g Scultet., Annal., p. 332.

h Ex duod. tab. – Neand. Chron.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)