Biblical commentary the Old Testament/Volume I. The Pentateuch/Genesis 25-50

by Franz Delitzsch

VII. HISTORY OF ISHMAEL. Chap. xxv. 12-18.

(Compare 1Ch 1:28-31)

verses 12-18

To show that the promises of God, which had been made to Ishmael (Gen 16:10. and Gen 17:20), were fulfilled, a short account is given of his descendants; and according to the settled plan of Genesis, this account precedes the history of Isaac. This is evidently the intention of the list which follows of the twelve sons of Ishmael, who are given as princes of the tribes which sprang from them. Nebajoth and Kedar are mentioned in Isa 60:7 as rich possessors of flocks, and, according to the current opinion which Wetzstein disputes, are the Nabataei et Cedrei of Pliny ( h. n. 5, 12). The Nabataeans held possession of Arabia Petraea, with Petra as their capital, and subsequently extended toward the south and north-east, probably as far as Babylon; so that the name was afterwards transferred to all the tribes to the east of the Jordan, and in the Nabataean writings became a common name for Chaldeans (ancient Babylonians), Syrians, Canaanites, and others. The Kedarenes are mentioned in Isa 21:17 as good bowmen. They dwelt in the desert between Arabia Petraea and Babylon (Isa 42:11; Psa 120:5). According to Wetzstein, they are to be found in the nomad tribes of Arabia Petraea up to Harra. The name Dumah, Δούμεθα Αουμαίθα (Ptol. v. 19, 7, Steph. Byz.), Domata (Plin. 6, 32), has been retained in the modern Dumat el Jendel in Nejd, the Arabian highland, four days' journey to the north of Taima. - Tema: a trading people (Job 6:19; Isa 21:14; mentioned in Jer 25:23, between Dedan and Bus) in the land of Taima, on the border of Nejd and the Syrian desert. According to Wetzstein, Dûma and Têma are still two important places in Eastern Hauran, three-quarters of an hour apart. Jetur and Naphish were neighbours of the tribes of Israel to the east of the Jordan (1Ch 5:19), who made war upon them along with the Hagrites, the Αγραῖοι of Ptol. and Strabo. From Jetur sprang the Ituraeans, who lived, according to Strabo, near the Trachonians in an almost inaccessible, mountainous, and cavernous country; according to Wetzstein, in the mountains of the Druses in the centre of the Hauran, possibly the forefathers of the modern Druses. The other names are not yet satisfactorily determined. For Adbeel, Mibsam, and Kedma, the Arabian legends give no corresponding names. Mishma is associated by Knobel with the Μαισαιμανείς of Ptol. vi. 7, 21, to the N.E. of Medina; Massa with the Μασανοί on the N.E. of Duma; Hadad (the proper reading for Hadar, according to 1Ch 1:30, the lxx, Sam., Masor., and most MSS) with the Arabian coast land, Chathth, between Oman and Bahrein, a district renowned for its lancers (Χαττηνία, Polyb.; Attene, Plin.).

Verse 16

These are the Ishmaelites “ in their villages and encampments, twelve princes according to their tribes.” חצר: premises hedged round, then a village without a wall in contrast with a walled town (Lev 25:31). טירה: a circular encampment of tents, the tent village of the Duâr of the Bedouins. אמּות, here and Num 25:15, is not used of nations, but of the tribe-divisions or single tribes of the Ishmaelites and Midianites, for which the word had apparently become a technical term among them.

verses 17-18

Ishmael died at the age of 137, and his descendants dwelt in Havilah - i.e., according to Gen 10:29, the country of the Chaulotaeans, on the borders of Arabia Petraea and Felix - as far as Shur (the desert of Jifar, Gen 16:7) to the east of Egypt, “in the direction of Assyria.” Havilah and Shur therefore formed the south-eastern and south-western boundaries of the territories of the Ishmaelites, from which they extended their nomadic excursions towards the N.E. as far as the districts under Assyrian rule, i.e., to the lands of the Euphrates, traversing the whole of the desert of Arabia, or (as Josephus says, Ant. i. 12, 4) dwelling from the Euphrates to the Red Sea. Thus, according to the announcement of the angel, Ishmael “encamped in the presence of all his brethren.” נפל, to throw one's self, to settle down, with the subordinate idea of keeping by force the place you have taken (Jdg 7:12). Luther wavers between corruit, vel cecidit, vel fixit tabernaculum.

verses 19-20

According to the plan of Genesis, the history ( tholedoth) of Isaac commences with the birth of his sons. But to give it the character of completeness in itself, Isaac's birth and marriage are mentioned again in Gen 25:19, Gen 25:20, as well as his age at the time of his marriage. The name given to the country of Rebekah (Gen 25:20) and the abode of Laban in Gen 28:2, Gen 28:6-7; Gen 31:18; Gen 33:18; Gen 35:9, Gen 35:26; Gen 46:15, viz., Padan-Aram, or more concisely Padan (Gen 48:7), “the flat, or flat land of Aram,” for which Hosea uses “the field of Aram” (Hos 12:12), is not a peculiar expression employed by the Elohist, or in the so-called foundation-work, for Aram Naharaim, Mesopotamia (Gen 24:10), but a more exact description of one particular district of Mesopotamia, viz., of the large plain, surrounded by mountains, in which the town of Haran was situated. The name was apparently transferred to the town itself afterwards. The history of Isaac consists of two stages: (1) the period of his active life, from his marriage and the birth of his sons till the departure of Jacob for Mesopotamia (Gen 25:20-28:9); and (2) the time of his suffering endurance in the growing infirmity of age, when the events of Jacob's life form the leading feature of the still further expanded history of salvation (Gen 28:10-35:29). This suffering condition, which lasted more than 40 years, reflected in a certain way the historical position which Isaac held in the patriarchal triad, as a passive rather than active link between Abraham and Jacob; and even in the active period of his life many of the events of Abraham's history were repeated in a modified form.
The name Jehovah prevails in the historical development of the tholedoth of Isaac, in the same manner as in that of Terah; although, on closer examination of the two, we find, first, that in this portion of Genesis the references to God are less frequent than in the earlier one; and secondly, that instead of the name Jehovah occurring more frequently than Elohim, the name Elohim predominates in this second stage of the history. The first difference arises from the fact, that the historical matter furnishes less occasion for the introduction of the name of God, just because the revelations of God are more rare, since the appearances of Jehovah to Isaac and Jacob together are not so numerous as those to Abraham alone. The second may be explained partly from the fact, that Isaac and Jacob did not perpetually stand in such close and living faith in Jehovah as Abraham, and partly also from the fact, that the previous revelations of God gave rise to other titles for the covenant God, such as “God of Abraham,” “God of my father,” etc., which could be used in the place of the name Jehovah (cf. Gen 26:24; Gen 31:5, Gen 31:42; Gen 35:1, Gen 35:3, and the remarks on Gen 35:9).

Verse 21

Isaac's marriage, like Abraham's, was for a long time unfruitful; not to extreme old age, however, but only for 20 years. The seed of the promise was to be prayed for from the Lord, that it might not be regarded merely as a fruit of nature, but be received and recognised as a gift of grace. At the same time Isaac was to be exercised in the patience of faith in the promise of God. After this lengthened test, Jehovah heard his prayer in relation to his wife. לנוכח, Gen 25:21 and Gen 30:38, lit., opposite to, so that the object is before the eyes, has been well explained by Luther thus: quod toto pectore et intentus in calamitatem uxoris oraverit. Sicut quando oro pro aliquo, propono illum mihi in conspectum cordis mei, et nihil aliud video aut cogito; in eum solum animo intueor.

verses 22-23

When Rebekah conceived, the children struggled together in her womb. In this she saw an evil omen, that the pregnancy so long desired and entreated of Jehovah would bring misfortune, and that the fruit of her womb might not after all secure the blessing of the divine promise; so that in intense excitement she cried out, “ If it be so, wherefore am I?” i.e., why am I alive? cf. Gen 27:46. But she sought counsel from God: she went to inquire of Jehovah. Where and how she looked for a divine revelation in the matter, is not recorded, and therefore cannot be determined with certainty. Some suppose that it was by prayer and sacrifice at a place dedicated to Jehovah. Others imagine that she applied to a prophet - to Abraham, Melchizedek, or Shem ( Luther); a frequent custom in Israel afterwards (1Sa 9:9), but not probable in the patriarchal age. The divine answer, couched in the form of a prophetic oracle, assured her that she carried two nations in her womb, one stronger than the other; and that the greater (elder or first-born) should serve the less (younger). הפּרד ממּעיך: “ proceeding from thy womb, are separated.”

verses 24-26

When she was delivered, there were twins; the first-born was reddish, i.e., of a reddish-brown colour (1Sa 16:12; 1Sa 17:42), and “all over like a hairy cloak,” i.e., his whole body as if covered with a fur, with an unusual quantity of hair ( hypertrichosis), which is sometimes the case with new-born infants, but was a sign in this instance of excessive sensual vigour and wildness. The second had laid hold of the heel of the first, i.e., he came into the world with his hand projected and holding the heel of the first-born, a sign of his future attitude towards his brother. From these accidental circumstances the children received their names. The elder they called Esau, the hairy one; the younger Jacob, heel-holder: יעקב from עקב ( denom. of עקב heel, Hos 12:3), to hold the heel, then to outwit (Gen 27:36), just as in wrestling an attempt may be made to throw the opponent by grasping the heel.

verses 27-28

Esau became “ a cunning hunter, a man of the field,” i.e., a man wandering about in the fields. He was his father's favourite, for “ venison was in his mouth,” i.e., he was fond of it. But Jacob was תּם אישׁ, “a pious man” (Luther); תּם, integer, denotes here a disposition that finds pleasure in the quiet life of home. אהלים ישׁב, not dwelling in tents, but sitting in the tents, in contrast with the wild hunter's life led by his brother; hence he was his mother's favourite.

verses 29-34

The difference in the characters of the two brothers was soon shown in a singular circumstance, which was the turning-point in their lives. Esau returned home one day from the field quite exhausted, and seeing Jacob with a dish of lentils, still a favourite dish in Syria and Egypt, he asked with passionate eagerness for some to eat: “ Let me swallow some of that red, that red there;” אדם, the brown-red lentil pottage. From this he received the name Edom, just as among the ancient Arabians persons received names from quite accidental circumstances, which entirely obscured their proper names. Jacob made us of his brother's hunger to get him to sell his birthright. The birthright consisted afterwards in a double portion of the father's inheritance (Deu 21:17); but with the patriarchs it embraced the chieftainship, the rule over the brethren and the entire family (Gen 27:29), and the title to the blessing of the promise (Gen 27:4, Gen 27:27-29), which included the future possession of Canaan and of covenant fellowship with Jehovah (Gen 28:4). Jacob knew this, and it led him to anticipate the purposes of God. Esau also knew it, but attached no value to it. There is proof enough that he knew he was giving away, along with the birthright, blessings which, because they were not of a material but of a spiritual nature, had no particular value in his estimation, in the words he made use of: “ Behold I am going to die (to meet death), and what is the birthright to me?” The only thing of value to him was the sensual enjoyment of the present; the spiritual blessings of the future his carnal mind was unable to estimate. In this he showed himself to be βέβηλος (Heb 12:16), a profane man, who cared for nothing but the momentary gratification of sensual desires, who “ did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way, and so despised his birthright” (Gen 25:34). With these words the Scriptures judge and condemn the conduct of Esau. Just as Ishmael was excluded from the promised blessing because he was begotten “according to the flesh,” so Esau lost it because his disposition was according to the flesh. The frivolity with which he sold his birthright to his brother for a dish of lentils, rendered him unfit to be the heir and possessor of the promised grace. But this did not justify Jacob's conduct in the matter. Though not condemned here, yet in the further course of the history it is shown to have been wrong, by the simple fact that he did not venture to make this transaction the basis of a claim. Isaac's Joys and Sorrows - Genesis 26
The incidents of Isaac's life which are collected together in this chapter, from the time of his sojourn in the south country, resemble in many respects certain events in the life of Abraham; but the distinctive peculiarities are such as to form a true picture of the dealings of God, which were in perfect accordance with the character of the patriarch.

Chap. 26

verses 1-5

Renewal of the Promise. - A famine “ in the land” (i.e., Canaan, to which he had therefore returned from Hagar's well; Gen 25:11), compelled Isaac to leave Canaan, as it had done Abraham before. Abraham went to Egypt, where his wife was exposed to danger, from which she could only be rescued by the direct interposition of God. Isaac also intended to go there, but on the way, viz., in Gerar, he received instruction through a divine manifestation that he was to remain there. As he was the seed to whom the land of Canaan was promised, he was directed not to leave it. To this end Jehovah assured him of the fulfilment of all the promises made to Abraham on oath, with express reference to His oath (Gen 22:16) to him and to his posterity, and on account of Abraham's obedience of faith. The only peculiarity in the words is the plural, “ all these lands.” This plural refers to all the lands or territories of the different Canaanitish tribes, mentioned in Gen 15:19-21, like the different divisions of the kingdom of Israel or Judah in 1Ch 13:2; 2Ch 11:23. האל; an antique form of האלּה occurring only in the Pentateuch. The piety of Abraham is described in words that indicate a perfect obedience to all the commands of God, and therefore frequently recur among the legal expressions of a later date. יהוה משׁמרת שׁמר “to take care of Jehovah’s care,” i.e., to observe Jehovah, His persons, and His will, Mishmereth, reverence, observance, care, is more closely defined by “ commandments, statutes, laws,” to denote constant obedience to all the revelations and instructions of God.

verses 6-11

Protection of Rebekah at Gerar. - As Abraham had declared his wife to be his sister both in Egypt and at Gerar, so did Isaac also in the latter place. But the manner in which God protected Rebekah was very different from that in which Sarah was preserved in both instances. Before any one had touched Rebekah, the Philistine king discovered the untruthfulness of Isaac's statement, having seen Isaac “sporting with Rebekah,” sc., in a manner to show that she was his wife; whereupon he reproved Isaac for what he had said, and forbade any of his people to touch Rebekah on pain of death. Whether this was the same Abimelech as the one mentioned in Gen 20 cannot be decided with certainty. The name proves nothing, for it was the standing official name of the kings of Gerar (cf. 1Sa 21:11 and Ps 34), ), as Pharaoh was of the kings of Egypt. The identity is favoured by the pious conduct of Abimelech in both instances; and no difficulty is caused either by the circumstance that 80 years had elapsed between the two events (for Abraham had only been dead five years, and the age of 150 was no rarity then), or by the fact, that whereas the first Abimelech had Sarah taken into his harem, the second not only had no intention of doing this, but was anxious to protect her from his people, inasmuch as it would be all the easier to conceive of this in the case of the same king, on the ground of his advanced age.

Verse 12

Isaac's Increasing Wealth. - As Isaac had experienced the promised protection (“I will be with thee,” Gen 26:3) in the safety of his wife, so did he received while in Gerar the promised blessing. He sowed and received in that year “ a hundred measures,” i.e., a hundred-fold return. This was an unusual blessing, as the yield even in very fertile regions is not generally greater than from twenty-five to fifty-fold ( Niebuhr and Burckhardt), and it is only in the Ruhbe, that small and most fruitful plain of Syria, that wheat yields on an average eighty, and barley a hundred-fold. Agriculture is still practised by the Bedouins, as well as grazing (Robinson, Pal. i. 77, and Seetzen); so that Isaac's sowing was no proof that he had been stimulated by the promise of Jehovah to take up a settled abode in the promised land.

verses 13-17

Being thus blessed of Jehovah, Isaac became increasingly (הלוך, vid., Gen 8:3) greater (i.e., stronger), until he was very powerful and his wealth very great; so that the Philistines envied him, and endeavoured to do him injury by stopping up and filling with rubbish all the wells that had been dug in his father's time; and even Abimelech requested him to depart, because he was afraid of his power. Isaac then encamped in the valley of Gerar, i.e., in the “undulating land of Gerar,” through which the torrent ( Jurf) from Gerar flows from the south-east (Ritter, Erdk. 14, pp. 1084-5).

verses 18-22

Reopening and Discovery of Wells. - In this valley Isaac dug open the old wells which had existed from Abraham's time, and gave them the old names. His people also dug three new wells. But Abimelech's people raised a contest about two of these; and for this reason Isaac called them Esek and Sitnah, strife and opposition. The third there was no dispute about; and it received in consequence the name Rehoboth, “breadths,” for Isaac said, “ Yea now (כּי־עתּה, as in Gen 29:32, etc.) Jehovah has provided for us a broad space, that we may be fruitful (multiply) in the land.” This well was probably not in the land of Gerar, as Isaac had removed thence, but in the Wady Ruhaibeh, the name of which is suggestive of Rehoboth, which stands at the point where the two roads from Gaza and Hebron meet, about 3 hours to the south of Elusa, 8 1/3 to the south of Beersheba, and where there are extensive ruins of the city of the same name upon the heights, also the remains of wells (Robinson, Pal. i. 289ff.; Strauss, Sinai and Golgotha); where too the name Sitnah seems to have been retained in the Wady Shutein, with ruins on the northern hills between Ruhaibeh and Khulasa ( Elusa).

verses 23-25

Isaac's Journey to Beersheba. - Here, where Abraham had spent a long time (Gen 21:33.), Jehovah appeared to him during the night and renewed the promises already given; upon which, Isaac built an altar and performed a solemn service. Here his servants also dug a well near to the tents.

verses 26-33

Abimelech's Treaty with Isaac. - The conclusion of this alliance was substantially only a repetition of renewal of the alliance entered into with Abraham; but the renewal itself arose so completely out of the circumstances, that there is no ground whatever for denying that it occurred, or for the hypothesis that our account is merely another form of the earlier alliance; to say nothing of the fact, that besides the agreement in the leading event itself, the attendant circumstances are altogether peculiar, and correspond to the events which preceded. Abimelech not only brought his chief captain Phicol (supposed to be the same as in Gen 21:22, if Phicol is not also an official name), but his מרע “ friend,” i.e., his privy councillor, Ahuzzath. Isaac referred to the hostility they had shown; to which Abimelech replied, that they (he and his people) did not smite him (נגע), i.e., drive him away by force, but let him depart in peace, and expressed a wish that there might be an oath between them. אלה the oath, as an act of self-imprecation, was to form the basis of the covenant to be made. From this אלה came also to be used for a covenant sanctioned by an oath (Deu 29:11, Deu 29:13). תּעשׂה אם “that thou do not:” אם a particle of negation used in an oath (Gen 14:23, etc.). (On the verb with zere, see Ges. §75, Anm. 17; Ewald, §224.) - The same day Isaac's servants informed him of the well which they had dug; and Isaac gave it the name Shebah (שׁבעה, oath), in commemoration of the treaty made on oath. “ Therefore the city was called Beersheba.” This derivation of the name does not shut the other (Gen 21:31) out, but seems to confirm it. As the treaty made on oath between Abimelech and Isaac was only a renewal of his covenant concluded before with Abraham, so the name Beersheba was also renewed by the well Shebah. The reality of the occurrence is supported by the fact that the two wells are in existence still (vid., Gen 21:31).

verses 34-35

Esau's Marriage. - To the various troubles which the Philistines prepared for Isaac, but which, through the blessing of God, only contributed to the increase of his wealth and importance, a domestic cross was added, which caused him great and lasting sorrow. Esau married two wives in the 40th year of his age, the 100th of Isaac's life (Gen 25:26); and that not from his own relations in Mesopotamia, but from among the Canaanites whom God had cast off. On their names, see Gen 34:2-3. They became “ bitterness of spirit,” the cause of deep trouble, to his parents, viz., on account of their Canaanitish character, which was so opposed to the vocation of the patriarchs; whilst Esau by these marriages furnished another proof, how thoroughly his heart was set upon earthly things.

Chap. 27

verses 1-4

When Isaac had grown old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could no longer see (מראת from seeing, with the neg. מן as in Gen 16:2, etc.), he wished, in the consciousness of approaching death, to give his blessing to his elder son. Isaac was then in his 137th year, at which age his half-brother Ishmael had died fourteen years before;^[1] and this, with the increasing infirmities of age, may have suggested the thought of death, though he did not die till forty-three years afterwards (Gen 35:28). Without regard to the words which were spoken by God with reference to the children before their birth, and without taking any notice of Esau's frivolous barter of his birthright and his ungodly connection with Canaanites, Isaac maintained his preference for Esau, and directed him therefore to take his things (כּלים, hunting gear), his quiver and bow, to hunt game and prepare a savoury dish, that he might eat, and his soul might bless him. As his preference for Esau was fostered and strengthened by, if it did not spring from, his liking for game (Gen 25:28), so now he wished to raise his spirits for imparting the blessing by a dish of venison prepared to his taste. In this the infirmity of his flesh is evident. At the same time, it was not merely because of his partiality for Esau, but unquestionably on account of the natural rights of the first-born, that he wished to impart the blessing to him, just as the desire to do this before his death arose from the consciousness of his patriarchal call.

verses 5-17

Rebekah, who heard what he said, sought to frustrate this intention, and to secure the blessing for her (favourite) son Jacob. Whilst Esau was away hunting, she told Jacob to take his father a dish, which she would prepare from two kids according to his taste; and, having introduced himself as Esau, to ask for the blessing “ before Jehovah.” Jacob's objection, that the father would know him by his smooth skin, and so, instead of blessing him, might pronounce a curse upon him as a mocker, i.e., one who was trifling with his blind father, she silenced by saying, that she would take the curse upon herself. She evidently relied upon the word of promise, and thought that she ought to do her part to secure its fulfilment by directing the father's blessing to Jacob; and to this end she thought any means allowable. Consequently she was so assured of the success of her stratagem as to have no fear of the possibility of a curse. Jacob then acceded to her plan, and fetched the goats. Rebekah prepared them according to her husband's taste; and having told Jacob to put on Esau's best clothes which were with her in the dwelling (the tent, not the house), she covered his hands and the smooth (i.e., the smoother parts) of his neck with the skins of the kids of the goats,^[2] and sent him with the savoury dish to his father.

verses 18-23

But Jacob had no easy task to perform before his father. As soon as he had spoken on entering, his father asked him, “ Who art thou, my son?” On his replying, “ I am Esau, thy first-born,” the father expressed his surprise at the rapid success of his hunting; and when he was satisfied with the reply, “ Jehovah thy God sent it (the thing desired) to meet me,” he became suspicious about the voice, and bade him come nearer, that he might feel him. But as his hands appeared hairy like Esau's, he did not recognise him; and “ so he blessed him.” In this remark (Gen 27:23) the writer gives the result of Jacob's attempt; so that the blessing is merely mentioned proleptically here, and refers to the formal blessing described afterwards, and not to the first greeting and salutation.

verses 24-29

After his father, in order to get rid of his suspicion about the voice, had asked him once more, “ Art thou really my son Esau?” and Jacob had replied, “ I am” (אני = yes), he told him to hand him the savoury dish that he might eat. After eating, he kissed his son as a sing of his paternal affection, and in doing so he smelt the odour of his clothes, i.e., the clothes of Esau, which were thoroughly scented with the odour of the fields, and then imparted his blessing (Gen 27:27-29). The blessing itself is thrown, as the sign of an elevated state of mind, into the poetic style of parallel clauses, and contains the peculiar forms of poetry, such as ראה for הנּה, הוה for היה, etc. The smell of the clothes with the scent of the field suggested to the patriarch's mind the image of his son's future prosperity, so that he saw him in possession of the promised land and the full enjoyment of its valuable blessings, having the smell of the field which Jehovah blessed, i.e., the garden of paradise, and broke out into the wish, “ God ( Ha-Elohim, the personal God, not Jehovah, the covenant God) give thee from the dew of heaven, and the fat fields of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine,” i.e., a land blessed with the dew of heaven and a fruitful soil.
In Eastern countries, where there is so little rain, the dew is the most important prerequisite for the growth of the fruits of the earth, and is often mentioned therefore as a source of blessing (Deu 33:13, Deu 33:28; Hos 14:6; Zec 8:12). In משׁמנּי, notwithstanding the absence of the Dagesh from the שׁ, the מ is the prep. מן, as the parallel מטּל proves; and שׁמנּים both here and in Gen 27:39 are the fat (fertile) districts of a country. The rest of the blessing had reference to the future pre-eminence of his son. He was to be lord not only over his brethren (i.e., over kindred tribes), but over (foreign) peoples and nations also. The blessing rises here to the idea of universal dominion, which was to be realized in the fact that, according to the attitude assumed by the people towards him as their lord, it would secure to them either a blessing or a curse. If we compare this blessing with the promises which Abraham received, there are two elements of the latter which are very apparent; viz., the possession of the land, in the promise of the rich enjoyment of its produce, and the numerous increase of posterity, in the promised dominion over the nations. The third element, however, the blessing of the nations in and through the seed of Abraham, is so generalized in the expression, which is moulded according to Gen 12:3, “Cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee,” that the person blessed is not thereby declared to be the medium of salvation to the nations. Since the intention to give the blessing to Esau the first-born did not spring from proper feelings towards Jehovah and His promises, the blessing itself, as the use of the word Elohim instead of Jehovah or El Shaddai (cf. Gen 28:3) clearly shows, could not rise to the full height of the divine blessings of salvation, but referred chiefly to the relation in which the two brothers and their descendants would stand to one another, the theme with which Isaac's soul was entirely filled. It was only the painful discovery that, in blessing against his will, he had been compelled to follow the saving counsel of God, which awakened in him the consciousness of his patriarchal vocation, and gave him the spiritual power to impart the “blessing of Abraham” to the son whom he had kept back, but whom Jehovah had chosen, when he was about to send him away to Haran (Gen 28:3-4).

verses 30-40

Jacob had hardly left his father, after receiving the blessing (יצא אך, was only gone out), when Esau returned and came to Isaac, with the game prepared, to receive the blessing. The shock was inconceivable which Isaac received, when he found that he had blessed another, and not Esau-that, in fact, he had blessed Jacob. At the same time he neither could nor would, either curse him on account of the deception which he had practised, or withdraw the blessing imparted. For he could not help confessing to himself that he had sinned and brought the deception upon himself by his carnal preference for Esau. Moreover, the blessing was not a matter of subjective human affection, but a right entrusted by the grace of God to paternal supremacy and authority, in the exercise of which the person blessing, being impelled and guided by a higher authority, imparted to the person to be blest spiritual possessions and powers, which the will of man could not capriciously withdraw. Regarding this as the meaning of the blessing, Isaac necessarily saw in what had taken place the will of God, which had directed to Jacob the blessing that he had intended for Esau. He therefore said, “ I have blessed him; yea, he will be ( remain) blessed” (cf. Heb 12:17). Even the great and bitter lamentation into which Esau broke out could not change his father's mind. To his entreaty in Gen 27:34, “ Bless me, even me also, O my father!” he replied, “ Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.” Esau answered, “ Is it that (הכי) they have named him Jacob (overreacher), and he has overreached me twice?” i.e., has he received the name Jacob from the fact that he has twice outwitted me? הכי is used “when the cause is not rightly known” (cf. Gen 29:15). To his further entreaty, “Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?” (אצל, lit., to lay aside), Isaac repeated the substance of the blessing given to Jacob, and added, “and to thee (לכה for לך as in Gen 3:9), now, what can I do, my son?” When Esau again repeated, with tears, the entreaty that Isaac would bless him also, the father gave him a blessing (Gen 27:39, Gen 27:40), but one which, when compared with the blessing of Jacob, was to be regarded rather as “a modified curse,” and which is not even described as a blessing, but “introduced a disturbing element into Jacob's blessing, a retribution for the impure means by which he had obtained it.” “ Behold,” it states, “ from the fat fields of the earth will thy dwelling be, and from the dew of heaven from above.” By a play upon the words Isaac uses the same expression as in Gen 27:28, “from the fat fields of the earth, and from the dew,” but in the opposite sense, מן being partitive there, and privative here, “from = away from.” The context requires that the words should be taken thus, and not in the sense of “thy dwelling shall partake of the fat of the earth and the dew of heaven” ( Vulg., Luth., etc.).^[3]
Since Isaac said (Gen 27:37) he had given Jacob the blessing of the super-abundance of corn and wine, he could not possibly promise Esau also fat fields and the dew of heaven. Nor would this agree with the words which follows, “ By thy sword wilt thou live.” Moreover, the privative sense of מן is thoroughly poetical (cf. 2Sa 1:22; Job 11:15, etc.). The idea expressed in the words, therefore, was that the dwelling-place of Esau would be the very opposite of the land of Canaan, viz., an unfruitful land. This is generally the condition of the mountainous country of Edom, which, although not without its fertile slopes and valleys, especially in the eastern portion (cf. Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 552), is thoroughly waste and barren in the western; so that Seetzen says it consists of “the most desolate and barren mountains probably in the world.”
The mode of life and occupation of the inhabitants were adapted to the country. “ By (lit., on) thy sword thou wilt live;” i.e., thy maintenance will depend on the sword (על as in Deu 8:3 cf. Isa 28:16), “live by war, rapine, and freebooting” ( Knobel). “ And thy brother thou wilt serve; yet it will come to pass, as (כּאשׁר, lit., in proportion as, cf. Num 27:14) thou shakest (tossest), thou wilt break his yoke from thy neck.” רוּד, “to rove about” (Jer 2:31; Hos 12:1), Hiphil “to cause (the thoughts) to rove about” (Psa 55:3); but Hengstenberg's rendering is the best here, viz., “to shake, sc., the yoke.” In the wild, sport-loving Esau there was aptly prefigured the character of his posterity. Josephus describes the Idumaean people as “a tumultuous and disorderly nation, always on the watch on every motion, delighting in mutations” ( Whiston's tr.: de bell Judg 4; 1:1-21:25; 1). The mental eye of the patriarch discerned in the son his whole future family in its attitude to its brother-nation, and he promised Edom, not freedom from the dominion of Israel (for Esau was to serve his brother, as Jehovah had predicted before their birth), but only a repeated and not unsuccessful struggle for freedom. And so it was; the historical relation of Edom to Israel assumed the form of a constant reiteration of servitude, revolt, and reconquest. After a long period of independence at the first, the Edomites were defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:47) and subjugated by David (2Sa 8:14); and, in spite of an attempt at revolt under Solomon (1Ki 11:14.), they remained subject to the kingdom of Judah until the time of Joram, when they rebelled. They were subdued again by Amaziah (2Ki 14:7; 2Ch 25:11.), and remained in subjection under Uzziah and Jotham (2Ki 14:22; 2Ch 26:2). It was not till the reign of Ahaz that they shook the yoke of Judah entirely off (2Ki 16:6; 2Ch 28:17), without Judah being ever able to reduce them again. At length, however, they were completely conquered by John Hyrcanus about b.c. 129, compelled to submit to circumcision, and incorporated in the Jewish state (Josephus, Ant. xiii. 9, 1, xv. 7, 9). At a still later period, through Antipater and Herod, they established an Idumaean dynasty over Judea, which lasted till the complete dissolution of the Jewish state.
Thus the words of Isaac to his two sons were fulfilled-words which are justly said to have been spoken “in faith concerning things to come” (Heb 11:20). For the blessing was a prophecy, and that not merely in the case of Esau, but in that of Jacob also; although Isaac was deceived with regard to the person of the latter. Jacob remained blessed, therefore, because, according to the predetermination of God, the elder was to serve the younger; but the deceit by which his mother prompted him to secure the blessing was never approved. On the contrary, the sin was followed by immediate punishment. Rebekah was obliged to send her pet son into a foreign land, away from his father's house, and in an utterly destitute condition. She did not see him for twenty years, even if she lived till his return, and possibly never saw again. Jacob had to atone for his sin against both brother and father by a long and painful exile, in the midst of privation, anxiety, fraud, and want. Isaac was punished for retaining his preference for Esau, in opposition to the revealed will of Jehovah, by the success of Jacob's stratagem; and Esau for his contempt of the birthright, by the loss of the blessing of the first-born. In this way a higher hand prevailed above the acts of sinful men, bringing the counsel and will of Jehovah to eventual triumph, in opposition to human thought and will.

Verse 41

Esau's complaining and weeping were now changed into mortal hatred of his brother. “ The days of mourning,” he said to himself, “ for my father are at hand, and I will kill my brother Jacob.” אבי אבל: genit. obj. as in Amo 8:10; Jer 6:26. He would put off his intended fratricide that he might not hurt his father's mind.

verses 42-46

When Rebekah was informed by some one of Esau's intention, she advised Jacob to protect himself from his revenge (התנחם to procure comfort by retaliation, equivalent to “avenge himself,” התנקּם, Isa 1:24),^[4] by fleeing to her brother Laban in Haran, and remaining there “ some days,” as she mildly puts it, until his brother's wrath was subdued. “ For why should I lose you both in one day?” viz., Jacob through Esau's vengeance, and Esau as a murderer by the avenger of blood (Gen 9:6, cf. 2Sa 14:6-7). In order to obtain Isaac's consent to this plan, without hurting his feelings by telling him of Esau's murderous intentions, she spoke to him of her troubles on account of the Hittite wives of Esau, and the weariness of life that she should feel if Jacob also were to marry one of the daughters of the land, and so introduced the idea of sending Jacob to her relations in Mesopotamia, with a view to his marriage there. Jacob's Departure from his Parents' House. - Rebekah's complaint reminded Isaac of his own call, and his consequent duty to provide for Jacob's marriage in a manner corresponding to the divine counsels of salvation.

Chap. 28

verses 1-5

He called Jacob, therefore, and sent him to Padan-Aram to his mother's relations, with instructions to seek a wife there, and not among the daughters of Canaan, giving him at the same time the “ blessing of Abraham,” i.e., the blessing of promise, which Abraham had repeatedly received from the Lord, but which is more especially recorded in Gen 17:2., and Gen 22:16-18.

verses 6-9

When Esau heard of this blessing and the sending away of Jacob, and saw therein the displeasure of his parents at his Hittite wives, he went to Ishmael - i.e., to the family of Ishmael, for Ishmael himself had been dead fourteen years - and took as a third wife Mahalath, a daughter of Ishmael (called Bashemath in Gen 36:3, a descendant of Abraham therefore), a step by which he might no doubt ensure the approval of his parents, but in which he failed to consider that Ishmael had been separated from the house of Abraham and family of promise by the appointment of God; so that it only furnished another proof that he had no thought of the religious interests of the chosen family, and was unfit to be the recipient of divine revelation.

verses 10-15

Jacob's Dream at Bethel. - As he was travelling from Beersheba, where Isaac was then staying (Gen 26:25), to Haran, Jacob came to a place where he was obliged to stop all night, because the sun had set. The words “ he hit (lighted) upon the place,” indicate the apparently accidental, yet really divinely appointed choice of this place for his night-quarters; and the definite article points it out as having become well known through the revelation of God that ensued. After making a pillow with the stones (מאשׁת, head-place, pillow), he fell asleep and had a dream, in which he saw a ladder resting upon the earth, with the top reaching to heaven; and upon it angels of God going up and down, and Jehovah Himself standing above it. The ladder was a visible symbol of the real and uninterrupted fellowship between God in heaven and His people upon earth. The angels upon it carry up the wants of men to God, and bring down the assistance and protection of God to men. The ladder stood there upon the earth, just where Jacob was lying in solitude, poor, helpless, and forsaken by men. Above in heaven stood Jehovah, and explained in words the symbol which he saw. Proclaiming Himself to Jacob as the God of his fathers, He not only confirmed to him all the promises of the fathers in their fullest extent, but promised him protection on his journey and a safe return to his home (Gen 28:13-15). But as the fulfilment of this promise to Jacob was still far off, God added the firm assurance, “ I will not leave thee till I have done (carried out) what I have told thee.”

verses 16-17

Jacob gave utterance to the impression made by this vision as soon as he awoke from sleep, in the words, “ Surely Jehovah is in this place, and I knew it not.” Not that the omnipresence of God was unknown to him; but that Jehovah in His condescending mercy should be near to him even here, far away from his father's house and from the places consecrated to His worship-it was this which he did not know or imagine. The revelation was intended not only to stamp the blessing, with which Isaac had dismissed him from his home, with the seal of divine approval, but also to impress upon Jacob's mind the fact, that although Jehovah would be near to protect and guide him even in a foreign land, the land of promise was the holy ground on which the God of his fathers would set up the covenant of His grace. On his departure from that land, he was to carry with him a sacred awe of the gracious presence of Jehovah there. To that end the Lord proved to him that He was near, in such a way that the place appeared “ dreadful,” inasmuch as the nearness of the holy God makes an alarming impression upon unholy man, and the consciousness of sin grows into the fear of death. But in spite of this alarm, the place was none other than “ the house of God and the gate of heaven,” i.e., a place where God dwelt, and a way that opened to Him in heaven.

verses 18-19

In the morning Jacob set up the stone at his head, as a monument (מצּבה) to commemorate the revelation he had received from God; and poured oil upon the top, to consecrate it as a memorial of the mercy that had been shown him there ( visionis insigne μνημόσυνον, Calvin), not as an idol or an object or divine worship (vid., Exo 30:26.). - He then gave the place the name of Bethel, i.e., House of God, whereas (ואוּלם) the town had been called Luz before. This antithesis shows that Jacob gave the name, not to the place where the pillar was set up, but to the town, in the neighbourhood of which he had received the divine revelation. He renewed it on his return from Mesopotamia (Gen 35:15). This is confirmed by Gen 48:3, where Jacob, like the historian in Gen 35:6-7, speaks of Luz as the place of this revelation. There is nothing at variance with this in Jos 16:2; Jos 18:13; for it is not Bethel as a city, but the mountains of Bethel, that are there distinguished from Luz (see my Commentary on Jos 16:2).^[5]

verses 20-22

Lastly, Jacob made a vow: that if God would give him the promised protection on his journey, and bring him back in safety to his father's house, Jehovah should be his God (והיה in Gen 28:21 commences the apodosis), the stone which he had set up should be a house of God, and Jehovah should receive a tenth of all that He gave to him. It is to be noticed here, that Elohim is used in the protasis instead of Jehovah, as constituting the essence of the vow: if Jehovah, who had appeared to him, proved Himself to be God by fulfilling His promise, then he would acknowledge and worship Him as his God, by making the stone thus set up into a house of God, i.e., a place of sacrifice, and by tithing all his possessions. With regard to the fulfilment of this vow, we learn from Gen 35:7 that Jacob built an altar, and probably also dedicated the tenth to God, i.e., offered it to Jehovah; or, as some have supposed, applied it partly to the erection and preservation of the altar, and partly to burnt and thank-offerings combined with sacrificial meals, according to the analogy of Deu 14:28-29 (cf. Gen 31:54; Gen 46:1).

Chap. 29

verses 1-4

Arrival in Haran, and Reception by Laban. - Being strengthened in spirit by the nocturnal vision, Jacob proceeded on his journey into “the land of the sons of the East,” by which we are to understand, not so much the Arabian desert, that reaches to the Euphrates, as Mesopotamia, which lies on the other side of that river. For there he saw the well in the field (Gen 29:2), by which three flocks were lying, waiting for the arrival of the other flocks of the place, before they could be watered. The remark in Gen 29:2, that the stone upon the well's mouth was large (גּדלה without the article is a predicate), does not mean that the united strength of all the shepherds was required to roll it away, whereas Jacob rolled it away alone (Gen 29:10); but only that it was not in the power of every shepherd, much less of a shepherdess like Rachel, to roll it away. Hence in all probability the agreement that had been formed among them, that they would water the flocks together. The scene is so thoroughly in harmony with the customs of the East, both ancient and modern, that the similarity to the one described in Gen 24:11. is by no means strange (vid., Rob. Pal. i. 301, 304, ii. 351, 357, 371). Moreover the well was very differently constructed from that at which Abraham's servant met with Rebekah. There the water was drawn at once from the (open) well and poured into troughs placed ready for the cattle, as is the case now at most of the wells in the East; whereas here the well was closed up with a stone, and there is no mention of pitchers and troughs. The well, therefore, was probably a cistern dug in the ground, which was covered up or closed with a large stone, and probably so constructed, that after the stone had been rolled away the flocks could be driven to the edge to drink.^[6]

verses 5-14

Jacob asked the shepherds where they lived; from which it is probable that the well was not situated, like that in Gen 24:11, in the immediate neighbourhood of the town of Haran; and when they said they were from Haran, he inquired after Laban, the son, i.e., the descendant, of Nahor, and how he was (לו השׁלום: is he well?; and received the reply, “ Well; and behold Rachel, his daughter, is just coming (בּאה particip.) with the flock.” When Jacob thereupon told the shepherds to water the flocks and feed them again, for the day was still “great,” - i.e., it wanted a long while to the evening, and was not yet time to drive them in (to the folds to rest for the night) - he certainly only wanted to get the shepherds away from the well, that he might meet with his cousin alone. But as Rachel came up in the meantime, he was so carried away by the feelings of relationship, possibly by a certain love at first sight, that he rolled the stone away from the well, watered her flock, and after kissing her, introduced himself with tears of joyous emotion as her cousin (אביה אחי, brother, i.e., relation of her father) and Rebekah's son. What the other shepherds thought of all this, is passed over as indifferent to the purpose of the narrative, and the friendly reception of Jacob by Laban is related immediately afterwards. When Jacob had told Laban “ all these things,” - i.e., hardly “the cause of his journey, and the things which had happened to him in relation to the birthright” ( Rosenmüller), but simply the things mentioned in Gen 29:2-12 - Laban acknowledged him as his relative: “ Yes, thou art my bone and my flesh” (cf. Gen 2:23 and Jdg 9:2); and thereby eo ipso ensured him an abode in his house.

verses 15-20

Jacob's Double Marriage. - After a full month (“a month of days,” Gen 41:4; Num 11:20, etc.), during which time Laban had discovered that he was a good and useful shepherd, he said to him, “ Shouldst thou, because thou art my relative, serve me for nothing? fix me thy wages.” Laban's selfishness comes out here under the appearance of justice and kindness. To preclude all claim on the part of his sister's son to gratitude or affection in return for his services, he proposes to pay him like an ordinary servant. Jacob offered to serve him seven years for Rachel, the younger of his two daughters, whom he loved because of her beauty; i.e., just as many years as the week has days, that he might bind himself to a complete and sufficient number of years of service. For the elder daughter, Leah, had weak eyes, and consequently was not so good-looking; since bright eyes, with fire in them, are regarded as the height of beauty in Oriental women. Laban agreed. He would rather give his daughter to him than to a stranger.^[7].
Jacob's proposal may be explained, partly on the ground that he was not then in a condition to give the customary dowry, or the usual presents to relations, and partly also from the fact that his situation with regard to Esau compelled him to remain some time with Laban. The assent on the part of Laban cannot be accounted for from the custom of selling daughters to husbands, for it cannot be shown that the purchase of wives was a general custom at that time; but is to be explained solely on the ground of Laban's selfishness and avarice, which came out still more plainly afterwards. To Jacob, however, the seven years seemed but “ a few days, because he loved Rachel.” This is to be understood, as C. a Lapide observes, “not affective, but appretiative,” i.e., in comparison with the reward to be obtained for his service.

verses 21-24

But when Jacob asked for his reward at the expiration of this period, and according to the usual custom a great marriage feast had been prepared, instead of Rachel, Laban took his elder daughter Leah into the bride-chamber, and Jacob went in unto her, without discovering in the dark the deception that had been practised. Thus the overreacher of Esau was overreached himself, and sin was punished by sin.

verses 25-26

But when Jacob complained to Laban the next morning of his deception, he pleaded the custom of the country: כּן יעשׂה לא, “ it is not accustomed to be so in our place, to give the younger before the first-born.” A perfectly worthless excuse; for if this had really been the custom in Haran as in ancient India and elsewhere, he ought to have told Jacob of it before. But to satisfy Jacob, he promised him that in a week he would give him the younger also, if he would serve him seven years longer for her.

verses 27-30

“ Fulfil her week;” i.e., let Leah's marriage-week pass over. The wedding feast generally lasted a week (cf. Jdg 14:12; Job 11:19). After this week had passed, he received Rachel also: two wives in eight days. To each of these Laban gave one maid-servant to wait upon her; less, therefore, than Bethuel gave to his daughter (Gen 24:61). - This bigamy of Jacob must not be judged directly by the Mosaic law, which prohibits marriage with two sisters at the same time (Lev 18:18), or set down as incest ( Calvin, etc.), since there was no positive law on the point in existence then. At the same time, it is not to be justified on the ground, that the blessing of God made it the means of the fulfilment of His promise, viz., the multiplication of the seed of Abraham into a great nation. Just as it had arisen from Laban's deception and Jacob's love, which regarded outward beauty alone, and therefore from sinful infirmities, so did it become in its results a true school of affliction to Jacob, in which God showed to him, by many a humiliation, that such conduct as his was quite unfitted to accomplish the divine counsels, and thus condemned the ungodliness of such a marriage, and prepared the way for the subsequent prohibition in the law.

verses 31-35

Leah's First Sons. - Jacob's sinful weakness showed itself even after his marriage, in the fact that he loved Rachel more than Leah; and the chastisement of God, in the fact that the hated wife was blessed with children, whilst Rachel for a long time remained unfruitful. By this it was made apparent once more, that the origin of Israel was to be a work not of nature, but of grace. Leah had four sons in rapid succession, and gave them names which indicated her state of mind: (1) Reuben, “see, a son!” because she regarded his birth as a pledge that Jehovah had graciously looked upon her misery, for now her husband would love her; (2) Simeon, i.e., “hearing,” for Jehovah had heard, i.e., observed that she was hated; (3) Levi, i.e., attachment, for she hoped that this time, at least, after she had born three sons, her husband would become attached to her, i.e., show her some affection; (4) Judah (יהוּדה, verbal, of the fut. hoph. of ידה), i.e., praise, not merely the praised one, but the one for whom Jehovah is praised. After this fourth birth there was a pause (Gen 29:31), that she might not be unduly lifted up by her good fortune, or attribute to the fruitfulness of her own womb what the faithfulness of Jehovah, the covenant God had bestowed upon her.

Chap. 30

verses 1-8

Bilhah's Sons. - When Rachel thought of her own barrenness, she became more and more envious of her sister, who was blessed with sons. But instead of praying, either directly or through her husband, as Rebekah had done, to Jehovah, who had promised His favour to Jacob (Gen 28:13.), she said to Jacob, in passionate displeasure, “ Get me children, or I shall die;” to which he angrily replied, “ Am I in God's stead (i.e., equal to God, or God), who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?” i.e., Can I, a powerless man, give thee what the Almighty God has withheld? Almighty like God Jacob certainly was not; but he also wanted the power which he might have possessed, the power of prayer, in firm reliance upon the promise of the Lord. Hence he could neither help nor advise his beloved wife, but only assent to her proposal, that he should beget children for her through her maid Bilhah (cf. Gen 16:2), through whom two sons were born to her. The first she named Dan, i.e., judge, because God had judged her, i.e., procured her justice, hearkened to her voice (prayer), and removed the reproach of childlessness; the second Naphtali, i.e., my conflict, or my fought one, for “ fightings of God, she said, have I fought with my sister, and also prevailed.” אלהים נפתּוּלי are neither luctationes quam maximae, nor “a conflict in the cause of God, because Rachel did not wish to leave the founding of the nation of God to Leah alone” ( Knobel), but “fightings for God and His mercy” (Hengstenberg), or, what comes to the same thing, “wrestlings of prayer she had wrestled with Leah; in reality, however, with God Himself, who seemed to have restricted His mercy to Leah alone” ( Delitzsch). It is to be noticed, that Rachel speaks of Elohim only, whereas Leah regarded her first four sons as the gift of Jehovah. In this variation of the names, the attitude of the two women, not only to one another, but also to the cause they served, is made apparent. It makes no difference whether the historian has given us the very words of the women on the birth of their children, or, what appears more probable, since the name of God is not introduced into the names of the children, merely his own view of the matter as related by him (Gen 29:31; Gen 30:17, Gen 30:22). Leah, who had been forced upon Jacob against his inclination, and was put by him in the background, was not only proved by the four sons, whom she bore to him in the first years of her marriage, to be the wife provided for Jacob by Elohim, the ruler of human destiny; but by the fact that these four sons formed the real stem of the promised numerous seed, she was proved still more to be the wife selected by Jehovah, in realization of His promise, to be the tribe-mother of the greater part of the covenant nation. But this required that Leah herself should be fitted for it in heart and mind, that she should feel herself to be the handmaid of Jehovah, and give glory to the covenant God for the blessing of children, or see in her children actual proofs that Jehovah had accepted her and would bring to her the affection of her husband. It was different with Rachel, the favourite and therefore high-minded wife. Jacob should give her, what God alone could give. The faithfulness and blessing of the covenant God were still hidden from her. Hence she resorted to such earthly means as procuring children through her maid, and regarded the desired result as the answer of God, and a victory in her contest with her sister. For such a state of mind the term Elohim, God the sovereign ruler, was the only fitting expression.

verses 9-13

Zilpah's Sons. - But Leah also was not content with the divine blessing bestowed upon her by Jehovah. The means employed by Rachel to retain the favour of her husband made her jealous; and jealousy drove her to the employment of the same means. Jacob begat two sons by Zilpah her maid. The one Leah named Gad, i.e., “good fortune,” saying, בּגד, “with good fortune,” according to the Chethib, for which the Masoretic reading is גּד בּא, “good fortune has come,” - not, however, from any ancient tradition, for the Sept. reads ἐν τύχῃ, but simply from a subjective and really unnecessary conjecture, since בּגד = “to my good fortune,” sc., a son is born, gives a very suitable meaning. The second she named Asher, i.e., the happy one, or bringer of happiness; for she said, בּאשׁרי, “to my happiness, for daughters call me happy,” i.e., as a mother with children. The perfect אשּׁרני relates to “what she had now certainly reached” ( Del.). Leah did not think of God in connection with these two births. They were nothing more than the successful and welcome result of the means she had employed.

verses 14-21

The Other Children of Leah. - How thoroughly henceforth the two wives were carried away by constant jealousy of the love and attachment of their husband, is evident from the affair of the love-apples, which Leah's son Reuben, who was then four years old, found in the field and brought to his mother. דּוּדאים, μῆλα μανδραγορῶν (lxx), the yellow apples of the alraun ( Mandragora vernalis), a mandrake very common in Palestine. They are about the size of a nutmeg, with a strong and agreeable odour, and were used by the ancients, as they still are by the Arabs, as a means of promoting child-bearing. To Rachel's request that she would give her some, Leah replied (Gen 30:15): “ Is it too little, that thou hast taken (drawn away from me) my husband, to take also” (לקחת infin.), i.e., that thou wouldst also take, “ my son's mandrakes?” At length she parted with them, on condition that Rachel would let Jacob sleep with her the next night. After relating how Leah conceived again, and Rachel continued barren in spite of the mandrakes, the writer justly observes (Gen 30:17), “ Elohim hearkened unto Leah,” to show that it was not from such natural means as love-apples, but from God the author of life, that she had received such fruitfulness. Leah saw in the birth of her fifth son a divine reward for having given her maid to her husband - a recompense, that is, for her self-denial; and she named him on that account Issaschar, ישּׂשׂכר, a strange form, to be understood either according to the Chethib שׂכר ישׁ “there is reward,” or according to the Keri שׁכר ישּׂא “he bears (brings) reward.” At length she bore her sixth son, and named him Zebulun, i.e., “dwelling;” for she hoped that now, after God had endowed her with a good portion, her husband, to whom she had born six sons, would dwell with her, i.e., become more warmly attached to her. The name is from זבל to dwell, with acc. constr. “to inhabit,” formed with a play upon the alliteration in the word זבד to present - two ἅπαξ λεγόμενα. In connection with these two births, Leah mentions Elohim alone, the supernatural giver, and not Jehovah, the covenant God, whose grace had been forced out of her heart by jealousy. She afterwards bore a daughter, Dinah, who is mentioned simply because of the account in Gen 34; ; for, according to Gen 37:35 and Gen 46:7, Jacob had several daughters, though they were nowhere mentioned by name.

verses 22-24

Birth of Joseph. - At length God gave Rachel also a son, whom she named Joseph, יוסף, i.e., taking away (= יאסף, cf. 1Sa 15:6; 2Sa 6:1; Psa 104:29) and adding (from יסף), because his birth not only furnished an actual proof that God had removed the reproach of her childlessness, but also excited the wish, that Jehovah might add another son. The fulfilment of this wish is recorded in Gen 35:16. The double derivation of the name, and the exchange of Elohim for Jehovah, may be explained, without the hypothesis of a double source, on the simple ground, that Rachel first of all looked back at the past, and, thinking of the earthly means that had been applied in vain for the purpose of obtaining a child, regarded the son as a gift of God. At the same time, the good fortune which had now come to her banished from her heart her envy of her sister (Gen 30:1), and aroused belief in that God, who, as she had no doubt heard from her husband, had given Jacob such great promises; so that in giving the name, probably at the circumcision, she remembered Jehovah and prayed for another son from His covenant faithfulness.
After the birth of Joseph, Jacob asked Laban to send him away, with the wives and children for whom he had served him (Gen 30:25). According to this, Joseph was born at the end of the 14 years of service that had been agreed upon, or seven years after Jacob had taken Leah and (a week later) Rachel as his wives (Gen 29:21-28). Now if all the children, whose births are given in Gen 29:32-30:24, had been born one after another during the period mentioned, not only would Leah have had seven children in 7, or literally 6 1/4 years, but there would have been a considerable interval also, during which Rachel's maid and her own gave birth to children. But this would have been impossible; and the text does not really state it. When we bear in mind that the imperf. c. ו consec. expresses not only the order of time, but the order of thought as well, it becomes apparent that in the history of the births, the intention to arrange them according to the mothers prevails over the chronological order, so that it by no means follows, that because the passage, “when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children,” occurs after Leah is said to have had four sons, therefore it was not till after the birth of Leah's fourth child that Rachel became aware of her own barrenness. There is nothing on the part of the grammar to prevent our arranging the course of events thus. Leah's first four births followed as rapidly as possible one after the other, so that four sons were born in the first four years of the second period of Jacob's service. In the meantime, not necessarily after the birth of Leah's fourth child, Rachel, having discovered her own barrenness, had given her maid to Jacob; so that not only may Dan have been born before Judah, but Naphtali also not long after him. The rapidity and regularity with which Leah had born her first four sons, would make her notice all the more quickly the cessation that took place; and jealousy of Rachel, as well as the success of the means she had adopted, would impel her to attempt in the same way to increase the number of her children. Moreover, Leah herself may have conceived again before the birth of her maid's second son, and may have given birth to her last two sons in the sixth and seventh years of their marriage. And contemporaneously with the birth of Leah's last son, or immediately afterwards, Rachel may have given birth to Joseph. In this way Jacob may easily have had eleven sons within seven years of his marriage. But with regard to the birth of Dinah, the expression “afterwards” (Gen 30:21) seems to indicate, that she was not born during Jacob's years of service, but during the remaining six years of his stay with Laban.

verses 25-33

New Contract of Service Between Jacob and Laban. - As the second period of seven years terminated about the time of Joseph's birth, Jacob requested Laban to let him return to his own place and country, i.e., to Canaan. Laban, however, entreated him to remain, for he had perceived that Jehovah, Jacob's God, had blessed him for his sake; and told him to fix his wages for further service. The words, “ if I have found favour in thine eyes” (Gen 30:27), contain an aposiopesis, sc., then remain. נחשׁתּי “a heathen expression, like augurando cognovi” ( Delitzsch). עלי שׂכרך thy wages, which it will be binding upon me to give. Jacob reminded him, on the other hand, what service he had rendered him, how Jehovah’s blessing had followed “ at his foot,” and asked when he should begin to provide for his own house. But when Laban repeated the question, what should he give him, Jacob offered to feed and keep his flock still, upon one condition, which was founded upon the fact, that in the East the goats, as a rule, are black or dark-brown, rarely white or spotted with white, and that the sheep for the most part are white, very seldom black or speckled. Jacob required as wages, namely, all the speckled, spotted, and black among the sheep, and all the speckled, spotted, and white among the goats; and offered “ even to-day” to commence separating them, so that “ to-morrow” Laban might convince himself of the uprightness of his proceedings. הסר (Gen 30:32) cannot be imperative, because of the preceding אעבר, but must be infinitive: “I will go through the whole flock to-day to remove from thence all...;” and שׂכרי היה signifies “what is removed shall be my wages,” but not everything of an abnormal colour that shall hereafter be found in the flock. This was no doubt intended by Jacob, as the further course of the narrative shows, but it is not involved in the words of Gen 30:32. Either the writer has restricted himself to the main fact, and omitted to mention that it was also agreed at the same time that the separation should be repeated at certain regular periods, and that all the sheep of an abnormal colour in Laban's flock should also be set aside as part of Jacob's wages; or this point was probably not mentioned at first, but taken for granted by both parties, since Jacob took measures with that idea to his own advantage, and even Laban, notwithstanding the frequent alteration of the contract with which Jacob charged him (Gen 31:7-8, and Gen 31:41), does not appear to have disputed this right.

verses 34-40

Laban cheerfully accepted the proposal, but did not leave Jacob to make the selection. He undertook that himself, probably to make more sure, and then gave those which were set apart as Jacob's wages to his own sons to tend, since it was Jacob's duty to take care of Laban's flock, and “ set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob,” i.e., between the flock to be tended by himself through his sons, and that to be tended by Jacob, for the purpose of preventing any copulation between the animals of the two flocks. Nevertheless he was overreached by Jacob, who adopted a double method of increasing the wages agreed upon. In the first place (Gen 30:37-39), he took fresh rods of storax, maple, and walnut-trees, all of which have a dazzling white wood under their dark outside, and peeled white stripes upon them, הלּבן מחשׂף (the verbal noun instead of the inf. abs. חשׂף), “ peeling the white naked in the rods.” These partially peeled, and therefore mottled rods, he placed in the drinking-troughs (רהטים lit., gutters, from רהט = רוּץ to run, is explained by המּים שׁקתות water-troughs), to which the flock came to drink, in front of the animals, in order that, if copulation took place at the drinking time, it might occur near the mottled sticks, and the young be speckled and spotted in consequence. ויּחמנה a rare, antiquated form for ותּחמנה from חמם, and ויּחמוּ for ויּחמוּ imperf. Kal of יחם = חמם. This artifice was founded upon a fact frequently noticed, particularly in the case of sheep, that whatever fixes their attention in copulation is marked upon the young (see the proofs in Bochart, Hieroz. 1, 618, and Friedreich zur Bibel 1, 37ff.). - Secondly (Gen 30:40), Jacob separated the speckled animals thus obtained from those of a normal colour, and caused the latter to feed so that the others would be constantly in sight, in order that he might in this way obtain a constant accession of mottled sheep. As soon as these had multiplied sufficiently, he formed separate flocks (viz., of the speckled additions), “ and put them not unto Laban's cattle;” i.e., he kept them apart in order that a still larger number of speckled ones might be procured, through Laban's one-coloured flock having this mottled group constantly in view.

verses 41-43

He did not adopt the trick with the rods, however, on every occasion of copulation, for the sheep in those countries lamb twice a year, but only at the copulation of the strong sheep (המקשּׁרות the bound ones, i.e., firm and compact), - Luther, “the spring flock;” ליחמנּה inf. Pi. “to conceive it (the young);” - but not “in the weakening of the sheep,” i.e., when they were weak, and would produce weak lambs. The meaning is probably this: he only adopted this plan at the summer copulation, not the autumn; for, in the opinion of the ancients ( Pliny, Columella), lambs that were conceived in the spring and born in the autumn were stronger than those born in the spring (cf. Bochart l.c. p. 582). Jacob did this, possibly, less to spare Laban, than to avoid exciting suspicion, and so leading to the discovery of his trick. - In Gen 30:43 the account closes with the remark, that the man increased exceedingly, and became rich in cattle (רבּות צאן many head of sheep and goats) and slaves, without expressing approbation of Jacob's conduct, or describing his increasing wealth as a blessing from God. The verdict is contained in what follows.

Chap. 31

verses 1-5

The Flight. - Through some angry remarks of Laban's sons with reference to his growing wealth, and the evident change in the feelings of Laban himself towards him (Gen 31:1, Gen 31:2), Jacob was inwardly prepared for the termination of his present connection with Laban; and at the same time he received instructions from Jehovah, to return to his home, together with a promise of divine protection. In consequence of this, he sent for Rachel and Leah to come to him in the field, and explained to them (Gen 31:4-13), how their father's disposition had changed towards him, and how he had deceived him in spite of the service he had forced out of him, and had altered his wages ten times; but that the God of his father had stood by him, and had transferred to him their father's cattle, and now at length had directed him to return to his home.

verses 6-8

אתּנה: the original form of the abbreviated אתּן, which is merely copied from the Pentateuch in Exo 13:11, Exo 13:20; Exo 34:17.

verses 9-13

אביכם: for אביכן as in Gen 32:16, etc. - “ Ten times:” i.e., as often as possible, the ten as a round number expressing the idea of completeness. From the statement that Laban had changed his wages ten times, it is evident that when Laban observed, that among his sheep and goats, of one colour only, a large number of mottled young were born, he made repeated attempts to limit the original stipulation by changing the rule as to the colour of the young, and so diminishing Jacob's wages. But when Jacob passes over his own stratagem in silence, and represents all that he aimed at and secured by crafty means as the fruit of God's blessing, this differs no doubt from the account in Gen 30. It is not a contradiction, however, pointing to a difference in the sources of the two chapters, but merely a difference founded upon actual fact, viz., the fact that Jacob did not tell the whole truth to his wives. Moreover self-help and divine help do not exclude one another. Hence his account of the dream, in which he saw that the rams that leaped upon the cattle were all of various colours, and heard the voice of the angel of God calling his attention to what had been seen, in the words, “I have seen all that Laban hath done to thee,” may contain actual truth; and the dream may be regarded as a divine revelation, which was either sent to explain to him now, at the end of the sixth year, “that it was not his stratagem, but the providence of God which had prevented him from falling a victim to Laban's avarice, and had brought him such wealth” (Delitzsch); or, if the dream occurred at an earlier period, was meant to teach him, that “the help of God, without any such self-help, could procure him justice and safety in spite of Laban's selfish covetousness” ( Kurtz). It is very difficult to decide between these two interpretations. As Jehovah’s instructions to him to return were not given till the end of his period of service, and Jacob connects them so closely with the vision of the rams that they seem contemporaneous, Delitzsch’s view appears to deserve the preference. But the עשׂה in Gen 31:12, “all that Laban is doing to thee,” does not exactly suit this meaning; and we should rather expect to find עשׂה used at the end of the time of service. The participle rather favours Kurtz's view, that Jacob had the vision of the rams and the explanation from the angel at the beginning of the last six years of service, but that in his communication to his wives, in which there was no necessity to preserve a strict continuity or distinction of time, he connected it with the divine instructions to return to his home, which he received at the end of his time of service. But if we decide in favour of this view, we have no further guarantee for the objective reality of the vision of the rams, since nothing is said about it in the historical account, and it is nowhere stated that the wealth obtained by Jacob's craftiness was the result of the divine blessing. The attempt so unmistakeably apparent in Jacob's whole conversation with his wives, to place his dealing with Laban in the most favourable light for himself, excites the suspicion, that the vision of which he spoke was nothing more than a natural dream, the materials being supplied by the three thoughts that were most frequently in his mind, by night as well as by day, viz., (1) his own schemes and their success; (2) the promise received at Bethel; (3) the wish to justify his actions to his own conscience; and that these were wrought up by an excited imagination into a visionary dream, of the divine origin of which Jacob himself may not have had the slightest doubt. - In Gen 31:13 האל has the article in the construct state, contrary to the ordinary rule; cf. Ges. §110, 2 b; Ewald, §290.

verses 14-16

The two wives naturally agreed with their husband, and declared that they had no longer any part or inheritance in their father's house. For he had not treated them as daughters, but sold them like strangers, i.e., servants. “ And he has even constantly eaten our money,” i.e., consumed the property brought to him by our service. The inf. abs. אכול after the finite verb expresses the continuation of the act, and is intensified by גם “ yes, even.” כּי in Gen 31:16 signifies “so that,” as in Deu 14:24; Job 10:6.

verses 17-19

Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels; Jacob then set out with his children and wives, and all the property that he had acquired in Padan-Aram, to return to his father in Canaan; whilst Laban had gone to the sheep-shearing, which kept him some time from his home on account of the size of his flock. Rachel took advantage of her father's absence to rob him of his teraphim ( penates), probably small images of household gods in human form, which were worshipped as givers of earthly prosperity, and also consulted as oracles (see my Archäologie, §90).

verses 20-21

“ Thus Jacob deceived Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled;” - לב גּנב to steal the heart (as the seat of the understanding), like κλέπτειν νοο͂ν, and גּנב with the simple accus. pers., Gen 31:27, like κλεπτειν τίνα, signifies to take the knowledge of anything away from a person, to deceive him; - “ and passed over the river (Euphrates), and took the direction to the mountains of Gilead.”

verses 22-25

Laban's Pursuit, Reconciliation, and Covenant with Jacob. - As Laban was not told till the third day after the flight, though he pursued the fugitives with his brethren, i.e., his nearest relations, he did not overtake Jacob for seven days, by which time he had reached the mountains of Gilead (Gen 31:22-24). The night before he overtook them, he was warned by God in a dream, “ not to speak to Jacob from good to bad,” i.e., not to say anything decisive and emphatic for the purpose of altering what had already occurred (vid., Gen 31:29, and the note on Gen 24:50). Hence he confined himself, when they met, “to bitter reproaches combining paternal feeling on the one hand with hypocrisy on the other;” in which he told them that he had the power to do them harm, if God had not forbidden him, and charged them with stealing his gods (the teraphim).

Verse 26

“ Like sword-booty;” i.e., like prisoners of war (2Ki 6:22) carried away unwillingly and by force.

verses 27-28

“ So I might have conducted thee with mirth and songs, with tabret and harp,” i.e., have sent thee away with a parting feast. ==Verse 28== Gen 31:28 עשׂו: an old form of the infinitive for עשׂות as in Gen 48:11; Gen 50:20. ==Verse 29== Gen 31:29 ידי לאל ישׁ: “ there is to God my hand” (Mic 2:1; cf. Deu 28:32; Neh 5:5), i.e., my hand serves me as God (Hab 1:11; Job 12:6), a proverbial expression for “the power lies in my hand.”

Verse 30

“ And now thou art gone (for, if thou art gone), because thou longedst after thy father's house, why hast thou stolen my gods?” The meaning is this: even if thy secret departure can be explained, thy stealing of my gods cannot.

verses 31-32

The first, Jacob met by pleading his fear lest Laban should take away his daughters (keep them back by force). “ For I said:” equivalent to “for I thought.” But Jacob knew nothing of the theft; hence he declared, that with whomsoever he might find the gods he should be put to death, and told Laban to make the strictest search among all the things that he had with him. “ Before our brethren,” i.e., the relations who had come with Laban, as being impartial witnesses (cf. Gen 31:37); not, as Knobel thinks, before Jacob's horde of male and female slaves, of women and of children.

verses 33-35

Laban looked through all the tents, but did not find his teraphim; for Rachel had put them in the saddle of her camel and was sitting upon them, and excused herself to her lord ( Adonai, Gen 31:35), on the ground that the custom of women was upon her. “ The camel's furniture,” i.e., the saddle (not “the camel's litter:” Luther), here the woman's riding saddle, which had a comfortable seat formed of carpets on the top of the packsaddle. The fact that Laban passed over Rachel's seat because of her pretended condition, does not presuppose the Levitical law in Lev 15:19., according to which, any one who touched the couch or seat of such a woman was rendered unclean. For, in the first place, the view which lies at the foundation of this law was much older than the laws of Moses, and is met with among many other nations (cf. Bähr, Symbolik ii. 466, etc.); consequently Laban might refrain from making further examination, less from fear of defilement, than because he regarded it as impossible that any one with the custom of women upon her should sit upon his gods.

verses 36-39

As Laban found nothing, Jacob grew angry, and pointed out the injustice of his hot pursuit and his search among all his things, but more especially the harsh treatment he had received from him in return for the unselfish and self-denying services that he had rendered him for twenty years. Acute sensibility and elevated self-consciousness give to Jacob's words a rhythmical movement and a poetical form. Hence such expressions as אחרי דּלק “ hotly pursued,” which is only met with in 1Sa 17:53; אחטּנּה for אחטּאנּה “ I had to atone for it,” i.e., to bear the loss; “ the Fear of Isaac,” used as a name for God, פּחד, σέβας = σέβασμα, the object of Isaac's fear or sacred awe.

verses 40-41

“ I have been; by day (i.e., I have been in this condition, that by day) heat has consumed (prostrated) me, and cold by night” - for it is well known, that in the East the cold by night corresponds to the heat by day; the hotter the day the colder the night, as a rule.

Verse 42

“ Except the God of my father...had been for me, surely thou wouldst now have sent me away empty. God has seen mine affliction and the labour of my hands, and last night He judged it.” By the warning given to Laban, God pronounced sentence upon the matter between Jacob and Laban, condemning the course which Laban had pursued, and still intended to pursue, towards Jacob; but not on that account sanctioning all that Jacob had done to increase his own possessions, still less confirming Jacob's assertion that the vision mentioned by Jacob (Gen 31:11, Gen 31:12) was a revelation from God. But as Jacob had only met cunning with cunning, deceit with deceit, Laban had no right to punish him for what he had done. Some excuse may indeed be found for Jacob's conduct in the heartless treatment he received from Laban, but the fact that God defended him from Laban's revenge did not prove it to be right. He had not acted upon the rule laid down in Pro 20:22 (cf. Rom 12:17; 1Th 5:15).

verses 43-54

These words of Jacob “cut Laban to the heart with their truth, so that he turned round, offered his hand, and proposed a covenant.” Jacob proceeded at once to give a practical proof of his assent to this proposal of his father-in-law, by erecting a stone as a memorial, and calling upon his relations also (“his brethren,” as in Gen 31:23, by whom Laban and the relations who came with him are intended, as Gen 31:54 shows) to gather stones into a heap, which formed a table, as is briefly observed in Gen 31:46, for the covenant meal (Gen 31:54). This stone-heap was called Jegar-Sahadutha by Laban, and Galeed by Jacob (the former is the Chaldee, the latter the Hebrew; they have both the same meaning, viz., “heaps of witness”),^[8] because, as Laban, who spoke first, as being the elder, explained, the heap was to be a “witness between him and Jacob.” The historian then adds this explanation: “ therefore they called his name Gal'ed,” and immediately afterwards introduces a second name, which the heap received from words that were spoken by Laban at the conclusion of the covenant (Gen 31:49): “ And Mizpah,” i.e., watch, watch-place (sc., he called it), “ for he (Laban) said, Jehovah watch between me and thee; for we are hidden from one another (from the face of one another), if thou shalt oppress my daughters, and if thou shalt take wives to my daughters! No man is with us, behold God is witness between me and thee!” (Gen 31:49, Gen 31:50). After these words of Laban, which are introduced parenthetically,^[9] and in which he enjoined upon Jacob fidelity to his daughters, the formation of the covenant of reconciliation and peace between them is first described, according to which, neither of them ( sive ego sive tu, as in Exo 19:13) was to pass the stone-heap and memorial-stone with a hostile intention towards the other. Of this the memorial was to serve as a witness, and the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father (Terah), would be umpire between them. To this covenant, in which Laban, according to his polytheistic views, placed the God of Abraham upon the same level with the God of Nahor and Terah, Jacob swore by “the Fear of Isaac” (Gen 31:42), the God who was worshipped by his father with sacred awe. He then offered sacrifices upon the mountain, and invited his relations to eat, i.e., to partake of a sacrificial meal, and seal the covenant by a feast of love.
The geographical names Gilead and Ramath-mizpeh (Jos 13:26), also Mizpeh-Gilead (Jdg 11:29), sound so obviously like Gal'ed and Mizpah, that they are no doubt connected, and owe their origin to the monument erected by Jacob and Laban; so that it was by prolepsis that the scene of this occurrence was called “the mountains of Gilead” in Gen 31:21, Gen 31:23, Gen 31:25. By the mount or mountains of Gilead we are not to understand the mountain range to the south of the Jabbok (Zerka), the present Jebel Jelaad, or Jebel es Salt. The name Gilead has a much more comprehensive signification in the Old Testament; and the mountains to the south of the Jabbok are called in Deu 3:12 the half of Mount Gilead; the mountains to the north of the Jabbok, the Jebel-Ajlun, forming the other half. In this chapter the name is used in the broader sense, and refers primarily to the northern half of the mountains (above the Jabbok); for Jacob did not cross the Jabbok till afterwards (Gen 32:23-24). There is nothing in the names Ramath-mizpeh, which Ramoth in Gilead bears in Jos 13:26, and Mizpeh-Gilead, which it bears in Jdg 11:29, to compel us to place Laban's meeting with Jacob in the southern portion of the mountains of Gilead. For even if this city is to be found in the modern Salt, and was called Ramath-mizpeh from the even recorded here, all that can be inferred from that is, that the tradition of Laban's covenant with Jacob was associated in later ages with Ramoth in Gilead, without the correctness of the association being thereby established.

Chap. 32

verses 1-3

The Host of God. - When Laban had taken his departure peaceably, Jacob pursued his journey to Canaan. He was then met by some angels of God, in whom he discerned an encampment of God; and he called the place where they appeared Mahanaim, i.e., double camp or double host, because the host of God joined his host as a safeguard. This appearance of angels necessarily reminded him of the vision of the ladder, on his flight from Canaan. Just as the angels ascending and descending had then represented to him the divine protection and assistance during his journey and sojourn in a foreign land, so now the angelic host was a signal of the help of God for the approaching conflict with Esau of which he was in fear, and a fresh pledge of the promise (Gen 28:15), “I will bring thee back to the land,” etc. Jacob saw it during his journey; in a waking condition, therefore, not internally, but out of or above himself: but whether with the eyes of the body or of the mind (cf. 2Ki 6:17), cannot be determined. Mahanaim was afterwards a distinguished city, which is frequently mentioned, situated to the north of the Jabbok; and the name and remains are still preserved in the place called Mahneh (Robinson, Pal. Appendix, p. 166), the site of which, however, has not yet been minutely examined (see my Comm. on Joshua, p. 259).

verses 4-7

From this point Jacob sent messengers forward to his brother Esau, to make known his return in such a style of humility (“thy servant,” “my lord”) as was adapted to conciliate him. אחר (Gen 32:5) is the first pers. imperf. Kal for אאחר, from אחר to delay, to pass a time; cf. Pro 8:17, and Ges. §68, 2. The statement that Esau was already in the land of Seir (Gen 32:4), or, as it is afterwards called, the field of Edom, is not at variance with Gen 36:6, and may be very naturally explained on the supposition, that with the increase of his family and possessions, he severed himself more and more from his father's house, becoming increasingly convinced, as time went on, that he could hope for no change in the blessings pronounced by his father upon Jacob and himself, which excluded him from the inheritance of the promise, viz., the future possession of Canaan. Now, even if his malicious feelings towards Jacob had gradually softened down, he had probably never said anything to his parents on the subject, so that Rebekah had been unable to fulfil her promise (Gen 27:45); and Jacob, being quite uncertain as to his brother's state of mind, was thrown into the greatest alarm and anxiety by the report of the messengers, that Esau was coming to meet him with 400 men. The simplest explanation of the fact that Esau should have had so many men about him as a standing army, is that given by Delitzsch; namely, that he had to subjugate the Horite population in Seir, for which purpose he might easily have formed such an army, partly from the Canaanitish and Ishmaelitish relations of his wives, and partly from his own servants. His reason for going to meet Jacob with such a company may have been, either to show how mighty a prince he was, or with the intention of making his brother sensible of his superior power, and assuming a hostile attitude if the circumstances favoured it, even though the lapse of years had so far mitigated his anger, that he no longer seriously thought of executing the vengeance he had threatened twenty years before. For we are warranted in regarding Jacob's fear as no vain, subjective fancy, but as having an objective foundation, by the fact that God endowed him with courage and strength for his meeting with Esau, through the medium of the angelic host and the wrestling at the Jabbok; whilst, on the other hand, the brotherly affection and openness with which Esau met him, are to be attributed partly to Jacob's humble demeanour, and still more to the fact, that by the influence of God, the still remaining malice had been rooted out from his heart.

verses 8-11

Jacob, fearing the worst, divided his people and flocks into two camps, that if Esau smote the one, the other might escape. He then turned to the Great Helper in every time of need, and with an earnest prayer besought the God of his fathers, Abraham and Isaac, who had directed him to return, that, on the ground of the abundant mercies and truth (cf. Gen 24:27) He had shown him thus far, He would deliver him out of the hand of his brother, and from the threatening destruction, and so fulfil His promises.

verses 12-13

“ For I am in fear of him, that (פּן ne) he come and smite me, mother with children.” בּנים על אם is a proverbial expression for unsparing cruelty, taken from the bird which covers its young to protect them (Deu 22:6, cf. Hos 10:14). על super, una cum, as in Exo 35:22.

verses 14-22

Although hoping for aid and safety from the Lord alone, Jacob neglected no means of doing what might help to appease his brother. Having taken up his quarters for the night in the place where he received the tidings of Esau's approach, he selected from his flocks (“ of that which came to his hand,” i.e., which he had acquired) a very respectable present of 550 head of cattle, and sent them in different detachments to meet Esau, “ as a present from his servant Jacob,” who was coming behind. The selection was in harmony with the general possessions of nomads (cf. Job 1:3; Job 42:12), and the proportion of male to female animals was arranged according to the agricultural rule of Varro ( de re rustica 2, 3). The division of the present, “ drove and drove separately,” i.e., into several separate droves which followed one another at certain intervals, was to serve the purpose of gradually mitigating the wrath of Esau. פּנים כּפּר, Gen 32:21, to appease the countenance; פּנים נשׁא to raise any one's countenance, i.e., to receive him in a friendly manner. This present he sent forward; and he himself remained the same night (mentioned in Gen 32:14) in the camp.

verses 23-24

The Wrestling with God. - The same night, he conveyed his family with all his possessions across the ford of the Jabbok. Jabbok is the present Wady es Zerka (i.e., the blue), which flows from the east towards the Jordan, and with its deep rocky valley formed at that time the boundary between the kingdoms of Sihon at Heshbon and Og of Bashan. It now separates the countries of Moerad or Ajlun and Belka. The ford by which Jacob crossed was hardly the one which he took on his outward journey, upon the Syrian caravan-road by Kalaat-Zerka, but one much farther to the west, between Jebel Ajlun and Jebel Jelaad, through which Buckingham, Burckhardt, and Seetzen passed; and where there are still traces of walls and buildings to be seen, and other marks of cultivation.

Verse 25

When Jacob was left alone on the northern side of the Jabbok, after sending all the rest across, “ there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.” נאבק, an old word, which only occurs here (Gen 32:25, Gen 32:26), signifying to wrestle, is either derived from אבק to wind, or related to חבק to contract one's self, to plant limb and limb firmly together. From this wrestling the river evidently received its name of Jabbok (יבּק = יאבּק).

verses 26-30

“ And when He (the unknown) saw that He did not overcome him, He touched his hip-socket; and his hip-socket was put out of joint (תּקע from רקע) as He wrestled with him.” Still Jacob would not let Him go until He blessed him. He then said to Jacob, “ They name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel (ישׂראל, God's fighter, from שׂרה to fight, and אל God); for thou hast fought with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” When Jacob asked Him His name, He declined giving any definite answer, and “ blessed him there.” He did not tell him His name; not merely, as the angel stated to Manoah in reply to a similar question (Jdg 13:18), because it was פּלא wonder, i.e., incomprehensible to mortal man, but still more to fill Jacob's soul with awe at the mysterious character of the whole event, and to lead him to take it to heart. What Jacob wanted to know, with regard to the person of the wonderful Wrestler, and the meaning and intention of the struggle, he must already have suspected, when he would not let Him go until He blessed him; and it was put before him still more plainly in the new name that was given to him with this explanation, “ Thou hast fought with Elohim and with men, and hast conquered.” God had met him in the form of a man: God in the angel, according to Hos 12:4-5, i.e., not in a created angel, but in the Angel of Jehovah, the visible manifestation of the invisible God. Our history does not speak of Jehovah, or the Angel of Jehovah, but of Elohim, for the purpose of bringing out the contrast between God and the creature.
This remarkable occurrence is not to be regarded as a dream or an internal vision, but fell within the sphere of sensuous perception. At the same time, it was not a natural or corporeal wrestling, but a “real conflict of both mind and body, a work of the spirit with intense effort of the body” ( Delitzsch), in which Jacob was lifted up into a highly elevated condition of body and mind resembling that of ecstasy, through the medium of the manifestation of God. In a merely outward conflict, it is impossible to conquer through prayers and tears. As the idea of a dream or vision has no point of contact in the history; so the notion, that the outward conflict of bodily wrestling, and the spiritual conflict with prayer and tears, are two features opposed to one another and spiritually distinct, is evidently at variance with the meaning of the narrative and the interpretation of the prophet Hosea. Since Jacob still continued his resistance, even after his hip had been put out of joint, and would not let Him go till He had blessed him, it cannot be said that it was not till all hope of maintaining the conflict by bodily strength was taken from him, that he had recourse to the weapon of prayer. And when Hosea (Hos 12:4-5) points his contemporaries to their wrestling forefather as an example for their imitation, in these words, “He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and in his human strength he fought with God; and he fought with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto Him,” the turn by which the explanatory periphrasis of Jacob's words, “I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me,” is linked on to the previous clause by בּכה without a copula or vav consec., is a proof that the prophet did not regard the weeping and supplication as occurring after the wrestling, or as only a second element, which was subsequently added to the corporeal struggle. Hosea evidently looked upon the weeping and supplication as the distinguishing feature in the conflict, without thereby excluding the corporeal wrestling. At the same time, by connecting this event with what took place at the birth of the twins (Gen 25:26), the prophet teaches that Jacob merely completed, by his wrestling with God, what he had already been engaged in even from his mother's womb, viz., his striving for the birthright; in other words, for the possession of the covenant promise and the covenant blessing. This meaning is also indicated by the circumstances under which the event took place. Jacob had wrested the blessing of the birthright from his brother Esau; but it was by cunning and deceit, and he had been obliged to flee from his wrath in consequence. And now that he desired to return to the land of promise and his father's house, and to enter upon the inheritance promised him in his father's blessing; Esau was coming to meet him with 400 men, which filled him with great alarm. As he felt too weak to enter upon a conflict with him, he prayed to the covenant God for deliverance from the hand of his brother, and the fulfilment of the covenant promises. The answer of God to this prayer was the present wrestling with God, in which he was victorious indeed, but not without carrying the marks of it all his life long in the dislocation of his thigh. Jacob's great fear of Esau's wrath and vengeance, which he could not suppress notwithstanding the divine revelations at Bethel and Mahanaim, had its foundation in his evil conscience, in the consciousness of the sin connected with his wilful and treacherous appropriation of the blessing of the first-born. To save him from the hand of his brother, it was necessary that God should first meet him as an enemy, and show him that his real opponent was God Himself, and that he must first of all overcome Him before he could hope to overcome his brother. And Jacob overcame God; not with the power of the flesh however, with which he had hitherto wrestled for God against man (God convinced him of that by touching his hip, so that it was put out of joint), but by the power of faith and prayer, reaching by firm hold of God even to the point of being blessed, by which he proved himself to be a true wrestler of God, who fought with God and with men, i.e., who by his wrestling with God overcame men as well. And whilst by the dislocation of his hip the carnal nature of his previous wrestling was declared to be powerless and wrong, he received in the new name of Israel the prize of victory, and at the same time directions from God how he was henceforth to strive for the cause of the Lord. - By his wrestling with God, Jacob entered upon a new stage in his life. As a sign of this, he received a new name, which indicated, as the result of this conflict, the nature of his new relation to God. But whilst Abram and Sarai, from the time when God changed their names (Gen 17:5 and Gen 17:15), are always called by their new names; in the history of Jacob we find the old name used interchangeably with the new. “For the first two names denoted a change into a new and permanent position, effected and intended by the will and promise of God; consequently the old names were entirely abolished. But the name Israel denoted a spiritual state determined by faith; and in Jacob's life the natural state, determined by flesh and blood, still continued to stand side by side with this. Jacob's new name was transmitted to his descendants, however, who were called Israel as the covenant nation. For as the blessing of their forefather's conflict came down to them as a spiritual inheritance, so did they also enter upon the duty of preserving this inheritance by continuing in a similar conflict.

Verse 31

The remembrance of this wonderful conflict Jacob perpetuated in the name which he gave to the place where it had occurred, viz., Pniel or Pnuel (with the connecting wound וּ or י), because there he had seen Elohim face to face, and his soul had been delivered (from death, Gen 16:13).

Verse 32

With the rising of the sun after the night of his conflict, the night of anguish and fear also passed away from Jacob's mind, so that he was able to leave Pnuel in comfort, and go forward on his journey. The dislocation of the thigh alone remained. For this reason the children of Israel are accustomed to avoid eating the nervus ischiadicus, the principal nerve in the neighbourhood of the hip, which is easily injured by any violent strain in wrestling. “ Unto this day:” the remark is applicable still.

Chap. 33

verses 1-4

Meeting with Esau. - As Jacob went forward, he saw Esau coming to meet him with his 400 mean. He then arranged his wives and children in such a manner, that the maids with their children went first, Leah with hers in the middle, and Rachel with Joseph behind, thus forming a long procession. But he himself went in front, and met Esau with sevenfold obeisance. ארצה ישׁתּחוּ does not denote complete prostration, like ארצה אפּים in Gen 19:1, but a deep Oriental bow, in which the head approaches the ground, but does not touch it. By this manifestation of deep reverence, Jacob hoped to win his brother's heart. He humbled himself before him as the elder, with the feeling that he had formerly sinned against him. Esau, on the other hand, “had a comparatively better, but not so tender a conscience.” At the sight of Jacob he was carried away by the natural feelings of brotherly affection, and running up to him, embraced him, fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they both wept. The puncta extraordinaria above ישּׁקהוּ are probably intended to mark the word as suspicious. They “are like a note of interrogation, questioning the genuineness of this kiss; but without any reason” ( Del.). Even if there was still some malice in Esau's heart, it was overcome by the humility with which his brother met him, so that he allowed free course to the generous emotions of his heart; all the more, because the “roving life” which suited his nature had procured him such wealth and power, that he was quite equal to his brother in earthly possessions.

verses 5-7

When his eyes fell upon the women and children, he inquired respecting them, “ Whom hast thou here?” And Jacob replied, “ The children with whom Elohim hath favoured me.” Upon this, the mothers and their children approached in order, making reverential obeisance. חנן with double acc. “graciously to present.” Elohim: “to avoid reminding Esau of the blessing of Jehovah, which had occasioned his absence” ( Del.).

verses 8-9

And he said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord.
Esau then inquired about the camp that had met him, i.e., the presents of cattle that were sent to meet him, and refused to accept them, until Jacob's urgent persuasion eventually induced him to do so.

Verse 10

“ For therefore,” sc., to be able to offer thee this present, “ have I come to see thy face, as man seeth the face of God, and thou hast received me favourably.” The thought is this: In thy countenance I have been met with divine (heavenly) friendliness (cf. 1Sa 29:9; 2Sa 14:17). Jacob might say this without cringing, since he “must have discerned the work of God in the unexpected change in his brother's disposition towards him, and in his brother's friendliness a reflection of this divine.”

Verse 11

Blessing: i.e., the present, expressive of his desire to bless, as in 1Sa 25:27; 1Sa 30:26. הבאת: for הבאה, as in Deu 31:29; Isa 7:14, etc.; sometimes also in verbs הל, Lev 25:21; Lev 26:34. כל ישׁ־לי: “ I have all” (not all kinds of things); viz as the heir of the divine promise.

verses 12-15

Lastly, Esau proposed to accompany Jacob on his journey. But Jacob politely declined not only his own company, but also the escort, which Esau afterwards offered him, of a portion of his attendants; the latter as being unnecessary, the former as likely to be injurious to his flocks. This did not spring from any feeling of distrust; and the ground assigned was no mere pretext. He needed no military guard, “for he knew that he was defended by the hosts of God;” and the reason given was a very good one: “ My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds that are milking (עלות from עוּל, giving milk or suckling) are upon me” (עלי): i.e., because they are giving milk they are an object of especial anxiety to me; “ and if one should overdrive them a single day, all the sheep would die.” A caravan, with delicate children and cattle that required care, could not possibly keep pace with Esau and his horsemen, without taking harm. And Jacob could not expect his brother to accommodate himself to the rate at which he was travelling. For this reason he wished Esau to go on first; and he would drive gently behind, “ according to the foot of the cattle (מלאכה possessions = cattle), and according to the foot of the children,” i.e., “according to the pace at which the cattle and the children could go” ( Luther). “ Till I come to my lord to Seir:” these words are not to be understood as meaning that he intended to go direct to Seir; consequently they were not a wilful deception for the purpose of getting rid of Esau. Jacob's destination was Canaan, and in Canaan probably Hebron, where his father Isaac still lived. From thence he may have thought of paying a visit to Esau in Seir. Whether he carried out this intention or not, we cannot tell; for we have not a record of all that Jacob did, but only of the principal events of his life. We afterwards find them both meeting together as friends at their father's funeral (Gen 35:29). Again, the attitude of inferiority which Jacob assumed in his conversation with Esau, addressing him as lord, and speaking of himself as servant, was simply an act of courtesy suited to the circumstances, in which he paid to Esau the respect due to the head of a powerful band; since he could not conscientiously have maintained the attitude of a brother, when inwardly and spiritually, in spite of Esau's friendly meeting, they were so completely separated the one from the other.

verses 16-17

Esau set off the same day for Mount Seir, whilst Jacob proceeded to Succoth, where he built himself a house and made succoth for his flocks, i.e., probably not huts of branches and shrubs, but hurdles or folds made of twigs woven together. According to Jos 13:27, Succoth was in the valley of the Jordan, and was allotted to the tribe of Gad, as part of the district of the Jordan, “on the other side Jordan eastward;” and this is confirmed by Jdg 8:4-5, and by Jerome ( quaest. ad h. l.): Sochoth usque hodie civitas trans Jordanem in parte Scythopoleos. Consequently it cannot be identified with the Sâcut on the western side of the Jordan, to the south of Beisan, above the Wady el Mâlih. - How long Jacob remained in Succoth cannot be determined; but we may conclude that he stayed there some years from the circumstance, that by erecting a house and huts he prepared for a lengthened stay. The motives which induced him to remain there are also unknown to us. But when Knobel adduces the fact, that Jacob came to Canaan for the purpose of visiting Isaac (Gen 31:18), as a reason why it is improbable that he continued long at Succoth, he forgets that Jacob could visit his father from Succoth just as well as from Shechem, and that, with the number of people and cattle that he had about him, it was impossible that he should join and subordinate himself to Isaac's household, after having attained through his past life and the promises of God a position of patriarchal independence.

verses 18-20

From Succoth, Jacob crossed a ford of the Jordan, and “ came in safety to the city of Sichem in the land of Canaan.” שׁלם is not a proper name meaning “to Shalem,” as it is rendered by Luther (and Eng. Vers., Tr.) after the lxx, Vulg., etc.; but an adjective, safe, peaceful, equivalent to בּשׁלום, “in peace,” in Gen 28:21, to which there is an evident allusion. What Jacob had asked for in his vow at Bethel, before his departure from Canaan, was now fulfilled. He had returned in safety “to the land of Canaan;” Succoth, therefore, did not belong to the land of Canaan, but must have been on the eastern side of the Jordan. שׁכם עיר, lit., city of Shechem; so called from Shechem the son of the Hivite prince Hamor^[10] (Gen 33:19, Gen 34:2.), who founded it and called it by the name of his son, since it was not in existence in Abraham's time (vid., Gen 12:6). Jacob pitched his tent before the town, and then bought the piece of ground upon which he encamped from the sons of Hamor for 100 Kesita. קשׂיטה is not a piece of silver of the value of a lamb (according to the ancient versions), but a quantity of silver weighed out, of considerable, though not exactly determinable value: cf. Ges. thes. s. v. This purchase showed that Jacob, in reliance upon the promise of God, regarded Canaan as his own home and the home of his seed. This piece of field, which fell to the lot of the sons of Joseph, and where Joseph's bones were buried (Jos 24:32), was, according to tradition, the plain which stretches out at the south-eastern opening of the valley of Shechem, where Jacob's well is still pointed out (Joh 4:6), also Joseph's grave, a Mahometan wely (grave) two or three hundred paces to the north (Rob. Pal. iii. 95ff.). Jacob also erected an altar, as Abraham had previously done after his entrance into Canaan (Gen 12:7), and called it El-Elohe-Israel, “ God (the mighty) is the God of Israel,” to set forth in this name the spiritual acquisition of his previous life, and according to his vow (Gen 28:21) to give glory to the “God of Israel” (as he called Jehovah, with reference to the name given to him at Gen 32:29), for having proved Himself to be El, a mighty God, during his long absence, and that it might serve as a memorial for his descendants.

Chap. 34

verses 1-2

During their stay at Shechem, Dinah, Jacob's daughter by Leah, went out one day to see, i.e., to make the acquaintance of the daughters of the land; when Shechem the Hivite, the son of the prince, took her with him and seduced her. Dinah was probably between 13 and 15 at the time, and had attained perfect maturity; for this is often the case in the East at the age of 12, and sometimes earlier. There is no ground for supposing her to have been younger. Even if she was born after Joseph, and not till the end of Jacob's 14 years' service with Laban, and therefore was only five years old when they left Mesopotamia, eight or ten years may have passed since then, as Jacob may easily have spent from eight to eleven years in Succoth, where he had built a house, and Shechem, where he had bought “a parcel of a field.” But she cannot have been older; for, according to Gen 37:2, Joseph was sold by his brethren when he was 17 years old, i.e., in the 11th year after Jacob's return from Mesopotamia, as he was born in the 14th year of Jacob's service with Laban^[11] (cf. Gen 30:24). In the interim between Dinah's seduction and the sale of Joseph there occurred nothing but Jacob's journey from Shechem to Bethel and thence to Ephratah, in the neighbourhood of which Benjamin was born and Rachel died, and his arrival in Hebron (Gen 35). This may all have taken place within a single year. Jacob was till at Hebron, when Joseph was sent to Shechem and sold by his brethren (Gen 37:14); and Isaac's death did not happen for 12 years afterwards, although it is mentioned in connection with the account of Jacob's arrival at Hebron (Gen 35:27.).

verses 3-4

Shechem “ loved the girl, and spoke to her heart;” i.e., he sought to comfort her by the promise of a happy marriage, and asked his father to obtain her for him as a wife.

verses 5-12

When Jacob heard of the seduction of his daughter, “ he was silent,” i.e., he remained quiet, without taking any active proceedings (ex. Gen 14:14; 2Sa 19:11) until his sons came from the field. When they heard of it, they were grieved and burned with wrath at the disgrace. טמּא to defile = to dishonour, disgrace, because it was an uncircumcised man who had seduced her. “ Because he had wrought folly in Israel, by lying with Jacob's daughter.” “To work folly” was a standing phrase for crimes against the honour and calling of Israel as the people of God, especially for shameful sins of the flesh (Deu 22:21; Jdg 20:10; 2Sa 13:2, etc.); but it was also applied to other great sins (Jos 7:15). As Jacob had become Israel, the seduction of his daughter was a crime against Israel, which is called folly, inasmuch as the relation of Israel to God was thereby ignored (Psa 14:1). “ And this ought not to be done:” יעשׂה potentialis as in Gen 20:9. - Hamor went to Jacob to ask for his daughter (Gen 34:6); but Jacob's sons reached home at the same time (Gen 34:7), so that Hamor spoke to them (Jacob and his sons). To attain his object Hamor proposed a further intermarriage, unrestricted movement on their part in the land, and that they should dwell there, trade (ἐμπορεύεσθαι), and secure possessions (נאחז settle down securely, as in Gen 47:27). Shechem also offered (Gen 34:11, Gen 34:12) to give anything they might ask in the form of dowry (מהר not purchase-money, but the usual gift made to the bride, vid., Gen 24:53) and presents (for the brothers and mother), if they would only give him the damsel.

verses 13-17

Attractive as these offers of the Hivite prince and his son were, they were declined by Jacob's sons, who had the chief voice in the question of their sister's marriage (vid., Gen 24:50). And they were quite right; for, by accepting them, they would have violated the sacred call of Israel and his seed, and sacrificed the promises of Jehovah to Mammon. But they did it in a wrong way; for “ they answered with deceit and acted from behind” (וידבּרוּ בּמרמה: דּבּר) is to be rendered dolos struxit; דּברים דּבּר would be the expression for “giving mere words,” Hos 10:4; vid., Ges. thes.), “ because he had defiled Dinah their sister.” They told him that they could not give their sister to an uncircumcised man, because this would be a reproach to them; and the only condition upon which they would consent (נאות imperf. Niph. of אוּת) was, that the Shechemites should all be circumcised; otherwise they would take their sister and go.

verses 18-24

The condition seemed reasonable to the two suitors, and by way of setting a good example, “ the young man did not delay to do this word,” i.e., to submit to circumcision, “ as he was honoured before all his father's house.” This is stated by anticipation in Gen 34:19; but before submitting to the operation, he went with his father to the gate, the place of public assembly, to lay the matter before the citizens of the town. They knew so well how to make the condition palatable, by a graphic description of the wealth of Jacob and his family, and by expatiating upon the advantages of being united with them, that the Shechemites consented to the proposal. שׁלמים: integri, people whose bearing is unexceptionable. “ And the land, behold broad on both sides it is before them,” i.e., it offers space enough in every direction for them to wander about with their flocks. And then the gain: “ Their cattle, and their possessions, and their beasts of burden...shall they not be ours?” מקנה is used here for flocks and herds, בּהמה for beasts of burden, viz., camels and asses (cf. Num 32:26). But notwithstanding the advantages here pointed out, the readiness of all the citizens of Shechem (vid., Gen 23:10) to consent to be circumcised, could only be satisfactorily explained from the fact that this religious rite was already customary in different nations (according to Herod. 2, 104, among the Egyptians and Colchians), as an act of religious or priestly consecration.

verses 25-29

But on the third day, when the Shechemites were thoroughly prostrated by the painful effects of the operation, Simeon and Levi (with their servants of course) fell upon the town בּטח (i.e., while the people were off their guard, as in Eze 30:9), slew all the males, including Hamor and Shechem, with the edge of the sword, i.e., without quarter (Num 21:24; Jos 10:28, etc.), and brought back their sister. The sons of Jacob then plundered the town, and carried off all the cattle in the town and in the fields, and all their possessions, including the women and the children in their houses. By the sons of Jacob (Gen 34:27) we are not to understand the rest of his sons to the exclusion of Simeon, Levi, and even Reuben, as Delitzsch supposes, but all his sons. For the supposition, that Simeon and Levi were content with taking their murderous revenge, and had no share in the plunder, is neither probable in itself nor reconcilable with what Jacob said on his death-bed (Gen 49:5-7, observe שׁור עקּרוּ) about this very crime; nor can it be inferred from ויּצאוּ in Gen 34:26, for this relates merely to their going away from the house of the two princes, not to their leaving Shechem altogether. The abrupt way in which the plundering is linked on to the slaughter of all the males, without any copulative Vav, gives to the account the character of indignation at so revolting a crime; and this is also shown in the verbosity of the description. The absence of the copula is not to be accounted for by the hypothesis that Gen 34:27-29 are interpolated; for an interpolator might have supplied the missing link by a vav, just as well as the lxx and other ancient translators.

verses 30-31

Jacob reproved the originators of this act most severely for their wickedness: “ Ye have brought me into trouble ( conturbare), to make me stink (an abomination) among the inhabitants of the land;...and yet I (with my attendants) am a company that can be numbered (lit., people of number, easily numbered, a small band, Deu 4:27, cf. Isa 10:19); and if they gather together against me, they will slay me,” etc. If Jacob laid stress simply upon the consequences which this crime was likely to bring upon himself and his house, the reason was, that this was the view most adapted to make an impression upon his sons. For his last words concerning Simeon and Levi (Gen 49:5-7) are a sufficient proof that the wickedness of their conduct was also an object of deep abhorrence. And his fear was not groundless. Only God in His mercy averted all the evil consequences from Jacob and his house (Gen 35:5-6). But his sons answered, “ Are they to treat our sister like a harlot?” עשׂה: as in Lev 16:15, etc. Their indignation was justifiable enough; and their seeking revenge, as Absalom avenged the violation of his sister on Amnon (2Sa 13:22.), was in accordance with the habits of nomadic tribes. In this way, for example, seduction is still punished by death among the Arabs, and the punishment is generally inflicted by the brothers (cf. Niebuhr, Arab. p. 39; Burckhardt, Syr. p. 361, and Beduinen, p. 89, 224-5). In addition to this, Jacob's sons looked upon the matter not merely as a violation of their sister's chastity, but as a crime against the peculiar vocation of their tribe. But for all that, the deception they practised, the abuse of the covenant sign of circumcision as a means of gratifying their revenge, and the extension of that revenge to the whole town, together with the plundering of the slain, were crimes deserving of the strongest reprobation. The crafty character of Jacob degenerated into malicious cunning in Simeon and Levi; and jealousy for the exalted vocation of their family, into actual sin. This event “shows us in type all the errors into which the belief in the pre-eminence of Israel was sure to lead in the course of history, whenever that belief was rudely held by men of carnal minds” ( O. v. Gerlach).

Chap. 35

==verses 1-7== Gen 35:1-7 Journey to Bethel. - Jacob had allowed ten years to pass since his return from Mesopotamia, without performing the vow which he made at Bethel when fleeing from Esau (Gen 28:20.), although he had recalled it to mind when resolving to return (Gen 31:13), and had also erected an altar in Shechem to the “God of Israel” (Gen 33:20). He was now directed by God (Gen 35:1) to go to Bethel, and there build an altar to the God who had appeared to him on his flight from Esau. This command stirred him up to perform what had been neglected, viz., to put away from his house the strange gods, which he had tolerated in weak consideration for his wives, and which had no doubt occasioned the long neglect, and to pay to God the vow that he had made in the day of his trouble. He therefore commanded his house (Gen 35:2, Gen 35:3), i.e., his wives and children, and “ all that were with him,” i.e., his men and maid-servants, to put away the strange gods, to purify themselves, and wash their clothes. He also buried “all the strange gods,” i.e., Rachel's teraphim (Gen 31:19), and whatever other idols there were, with the earrings which were worn as amulets and charms, “ under the terebinth at Shechem,” probably the very tree under which Abraham once pitched his tent (Gen 12:6), and which was regarded as a sacred place in Joshua's time (vid., Jos 24:26, though the pointing is אלּה there). The burial of the idols was followed by purification through the washing of the body, as a sign of the purification of the heart from the defilement of idolatry, and by the putting on of clean and festal clothes, as a symbol of the sanctification and elevation of the heart to the Lord (Jos 24:23). This decided turning to the Lord was immediately followed by the blessing of God. When they left Shechem a “ terror of God,” i.e., a supernatural terror, “ came upon the cities round about,” so that they did not venture to pursue the sons of Jacob on account of the cruelty of Simeon and Levi (Gen 35:5). Having safely arrived in Bethel, Jacob built an altar, which he called El Bethel (God of Bethel) in remembrance of the manifestation of God on His flight from Esau.

Verse 8

There Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, died, and was buried below Bethel under an oak, which was henceforth called the “oak of weeping,” a mourning oak, from the grief of Jacob's house on account of her death. Deborah had either been sent by Rebekah to take care of her daughters-in-law and grandsons, or had gone of her own accord into Jacob's household after the death of her mistress. The mourning at her death, and the perpetuation of her memory, are proofs that she must have been a faithful and highly esteemed servant in Jacob's house.

verses 9-15

The Fresh Revelation at Bethel. - After Jacob had performed his vow by erecting the altar at Bethel, God appeared to him again there (“ again,” referring to Gen 28), ), “ on his coming out of Padan-Aram,” as He had appeared to him 30 years before on his journey thither, - though it was then in a dream, now by daylight in a visible form (cf. Gen 35:13, “ God went up from him”). The gloom of that day of fear had now brightened into the clear daylight of salvation. This appearance was the answer, which God gave to Jacob on his acknowledgement of Him; and its reality is thereby established, in opposition to the conjecture that it is merely a legendary repetition of the previous vision.^[12]
The former theophany had promised to Jacob divine protection in a foreign land and restoration to his home, on the ground of his call to be the bearer of the blessings of salvation. This promise God had fulfilled, and Jacob therefore performed his vow. On the strength of this, God now confirmed to him the name of Israel, which He had already given him in Gen 32:28, and with it the promised of a numerous seed and the possession of Canaan, which, so far as the form and substance are concerned, points back rather to Gen 17:6 and Gen 17:8 than to Gen 28:13-14, and for the fulfilment of which, commencing with the birth of his sons and his return to Canaan, and stretching forward to the most remote future, the name of Israel was to furnish him with a pledge. - Jacob alluded to this second manifestation of God at Bethel towards the close of his life (Gen 48:3-4); and Hosea (Hos 12:4) represents it as the result of his wrestling with God. The remembrance of this appearance Jacob transmitted to his descendants by erecting a memorial stone, which he not only anointed with oil like the former one in Gen 28:17, but consecrated by a drink-offering and by the renewal of the name Bethel.

verses16-20

Birth of Benjamin and Death of Rachel. - Jacob's departure from Bethel was not in opposition to the divine command, “dwell there” (Gen 35:1). For the word שׁב does not enjoin a permanent abode; but, when taken in connection with what follows, “make there an altar,” it merely directs him to stay there and perform his vow. As they were travelling forward, Rachel was taken in labour not far from Ephratah. הארץ כּברת is a space, answering probably to the Persian parassang, though the real meaning of כּברה is unknown. The birth was a difficult one. בּלדתּהּ תּקשׁ: she had difficulty in her labour (instead of Piel we find Hiphil in Gen 35:17 with the same signification). The midwife comforted her by saying: “ Fear not, for this also is to thee a son,” - a wish expressed by her when Joseph was born (Gen 30:24). But she expired; and as she was dying, she called him Been-oni, “son of my pain.” Jacob, however, called him Ben-jamin, probably son of good fortune, according to the meaning of the word jamin sustained by the Arabic, to indicate that his pain at the loss of his favourite wife was compensated by the birth of this son, who now completed the number twelve. Other explanations are less simple. He buried Rachel on the road to Ephratah, or Ephrath (probably the fertile, from פּרה), i.e., Bethlehem (bread-house), by which name it is better known, though the origin of it is obscure. He also erected a monument over her grave (מצּבה, στήλη), on which the historian observes, “ This is the pillar of Rachel's grave unto this day:” a remark which does not necessarily point to a post-Mosaic period, but which could easily have been made even 10 or 20 years after its erection. For the fact that a grave-stone had been preserved upon the high road in a foreign land, the inhabitants of which had no interest whatever in it, might appear worthy of notice even though only a single decennary had passed away.^[13]

verses 21-22

Reuben's Incest. - As they travelled onward, Jacob pitched his tent on the other side of Migdal Eder, where Reuben committed incest with Bilhah, his father's concubine. It is merely alluded to her in the passing remark that Israel heard it, by way of preparation for Gen 49:4. Migdal Eder (flock-tower) was a watch-tower built for the protection of flocks against robbers (cf. 2Ki 18:8; 2Ch 26:10; 2Ch 27:4) on the other side of Bethlehem, but hardly within 1000 paces of the town, where it has been placed by tradition since the time of Jerome. The piska in the middle of Gen 35:22 does not indicate a gap in the text, but the conclusion of a parashah, a division of the text of greater antiquity and greater correctness than the Masoretic division.

verses 22-29

Jacob's Return to His Father's House, and Death of Isaac. - Jacob had left his father's house with no other possession than a staff, and now he returned with 12 sons. Thus had he been blessed by the faithful covenant God. To show this, the account of his arrival in his father's tent at Hebron is preceded by a list of his 12 sons, arranged according to their respective mothers; and this list is closed with the remark, “ These are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-Aram” (ילּד for ילּדוּ; Ges. §143, 1), although Benjamin, the twelfth, was not born in Padan-Aram, but on the journey back.
Jacob's arrival in “ Mamre Kirjath-Arbah,” i.e., in the terebinth-grove of Mamre (Gen 13:18) by Kirjath-Arbah or Hebron (vid., Gen 23:2), constituted his entrance into his father's house, to remain there as Isaac's heir. He had probably visited his father during the ten years that had elapsed since his return from Mesopotamia, though no allusion is made to this, since such visits would have no importance, either in themselves or their consequences, in connection with the sacred history. This was not the case, however, with his return to enter upon the family inheritance. With this, therefore, the history of Isaac's life is brought to a close. Isaac died at the age of 180, and was buried by his two sons in the cave of Machpelah (Gen 49:31), Abraham's family grave, Esau having come from Seir to Hebron to attend the funeral of his father. But Isaac's death did not actually take place for 12 years after Jacob's return to Hebron. For as Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold by his brethren (Gen 37:2), and Jacob was then living at Hebron (Gen 37:14), it cannot have been more than 31 years after his flight from Esau when Jacob returned home (cf. Gen 34:1). Now since, according to our calculation at Gen 27:1, he was 77 years old when he fled, he must have been 108 when he returned home; and Isaac would only have reached his 168th year, as he was 60 years old when Jacob was born (Gen 25:26). Consequently Isaac lived to witness the grief of Jacob at the loss of Joseph, and died but a short time before his promotion in Egypt, which occurred 13 years after he was sold (Gen 41:46), and only 10 years before Jacob's removal with his family to Egypt, as Jacob was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh (Gen 47:9). But the historical significance of his life was at an end, when Jacob returned home with his twelve sons. IX. History Of Esau - Genesis 36 “Esau and Jacob shook hands once more over the corpse of their father. Henceforth their paths diverged, to meet no more” ( Del.). As Esau had also received a divine promise (Gen 25:23), and the history of his tribe was already interwoven in the paternal blessing with that of Israel (Gen 27:29 and Gen 27:40), an account is given in the book of Genesis of his growth into a nation; and a separate section is devoted to this, which, according to the invariable plan of the book, precedes the tholedoth of Jacob. The account is subdivided into the following sections, which are distinctly indicated by their respective headings. (Compare with these the parallel list in 1 Chron 1:35-54.)

Chap. 36

verses 1-8

Esau's Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau's three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father's name as well. The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i.e., grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9. This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau's family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man's life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.g., the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri, i.e., spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau's wife? And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father's brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau's wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41). - Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz., that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8. For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz., the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz., on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.e., a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau's sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob's return. The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf. Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves. ==verses 9-14== Gen 36:9-14 (cf. 1Ch 1:36-37). Esau's Sons and Grandsons as Fathers of Tribes. - Through them he became the father of Edom, i.e., the founder of the Edomitish nation on the mountains of Seir. Mouth Seir is the mountainous region between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern half of which is called Jebâl (Γεβαλήνη) by the Arabs, the southern half, Sherah (Rob. Pal. ii. 552). - In the case of two of the wives of Esau, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in that of Aholibamah the three sons were the founders. Among the sons of Eliphaz we find Amalek, whose mother was Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz. He was the ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb as they came out of Egypt under Moses (Exo 17:8.), and not merely of a mixed tribe of Amalekites and Edomites, belonging to the supposed aboriginal Amalekite nation. For the Arabic legend of Amlik as an aboriginal tribe of Arabia is far too recent, confused, and contradictory to counterbalance the clear testimony of the record before us. The allusion to the fields of the Amalekites in Gen 14:7 does not imply that the tribe was in existence in Abraham's time, nor does the expression “first of the nations,” in the saying of Balaam (Num 24:20), represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe by which Israel was attacked. The Old Testament says nothing of any fusion of Edomites or Horites with Amalekites, nor does it mention a double Amalek (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations 2, 247ff., and Kurtz, History i. 122, 3, ii. 240ff.).^[14]
If there had been an Amalek previous to Edom, with the important part which they took in opposition to Israel even in the time of Moses, the book of Genesis would not have omitted to give their pedigree in the list of the nations. At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, having their headquarters in the southern part of the mountains of Judah, as far as Kadesh (Gen 14:7; Num 13:29; Num 14:43, Num 14:45), but, like the Bedouins, spreading themselves as a nomad tribe over the whole of the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8); whilst one branch penetrated into the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills, in what was afterwards the inheritance of Ephraim, bore the name of mountains of the Amalekites (Jdg 12:15, cf. Gen 5:14). Those who settled in Arabia seem also to have separated in the course of time into several branches, so that Amalekite hordes invaded the land of Israel in connection sometimes with the Midianites and the sons of the East (the Arabs, Jdg 6:3; Jdg 7:12), and at other times with the Ammonites (Jdg 3:13). After they had been defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:2.), and frequently chastised by David (1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1.; 2Sa 8:12), the remnant of them was exterminated under Hezekiah by the Simeonites on the mountains of Seir (1Ch 4:42-43).

verses 15-19

The Tribe-Princes Who Descended from Esau. - אלּוּפים was the distinguishing title of the Edomite and Horite phylarchs; and it is only incidentally that it is applied to Jewish heads of tribes in Zec 9:7, and Zec 12:5. It is probably derived from אלף or אלפים, equivalent to משׁפּחות, families (1Sa 10:19; Mic 5:2), - the heads of the families, i.e., of the principal divisions, of the tribe. The names of these Alluphim are not names of places, but of persons-of the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau mentioned in Gen 36:9-14; though Knobel would reverse the process and interpret the whole geographically. - In Gen 36:16 Korah has probably been copied by mistake from Gen 36:18, and should therefore be erased, as it really is in the Samar. Codex. ==verses 20-29== Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite:” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid., Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22). Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf. Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying.^[15]
Of Anah, the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc., render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg.), either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid., Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S.E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.^[16]

Verse 30

“ These are the princes of the Horites according to their princes,” i.e., as their princes were individually named in the land of Seir. ל in enumerations indicates the relation of the individual to the whole, and of the whole to the individual. ==verses 31-39== Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting. From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf. Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid., Hengstenberg, ut sup. pp. 238ff.). Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere. It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith, and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites. It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz., in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon's days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites. - Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah, a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.), is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome, quinque millibus from Petra. - Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha, nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish, but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh, near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51). This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.).^[17]
At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age. But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.), and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel. Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del.).

=verses 40-43== Gen 36:40-43 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:51-54). Seats of the Tribe-Princes of Esau According to Their Families. - That the names which follow are not a second list of Edomitish tribe-princes (viz., of those who continued the ancient constitution, with its hereditary aristocracy, after Hadar's death), but merely relate to the capital cities of the old phylarchs, is evident from the expression in the heading, “ After their places, by their names,” as compared with Gen 36:43, “ According to their habitations in the land of their possession.” This being the substance and intention of the list, there is nothing surprising in the fact, that out of the eleven names only two correspond to those given in Gen 36:15-19. This proves nothing more than that only two of the capitals received their names from the princes who captured or founded them, viz., Timnah and Kenaz. Neither of these has been discovered yet. The name Aholibamah is derived from the Horite princess (Gen 36:25); its site is unknown. Elah is the port Aila (vid., Gen 14:6). Pinon is the same as Phunon, an encampment of the Israelites (Num 33:42-43), celebrated for its mines, in which many Christians were condemned to labour under Diocletian, between Petra and Zoar, to the northeast of Wady Musa. Teman is the capital of the land of the Temanites (Gen 36:34). Mibzar is supposed by Knobel to be Petra; but this is called Selah elsewhere (2Ki 14:7). Magdiel and Iram cannot be identified. The concluding sentence, “ This is Esau, the father (founder) of Edom” (i.e., from his sprang the great nation of the Edomites, with its princes and kings, upon the mountains of Seir), not only terminates this section, but prepared the way for the history of Jacob, which commences with the following chapter. =X. History of Jacob - Genesis 37-50

Its Substance and Character

The history ( tholedoth) of Isaac commenced with the founding of his house by the birth of his sons (p. 171); but Jacob was abroad when his sons were born, and had not yet entered into undisputed possession of his inheritance. Hence his tholedoth only commence with his return to his father's tent and his entrance upon the family possessions, and merely embrace the history of his life as patriarch of the house which he founded. In this period of his life, indeed, his sons, especially Joseph and Judah, stand in the foreground, so that “Joseph might be described as the moving principle of the following history.” But for all that, Jacob remains the head of the house, and the centre around whom the whole revolves. This section is divided by the removal of Jacob to Egypt, into the period of his residence in Canaan (Gen 37-45), ), and the close of his life in Goshen (Gen 46-50). The first period is occupied with the events which prepared the way for, and eventually occasioned, his migration into Egypt. The way was prepared, directly by the sale of Joseph (Gen 37), ), indirectly by the alliance of Judah with the Canaanites (Gen 38), ), which endangered the divine call of Israel, inasmuch as this showed the necessity for a temporary removal of the sons of Israel from Canaan. The way was opened by the wonderful career of Joseph in Egypt, his elevation from slavery and imprisonment to be the ruler over the whole of Egypt (Gen 39-41). And lastly, the migration was occasioned by the famine in Canaan, which rendered it necessary for Jacob's sons to travel into Egypt to buy corn, and, whilst it led to Jacob's recovery of the son he had mourned for as dead, furnished an opportunity for Joseph to welcome his family into Egypt (Gen 42-45). The second period commences with the migration of Jacob into Egypt, and his settlement in the land of Goshen (Gen 46-47:27). It embraces the patriarch's closing years, his last instructions respecting his burial in Canaan (Gen 47:28-31), his adoption of Joseph's sons, and the blessing given to his twelve sons (Gen 49), ), and extends to his burial and Joseph's death (Gen 50).
Now if we compare this period of the patriarchal history with the previous ones, viz., those of Isaac and Abraham, it differs from them most in the absence of divine revelations-in the fact, that from the time of the patriarch's entrance upon the family inheritance to the day of his death, there was only one other occasion on which God appeared to him in a dream, viz., in Beersheba, on the border of the promised land, when he had prepared to go with his whole house into Egypt: the God of his father then promised him the increase of his seed in Egypt into a great nation, and their return to Canaan (Gen 46:2-4). This fact may be easily explained on the ground, that the end of the divine manifestations had been already attained; that in Jacob's house with his twelve sons the foundation was laid for the development of the promised nation; and that the time had come, in which the chosen family was to grow into a nation-a process for which they needed, indeed, the blessing and protection of God, but no special revelations, so long at least as this growth into a nation took its natural course. That course was not interrupted, but rather facilitated by the removal into Egypt. But as Canaan had been assigned to the patriarchs as the land of their pilgrimage, and promised to their seed for a possession after it had become a nation; when Jacob was compelled to leave this land, his faith in the promise of God might have been shaken, if God had not appeared to him as he departed, to promise him His protection in the foreign land, and assure him of the fulfilment of His promises. More than this the house of Israel did not need to know, as to the way by which God would lead them, especially as Abraham had already received a revelation from the Lord (Gen 15:13-16).
In perfect harmony with the character of the time thus commencing for Jacob-Israel, is the use of the names of God in this last section of Genesis: viz., the fact, that whilst in Gen 37 (the sale of Joseph) the name of God is not met with at all, in Gen 38 and 39 we find the name of Jehovah nine times and Elohim only once (Gen 39:9), and that in circumstances in which Jehovah would have been inadmissible; and after Gen 40:1, the name Jehovah almost entirely disappears, occurring only once in Gen 40-50 (Gen 49:18, where Jacob uses it), whereas Elohim is used eighteen times and Ha-Elohim seven, not to mention such expressions as “your God” (Gen 43:23), or “the God of his, or your father” (Gen 46:1, Gen 46:3). So long as the attention is confined to this numerical proportion of Jehovah, and Elohim or Ha- Elohim, it must remain “a difficult enigma.” But when we look at the way in which these names are employed, we find the actual fact to be, that in Gen 38 and 39 the writer mentions God nine times, and calls Him Jehovah, and that in Gen 40-50 he only mentions God twice, and then calls Him Elohim (Gen 46:1-2), although the God of salvation, i.e., Jehovah, is intended. In every other instance in which God is referred to in Gen 40-50, , it is always by the persons concerned: either Pharaoh (Gen 41:38-39), or Joseph and his brethren (Gen 40:8; Gen 41:16, Gen 41:51-52, etc., Elohim; and Gen 41:25, Gen 41:28, Gen 41:32, etc., Ha-Elohim), or by Jacob (Gen 48:11, Gen 48:20-21, Elohim). Now the circumstance that the historian speaks of God nine times in Gen 38-39 and only twice in Gen 40-50 is explained by the substance of the history, which furnished no particular occasion for this in the last eleven chapters. But the reason why he does not name Jehovah in Gen 40-50 as in Gen 38-39, , but speaks of the “God of his (Jacob's) father Isaac,” in Gen 41:1, and directly afterwards of Elohim (Gen 41:2), could hardly be that the periphrasis “the God of his father” seemed more appropriate than the simple name Jehovah, since Jacob offered sacrifice at Beersheba to the God who appeared to his father, and to whom Isaac built an altar there, and this God ( Elohim) then appeared to him in a dream and renewed the promise of his fathers. As the historian uses a periphrasis of the name Jehovah, to point out the internal connection between what Jacob did and experienced at Beersheba and what his father experienced there; so Jacob also, both in the blessing with which he sends his sons the second time to Egypt (Gen 43:14) and at the adoption of Joseph's sons (Gen 48:3), uses the name El Shaddai, and in his blessings on Joseph's sons (Gen 43:15) and on Joseph himself (Gen 49:24-25) employs rhetorical periphrases for the name Jehovah, because Jehovah had manifested Himself not only to him (Gen 35:11-12), but also to his fathers Abraham and Isaac (Gen 17:1 and Gen 28:3) as El Shaddai, and had proved Himself to be the Almighty, “the God who fed him,” “the Mighty One of Jacob,” “the Shepherd and Rock of Israel.” In these set discourses the titles of God here mentioned were unquestionably more significant and impressive than the simple name Jehovah. and when Jacob speaks of Elohim only, not of Jehovah, in Gen 48:11, Gen 48:20-21, the Elohim in Gen 48:11 and Gen 48:21 may be easily explained from the antithesis of Jacob to both man and God, and in Gen 48:20 from the words themselves, which contain a common and, so to speak, a stereotyped saying. Wherever the thought required the name Jehovah as the only appropriate one, there Jacob used this name, as Gen 49:18 will prove. But that name would have been quit unsuitable in the mouth of Pharaoh in Gen 41:38-39, in the address of Joseph to the prisoners (Gen 40:8) and to Pharaoh (Gen 41:16, Gen 41:25, Gen 41:28, Gen 41:32), and in his conversation with his brethren before he made himself known (Gen 42:18; Gen 43:29), and also in the appeal of Judah to Joseph as an unknown Egyptian officer of state (Gen 44:16). In the meantime the brethren of Joseph also speak to one another of Elohim (Gen 43:28); and Joseph not only sees in the birth of his sons merely a gift of Elohim (Gen 41:51-52; Gen 48:9), but in the solemn moment in which he makes himself known to his brethren (Gen 45:5-9) he speaks of Elohim alone: “ Elohim did send me before you to preserve life” (Gen 41:5); and even upon his death-bed he says, “I die, and Elohim will surely visit you and bring you out of this land” (Gen 50:24-25). But the reason of this is not difficult to discover, and is no other than the following: Joseph, like his brethren, did not clearly discern the ways of the Lord in the wonderful changes of his life; and his brethren, though they felt that the trouble into which they were brought before the unknown ruler of Egypt was a just punishment from God for their crime against Joseph, did not perceive that by the sale of their brother they had sinned not only against Elohim (God the Creator and Judge of men), but against Jehovah the covenant God of their father. They had not only sold their brother, but in their brother they had cast out a member of the seed promised and given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the fellowship of the chosen family, and sinned against the God of salvation and His promises. But this aspect of their crime was still hidden from them, so that they could not speak of Jehovah. In the same way, Joseph regarded the wonderful course of his life as a divine arrangement for the preservation or rescue of his family, and he was so far acquainted with the promises of God, that he regarded it as a certainty, that Israel would be led out of Egypt, especially after the last wish expressed by Jacob. But this did not involve so full and clear an insight into the ways of Jehovah, as to lead Joseph to recognise in his own career a special appointment of the covenant God, and to describe it as a gracious work of Jehovah.^[18]
The disappearance of the name Jehovah, therefore, is to be explained, partly from the fact that previous revelations and acts of grace had given rise to other phrases expressive of the idea of Jehovah, which not only served as substitutes for this name of the covenant God, but in certain circumstances were much more appropriate; and partly from the fact that the sons of Jacob, including Joseph, did not so distinctly recognise in their course the saving guidance of the covenant God, as to be able to describe it as the work of Jehovah. This imperfect insight, however, is intimately connected with the fact that the direct revelations of God had ceased; and that Joseph, although chosen by God to be the preserver of the house of Israel and the instrument in accomplishing His plans of salvation, was separated at a very early period from the fellowship of his father's house, and formally naturalized in Egypt, and though endowed with the supernatural power to interpret dreams, was not favoured, as Daniel afterwards was in the Chaldaean court, with visions or revelations of God. Consequently we cannot place Joseph on a level with the three patriarchs, nor assent to the statement, that “as the noblest blossom of the patriarchal life is seen in Joseph, as in him the whole meaning of the patriarchal life is summed up and fulfilled, so in Christ we see the perfect blossom and sole fulfilment of the whole of the Old Testament dispensation” (Kurtz, Old Covenant ii. 95), as being either correct or scriptural, so far as the first portion is concerned. For Joseph was not a medium of salvation in the same way as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He was indeed a benefactor, not only to his brethren and the whole house of Israel, but also to the Egyptians; but salvation, i.e., spiritual help and culture, he neither brought to the Gentiles nor to the house of Israel. In Jacob's blessing he is endowed with the richest inheritance of the first-born in earthly things; but salvation is to reach the nations through Judah. We may therefore without hesitation look upon the history of Joseph as a “type of the pathway of the Church, not of Jehovah only, but also of Christ, from lowliness to exaltation, from slavery to liberty, from suffering to glory” ( Delitzsch); we may also, so far as the history of Israel is a type of the history of Christ and His Church, regard the life of Joseph, as believing commentators of all centuries have done, as a type of the life of Christ, and use these typical traits as aids to progress in the knowledge of salvation; but that we may not be seduced into typological trifling, we must not overlook the fact, that neither Joseph nor his career is represented, either by the prophets or by Christ and His apostles, as typical of Christ, - in anything like the same way, for example, as the guidance of Israel into and out of Egypt (Hos 11:1 cf. Mat 2:15), and other events and persons in the history of Israel.

Chap. 37

verses 1-2

The statement in Gen 37:1, which introduces the tholedoth of Jacob, “ And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father's pilgrimage, in the land of Canaan,” implies that Jacob had now entered upon his father's inheritance, and carries on the patriarchal pilgrim-life in Canaan, the further development of which was determined by the wonderful career of Joseph. This strange and eventful career of Joseph commenced when he was 17 years old. The notice of his age at the commencement of the narrative which follows, is introduced with reference to the principal topic in it, viz., the sale of Joseph, which was to prepare the way, according to the wonderful counsel of God, for the fulfilment of the divine revelation to Abraham respecting the future history of his seed (Gen 15:13.). While feeding the flock with his brethren, and, as he was young, with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, who were nearer his age than the sons of Leah, he brought an evil report of them to his father (רעה intentionally indefinite, connected with דּבּתם without an article). The words נער והוּא, “ and he a lad,” are subordinate to the main clause: they are not to be rendered, however, “he was a lad with the sons,” but, “as he was young, he fed the flock with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.”

verses 3-4

“ Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his (other) sons, because he was born in his old age,” as the first-fruits of the beloved Rachel (Benjamin was hardly a year old at this time). And he made him פּסּים כּתנת: a long coat with sleeves (χιτὼν ἀστραγάλειος, Aqu., or ἀστραγαλωτός, lxx at 2Sa 13:18, tunica talaris, Vulg. ad Sam.), i.e., an upper coat reaching to the wrists and ankles, such as noblemen and kings' daughters wore, not “a coat of many colours” (“ bunter Rock,” as Luther renders it, from the χιτῶνα ποικίλον, tunicam polymitam, of the lxx and Vulgate). This partiality made Joseph hated by his brethren; so that they could not “ speak peaceably unto him,” i.e., ask him how he was, offer him the usual salutation, “Peace be with thee.”

verses 5-11

This hatred was increased when Joseph told them of two dreams that he had had: viz., that as they were binding sheaves in the field, his sheaf “stood and remained standing,” but their sheaves placed themselves round it and bowed down to it; and that the sun (his father), and the moon (his mother, “not Leah, but Rachel, who was neither forgotten nor lost”), and eleven stars (his eleven brethren) bowed down before him. These dreams pointed in an unmistakeable way to the supremacy of Joseph; the first to supremacy over his brethren, the second over the whole house of Israel. The repetition seemed to establish the thing as certain (cf. Gen 41:32); so that not only did his brethren hate him still more “ on account of his dreams and words” (Gen 37:8), i.e., the substance of the dreams and the open interpretation of them, and become jealous and envious, but his father gave him a sharp reproof for the second, though he preserved the matter, i.e., retained it in his memory (שׁמר lxx διετήρησε, cf. συνετήρει, Luk 2:19). The brothers with their ill-will could not see anything in the creams but the suggestions of his own ambition and pride of heart; and even the father, notwithstanding his partiality, was grieved by the second dream. The dreams are not represented as divine revelations; yet they are not to be regarded as pure flights of fancy from an ambitious heart, but as the presentiments of deep inward feelings, which were not produced without some divine influence being exerted upon Joseph's mind, and therefore were of prophetic significance, though they were not inspired directly by God, inasmuch as the purposes of God were still to remain hidden from the eyes of men for the saving good of all concerned.

verses 12-20

In a short time the hatred of Joseph's brethren grew into a crime. On one occasion, when they were feeding their flock at a distance from Hebron, in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Nablus, in the plain of Mukhnah), and Joseph who was sent thither by Jacob to inquire as to the welfare ( shalom, valetudo) of the brethren and their flocks, followed them to Dothain or Dothan, a place 12 Roman miles to the north of Samaria ( Sebaste), towards the plain of Jezreel, they formed the malicious resolution to put him, “this dreamer,” to death, and throw him into one of the pits, i.e., cisterns, and then to tell (his father) that a wild beast had slain him, and so to bring his dreams to nought. ==verses 21-24== Gen 37:21-24 Reuben, who was the eldest son, and therefore specially responsible for his younger brother, opposed this murderous proposal. He dissuaded his brethren from killing Joseph (נפשׁ פ הכּה ), and advised them to throw him “ into this pit in the desert,” i.e., into a dry pit that was near. As Joseph would inevitably perish even in that pit, their malice was satisfied; but Reuben intended to take Joseph out again, and restore him to his father. As soon, therefore, as Joseph arrived, they took off his coat with sleeves and threw him into the pit, which happened to be dry.

verses 25-28

Reuben had saved Joseph's life indeed by his proposal; but his intention to send him back to his father was frustrated. For as soon as the brethren sat down to eat, after the deed was performed, they saw a company of Ishmaelites from Gilead coming along the road which leads from Beisan past Jenin (Rob. Pal. iii. 155) and through the plain of Dothan to the great caravan road that runs from Damascus by Lejun ( Legio, Megiddo), Ramleh, and Gaza to Egypt (Rob. iii. 27, 178). The caravan drew near, laden with spices: viz., נכאת, gum-tragacanth; צרי, balsam, for which Gilead was celebrated (Gen 43:11; Jer 8:22; Jer 46:11); and לט, ladanum, the fragrant resin of the cistus-rose. Judah seized the opportunity to propose to his brethren to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. “ What profit have we,” he said, “that we slay our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites; and our hand, let it not lay hold of him (sc., to slay him), for he is our brother, our flesh.” Reuben wished to deliver Joseph entirely from his brothers' malice. Judah also wished to save his life, though not from brotherly love so much as from the feeling of horror, which was not quite extinct within him, at incurring the guilt of fratricide; but he would still like to get rid of him, that his dreams might not come true. Judah, like his brethren, was probably afraid that their father might confer upon Joseph the rights of the first-born, and so make him lord over them. His proposal was a welcome one. When the Arabs passed by, the brethren fetched Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, who took him into Egypt. The different names given to the traders - viz., Ishmaelites (Gen 37:25, Gen 37:27, and Gen 37:28), Midianites ( Gen 37:28), and Medanites (Gen 37:36) - do not show that the account has been drawn from different legends, but that these tribes were often confounded, from the fact that they resembled one another so closely, not only in their common descent from Abraham (Gen 16:15 and Gen 25:2), but also in the similarity of their mode of life and their constant change of abode, that strangers could hardly distinguish them, especially when they appeared not as tribes but as Arabian merchants, such as they are here described as being: “ Midianitish men, merchants.” That descendants of Abraham should already be met with in this capacity is by no means strange, if we consider that 150 years had passed by since Ishmael's dismissal from his father's house, - a period amply sufficient for his descendants to have grown through marriage into a respectable tribe. The price, “ twenty (sc., shekels) of silver,” was the price which Moses afterwards fixed as the value of a boy between 5 and 20 (Lev 27:5), the average price of a slave being 30 shekels (Exo 21:32). But the Ishmaelites naturally wanted to make money by the transaction.

verses 29-35

The business was settled in Reuben's absence; probably because his brethren suspected that he intended to rescue Joseph. When he came to the pit and found Joseph gone, he rent his clothes (a sign of intense grief on the part of the natural man) and exclaimed: “ The boy is no more, and I, whither shall I go!” - how shall I account to his father for his disappearance! But the brothers were at no loss; they dipped Joseph's coat in the blood of a goat and sent it to his father, with the message, “ We have found this; see whether it is thy son's coat or not.” Jacob recognised the coat at once, and mourned bitterly in mourning clothes (שׂק) for his son, whom he supposed to have been devoured and destroyed by a wild beast (טרף טרף inf. abs. of Kal before Pual, as an indication of undoubted certainty), and refused all comfort from his children, saying, “ No (כּי immo, elliptical: Do not attempt to comfort me, for) I will go down mourning into Sheol to my son.” Sheol denotes the place where departed souls are gathered after death; it is an infinitive form from שׁאל to demand, the demanding, applied to the place which inexorably summons all men into its shade (cf. Pro 30:15-16; Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5). How should his sons comfort him, when they were obliged to cover their wickedness with the sin of lying and hypocrisy, and when even Reuben, although at first beside himself at the failure of his plan, had not courage enough to disclose his brothers' crime?

Verse 36

But Joseph, while his father was mourning, was sold by the Midianites to Potiphar, the chief of Pharaoh's trabantes, to be first of all brought low, according to the wonderful counsel of God, and then to be exalted as ruler in Egypt, before whom his brethren would bow down, and as the saviour of the house of Israel. The name Potiphar is a contraction of Poti Pherah (Gen 41:50); the lxx render both Πετεφρής or Πετεφρῆ (vid., Gen 41:50). סריס (eunuch) is used here, as in 1Sa 8:15 and in most of the passages of the Old Testament, for courtier or chamberlain, without regard to the primary meaning, as Potiphar was married. “ Captain of the guard” (lit., captain of the slaughterers, i.e., the executioners), commanding officer of the royal body-guard, who executed the capital sentences ordered by the king, as was also the case with the Chaldeans (2Ki 25:8; Jer 39:9; Jer 52:12. See my Commentary on the Books of Kings, vol. i. pp. 35, 36, Eng. Tr.).

Chap. 38

Verse 1

Judah's Marriage and Children

His Incest with Thamar - Genesis 38
The following sketch from the life of Judah is intended to point out the origin of the three leading families of the future princely tribe in Israel, and at the same time to show in what danger the sons of Jacob would have been of forgetting the sacred vocation of their race, through marriages with Canaanitish women, and of perishing in the sin of Canaan, if the mercy of God had not interposed, and by leading Joseph into Egypt prepared the way for the removal of the whole house of Jacob into that land, and thus protected the family, just as it was expanding into a nation, from the corrupting influence of the manners and customs of Canaan. This being the intention of the narrative, it is no episode or interpolation, but an integral part of the early history of Israel, which is woven here into the history of Jacob, because the events occurred subsequently to the sale of Joseph.
About this time, i.e., after the sale of Joseph, while still feeding the flocks of Jacob along with his brethren (Gen 37:26),^[19]
Judah separated from them, and went down (from Hebron, Gen 37:14, or the mountains) to Adullam, in the lowland (Jos 15:35), into the neighbourhood of a man named Hirah. “ He pitched (his tent, Gen 26:25) up to a man of Adullam,” i.e., in his neighbourhood, so as to enter into friendly intercourse with him.

verses 2-5

There Judah married the daughter of Shuah, a Canaanite, and had three sons by her: Ger (ער), Onan, and Shelah. The name of the place is mentioned when the last is born, viz., Chezib or Achzib (Jos 15:44; Mic 1:14), in the southern portion of the lowland of Judah, that the descendants of Shelah might know the birth-place of their ancestor. This was unnecessary in the case of the others, who died childless.

verses 6-10

When Ger was grown up, according to ancient custom (cf. Gen 21:21; Gen 34:4) his father gave him a wife, named Thamar, probably a Canaanite, of unknown parentage. But Ger was soon put to death by Jehovah on account of his wickedness. Judah then wished Onan, as the brother-in-law, to marry the childless widow of his deceased brother, and raise up seed, i.e., a family, for him. But as he knew that the first-born son would not be the founder of his own family, but would perpetuate the family of the deceased and receive his inheritance, he prevented conception when consummating the marriage by spilling the semen. ארצה שׁחת, “destroyed to the ground (i.e., let it fall upon the ground), so as not to give seed to his brother” (נתן for תּת only here and Num 20:21). This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death. The custom of levirate marriage, which is first mentioned here, and is found in different forms among Indians, Persians, and other nations of Asia and Africa, was not founded upon a divine command, but upon an ancient tradition, originating probably in Chaldea. It was not abolished, however, by the Mosaic law (Deu 25:5.), but only so far restricted as not to allow it to interfere with the sanctity of marriage; and with this limitation it was enjoined as a duty of affection to build up the brother's house, and to preserve his family and name (see my Bibl. Archäologie, §108).

Verse 11

The sudden death of his two sons so soon after their marriage with Thamar made Judah hesitate to give her the third as a husband also, thinking, very likely, according to a superstition which we find in Tobit 3:7ff., that either she herself, or marriage with her, had been the cause of her husbands' deaths. He therefore sent her away to her father's house, with the promise that he would give her his youngest son as soon as he had grown up; though he never intended it seriously, “ for he thought lest (פּן אמר, i.e., he was afraid that) he also might die like his brethren.”
But when Thamar, after waiting a long time, saw that Shelah had grown up and yet was not given to her as a husband, she determined to procure children from Judah himself, who had become a widower in the meantime; and his going to Timnath to the sheep-shearing afforded her a good opportunity. The time mentioned (“the days multiplied,” i.e., a long time passed by) refers not to the statement which follows, that Judah's wife died, but rather to the leading thought of the verse, viz., Judah's going to the sheep-shearing. ויּנּחם: he comforted himself, i.e., he ceased to mourn. Timnath is not the border town of Dan and Judah between Beth-shemesh and Ekron in the plain (Jos 15:10; Jos 19:43), but Timnah on the mountains of Judah (Jos 15:57, cf. Rob. Pal. ii. 343, note), as the expression “ went up” shows. The sheep-shearing was a fête with shepherds, and was kept with great feasting. Judah therefore took his friend Hirah with him; a fact noticed in Gen 38:12 in relation to what follows.

verses 13-14

As soon as Thamar heard of Judah's going to this feast, she took off her widow's clothes, put on a veil, and sat down, disguised as a harlot, by the gate of Enayim, where Judah would be sure to pass on his return from Timnath. Enayim was no doubt the same as Enam in the lowland of Judah (Jos 15:34).

verses 15-18

When Judah saw her here and took her for a harlot, he made her an offer, and gave her his signet-ring, with the band (פּתיל) by which it was hung round his neck, and his staff, as a pledge of the young buck-goat which he offered her. They were both objects of value, and were regarded as ornaments in the East, as Herodotus (i. 195) has shown with regard to the Babylonians (see my Bibl. Arch. 2, 48). He then lay with her, and she became pregnant by him.

verses 19-21

After this had occurred, Thamar laid aside her veil, put on her widow's dress again, and returned home. When Judah, therefore, sent the kid by his friend Hirah to the supposed harlot for the purpose of redeeming his pledges, he could not find her, and was told, on inquiring of the inhabitants of Enayim, that there was no קדשׁה there. הקּדשׁה: lit., “the consecrated,” i.e., the hierodule, a woman sacred to Astarte, a goddess of the Canaanites, the deification of the generative and productive principle of nature; one who served this goddess by prostitution (vid., Deu 23:18). This was no doubt regarded as the most respectable designation for public prostitutes in Canaan.

verses 22-23

When his friend returned with the kid and reported his want of success, Judah resolved to leave his pledges with the girl, that he might not expose himself to the ridicule of the people by any further inquiries, since he had done his part towards keeping his promise. “ Let her take them (i.e., keep the signet-ring and staff) for herself, that we may not become a (an object of) ridicule.” The pledges were unquestionably of more value than a young he-goat.

verses 24-26

About three months afterwards (משׁלשׁ prob. for משּׁלשׁ with the prefix )מ Judah was informed that Thamar had played the harlot and was certainly (הנּה) with child. He immediately ordered, by virtue of his authority as head of the tribe, that she should be brought out and burned. Thamar was regarded as the affianced bride of Shelah, and was to be punished as a bride convicted of a breach of chastity. But the Mosaic law enjoined stoning in the case of those who were affianced and broke their promise, or of newly married women who were found to have been dishonoured (Deu 22:20-21, Deu 22:23-24); and it was only in the case of the whoredom of a priest's daughter, or of carnal intercourse with a mother or a daughter, that the punishment of burning was enjoined (Lev 21:9 and Lev 20:14). Judah's sentence, therefore, was more harsh than the subsequent law; whether according to patriarchal custom, or on other grounds, cannot be determined. When Thamar was brought out, she sent to Judah the things which she had kept as a pledge, with this message: “ By a man to whom these belong am I with child: look carefully therefore to whom this signet-ring, and band, and stick belong.” Judah recognised the things as his own, and was obliged to confess, “ She is more in the right than I; for therefore (sc., that this might happen to me, or that it might turn out so; on כּי־על־כּן see Gen 18:5) have I not given her to my son Shelah.” In passing sentence upon Thamar, Judah had condemned himself. His son, however, did not consist merely in his having given way to his lusts so afar as to lie with a supposed public prostitute of Canaan, but still more in the fact, that by breaking his promise to give her his son Shelah as her husband, he had caused his daughter-in-law to practise this deception upon him, just because in his heart he blamed her for the early and sudden deaths of his elder sons, whereas the real cause of the deaths which had so grieved his paternal heart was the wickedness of the sons themselves, the mainspring of which was to be found in his own marriage with a Canaanite in violation of the patriarchal call. And even if the sons of Jacob were not unconditionally prohibited from marrying the daughters of Canaanites, Judah's marriage at any rate had borne such fruit in his sons Ger and Onan, as Jehovah the covenant God was compelled to reject. But if Judah, instead of recognising the hand of the Lord in the sudden death of his sons, traced the cause to Thamar, and determined to keep her as a childless widow all her life long, not only in opposition to the traditional custom, but also in opposition to the will of God as expressed in His promises of a numerous increase of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Thamar had by no means acted rightly in the stratagem by which she frustrated his plan, and sought to procure from Judah himself the seed of which he was unjustly depriving her, though her act might be less criminal than Judah's. For it is evident from the whole account, that she was not driven to her sin by lust, but by the innate desire for children (ὅτι δὲ παιδοποΐ́ιας χάριν, καὶ οὐ φιληδονίας τοῦτο ὁ Θάμαρ ἐμηχανήσατο, - Theodoret); and for that reason she was more in the right than Judah. Judah himself, however, not only saw his guilt, but he confessed it also; and showed both by this confession, and also by the fact that he had no further conjugal intercourse with Thamar, an earnest endeavour to conquer the lusts of the flesh, and to guard against the sin into which he had fallen. And because he thus humbled himself, God gave him grace, and not only exalted him to be the chief of the house of Israel, but blessed the children that were begotten in sin.

verses 27-28

Thamar brought forth twins; and a circumstance occurred at the birth, which does occasionally happen when the children lie in an abnormal position, and always impedes the delivery, and which was regarded in this instance as so significant that the names of the children were founded upon the fact. At the birth ויּתּן־יד “ there was a hand,” i.e., a hand came out (יתּן as in Job 37:10; Pro 13:10), round which the midwife tied a scarlet thread, to mark this as the first-born.

verses 29-30

“ And it came to pass, when it (the child) drew back its hand (כּמשׁיב for משׁיב כּהיות as in Gen 40:10), behold its brother came out. Then she (the midwife) said, What a breach hast thou made for thy part? Upon thee the breach;” i.e., thou bearest the blame of the breach. פּרץ signifies not rupturam perinoei, but breaking through by pressing forward. From that he received the name of Perez (breach, breaker through). Then the other one with the scarlet thread came into the world, and was named Zerah (זרח exit, rising), because he sought to appear first, whereas in fact Perez was the first-born, and is even placed before Zerah in the lists in Gen 46:12; Num 26:20. Perez was the ancestor of the tribe-prince Nahshon (Num 2:3), and of king David also (Rth 4:18.; 1Ch 2:5.). Through him, therefore, Thamar has a place as one of the female ancestors in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.

Chap. 39

verses 1-5

In Potiphar's House. - Potiphar had bought him of the Ishmaelites, as is repeated in Gen 39:1 for the purpose of resuming the thread of the narrative; and Jehovah was with him, so that the prospered in the house of his Egyptian master. מצליח אישׁ: a man who has prosperity, to whom God causes all that he undertakes and does to prosper. When Potiphar perceived this, Joseph found favour in his eyes, and became his servant, whom he placed over his house (made manager of his household affairs), and to whom he entrusted all his property (כּל־ישׁ־לו Gen 39:4 = ישׁ־לו כּל־אשׁר Gen 39:5, Gen 39:6). This confidence in Joseph increased, when he perceived how the blessing of Jehovah (Joseph's God) rested upon his property in the house and in the field; so that now “ he left to Joseph everything that he had, and did not trouble himself אתּו (with or near him) about anything but his own eating.”

verses 6-9

Joseph was handsome in form and feature; and Potiphar's wife set her eyes upon the handsome young man, and tried to persuade him to lie with her. But Joseph resisted the adulterous proposal, referring to the unlimited confidence which his master had placed in him. He (Potiphar) was not greater in that house than he, and had given everything over to him except her, because she was his wife. “How could he so abuse this confidence, as to do this great wickedness and sin against God!”

verses 10-12

But after she had repeated her enticements day after day without success, “ it came to pass at that time (הזּה כּהיּום for the more usual הזּה כּיּום (Gen 50:20), lit., about this day, i.e., the day in the writer's mind, on which the thing to be narrated occurred) that Joseph came into his house to attend to his duties, and there were none of the house-servants within.” And she laid hold of him by his garment and entreated him to lie with her; but he left his garment in her hand and fled from the house.

verses 13-18

When this daring assault upon Joseph's chastity had failed, on account of his faithfulness and fear of God, the adulterous woman reversed the whole affair, and charged him with an attack upon her modesty, in order that she might have her revenge upon him and avert suspicion from herself. She called her house-servants and said, “ See, he (her husband, whom she does not think worth naming) has brought us a Hebrew man (“no epitheton ornans to Egyptian ears: Gen 43:32”) to mock us (צחק to show his wantonness; us, the wife and servants, especially the female portion): he came in unto me to lie with me; and I cried with a loud voice...and he left his garment by me.” She said אצלי “by my side,” not “in my hand,” as that would have shown the true state of the case. She then left the garment lying by her side till the return of Joseph's master, to whom she repeated her tale.

verses 19-20

Joseph in Prison. - Potiphar was enraged at what he heard, and put Joseph into the prison where (אשׁר for שׁם אשׁר, Gen 40:3 like Gen 35:13) the king's prisoners (state-prisoners) were confined. הסּהר בּית: lit., the house of enclosure, from סהר, to surround or enclose (ὀχύρωμα, lxx); the state-prison surrounded by a wall. This was a very moderate punishment. For according to Diod. Sic. (i. 78) the laws of the Egyptians were πικροὶ περὶ τῶν γυναιῶν νόμοι. An attempt at adultery was to be punished with 1000 blows, and rape upon a free woman still more severely. It is possible that Potiphar was not fully convinced of his wife's chastity, and therefore did not place unlimited credence in what she said.^[20]
But even in that case it was the mercy of the faithful covenant God, which now as before (Gen 37:20.) rescued Joseph's life.

verses 21-23

In the prison itself Jehovah was with Joseph, procuring him favour in the eyes of the governor of the prison, so that he entrusted all the prisoners to his care, leaving everything that they had to do, to be done through him, and not troubling himself about anything that was in his hand, i.e., was committed to him, because Jehovah made all that he did to prosper. “ The keeper” was the governor of the prison, or superintendent of the gaolers, and was under Potiphar, the captain of the trabantes and chief of the executioners (Gen 37:36).

Chap. 40

verses 1-4

The head cup-bearer and head baker had committed crimes against the king of Egypt, and were imprisoned in “ the prison of the house of the captain of the trabantes, the prison where Joseph himself was confined;” the state-prison, according to Eastern custom, forming part of the same building as the dwelling-house of the chief of the executioners. From a regard to the exalted position of these two prisoners, Potiphar ordered Joseph to wait upon them, not to keep watch over them; for את פּקד does not mean to appoint as guard, but to place by the side of a person.

verses 5-7

After some time (“days,” Gen 40:4, as in Gen 4:3), and on the same night, these two prisoners had each a peculiar dream, “ each one according to the interpretation of his dream;” i.e., each one had a dream corresponding to the interpretation which specially applied to him. On account of these dreams, which seemed to them to have some bearing upon their fate, and, as the issue proved, were really true omens of it, Joseph found them the next morning looking anxious, and asked them the reason of the trouble which was depicted upon their countenances.

Verse 8

On their replying that they had dreamed, and there was no one to interpret the dream, Joseph reminded them first of all that “interpretations are God's,” come from God, are His gift; at the same time he bade them tell him their dreams, from a consciousness, no doubt, that he was endowed with this divine gift.

verses 9-11

The cup-bearer gave this account: “ In my dream, behold there was a vine before me, and on the vine three branches; and it was as though blossoming, it shot forth its blossom (נצּהּ either from the hapax l. נץ = נצּה, or from נצּה with the fem. termination resolved into the 3 pers. suff.: Ewald, §257 d), its clusters ripened into grapes. And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.” In this dream the office and duty of the royal cup-bearer were represented in an unmistakeable manner, though the particular details must not be so forced as to lead to the conclusion, that the kings of ancient Egypt drank only the fresh juice of the grape, and not fermented wine as well. The cultivation of the vine, and the making and drinking of wine, among the Egyptians, are established beyond question by ancient testimony and the earliest monuments, notwithstanding the statement of Herodotus (2, 77) to the contrary (see Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 13ff.).

verses 12-15

Joseph then gave this interpretation: The three branches were three days, in which time Pharaoh would restore him to his post again (“lift up his head,” i.e., raise him from his degradation, send and fetch him from prison, 2Ki 25:27). And he added this request (Gen 40:14): “ Only think of me, as it goes well with thee, and show favour to me...for I was stolen (i.e., carried away secretly and by force; I did not abscond because of any crime) out of the land of the Hebrews (the land where the Ibrim live); and here also I have done nothing (committed no crime) for which they should put me into the hole.” בּור: the cell, applied to a prison as a miserable hole, because often dry cess-pools were used as prisons.

verses 16-19

Encouraged by this favourable interpretation, the chief baker also told his dream: “ I too,...in my dream: behold, baskets of white bread upon my head, and in the top basket all kinds of food for Pharaoh, pastry; and the birds ate it out of the basket from my head.” In this dream, the carrying of the baskets upon the head is thoroughly Egyptian; for, according to Herod. 2, 35, the men in Egypt carry burdens upon the head, the women upon the shoulders. And, according to the monuments, the variety of confectionary was very extensive (cf. Hengst. p. 27). In the opening words, “ I too,” the baker points to the resemblance between his dream and the cup-bearer's. The resemblance was not confined to the sameness of the numbers-three baskets of white bread, and three branches of the vine-but was also seen in the fact that his official duty at the court was represented in the dream. But instead of Pharaoh taking the bread from his hand, the birds of heaven ate it out of the basket upon his head. And Joseph gave this interpretation: “ The three baskets signify three days: within that time Pharaoh will take away thy head from thee (“lift up thy head,” as in Gen 40:13, but with מעליך “away from thee,” i.e., behead thee), and hang thee on the stake (thy body after execution; vid., Deu 21:22-23), and the birds will eat thy flesh from off thee.” However simple and close this interpretation of the two dreams may appear, the exact accordance with the fulfilment was a miracle wrought by God, and showed that as the dreams originated in the instigation of God, the interpretation was His inspiration also.

verses 20-22

Joseph's interpretations were fulfilled three days afterwards, on the king's birth-day. הלּדת יום: the day of being born; the inf. Hoph. is construed as a passive with the accus. obj., as in Gen 4:18, etc. Pharaoh gave his servants a feast, and lifted up the heads of both the prisoners, but in very different ways. The cup-bearer was pardoned, and reinstated in his office; the baker, on the other hand, was executed.

Verse 23

But the former forgot Joseph in his prosperity, and did nothing to procure his liberation.

Chap. 41

verses 1-6

Pharaoh's Dreams and Their Interpretation. - Two full years afterwards (ימים accus. “in days,” as in Gen 29:14) Pharaoh had a dream. He was standing by the Nile, and saw seven fine fat cows ascend from the Nile and feed in the Nile-grass (אחוּ an Egyptian word); and behind them seven others, ugly (according to Gen 41:19, unparalleled in their ugliness), lean (בּשׂר דּקּות “thin in flesh,” for which we find in Gen 41:19 דּלּות “fallen away,” and בּשׂר רקּות withered in flesh, fleshless), which placed themselves beside those fat ones on the brink of the Nile and devoured them, without there being any effect to show that they had eaten them. He then awoke, but fell asleep again and had a second, similar dream: seven fat (Gen 41:22, full) and fine ears grew upon one blade, and were swallowed up by seven thin (Gen 41:23, “and hardened”) ones, which were blasted by the east wind (קדים i.e., the S.E. wind, Chamsin, from the desert of Arabia).

Verse 7

“ Then Pharaoh awoke, and behold it was a dream.” The dream was so like reality, that in was only when he woke that he perceived it was a dream.

Verse 8

Being troubled about this double dream, Pharaoh sent the next morning for all the scribes and wise men of Egypt, to have it interpreted. חרטתּים, from חרט a stylus (pencil), and the ίερογραμματεῖς, men of the priestly caste, who occupied themselves with the sacred arts and sciences of the Egyptians, the hieroglyphic writings, astrology, the interpretation of dreams, the foretelling of events, magic, and conjuring, and who were regarded as the possessors of secret arts (vid., Exo 7:11) and the wise men of the nation. But not one of these could interpret it, although the clue to the interpretation was to be found in the religious symbols of Egypt. For the cow was the symbol of Isis, the goddess of the all-sustaining earth, and in the hieroglyphics it represented the earth, agriculture, and food; and the Nile, by its overflowing, was the source of the fertility of the land. But however simple the explanation of the fat and lean cows ascending out of the Nile appears to be, it is “the fate of the wisdom of this world, that where it suffices it is compelled to be silent. For it belongs to the government of God to close the lips of the eloquent, and take away the understanding of the aged (Job 12:20).” Baumgarten.

verses 9-13

In this dilemma the head cup-bearer thought of Joseph; and calling to mind his offence against the king (Gen 40:1), and his ingratitude to Joseph (Gen 40:23), he related to the king how Joseph had explained their dreams to him and the chief baker in the prison, and how entirely the interpretation had come true.

verses 14-36

Pharaoh immediately sent for Joseph. As quickly as possible he was fetched from the prison; and after shaving the hair of his head and beard, and changing his clothes, as the customs of Egypt required (see Hengst. Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 30), he went in to the king. On the king's saying to him, “ I have heard of thee (עליך de te), thou hearest a dream to interpret it,” - i.e., thou only needest to hear a dream, and thou canst at once interpret it - Joseph replied, “ Not I (בּלעדי, lit., “not so far as me,” this is not in my power, vid., Gen 14:24), God will answer Pharaoh's good,” i.e., what shall profit Pharaoh; just as in Gen 40:8 he had pointed the two prisoners away from himself to God. Pharaoh then related his double dream (Gen 41:17-24), and Joseph gave the interpretation (Gen 41:25-32): “ The dream of Pharaoh is one (i.e., the two dreams have the same meaning); God hath showed Pharaoh what He is about to do.” The seven cows and seven ears of corn were seven years, the fat ones very fertile years of superabundance, the lean ones very barren years of famine; the latter would follow the former over the whole land of Egypt, so that the years of famine would leave no trace of the seven fruitful years; and, “ for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice” (i.e., so far as this fact is concerned, it signifies) “ that the thing is firmly resolved by God, and God will quickly carry it out.” In the confidence of this interpretation which looked forward over fourteen years, the divinely enlightened seer's glance was clearly manifested, and could not fail to make an impression upon the king, when contrasted with the perplexity of the Egyptian augurs and wise men. Joseph followed up his interpretation by the advice (Gen 41:33-36), that Pharaoh should “look out (ירא) a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt;” and cause יעשׂה) that in the seven years of superabundance he should raise fifths (חמּשׁ), i.e., the fifth part of the harvest, through overseers, and have the corn, or the stores of food (אכל), laid up in the cities “under the hand of the king,” i.e., by royal authority and direction, as food for the land for the seven years of famine, that it might not perish through famine.

verses 37-41

Joseph's Promotion. - This counsel pleased Pharaoh and all his servants, so that he said to them, “ Shall we find a man like this one, in whom the Spirit of God is?” “The Spirit of Elohim,” i.e., the spirit of supernatural insight and wisdom. He then placed Joseph over his house, and over all Egypt; in other words, he chose him as hid grand vizier, saying to him, “ After God hath showed thee all this, there is none discreet and wise as thou.” ישּׁק על־פּיך, “ according to thy mouth (i.e., command, Gen 45:21) shall my whole people arrange itself.” נשׁק does not mean to kiss ( Rabb., Ges., etc.), for על נשׁק is not Hebrew, and kissing the mouth was not customary as an act of homage, but “to dispose, arrange one's self” ( ordine disposuit). “ Only in the throne will I be greater than thou.”

Verse 42

As an installation in this post of honour, the king handed him his signet-ring, the seal which the grand vizier or prime minister wore, to give authority to the royal edicts (Est 3:10), clothed him in a byssus dress (שׁשׁ, fine muslin or white cotton fabric),^[21] and put upon his neck the golden chain, which was usually worn in Egypt as a mark of distinction, as the Egyptian monuments show (Hgst. pp. 30, 31).

Verse 43

He then had him driven in the second chariot, the chariot which followed immediately upon the king's state-carriage; that is to say, he directed a solemn procession to be made through the city, in which they (heralds) cried before him אברך (i.e., bow down), - an Egyptian word, which has been pointed by the Masorites according to the Hiphil or Aphel of בּרך. In Coptic it is abork, projicere, with the signs of the imperative and the second person. Thus he placed him over all Egypt. ונתון inf. absol. as a continuation of the finite verb (vid., Exo 8:11; Lev 25:14, etc.).

Verse 44

“ I am Pharaoh,” he said to him, “ and without thee shall no man lift his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt;” i.e., I am the actual king, and thou, the next to me, shalt rule over all my people.

Verse 45

But in order that Joseph might be perfectly naturalized, the king gave him an Egyptian name, Zaphnath-Paaneah, and married him to Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, the priest at On. The name Zaphnath-Paaneah (a form adapted to the Hebrew, for Ψονθομφανήχ lxx; according to a Greek scholium, σωτὴρ κόσμον, “ salvator mundi” ( Jerome), answers to the Coptic P-sote-m-ph-eneh, - P the article, sote salvation, m the sign of the genitive, ph the article, and eneh the world (lit., aetas, seculum); or perhaps more correctly, according to Rosellini and more recent Egyptologists, to the Coptic P-sont-em-ph-anh, i.e., sustentator vitae, support or sustainer of life, with reference to the call entrusted to him by God.^[22] Asenath, Ἀσενέθ (lxx), possibly connected with the name Neith, the Egyptian Pallas. Poti-Phera, Πετεφρῆ (lxx), a Coptic name signifying ille qui solis est, consecrated to the sun (φρη with the aspirated article signifies the sun in Memphitic). On was the popular name for Heliopolis (Ἡλιούπολις, lxx), and according to Cyrill. Alex. and Hos 5:8 signifies the sun; whilst the name upon the monuments is ta-Râ or pa-Râ, house of the sun ( Brugsch, Reisebericht, p. 50). From a very early date there was a celebrated temple of the sun here, with a learned priesthood, which held the first place among the priests' colleges of Egypt ( Herod. 2, 3; Hengst. pp. 32ff.). This promotion of Joseph, from the position of a Hebrew slave pining in prison to the highest post of honour in the Egyptian kingdom, is perfectly conceivable, on the one hand, from the great importance attached in ancient times to the interpretation of dreams and to all occult science, especially among the Egyptians, and on the other hand, from the despotic form of government in the East; but the miraculous power of God is to be seen in the fact, that God endowed Joseph with the gift of infallible interpretation, and so ordered the circumstances that this gift opened the way for him to occupy that position in which he became the preserver, not of Egypt alone, but of his own family also. And the same hand of God, by which he had been so highly exalted after deep degradation, preserved him in his lofty post of honour from sinking into the heathenism of Egypt; although, by his alliance with the daughter of a priest of the sun, the most distinguished caste in the land, he had fully entered into the national associations and customs of the land.

Verse 46

Joseph was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh, and went out from him and passed through all the land of Egypt, i.e., when he took possession of his office; consequently he had been in Egypt for 13 years as a slave, and at least three years in prison.

verses 47-49

For the seven years of superabundance the land bore לקמצים, in full hands or bundles; and Joseph gathered all the provisional store of these years (i.e., the fifth part of the produce, which was levied) into the cities. “The food of the field of the city, which was round about it, he brought into the midst of it;” i.e., he provided granaries in the towns, in which the corn of the whole surrounding country was stored. In this manner he collected as much corn “as the sand of the sea,” until he left off reckoning the quantity, or calculating the number of bushels, which the monuments prove to have been the usual mode adopted (vid., Hengst. p. 36).

verses 50-51

During the fruitful years two sons were born to Joseph. The first-born he named Manasseh, i.e., causing to forget; “ for, he said, God hath made me forget all my toil and all my father's house (נשּׁני, an Aram. Piel form, for נשּׁני, on account of the resemblance in sound to מנשּׁה).” Haec pia est, ac sancta gratiarum actio, quod Deus oblivisci eum fecit pristinas omnes areumnas: sed nullus honor tanti esse debuit, ut desiderium et memoriam paternae domus ex animo deponeret ( Calvin). But the true answer to that question, whether it was a Christian boast for him to make, that he had forgotten father and mother, is given by Luther: “I see that God would take away the reliance which I placed upon my father; for God is a jealous God, and will not suffer the heart to have any other foundation to rely upon, but Him alone.” This also meets the objection raised by Theodoret, why Joseph did not inform his father of his life and promotion, but allowed so may years to pass away, until he was led to do so at last in consequence of the arrival of his brothers. The reason of this forgetfulness and silence can only be found in the fact, that through the wondrous alteration in his condition he had been led to see, that he was brought to Egypt according to the counsel of God, and was redeemed by God from slavery and prison, and had been exalted by Him to be lord over Egypt; so that, knowing he was in the hand of God, the firmness of his faith led him to renounce all wilful interference with the purposes of God, which pointed to a still broader and more glorious goal ( Baumgarten, Delitzsch).

Verse 52

The second son he named Ephraim, i.e., double-fruitfulness; “ for God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.” Even after his elevation Egypt still continued the land of affliction, so that in this word we may see one trace of a longing for the promised land.

verses 53-57

When the years of scarcity commenced, at the close of the years of plenty, the famine spread over all (the neighbouring) lands; only in Egypt was there bread. As the famine increased in the land, and the people cried to Pharaoh for bread, he directed them to Joseph, who “opened all in which was” (bread), i.e., all the granaries, and sold corn (שׁבר, denom. from שׁבר, signifies to trade in corn, to buy and sell corn) to the Egyptians, and (as the writer adds, with a view to what follows) to all the world (כּל־הארץ, Gen 41:57), that came thither to buy corn, because the famine was great on every hand. - Years of famine have frequently fallen, like this one, upon Egypt, and the neighbouring countries to the north. The cause of this is to be seen in the fact, that the overflowing of the Nile, to which Egypt is indebted for its fertility, is produced by torrents of rain falling in the alpine regions of Abyssinia, which proceed from clouds formed in the Mediterranean and carried thither by the wind; consequently it has a common origin with the rains of Palestine (see the proofs in Hengst. pp. 37ff.).

Chap. 42

verses 1-6

With the words “ Why do ye look at one another!” viz., in such a helpless and undecided manner. Jacob exhorted his sons to fetch corn from Egypt, to preserve his family from starvation. Joseph's ten brothers went, as their aged father would not allow his youngest son Benjamin to go with them, for fear that some calamity might befall him (קרא = קרה, Gen 44:29 as in Gen 42:38 and Gen 49:1); and they came “ in the midst of the comers,” i.e., among others who came from the same necessity, and bowed down before Joseph with their faces to the earth. For he was “the ruler over the land,” and had the supreme control of the sale of the corn, so that they were obliged to apply to him. השּׁלּיט seems to have been the standing title which the Shemites gave to Joseph as ruler in Egypt; and from this the later legend of Σάλατις the first king of the Hyksos arose (Josephus c. Ap. i. 14). The only other passages in which the word occurs in the Old Testament are in writings of the captivity or a still later date, and there it is taken from the Chaldee; it belongs, however, not merely to the Aramaean thesaurus, but to the Arabic also, from which it was introduced into the passage before us.

verses 7-8

Joseph recognised his brothers at once; but they could not recognise a brother who had not been seen for 20 years, and who, moreover, had not only become thoroughly Egyptianized, but had risen to be a great lord. And he acted as a foreigner (יתנכּר) towards them, speaking harshly, and asking them whence they had come. In Gen 42:7, according to a truly Semitic style of narrative, we have a condensation of what is more circumstantially related in Gen 42:8-17.

verses 9-17

As the sight of his brethren bowing before him with the deepest reverence reminded Joseph of his early dreams of the sheaves and stars, which had so increased the hatred of his brethren towards him as to lead to a proposal to kill him, and an actual sale, he said to them, “ Ye are spies; to see the nakedness of the land (i.e., the unfortified parts of the kingdom which would be easily accessible to a foe) ye are come;” and persisted in this charge notwithstanding their reply, “ nay, my lord, but (ו see Ges. §155, 1 b) to buy food are thy servants come. We are all one man's sons (נחנוּ for אנחנוּ, only in Exo 16:7-8; Num 32:32; 2Sa 17:12; Lam 3:42): honest (כּנים) are we; thy servants are no spies.” Cum exploratio sit delictum capitale, non est verisimile; quod pater tot filios uno tempore vitae periculo expositurus sit ( J. Gerhard). But as their assertion failed to make any impression upon the Egyptian lord, they told him still more particularly about their family (Gen 42:13.): “ Twelve are thy servants, brothers are we, sons of a man in the land of Canaan; and behold the youngest is now with our father, and one is no more (אימנּוּ as in Gen 5:24). Joseph then replied, “ That is it (הוּא neut. like Gen 20:16) that I spake unto you, saying ye are spies. By this shall ye be proved: By the life of Pharaoh! ye shall not (אם, like Gen 14:23) go hence, unless your youngest brother come hither. Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother; but he shall be in bonds, and your words shall be proved, whether there be truth in you or not. By the life of Pharaoh! ye are truly spies!” He then had them put into custody for three days. By the coming of the youngest brother, Joseph wanted to test their assertion, not because he thought it possible that he might not be living with them, and they might have treated him as they did Joseph ( Kn.), but because he wished to discover their feelings towards Benjamin, and see what affection they had for this son of Rachel, who had taken Joseph's place as his father's favourite. And with his harsh mode of addressing them, Joseph had no intention whatever to administer to his brethren “a just punishment for their wickedness towards him,” for his heart could not have stooped to such mean revenge; but he wanted to probe thoroughly the feelings of their hearts, “whether they felt that they deserved the punishment of God for the sin they had committed,” and how they felt towards their aged father and their youngest brother.^[23]
Even in the fact that he did not send the one away directly to fetch Benjamin, and merely detain the rest, but put the whole ten in prison, and afterwards modified his threat (Gen 42:18.), there was no indecision as to the manner in which he should behave towards them - no “wavering between thoughts of wrath and revenge on the one hand, and forgiving love and meekness on the other;” but he hoped by imprisoning them to make his brethren feel the earnestness of his words, and to give them time for reflection, as the curt “is no more” with which they had alluded to Joseph's removal was a sufficient proof that they had not yet truly repented of the deed.

verses 18-25

On the third day Joseph modified his severity. “ This do and live,” i.e., then ye shall live: “ I fear God.” One shall remain in prison, but let the rest of you take home “corn for the famine of your families,” and fetch your youngest brother, that your words may be verified, and ye may not die, i.e., may not suffer the death that spies deserve. That he might not present the appearance of despotic caprice and tyranny by too great severity, and so render his brethren obdurate, Joseph stated as the reason for his new decision, that he feared God. From the fear of God, he, the lord of Egypt, would not punish or slay these strangers upon mere suspicion, but would judge them justly. How differently had they acted towards their brother! The ruler of all Egypt had compassion on their families who were in Canaan suffering from hunger; but they had intended to leave their brother in the pit to starve! These and similar thoughts could hardly fail to pass involuntarily through their minds at Joseph's words, and to lead them to a penitential acknowledgement of their sin and unrighteousness. The notion that Joseph altered his first intention merely from regard to his much afflicted father, appears improbable, for the simple reason, that he can only have given utterance to the threat that he should keep them all in prison till one of them had gone and fetched Benjamin, for the purpose of giving the greater force to his accusation, that they were spies. But as he was not serious in making this charge, he could not for a moment have thought of actually carrying out the threat. “ And they did so:” in these words the writer anticipates the result of the colloquy which ensued, and which is more fully narrated afterwards. Joseph's intention was fulfilled. The brothers now saw in what had happened to them a divine retribution: “ Surely we atone because of our brother, whose anguish of soul we saw, when he entreated us and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.” And Reuben reminded them how he had warned them to no purpose, not to sin against the boy - “ and even his blood...behold it is required” (cf. Gen 9:5); i.e., not merely the sin of casting him into the pit and then selling him, but his death also, of which we have been guilty through that sale. Thus they accused themselves in Joseph's presence, not knowing that he could understand; “ for the interpreter was between them.” Joseph had conversed with them through an interpreter, as an Egyptian who was ignorant of their language. “ The interpreter,” viz., the one appointed for that purpose; בּינות like Gen 26:28. But Joseph understood their words, and “ turned away and wept” (Gen 42:24), with inward emotion at the wonderful leadings of divine grace, and at the change in his brothers' feelings. He then turned to them again, and, continuing the conversation with them, had Simeon bound before their eyes, to be detained as a hostage (not Reuben, who had dissuaded them from killing Joseph, and had taken no part in the sale, but Simeon, the next in age). He then ordered his men to fill their sacks with corn, to give every one (אישׁ as in Gen 15:10) his money back in his sack, and to provide them with food for the journey.

verses 26-27

Thus they started with their asses laden with the corn. On the way, when they had reached their haltingplace for the night, one of them opened his sack to feed the ass, and found his money in it. מלון, camping-place for the night, is merely a resting-place, not an inn, both here and in Exo 4:24; for there can hardly have been caravanserais at that time, either in the desert or by the desert road. אמתחת: an antiquated word for a corn-sack, occurring only in these chapters, and used even here interchangeably with שׂק.

Verse 28

When this discovery was made known to the brethren, their hearts sank within them. They turned trembling to one another, and said, “ What is this that God hath done to us!” Joseph had no doubt had the money returned, “merely because it was against his nature to trade with his father and brethren for bread;” just as he had caused them to be supplied with food for the journey, for no other reason than to give them a proof of his good-will. And even if he may have thought it possible that the brothers would be alarmed when they found the money, and thrown into a state of much greater anxiety from the fear of being still further accused by the stern lord of Egypt of cheating or of theft, there was no reason why he should spare them this anxiety, since it could only help to break their hard hearts still more. At any rate, this salutary effect was really produced, even if Joseph had no such intention. The brothers looked upon this incomprehensible affair as a punishment from God, and neglected in their alarm to examine the rest of the sacks.

verses 29-34

On their arrival at home, they told their father all that had occurred.

verses 35-36

But when they emptied their sacks, and, to their own and their father's terror, found their bundles of money in their separate sacks, Jacob burst out with the complaint, “ Ye are making me childless! Joseph is gone, and Simeon is gone, and will ye take Benjamin! All this falls upon me” (כּלּנה for כּלּן as in Pro 31:29).

verses 37-38

Reuben then offered his two sons to Jacob as pledges for Benjamin, if Jacob would entrust him to his care: Jacob might slay them, if he did not bring Benjamin back-the greatest and dearest offer that a son could make to a father. But Jacob refused to let him go. “ If mischief befell him by the way, he would bring down my grey hairs with sorrow into Sheol” (cf. Gen 37:35).

Chap. 43

verses 1-2

When the corn brought from Egypt was all consumed, as the famine still continued, Jacob called upon his sons to go down and fetch a little corn (little in proportion to their need).

verses 3-5

Judah then declared, that they would not go there again unless their father sent Benjamin with them; for the man (Joseph) had solemnly protested (העד העד) that they should not see his face without their youngest brother. Judah undertook the consultation with his father about Benjamin's going, because Reuben, the eldest son, had already been refused, and Levi, who followed Reuben and Simeon, had forfeited his father's confidence through his treachery to the Shechemites (Gen 34).

verses 6-7

To the father's reproachful question, why they had dealt so ill with him, as to tell the man that they had a brother, Judah replied: “ The man asked after us and our kinsmen: Is your father yet alive? have ye a brother? And we answered him in conformity (פּי על as in Exo 34:27, etc.) with these words (i.e., with his questions). Could we know, then, that he would say, Bring your brother down?” Joseph had not made direct inquiries, indeed, about their father and their brother; but by his accusation that they were spies, he had compelled them to give an exact account of their family relationships. So that Judah, when repeating the main points of the interview, could very justly give them in the form just mentioned.

verses 8-10

He then repeated the only condition on which they would go to Egypt again, referring to the death by famine which threatened them, their father, and their children, and promising that he would himself be surety for the youth (הנּער, Benjamin was twenty-three years old), and saying, that if he did not restore him, he would bear the blame (חטא to be guilty of a sin and stone for it, as in 1Ki 1:21) his whole life long. He then concluded with the deciding words, “ for if we had not delayed, surely we should already have returned a second time.”

Verse 11

And their father Israel said unto them, If it must be so now, do this; take of the best fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts, and almonds: After this, the old man gave way to what could not be avoided, and let Benjamin go. But that nothing might be wanting on his part, which could contribute to the success of the journey, he suggested that they should take a present for the man, and that they should also take the money which was brought back in their sacks, in addition to what was necessary for the corn they were to purchase; and he then commended them to the mercy of Almighty God. “ If it must be so, yet do this (אפוא belongs to the imperative, although it precedes it here, cf. Gen 27:37): take of the prize (the most choice productions) of the land-a little balm and a little honey (דּבשׁ the Arabian dibs, either new honey from bees, or more probably honey from grapes, - a thick syrup boiled from sweet grapes, which is still carried every year from Hebron to Egypt), gum-dragon and myrrh (vid., Gen 37:25), pictachio nuts and almonds.” בּטנים, which are not mentioned anywhere else, are, according to the Samar. vers., the fruit of the pistacia vera, a tree resembling the terebinth, - long angular nuts of the size of hazel-nuts, with an oily kernel of a pleasant flavour; it does not thrive in Palestine now, but the nuts are imported from Aleppo.

verses 12-13

“ And take second (i.e., more) money (משׁנה כּסף is different from משׁנה־כּסף doubling of the money = double money, Gen 43:15) in your hand; and the money that returned in your sacks take with you again; perhaps it is a mistake,” i.e., was put in your sacks by mistake.

verses 14-15

Thus Israel let his sons go with the blessing, “ God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may liberate to you your other brother ( Simeon) and Benjamin;” and with this resigned submission to the will of God, “ And I, if I am bereaved, I am bereaved,” i.e., if I am to lose my children, let it be so! For this mode of expression, cf. Est 4:16 and 2Ki 7:4. שׁכּלתּי with the pausal a, answering to the feelings of the speaker, which is frequently used for o; e.g., טרף for יטרף, Gen 49:27.

verses 16-25

When the brethren appeared before Joseph, he ordered his steward to take them into the house, and prepare a dinner for them and for him. טבה the original form of the imperative for טבח. But the brethren were alarmed, thinking that they were taken into the house because of the money which returned the first time (השּׁב which came back, they could not imagine how), that he might take them unawares (lit., roll upon them), and fall upon them, and keep them as salves, along with their asses. For the purpose of averting what they dreaded, they approached (Gen 43:19) the steward and told him, “at the door of the house,” before they entered therefore, how, at the first purchase of corn, on opening their sacks, they found the money that had been paid, “ every one's money in the mouth of his sack, our money according to its weight,” i.e., in full, and had now brought it back, together with some more money to buy corn, and they did not know who had put their money in their sacks (Gen 43:20-22). The steward, who was initiated into Joseph's plans, replied in a pacifying tone, “Peace be to you (לכם שׁלום is not a form of salutation here, but of encouragement, as in Jdg 6:23): fear not; your God and the God of your father has given you a treasure in your sacks; your money came to me;” and at the same time, to banish all their fear, he brought Simeon out to them. He then conducted them into Joseph's house, and received them in Oriental fashion as the guests of his lord. But, previous to Joseph's arrival, they arranged the present which they had brought with them, as they heard that they were to dine with him.
When Joseph came home, they handed him the present with the most reverential obeisance.

verses 27-29

Joseph first of all inquired after their own and their father's health (שׁלום first as substantive, then as adjective = שׁלם Gen 33:18), whether he was still living; which they answered with thanks in the affirmative, making the deepest bow. His eyes then fell upon Benjamin, the brother by his own mother, and he asked whether this was their youngest brother; but without waiting for their reply, he exclaimed, “ God be gracious to thee, my son!” יחנך for יחנך as in Isa 30:19 (cf. Ewald, §251 d). He addressed him as “my son,” in tender and, as it were, paternal affection, and with special regard to his youth. Benjamin was 16 years younger than Joseph, and was quite an infant when Joseph was sold.

verses 30-31

And “his (Joseph's) bowels did yearn” (נכמרוּ lit., were compressed, from the force of love to his brother), so that he was obliged to seek (a place) as quickly as possible to weep, and went into the chamber, that he might give vent to his feelings in tears; after which, he washed his face and came out again, and, putting constraint upon himself, ordered the dinner to be brought in.

verses 32-33

Separate tables were prepared for him, for his brethren, and for the Egyptians who dined with them. This was required by the Egyptian spirit of caste, which neither allowed Joseph, as minister of state and a member of the priestly order, to eat along with Egyptians who were below him, nor the latter along with the Hebrews as foreigners. “ They cannot (i.e., may not) eat (cf. Deu 12:17; Deu 16:5; Deu 17:15). For this was an abomination to the Egyptians.” The Hebrews and others, for example, slaughtered and ate animals, even female animals, which were regarded by the Egyptians as sacred; so that, according to Herod. ii. 41, no Egyptian would use the knife, or fork, or saucepan of a Greek, nor would any eat of the flesh of a clean animal which had been cut up with a Grecian knife (cf. Exo 8:22).

verses 33-34

The brothers sat in front of Joseph, “ the first-born according to his birthright, and the smallest (youngest) according to his smallness (youth);” i.e., the places were arranged for them according to their ages, so that they looked at one another with astonishment, since this arrangement necessarily impressed them with the idea that this great man had been supernaturally enlightened as to their family affairs. To do them honour, they brought (ישּׂא, Ges. §137, 3) them dishes from Joseph, i.e., from his table; and to show especial honour to Benjamin, his portion was five times larger than that of any of the others (ידות lit., hands, grasps, as in Gen 47:24; 2Ki 11:7). The custom is met with elsewhere of showing respect to distinguished guests by giving them the largest and best pieces (1Sa 9:23-24; Homer, Il. 7, 321; 8, 162, etc.), by double portions (e.g., the kings among the Spartans, Herod. 6, 57), and even by fourfold portions in the case of the Archons among the Cretans ( Heraclid. polit., 3). But among the Egyptians the number 5 appears to have been preferred to any other (cf. Gen 41:34; Gen 45:22; Gen 47:2, Gen 47:24; Isa 19:18). By this partiality Joseph intended, with a view to his further plans, to draw out his brethren to show their real feelings towards Benjamin, that he might see whether they would envy and hate him on account of this distinction, as they had formerly envied him his long coat with sleeves, and hated him because he was his father's favourite (Gen 37:3-4). This honourable treatment and entertainment banished all their anxiety and fear. “ They drank, and drank largely with him,” i.e., they were perfectly satisfied with what they ate and drank; not, they were intoxicated (cf. Hag 1:9).

Chap. 44

verses 1-2

The Test. - After the dinner Joseph had his brothers' sacks filled by his steward with corn, as much as they could hold, and every one's money placed inside; and in addition to that, had his own silver goblet put into Benjamin's sack.

verses 3-6

Then as soon as it was light (אור,   3rd pers. perf. in o: Ges. §72, 1), they were sent away with their asses. But they were hardly outside the town, “not far off,” when he directed his steward to follow the men, and as soon as he overtook them, to say, “ Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good? Is it not this from which my lord drinketh, and he is accustomed to prophesy from it? Ye have done an evil deed!” By these words they were accused of theft; the thing was taken for granted as well known to them all, and the goblet purloined was simply described as a very valuable possession of Joseph's. נחשׁ: lit., to whisper, to mumble out formularies, incantations, then to prophesy, divinare. According to this, the Egyptians at that time practised λεκανοσκοπίη or λεκανομαντεία and ὑδρομαντεία, the plate and water incantations, of which Jamblichus speaks ( de myst. iii. 14), and which consisted in pouring clean water into a goblet, and then looking into the water for representations of future events; or in pouring water into a goblet or dish, dropping in pieces of gold and silver, also precious stones, and then observing and interpreting the appearances in the water (cf. Varro apud August. civ. Dei 7, 35; Plin. h. n. 37, 73; Strabo, xvi. p. 762). Traces of this have been continued even to our own day (see Norden's Journey through Egypt and Nubia). But we cannot infer with certainty from this, that Joseph actually adopted this superstitious practice. The intention of the statement may simply have been to represent the goblet as a sacred vessel, and Joseph as acquainted with the most secret things (Gen 44:15).

verses 7-9

In the consciousness of their innocence the brethren repelled this charge with indignation, and appealed to the fact that they brought back the gold which was found in their sacks, and therefore could not possibly have stolen gold or silver; and declared that whoever should be found in possession of the goblet, should be put to death, and the rest become slaves.

Verse 10

The man replied, “ Now let it be even (גּם placed first for the sake of emphasis) according to your words: with whom it is found, he shall be my slave, and ye (the rest) shall remain blameless.” Thus he modified the sentence, to assume the appearance of justice.

verses 11-13

They then took down their sacks as quickly as possible; and he examined them, beginning with the eldest and finishing with the youngest; and the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack. With anguish and alarm at this new calamity they rent their clothes (vid., Gen 37:34), loaded their asses again, and returned to the city. It would now be seen how they felt in their inmost hearts towards their father's favourite, who had been so distinguished by the great man of Egypt: whether now as formerly they were capable of giving up their brother, and bringing their aged father with sorrow to the grave; or whether they were ready, with unenvying, self-sacrificing love, to give up their own liberty and lives for him. And they stood this test.

verses 14-17

Result of the Test. - Gen 44:14-17. With Judah leading the way, they came into the house to Joseph, and fell down before him begging for mercy. Joseph spoke to them harshly: “ What kind of deed is this that ye have done? Did ye not know that such a man as I (a man initiated into the most secret things) would certainly divine this?” נחשׁ augurari. Judah made no attempt at a defence. “ What shall we say to my lord? how speak, how clear ourselves? God ( Ha-Elohim, the personal God) has found out the wickedness of thy servants (i.e., He is now punishing the crime committed against our brother, cf. Gen 42:21). Behold, we are my lord's slaves, both we, and he in whose hand the cup was found.” But Joseph would punish mildly and justly. The guilty one alone should be his slave; the others might go in peace, i.e., uninjured, to their father.

verses 18-20

But that the brothers could not do. Judah, who had pledged himself to his father for Benjamin, ventured in the anguish of his heart to approach Joseph, and implore him to liberate his brother. “I would give very much,” says Luther, “to be able to pray to our Lord God as well as Judah prays to Joseph here; for it is a perfect specimen of prayer, the true feeling that there ought to be in prayer.” Beginning with the request for a gracious hearing, as he was speaking to the ears of one who was equal to Pharaoh (who could condemn or pardon like the king), Judah depicted in natural, affecting, powerful, and irresistible words the love of their aged father to this son of his old age, and his grief when they told him that they were not to come into the presence of the lord of Egypt again without Benjamin; the intense anxiety with which, after a severe struggle, their father had allowed him to come, after he (Judah) had offered to be answerable for his life; and the grievous fact, that if they returned without the youth, they must bring down the grey hairs of their father with sorrow to the grave.

verses 21-26

To “ set eyes upon him” signifies, with a gracious intention, to show him good-will (as in Jer 39:12; Jer 40:4).

Verse 27

“ That my wife bore to me two (sons):” Jacob regards Rachel alone as his actual wife (cf. Gen 46:19). ==verses 28-29== Gen 44:28-29 ואמר, preceded by a preterite, is to be rendered “ and I was obliged to say, Only (nothing but) torn in pieces has he become.”

verses 30-32

“ His soul is bound to his soul:” equivalent to, “he clings to him with all his soul.”

verses 33-34

Judah closed his appeal with the entreaty, “ Now let thy servant (me) remain instead of the lad as slave to my lord, but let the lad go up with his brethren; for how could I go to my father without the lad being with me! (I cannot,) that I may not see the calamity which will befall my father!”

Chap. 45

==Verse 1== The Recognition. - Gen 45:1. After this appeal, in which Judah, speaking for his brethren, had shown the tenderest affection for the old man who had been bowed down by their sin, and the most devoted fraternal love and fidelity to the only remaining son of his beloved Rachel, and had given a sufficient proof of the change of mind, the true conversion, that had taken place in themselves, Joseph could not restrain himself any longer in relation to all those who stood round him. He was obliged to relinquish the part which he had hitherto acted for the purpose of testing his brothers' hearts, and to give full vent to his feelings. “ He called out: Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man (of his Egyptian attendants) with him, while Joseph made himself known to his brethren,” quia effusio illa affectuum et στοργῆς erga fratres et parentem tanta fuit, ut non posset ferre alienorum praesentiam et aspectum ( Luther).

verses 2-3

As soon as all the rest were gone, he broke out into such loud weeping, that the Egyptians outside could hear it; and the house of Pharaoh, i.e., the royal family, was told of it (cf. Gen 45:2 and Gen 45:16). He then said to his brethren: “ I am Joseph. Is my father still alive?” That his father was still living, he had not only been informed before (Gen 43:27), but had just been told again; but his filial heart impels him to make sure of it once more. “ But his brethren could not answer him, for they were terrified before him:” they were so smitten in their consciences, that from astonishment and terror they could not utter a word.

verses 4-7

Joseph then bade his brethren approach nearer, and said: “ I am Joseph, your brother, whom he sold into Egypt. But now be not grieved nor angry with yourselves (בּעיניכם אל־חר as in Gen 31:35) that ye sold me hither; for God hath sent me before you to preserve life.” Sic enim Joseph interpretatur venditionem. Vos quidem me vendidistis, sed Deus emit, asseruit et vindicavit me sibi pastorem, principem et salvatorem populorum eodem consilio, quo videbar amissus et perditus ( Luther). “ For,” he continues in explanation, “ now there are two years of famine in the land, and there are five years more, in which there will be no ploughing and reaping. And God hath sent me before you to establish you a remnant (cf. 2Sa 14:7) upon the earth (i.e., to secure to you the preservation of the tribe and of posterity during this famine), and to preserve your lives to a great deliverance,” i.e., to a great nation delivered from destruction, cf. Gen 50:20. פּליטה that which has escaped, the band of men or multitude escaped from death and destruction (2Ki 19:30-31). Joseph announced prophetically here, that God had brought him into Egypt to preserve through him the family which He had chosen for His own nation, and to deliver them out of the danger of starvation which threatened them now, as a very great nation.

Verse 8

“ And now (this was truly the case) it was not you that sent me hither; but God ( Ha-Elohim, the personal God, on contrast with his brethren) hath made me a father to Pharaoh (i.e., his most confidential counsellor and friend; cf. 1 Macc. 11:32, Ges. thes. 7), and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt;” cf. Gen 41:40-41.

verses 9-11

Joseph then directed his brethren to go up to their father with all speed, and invite him in his name to come without delay, with all his family and possessions, into Egypt, where he would keep him near himself, in the land of Goshen (see Gen 47:11), that he might not perish in the still remaining five years of famine. הוּרשׁ: Gen 45:11, lit., to be robbed of one's possessions, to be taken possession of by another, from ירשׁ to take possession.

verses 12-13

But the brethren were so taken by surprise and overpowered by this unexpected discovery, that to convince them of the reality of the whole affair, Joseph was obliged to add, “Behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you.
And tell my father all my glory in Egypt, and all that ye have seen, and bring my father quickly hither.”

verses 14-15

He then fell upon Benjamin's neck and wept, and kissed all his brethren and wept on them, i.e., whilst embracing them; “ and after that, his brethren talked with him.” כּן אחרי: after Joseph by a triple assurance, that what they had done was the leading of God for their own good, had dispelled their fear of retribution, and, by embracing and kissing them with tears, had sealed the truth and sincerity of his words.

verses 16-18

Invitation to Jacob to Come into Egypt. - Gen 45:16. The report of the arrival of Joseph's brethren soon found it sway into the palace, and made so favourable an impression upon Pharaoh and his courtiers, that the king sent a message through Joseph to his brethren to come with their father and their families (“ your houses”) into Egypt, saying that he would give them “ the good of the land of Egypt,” and they should eat “ the fat of the land.” טוּב, “the good,” is not the best part, but the good things (produce) of the land, as in Gen 45:20, Gen 45:23, Gen 24:10; 2Ki 8:9. חלב, fat, i.e., the finest productions.

verses 19-20

At the same time Pharaoh empowered Joseph (“thou art commanded”) to give his brethren carriages to take with them, in which to convey their children and wives and their aged father, and recommended them to leave their goods behind them in Canaan, for the good of all Egypt was at their service. From time immemorial Egypt was rich in small, two-wheeled carriages, which could be used even where there were no roads (cf. Gen 50:9; Exo 14:6. with Isa 36:9). “ Let not your eye look with mourning (תּחס) at your goods;” i.e., do not trouble about the house-furniture which you are obliged to leave behind. The good-will manifested in this invitation of Pharaoh towards Jacob's family was to be attributed to the feeling of gratitude to Joseph, and “is related circumstantially, because this free and honourable invitation involved the right of Israel to leave Egypt again without obstruction” ( Delitzsch).

verses 21-24

The sons of Israel carried out the instructions of Joseph and the invitation of Pharaoh (Gen 45:25-27). But Joseph not only sent carriages according to Pharaoh's directions, and food for the journey, he also gave them presents, changes of raiment, a suit for every one, and five suits for Benjamin, as well as 300 shekels of silver. שׂמלות חלפות: change of clothes, clothes to change; i.e., dress clothes which were worn on special occasions and frequently changed (Jdg 13:12-13, Jdg 13:19; 2Ki 5:5). “ And to his father he sent like these;” i.e., not changes of clothes, but presents also, viz., ten asses “carrying of the good of Egypt,” and ten she-asses with corn and provisions for the journey; and sent them off with the injunction: אל־תּרגּזוּ :noitcnu, μὴ ὀργἱζεσθε (lxx), “do not get angry by the way.” Placatus erat Joseph fratribus, simul eos admonet, ne quid turbarum moveant. Timendum enim erat, ne quisque se purgando crimen transferre in alios studeret atque its surgeret contentio ( Calvin).

verses 25-28

When they got back, and brought word to their father, “Joseph is still living, yea (וכי an emphatic assurance, Ewald, §3306) he is ruler in all the land of Egypt, his heart stopped, for he believed them not;” i.e., his heart did not beat at this joyful news, for he put no faith in what they said. It was not till they told him all that Joseph had said, and he saw the carriages that Joseph had sent, that “ the spirit of their father Jacob revived; and Israel said: It is enough! Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die.” Observe the significant interchange of Jacob and Israel. When once the crushed spirit of the old man was revived by the certainty that his son Joseph was still alive, Jacob was changed into Israel, the “conqueror overcoming his grief at the previous misconduct of his sons” ( Fr. v. Meyer).

Chap. 46

==Verse 1==  “ So Israel took his journey (from Hebron, Gen 37:14) with all who belonged to him, and came to Beersheba.” There, on the border of Canaan, where Abraham and Isaac had called upon the name of the Lord (Gen 21:33; Gen 26:25), he offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac, ut sibi firmum et ratum esse testetur faedus, quod Deus ipse cum Patribus pepigerat ( Calvin). Even though Jacob might see the ways of God in the wonderful course of his son Joseph, and discern in the friendly invitation of Joseph and Pharaoh, combined with the famine prevailing in Canaan, a divine direction to go into Egypt; yet this departure from the land of promise, in which his fathers had lived as pilgrims, was a step which necessarily excited serious thoughts in his mind as to his own future and that of his family, and led him to commend himself and his followers to the care of the faithful covenant God, whether in so doing he thought of the revelation which Abram had received (Gen 15:13-16), or not.

verses 2-4

Here God appeared to him in a vision of the night (מראת, an intensive plural), and gave him, as once before on his flight from Canaan (Gen 28:12.), the comforting promise, “ I am האל (the Mighty One), the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt (מרדה for מרדת, as in Exo 2:4 דּעה for דּעת, cf. Ges. §69, 3, Anm. 1); for I will there make thee a great nation. I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I - bring thee up again also will I, and Joseph shall close thine eyes.” גּם־עלה an inf. abs. appended emphatically (as in Gen 31:15); according to Ges. inf. Kal.

verses 5-7

Strengthened by this promise, Jacob went into Egypt with children and children's children, his sons driving their aged father together with their wives and children in the carriages sent by Pharaoh, and taking their flocks with all the possessions that they had acquired in Canaan.^[24]

verses 8-27

The size of Jacob's family, which was to grow into a great nation, is given here, with evident allusion to the fulfilment of the divine promise with which he went into Egypt. The list of names includes not merely the “sons of Israel” in the stricter sense; but, as is added immediately afterwards, “ Jacob and his sons,” or, as the closing formula expresses it (Gen 46:27), “ all the souls of the house of Jacob, who came into Egypt” (הבּאה for בּאה אשׁר, Ges. §109), including the patriarch himself, and Joseph with his two sons, who were born before Jacob's arrival in Egypt. If we reckon these, the house of Jacob consisted of 70 souls; and apart from these, of 66, besides his sons' wives. The sons are arranged according to the four mothers. Of Leah there are given 6 sons, 23 grandsons, 2 great-grandsons (sons of Pharez, whereas Er and Onan, the sons of Judah who died in Canaan, are not reckoned), and 1 daughter, Dinah, who remained unmarried, and was therefore an independent member of the house of Jacob; in all, therefore, 6 + 23 + 2 + 1 = 32, or with Jacob, 33 souls. Of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid, there are mentioned 2 sons, 11 grandsons, 2 great-grandsons, and 1 daughter (who is reckoned like Dinah, both here and Num 26:46, for some special reason, which is not particularly described); in all, 2 + 11 + 2 + 1 = 16 souls. Of Rachel, “Jacob's (favourite) wife,” 2 sons and 12 grandsons are named, of whom, according to Num 26:40, two were great-grandsons, = 14 souls; and of Rachel's maid Bilhah, 2 sons and 5 grandsons = 7 souls. The whole number therefore was 33 + 16 + 14 + 7 = 70.^[25]
The wives of Jacob's sons are neither mentioned by name nor reckoned, because the families of Israel were not founded by them, but by their husbands alone. Nor is their parentage given either here or anywhere else. It is merely casually that one of the sons of Simeon is called the son of a Canaanitish woman (Gen 46:10); from which it may be inferred that it was quite an exceptional thing for the sons of Jacob to take their wives from among the Canaanites, and that as a rule they were chosen from their paternal relations in Mesopotamia; besides whom, there were also their other relations, the families of Ishmael, Keturah, and Edom. Of the “daughters of Jacob” also, and the “daughters of his sons,” none are mentioned except Dinah and Serah the daughter of Asher, because they were not the founders of separate houses.
If we look more closely into the list itself, the first thing which strikes us is that Pharez, one of the twin-sons of Judah, who were not born till after the sale of Joseph, should already have had two sons. Supposing that Judah's marriage to the daughter of Shuah the Canaanite occurred, notwithstanding the reasons advanced to the contrary in Gen 38, , before the sale of Joseph, and shortly after the return of Jacob to Canaan, during the time of his sojourn at Shechem (Gen 33:18), it cannot have taken place more than five, or at the most six, years before Joseph was sold; for Judah was only three years older than Joseph, and was not more than 20 years old, therefore, at the time of his sale. But even then there would not be more than 28 years between Judah's marriage and Jacob's removal to Egypt; so that Pharez would only be about 11 years old, since he could not have been born till about 17 years after Judah's marriage, and at that age he could not have had two sons. Judah, again, could not have taken four sons with him into Egypt, since he had at the most only two sons a year before their removal (Gen 42:37); unless indeed we adopt the extremely improbable hypothesis, that two other sons were born within the space of 11 or 12 months, either as twins, or one after the other. Still less could Benjamin, who was only 23 or 24 years old at the time (vid., pp. 200f. and 204f.), have had 10 sons already, or, as Num 26:38-40 shows, eight sons and two grandsons. From all this it necessarily follows, that in the list before us grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob are named who were born afterwards in Egypt, and who, therefore, according to a view which we frequently meet with in the Old Testament, though strange to our modes of thought, came into Egypt in lumbis patrum. That the list is really intended to be so understood, is undoubtedly evident from a comparison of the “sons of Israel” (Gen 46:8), whose names it gives, with the description given in Num 26 of the whole community of the sons of Israel according to their fathers' houses, or their tribes and families. In the account of the families of Israel at the time of Moses, which is given there, we find, with slight deviations, all the grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob whose names occur in this chapter, mentioned as the founders of the families, into which the twelve tribes of Israel were subdivided in Moses' days. The deviations are partly in form, partly in substance. To the former belong the differences in particular names, which are sometimes only different forms of the same name; e.g., Jemuel and Zohar (Gen 46:10), for Nemuel and Zerah (Num 26:12-13); Ziphion and Arodi (Gen 46:16), for Zephon and Arod (Num 26:15 and Num 26:17); Huppim (Gen 46:21) for Hupham (Num 26:39); Ehi (Gen 46:21), an abbreviation of Ahiram (Num 26:38); sometimes different names of the same person; viz., Ezbon (Gen 46:16) and Ozni (Num 26:16); Muppim (Gen 46:21) and Shupham (Num 26:39); Hushim (Gen 46:23) and Shuham (Num 26:42). Among the differences in substance, the first to be noticed is the fact, that in Num 26 Simeon's son Ohad, Asher's son Ishuah, and three of Benjamin's sons, Becher, Gera, and Rosh, are missing from the founders of families, probably for no other reason than that they either died childless, or did not leave a sufficient number of children to form independent families. With the exception of these, according to Num 26, , all the grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob mentioned in this chapter were founders of families in existence in Moses' time. From this it is obvious that our list is intended to contain, not merely the sons and grandsons of Jacob, who were already born when he went down to Egypt, but in addition to the sons, who were the heads of the twelve tribes of the nation, all the grandsons and great-grandsons who became the founders of mishpachoth, i.e., of independent families, and who on that account took the place or were advanced into the position of the grandsons of Jacob, so far as the national organization was concerned.
On no other hypothesis can we explain the fact, that in the time of Moses there was not one of the twelve tribes, except the double tribe of Joseph, in which there were families existing, that had descended from either grandsons or great-grandsons of Jacob who are not already mentioned in this list. As it is quite inconceivable that no more sons should have been born to Jacob's sons after their removal into Egypt, so is it equally inconceivable, that all the sons born in Egypt either died childless, or founded no families. The rule by which the nation descending from the sons of Jacob was divided into tribes and families ( mishpachoth) according to the order of birth was this, that as the twelve sons founded the twelve tribes, so their sons, i.e., Jacob's grandsons, were the founders of the families into which the tribes were subdivided, unless these grandsons died without leaving children, or did not leave a sufficient number of male descendants to form independent families, or the natural rule for the formation of tribes and families was set aside by other events or causes. On this hypothesis we can also explain the other real differences between this list and Num 26; ; viz., the fact that, according to Num 26:40, two of the sons of Benjamin mentioned in Gen 46:21, Naaman and Ard, were his grandsons, sons of Belah; and also the circumstance, that in Gen 46:20 only the two sons of Joseph, who were already born when Jacob arrived in Egypt, are mentioned, viz., Manasseh and Ephraim, and none of the sons who were born to him afterwards (Gen 48:6). The two grandsons of Benjamin could be reckoned among his sons in our list, because they founded independent families just like the sons. And of the sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim alone could be admitted into our list, because they were elevated above the sons born to Joseph afterwards, by the fact that shortly before Jacob's death he adopted them as his own sons and thus raised them to the rank of heads of tribes; so that wherever Joseph's descendants are reckoned as one tribe (e.g., Jos 16:1, Jos 16:4), Manasseh and Ephraim form the main divisions, or leading families of the tribe of Joseph, the subdivisions of which were founded partly by their brothers who were born afterwards, and partly by their sons and grandsons. Consequently the omission of the sons born afterwards, and the grandsons of Joseph, from whom the families of the two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were elevated into tribes, descended, forms only an apparent and not a real exception to the general rule, that this list mentions all the grandsons of Jacob who founded the families of the twelve tribes, without regard to the question whether they were born before or after the removal of Jacob's house to Egypt, since this distinction was of no importance to the main purpose of our list. That this was the design of our list, is still further confirmed by a comparison of Exo 1:5 and Deu 10:22, where the seventy souls of the house of Jacob which went into Egypt are said to constitute the seed which, under the blessing of the Lord, had grown into the numerous people that Moses led out of Egypt, to take possession of the land of promise. From this point of view it was a natural thing to describe the seed of the nation, which grew up in tribes and families, in such a way as to give the germs and roots of all the tribes and families of the whole nation; i.e., not merely the grandsons who were born before the migration, but also the grandsons and great-grandsons who were born in Egypt, and became founders of independent families. By thus embracing all the founders of tribes and families, the significant number 70 was obtained, in which the number 7 (formed of the divine number 3, and the world number 4, as the seal of the covenant relation between God and Israel) is multiplied by the number 10, as the seal of completeness, so as to express the fact that these 70 souls comprehended the whole of the nation of God.^[26]
This list of the house of Jacob is followed by an account of the arrival in Egypt.

Verse 28

Jacob sent his son Judah before him to Joseph, “to show (להורת) before him to Goshen;” i.e., to obtain from Joseph the necessary instructions as to the place of their settlement, and then to act as guide to Goshen.

Verse 29

As soon as they had arrived, Joseph had his chariot made ready to go up to Goshen and meet his father (ויּעל applied to a journey from the interior to the desert or Canaan), and “ showed himself to him there (lit., he appeared to him; נראה, which is generally used only of the appearance of God, is selected here to indicate the glory in which Joseph came to meet his father); and fell upon his neck, continuing (עוד) upon his neck (i.e., in his embrace) weeping.”

Verse 30

Then Israel said to Joseph: “Now (הפּעם lit., this time) will I die, after I have seen thy face, that thou (art) still alive.”

verses 31-32

But Joseph told his brethren and his father's house (his family) that he would to up to Pharaoh (עלה here used of going to the court, as an ideal ascent), to announce the arrival of his relations, who were מקנה אנשׁי “keepers of flocks,” and had brought their sheep and oxen and all their possessions with them.

verses 33-34

At the same time Joseph gave these instructions to his brethren, in case Pharaoh should send for them and inquire about their occupation: “Say, Thy servants have been keepers of cattle from our youth even until now, we like our fathers; that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination of the Egyptians.” This last remark formed part of Joseph's words, and contained the reason why his brethren should describe themselves to Pharaoh as shepherds from of old, namely, that they might receive Goshen as their dwelling-place, and that their national and religion independence might not be endangered by too close an intercourse with the Egyptians. The dislike of the Egyptians to shepherds arose from the fact, that the more completely the foundations of the Egyptian state rested upon agriculture with its perfect organization, the more did the Egyptians associate the idea of rudeness and barbarism with the very name of a shepherd. This is not only attested in various ways by the monuments, on which shepherds are constantly depicted as lanky, withered, distorted, emaciated, and sometimes almost ghostly figures (Graul, Reise 2, p. 171), but is confirmed by ancient testimony. According to Herodotus (2, 47), the swine-herds were the most despised; but they were associated with the cow-herds (βουκόλοι) in the seven castes of the Egyptians (Herod. 2, 164), so that Diodorus Siculus (1, 74) includes all herdsmen in one caste; according to which the word βουκόλοι in Herodotus not only denotes cow-herds, but a potiori all herdsmen, just as we find in the herds depicted upon the monuments, sheep, goats, and rams introduced by thousands, along with asses and horned cattle.

Chap. 47

verses 1-2

When Joseph had announced to Pharaoh the arrival of his relations in Goshen, he presented five out of the whole number of his brethren (אחיו מקצה; on קצה see Gen 19:4) to the king.

verses 3-6

Pharaoh asked them about their occupation, and according to Joseph's instructions they replied that they were herdsmen (צאן רעה, the singular of the predicate, see Ges. §147c), who had come to sojourn in the land (גּוּר, i.e., to stay for a time), because the pasture for their flocks had failed in the land of Canaan on account of the famine. The king then empowered Joseph to give his father and his brethren a dwelling (הושׁיב) in the best part of the land, in the land of Goshen, and, if he knew any brave men among them, to make them rulers over the royal herds, which were kept, as we may infer, in the land of Goshen, as being the best pasture-land.

verses 7-9

Joseph then presented his father to Pharaoh, but not till after the audience of his brothers had been followed by the royal permission to settle, for which the old man, who was bowed down with age, was not in a condition to sue. The patriarch saluted the king with a blessing, and replied to his inquiry as to his age, “ The days of the years of my pilgrimage are 130 years; few and sorrowful are the days of my life's years, and have not reached (the perfect in the presentiment of his approaching end) the days of the life's years of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.” Jacob called his own life and that of his fathers a pilgrimage (מגוּרים), because they had not come into actual possession of the promised land, but had been obliged all their life long to wander about, unsettled and homeless, in the land promised to them for an inheritance, as in a strange land. This pilgrimage was at the same time a figurative representation of the inconstancy and weariness of the earthly life, in which man does not attain to that true rest of peace with God and blessedness in His fellowship, for which he was created, and for which therefore his soul is continually longing (cf. Psa 39:13; Psa 119:19, Psa 119:54; 1Ch 29:15). The apostle, therefore, could justly regard these words as a declaration of the longing of the patriarchs for the eternal rest of their heavenly fatherland (Heb 11:13-16). So also Jacob's life was little (מעט) and evil (i.e., full of toil and trouble) in comparison with the life of his fathers. For Abraham lived to be 175 years old, and Isaac 180; and neither of them had led a life so agitated, so full of distress and dangers, of tribulation and anguish, as Jacob had from his first flight to Haran up to the time of his removal to Egypt.

Verse 10

After this probably short interview, of which, however, only the leading incidents are given, Jacob left the king with a blessing.

verses 11-12

Joseph assigned to his father and his brethren, according to Pharaoh's command, a possession (אחזּה) for a dwelling-place in the best part of Egypt, the land of Raëmses, and provided them with bread, “ according to the mouth of the little ones,” i.e., according to the necessities of each family, answering to the larger or smaller number of their children. כּלכּל with a double accusative ( Ges. §139). The settlement of the Israelites is called the land of Raëmses (רעמסס, in pause רעמסס Exo 1:11), instead of Goshen, either because the province of Goshen (Γεσέμ, lxx) is indicated by the name of its former capital Raëmses (i.e., Heroopolis, on the site or in the immediate neighbourhood of the modern Abu Keisheib, in Wady Tumilat (vid., Exo 1:11), or because Israel settled in the vicinity of Raëmses. The district of Goshen is to be sought in the modern province of el Sharkiyeh (i.e., the eastern), on the east side of the Nile, towards Arabia, still the most fertile and productive province of Egypt (cf. Robinson, Pal. i. 78, 79). For Goshen was bounded on the east by the desert of Arabia Petraea, which stretches away to Philistia (Exo 13:17, cf. 1Ch 7:21) and is called Γεσέμ Ἀραβίας in the Septuagint in consequence (Gen 45:10; Gen 46:34), and must have extended westwards to the Nile, since the Israelites had an abundance of fish (Num 11:5). It probably skirted the Tanitic arm of the Nile, as the fields of Zoan, i.e., Tanis, are said to have been the scene of the mighty acts of God in Egypt (Psa 78:12, Psa 78:43, cf. Num 13:22). In this province Joseph assigned his relations settlements near to himself (Gen 45:10), from which they could quickly and easily communicate with one another (Gen 46:28; Gen 48:1.). Whether he lived at Raëmses or not, cannot be determined, just because the residence of the Pharaoh of that time is not known, and the notion that it was at Memphis is only based upon utterly uncertain combinations relating to the Hyksos.
To make the extent of the benefit conferred by Joseph upon his family, in providing them with the necessary supplies during the years of famine, all the more apparent, a description is given of the distress into which the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan were plunged by the continuance of the famine.

Verse 13

The land of Egypt and the land of Canaan were exhausted with hunger. - ותּלהּ: from להה = לאה, to languish, to be exhausted, only occurring again in Pro 26:18, Hithp. in a secondary sense.

Verse 14

All the money in both countries was paid in to Joseph for the purchase of corn, and deposited by him in Pharaoh's house, i.e., the royal treasury.

verses 15-17

When the money was exhausted, the Egyptians all came to Joseph with the petition: “ Give us bread, why should we die before thee” (i.e., so that thou shouldst see us die, when in reality thou canst support us)? Joseph then offered to accept their cattle in payment; and they brought him near their herds, in return for which he provided them that year with bread. נהל: Piel to lead, with the secondary meaning, to care for (Psa 23:2; Isa 40:11, etc.); hence the signification here, “to maintain.”

verses 18-19

When that year had passed (תּתּם, as in Psa 102:28, to denote the termination of the year), they came again “the second year” (i.e., after the money was gone, not the second of the seven years of famine) and said: “ We cannot hide it from my lord (אדוני, a title similar to your majesty), but the money is all gone, and the cattle have come to my lord; we have nothing left to offer to my lord but our bodies and our land.” אם כּי is an intensified כּי following a negation (“but,” as in Gen 32:29, etc.), and is to be understood elliptically; lit., “for if,” sc., we would speak openly; not “that because,” for the causal signification of אם is not established. תּם with אל is constructio praegnans: “completed to my lord,” i.e., completely handed over to my lord. לפני נשׁאר is the same: “left before my lord,” i.e., for us to lay before, or offer to my lord. “ Why should we die before thine eyes, we and our land! Buy us and our land for bread, that we may be, we and our land, servants (subject) to Pharaoh; and give seed, that we may live and not die, and the land become not desolate.” In the first clause נמוּת is transferred per zeugma to the land; in the last, the word תּשׁם is used to describe the destruction of the land. The form תּשׁם is the same as תּקל in Gen 16:4.

verses 20-21

Thus Joseph secured the possession of the whole land to Pharaoh by purchase, and “ the people he removed to cities, from one end of the land of Egypt to the other.” לערים, not from one city to another, but “according to (= κατά) the cities;” so that he distributed the population of the whole land according to the cities in which the corn was housed, placing them partly in the cities themselves, and partly in the immediate neighbourhood.

Verse 22

The lands of the priests Joseph did not buy, “ for the priests had an allowance from Pharaoh, and ate their allowance, which Pharaoh gave them; therefore they sold not their lands.” חק a fixed allowance of food, as in Pro 30:8; Eze 16:27. This allowance was granted by Pharaoh probably only during the years of famine; in any case it was an arrangement which ceased when the possessions of the priests sufficed for their need, since, according to Diod. Sic. i. 73, the priests provided the sacrifices and the support of both themselves and their servants from the revenue of their lands; and with this Herodotus also agrees (2, 37).

verses 23-27

Then Joseph said to the people: “ Behold I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh; there have ye (הא only found in Eze 16:43 and Dan 2:43) seed, and sow the land; and of the produce ye shall give the fifth for Pharaoh, and four parts (ידת, as in Gen 43:34) shall belong to you for seed, and for the support of yourselves, your families and children.” The people agreed to this; and the writer adds (Gen 47:26), it became a law, in existence to this day (his own time), “with regard to the land of Egypt for Pharaoh with reference to the fifth,” i.e., that the fifth of the produce of the land should be paid to Pharaoh.
Profane writers have given at least an indirect support to the reality of this political reform of Joseph's. Herodotus, for example (2, 109), states that king Sesostris divided the land among the Egyptians, giving every one a square piece of the same size as his hereditary possession (κλῆρον), and derived his own revenue from a yearly tax upon them. Diod. Sic. (1, 73), again, says that all the land in Egypt belonged either to the priests, to the king, or to the warriors; and Strabo (xvii. p. 787), that the farmers and traders held rateable land, so that the peasants were not landowners. On the monuments, too, the kings, priests, and warriors only are represented as having landed property (cf. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, i. 263). The biblical account says nothing about the exemption of the warriors from taxation and their possession of land, for that was a later arrangement. According to Herod. 2, 168, every warrior had received from former kings, as an honourable payment, twelve choice fields (ἄρουραι) free from taxation, but they were taken away by the Hephaesto-priest Sethos, a contemporary of Hezekiah, when he ascended the throne ( Herod. 2, 141). But when Herodotus and Diodorus Sic. attribute to Sesostris the division of the land into 36 νομοί, and the letting of these for a yearly payment; these comparatively recent accounts simply transfer the arrangement, which was actually made by Joseph, to a half-mythical king, to whom the later legends ascribed all the greater deeds and more important measures of the early Pharaohs. And so far as Joseph's arrangement itself was concerned, not only had he the good of the people and the interests of the king in view, but the people themselves accepted it as a favour, inasmuch as in a land where the produce was regularly thirty-fold, the cession of a fifth could not be an oppressive burden. And it is probable that Joseph not only turned the temporary distress to account by raising the king into the position of sole possessor of the land, with the exception of that of the priests, and bringing the people into a condition of feudal dependence upon him, but had also a still more comprehensive object in view; viz., to secure the population against the danger of starvation in case the crops should fail at any future time, not only by dividing the arable land in equal proportions among the people generally, but, as has been conjectured, by laying the foundation for a system of cultivation regulated by laws and watched over by the state, and possibly also by commencing a system of artificial irrigation by means of canals, for the purpose of conveying the fertilizing water of the Nile as uniformly as possible to all parts of the land. (An explanation of this system is given by Hengstenberg in his Dissertations, from the Correspondance d'Orient par Michaud, etc.) To mention either these or any other plans of a similar kind, did not come within the scope of the book of Genesis, which restricts itself, in accordance with its purely religious intention, to a description of the way in which, during the years of famine, Joseph proved himself to both the king and people of Egypt to be the true support of the land, so that in him Israel already became a saviour of the Gentiles. The measures taken by Joseph are thus circumstantially described, partly because the relation into which the Egyptians were brought to their visible king bore a typical resemblance to the relation in which the Israelites were placed by the Mosaic constitution to Jehovah, their God-King, since they also had to give a double tenth, i.e., the fifth of the produce of their lands, and were in reality only farmers of the soil which Jehovah had given them in Canaan for a possession, so that they could not part with their hereditary possessions in perpetuity (Lev 25:23); and partly also because Joseph's conduct exhibited in type how God entrusts His servants with the good things of this earth, in order that they may use them not only for the preservation of the lives of individuals and nations, but also for the promotion of the purposes of His kingdom. For, as is stated in conclusion in Gen 47:27, not only did Joseph preserve the lives of the Egyptians, for which they expressed their acknowledgements (Gen 47:25), but under his administration the house of Israel was able, without suffering any privations, or being brought into a relation of dependence towards Pharaoh, to dwell in the land of Goshen, to establish itself there (נאחז as in Gen 34:10), and to become fruitful and multiply.

verses 28-31

Jacob lived in Egypt for 17 years. He then sent for Joseph, as he felt that his death was approaching; and having requested him, as a mark of love and faithfulness, not to bury him in Egypt, but near his fathers in Canaan, he made him assure him on oath (by putting his hand under his hip, vid., p. 164) that his wishes should be fulfilled. When Joseph had taken this oath, “ Israel bowed (in worship) upon the bed's head.” He had talked with Joseph while sitting upon the bed; and when Joseph had promised to fulfil his wish, he turned towards the head of the bed, so as to lie with his face upon the bed, and thus worshipped God, thanking Him for granting his wish, which sprang from living faith in the promises of God; just as David also worshipped upon his bed (1Ki 1:47-48). The Vulgate rendering is correct: adoravit Deum conversus ad lectuli caput. That of the lxx, on the contrary, is προσεκύνησεν Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄδρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ (i.e., המּטּה); and the Syriac and Itala have the same (cf. Heb 11:21). But no fitting sense can be obtained from this rendering, unless we think of the staff with which Jacob had gone through life, and, taking αὐτου therefore in the sense of αὑτοῦ, assume that Jacob made use of the staff to enable him to sit upright in bed, and so prayed, bent upon or over it, though even then the expression המטה ראשׁ remains a strange one; so that unquestionably this rendering arose from a false reading of המטה, and is not proved to be correct by the quotation in Heb 11:21. “ Adduxit enim lxx Interpr. versionem Apostolus, quod ea tum usitata esset, non quod lectionem illam praeferendam judicaret (Calovii Bibl. illustr. ad h. l.).

Chap. 48

verses 1-2

Adoption of Joseph's Sons. - Gen 48:1, Gen 48:2. After these events, i.e., not long after Jacob's arrangements for his burial, it was told to Joseph (ויּאמר “one said,” cf. Gen 48:2) that his father was taken ill; whereupon Joseph went to him with his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were then 18 or 20 years old. On his arrival being announced to Jacob, Israel made himself strong (collected his strength), and sat up on his bed. The change of names is as significant here as in Gen 45:27-28. Jacob, enfeebled with age, gathered up his strength for a work, which he was about to perform as Israel, the bearer of the grace of the promise.

verses 3-7

Referring to the promise which the Almighty God had given him at Bethel (Gen 35:10. cf. Gen 38:13.), Israel said to Joseph (Gen 48:5): “ And now thy two sons, which were born to thee in the land of Egypt, until (before) I came to thee into Egypt...let them be mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, like Reuben and Simeon (my first and second born), let them be mine.” The promise which Jacob had received empowered the patriarch to adopt the sons of Joseph in the place of children. Since the Almighty God had promised him the increase of his seed into a multitude of peoples, and Canaan as an eternal possession to that seed, he could so incorporate into the number of his descendants the two sons of Joseph who were born in Egypt before his arrival, and therefore outside the range of his house, that they should receive an equal share in the promised inheritance with his own eldest sons. But this privilege was to be restricted to the two first-born sons of Joseph. “ Thy descendants,” he proceeds in Gen 48:6, “ which thou hast begotten since them, shall be thine; by the name of their brethren shall they be called in their inheritance;” i.e., they shall not form tribes of their own with a separate inheritance, but shall be reckoned as belonging to Ephraim and Manasseh, and receive their possessions among these tribes, and in their inheritance. These other sons of Joseph are not mentioned anywhere; but their descendants are at any rate included in the families of Ephraim and Manasseh mentioned in Num 26:28-37; 1 Chron 7:14-29. By this adoption of his two eldest sons, Joseph was placed in the position of the first-born, so far as the inheritance was concerned (1Ch 5:2). Joseph's mother, who had died so early, was also honoured thereby. And this explains the allusion made by Jacob in Gen 48:7 to his beloved Rachel, the wife of his affections, and to her death-how she died by his side (עלי), on his return from Padan (for Padan-Aram, the only place in which it is so called, cf. Gen 25:20), without living to see her first-born exalted to the position of a saviour to the whole house of Israel.

verses 8-11

The Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh. - Gen 48:8. Jacob now for the first time caught sight of Joseph's sons, who had come with him, and inquired who they were; for “ the eyes of Israel were heavy (dim) with age, so that he could not see well” (Gen 48:10). The feeble old man, too, may not have seen the youths for some years, so that he did not recognise them again. On Joseph's answering, “ My sons whom God hath given he mere,” he replied, “ Bring them to me then (קחם־נא), that I may bless them;” and he kissed and embraced them, when Joseph had brought them near, expressing his joy, that whereas he never expected to see Joseph's face again, God had permitted him to see his seed. ראה for ראות, like עשׂו (Gen 31:28). עלּל: to decide; here, to judge, to think.

verses 12-13

Joseph then, in order to prepare his sons for the reception of the blessing, brought them from between the knees of Israel, who was sitting with the youths between his knees and embracing them, and having prostrated himself with his face to the earth, he came up to his father again, with Ephraim the younger on his right hand, and Manasseh the elder on the left, so that Ephraim stood at Jacob's right hand, and Manasseh at his left.

verses 14-16

The patriarch then stretched out his right hand and laid it upon Ephraim's head, and placed his left upon the head of Manasseh (crossing his arms therefore), to bless Joseph in his sons. “ Guiding his hands wittingly;” i.e., he placed his hands in this manner intentionally. Laying on the hand, which is mentioned here for the first time in the Scriptures, was a symbolical sign, by which the person acting transferred to another a spiritual good, a supersensual power or gift; it occurs elsewhere in connection with dedication to an office (Num 27:18, Num 27:23; Deu 34:9; Mat 19:13; Act 6:6; Act 8:17, etc.), with the sacrifices, and with the cures performed by Christ and the apostles. By the imposition of hands, Jacob transferred to Joseph in his sons the blessing which he implored for them from his own and his father's God: “ The God ( Ha-Elohim) before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God ( Ha-Elohim) who hath fed me (led and provided for me with a shepherd's faithfulness, Psa 23:1; Psa 28:9) from my existence up to this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads.” This triple reference to God, in which the Angel who is placed on an equality with Ha-Elohim cannot possibly be a created angel, but must be the “Angel of God,” i.e., God manifested in the form of the Angel of Jehovah, or the “Angel of His face” (Isa 43:9), contains a foreshadowing of the Trinity, though only God and the Angel are distinguished, not three persons of the divine nature. The God before whom Abraham and Isaac walked, had proved Himself to Jacob to be “the God which fed” and “the Angel which redeemed,” i.e., according to the more fully developed revelation of the New Testament, ὁ Θεός and ὁ λόγος, Shepherd and Redeemer. By the singular יברך (bless, benedicat) the triple mention of God is resolved into the unity of the divine nature. Non dicit ( Jakob) benedicant, pluraliter, nec repetit sed conjungit in uno opere benedicendi tres personas, Deum Patrem, Deum pastorem et Angelum. Sunt igitur hi tres unus Deus et unus benedictor. Idem opus facit Angelus quod pastor et Deus Patrum ( Luther). “Let my name be named on them, and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac,” i.e., not, “they shall bear my name and my fathers',” “ dicantur filii mei et patrum meorum, licet ex te nati sint” ( Rosenm.), which would only be another way of acknowledging his adoption of them, “ nota adoptionis” ( Calvin); for as the simple mention of adoption is unsuitable to such a blessing, so the words appended, “ and according to the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac,” are still less suitable as a periphrasis for adoption. The thought is rather: the true nature of the patriarchs shall be discerned and acknowledged in Ephraim and Manasseh; in them shall those blessings of grace and salvation be renewed, which Jacob and his fathers Isaac and Abraham received from God. The name expressed the nature, and “being called” is equivalent to “being, and being recognised by what one is.” The salvation promised to the patriarchs related primarily to the multiplication into a great nation, and the possession of Canaan. Hence Jacob proceeds: “ and let them increase into a multitude in the midst of the land.” דּגה: ἁπ λεγ, “to increase,” from which the name דּג, a fish, is derived, on account of the remarkable rapidity with which they multiply.

verses 17-22

When Joseph observed his father placing his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, the younger son, he laid hold of it to put it upon Manasseh's head, telling his father at the same time that he was the first-born; but Jacob replied, “ I know, my son, I know: he also (Manasseh) will become a nation, and will become great, yet (ואוּלם as in Gen 28:19) his younger brother will become greater than he, and his seed will become the fulness of nations.” This blessing began to be fulfilled from the time of the Judges, when the tribe of Ephraim so increased in extent and power, that it took the lead of the northern tribes and became the head of the ten tribes, and its name acquired equal importance with the name Israel, whereas under Moses, Manasseh had numbered 20,000 more than Ephraim (Num 26:34 and Num 26:37). As a result of the promises received from God, the blessing was not merely a pious wish, but the actual bestowal of a blessing of prophetic significance and force. - In Gen 48:20 the writer sums up the entire act of blessing in the words of the patriarch: “ In thee (i.e., Joseph) will Israel (as a nation) bless, saying: God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh” (i.e., Joseph shall be so blessed in his two sons, that their blessing will become a standing form of benediction in Israel); “ and thus he placed Ephraim before Manasseh,” viz., in the position of his hands and the terms of the blessing. Lastly, (Gen 48:21) Israel expressed to Joseph his firm faith in the promise, that God would bring back his descendants after his death into the land of their fathers (Canaan), and assigned to him a double portion in the promised land, the conquest of which passed before his prophetic glance as already accomplished, in order to insure for the future the inheritance of the adopted sons of Joseph. “ I give thee one ridge of land above thy brethren” (i.e., above what thy brethren receive, each as a single tribe), “which I take from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and bow” (i.e., by force of arms). As the perfect is used prophetically, transposing the future to the present as being already accomplished, so the words לקחתּי אשׁר must also be understood prophetically, as denoting that Jacob would wrest the land from the Amorites, not in his own person, but in that of his posterity.^[27]
The words cannot refer to the purchase of the piece of ground at Shechem (Gen 33:19), for a purchase could not possibly be called a conquest by sword and bow; and still less to the crime committed by the sons of Jacob against the inhabitants of Shechem, when they plundered the town (Gen 34:25.), for Jacob could not possibly have attributed to himself a deed for which he had pronounced a curse upon Simeon and Levi (Gen 49:6-7), not to mention the fact, that the plundering of Shechem was not followed in this instance by the possession of the city, but by the removal of Jacob from the neighbourhood. “Moreover, any conquest of territory would have been entirely at variance with the character of the patriarchal history, which consisted in the renunciation of all reliance upon human power, and a believing, devoted trust in the God of the promises” ( Delitzsch). The land, which the patriarchs desired to obtain in Canaan, they procured not by force of arms, but by legal purchase (cf. Gen 24 and Gen 33:19). It was to be very different in the future, when the iniquity of the Amorites was full (Gen 15:16). But Jacob called the inheritance, which Joseph was to have in excess of his brethren, שׁכם (lit., shoulder, or more properly nape, neck; here figuratively a ridge, or tract of land), as a play upon the word Shechem, because he regarded the piece of land purchased at Shechem as a pledge of the future possession of the whole land. In the piece purchased there, the bones of Joseph were buried, after the conquest of Canaan (Jos 24:32); and this was understood in future times, as though Jacob had presented the piece of ground to Joseph (vid., Joh 4:5).

Chap. 49

Jacob’s blessing and death. — chap. xlix.

Verses 1-2

The Blessing. - Gen 49:1, Gen 49:2. When Jacob had adopted and blessed the two sons of Joseph, he called his twelve sons, to make known to them his spiritual bequest. In an elevated and solemn tone he said, “ Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you (יקרא for יקרה, as in Gen 42:4, Gen 42:38) at the end of the days! Gather yourselves together and hear, ye sons of Jacob, and hearken unto Israel your father!” The last address of Jacob-Israel to his twelve sons, which these words introduce, is designated by the historian (Gen 49:28) “the blessing,” with which “their father blessed them, every one according to his blessing.” This blessing is at the same time a prophecy. “Every superior and significant life becomes prophetic at its close” ( Ziegler). But this was especially the case with the lives of the patriarchs, which were filled and sustained by the promises and revelations of God. As Isaac in his blessing (Gen 27) pointed out prophetically to his two sons, by virtue of divine illumination, the future history of their families; “so Jacob, while blessing the twelve, pictured in grand outlines the lineamenta of the future history of the future nation” ( Ziegler). The groundwork of his prophecy was supplied partly by the natural character of his twelve sons, and partly by the divine promise which had been given by the Lord to him and to his fathers Abraham and Isaac, and that not merely in these two points, the numerous increase of their seed and the possession of Canaan, but in its entire scope, by which Israel had been appointed to be the recipient and medium of salvation for all nations. On this foundation the Spirit of God revealed to the dying patriarch Israel the future history of his seed, so that he discerned in the characters of his sons the future development of the tribes proceeding from them, and with prophetic clearness assigned to each of them its position and importance in the nation into which they were to expand in the promised inheritance. Thus he predicted to the sons what would happen to them “in the last days,” lit., “at the end of the days” (ἐπ ̓ ἐσχάτων  τῶν ἡμερῶν, lxx), and not merely at some future time. אחרית, the opposite of ראשׁית, signifies the end in contrast with the beginning (Deu 11:12; Isa 46:10); hence הימים אחרית in prophetic language denoted, not the future generally, but the last future (see Hengstenberg's History of Balaam, pp. 465-467, transl.), the Messianic age of consummation (Isa 2:2; Eze 38:8, Eze 38:16; Jer 30:24; Jer 48:47; Jer 49:39, etc.: so also Num 24:14; Deu 4:30), like ἐπ ̓ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν (2Pe 3:3; Heb 1:2), or ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Act 2:17; 2Ti 3:1). But we must not restrict “the end of the days” to the extreme point of the time of completion of the Messianic kingdom; it embraces “the whole history of the completion which underlies the present period of growth,” or “the future as bringing the work of God to its ultimate completion, though modified according to the particular stage to which the work of God had advanced in any particular age, the range of vision opened to that age, and the consequent horizon of the prophet, which, though not absolutely dependent upon it, was to a certain extent regulated by it” ( Delitzsch).
For the patriarch, who, with his pilgrim-life, had been obliged in the very evening of his days to leave the soil of the promised land and seek a refuge for himself and his house in Egypt, the final future, with its realization of the promises of God, commenced as soon as the promised land was in the possession of the twelve tribes descended from his sons. He had already before his eyes, in his twelve sons with their children and children's children, the first beginnings of the multiplication of his seed into a great nation. Moreover, on his departure from Canaan he had received the promise, that the God of his fathers would make him into a great nation, and lead him up again to Canaan (Gen 46:3-4). The fulfilment of this promise his thoughts and hopes, his longings and wishes, were all directed. This constituted the firm foundation, though by no means the sole and exclusive purport, of his words of blessing. The fact was not, as Baumgarten and Kurtz suppose, that Jacob regarded the time of Joshua as that of the completion; that for him the end was nothing more than the possession of the promised land by his seed as the promised nation, so that all the promises pointed to this, and nothing beyond it was either affirmed or hinted at. Not a single utterance announces the capture of the promised land; not a single one points specially to the time of Joshua. On the contrary, Jacob presupposes not only the increase of his sons into powerful tribes, but also the conquest of Canaan, as already fulfilled; foretells to his sons, whom he sees in spirit as populous tribes, growth and prosperity on the soil in their possession; and dilates upon their relation to one another in Canaan and to the nations round about, even to the time of their final subjection to the peaceful sway of Him, from whom the sceptre of Judah shall never depart. The ultimate future of the patriarchal blessing, therefore, extends to the ultimate fulfilment of the divine promises-that is to say, to the completion of the kingdom of God. The enlightened seer's-eye of the patriarch surveyed, “as though upon a canvas painted without perspective,” the entire development of Israel from its first foundation as the nation and kingdom of God till its completion under the rule of the Prince of Peace, whom the nations would serve in willing obedience; and beheld the twelve tribes spreading themselves out, each in his inheritance, successfully resisting their enemies, and finding rest and full satisfaction in the enjoyment of the blessings of Canaan.
It is in this vision of the future condition of his sons as grown into tribes that the prophetic character of the blessing consists; not in the prediction of particular historical events, all of which, on the contrary, with the exception of the prophecy of Shiloh, fall into the background behind the purely ideal portraiture of the peculiarities of the different tribes. The blessing gives, in short sayings full of bold and thoroughly original pictures, only general outlines of a prophetic character, which are to receive their definite concrete form from the historical development of the tribes in the future; and throughout it possesses both in form and substance a certain antique stamp, in which its genuineness is unmistakeably apparent. Every attack upon its genuineness has really proceeded from an a priori denial of all supernatural prophecies, and has been sustained by such misinterpretations as the introduction of special historical allusions, for the purpose of stamping it as a vaticinia ex eventu, and by other untenable assertions and assumptions; such, for example, as that people do not make poetry at so advanced an age or in the immediate prospect of death, or that the transmission of such an oration word for word down to the time of Moses is utterly inconceivable-objections the emptiness of which has been demonstrated in Hengstenberg's Christology i. p. 76 (transl.) by copious citations from the history of the early Arabic poetry.

verses 3-4

Reuben, my first-born thou, my might and first-fruit of my strength; pre-eminence in dignity and pre-eminence in power. - As the first-born, the first sprout of the full virile power of Jacob, Reuben, according to natural right, was entitled to the first rank among his brethren, the leadership of the tribes, and a double share of the inheritance (Gen 27:29; Deu 21:17). (שׂאת: elevation, the dignity of the chieftainship; עז, the earlier mode of pronouncing עז, the authority of the first-born.) But Reuben had forfeited this prerogative. “ Effervescence like water - thou shalt have no preference; for thou didst ascend thy father's marriage-bed: then hast thou desecrated; my couch has he ascended.” פּחז: lit., the boiling over of water, figuratively, the excitement of lust; hence the verb is used in Jdg 9:4; Zep 3:4, for frivolity and insolent pride. With this predicate Jacob describes the moral character of Reuben; and the noun is stronger than the verb פחזת of the Samaritan, and אתרעת or ארתעת efferbuisti, aestuasti of the Sam. Vers., ἐξύβρισας of the lxx, and ὑπερζέσας of Symm. תּותר is to be explained by יתר: have no pre-eminence. His crime was, lying with Bilhah, his father's concubine (Gen 35:22). חלּלתּ is used absolutely: desecrated hast thou, sc., what should have been sacred to thee (cf. Lev 18:8). From this wickedness the injured father turns away with indignation, and passes to the third person as he repeats the words, “my couch he has ascended.” By the withdrawal of the rank belonging to the first-born, Reuben lost the leadership in Israel; so that his tribe attained to no position of influence in the nation (compare the blessing of Moses in Deu 33:6). The leadership was transferred to Judah, the double portion to Joseph (1Ch 5:1-2), by which, so far as the inheritance was concerned, the first-born of the beloved Rachel took the place of the first-born of the slighted Leah; not, however, according to the subjective will of the father, which is condemned in Deu 21:15., but according to the leading of God, by which Joseph had been raised above his brethren, but without the chieftainship being accorded to him. ==verses 5-7== Gen 49:5-7 “Simeon and Levi are brethren:” emphatically brethren in the full sense of the word; not merely as having the same parents, but in their modes of thought and action. “ Weapons of wickedness are their swords.” The ἅπαξ lec. מכרת is rendered by Luther, etc., weapons or swords, from כּוּר = כּרה, to dig, dig through, pierce: not connected with μάχαιρα. L. de Dieu and others follow the Arabic and Aethiopic versions: “plans;” but חמס כּלי, utensils, or instruments, of wickedness, does not accord with this. Such wickedness had the two brothers committed upon the inhabitants of Shechem (Gen 34:25.), that Jacob would have no fellowship with it. “ Into their counsel come not, my soul; with their assembly let not my honour unite.” סוד, a council, or deliberative consensus. תּחד, imperf. of יחד; כּבודי, like Psa 7:6; Psa 16:9, etc., of the soul as the noblest part of man, the centre of his personality as the image of God. “ For in their wrath have they slain men, and in their wantonness houghed oxen.” The singular nouns אישׁ and שׁור, in the sense of indefinite generality, are to be regarded as general rather than singular, especially as the plural form of both is rarely met with; of אישׁ, only in Psa 141:4; Pro 8:4, and Isa 53:3; of שׁור־שׁור, only in Hos 12:12. רצון: inclination, here in a bad sense, wantonness. עקּר: νευροκοπεῖν, to sever the houghs (tendons of the hind feet), - a process by which animals were not merely lamed, but rendered useless, since the tendon once severed could never be healed again, whilst as a rule the arteries were not cut so as to cause the animal to bleed to death (cf. Jos 11:6, Jos 11:9; 2Sa 8:4). In Gen 34:28 it is merely stated that the cattle of the Shechemites were carried off, not that they were lamed. But the one is so far from excluding the other, that it rather includes it in such a case as this, where the sons of Jacob were more concerned about revenge than booty. Jacob mentions the latter only, because it was this which most strikingly displayed their criminal wantonness. On this reckless revenge Jacob pronounces the curse, “ Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I shall divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” They had joined together to commit this crime, and as a punishment they should be divided or scattered in the nation of Israel, should form no independent or compact tribes. This sentence of the patriarch was so fulfilled when Canaan was conquered, that on the second numbering under Moses, Simeon had become the weakest of all the tribes (Num 26:14); in Moses' blessing (Deut 33) it was entirely passed over; and it received no separate assignment of territory as an inheritance, but merely a number of cities within the limits of Judah (Jos 19:1-9). Its possessions, therefore, became an insignificant appendage to those of Judah, into which they were eventually absorbed, as most of the families of Simeon increased but little (1Ch 4:27); and those which increased the most emigrated in two detachments, and sought out settlements for themselves and pasture for their cattle outside the limits of the promised land (1Ch 4:38-43). Levi also received no separate inheritance in the land, but merely a number of cities to dwell in, scattered throughout the possessions of his brethren (Josh 21:1-40). But the scattering of Levi in Israel was changed into a blessing for the other tribes through its election to the priesthood. Of this transformation of the curse into a blessing, there is not the slightest intimation in Jacob's address; and in this we have a strong proof of its genuineness. After this honourable change had taken place under Moses, it would never have occurred to any one to cast such a reproach upon the forefather of the Levites. How different is the blessing pronounced by Moses upon Levi (Deu 33:8.)! But though Jacob withdrew the rights of primogeniture from Reuben, and pronounced a curse upon the crime of Simeon and Levi, he deprived none of them of their share in the promised inheritance. They were merely put into the background because of their sins, but they were not excluded from the fellowship and call of Israel, and did not lose the blessing of Abraham, so that their father's utterances with regard to them might still be regarded as the bestowal of a blessing (Gen 49:28).

verses 8-12

Judah, the fourth son, was the first to receive a rich and unmixed blessing, the blessing of inalienable supremacy and power. “ Judah thou, thee will thy brethren praise! thy hand in the neck of thy foes! to thee will thy father's sons bow down!” אתּה, thou, is placed first as an absolute noun, like אני in Gen 17:4; Gen 24:27; יודוּך is a play upon יהוּדה like אודה in Gen 29:35. Judah, according to Gen 29:35, signifies: he for whom Jehovah is praised, not merely the praised one. “This nomen, the patriarch seized as an omen, and expounded it as a presage of the future history of Judah.” Judah should be in truth all that his name implied (cf. Gen 27:36). Judah had already shown to a certain extent a strong and noble character, when he proposed to sell Joseph rather than shed his blood (Gen 37:26.); but still more in the manner in which he offered himself to his father as a pledge for Benjamin, and pleaded with Joseph on his behalf (Gen 43:9-10; Gen 44:16.); and it was apparent even in his conduct towards Thamar. In this manliness and strength there slumbered the germs of the future development of strength in his tribe. Judah would put his enemies to flight, grasp them by the neck, and subdue them (Job 16:12, cf. Exo 23:27; Psa 18:41). Therefore his brethren would do homage to him: not merely the sons of his mother, who are mentioned in other places (Gen 27:29; Jdg 8:19), i.e., the tribes descended from Leah, but the sons of his father-all the tribes of Israel therefore; and this was really the case under David (2Sa 5:1-2, cf. 1Sa 18:6-7, and 1Sa 18:16). This princely power Judah acquired through his lion-like nature.

verses 9-10

“ A young lion is Judah; from the prey, my son, art thou gone up: he has lain down; like a lion there he lieth, and like a lioness, who can rouse him up!” Jacob compares Judah to a young, i.e., growing lion, ripening into its full strength, as being the “ancestor of the lion-tribe.” But he quickly rises “to a vision of the tribe in the glory of its perfect strength,” and describes it as a lion which, after seizing prey, ascends to the mountain forests (cf. Sol 4:8), and there lies in majestic quiet, no one daring to disturb it. To intensify the thought, the figure of a lion is followed by that of the lioness, which is peculiarly fierce in defending its young. The perfects are prophetic; and עלה relates not to the growth or gradual rise of the tribe, but to the ascent of the lion to its lair upon the mountains. “The passage evidently indicates something more than Judah's taking the lead in the desert, and in the wars of the time of the Judges; and points to the position which Judah attained through the warlike successes of David” ( Knobel). The correctness of this remark is put beyond question by Gen 49:10, where the figure is carried out still further, but in literal terms. “ The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, till Shiloh come and the willing obedience of the nations be to him.” The sceptre is the symbol of regal command, and in its earliest form it was a long staff, which the king held in his hand when speaking in public assemblies (e.g., Agamemnon, Il. 2, 46, 101); and when he sat upon his throne he rested in between his feet, inclining towards himself (see the representation of a Persian king in the ruins of Persepolis, Niebuhr Reisebeschr. ii. 145). מחקק the determining person or thing, hence a commander, legislator, and a commander's or ruler's staff (Num 21:18); here in the latter sense, as the parallels, “sceptre” and “from between his feet,” require. Judah - this is the idea - was to rule, to have the chieftainship, till Shiloh came, i.e., for ever. It is evident that the coming of Shiloh is not to be regarded as terminating the rule of Judah, from the last clause of the verse, according to which it was only then that it would attain to dominion over the nations. כּי עד has not an exclusive signification here, but merely abstracts what precedes from what follows the given terminus ad quem, as in Gen 26:13, or like אשׁר עד Gen 28:15; Psa 112:8, or עד Psa 110:1, and ἕως Mat 5:18.
But the more precise determination of the thought contained in Gen 49:10 is dependent upon our explanation of the word Shiloh. It cannot be traced, as the Jerusalem Targum and the Rabbins affirm, to the word שׁיל filius with the suffix ה = ו “ his son,” since such a noun as שׁיל is never met with in Hebrew, and neither its existence nor the meaning attributed to it can be inferred from שׁליה, afterbirth, in Deu 28:57. Nor can the paraphrases of Onkelos ( donec veniat Messias cujus est regnum), of the Greek versions (ἕως ἐὰν ἔλθη τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ; or ᾧ ἀπόκειται, as Aquila and Symmachus appear to have rendered it), or of the Syriac, etc., afford any real proof, that the defective form שׁלה, which occurs in 20 MSS, was the original form of the word, and is to be pointed שׁלּה for שׁלּו = לו אשׁר. For apart from the fact, that שׁ for אשׁר would be unmeaning here, and that no such abbreviation can be found in the Pentateuch, it ought in any case to read הוּא שׁלּו “to whom it (the sceptre) is due,” since שׁלּו alone could not express this, and an ellipsis of הוּא in such a case would be unparalleled. It only remains therefore to follow Luther, and trace שׁילה to שׁלה, to be quiet, to enjoy rest, security. But from this root Shiloh cannot be explained according to the analogy of such forms כּידור קימשׁ For these forms constitute no peculiar species, but are merely derived from the reduplicated forms, as קמּשׁ, which occurs as well as קימשׁ, clearly shows; moreover they are none of them formed from roots of ה.ל שׁילה points to שׁילון, to the formation of nouns with the termination ôn, in which the liquids are eliminated, and the remaining vowel ו is expressed by ה ( Ew. §84); as for example in the names of places, שׁלה or שׁלו, also שׁילו (Jdg 21:21; Jer 7:12) and גּלה (Jos 15:51), with their derivatives שׁלני (1Ki 11:29; 1Ki 12:15) and גּלני (2Sa 15:12), also אבדּה (Pro 27:20) for אבדּון (Pro 15:11, etc.), clearly prove. Hence שׁילון either arose from שׁליון (שׁלה), or was formed directly from שׁוּל = שׁלה, like גּלון from גּיל. But if שׁילון is the original form of the word, שׁילה cannot be an appellative noun in the sense of rest, or a place of rest, but must be a proper name. For the strong termination ôn loses its n after o only in proper names, like שׁלמה, מגדּו by the side of מגדּון (Zec 12:11) and דּודו (Jdg 10:1). אבדּה forms no exception to this; for when used in Pro 27:20 as a personification of hell, it is really a proper name. An appellative noun like שׁילה, in the sense of rest, or place of rest, “would be unparalleled in the Hebrew thesaurus; the nouns used in this sense are שׁלו, שׁלוה, שׁלום, מנוּחה” For these reasons even Delitzsch pronounces the appellative rendering, “till rest comes,” or till “he comes to a place of rest,” grammatically impossible. Shiloh or Shilo is a proper name in every other instance in which it is used in the Old Testament, and was in fact the name of a city belonging to the tribe of Ephraim, which stood in the midst of the land of Canaan, upon an eminence above the village of Turmus Aya, in an elevated valley surrounded by hills, where ruins belonging both to ancient and modern times still bear the name of Seilûn. In this city the tabernacle was pitched on the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua, and there it remained till the time of Eli (Jdg 18:31; 1Sa 1:3; 1Sa 2:12.), possibly till the early part of Saul's reign.
Some of the Rabbins supposed our Shiloh to refer to the city. This opinion has met with the approval of most of the expositors, from Teller and Eichhorn to Tuch, who regard the blessing as a vaticinium ex eventu, and deny not only its prophetic character, but for the most part its genuineness. Delitzsch has also decided in its favour, because Shiloh or Shilo is the name of a town in every other passage of the Old Testament; and in 1Sa 4:12, where the name is written as an accusative of direction, the words are written exactly as they are here. But even if we do not go so far as Hoffmann, and pronounce the rendering “till he (Judah) come to Shiloh” the most impossible of all renderings, we must pronounce it utterly irreconcilable with the prophetic character of the blessing. Even if Shilo existed in Jacob's time (which can neither be affirmed nor denied), it had acquired no importance in relation to the lives of the patriarchs, and is not once referred to in their history; so that Jacob could only have pointed to it as the goal and turning point of Judah's supremacy in consequence of a special revelation from God. But in that case the special prediction would really have been fulfilled: not only would Judah have come to Shiloh, but there he would have found permanent rest, and there would the willing subjection of the nations to his sceptre have actually taken place. Now none of these anticipations and confirmed by history. It is true we read in Jos 18:1, that after the promised land had been conquered by the defeat of the Canaanites in the south and north, and its distribution among the tribes of Israel had commenced, and was so far accomplished, that Judah and the double tribe of Joseph had received their inheritance by lot, the congregation assembled at Shilo, and there erected the tabernacle, and it was not till after this had been done, that the partition of the land was proceeded with and brought to completion. But although this meeting of the whole congregation at Shilo, and the erection of the tabernacle there, was generally of significance as the turning point of the history, it was of equal importance to all the tribes, and not to Judah alone. If it were to this event that Jacob's words pointed, they should be rendered, “till they come to Shiloh,” which would be grammatically allowable indeed, but very improbable with the existing context. And even then nothing would be gained. For, in the first place, up to the time of the arrival of the congregation at Shilo, Judah did not possess the promised rule over the tribes. The tribe of Judah took the first place in the camp and on the march (Num 2:3-9; Num 10:14), - formed in fact the van of the army; but it had no rule, did not hold the chief command. The sceptre or command was held by the Levite Moses during the journey through the desert, and by the Ephraimite Joshua at the conquest and division of Canaan. Moreover, Shilo itself was not the point at which the leadership of Judah among the tribes was changed into the command of nations. Even if the assembling of the congregation of Israel at Shiloh (Jos 18:1) formed so far a turning point between two periods in the history of Israel, that the erection of the tabernacle for a permanent continuance at Shilo was a tangible pledge, that Israel had now gained a firm footing in the promised land, had come to rest and peace after a long period of wandering and war, had entered into quiet and peaceful possession of the land and its blessings, so that Shilo, as its name indicates, became the resting-place of Israel; Judah did not acquire the command over the twelve tribes at that time, nor so long as the house of God remained at Shilo, to say nothing of the submission of the nations. It was not till after the rejection of “the abode of Shiloh,” at and after the removal of the ark of the covenant by the Philistines (1 Sam 4), ), with which the “tabernacle of Joseph” as also rejected, that God selected the tribe of Judah and chose David (Psa 78:60-72). Hence it was not till after Shiloh had ceased to be the spiritual centre for the tribes of Israel, over whom Ephraim had exercised a kind of rule so long as the central sanctuary of the nation continued in its inheritance, that by David's election as prince (נגיד) over Israel the sceptre and the government over the tribes of Israel passed over to the tribe of Judah. Had Jacob, therefore, promised to his son Judah the sceptre or ruler's staff over the tribes until he came to Shiloh, he would have uttered no prophecy, but simply a pious wish, which would have remained entirely unfulfilled.
With this result we ought not to rest contented; unless, indeed, it could be maintained that because Shiloh was ordinarily the name of a city, it could have no other signification. But just as many other names of cities are also names of persons, e.g., Enoch (Gen 4:17), and Shechem (Gen 34:2); so Shiloh might also be a personal name, and denote not merely the place of rest, but the man, or bearer, of rest. We regard Shiloh, therefore, as a title of the Messiah, in common with the entire Jewish synagogue and the whole Christian Church, in which, although there may be uncertainty as to the grammatical interpretation of the word, there is perfect agreement as to the fact that the patriarch is here proclaiming the coming of the Messiah. “For no objection can really be sustained against thus regarding it as a personal name, in closest analogy to שׁלמה” ( Hoffmann). The assertion that Shiloh cannot be the subject, but must be the object in this sentence, is as unfounded as the historiological axiom, “that the expectation of a personal Messiah was perfectly foreign to the patriarchal age, and must have been foreign from the very nature of that age,” with which Kurtz sets aside the only explanation of the word which is grammatically admissible as relating to the personal Messiah, thus deciding, by means of a priori assumptions which completely overthrow the supernaturally unfettered character of prophecy, and from a one-sided view of the patriarchal age and history, how much the patriarch Jacob ought to have been able to prophesy. The expectation of a personal Saviour did not arise for the first time with Moses, Joshua, and David, or first obtain its definite form after one man had risen up as the deliverer and redeemer, the leader and ruler of the whole nation, but was contained in the germ in the promise of the seed of the woman, and in the blessing of Noah upon Shem. It was then still further expanded in the promises of God to the patriarchs. - “I will bless thee; be a blessing, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed,” - by which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (not merely the nation to descend from them) were chosen as the personal bearers of that salvation, which was to be conveyed by them through their seed to all nations. When the patriarchal monad was expanded into a dodekad, and Jacob had before him in his twelve sons the founders of the twelve-tribed nation, the question naturally arose, from which of the twelve tribes would the promised Saviour proceed? Reuben had forfeited the right of primogeniture by his incest, and it could not pass over to either Simeon or Levi on account of their crime against the Shechemites. Consequently the dying patriarch transferred, both by his blessing and prophecy, the chieftainship which belonged to the first-born and the blessing of the promise to his fourth son Judah, having already, by the adoption of Joseph's sons, transferred to Joseph the double inheritance associated with the birthright. Judah was to bear the sceptre with victorious lion-courage, until in the future Shiloh the obedience of the nations came to him, and his rule over the tribes was widened into the peaceful government of the world. It is true that it is not expressly stated that Shiloh was to descend from Judah; but this follows as a matter of course from the context, i.e., from the fact, that after the description of Judah as an invincible lion, the cessation of his rule, or the transference of it to another tribe, could not be imagined as possible, and the thought lies upon the surface, that the dominion of Judah was to be perfected in the appearance of Shiloh.
Thus the personal interpretation of Shiloh stands in the most beautiful harmony with the constant progress of the same revelation. To Shiloh will the nations belong. ולו refers back to שׁילה. יקּהת, which only occurs again in Pro 30:17, from יקהה with dagesh forte euphon., denotes the obedience of a son, willing obedience; and עמּים in this connection cannot refer to the associated tribes, for Judah bears the sceptre over the tribes of Israel before the coming of Shiloh, but to the nations universally. These will render willing obedience to Shiloh, because as a man of rest He brings them rest and peace.
As previous promises prepared the way for our prophecy, so was it still further unfolded by the Messianic prophecies which followed; and this, together with the gradual advance towards fulfilment, places the personal meaning of Shiloh beyond all possible doubt. - In the order of time, the prophecy of Balaam stands next, where not only Jacob's proclamation of the lion-nature of Judah is transferred to Israel as a nation (Num 23:24; Num 24:9), but the figure of the sceptre from Israel, i.e., the ruler or king proceeding from Israel, who will smite all his foes (Gen 24:17), is taken verbatim from Gen 49:9, Gen 49:10 of this address. In the sayings of Balaam, the tribe of Judah recedes behind the unity of the nation. For although, both in the camp and on the march, Judah took the first place among the tribes (Num 2:2-3; Num 7:12; Num 10:14), this rank was no real fulfilment of Jacob's blessing, but a symbol and pledge of its destination to be the champion and ruler over the tribes. As champion, even after the death of Joshua, Judah opened the attack by divine direction upon the Canaanites who were still left in the land (Jdg 1:1.), and also the war against Benjamin (Jdg 20:18). It was also a sign of the future supremacy of Judah, that the first judge and deliverer from the power of their oppressors was raised up to Israel from the tribe of Judah in the person of the Kenizzite Othniel (Jdg 3:9.). From that time forward Judah took no lead among the tribes for several centuries, but rather fell back behind Ephraim, until by the election of David as king over all Israel, Judah was raised to the rank of ruling tribe, and received the sceptre over all the rest (1Ch 28:4). In David, Judah grew strong (1Ch 5:2), and became a conquering lion, whom no one dared to excite. With the courage and strength of a lion, David brought under his sceptre all the enemies of Israel round about. But when God had given him rest, and he desired to build a house to the Lord, he received a promise through the prophet Nathan that Jehovah would raise up his seed after him, and establish the throne of his kingdom for ever (2Sa 7:13.). “Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I (Jehovah) will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for Solomon (i.e., Friederich, Frederick, the peaceful one) shall be his name, and I will give peace and rest unto Israel in his days...and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” Just as Jacob's prophecy was so far fulfilled in David, that Judah had received the sceptre over the tribes of Israel, and had led them to victory over all their foes; and David upon the basis of this first fulfilment received through Nathan the divine promise, that the sceptre should not depart from his house, and therefore not from Judah;so the commencement of the coming of Shiloh received its first fulfilment in the peaceful sway of Solomon, even if David did not give his son the name Solomon with an allusion to the predicted Shiloh, which one might infer from the sameness in the meaning of שׁלמה and שׁילה when compared with the explanation given of the name Solomon in 1Ch 28:9-10. But Solomon was not the true Shiloh. His peaceful sway was transitory, like the repose which Israel enjoyed under Joshua at the erection of the tabernacle at Shiloh (Jos 11:23; Jos 14:15; Jos 21:44); moreover it extended over Israel alone. The willing obedience of the nations he did not secure; Jehovah only gave rest from his enemies round about in his days, i.e., during his life.
But this first imperfect fulfilment furnished a pledge of the complete fulfilment in the future, so that Solomon himself, discerning in spirit the typical character of his peaceful reign, sang of the King's Son who should have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth, before whom all kings should bow, and whom all nations should serve (Ps 72); ); and the prophets after Solomon prophesied of the Prince of Peace, who should increase government and peace without end upon the throne of David, and of the sprout out of the rod of Jesse, whom the nations should seek (Isa 9:5-6; Isa 11:1-10); and lastly, Ezekiel, when predicting the downfall of the Davidic kingdom, prophesied that this overthrow would last until He should come to whom the right belonged, and to whom Jehovah would give it (Eze 21:27). Since Ezekiel in his words, “till He come to whom the right belongs,” takes up, and is generally admitted, our prophecy “till Shiloh come,” and expands it still further in harmony with the purpose of his announcement, more especially from Psa 72:1-5, where righteousness and judgment are mentioned as the foundation of the peace which the King's Son would bring; he not only confirms the correctness of the personal and Messianic explanation of the word Shiloh, but shows that Jacob's prophecy of the sceptre not passing from Judah till Shiloh came, did not preclude a temporary loss of power. Thus all prophecies, and all the promises of God, in fact, are so fulfilled, as not to preclude the punishment of the shins of the elect, and yet, notwithstanding that punishment, assuredly and completely attain to their ultimate fulfilment. And thus did the kingdom of Judah arise from its temporary overthrow to a new and imperishable glory in Jesus Christ (Heb 7:14), who conquers all foes as the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5), and reigns as the true Prince of Peace, as “our peace” (Eph 1:14), for ever and ever.

verses 11-12

In Gen 49:11 and Gen 49:12 Jacob finishes his blessing on Judah by depicting the abundance of his possessions in the promised land. “ Binding his she-ass to the vine, and to the choice vine his ass's colt; he washes his garment in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape: dull are the eyes with wine, and white the teeth with milk.” The participle אסרי has the old connecting vowel, i, before a word with a preposition (like Isa 22:16; Mic 7:14, etc.); and בּני in the construct state, as in Gen 31:39. The subject is not Shiloh, but Judah, to whom the whole blessing applies. The former would only be possible, if the fathers and Luther were right in regarding the whole as an allegorical description of Christ, or if Hoffmann's opinion were correct, that it would be quite unsuitable to describe Judah, the lion-like warrior and ruler, as binding his ass to a vine, coming so peacefully upon his ass, and remaining in his vineyard. But are lion-like courage and strength irreconcilable with a readiness for peace? Besides, the notion that riding upon an ass is an image of a peaceful disposition seems quite unwarranted; and the supposition that the ass is introduced as an animal of peace, in contrast with the war-horse, is founded upon Zec 9:9, and applied to the words of the patriarch in a most unhistorical manner. This contrast did not exist till a much later period, when the Israelites and Canaanites had introduced war-horses, and is not applicable at all to the age and circumstances of the patriarchs, since at that time the only animals there were to ride, beside camels, were asses and she-asses (Gen 22:3 cf. Exo 4:20; Num 22:21); and even in the time of the Judges, and down to David's time, riding upon asses was a distinction of nobility or superior rank (Jdg 1:14; Jdg 10:4; Jdg 12:14; 2Sa 19:27). Lastly, even in Gen 49:9, Gen 49:10 Judah is not depicted as a lion eager for prey, or as loving war and engaged in constant strife, but, according to Hoffmann's own words, “as having attained, even before the coming of Shiloh, to a rest acquired by victory over surrounding foes, and as seated in his place with the insignia of his dominion.” Now, when Judah's conflicts are over, and he has come to rest, he also may bind his ass to the vine and enjoy in peaceful repose the abundance of his inheritance. Of wine and milk, the most valuable productions of his land, he will have such a superabundance, that, as Jacob hyperbolically expresses it, he may wash his clothes in the blood of the grape, and enjoy them so plentifully, that his eyes shall be inflamed with wine, and his teeth become white with milk.^[28]
The soil of Judah produced the best wine in Canaan, near Hebron and Engedi (Num 13:23-24; Sol 1:4; 2Ch 26:10 cf. Joe 1:7.), and had excellent pasture land in the desert by Tekoah and Carmel, to the south of Hebron (1Sa 25:2; Amo 1:1; 2Ch 26:10). סוּתה: contracted from סווּתה, from סוה to envelope, synonymous with מסוה a veil (Exo 34:33).

Verse 13

Zebulun, to the shore of the ocean will he dwell, and indeed (והוּא isque) towards the coast of ships, and his side towards Zidon (directed up to Zidon).” This blessing on Leah's sixth son interprets the name Zebulun (i.e., dwelling) as an omen, not so much to show the tribe its dwelling-place in Canaan, as to point out the blessing which it would receive from the situation of its inheritance (compare Deu 33:19). So far as the territory allotted to the tribe of Zebulun under Joshua can be ascertained from the boundaries and towns mentioned in Jos 19:10-16, it neither reached to the Mediterranean, nor touched directly upon Zidon (see my Comm. on Joshua). It really lay between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean, near to both, but separated from the former by Naphtali, from the latter by Asher. So far was this announcement, therefore, from being a vaticinium ex eventu taken from the geographical position of the tribe, that it contains a decided testimony to the fact that Jacob's blessing was not written after the time of Joshua. ימּים denotes, not the two seas mentioned above, but, as Jdg 5:17 proves, the Mediterranean, as a great ocean (Gen 1:10). “The coast of ships:” i.e., where ships are unloaded, and land the treasures of the distant parts of the world for the inhabitants of the maritime and inland provinces (Deu 33:19). Zidon, as the old capital, stands for Phoenicia itself.

verses 14-15

“Issachar is a bony ass, lying between the hurdles. He saw that rest was a good (טוב subst.), and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute.” The foundation of this award also lies in the name שׂכר ישּׂא, which is probably interpreted with reference to the character of Issachar, and with an allusion to the relation between שׂכר and שׂכיר, a daily labourer, as an indication of the character and fate of his tribe. “Ease at the cost of liberty will be the characteristic of the tribe of Issachar” ( Delitzsch). The simile of a bony, i.e., strongly-built ass, particularly adapted for carrying burdens, pointed to the fact that this tribe would content itself with material good, devote itself to the labour and burden of agriculture, and not strive after political power and rule. The figure also indicated “that Issachar would become a robust, powerful race of men, and receive a pleasant inheritance which would invite to comfortable repose.” (According to Jos. de bell. jud. iii. 3, 2, Lower Galilee, with the fruitful table land of Jezreel, was attractive even to τὸν ἥκιστα γῆς φιλόπονον). Hence, even if the simile of a bony ass contained nothing contemptible, it did not contribute to Issachar's glory. Like an idle beast of burden, he would rather submit to the yoke and be forced to do the work of a slave, than risk his possessions and his peace in the struggle for liberty. To bend the shoulder to the yoke, to come down to carrying burdens and become a mere serf, was unworthy of Israel, the nation of God that was called to rule, however it might befit its foes, especially the Canaanites upon whom the curse of slavery rested (Deu 20:11; Jos 16:10; 1Ki 9:20-21; Isa 10:27). This was probably also the reason why Issachar was noticed last among the sons of Leah. In the time of the Judges, however, Issachar acquired renown for heroic bravery in connection with Zebulun (Jdg 5:14-15, Jdg 5:18). The sons of Leah are followed by the four sons of the two maids, arranged, not according to their mothers or their ages, but according to the blessing pronounced upon them, so that the two warlike tribes stand first.

verses 16-17

“ Dan will procure his people justice as one of the tribes of Israel. Let Dan become a serpent by the way, a horned adder in the path, that biteth the horse's heels, so that its rider falls back.” Although only the son of a maid-servant, Dan would not be behind the other tribes of Israel, but act according to his name (ידין דּן), and as much as any other of the tribes procure justice to his people (i.e., to the people of Israel; not to his own tribe, as Diestel supposes). There is no allusion in these words to the office of judge which was held by Samson; they merely describe the character of the tribe, although this character came out in the expedition of a portion of the Danites to Laish in the north of Canaan, a description of which is given in Judg 18, as well as in the “romantic chivalry of the brave, gigantic Samson, when the cunning of the serpent he overthrew the mightiest foes” ( Del.). שׁפיפן: κεράστης, the very poisonous horned serpent, which is of the colour of the sand, and as it lies upon the ground, merely stretching out its feelers, inflicts a fatal wound upon any who may tread upon it unawares ( Diod. Sic. 3, 49; Pliny. 8, 23).

Verse 18

But this manifestation of strength, which Jacob expected from Dan and promised prophetically, presupposed that severe conflicts awaited the Israelites. For these conflicts Jacob furnished his sons with both shield and sword in the ejaculatory prayer, “ I wait for Thy salvation, O Jehovah!” which was not a prayer for his own soul and its speedy redemption from all evil, but in which, as Calvin has strikingly shown, he expressed his confidence that his descendants would receive the help of his God. Accordingly, the later Targums ( Jerusalem and Jonathan) interpret these words as Messianic, but with a special reference to Samson, and paraphrase Gen 49:18 thus: “Not for the deliverance of Gideon, the son of Joash, does my soul wait, for that is temporary; and not for the redemption of Samson, for that is transitory; and not for the redemption of Samson, for that is transitory; but for the redemption of the Messiah, the Son of David, which Thou through Thy word hast promised to bring to Thy people the children of Israel: for this Thy redemption my soul waits.”^[29]

Verse 19

“Gad - a press presses him, but he presses the heel.” The name Gad reminds the patriarch of גּוּד to press, and גּדוּד the pressing host, warlike host, which invades the land. The attacks of such hosts Gad will bravely withstand, and press their heel, i.e., put them to flight and bravely pursue them, not smite their rear-guard; for עקב does not signify the rear-guard even in Jos 8:13, but only the reserves (see my commentary on the passage). The blessing, which is formed from a triple alliteration of the name Gad, contains no such special allusions to historical events as to enable us to interpret it historically, although the account in 1Ch 5:18. proves that the Gadites displayed, wherever it was needed, the bravery promised them by Jacob. Compare with this 1Ch 12:8-15, where the Gadites who come to David are compared to lions, and their swiftness to that of roes.

Verse 20

“ Out of Asher (cometh) fat, his bread, and he yieldeth royal dainties.” לחמו is in apposition to שׁמנה, and the suffix is to be emphasized: the fat, which comes from him, is his bread, his own food. The saying indicates a very fruitful soil. Asher received as his inheritance the lowlands of Carmel on the Mediterranean as far as the territory of Tyre, one of the most fertile parts of Canaan, abounding in wheat and oil, with which Solomon supplied and household of king Hiram (1Ki 5:11).

Verse 21

“ Naphtali is a hind let loose, who giveth goodly words.” The hind or gazelle is a simile of a warrior who is skilful and swift in his movements (2Sa 2:18; 1Ch 12:8, cf. Psa 18:33; Hab 3:19). שׁלהה here is neither hunted, nor stretched out or grown slim; but let loose, running freely about (Job 39:5). The meaning and allusion are obscure, since nothing further is known of the history of the tribe of Naphtali, than that Naphtali obtained a great victory under Barak in association with Zebulun over the Canaanitish king Jabin, which the prophetess Deborah commemorated in her celebrated song (Judg 4 and 5). If the first half of the verse be understood as referring to the independent possession of a tract of land, upon which Naphtali moved like a hind in perfect freedom, the interpretation of Masius (on Josh 19) is certainly the correct one: “ Sicut cervus emissus et liber in herbosa et fertili terra exultim ludit, ita et in sua fertili sorte ludet et excultabit Nephtali.” But the second half of the verse can hardly refer to “beautiful sayings and songs, in which the beauty and fertility of their home were displayed.” It is far better to keep, as Vatablius does, to the general thought: tribus Naphtali erit fortissima, elegantissima et agillima et erit facundissima.
Turning to Joseph, the patriarch's heart swelled with grateful love, and in the richest words and figures he implored the greatest abundance of blessings upon his head.

Verse 22

“ Son of a fruit-tree is Joseph, son of a fruit-tree at the well, daughters run over the wall.” Joseph is compared to the branch of a fruit-tree planted by a well (Psa 1:3), which sends it shoots over the wall, and by which, according to Ps 80, , we are probably to understand a vine. בּן an unusual form of the construct state for בּן, and פּרת equivalent to פּריּה with the old feminine termination ath, like זמרת, Exo 15:2. - בּנות are the twigs and branches, formed by the young fruit-tree. The singular צעדה is to be regarded as distributive, describing poetically the moving forward, i.e., the rising up of the different branches above the wall ( Ges. §146, 4). עלי, a poetical form, as in Gen 49:17.

verses 23-24

“ Archers provoke him, and shoot and hate him; but his bow abides in strength, and the arms of his hands remain pliant, from the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, from thence, from the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel.” From the simile of the fruit-tree Jacob passed to a warlike figure, and described the mighty and victorious unfolding of the tribe of Joseph in conflict with all its foes, describing with prophetic intuition the future as already come (vid., the perf. consec.). The words are not to be referred to the personal history of Joseph himself, to persecutions received by him from his brethren, or to his sufferings in Egypt; still less to any warlike deeds of his in Egypt ( Diestel): they merely pointed to the conflicts awaiting his descendants, in which they would constantly overcome all hostile attacks. מרר: Piel, to embitter, provoke, lacessere. רבּוּ: perf. o from רבב to shoot. בּאיתן: “in a strong, unyielding position” ( Del.). פּזז: to be active, flexible; only found here, and in 2Sa 6:16 of a brisk movement, skipping or jumping. זרעי: the arms, “without whose elasticity the hands could not hold or direct the arrow.” The words which follow, “from the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob,” are not to be linked to what follows, in opposition to the Masoretic division of the verses; they rather form one sentence with what precedes: “pliant remain the arms of his hands from the hands of God,” i.e., through the hands of God supporting them. “The Mighty One of Jacob,” He who had proved Himself to be the Mighty One by the powerful defence afforded to Jacob; a title which is copied from this passage in Isa 1:24, etc. “From thence,” an emphatic reference to Him, from whom all perfection comes - “from the Shepherd (Gen 48:15) and Stone of Israel.” God is called “the Stone,” and elsewhere “the Rock” (Deu 32:4, Deu 32:18, etc.), as the immoveable foundation upon which Israel might trust, might stand firm and impregnably secure.

verses 25-26

“ From the God of thy father, may He help thee, and with the help of the Almighty, may He bless thee, (may there come) blessings of heaven from above, blessings of the deep, that lieth beneath, blessings of the breast and of the womb. The blessing of thy father surpass the blessings of my progenitors to the border of the everlasting hills, may they come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the illustrious among his brethren.” From the form of a description the blessing passes in Gen 49:25 into the form of a desire, in which the “from” of the previous clause is still retained. The words “and may He help thee,” “may He bless thee,” form parentheses, for “who will help and bless thee.” ואת is neither to be altered into ואל (and from God), as Ewald suggests, in accordance with the lxx, Sam., Syr., and Vulg., nor into מאת as Knobel proposes; and even the supplying of מן before את from the parallel clause ( Ges. §154, 4) is scarcely allowable, since the repetition of מן before another preposition cannot be supported by any analogous case; but את may be understood here, as in Gen 4:1; Gen 5:24, in the sense of helpful communion: “and with,” i.e., with (in) the fellowship of, “the Almighty, may He bless thee, let there be (or come) blessings,” etc. The verb תּחיין follows in Gen 49:26 after the whole subject, which is formed of many parallel members. The blessings were to come from heaven above and from the earth beneath. From the God of Jacob and by the help of the Almighty should the rain and dew of heaven (Gen 27:28), and fountains and brooks which spring from the great deep or the abyss of the earth, pour their fertilizing waters over Joseph's land, “so that everything that had womb and breast should become pregnant, bring forth, and suckle.”^[30] הרים from הרה signifies parentes ( Chald., Vulg.); and תּאוה signifies not desiderium from אוה, but boundary from תּאה, Num 34:7-8, = תּוה,   1Sa 21:14; Eze 9:4, to mark or bound off, as most of the Rabbins explain it. על גּבר to be strong above, i.e., to surpass. The blessings which the patriarch implored for Joseph were to surpass the blessings which his parents transmitted to him, to the boundary of the everlasting hills, i.e., surpass them as far as the primary mountains tower above the earth, or so that they should reach to the summits of the primeval mountains. There is no allusion to the lofty and magnificent mountain-ranges of Ephraim, Bashan, and Gilead, which fell to the house of Joseph, either here or in Deu 33:15. These blessings were to descend upon the head of Joseph, the נזיר among his brethren, i.e., “the separated one,” from נזר separavit. Joseph is so designated, both here and Deu 33:16, not on account of his virtue and the preservation of his chastity and piety in Egypt, but propter dignitatem, qua excellit, ab omnibus sit segregatus ( Calv.), on account of the eminence to which he attained in Egypt. For this meaning see Lam 4:7; whereas no example can be found of the transference of the idea of Nasir to the sphere of morality. ==Verse 27== Gen 49:27 “Benjamin - a world, which tears in pieces; in the morning he devours prey, and in the evening he divides spoil.” Morning and evening together suggest the idea of incessant and victorious capture of booty ( Del.). The warlike character which the patriarch here attributes to Benjamin, was manifested by that tribe, not only in the war which he waged with all the tribes on account of their wickedness in Gibeah (Judg 20), but on other occasions also (Jdg 5:14), in its distinguished archers and slingers (Jdg 20:16; 1Ch 8:40, 1Ch 8:12; 2Ch 14:8; 2Ch 17:17), and also in the fact that the judge Ehud (Jdg 3:15.), and Saul, with his heroic son Jonathan, sprang from this tribe (1Sa 11:1-15 and 13; 2Sa 1:19.).

Verse 28

The concluding words in Gen 49:28, “ All these are the tribes of Israel, twelve,” contain the thought, that in his twelve sons Jacob blessed the future tribes. “ Every one with that which was his blessing, he blessed them,” i.e., every one with his appropriate blessing (אשׁר accus. dependent upon בּרך which is construed with a double accusative); since, as has already been observed, even Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, though put down through their own fault, received a share in the promised blessing.

verses 29-33

Death of Jacob. - After the blessing, Jacob again expressed to his twelve sons his desire to be buried in the sepulchre of his fathers (Gen 24), ), where Isaac and Rebekah and his own wife Leah lay by the side of Abraham and Sarah, which Joseph had already promised on oath to perform (Gen 47:29-31). He then drew his feet into the bed to lie down, for he had been sitting upright while blessing his sons, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered to his people (vid., Gen 25:8). ויּגוע instead of ויּמת indicates that the patriarch departed from this earthly life without a struggle. His age is not given here, because that has already been done at Gen 47:28.

Chap. 50

==verses 1-3== Gen 50:1-3.

Burial of Jacob.

When Jacob died, Joseph fell upon the face of his beloved father, wept over him, and kissed him. He then gave the body to the physicians to be embalmed, according to the usual custom in Egypt. The physicians are called his servants, because the reference is to the regular physicians in the service of Joseph, the eminent minister of state; and according to Herod. 2, 84, there were special physicians in Egypt for every description of disease, among whom the Taricheuta, who superintended the embalming, were included, as a special but subordinate class. The process of embalming lasted 40 days, and the solemn mourning 70 (Gen 50:3). This is in harmony with the statements of Herodotus and Diodorus when rightly understood (see Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 67ff.).

verses 4-5

At the end of this period of mourning, Joseph requested “the house of Pharaoh,” i.e., the attendants upon the king, to obtain Pharaoh's permission for him to go to Canaan and bury his father, according to his last will, in the cave prepared by him there. כּרה (Gen 50:5) signifies “to dig” (used, as in 2Ch 16:14, for the preparation of a tomb), not “to buy,” In the expression לי כּריתי Jacob attributes to himself as patriarch what had really been done by Abraham (Gen 24). Joseph required the royal permission, because he wished to go beyond the border with his family and a large procession. But he did not apply directly to Pharaoh, because his deep mourning (unshaven and unadorned) prevented him from appearing in the presence of the king.

verses 6-9

After the king's permission had been obtained, the corpse was carried to Canaan, attended by a large company. With Joseph there went up “ all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt,” i.e., the leading officers of the court and state, “ and all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father's house,” i.e., all the members of the families of Joseph, of his brethren, and of is deceased father, “ excepting only their children and flocks; also chariots and horsemen,” as an escort for the journey through the desert, “ a very large army.” The splendid retinue of Egyptian officers may be explained, in part from the esteem in which Joseph was held in Egypt, and in part from the fondness of the Egyptians for such funeral processions (cf. Hengst. pp. 70, 71).

verses 10-11

Thus they came to Goren Atad beyond the Jordan, as the procession did not take the shortest route by Gaza through the country of the Philistines, probably because so large a procession with a military escort was likely to meet with difficulties there, but went round by the Dead Sea. There, on the border of Canaan, a great mourning and funeral ceremony was kept up for seven days, from which the Canaanites, who watched it from Canaan, gave the place the name of Abel-mizraim, i.e., meadow (אבל with a play upon אבל mourning) of the Egyptians. The situation of Goren Atad (the buck-thorn floor), or Abel-mizraim, has not been discovered. According to Gen 50:11, it was on the other side, i.e., the eastern side, of the Jordan. This is put beyond all doubt by Gen 50:12, where the sons of Jacob are said to have carried the corpse into the land of Canaan (the land on this side) after the mourning at Goren Atad.^[31]

verses 12-13

There the Egyptian procession probably stopped short; for in Gen 50:12 the sons of Jacob only are mentioned as having carried their father to Canaan according to his last request, and buried him in the cave of Machpelah.

Verse 14

After performing this filial duty, Joseph returned to Egypt with his brethren and all their attendants.

verses 15-21

After their father's death, Joseph's brethren were filled with alarm, and said, “ If Joseph now should punish us and requite all the evil that we have done to him,” sc., what would become of us! The sentence contains an aposiopesis, like Psa 27:13; and לוּ with the imperfect presupposes a condition, being used “in cases which are not desired, and for the present not real, though perhaps possible” ( Ew. §358). The brethren therefore deputed one of their number (possibly Benjamin) to Joseph, and instructed him to appeal to the wish expressed by their father before his death, and to implore forgiveness: “ O pardon the misdeed of thy brethren and their sin, that they have done thee evil; and now grant forgiveness to the misdeed of the servants of the God of thy father.” The ground of their plea is contained in ועתּה “and now,” sc., as we request it by the desire and direction of our father, and in the epithet applied to themselves, “servants of the God of thy father.” There is no reason whatever for regarding the appeal to their father's wish as a mere pretence. The fact that no reference was made by Jacob in his blessing to their sin against Joseph, merely proved that he as their father had forgiven the sin of his sons, since the grace of God had made their misdeed the means of Israel's salvation; but it by no means proves that he could not have instructed his sons humbly to beg for forgiveness from Joseph, even though Joseph had hitherto shown them only goodness and love. How far Joseph was from thinking of ultimate retribution and revenge, is evident from the reception which he gave to their request (Gen 50:17): “ Joseph wept at their address to him.” viz., at the fact that they could impute anything so bad to him; and when they came themselves, and threw themselves as servants at his feet, he said to them (Gen 50:19), “ Fear not, for am I in the place of God?” i.e., am I in a position to interfere of my own accord with the purposes of God, and not rather bound to submit to them myself? “ Ye had indeed evil against me in your mind, but God had it in mind for good (to turn this evil into good), to do (עשׂה like ואה Gen 48:11), as is now evident (lit., as has occurred this day, cf. Deu 2:30; Deu 4:20, etc.), to preserve alive a great nation (cf. Gen 45:7). And now fear not, I shall provide for you and your families.” Thus he quieted them by his affectionate words.

verses 22-23

Death of Joseph. - Joseph lived to see the commencement of the fulfilment of his father's blessing. Having reached the age of 110, he saw Ephraim's שׁלּשׁים בּני “ sons of the third link,” i.e., of great-grandsons, consequently great-great-grandsons. שׁלּשׁים descendants in the third generation are expressly distinguished from “children's children” or grandsons in Exo 34:7. There is no practical difficulty in the way of this explanation, the only one which the language will allow. As Joseph's two sons were born before he was 37 years old (Gen 41:50), and Ephraim therefore was born, at the latest, in his 36th year, and possibly in his 34th, since Joseph was married in his 31st year, he might have had grandsons by the time he was 56 or 60 years old, and great-grandsons when he was from 78 to 85, so that great-great-grandsons might have been born when he was 100 or 110 years old. To regard the “sons of the third generation” as children in the third generation (great-grandsons of Joseph and grandsons of Ephraim), as many commentators do, as though the construct בּני stood for the absolute, is evidently opposed to the context, since it is stated immediately afterwards, that sons of Machir, the son of Manasseh, i.e., great-grandsons, were also born upon his knees, i.e., so that he could take them also upon his knees and show them his paternal love. There is no reason for thinking of adoption in connection with these words. And if Joseph lived to see only the great-grandsons of Ephraim as well as of Manasseh, it is difficult to imagine why the same expression should not be applied to the grandchildren of Manasseh, as to the descendants of Ephraim.

verses 24-26

When Joseph saw his death approaching, he expressed to his brethren his firm belief in the fulfilment of the divine promise (Gen 46:4-5, cf. Gen 15:16, Gen 15:18.), and made them take an oath, that if God should bring them into the promised land, they would carry his bones with them from Egypt. This last desire of his was carried out. When he died, they embalmed him, and laid him (ויּישׂם from ישׂם, like Gen 24:33 in the chethib) “in the coffin,” i.e., the ordinary coffin, constructed of sycamore-wood (see Hengstenberg, pp. 71, 72), which was then deposited in a room, according to Egyptian custom ( Herod. 2, 86), and remained in Egypt for 360 years, until they carried it away with them at the time of the Exodus, when it was eventually buried in Shechem, in the piece of land which had been bought by Jacob there (Gen 33:19; Jos 24:32).
Thus the account of the pilgrim-life of the patriarchs terminates with an act of faith on the part of the dying Joseph; and after his death, in consequence of his instructions, the coffin with his bones became a standing exhortation to Israel, to turn its eyes away from Egypt to Canaan, the land promised to its fathers, and to wait in the patience of faith for the fulfilment of the promise.
Chronological Survey of the Leading Events of the Patriarchal History Arranged according to the Hebrew Text, as a continuation of the Chronological Tables at p. 77, with an additional calculation of the year before Christ.

The Events	Year of Migration to Egypt	Year of Entrance into Canaan	Year from the Creation	Year Before Christ
Abram's entrance into Canaan		1	2021	2137
Birth of Ishmael		11	2032	2126
Institution of Circumcision		24	2045	2113
Birth of Isaac		25	2046	2112
Death of Sarah		62	2083	2075
Marriage of Isaac		65	2086	2072
Birth of Esau and Jacob		85	2106	2052
Death of Abraham		100	2121	2037
Marriage of Esau		125	2146	2012
Death of Ishmael		148	2169	1989
Flight of Jacob to Padan Aram		162	2183	1975
Jacob's Marriage		169	2190	1968
Birth of Joseph		176	2197	1961
Jacob's return from Padan Aram		182	2203	1951
Jacob's arrival at Shechem in Canaan		? 187	? 2208	? 1950
Jacob's return home to Hebron		192	2213	1945
Sale of Joseph		193	2214	1944
Death of Isaac		205	2226	1932
Promotion of Joseph in Egypt		206	2227	1931
Removal of Israel to Egypt	1	215	2236	1922
Death of Jacob	17	232	2253	1905
Death of Joseph	71	286	2307	1851
Birth of Moses	350	565	2586	1572
Exodus of Israel from Egypt	430	645	2666	1492

The calculation of the years b.c. is based upon the fact, that the termination of the 70 years' captivity coincided with the first year of the sole government of Cyrus, and fell in the year 536 b.c.; consequently the captivity commenced in the year 606 B. C.

1. Note: Cf. Lightfoot, opp. 1, p. 19. This correct estimate of Luther's is based upon the following calculation: - When Joseph was introduced to Pharaoh he was thirty years old (Gen 41:46), and when Jacob went into Egypt, thirty-nine, as the seven years of abundance and two of famine had then passed by (Gen 45:6). But Jacob was at that time 130 years old (Gen 47:9). Consequently Joseph was born before Jacob was ninety-one; and as his birth took place in the fourteenth year of Jacob's sojourn in Mesopotamia (cf. Gen 30:25, and Gen 29:18, Gen 29:21, and Gen 29:27), Jacob's flight to Laban occurred in the seventy-seventh year of his own life, and the 137th of Isaac's.
2. Note: We must not think of our European goats, whose skins would be quite unsuitable for any such deception. “It is the camel-goat of the East, whose black, silk-like hair was used even by the Romans as a substitute for human hair. Martial xii. 46.” - Tuch on v. 16.
3. Note: I cannot discover, however, in Mal 1:3 an authentic proof of the privative meaning, as Kurtz and Delitzsch do, since the prophet's words, “I have hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste,” are not descriptive of the natural condition of Idumaea, but of the desolation to which the land was given up.
4. Note: This reference is incorrect; the Niphal is used in Isa 1:24, the Hithpael in Jer 5:9-29. Tr.
5. Note: The fact mentioned here has often been cited as the origin of the anointed stones (βαίτυλοι) of the heathen, and this heathen custom has been regarded as a degeneration of the patriarchal. But apart from this essential difference, that the Baetulian worship was chiefly connected with meteoric stones (cf. F. von Dalberg, όb. d. Meteor-cultus d. Alten), which were supposed to have come down from some god, and were looked upon as deified, this opinion is at variance with the circumstance, that Jacob himself, in consecrating the stone by pouring oil upon it, only followed a custom already established, and still more with the fact, that the name βαίτυλοι, Βαιτόλια, notwithstanding its sounding like Bethel, can hardly have arisen from the name Beth-El, Gr. Βαιθήλ, since the τ for θ would be perfectly inexplicable. Dietrich derives βαιτύλιον from בּטּל, to render inoperative, and interprets it amulet.
6. Note: Like the cistern Bir Beshat, described by Rosen., in the valley of Hebron, or those which Robinson found in the desert of Judah ( Pal. ii. 165), hollowed out in the great mass of rock, and covered with a large, thick, flat stone, in the middle of which a round hole had been left, which formed the opening of the cistern, and in many cases was closed up with a heavy stone, which it would take two or three men to roll away.
7. Note: This is the case still with the Bedouins, the Druses, and other Eastern tribes ( Burckhardt, Voleny, Layard, and Lane
8. Note: These words are the oldest proof, that in the native country of the patriarchs, Mesopotamia, Aramaean or Chaldaean was spoken, and Hebrew in Jacob's native country, Canaan; from which we may conclude that Abraham's family first acquired the Hebrew in Canaan from the Canaanites (Phoenicians).
9. Note: There can be no doubt that Gen 31:49 and Gen 31:50 bear the marks of a subsequent insertion. But there is nothing in the nature of this interpolation to indicate a compilation of the history from different sources. That Laban, when making this covenant, should have spoken of the future treatment of his daughters, is a thing so natural, that there would have been something strange in the omission. And it is not less suitable to the circumstances, that he calls upon the God of Jacob, i.e., Jehovah, to watch in this affair. And apart from the use of the name Jehovah, which is perfectly suitable here, there is nothing whatever to point to a different source; to say nothing of the fact that the critics themselves cannot agree as to the nature of the source supposed.
10. Note: Mamortha, which according to Plin. ( h. n. v. 14) was the earlier name of Neapolis (Nablus), appears to have been a corruption of Chamor.
11. Note: This view is generally supported by the earlier writers, such as Demetrius, Petavius (Hengst. Diss.), etc.; only they reckon Dinah's age at 16, placing her birth in the 14th year of Jacob's service.
12. Note: This conjecture derives no support from the fact that the manifestations of God are ascribed to Elohim in Gen 35:1 and Gen 35:9., although the whole chapter treats of the display of mercy by the covenant God, i.e., Jehovah. For the occurrence of Elohim instead of Jehovah in Gen 35:1 may be explained, partly from the antithesis of God and man (because Jacob, the man, had neglected to redeem his vow, it was necessary that he should be reminded of it by God), and partly from the fact that there is no allusion to any appearance of God, but the words “God said” are to be understood, no doubt, as relating to an inward communication. The use of Elohim in Gen 35:9. follows naturally from the injunction of Elohim in Gen 35:1; and there was the less necessity for an express designation of the God appearing as Jehovah, because, on the one hand, the object of this appearance was simply to renew and confirm the former appearance of Jehovah (Gen 28:12.), and on the other hand, the title assumed in Gen 35:11, El Shaddai, refers to Gen 27:1, where Jehovah announces Himself to Abram as El Shaddai.
13. Note: But even if this Mazzebah was really preserved till the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, i.e., more than 450 years, and the remark referred to that time, it might be an interpolation by a later hand. The grave was certainly a well-known spot in Samuel's time (1Sa 10:2); but a monumentum ubi Rachel posita est uxor Jacob is first mentioned again by the Bordeaux pilgrims of a.d. 333 and Jerome. The Kubbet Rahil (Rachel's grave), which is now shown about half an hour's journey to the north of Bethlehem, to the right of the road from Jerusalem to Hebron, is merely “an ordinary Muslim wely, or tomb of a holy person, a small square building of stone with a dome, and within it a tomb in the ordinary Mohammedan form” (Rob. Pal. 1, p. 322). It has been recently enlarged by a square court with high walls and arches on the eastern side (Rob. Bibl. Researches. p. 357). Now although this grave is not ancient, the correctness of the tradition, which fixes upon this as the site of Rachel's grave, cannot on the whole be disputed. At any rate, the reasons assigned to the contrary by Thenius, Kurtz, and others are not conclusive.
14. Note: The occurrence of “Timna and Amalek” in 1Ch 1:36, as coordinate with the sons of Eliphaz, is simply a more concise form of saying “and from Timna, Amalek.”
15. Note: Knobel also undertakes to explain these names geographically, and to point them out in tribes and places of Arabia, assuming, quite arbitrarily and in opposition to the text, that the names refer to tribes, not to persons, although an incident is related of Zibeon's son, which proves at once that the list relates to persons and not to tribes; and expecting his readers to believe that not only are the descendants of these troglodytes, who were exterminated before the time of Moses, still to be found, but even their names may be traced in certain Bedouin tribes, though more than 3000 years have passed away! The utter groundlessness of such explanations, which rest upon nothing more than similarity of names, may be seen in the association of Shobal with Syria Sobal (Judith 3:1), the name used by the Crusaders for Arabia tertia, i.e., the southernmost district below the Dead Sea, which was conquered by them. For notwithstanding the resemblance of the name Shobal to Sobal, no one could seriously think of connecting Syria Sobal with the Horite prince Shobal, unless he was altogether ignorant of the apocryphal origin of the former name, which first of all arose from the Greek or Latin version of the Old Testament, and in fact from a misunderstanding of Psa 60:2, where, instead צובה ארם, Aram Zobah, we find in the lxx Συριά Σοβάλ, and in the Vulg. Syria et Sobal.
16. Note: It is possible that there may be something significant in the fact that it was “as he was feeding his father's asses,” and that the asses may have contributed to the discovery; just as the whirlpool of Karlsbad is said to have been discovered through a hound of Charles IV, which pursued a stag into a hot spring, and attracted the huntsmen to the spot by its howling.
17. Note: If this be admitted; then, on the supposition that this list of kings contains all the previous kings of Edom, the introduction of monarchy among the Edomites can hardly have taken place more than 200 years before the Exodus; and, in that case, none of the phylarchs named in Gen 36:15-18 can have lived to see its establishment. For the list only reaches to the grandsons of Esau, none of whom are likely to have lived more than 100 or 150 years after Esau's death. It is true we do not know when Esau died; but 413 years elapsed between the death of Jacob and the Exodus, and Joseph, who was born in the 91st years of Jacob's life, died 54 years afterwards, i.e., 359 years before the Exodus. But Esau was married in his 40th year, 37 years before Jacob (Gen 26:34), and had sons and daughters before his removal to Seir (Gen 36:6). Unless, therefore, his sons and grandsons attained a most unusual age, or were married remarkably late in life, his grandsons can hardly have outlived Joseph more than 100 years. Now, if we fix their death at about 250 years before the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, there remains from that point to the arrival of the Israelites at the land of Edom (Num 20:14) a period of 290 years; amply sufficient for the reigns of eight kings, even if the monarchy was not introduced till after the death of the last of the phylarchs mentioned in Gen 36:15-18.
18. Note: The very fact that the author of Genesis, who wrote in the light of the further development and fuller revelation of the ways of the Lord with Joseph and the whole house of Jacob, represents the career of Joseph as a gracious interposition of Jehovah (Gen 39), ), and yet makes Joseph himself speak of Elohim as arranging the whole, is by no means an unimportant testimony to the historical fidelity and truth of the narrative; of which further proofs are to be found in the faithful and exact representation of the circumstances, manners, and customs of Egypt, as Hengstenberg has proved in his Egypt and the Books of Moses, from a comparison of these accounts of Joseph's life with ancient document and monuments connected with this land.
19. Note: As the expression “at that time” does not compel us to place Judah's marriage after the sale of Joseph, many have followed Augustine (qusaet. 123), and placed it some years earlier. But this assumption is rendered extremely improbable, if not impossible, by the fact that Judah was not merely accidentally present when Joseph was sold, but was evidently living with his brethren, and had not yet set up an establishment of his own; whereas he had settled at Adullam previous to his marriage, and seems to have lived there up to the time of the birth of the twins by Thamar. Moreover, the 23 years which intervened between the taking of Joseph into Egypt and the migration of Jacob thither, furnish space enough for all the events recorded in this chapter. If we suppose that Judah, who was 20 years old when Joseph was sold, went to Adullam soon afterwards and married there, is three sons might have been born four or five years after Joseph's captivity. And if his eldest son was born about a year and a half after the sale of Joseph, and he married him to Thamar when he was 15 years old, and gave her to his second son a year after that, Onan's death would occur at least five years before Jacob's removal to Egypt; time enough, therefore, both for the generation and birth of the twin-sons of Judah by Thamar, and for Judah's two journeys into Egypt with his brethren to buy corn. (See Gen 46:8.)
20. Note: Credibile est aliquod fuisse indicium, quo Josephum innocentem esse Potiphari constiteret; neque enim servi vita tanti erat ut ei parceretur in tam gravi delicto. Sed licet innocuum, in carcere tamen detinebat, ut uxoris honori et suo consuleret ( Clericus). The chastity of Egyptian women has been in bad repute from time immemorial ( Diod. Sic. i. 59; Herod. ii. 111). Even in the middle ages the Fatimite Hakim thought it necessary to adopt severe measures against their immorality ( Bar-Hebraei, chron. p. 217), and at the present day, according to Burckhardt (arab. Sprichwφrter, pp. 222, 227), chastity is “a great rarity” among women of every rank in Cairo.
21. Note: See my Bibl. Antiquities, §17, 5. The reference, no doubt, is to the ἐσθῆτα λινέην, worn by the Egyptian priests, which was not made of linen, but of the frutex quem aliqui gossipion vocant, plures xylon et ideo LINA inde facta xylina. Nec ulla sunt eis candore mollitiave praeferenda. - Vestes inde sacerdotibus Aegypti gratissimae. Plin. h.n. xix. 1.
22. Note: Luther in his version, “privy councillor,” follows the rabbinical explanation, which was already to be found in Josephus ( Ant. ii. 6, 1): κρυπτῶν εὑρετής, from צפנת = צפנות occulta, and פענח revelator.
23. Note: Joseph nihil aliud agit quam ut revelet peccatum fratrum hoc durissimo opere et sermone. Descendunt enim in Aegyptum una cum aliis emtum frumentum, securi et negligentes tam atrocis delicti, cujus sibi erant conscii, quasi nihil unquam deliguissent contra patrem decrepitum aut fratrem innocentem, cogitant Joseph jam diu exemtum esse rebus humanis, patrem vero rerum omnium ignarum esse. Quid ad nos? Non agunt poenitentiam. Hi silices et adamantes frangendi et conterendi sunt ac aperiendi oculi eorum, ut videant atrocitatem sceleris sui, idque ubi perfecit Joseph statim verbis et gestibus humaniorem se praebet eosque honorifice tractat. - Haec igitur atrocitas scelerum movit Joseph ad explorandos animos fratrum accuratius, ita ut non solum priorum delictorum sed et cogitationum pravarum memoriam renovaret, ac fuit sane inquisitio satis ingrata et acerba et tamen ab animo placidissimo profecta. Ego durius eos tractassem. Sed haec acerbitas, quam prae se fert, non pertinet ad vindicandum injuriam sed ad salutarem eorum poenitentiam, ut humilientur. Luther.
24. Note: Such a scene as this, with the emigrants taking their goods laden upon asses, and even two children in panniers upon an ass's back, may be seen depicted upon a tomb at Beni Hassan, which might represent the immigration of Israel, although it cannot be directly connected with it. (See the particulars in Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses.)
25. Note: Instead of the number 70 given here, Exo 1:5, and Deu 10:22, Stephen speaks of 75 (Act 7:14), according to the lxx, which has the number 75 both here and Exo 1:5, on account of the words which follow the names of Manasseh and Ephraim in Gen 46:20 : ἐγένοντο δὲ οἱοὶ Μανασσῆ, οὓς ἔτεκεν αὐτῷ ἡ παλλακῆ ἡ Σύρα, τοὺ Μαχίρ· Μαχὶρ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Γαλαάδ, υίοὶ δὲ Ἐφραΐ́μ ἀδελφοῦ Μανασσῆ. Σουταλαὰμ καὶ Ταάμ. υίοὶ δὲ Σουταλαάμ. Ἐδώμ: and which are interpolated by conjecture from Gen 1:23, and Num 26:29, Num 26:35, and Num 26:36 (33, 39, and 40), these three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph being reckoned in.
26. Note: This was the manner in which the earlier theologians solved the actual difficulties connected with our list; and this solution has been adopted and defended against the objections offered to it by Hengstenberg ( Dissertations) and Kurtz (History of the Old Covenant).
27. Note: There is no force in Kurtz's objection, that this gift did not apply to Joseph as the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, but to Joseph personally; for it rests upon the erroneous assumption, that Jacob separated Joseph from his sons by their adoption. But there is not a word to that effect in Gen 48:6, and the very opposite in Gen 48:15, viz., that Jacob blessed Joseph in Ephraim and Manasseh. Heim's conjecture, which Kurtz approves, that by the land given to Joseph we are to understand the high land of Gilead, which Jacob had conquered from the Amorites, needs no refutation, for it is purely imaginary.
28. Note: Jam de situ regionis loquitur, quae sorte filiis Judae obtigit. Significat autem tantam illic fore vitium copiam, ut passim obviae prostent non secus atque alibi vepres vel infrugifera arbusta. Nam quum ad sepes ligari soleant asini, vites ad hunc contemptibilem usum aeputat. Eodem pertinet quae sequuntur hyperbolicae loquendi formae, quod Judas lavabit vestem suam in vino, et oculis eritrubicundus. Tantam enim vini abundantiam fore intelligit, ut promiscue ad lotiones, perinde ut aqua effundi queat sine magno dispendio; assiduo autem largioreque illius potu rubedinem contracturi sint oculi. Calvin.
29. Note: This is the reading according to the text of the Jerusalem Targum, in the London Polyglot as corrected from the extracts of Fagius in the Critt. Sacr., to which the Targum Jonathan also adds, “for Thy redemption, O Jehovah, is an everlasting redemption.” But whilst the Targumists and several fathers connect the serpent in the way with Samson, by many others the serpent in the way is supposed to be Antichrist. On this interpretation Luther remarks: Puto Diabolum hujus fabulae auctorem fuisse et finxisse hanc glossam, ut nostras cogitationes a vero et praesente Antichristo abduceret.
30. Note: “Thus is the whole composed in pictorial words. Whatever of man and cattle can be fruitful shall multiply and have enough. Childbearing, and the increase of cattle, and of the corn in the field, are not our affair, but the mercy and blessing of God.” - Luther.
31. Note: Consequently the statement of Jerome in the Onam. s. v. Area Atad - “ locus trans Jordanem, in quo planxerunt quondam Jacob, tertio ab Jerico lapide, duobus millibus ab Jordane, qui nunc vocatur Bethagla, quod interpretatur locus gyri, eo quod ibi more plangentium circumierint in funere Jacob” - is wrong. Beth Agla cannot be the same as Goren Atad, if only because of the distances given by Jerome from Jericho and the Jordan. They do not harmonize at all with his trans Jordanem, which is probably taken from this passage, but point to a place on this side of the Jordan; but still more, because Beth Hagla was on the frontier of Benjamin towards Judah (Jos 15:6; Jos 18:19), and its name has been retained in the fountain and tower of Hajla, an hour and a quarter to the S.E. of Riha (Jericho), and three-quarters of an hour from the Jordan, by which the site of the ancient Beth Hagla is certainly determined. (Vid., Robinson, Pal., ii. p. 268ff.)