EXPOSITION
And Joseph placed his father and his brethren (i.e. gave them a settlement, the import of which the next clause explains), and gave them a possession (i.e. allowed them to acquire property) in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses,—either that district of Goshen in which Jacob and his family first settled (Michaelis, Rosenmüller), or, what seems more probable, the land of Goshen itself (LXX; Keil, Hengstenberg, Kalisch, et alii), being so named proleptically from the town Rameses, which was subsequently built (Exodus 1:11), or, if the town existed in the time of Joseph, and was only afterwards fortified by the Israelites, deriving its designation from the name of its chief city'—as Pharaoh had commanded.
And Joseph nourished—ἐσιτομέτρει (LXX.), i.e. gave them their measure of corn—his father, and his brethren, and all his father's household, with bread, according to their families—literally, to, or according to, the mouth of the little ones, meaning either in proportion to the size of their families (LXX; Keil, Kalisch, Murphy), or with all the tenderness with which a parent provides for his offspring (Murphy), or the whole body of them, from the greatest even to the least (Calvin), or completely, down even to the food for their children ('Speaker's Commentary').
And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore (literally, heavy), so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted (literally, was exhausted, had become languid and spiritless) by reason of the famine. The introduction of the present section, which first depicts the miseries of a starving population, and then circumstantially describes a great political revolution forced upon them by the stern necessity of hunger, may have been due to a desire
(1) to exhibit the extreme urgency which existed for Joseph's care of his father and brethren (Bush),
(2) to show the greatness of the benefit conferred on Joseph's house (Baumgarten, Keil, Lange), and perhaps also
(3) to foreshadow the political constitution afterwards bestowed upon the Israelites (Gerlach).
And Joseph gathered up—the verb, used only here of collecting money, usually signifies to gather things lying on the ground, as, e.g; ears of corn (Ruth 2:3), stones (Genesis 31:46), manna (Exodus 16:14), flowers (Song of Solomon 6:2)—all the money (literally, silver) that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph (who in this matter was simply Pharaoh's steward) brought the money into Pharaoh's house (i.e. deposited it in the royal treasury).
And when money failed (literally, and the silver was consumed, or spent) in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all (literally, and all) the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth (literally, and why should we die in thy presence because silver faileth? i.e. seeing that thou art able to support us).
And Joseph said, Give (literally, bring) your cattle; and I will give you (sc. bread) for your cattle, if money fail. And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks (literally, and for cattle of the flocks), and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses (the severity of these terms of sale and purchase was not so great as at first sight appears, since to a famishing people under-fed cattle and starving horses must have been comparatively worthless): and he fed them—literally, led, in the sense of cared for and maintained, them (cf. Psalms 23:2; Isaiah 40:11)—for all their cattle for that year—this was the sixth year of the famine (vide Genesis 47:23).
When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year (not the second from the commencement of the dearth, but the second from the consumption of their money), and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that—literally, for if (so we should speak openly), hence equivalent to an intensified but—our money (literally, the silver) is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle;—literally, our herds of cattle also (sc. have come) to my lord—there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands: wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may (literally, and we shall) live, and not die, that the land be not desolate (literally, and the land shall not be desolate).
And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so (literally, and) the land became Pharaoh's. From this it may be concluded that originally Pharaoh had no legal claim to the soil, but that the people had a valid title to its absolute possession, each man being regarded as the legitimate proprietor of the portion on which he had expended the labor of cultivation.
And as for the people, he removed them—not enslaved them, converted them into serfs and bondmen to Pharaoh (LXX; Vulgate), but simply transferred them, caused them to pass over—to cities—not from cities to cities, as if changing their populations (Onkelos, Rosenmüller, Kalisch), but either from the country districts to the towns (Targums Jonathan and Jerusalem, Lange, Schumann, Gerlach, Murphy), or according to the cities, i.e. in which the grain had been previously collected (Keil)—from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. Not that the people were transported from one side of the country to the other as a high stroke of policy to complete their subjugation (Jarchi, Grotius, Rosenmüller, Kalisch, and others), but that throughout the land they were moved into the nearest cities, as a considerate and even merciful arrangement for the more efficiently supplying them with food (Calvin, Keil, Lange, Wordsworth, Speaker's Commentary).
Only the land of the priests (so the LXX; Vulgate, and Chaldee render cohen, which, however, sometimes signifies a prince) bought he not; for the priests had a portion—not of land (Lange, Kalisch), but of food (Keil, Murphy)—assigned them of Pharaoh (not of Joseph, who must not, therefore, be charged with the sin of extending a State allowance to an idolatrous priesthood), and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands,—that is, in consequence of the State aliment which they enjoyed (during the period of the famine) they did not require to alienate their lands.
Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. This proves the time to have been the last year of the famine; and since the people obtained seed from the viceroy, it is reasonable to suppose that they would also have their cattle restored to them to enable them to till the ground. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. This verse is a sufficient refutation of the oft-preferred charge that Joseph had despoiled the Egyptians of their liberties, and converted a free people into a horde of abject slaves. Slave-owners are not usually content with a tax of only twenty percent on the gross revenues of their estates. Nor does it seem reasonable to allege that this was an exorbitant demand on the part either of Joseph or of Pharaoh. If in the seven years of plenty the people could afford to part with a fifth part of their produce, might not an improved system of agriculture enable them, under the new regulations, to pay as much as that in the shape of rent, and with quite as much ease? At all events the people themselves did not consider that they were being subjected to any harsh or unjust exaction.
And they said, Thou hast saved our lives (literally, thou hast kept us alive): let us find grace in the sight of my lord (i.e. let us have the land on these favorable terms), and we will be Pharaoh's servants. "That a sort of feudal service is here intended—the service of free laborers, not bondmen—we may learn from the relationship of the Israelites to God, which was formed after the plan of this Egyptian model" (Gerlach).
And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day (i.e. the day of the narrator), that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's. The account here given of the land tenure in Egypt, viz.,
(1) that after the time of Joseph the kings of Egypt became lords paramount of the soil,
(2) that the only free landholders in the country were the members of the priestly caste, and
(3) that the population generally occupied their farms at the uniform fixed rent of one fifth of their yearly produce, is abundantly corroborated by the statements of Herodotus, that Sesostris divided the soil of Egypt among the inhabitants, "assigning square plots of equal size to all, and obtaining his chief revenue from the rent which the holders were required to pay him year by year; of Diodorus Siculus (1. 73), that the land in Egypt belonged either to the priests, to the king, or to the military order; and of Strabo, that the peasants were not landowners, but occupiers of ratable land; as also by the monuments, which represent the king, priests, and warriors alone as having landed property (Wilkinson, Ken). Dr. Robinson quotes a modern parallel to this act of Joseph's, which both illustrates its nature and by way of contrast exhibits its clemency. Up to the middle of the present century the people of Egypt had been the owners as well as tillers of the soil. "By a single decree the Pasha (Mohammed Ali) declared himself to be the sole owner of all lands in Egypt; and the people of course became at once-only his tenants at will, or rather his slaves." "The modern Pharaoh made no exceptions, and stripped the mosques and other religious and charitable institutions of their landed endowments as mercilessly as the rest. Joseph gave the people seed to sow, and required for the king only a fifth of the produce, leaving four-fifths to them as their own; but now, though seed is in like manner given out, yet every village is compelled to cultivate two-thirds of its lands with corn and other articles for the Pasha, and also to render back to him, in the form of taxes and exactions in kind, a large proportion of the produce remaining after" ('Biblical Researches,' 1.42).
And Israel (i.e. the people) dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein (i.e. acquired holdings in it), and grew (or became fruitful), and multiplied exceedingly—or became very numerous. This was the commencement of the promise (Genesis 46:3).
HOMILETICS
Joseph's policy in Egypt.
I. TOWARDS THE ISRAELITES.
1. He gave them a settlement in Goshen. Though in one sense the land of Goshen was Pharaoh's grant, it is apparent from the story that they owed it chiefly to the wise and prudent management of Joseph that they found themselves located in the fattest corner of the land. In thus providing for them Joseph had without doubt an eye to their enrichment, to their separation as a people from the Egyptian inhabitants of the land, and to their convenience when the day came for their return. Thus we see an evidence of Joseph's fervent piety.
2. He supplied them with food while the famine lasted. That he did so without charges to them the narrative explicitly asserts. Nor can Joseph's right so to provide for his own household be legitimately challenged, the more especially that it was owing purely to his wise administration that the king's granaries were filled with corn. That Joseph did so was a proof of his natural affection.
3. He allowed them to acquire possessions. That is to say, he secured them in their rights of property while they resided among strangers. He cast around them the protection of the law all the same as if they had been Egyptians. This was a testimony to Joseph's political equity.
II. TOWARDS THE EGYPTIANS.
1. Joseph's policy described.
(1) Before the coming of the famine. Joseph gathered up a fifth part of the produce of the land and stored it up in granaries against the succeeding years of famine, paying doubtless for what he took, and affording the inhabitants of the country an example of economy and foresight.
(2) During the continuance of the famine he resold the grain which he had previously collected; in the first instance, for money; in the second instance, when the money failed, for horses and cattle; and in the third instance) when nothing remained between the people and starvation, for their lands and their persons.
(3) At the close of the famine Joseph returned to the people their lands, along with seed, and of necessity also cattle for its cultivation, exacting from them in return as rent a fifth part of the produce, the same proportion that he had lifted from them during the seven prosperous years.
2. Joseph's policy challenged. It has been vigorously assailed,
(1) for its severity; eloquent writers dilating with much indignation on its arbitrary, oppressive, tyrannical, and ferocious character, representing Joseph as little other than a semi-royal despot who little wrecked of the lives and liberties of his groveling subjects so long as he could aggrandize himself and his royal patron;
(2) for its injustice, being very different treatment from that which had been measured out to the Israelites, who were strangers and foreigners in the land, while they (the Egyptians) were the native population; and
(3) for its impiety, Joseph having sinfully taken advantage of the necessities of the people to reduce them by one bold stroke to a condition of abject and helpless slavery.
3. Joseph's policy defended.
(1) The alleged severity is greater in appearance than reality, since it is certain that Joseph did nothing harsh in selling corn for money so long as people had it, or horses and cattle when money failed, and it cannot be fairly proved that Joseph did not give them full value for their lands.
(2) The imputation of partiality will disappear if it be remembered that Joseph's brethren were only expected to be temporary settlers in Egypt, and besides were few in number, so that a gratuitous distribution of corn amongst them was not at all an unwarrantable exercise of philanthropy, whereas to have pauperized a whole nation would have been to inflict upon them the greatest possible injury.
(3) The charge of having enslaved a free people may be answered by stating first that the narrative when fairly construed implies nothing more than that Joseph changed the land tenure from that of freehold to a rent charge, and that for the convenience of supporting the people while the famine lasted he distributed them (i.e. the country folks) among the cities where the grain was stored; and secondly, that instead of complaining against Joseph as the destroyer of their liberties, the people applauded him as the savior of their lives.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
The settlement of the children of Israel in Goshen.
I. A CONSUMMATION. Distinctly the act of Joseph, under the command of Pharaoh.
1. The fruit of righteousness reaped.
2. The fulfillment of God's word.
II. A NEW LIFE BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY OF DIVINE GRACE. The weak things have been proved mighty, the elect of God has been exalted. The "best of the land" is for the seed of the righteous: "The meek shall inherit the earth." Goshen the type of the Divine kingdom.
The policy of Joseph is faithfully employed for his monarch. The advantage taken of the people's necessities to increase the power of the throne is quite Eastern in its character—not commended to general imitation, but permitted to be carded out through Joseph, because it gave him greater hold upon the government, and perhaps wrought beneficially on the whole in that early period of civilization. The honor of the priesthood is a testimony to the sacredness which the Egyptians attached to religious persons and things. The earliest nations were the most religious, and there is no doubt that the universality of religion can be traced among the tribes of the earth. An atheistic nation never has existed, and never can exist, except as in France, at a revolutionary period, and for a short time.—R.