CRITICAL NOTES.—
Genesis 47:21. He removed them to cities.] Heb.—According to the cities. “Thus he distributed the population of the land in and around the cities according to the cities in which the grain was stored, so as to produce the easiest distribution of the supplies among them.” (Jacobus.)—
Genesis 47:22. Only the land of the priests bought he not.] “The Egyptian priesthood was already placed by Pharaoh upon an independent and separate basis. Wilkinson shows from the monuments that only the kings and priests and the military (who held lands of the king) are represented as landowners. Heeren finds in his researches that a greater, perhaps the greatest and best, part of the land was in the possession of the priests.” (Jacobus.)—A portion assigned them of Pharaoh.] They had daily rations from the king. Thus they had no occasion to sell their land, though it was rendered useless by the famine.—
Genesis 47:24. The fifth part unto Pharaoh.] “The royalty here proposed for the occupiers of the land to pay does not, says Knobel, appear exorbitant. The tenth of the produce of the soil, and also of the flocks, seems to have been a common royal tribute (1 Samuel 8:15; 1 Samuel 8:17; Leviticus 27:30). The kings of Syria received from the conquered Jews (1Ma. 10:3) a third part of the seed, (i.e. cereal crops), and half the fruit of the trees.” (Alford.)—
Genesis 47:26. Except the land of the priests only which became not Pharaoh’s.] “Knobel remarks, that this account is confirmed by history. Diodorus Siculus relates that the only possessors of land in Egypt were the king, the priestly and the warrior-caste: from these the occupiers rented the land” (Alford.)
Genesis 47:31. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head.] “On receiving the solemn promise of Joseph, he turns towards the head of the bed, and assumes the posture of adoration, rendering, no doubt, thanks to God for all the mercies of his past life, and for this closing token of filial duty and affection. The LXX has the rendering, ‘on the top of his staff,’ which is given in Hebrews 11:21. This is obtained by a mere change in the vowel pointing of the last word.” (Murphy.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Genesis 47:13-26
JOSEPH’S ADMINISTRATION IN EGYPT
I. He introduced a great political and social revolution. The famine was sore in the land. The private supplies of the people being exhausted, they were obliged to purchase. Joseph’s foresight had filled the granaries with corn, and therefore to him the people applied. The inhabitants, with the nations around, first parted with their money, for the necessaries of life must be had. This enriched the king’s treasury; and without injustice, for the corn which was stored up was bought with his own private money. When the people’s money failed they brought their cattle. (Genesis 47:17.) And when they had parted with these, they brought their land; and, lastly, their persons. (Genesis 47:20-23.) The effect of all this was, that everything became the property of the state. “The land became Pharaoh’s.” On behalf of Pharaoh Joseph could say, “I have bought you.” But thereby they did not become bondsmen. The term signifies rather, “I have acquired you.” Nothing is said concerning servitude. There is simply to be a fixed income tax. They are not to be subject to arbitrary enactions, but to pay a fixed rent.
II. His conduct therein admits of justification. Joseph has been charged with being the tool of an ambitious and despotic ruler, using his foresight and skill in order to reduce a free people to poverty and slavery. But the following considerations may be urged in justification of the course he pursued.
1. He bought the corn by the king’s command and not as ordered of the people. He paid full price for the corn during the plentiful years. The purchase-money came out of the king’s private purse.
2. If the people had believed the word of God as the king did, they might have laid by grain for themselves. The straits to which they were put partook of the nature of a punishment. They had the same opportunity as the king, and they might have laid by for the years of famine. But they paid no regard to Joseph’s prophetic dreams. Even the years of plenty did not convince them. They mostly used it for purposes of luxury.
3. It was expedient that the people’s wants should be supplied, not by gifts, but by sale. Otherwise idleness would be encouraged, and the public peace endangered. Joseph’s policy promoted industry and loyalty.
4. This measure actually preserved the people from starvation, and provided them with securities for their future prosperity. They were hereby saved from famine. They had a regular tax to pay, and so were preserved from any arbitrary rule. They were, in every sense, a free people; for taxes do not make people slaves. Land, property, and labour must be protected by public authority and laws. For these necessary and beneficial purposes the people pay taxes. By means of Joseph’s measure the people were placed under the protection of a statute law. They knew the utmost extent of their liability.
5. The people were satisfied with Joseph’s administration. “Thou hast saved our lives.” (Genesis 47:25.) Such was the people’s verdict in favour of Joseph’s policy. They, who could best understand all the circumstances of the case, pronounce this favourable opinion. They were willing to render the required service to the king.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Genesis 47:13-26. From this time every man held his property and his life in fiefship to the king. This suggests to us two parallel cases, the constitution of ancient Israel and of modern England. In ancient Israel we find something parallel. When the destroying angel passed over the houses of the Egyptians, the firstborn of the Israelites were spared. It was then held that every Israelite was bought with blood, and the firstborn of every family offered sacrifice for himself. Afterwards, one tribe was substituted for the firstborn of Israel, consecrated to be priests. If we remember that the tribe of Levi represented the whole nation of Israel, we shall then understand the tenure upon which each man was in covenant with God. He was touched with blood, and thus every power was consecrated to Jehovah’s service. We also find this principle in the constitution of England. The king is the supreme lord of all property; against the king every crime that is committed is considered to be done. This principle, in three different nations, rests on a separate historical fact. In the case of Egypt, it rested on the preserving the people from famine; in that of Israel, in passing over the first born, and in that of England, on the conquest of the country by one of its ancient kings. That which Joseph meant to teach was the right of monarchy and the duty of the people to their king. In the case of Israel, that which was to be taught was that God was their sovereign, representing to them the majesty of the law. And our loyalty we give to the sovereigns, not because they are the representatives of the majority of the people, but because they are the chosen symbols of that which assuredly came from no people’s will, the eternal law of God, the law of right and wrong.—(Robertson.)