Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 1:8
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
8. there arose a new king ] Implying the rise of a king whose reign began a new policy. The king, to judge from v. 11 (see the notes on Pithom and Raamses), will have been Rameses II, the third ruler of the 19th dynasty (b.c. 1300 1234 Petrie; 1292 1225 Breasted): set further the Introduction, 4. According to Gen 41:46 (P), Gen 41:53 f., Gen 45:6, Gen 50:22 (E), and Exo 7:7; Exo 12:40 f. (P), the birth of Moses took place 430 (110 39) 80 = 279 years after Joseph’s death. But there are many indications that the chronological statements of P are of slight value (cf. on Exo 2:23 a, Exo 12:40, and the writer’s Genesis, pp. xxvi xxxi).
knew not Joseph ] Not only lit., was not acquainted with Joseph but also, it is implied, did not remember his services to Egypt, and have no thought or care for his people. Comp. Jdg 2:10 b.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
8 14. The first measure taken to check the increase of the Israelites: they are set to do forced labour on public works in Egypt.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The expressions in this verse are special and emphatic. A new king is a phrase not found elsewhere. It is understood by most commentators to imply that he did not succeed his predecessor in the natural order of descent and inheritance. He arose up over Egypt, occupying the land, as it would seem, on different terms from the king whose place he took, either by usurpation or conquest. The fact that he knew not Joseph implies a complete separation from the traditions of Lower Egypt. At present the generality of Egyptian scholars identify this Pharaoh with Rameses II, but all the conditions of the narrative are fulfilled in the person of Amosis I (or, Aahmes), the head of the 18th Dynasty. He was the descendant of the old Theban sovereigns, but his family was tributary to the Dynasty of the Shepherds, the Hyksos of Manetho, then ruling in the North of Egypt. Amosis married an Ethiopian princess, and in the third year of his reign captured Avaris, or Zoan, the capital of the Hyksos, and completed the expulsion of that race.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. There arose up a new king] Who this was it is difficult to say. It was probably Ramesses Miamun, or his son Amenophis, who succeeded him in the government of Egypt about A. M. 2400, before Christ 1604.
Which knew not Joseph.] The verb yada, which we translate to know, often signifies to acknowledge or approve. Jdg 2:10; Ps 1:6; Ps 31:7; Hos 2:8; Amo 3:2. The Greek verbs and are used precisely in the same sense in the New Testament. See Mt 25:12, and 1Jo 3:1. We may therefore understand by the new king’s not knowing Joseph, his disapproving of that system of government which Joseph had established, as well as his haughtily refusing to acknowledge the obligations under which the whole land of Egypt was laid to this eminent prime minister of one of his predecessors.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
A new king, i.e. another king; one of another disposition, or interest, or family; for the kingdom of Egypt did oft pass from one family to another, as appears from the history of the Dynastics recorded in ancient writers.
Which knew not Joseph, or, acknowledged not the vast obligations which Joseph had laid not only upon the kingdoms of Egypt, and the king under whom Joseph lived, but upon all his successors, in regard of those vast additions of wealth and power which he had made to that crown. This phrase notes his ungrateful disowning and ill requiting of Josephs favours. For words of knowledge in Scripture commonly include the affections and actions; as men are oft said not to know God, when they do not love nor serve him; and God is said not to know men, when he doth not love them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. Now there arose up a newkingAbout sixty years after the death of Joseph a revolutiontook placeby which the old dynasty was overthrown, and upper andlower Egypt were united into one kingdom. Assuming that the kingformerly reigned in Thebes, it is probable that he would know nothingabout the Hebrews; and that, as foreigners and shepherds, the newgovernment would, from the first, regard them with dislike and scorn.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt,…. Stephen calls him another king, Ac 7:18 one of another family, according to Josephus g; who was not of the seed royal, as Aben Ezra; and Sir John Marsham h thinks this was Salatis, who, according to Manetho i, was the first of the Hycsi or pastor kings that ruled in lower Egypt; but these kings seem to have reigned before that time, [See comments on Ge 46:34] and Bishop Usher k takes this king to be one of the ancient royal family, whose name was Ramesses Miamun; and gives us a succession of the Egyptian kings from the time of Joseph’s going into Egypt to this king: the name of that Pharaoh that reigned when Joseph was had into Egypt, and whose dreams he interpreted, was Mephramuthosis; after him reigned Thmosis, Amenophis, and Orus; and in the reign of the last of these Joseph died, and after Orus reigned Acenehres a daughter of his, then Rathotis a brother of Acenchres, after him Acencheres a son of Rathotis, then another Acencheres, after him Armais, then Ramesses, who was succeeded by Ramesses Miamun, here called the new king, because, as the Jews l say, new decrees were made in his time; and this Pharaoh, under whom Moses was born, they call Talma m, and with Artapanus n his name is Palmanothes:
which knew not Joseph; which is not to be understood of ignorance of his person, whom he could not know; nor of the history of him, and of the benefits done by him to the Egyptian nation, though, no doubt, this was among their records, and which, one would think, he could not but know; or rather, he had no regard to the memory of Joseph; and so to his family and kindred, the whole people of Israel: he acknowledged not the favours of Joseph to his nation, ungratefully neglected them, and showed no respect to his posterity, and those in connection with him, on his account; though, if a stranger, it is not to be wondered at.
g Antiqu. l. 2. c. 9. sect. 1. h Canon. Chron. Sec. 8. p. 107. i Apud Joseph. Contr. Apion. l. 1. sect. 14. k Annal. Vet. Test. p. 17. 18. l T. Bab. Erubin. fol. 53. 1. m Juchasin, fol. 135. 2. n Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 27. p. 431.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The promised blessing was manifested chiefly in the fact, that all the measures adopted by the cunning of Pharaoh to weaken and diminish the Israelites, instead of checking, served rather to promote their continuous increase.
Exo 1:8-9 “ There arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.” signifies he came to the throne, denoting his appearance in history, as in Deu 34:10. A “new king” (lxx: ; the other ancient versions, rex novus ) is a king who follows different principles of government from his predecessors. Cf. , “new gods,” in distinction from the God that their fathers had worshipped, Jdg 5:8; Deu 32:17. That this king belonged to a new dynasty, as the majority of commentators follow Josephus (Note: Ant. ii. 9, 1. .)
in assuming, cannot be inferred with certainty from the predicate new; but it is very probable, as furnishing the readiest explanation of the change in the principles of government. The question itself, however, is of no direct importance in relation to theology, though it has considerable interest in connection with Egyptological researches.
(Note: The want of trustworthy accounts of the history of ancient Egypt and its rulers precludes the possibility of bringing this question to a decision. It is true that attempts have been made to mix it up in various ways with the statements which Josephus has transmitted from Manetho with regard to the rule of the Hyksos in Egypt ( c. Ap. i. 14 and 26), and the rising up of the “new king” has been identified sometimes with the commencement of the Hyksos rule, and at other times with the return of the native dynasty on the expulsion of the Hyksos. But just as the accounts of the ancients with regard to the Hyksos bear throughout the stamp of very distorted legends and exaggerations, so the attempts of modern inquirers to clear up the confusion of these legends, and to bring out the historical truth that lies at the foundation of them all, have led to nothing but confused and contradictory hypotheses; so that the greatest Egyptologists of our own days, – viz., Lepsius, Bunsen, and Brugsch – differ throughout, and are even diametrically opposed to one another in their views respecting the dynasties of Egypt. Not a single trace of the Hyksos dynasty is to be found either in or upon the ancient monuments. The documental proofs of the existence of a dynasty of foreign kings, which the Vicomte de Roug thought that he had discovered in the Papyrus Sallier No. 1 of the British Museum, and which Brugsch pronounced “an Egyptian document concerning the Hyksos period,” have since then been declared untenable both by Brugsch and Lepsius, and therefore given up again. Neither Herodotus nor Diodorus Siculus heard anything at all about the Hyksos though the former made very minute inquiry of the Egyptian priests of Memphis and Heliopolis. And lastly, the notices of Egypt and its kings, which we meet with in Genesis and Exodus, do not contain the slightest intimation that there were foreign kings ruling there either in Joseph’s or Moses’ days, or that the genuine Egyptian spirit which pervades these notices was nothing more than the “outward adoption” of Egyptian customs and modes of thought. If we add to this the unquestionably legendary character of the Manetho accounts, there is always the greatest probability in the views of those inquirers who regard the two accounts given by Manetho concerning the Hyksos as two different forms of one and the same legend, and the historical fact upon which this legend was founded as being the 430 years’ sojourn of the Israelites, which had been thoroughly distorted in the national interests of Egypt. – For a further expansion and defence of this view see Hvernick’s Einleitung in d. A. T. i. 2, pp. 338ff., Ed. 2 (Introduction to the Pentateuch, pp. 235ff. English translation).)
The new king did not acknowledge Joseph, i.e., his great merits in relation to Egypt. signifies here, not to perceive, or acknowledge, in the sense of not wanting to know anything about him, as in 1Sa 2:12, etc. In the natural course of things, the merits of Joseph might very well have been forgotten long before; for the multiplication of the Israelites into a numerous people, which had taken place in the meantime, is a sufficient proof that a very long time had elapsed since Joseph’s death. At the same time such forgetfulness does not usually take place all at once, unless the account handed down has been intentionally obscured or suppressed. If the new king, therefore, did not know Joseph, the reason must simply have been, that he did not trouble himself about the past, and did not want to know anything about the measures of his predecessors and the events of their reigns. The passage is correctly paraphrased by Jonathan thus: non agnovit ( ) Josephum nec ambulavit in statutis ejus . Forgetfulness of Joseph brought the favour shown to the Israelites by the kings of Egypt to a close. As they still continued foreigners both in religion and customs, their rapid increase excited distrust in the mind of the king, and induced him to take steps for staying their increase and reducing their strength. The statement that “ the people of the children of Israel ” ( lit., “nation, viz., the sons of Israel;” for with the dist. accent is not the construct state, and is in apposition, cf. Ges. 113) were “ more and mightier ” than the Egyptians, is no doubt an exaggeration.
Exo 1:10-14 “ Let us deal wisely with them, ” i.e., act craftily towards them. , sapiensem se gessit (Ecc 7:16), is used here of political craftiness, or worldly wisdom combined with craft and cunning ( , lxx), and therefore is altered into in Psa 105:25 (cf. Gen 37:18). The reason assigned by the king for the measures he was about to propose, was the fear that in case of war the Israelites might make common cause with his enemies, and then remove from Egypt. It was not the conquest of his kingdom that he was afraid of, but alliance with his enemies and emigration. is used here, as in Gen 13:1, etc., to denote removal from Egypt to Canaan. He was acquainted with the home of the Israelites therefore, and cannot have been entirely ignorant of the circumstances of their settlement in Egypt. But he regarded them as his subjects, and was unwilling that they should leave the country, and therefore was anxious to prevent the possibility of their emancipating themselves in the event of war. – In the form for , according to the frequent interchange of the forms and (vid., Gen 42:4), nh is transferred from the feminine plural to the singular, to distinguish the 3rd pers. fem. from the 2nd pers., as in Jdg 5:26; Job 17:16 (vid., Ewald, 191 c, and Ges. 47, 3, Anm. 3). Consequently there is no necessity either to understand collectively as signifying soldiers, or to regard drager ot , the reading adopted by the lxx ( ), the Samaritan, Chaldee, Syriac, and Vulgate, as “certainly the original,” as Knobel has done.
The first measure adopted (Exo 1:11) consisted in the appointment of taskmasters over the Israelites, to bend them down by hard labour. bailiffs over the serfs. from signifies, not feudal service, but feudal labourers, serfs (see my Commentary on 1Ki 4:6). to bend, to wear out any one’s strength (Psa 102:24). By hard feudal labour ( burdens, burdensome toil) Pharaoh hoped, according to the ordinary maxims of tyrants ( Aristot. polit., 5, 9; Liv. hist. i. 56, 59), to break down the physical strength of Israel and lessen its increase-since a population always grows more slowly under oppression than in the midst of prosperous circumstances-and also to crush their spirit so as to banish the very wish for liberty. – – .ytrebil r , and so Israel built (was compelled to build) provision or magazine cities vid., 2Ch 32:28, cities for the storing of the harvest), in which the produce of the land was housed, partly for purposes of trade, and partly for provisioning the army in time of war; – not fortresses, , as the lxx have rendered it. Pithom was ; it was situated, according to Herodotus (2, 158), upon the canal which commenced above Bybastus and connected the Nile with the Red Sea. This city is called Thou or Thoum in the Itiner. Anton., the Egyptian article pi being dropped, and according to Jomard (descript. t. 9, p. 368) is to be sought for on the site of the modern Abassieh in the Wady Tumilat. – Raemses (cf. Gen 47:11) was the ancient Heroopolis, and is not to be looked for on the site of the modern Belbeis. In support of the latter supposition, Stickel, who agrees with Kurtz and Knobel, adduces chiefly the statement of the Egyptian geographer Makrizi, that in the (Jews’) book of the law Belbeis is called the land of Goshen, in which Jacob dwelt when he came to his son Joseph, and that the capital of the province was el Sharkiyeh. This place is a day’s journey (for as others affirm, 14 hours) to the north-east of Cairo on the Syrian and Egyptian road. It served as a meeting-place in the middle ages for the caravans from Egypt to Syria and Arabia ( Ritter, Erdkunde 14, p. 59). It is said to have been in existence before the Mohammedan conquest of Egypt. But the clue cannot be traced any farther back; and it is too far from the Red Sea for the Raemses of the Bible (vid., Exo 12:37). The authority of Makrizi is quite counterbalanced by the much older statement of the Septuagint, in which Jacob is made to meet his son Joseph in Heroopolis; the words of Gen 46:29, “and Joseph went up to meet Israel his father to Goshen,” being rendered thus: . Hengstenberg is not correct in saying that the later name Heroopolis is here substituted for the older name Raemses; and Gesenius, Kurtz, and Knobel are equally wrong in affirming that is supplied ex ingenio suo ; but the place of meeting, which is given indefinitely as Goshen in the original, is here distinctly named. Now if this more precise definition is not an arbitrary conjecture of the Alexandrian translators, but sprang out of their acquaintance with the country, and is really correct, as Kurtz has no doubt, it follows that Heroopolis belongs to the (Gen 46:28, lxx), or was situated within it. But this district formed the centre of the Israelitish settlement in Goshen; for according to Gen 47:11, Joseph gave his father and brethren “a possession in the best of the land, in the land of Raemses.” Following this passage, the lxx have also rendered in Gen 46:28 by , whereas in other places the land of Goshen is simply called (Gen 45:10; Gen 46:34; Gen 47:1, etc.). But if Heroopolis belonged to the , or the province of Raemses, which formed the centre of the land of Goshen that was assigned to the Israelites, this city must have stood in the immediate neighbourhood of Raemses, or have been identical with it. Now, since the researches of the scientific men attached to the great French expedition, it has been generally admitted that Heroopolis occupied the site of the modern Abu Keisheib in the Wady Tumilat, between Thoum = Pithom and the Birket Temsah or Crocodile Lake; and according to the Itiner. p. 170, it was only 24 Roman miles to the east of Pithom, – a position that was admirably adapted not only for a magazine, but also for the gathering-place of Israel prior to their departure (Exo 12:37).
But Pharaoh’s first plan did not accomplish his purpose (Exo 1:12). The multiplication of Israel went on just in proportion to the amount of the oppression ( = prout, ita; as in Gen 30:30; Gen 28:14), so that the Egyptians were dismayed at the Israelites ( to feel dismay, or fear, Num 22:3). In this increase of their numbers, which surpassed all expectation, there was the manifestation of a higher, supernatural, and to them awful power. But instead of bowing before it, they still endeavoured to enslave Israel through hard servile labour. In Exo 1:13, Exo 1:14 we have not an account of any fresh oppression; but “the crushing by hard labour” is represented as enslaving the Israelites and embittering their lives. hard oppression, from the Chaldee to break or crush in pieces. “ They embittered their life with hard labour in clay and bricks (making clay into bricks, and working with the bricks when made), and in all kinds of labour in the field (this was very severe in Egypt on account of the laborious process by which the ground was watered, Deu 11:10), with regard to all their labour, which they worked (i.e., performed) through them (viz., the Israelites) with severe oppression.” is also dependent upon , as a second accusative ( Ewald, 277 d). Bricks of clay were the building materials most commonly used in Egypt. The employment of foreigners in this kind of labour is to be seen represented in a painting, discovered in the ruins of Thebes, and given in the Egyptological works of Rosellini and Wilkinson, in which workmen who are evidently not Egyptians are occupied in making bricks, whilst two Egyptians with sticks are standing as overlookers; – even if the labourers are not intended for the Israelites, as the Jewish physiognomies would lead us to suppose. (For fuller details, see Hengstenberg’s Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 80ff. English translation).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. 9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: 10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. 11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. 13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.
The land of Egypt here, at length, becomes to Israel a house of bondage, though hitherto it had been a happy shelter and settlement for them. Note, The place of our satisfaction may soon become the place of our affliction, and that may prove the greatest cross to us of which we said, This same shall comfort us. Those may prove our sworn enemies whose parents were our faithful friends; nay, the same persons that loved us may possibly turn to hate us: therefore cease from man, and say not concerning any place on this side heaven, This is my rest for ever. Observe here,
I. The obligations they lay under to Israel upon Joseph’s account were forgotten: There arose a new king, after several successions in Joseph’s time, who knew not Joseph, v. 8. All that knew him loved him, and were kind to his relations for his sake; but when he was dead he was soon forgotten, and the remembrance of the good offices he had done was either not retained or not regarded, nor had it any influence upon their councils. Note, the best and the most useful and acceptable services done to men are seldom remembered, so as to be recompensed to those that did them, in the notice taken either of their memory, or of their posterity, after their death, Ecc 9:5; Ecc 9:15. Therefore our great care should be to serve God, and please him, who is not unrighteous, whatever men are, to forget our work and labour of love, Heb. vi. 10. If we work for men only, our works, at furthest, will die with us; if for God, they will follow us, Rev. xiv. 13. This king of Egypt knew not Joseph; and after him arose one that had the impudence to say, I know not the Lord, ch. v. 2. Note, Those that are unmindful of their other benefactors, it is to be feared, will forget the supreme benefactor, 1 John iv. 20.
II. Reasons of state were suggested for their dealing hardly with Israel, Exo 1:9; Exo 1:10. 1. They are represented as more and mightier than the Egyptians; certainly they were not so, but the king of Egypt, when he resolved to oppress them, would have them thought so, and looked on as a formidable body. 2. Hence it is inferred that if care were not taken to keep them under they would become dangerous to the government, and in time of war would side with their enemies and revolt from their allegiance to the crown of Egypt. Note, It has been the policy of persecutors to represent God’s Israel as a dangerous people, hurtful to kings and provinces, not fit to be trusted, nay, not fit to be tolerated, that they may have some pretence for the barbarous treatment they design them, Ezr 4:12; Est 3:8. Observe, The thing they feared was lest they should get them up out of the land, probably having heard them speak of the promise made to their fathers that they should settle in Canaan. Note, The policies of the church’s enemies aim to defeat the promises of the church’s God, but in vain; God’s counsels shall stand. 3. It is therefore proposed that a course be taken to prevent their increase: Come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply. Note, (1.) The growth of Israel is the grief of Egypt, and that against which the powers and policies of hell are levelled. (2.) When men deal wickedly, it is common for them to imagine that they deal wisely; but the folly of sin will, at last, be manifested before all men.
III. The method they took to suppress them, and check their growth, Exo 1:11; Exo 1:13; Exo 1:14. The Israelites behaved themselves so peaceably and inoffensively that they could not find any occasion of making war upon them, and weakening them by that means: and therefore, 1. They took care to keep them poor, by charging them with heavy taxes, which, some think, is included in the burdens with which they afflicted them. 2. By this means they took an effectual course to make them slaves. The Israelites, it should seem, were much more industrious laborious people than the Egyptians, and therefore Pharaoh took care to find them work, both in building (they built him treasure-cities), and in husbandry, even all manner of service in the field: and this was exacted from them with the utmost rigour and severity. Here are many expressions used, to affect us with the condition of God’s people. They had taskmasters set over them, who were directed, not only to burden them, but, as much as might be, to afflict them with their burdens, and contrive how to make them grievous. They not only made them serve, which was sufficient for Pharaoh’s profit, but they made them serve with rigour, so that their lives became bitter to them, intending hereby, (1.) To break their spirits, and rob them of every thing in them that was ingenuous and generous. (2.) To ruin their health and shorten their days, and so diminish their numbers. (3.) To discourage them from marrying, since their children would be born to slavery. (4.) To oblige them to desert the Hebrews, and incorporate themselves with the Egyptians. Thus he hoped to cut off the name of Israel, that it might be no more in remembrance. And it is to be feared that the oppression they were under had this bad effect upon them, that it brought over many of them to join with the Egyptians in their idolatrous worship; for we read (Josh. xxiv. 14) that they served other gods in Egypt; and, though it is not mentioned here in this history, yet we find (Ezek. xx. 8) that God had threatened to destroy them for it, even while they were in the land of Egypt: however, they were kept a distinct body, unmingled with the Egyptians, and by their other customs separated from them, which was the Lord’s doing, and marvellous.
IV. The wonderful increase of the Israelites, notwithstanding the oppressions they groaned under (v. 12): The more they afflicted them the more they multiplied, sorely to the grief and vexation of the Egyptians. Note, 1. Times of affliction have often been the church’s growing times, Sub pondere crescit–Being pressed, it grows. Christianity spread most when it was persecuted: the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. 2. Those that take counsel against the Lord and his Israel do but imagine a vain thing (Ps. ii. 1), and create so much the greater vexation to themselves: hell and earth cannot diminish those whom Heaven will increase.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
8. Now there arose a new king. When more than one hundred years had been happily passed in freedom and repose, the condition of the elect people began to be changed. Moses relates that the commencement of their troubles proceeded from jealousy, and from the groundless fear of the Egyptians, because they conceived that danger might arise from this strange nation, unless they hastened to oppress it. But before he comes to this, he premises that the remembrance of the benefits received from Joseph had departed, because it might have in some measure mitigated their cruelty, had it still been unimpaired. It is probable that this oblivion of the gratitude due to him arose from the moderation of Joseph; for if he had demanded great privileges for his people, and immunity from tributes and burdens, the remembrances of the saving of the country by an Israelite would have been famous for many ages; but it appears that he was content with the kind hospitality afforded them, that his brethren might dwell comfortably, and without molestation in the land of Goshen, because he wished them to be sojourners there until the time of deliverance arrived. And in this way he best provided for their safety, lest being thus ensnared, they might have fallen into the nets of destruction. But in proportion as the moderation of the holy man exposed them not to jealousy and complaint, so was the ingratitude of the Egyptians less excusable in forgetting, after little more than a single century, that remarkable benefit, which should have been everywhere preserved in their public monuments, lest the name of Joseph should ever perish. Their unkindness, then, was intolerable, in refusing that his kindred and descendants should sojourn with them, since they ought to have ascribed the safety of themselves and their country, after God, to him, or rather under the hand and with the blessing of God. But this disease has always been flagrant in the world; and certainly it is good for us that evil should ever be our reward from men for our kindnesses, that we may learn in the performance of our duty to look to God alone, since otherwise we are unduly addicted to conciliate favor and applause for ourselves, or to seek after more earthly advantages. Still it was no common return which the Israelites had liberally received during more than 100 years for Joseph’s sake, that they lived comfortably in a proud, avaricious, and cruel nation. Nevertheless, whatever happens, although we are not only defrauded of all recompense, but even although many of whom we have deserved well conspire for our destruction, let us never regret having done rightly; and, in the meantime, let us learn that nothing is more effective to restrain the desire of doing wrong, than those ties of mutual connection, by which God has bound us together. (12) But, although the favor conferred by Joseph had been forgotten by all, the shame and sin of ingratitude cleaves especially to the king; in whom it was more than base to forget by whose industry and care he received so rich a yearly revenue. For the holy Patriarch, by buying up the land, had obtained a fifth part of the produce as a yearly tribute for the king. But so are tyrants accustomed to engulf whatever is paid them, without considering by what right it is acquired.
(12) “Nous faisant servir les uns aux autres;” causing us to serve one another. — French.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) There arose up a new king.A king of a new dynasty might seem to be intended. Some suppose him to be Aahmes I., the founder of the eighteenth dynasty of Manetho; others suggest Rameses II., one of the greatest monarchs of the nineteenth. The present writer inclines to regard him as Seti I., the father of this Rameses, and the son of Rameses I. Seti, though not the actual founder of the nineteenth dynasty, was the originator of its greatness. (See Excursus I. On Egyptian History, as connected with the Book of Exodus, at the end of this Book.)
Which knew not Joseph.It seems to be implied that, for some considerable time after his death, the memory of the benefits conferred by Joseph upon Egypt had protected his kinsfolk. But, in the shifts and changes incident to politicsespecially to Oriental politicsthis condition of things had passed away. The new king felt under no obligation to him, perhaps was even ignorant of his name. He viewed the political situation apart from all personal predilections, and saw a danger in it.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. A new king A new dynasty or reigning family, says Josephus . The language implies a total change of government and principles of administration, such as attend a change of dynasty; not necessarily that so much time had elapsed that Joseph was actually forgotten, but his services were no longer gratefully recognised . Manetho describes two great dynastic changes: the first on the invasion, and the second on the expulsion, of the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings; but whether either of these be the change here mentioned, or, in fact, whether there ever were any Shepherd Kings, are still greatly controverted questions . It seems most likely that this oppression of the Israelites commenced under the eighteenth (Theban) dynasty, which came into power, according to Wilkinson, about B . C . 1550, according to Lepsius about B . C . 1700, and ruled two centuries . Ames I . , (called also Aahmes, Amosis, and Tethmosis,) the first monarch of this dynasty, united and centralized the kingdom, drove out invaders, erected great palaces and obelisks, and commenced a new epoch of Egyptian history . It is natural that he should know nothing and care nothing for the favourite minister or measures of the dynasty which he displaced; yet it is well to understand that this identification is but conjectural .
Pharaoh’s residence seems at this time to have been at Zoan, otherwise called Tanis, or Avaris, a city of Lower Egypt, on the east bank of the Tanitic branch of the Nile, once a large and strong city of the eastern frontier. (See Isa 19:11; Isa 19:13. ) Zoan is the Hebrew name which became Tanis in Greek, while Avaris is an Egyptian word in Greek letters, all the names having the same meaning “House of departure” in evident allusion to the frontier situation of the city . “The field of Zoan” is dwelt upon by the Psalmist (Psa 78:12; Psa 78:43) as the scene of God’s wonders in Egypt, and Manetho tells us that King Salatis, the first of the Shepherd line, made this city his residence in harvest time and garrisoned it with 240,000 men . It was evidently the great frontier fortress towards Syria during the Shepherd period, and was the last stronghold of that dynasty when they were allowed to depart by capitulation. (Josephus, Contr. Revelation , 1.) It had a splendid temple to Set, the Egyptian Baal, the sacred enclosure of which can now be clearly traced. This temple was ornamented with numerous obelisks and sculptures by Rameses II., of the nineteenth dynasty, and the present grandeur of its ruins attests its ancient splendour. Twelve fallen obelisks, which were transported down the Nile to this spot from Syene, show with what magnificence Zoan was adorned by the Egyptian kings. Mariette and De Rouge have recently exhumed here sphynxes and colossal statues, bearing the marks of the Shepherd period, and proving beyond doubt that this was a flourishing seat of empire before the time of Moses. (Thomson, in Smith’s Dictionary.)
The great fertile plain in which this city stood, which originally extended thirty miles east of Tanis to Pelusium, “of old a rich marsh land, watered by four of the seven branches of the Nile, and swept by the cool breezes of the Mediterranean,” is now, by the subsidence of the coast, almost covered by the great Lake Menzeleh. (Poole, in Smith’s Dict.) Pharaoh probably divided his residence between this city and Memphis, and it will be seen that Zoan was so near to Goshen that Moses and Aaron could easily pass and repass in their interviews with Pharaoh. See Concluding Notes at close of chapter. (1.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Birth of Moses Exo 1:8 to Exo 2:10 records the birth of Moses.
Exo 1:8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
Exo 1:8
Exo 1:9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:
Exo 1:10 Exo 1:11 Exo 1:12 Exo 1:12
The affliction of the Israelites is like afflicting Christians; the more persecution, the more they spread and grow (see Act 8:3-4).
Act 8:3, “As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.”
Exo 1:13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour:
Exo 1:14 Exo 1:15 Exo 1:15
[15] Jimmy Swaggart, “The Preaching of the Cross,” Sonshine Radio, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, radio program, 22 February 2011.
Exo 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
Exo 1:17 Exo 1:18 Exo 1:19 Exo 1:20 Exo 1:21 Exo 1:21
Exo 1:22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
Exo 2:1 Exo 2:1
Exo 6:20, “And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.”
Num 26:59, “And the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.”
1Ch 6:3, “And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.”
1Ch 23:13, “The sons of Amram; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for ever.”
Exo 2:2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.
Exo 2:2
Heb 11:23, “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.”
Exo 2:3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.
Exo 2:3
Act 7:20, “In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father’s house three months :”
Heb 11:23, “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.”
Exo 2:4 And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.
Exo 2:4
Exo 2:10 Word Study on “Moses”- The name “Moses” name means, “drawn out”. Note this explanation of Moses’ name from Clement of Alexandria, one of the early Church fathers. He says that the name was of Egyptian origin.
“Thereupon the queen gave the babe the name of Moses, with etymological propriety, from his being drawn out of ‘the water,’–for the Egyptians call water ‘mou,’–in which he had been exposed to die. For they call Moses one who ‘who breathed [on being taken] from the water.’ It is clear that previously the parents gave a name to the child on his circumcision; and he was called Joachim. And he had a third name in heaven, after his ascension, as the mystics say–Melchi.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 1.23) [16]
[16] Clement of Alexander, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 1.23, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo, New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885), 335.
Comments – It is interesting to note that Moses was drawn out of the same river in which the other Hebrew babies were being cast into and drowned (Exo 1:22). In later years, Moses and those baptised with him will be delivered, or “drawn out”, from the Red Sea, and Pharaoh’s army “of men” will be drowned by water. The very people that tried to drown God’s children will themselves be drowned.
Exo 1:22, “And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Pharaoh Plans to Curb the Growth
v. 8. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph. v. 9. And he said unto his people, to the high officials and representatives of the people, who were his counselors, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. v. 10. Come on, let us deal wisely with them, v. 11. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. v. 12. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. v. 13. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor; v. 14. and they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick and in all manner of service in the field; all their service wherein they made them serve was with rigor.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Exo 1:8. Now there arose up a new king, &c. which knew not Joseph To know, in the sacred Scripture, signifies often, to love, to regard, approve. See Hos 2:8. Amo 3:2 compared with Psa 1:6; Psa 31:7. Mat 25:12. In Jdg 2:10 it is said, There arose another generation who knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel; that is evidently, who regarded not the Lord; as here it must mean a new king, who regarded not Joseph, had no grateful remembrance of the eminent services he had done to Egypt, and was utterly averse to his system of politics. The Chaldee renders it, who confirmed not the decrees of Joseph. It is probable that this new king might be of another family; for Diodorus tells us, that the ancient kings of Egypt were chosen by the people, not so much with respect to birth as merit: and some writers are of opinion (as we have had occasion before to observe, Gen 50:22.) that Joseph supported his credit under four kings; and that this, who succeeded them, being a foreigner, had heard nothing of him, nor of his administration. But the passage will be sufficiently clear, if we understand a king, different from him who had raised Joseph, and who was regardless of what had passed in the former reigns, and inattentive to the obligations due to Joseph. This we need not wonder at after so many years, when Ahasuerus could so soon forget Mordecai, who had lately saved his life, Est 2:21-23. Though it must be owned, that had Joseph’s merit been ever so fresh in their memory, yet the conduct of a jealous and despotic prince had nothing in the present instance strange or uncommon, since it would rather have been a prodigy, if his gratitude to a man, who had been dead above fifty years, had prevented his taking some arbitrary and cruel measures, in order to secure his kingdom against the danger it seemed threatened with from a people who, from a single family, were become such a formidable host. The religion of the Israelites, so opposite to the Egyptian idolatry; their prosperity, their union, their valour, their riches, their strength; all these, in the eye of such a prince, would seem to justify the measures he took against them. Even in these modern times, some Christian princes, so called, have taken precautions as cruel against their own natural subjects, of whose fidelity and attachment they had the strongest proofs; and yet these persecutions have been justified, nay, canonized, while Pharaoh’s have been branded with the worst of epithets. Critics vary much in their opinions concerning the name of this Egyptian king; some saying that it was Ramesses-Miamum; others Amenophis; and others Salatis; whose government, Dr. Shuckford says, was so despotic, that many families fled from under it out of Egypt; among whom, he thinks, were Cecrops, Erichthonius, and the father of Cadmus.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 7:18 . It is a useful spiritual improvement to consider, that as Israel flourished more after Joseph’s death, and under the oppression of another king which knew not Joseph: so the true Israelite now literally and truly abounds more in divine things in seasons of trouble, than in the sun-shine of life. And the church of Jesus hath abundantly increased since the Redeemer’s return to glory, more than in all the time while he was personally with his disciples here upon earth. How clear a proof of that precious promise, Mat 28:20 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 1:8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
Ver. 8. A new king. ] Called Busiris, a most savage tyrant, as heathen histories report him.
Who knew not.
a Diod. Sicul., lib. ii.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exodus
FOUR SHAPING CENTURIES
Exo 1:1 – – Exo 1:14
The four hundred years of Israel’s stay in Egypt were divided into two unequal periods, in the former and longer of which they were prosperous and favoured, while in the latter they were oppressed. Both periods had their uses and place in the shaping of the nation and its preparation for the Exodus. Both carry permanent lessons.
I. The long days of unclouded prosperity. These extended over centuries, the whole history of which is summed up in two words: death and growth. The calm years glided on, and the shepherds in Goshen had the happiness of having no annals. All that needed to be recorded was that, one by one, the first generation died off, and that the new generations ‘were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty.’ The emphatic repetitions recall the original promises in Gen 12:2 , Gen 17:4 – Gen 17:5 , Gen 18:18 . The preceding specification of the number of the original settlers repeated from Gen 46:27 brings into impressive contrast the small beginnings and the rapid increase. We may note that eloquent setting side by side of the two processes which are ever going on simultaneously, death and birth.
One by one men pass out of the warmth and light into the darkness, and so gradually does the withdrawal proceed that we scarcely are aware of its going on, but at last ‘all that generation’ has vanished. The old trees are all cleared off the ground, and everywhere their place is taken by the young saplings. The web is ever being woven at one end, and run down at the other. ‘The individual withers, but the race is more and more.’ How solemn that continual play of opposing movements is, and how blind we are to its solemnity!
That long period of growth may be regarded in two lights. It effected the conversion of a horde into a nation by numerical increase, and so was a link in the chain of the divine working. The great increase, of which the writer speaks so strongly, was, no doubt, due to the favourable circumstances of the life in Goshen, but was none the less regarded by him, and rightly so, as God’s doing. As the Psalmist sings, ‘ He increased His people greatly.’ ‘Natural processes’ are the implements of a supernatural will. So Israel was being multiplied, and the end for which it was peacefully growing into a multitude was hidden from all but God. But there was another end, in reference to which the years of peaceful prosperity may be regarded; namely, the schooling of the people to patient trust in the long-delayed fulfilment of the promise. That hope had burned bright in Joseph when he died, and he being dead yet spake of it from his coffin to the successive generations. Delay is fitted and intended to strengthen faith and make hope more eager. But that part of the divine purpose, alas! was not effected as the former was. In the moral region every circumstance has two opposite results possible. Each condition has, as it were, two handles, and we can take it by either, and generally take it by the wrong one. Whatever is meant to better us may be so used by us as to worsen us. And the history of Israel in Egypt and in the desert shows only too plainly that ease weakened, if it did not kill, faith, and that Goshen was so pleasant that it drove the hope and the wish for Canaan out of mind. ‘While the bridegroom tarried they all slumbered and slept.’ Is not Israel in Egypt, slackening hold of the promise because it tarried, a mirror in which the Church may see itself? and do we not know the enervating influence of Goshen, making us reluctant to shoulder our packs and turn out for the pilgrimage? The desert repels more strongly than Canaan attracts.
II. The shorter period of oppression. Probably the rise of a ‘new king’ means a revolution in which a native dynasty expelled foreign monarchs. The Pharaoh of the oppression was, perhaps, the great Rameses II., whose long reign of sixty-seven years gives ample room for protracted and grinding oppression of Israel. The policy adopted was characteristic of these early despotisms, in its utter disregard of humanity and of everything but making the kingdom safe. It was not intentionally cruel, it was merely indifferent to the suffering it occasioned. ‘Let us deal wisely with them’-never mind about justice, not to say kindness. Pharaoh’s ‘politics,’ like those of some other rulers who divorce them from morality, turned out to be impolitic, and his ‘wisdom’ proved to be roundabout folly. He was afraid that the Israelites, if they were allowed to grow, might find out their strength and seek to emigrate; and so he set to work to weaken them with hard bondage, not seeing that that was sure to make them wish the very thing that he was blunderingly trying to prevent. The only way to make men glad to remain in a community is to make them at home there. The sense of injustice is the strongest disintegrating force. If there is a ‘dangerous class’ the surest way to make them more dangerous is to treat them harshly. It was a blunder to make ‘lives bitter,’ for hearts also were embittered. So the people were ripened for revolt, and Goshen became less attractive.
God used Pharaoh’s foolish wisdom, as He had used natural laws, to prepare for the Exodus. The long years of ease had multiplied the nation. The period of oppression was to stir them up out of their comfortable nest, and make them willing to risk the bold dash for freedom. Is not that the explanation, too, of the similar times in our lives? It needs that we should experience life’s sorrows and burdens, and find how hard the world’s service is, and how quickly our Goshens may become places of grievous toil, in order that the weak hearts, which cling so tightly to earth, may be detached from it, and taught to reach upwards to God. ‘Blessed is the man . . .in whose heart are thy ways,’ and happy is he who so profits by his sorrows that they stir in him the pilgrim’s spirit, and make him yearn after Canaan, and not grudge to leave Goshen. Our ease and our troubles, opposite though they seem and are, are meant to further the same end,-to make us fit for the journey which leads to rest and home. We often misuse them both, letting the one sink us in earthly delights and oblivion of the great hope, and the other embitter our spirits without impelling them to seek the things that are above. Let us use the one for thankfulness, growth, and patient hope, and the other for writing deep the conviction that this is not our rest, and making firm the resolve that we will gird our loins and, staff in hand, go forth on the pilgrim road, not shrinking from the wilderness, because we see the mountains of Canaan across its sandy flats.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
arose. Hebrew Kum, stood up. Always denotes a standing up in the place of another whom he removed. See Dan 2:31, Dan 2:39, Dan 2:44; Dan 3:24.
new king = a fresh dynasty. “New “here is used in the sense of being quite different from what preceded. See Deu 32:17. Jdg 5:8, and compare heteros in Act 7:18, “another “of a different kind [not allos, another of the same kind]. This Pharaoh was of a different race and dynasty, as shown by Josephus, who says “the crown being come into another family” (Antiquities ii, 9). He was the Assyrian of Isa 52:4. See App-37.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
a new king: Probably Rameses Miamum, or his son Amenophis, who succeeded him about this period; and by his not knowing Joseph is meant his not acknowledging his obligation to him. Ecc 2:18, Ecc 2:19, Ecc 9:15, Act 7:18
Reciprocal: Exo 2:25 – had respect Psa 105:24 – made Ecc 2:16 – there is Ecc 9:6 – their love
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 1:8. There arose a new king One of another family, according to Josephus; for it appears from ancient writers that the kingdom of Egypt often passed from one family to another. That knew not Joseph All that knew him loved him, and were kind to his relations for his sake; but when he was dead he was soon forgotten, and the remembrance of the good offices he had done was either not retained or not regarded. If we work for men only, our works, at furthest, will die with us; if for God, they will follow us, Rev 14:13.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 1:8-12 J, Exo 1:13 P, Exo 1:14 a (to field) J, Exo 1:14 b P. Repression of Israel.Forced labour was the first device for checking Hebrew increase. The new king is probably Rameses II (13001221 B.C., pp. 56, 63, so Petrie). The phrase has no reference to a change of dynasty, as some have supposed, but to the beginning of an epoch affecting Israel. In Exo 1:9 read mg.; to represent Israel as stronger than the Egyptians would have been absurd, but such a people might easily grow too strong for their dependent position and close proximity. Brugsch estimates the proportion of foreigners in that reign as one-third. The risk foreseen in Exo 1:10 (read, with Sam., LXX, etc., when any war befalleth us) was, as the monuments show, constantly in view. The large, virtually slave, population was ready to take advantage of any Hittite or other invasion. Under the 12th dynasty (c. 1980 B.C.) a line of forts had been erected against the Bedawin incursions. Most of the great palaces and temples of antiquity were built by help of the corve. Solomon used such labour-gangs or levies, and the fate of Adoniram (1Ki 12:18) showed their unpopularity. Pithom (Exo 1:11 b), dwelling of Turn, was identified by Naville in 1883. It lies about 60 miles N.E. of Cairo, and about 20 miles E. of Tel el Kebir, which stands at the N.E. corner of Goshen as traced by Petrie. Inscriptions show that Pithom was built by Rameses II. It had huge, thick walls of brick, and contained sunken magazines, with brick walls also very thick. The Hebrews are not named as its builders. It is properly called a store-city, though it was also a fortress (cf. LXX) and the site of a temple. Raamses has been plausibly located by Petrie (1906) at Tell er Relabeh, 10 miles W. of Pithom, half way to the border of Goshen along the narrow fertile valley of the Wady Tumilot. The scheme may have made Egypt stronger against external attack, but it failed to repress the Israelites, and only made the Egyptians abhor (mg.) or loathe (Num 21:5) them. The graphic details in Exo 1:14 (cf. Exo 1:5 and Gen 11:3) are perhaps from J. The building tasks are distinguished from the agricultural toils, i.e. making canals and dams, and drudging at the irrigation poles, with their heavy buckets, day by day (cf. Deu 11:10*). The black Nile mud was used for mortar as well as for brick-clay. Josephus and Philo specify canals, and Josephus pyramids, as made by Israel. The tradition of the house of bondage was ground into the very bones of the Hebrews.
Exo 1:10. deal wisely has a sinister meaning, cf. LXX, followed by Stephen (dealt subtilly, Act 7:19).
Exo 1:11. taskmasters: better gangmasters.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
1:8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which {c} knew not Joseph.
(c) He did not consider how God had preserved Egypt for the sake of Joseph.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
2. The Israelites’ bondage in Egypt 1:8-22
This pericope serves a double purpose. It introduces the rigorous conditions under which the Egyptians forced the Israelites to live, and it sets the stage for the birth of Moses.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The new king (Exo 1:8) may have been Ahmose (Greek Amosis) who founded the eighteenth dynasty and the New Kingdom and ruled from 1570 to 1546 B.C. However, he was probably one of Ahmose’s immediate successors, Amenhotep I or, most likely, Thutmose I. The Egyptian capital at this time was Zoan (Gr. Tanis). Ahmose was the first native Egyptian Pharaoh for many years. Preceding him was a series of Hyksos rulers. [Note: See Aharon Kempinski, "Jacob in History," Biblical Archaeology Review 14:1 (January-February 1988):42-47.] The name Hyksos probably means "rulers of foreign lands." [Note: John Van Seters, The Hyksos, p. 187.] They were a Semitic people from the northern part of the Fertile Crescent who had invaded Egypt about 1670 B.C. and ruled until Ahmose expelled them. The New Kingdom (ca. 1570-1085 B.C.) that Ahmose inaugurated was the period of greatest imperial might in Egypt’s long history.
"In the Late Bronze Age [ca. 1500-1200 B.C.], Egypt entered her period of Empire, during which she was unquestionably the dominant nation of the world. Architects of the Empire were the Pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty, a house that was founded as the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt and that retained power for some two hundred and fifty years (ca. 1570-1310), bringing to Egypt a strength and a prestige unequaled in all her long history." [Note: John Bright, A History of Israel, p. 98.]
The title "Pharaoh" means "great house." It originally designated the Egyptian king’s residence and household. It became a title for the king himself for the first time in the eighteenth dynasty. [Note: Walter C. Kaiser Jr., "Exodus," in Genesis-Numbers, vol. 2 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 288.]
The implication of the statement that Pharaoh "did not know Joseph" in the Hebrew text is that he did not know him because he did not want to know about him. It seems that the early kings of the eighteenth dynasty wanted to solidify control of Egypt in the hands of native Egyptians. After a long period of control by foreigners, they did not want to acknowledge the greatness of Joseph who was, of course, also a foreigner and a Semite.
"Forgetfulness of Joseph brought the favour shown to the Israelites by the kings of Egypt to a close." [Note: C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 1:421.]
|
Identifications of Significant Pharaohs |
|
SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (dynasties 15-16; ca. 1674-1567 B.C.). Capital: Avaris (Raamses). Period of Hyksos rule. |
|
NEW KINGDOM (dynasties 17-20; ca. 1570-1085 B.C.). Capital: Tanis (Zoan). Period of imperial supremacy. Ahmose (Amosis; 1570-1546 B.C.; 1st Pharaoh of 18th dynasty) expelled the Hyksos and re-established native Egyptian rule. Thutmose I (Thutmosis I; 1525-ca. 1512 B.C.; 3rd Pharaoh of 18th dynasty) practiced genocide on Hebrew male babies (Exo 1:15-22). Hatshepsut (1503-1482 B.C.; 5th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty) was the daughter of Pharaoh Thutmose I who drew Moses out of the Nile and later ruled as Queen (Exo 2:5). Thutmose III (1504-1450 B.C.; 6th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty) was the Pharaoh of the oppression who tried to kill Moses and from whom Moses fled into Midian (Exo 2:15). Amenhotep II (1450-1425 B.C.; 7th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty) was the Pharaoh of the plagues and the Exodus (Exo 3:10 to Exo 15:19). |
Pharaoh launched three successive plans to reduce the threat of the sizable Hebrew population that then was larger and stronger than the Egyptian ruling class (Exo 1:9).
The first plan (plan A) was to make the Hebrews toil hard in manual labor. Normally a population grows more slowly under oppression than in prosperous times. However the opposite took place in the case of the Israelites (Exo 1:12). Physical oppression also tends to crush the spirit, and in this objective the Egyptians were somewhat successful (Exo 2:23-24).
Exo 1:10 should read as follows. "Let us (the entire Egyptian ruling class) deal wisely with them (the Israelites) lest they . . . in the event of war (with enemies, the Hyksos, or any other) . . . join themselves to those who hate us and fight against us and depart from the land." [Note: See Gleason L. Archer Jr., "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses," Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):24-25.]
This plan remained in effect for some time. It probably took years to build the cities of Pithom and Raamses (Ramses, Rameses), which the Egyptians used to store goods (cf. 1Ki 9:19; 2Ch 8:6; 2Ch 17:12). Pithom may be Tell er-Retabeh or Heliopolis, not Tanis; and Raamses may have been Qantir, rather than Tell el-Maskhouta, the popular critical identifications. [Note: See Longman and Dillard, p. 67; Kaiser, p. 289; and Charles F. Aling, "The Biblical City of Ramses," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 25:2 (June 1982):128-37.]
"The name ’Rameses’ for one of the store cities seems to point unquestionably to Rameses II [ca. 1300-1234 B.C.]. But it is probable that this city, which already existed under the Hyksos (the foreigners who ruled Egypt several centuries before the nineteenth dynasty), was rebuilt by Rameses II and that Exo 1:11 refers to the city by its later name . . . ." [Note: William H. Gispen, Exodus, p. 22. Cf. Wolf, pp. 143-45. See also my note on Genesis 47:11.]
There are several instances of the writer or a later editor using more modern names for older sites in the Pentateuch, such as "Dan" in Gen 14:14.
"The brick was the staple of Egyptian architecture, as only the temples and palaces were constructed of stone." [Note: F. B. Meyer, Devotional Commentary on Exodus, p. 19.]
This plan failed to reduce the threat that the Israelites posed to Pharaoh, so the Egyptians adopted a second approach.