40. Thou shalt be over my house. Not only is Joseph made governor of Egypt, but is adorned also with the insignia of royalty, that all may reverence him, and may obey his command. The royal signet is put upon his finger for the confirmation of decrees. He is clothed in robes of fine linen, which were then a luxury, and were not to be had at any common price. He is placed in the most honorable chariot. (159) It may, however, be asked, whether it was lawful for the holy man to appear with so great pomp? I answer, although such splendor can scarcely ever be free from blame, and therefore frugality in external ornaments is best; yet all kind of splendor in kings and other princes of the world is not to be condemned, provided they neither too earnestly desire it, nor make an ostentatious display of it. Moderation is, indeed, always to be cultivated; but since it was not in Joseph’s power to prescribe the mode of investiture, and the royal authority would not have been granted to him without the accustomed pomp of state, he was at liberty to accept more than seemed in itself desirable. If the option be given to the servants of God, nothing is safer for them, than to cut off whatever they can of outward splendor. And where it is necessary for them to accommodate themselves to public custom, they must beware of all ostentation and vanity. With respect to the explanation of the words; whereas we render them, “At thy mouth all the people shall kiss, ” (160) others prefer to read, “shall be armed; ” others, “shall be fed at thy will or commandment;” but as the proper signification of the verb נשק ( nashak) is to kiss, I do not see why interpreters should twist it to another sense. Yet I do not think that here any special token of reverence is intended; but the phrase rather seems to be metaphorical, to the effect that the people should cordially receive and obediently embrace whatever might proceed from the mouth of Joseph: as if Pharaoh had said, “Whatever he may command, it is my will that the people shall receive with one consent, as if all should kiss him.” The second chariot, is read by the Hebrews in construction, for the chariot of the viceroy, who holds the second place from the king. The sense, however, is clear, that Joseph has the precedence of all the nobles of Egypt.
There are various opinions about the meaning of the word אברך ( abraik). They who explain it by “tender father,” because Joseph, being yet in tender years, was endowed with the prudence and gravity of old age, seem to me to bring something from afar to correspond with their own fancy. They who render it “the father of the king,” as if the word were compounded of the Hebrew noun אב ( ab,) and the Arabic רך ( rak,) have little more color for their interpretation. If, indeed, the word be Hebrew, the meaning preferred by others, “Bow the knee,” seems to me more probable. But because I rather suppose that Egyptian terms are referred to by Moses, both in this place and shortly afterwards, I advise the readers not to distort them in vain. And truly those interpreters are ridiculously subtle, who suppose that a Hebrew name was given him by an Egyptian king, which they render either the “Redeemer of the world,” or the “Expounder of mysteries.” (161) I prefer following the Greek interpreters, who, by leaving both words untouched, sufficiently prove that they thought them to be of a foreign language. That the father-in-law of Joseph was, as is commonly believed, a priest, is what I cannot refute, though I can scarcely be induced to believe it. Therefore, since כוהן ( cohen) signifies a prince as well as a priest, it seems to me probable that he was one of the nobles of the court, who might also be the satrap or prefect of the city of On. (162)
(159) Of the marks of distinction conferred by Pharaoh upon Joseph, mentioned in verses 42 and 43 of this chapter; the first is the signet-ring which was common to the nations of the East as well as to Egypt. The next is the “vesture of fine linen,” or byssus, which was a peculiarly Egyptian token of honor. The third is the gold chain, or the necklace of gold, “of which the Egyptian monuments afford abundant explanation.” Modern objectors to the Mosaic account pretend that all the ornaments here mentioned belong to a later date. But such remarks, as Hengstenberg observes, “have interest only as they show how far the investigations of the rationalists, in reference to the Pentateuch, fall short of the present advanced state of knowledge repsecting Egyptian antiquity.” — Ed.
(160) Osculabitur totus populus ad os tuum. The English version is, “According unto thy word shall all my people be ruled:” which is a free translation, bearing, according to Calvin’s explanation, the true sense of the original. The margin of our Bible gives “be armed,” or, “kiss,” instead of the words “be ruled.” — Ed.
(161) This is the rendering given of the name Zaphnath — paneah by Jerome, and by the Chaldee Paraphrast respectively. The reader may consult Rivetus in his Exercitation elviii., Gesenius’s Lexicon, and the Commentaries of Bush and Dr. A. Clarke. — Ed.
(162) That the word כוהן ( cohen) generally signifies priest, is not to be disputed. Gesenius earnestly contends that this is its invariable meaning; but to establish his point, he is obliged to regard some as priests who were not of the tribe of Levi. This seems conclusive against him; for there is no room for doubt that none were, or could be, priests who sprang from any other tribe. Yet so much, perhaps, ought to be conceded to the primary meaning of the work, that is should be translated priest, wherever the sense of the passage does not require another interpretation. Such a rule would determine its meaning in this passage. The following remarks of Hengstenberg deserve attention. “According to Genesis 41:45, Pharaoh gives to Joseph, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, the priest of On, in marriage. This name (which means he who belongs to the sun) is very common on the Egyptian monuments, and is especially appropriate for the Priest of On, or Heliopolis (the city of the sun). Since Pharaoh evidently intended, by this act, to establish the power bestowed on Joseph upon a firm basis, it is implied in this account; first, that Egyptian High Priests occupied a very important position; and, secondly, that among them the High Priest of On was the most distinguished. Both these points are confirmed by history.” — See Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 32. — Ed