Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 47:21
And as for the people, he removed them to cities from [one] end of the borders of Egypt even to the [other] end thereof.
21. he removed them ] Better, as Samar., Sept. and Vulg., he made bondmen of them, from &c. The reading in the text, followed by the R.V., in all probability is due to the recollection of Joseph’s policy of storing the grain in the cities, Gen 41:35; Gen 41:48. The reading of R.V. marg., which is that of the versions, differs extremely slightly from that of the Massoretic text. The verb “he removed” only differs from the verb “he enslaved” by one letter; the former having “R” ( ) and the latter “D” ( ); cf. Gen 10:3-4. The latter gives a distinctly better sense. Gen 47:20 has already described the sale of the land, and now Gen 47:21 describes how the people became servants, or serfs, to Pharaoh. Thus Gen 47:20-21 describe the carrying out of both parts of the people’s proposal in Gen 47:19.
to the cities ] R. V. marg. according to their cities. The rendering “to the cities” agrees with the verb “he removed.” But, with the preferable reading “he made bondmen,” we should here read “for slaves or serfs,” as LXX . The difference in the Hebrew text, between “to the cities” and “for slaves,” is very slight.
There would have been no advantage to be derived from the redistribution of the people in the cities except for convenience in feeding them. They were needed to work the soil which now belonged to Pharaoh.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 21. And as for the people, he removed them to cities] It is very likely that Joseph was influenced by no political motive in removing the people to the cities, but merely by a motive of humanity and prudence. As the corn was laid up in the cities he found it more convenient to bring them to the place where they might be conveniently fed; each being within the reach of an easy distribution. Thus then the country which could afford no sustenance was abandoned for the time being, that the people might be fed in those places where the provision was deposited.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Under the cities are here comprehended the villages and lands belonging to the territory and government of each city; for the seed which he gave them was not to be sown in cities, but in the country: but the
cities only are here mentioned, because they were sent thither first, either for the conveniency of nourishing them during this famine out of the public storehouses which were there; or that they might all profess their subjection to the governments of the several cities, which was convenient for the management of that numerous and tumultuous people; or that the cities might be first and most replenished with inhabitants, as being the principal honour, and strength, and security of a kingdom, and that arts, and trades, and merchandise might flourish, without which the commodities of the country would have been of less price and use. But the cities being first supplied, the residue, which doubtless was vast, were dispersed in the country.
From one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof; far from their native soil and ancient patrimonies, that none of them might plead prescription, but that all might be forced to acknowledge that they owed their estates not to their own wit and industry, nor to their parents gift, but wholly to the kings favour; and that the remembrance of their patrimonial lands might be worn out, and therewith the grief which would arise from their resentment of their loss of them, which probably would be matter of tumults and seditions, to which that people were very prone. And it is probable that he so disposed of this affair, that those who were apt, and likely, and used to unite together in seditious insurrections, whether kindred or others, should be separated one from another as far as might be. If any think that Joseph dealt hardly with them, and made an ill use of their necessity, he will see how moderately and mercifully he deals with them, Gen 47:24.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. as for the people, he removedthem to citiesobviously for the convenience of the countrypeople, who were doing nothing, to the cities where the corn storeswere situated.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And as for the people, he removed them,…. From the places where they dwelt, that it might appear they had no more property there, and might forget it, and be more willing to pay rent elsewhere; and their posterity hereafter could have no notion of its being theirs, or plead prescription; and besides, by such a removal and separation of the inhabitants of cities, some to one place, and some to another, sedition and mutiny might be prevented: he had them
to cities, from [one] end of the borders of Egypt, even unto the [other] end thereof; according to the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, those that dwelt in provinces, or in country towns and villages, he removed to cities, and those that dwelt in cities he removed into provinces, and placed them at the utmost distance from their former habitations, for the reasons before given; and the above Targums suggest another reason, to teach the Egyptians not to reproach the Israelites with being exiles and strangers, when they were all of them removed from their native places, and were strangers, where they were.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
21. And as for the people, he removed them to cities. This removal was, indeed, severe; but if we reflect how much better it was to depart to another place; in order that they might be free cultivators of the land, than to be attached to the soil, and employed as slaves in servile work; no one will deny that this was a tolerable, and even a humane exercise of authority. Had each person cultivated his field, as he had been accustomed to do, the exaction of tribute would have seemed to be grievous. Joseph, therefore, contrived a middle course, which might mitigate the new and unwonted burden, by assigning new lands to each, with a tribute attached to them. The passage may, however, be differently expounded; namely, that Joseph caused all the farmers to go to the cities to receive the provisions, and to settle their public accounts. If this sense is approved, the fact that Egypt was divided into provinces, afterwards called nomes, may probably hence have received its origin. This removing from place to place would, however, have been alike injurious to the king and to the people at large, because they would not be able to make their skill and practice applicable to new situations. Yet, since the matter is not of great moment, and the signification of the word is ambiguous, I leave the question undecided.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) He removed them to cities.Josephs object in this measure was most merciful. As the corn was stored up in the cities, the people would be sure of nourishment only if they were in the immediate neighbourhood of the food. As a consequence, possibly, of Josephs policy, the number of cities in the Valley of the Nile became so enormous that Herodotus computes them at 20,000. Thus the people would not dwell at any distance from their lands, while it would be impossible for them to reside actually on their plots of ground, as these every year are overflowed by the Nile.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Removed them to cities For greater convenience in supplying them with food; for he had stored the grain in the cities . Gen 41:48.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And as for the people he removed them to the cities from one end of the border of Egypt even to the other end of it.’
This refers to a largish part of the people and was probably for administrative convenience. Not all would be taken away from the land. But the task of feeding the people was onerous and it would be easier if they were all in one place. Once the crisis was over they could move back. Previously they may have been unwilling to leave their land, but now that it belongs to Pharaoh things are different. The whole scenario is of a gradually worsening situation.
The LXX has here ‘he made slaves of them.’ This involves changing he‘evir le‘arim to he‘evid la‘avadim and assumes the d was later read as an r (they are very similar in Hebrew) and that the v dropped out, but this may have been due to failure to understand why he gathered them in cities. But it may be that LXX is witness to an early reading.
“Made slaves” is an emotive term capable of many meanings. If the thought is that they ceased to be ‘freemen’ this has already been stated. But in one sense the people of Egypt were always seen as ‘slaves of Pharaoh’ for he was a god. It is true that there would be a sense of a loss of independence but their overall condition has not worsened. They simply have to recognise their responsibility to pay ‘the fifth’ (see later). There is no suggestion that they are bitter about it. Rather they are grateful and look on Joseph as their ‘saviour’. Thus the reading may be correct. But there is much to be said for retaining the ‘harder reading’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gen 47:21. As for the people, he removed them to cities Chandler, in his Vindication, observes well, “that in ch. Gen 41:48. we are told, that Joseph gathered up the food, and laid it up in the cities; the food of the field, which was round about every city, laid he up in the same: so that, instead of suffering the people to live in the country, where it would have been difficult to have taken due care of them, he removed them into the cities where the corn was laid up, for the better conveniency of feeding them; an act of the greatest prudence, compassion, and generosity!” which account of Joseph’s conduct is so natural, and so consistent with the rest of his character, that it renders equally vain the objections urged against him for thus transplanting the people, and the political and far-fetched reasons urged by many writers for his doing so. The text does not say, nor give the least hint to suppose, that he removed families from one city to another, and transplanted them to places most remote from their former possessions, which would have bred infinite confusion, been attended with great difficulties, and have made Joseph universally detested. We only read that he removed the people TO CITIES, from one end of the borders of AEgypt, even to the other end thereof, i.e.. very plainly, did cause the people throughout all the land of AEgypt to leave the country, and come to the cities where the corn was deposited, where they might more easily be fed, and when their absence from the country would be of no detriment, as tillage was at a stand. See Delaney’s Revelation Examined, vol. 3: p. 227.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gen 47:21 And as for the people, he removed them to cities from [one] end of the borders of Egypt even to the [other] end thereof.
Ver. 21. And as for the people, he removed them. ] So to alter tim propriety of their land, and to settle it upon Pharaoh; who with his own money had bought it. See his prudence and policy for his lord and master. So Daniel, though sick, did the king’s business with all his might. These were, as the philosopher saith, ; few such now-a-days. Great need we have all to flee to Christ who “dwells with prudence”; Pro 8:12 as Agur did, when he found his own foolishness. It was he that made Aholiab wise-hearted.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
removed them to cities. Samaritan Pentateuch, Pentateuch, and Vulgate read, “made them serve as servants”; or, “made them bondmen”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
am 2303, bc 1701
And as: It is highly probable, that Joseph was influenced by no political motive in removing the people to the cities, but merely by motives of prudence and humanity; for, as the corn was laid up in the cities, it would be more eligible to bring then from distant towns and villages to places where they might be more conveniently supplied with food.
to cities: Gen 41:48
Reciprocal: Gen 47:12 – according to their families
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 47:21. He removed them, &c. He transplanted them, to show Pharaohs 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. How hard soever this seems to have been upon them, they themselves were sensible of it as a great kindness, and were thankful they were not worse used.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
47:21 And as for the people, he {g} removed them to cities from [one] end of the borders of Egypt even to the [other] end thereof.
(g) By this changing they signified that they had nothing of their own, but received everything from the king’s generosity.