our money according to its weight" i.e. in full, and had nowbrought it back, together with some more money to buy corn, and they did not know who had put their money in their sacks (vers. 20-22). The steward, who was initiated into Joseph's plans, replied in a pacifying tone, " Peace be to you (D3^ DvB' is not a form of salutation here, but of encouragement, as in Judg. vi. 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.
Vers. 26-34. When Joseph came home, they handed him the present with the most reverential obeisance. — Ver. 27. Joseph first of all inquired after their own and their father's health (Dii>^first as substantive, then as adjective = o?^ xxxiii. 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 sonT^ l^n^ for ^JH^ as in Isa. XXX. 19 (cf. Ewald, § 25ld). 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. — Vers. 30, 31. And "his (Joseph's) bowels did yearn" (^"^033 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. — Vers. 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. Deut. xii. 17, xvi. 5, xvii. 15). For this was an abomination to the Egyptians." The Hebrews 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, op 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. Ex. viii. 22).— Vers. 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 (K|^, 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 (niT Ut. hands, grasps, as in chap, xlvii. 24; 2 Kings xi. 7). The custom is met with elsewhere of showing respect to distinguished guests by giving them the largest and best pieces (1 Sam. ix. 23, 24; Homer, II. 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 (Ileraclid. polit. 3). But among the Egyptians the number 5 appears to have been preferred to any other (cf. chap. xli. 34, xlv. 22, xlvii. 2, 24; Isa. xix. 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 (xxxvii. 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. i. 9).
Vers. 1-13. The test. — Vers. 1, 2. 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 ill addition to that, had his own silver goblet put into Benjamin's sack. — Vers. 3-6. Then as soon as it was light ("lix, 3d 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 deedT* 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 verj' valuable possession of Joseph's. CTO: lit. to whisper, to mumble out formularies, incantations, then to prophesy, divinare. According to this, the Egyptians at that time practised 'keKavocrKOirir] or XeKavofjuavreia and IBpofiavreia, 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 Norderts 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 (ver. 15). — Vers. 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. — Ver. 10. The man replied, "Now let it he even (D3 placed first for the sake of emphasis) according to your words: with ichom it is found, he shall he my slave, and ye (the rest) shall remain hlameless^ Thus he modified the sentence, to assume the appearance of justice.— Vers. 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. xxxvii. 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.
Vers. 14-34. Result of the test. — ^Vers. 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 th most secret things) would certainly divine this f " B'na augurari Judah made no attempt at a defence. " WJiat shall we say t my lord? how speak, how clear ourselves? God (Ha-Elohim, th^ personal God) has found out the wickedness of thy servants (i.e, He is now punishing the crime committed against our brother, cf. xlii. 21). Behold, we are my lord's slaves, both we, and he in whose hand the cup was founds But Joseph would punis. mildly and justly. The guilty one alone should be his slave the others might go in peace, i.e. uninjured, to their father. Vers. 18 sqq. But that the brothers could not do. Judah, w! 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 Hfe; and the grievous fact, that if they I'eturned without the youth, they must bring down the grey hairs of their father with sorrow to the grave. — Ver. 21. To ^^ set eyes vpon him" signifies, with a gracious intention, to show him good-will (as in* Jer. xxxix. 12, xl. 4). — Ver. 27. " That my wife hore me two (sons):" Jacob regards Rachel alone as his actual wife (cf. xlvi. 19). — Ver. 28 1?^^, preceded by a preterite, is to be rendered " and I was obliged to say, Only (nothing but) torn in pieces has he become^ — Ver. 30. ^^ His soulis bound to his soul:" equivalent to, " he clings to him with all his soul." — Vers. 33, 34. Judah closed his appeal with the entreaty, "iVbw 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! "
Vers. 1-15. The recognition. — Ver. 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 ilia affectuum et aTOf>yrj<i erga fratres et parentem tantafuit, ut non posset ferre alienorum prcesentiam et aspectum (^Luther). — Vers. 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. vers. 2 and 16). He then said to his brethren: "lam Joseph. Is my father still alive? " That his father was still living, he had not only been informed before (xliii. 27), but had just been told again; but his filial heart impels him to make sure of it once more. " But Jus brethren could not answer Mm, for they were terrified before him: " they were so smitten in their consciences, that from astonishment and terror they could not utter a word. — ^Vers. 4, 5. Joseph then bade his brethren approach nearer, and said: " I am Joseph, your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. But now be not grieved nor angry with yourselves (D2''yj;zi in^"?K as in chap. xxxi. 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. 2 Sara, xiv. 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. 1. 20. '^9''?? that which has escaped, the band of men or multitude escaped from death and destruction (2 Kings xix. 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. — Ver. 8. " And now (this was truly the case) it was not you that sent me hither; but God (Ha-Elohim, the personal God, in contrast with his brethren) hath made me a father to Pharaoh (i.e. his most confidential counsellor and friend; cf. 1 Mace. xi. 32, Ges. thes. 7), and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt; " cf. xli. 40, 41.
Vers. 9 sqq. 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 xlvii. 11), that he might not perish in the still remaining five years of famine. tJn'in; ver. 11, lit. to be robbed of one's possessions, to be taken possession of by another, from en^ to take possession.— Vers. 12, 13. But the brethren were so taken by surprise and overpowered by this unexpected discovery, that to convince them of the reaUty of the whole affair, Joseph was obhged 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." — Vers. 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; " aiid after that, his brethren talked with him." \? "*?.??? • 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.
Vers. lG-28. Invitation to Jacob to come into Egypt. — Vers. 16 sqq. The report of the arrival of Joseph's brethren soon found its way 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." niD, "the good," is not the best part, but the good things (produce) of the land, as in vers. 20, 23, xxiv. 10, 2 Kings viii. 9. 3?n fat, i.e. the finest productions.— Vers. 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. chap. 1. 9, Ex. xiv. 6 sqq. with Isa. xxxvi. 9) ■" Let not your eye look with mourning (Dnri) 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).
Vers. 21 sqq. The sons of Israel canned out the instructions of Joseph and the invitation of Pharaoh (vers. 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, ni^^b nis^n: change of clothes, clothes to change; i.e. dress clothes which were worn on special occasions and frequently changed (Judg. xiv. 12, 13, 19; 2 Kings V. 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 com and provisions for the journey; and sent them off with the injunction i 5Tnri-^N, firj opr/i^ea-Oe (LXX.), " do not get angry by the way.'' Placatus erat Joseph fratribus, simul eos admonet, ne quid t harum moveant. Timendum enim erat, ne quisque se purgan crimen transferre in alios studeret atque ita surgeret contentio {Calvin). — Vers. 25-28. When they got back, and brought word to their father, "Joseph is still living, yea (^^) 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).
Vers. 1-7. " So Israel took his journey (from Hebron, chap, xxxvii. 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 (xxi. 33, xxvi. 25), he offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac, ut sibifrmum et raticm esse testetur fosdus, 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 (chap. XV. 13-16), or not. — Ver. 2. Here God appeared to him in a vision of the night (nK"io, an intensive plural), and gave him, as once before on his flight from Canaan (xxviii. 12 sqq.), the comforting promise, " / am p^\} (the Mighty One), the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt (J^'^^P. for ^1!^.?, as in Ex. ii. 4 njn for njn, cf. Ges. § 69, 3, AnmVl); 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." n7y"n| an inf, abs. appended emphatically (as in chap. xxxi. 15); according to Ges. inf. Kal. — Vers. 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.^
Vers. 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 (ver. 27), "all the souls of the house of Jacob, who came into Egypt" (HK^n for nsa "iB'S, 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
' 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 bo 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 tBe Books of Moses.)
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 maid, there are mentioned 2 sons, 11 grandsons, 2 great-grandsons, and 1 daughter (who is reckoned like Dinah, both here and Num. xxvi. 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. xxvi. 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.^ 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 (ver. 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
1 Instead of the number 70 given here, Ex. i. 5, and Deut. x. 22, Stephen speaks of 75 (Acts vii. 14), according to the LXX., which has the number 75 both here and Ex. i. 5, on account of the words which follow the names of Manasseh and Ephraim in ver. 20: lyivovro li viol Mxvxcaii, ovf iTBiciv »iira ij ^aXXotxsj ^ 2iJ/ja, t6» "Metx'P' '^e^X'P ^^ iyivvndi rou Tcc- /««3. viol Is ^E(pputf^ uh-KCpov Muvxaar,- l.ovr otKuxfx. xul Txxfi. viol Is 2ou- TxXxxfi' 'E'hufi: and which are interpolated by conjecture from chap. 1. 23, and Num. xxvi. 29, 35, and 36 (33, 39, and 40), these three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph being reckoned in.
daughter of Slmah the Canaanite occurred, notwithstanding tlie reasons advanced to the contrary in chap, xxxviii., before the sale of Joseph, and shortly after the return of Jacob to Canaan, during the time of his sojourn at Shechem (xxxiii. 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 lie 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 (xlii. 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 (yid. pp. 311 and 319), have had 10 sons already, or, as Num. xxvi. 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 bom afterw^ards 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 " (ver. 8), whose names it gives, with the description given in Num. xxvi. 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 (ver. 10), for Nemuel and Zerah (Num. xxvi. 12, 13); Ziphion and Arodi (ver. 16), for Zephon and Arod (Num. xxvi.
15 and 17); Huppim (ver. 21) for Hupham (Num. xxvi. 39); Ehi (ver. 21), an abbreviation of Ahiram (Num. xxvi. 38): sometimes different names of the same person; viz. Ezbon (ver. 16) and Ozni (Num. xxvi. 16); Muppim (ver. 21) and Shupham (Num. xxvi. 39); Ilushim (ver. 23) and Shuham (Num. xxvi. 42). Among the differences in substance, the first to be noticed is the fact, that in Num. xxvi. Simeon's son Ohad, Asher's son Ishuah, and three of Benjamin's sons, Becher, Gera, and Eosh, 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. xxvi., 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 mishpachothf 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. xxvi.; viz. the fact that, according to Num. xxvi. 40, two of the sons of Benjamin mentioned in ver. 21,Naaman and Ard, were his grandsons, sons of Belah; and also the circumstance, that in ver. 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 (xlviii. 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 bom 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. Josh. xvi. 1, 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 bom 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 bom 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 w^as the design of our list, is still further confirmed by a comparison of Ex. i. 5 and Deut. x. 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 bom in Egypt, and became founders of independent farailips. By thus embracing all the founders of tribes and families, the significant number 70 was obtained, in which number 7 (formed of the divine number 3, and the workl 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.^
Vers. 28-34. This list of the house of Jacob is followed by an account of the arrival in Egypt. — Ver. 28. Jacob sent his son Judah before him to Joseph, " to show (^^inp) 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. — ^Ver. 29. As soon as they had arrived, Joseph had his chariot made ready to go up to Goshen and meet his father (?V^ applied to a journey from the interior to the desert or Canaan), and "showed himself to him there {lit. he appeared to him; HNIJ^ 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 (iSv) upon his neck (i.e. in his embrace) weeping." — Ver. 30. Then Israel said to Joseph: " Now {^V^>} lit. this time) will I die, after I have seen thy face, that thou (art) still alive." — Vers. 31, 32. But Joseph told his brethren and his father's house (his family) that he would go up to Phai'aoh (n?J? here used of going to the court, as an ideal ascent), to announce the arrival of his relations, who were n^jpD ""{^px " keepers of flocks," and had brought their sheep and oxen and all their possessions with them. — Vers. 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 yemay 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 Phai-aoh as shepherds from of old, namely, that they might receive Goshen as their dwellingplace, and that their national and religious independence might
^ 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 (Disserta=- tions) and Kurtz (History of the Old Covenant).
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 (^ovkoXol) 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 ^ovKoXoi in Herodotus not only denotes cow-herds, but apotiori all herdsmen, just as we find in the herds depicted upon the monuments, sheep, goats, and rams introduced by thousands, along with asses and homed cattle.
SETTLEMENT OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT; THEIR PROSPEROUS CON- DITION DURING THE YEARS OF FAMINE. — CHAP. XLVII. 1-27.
Vers. 1-12. When Joseph had announced to Pharaoh the arrival of his relations in Goshen, he presented five out of the whole number of his brethren (VnK nvpD; on nvj? see chap. xix. 4) to the king. — Vers. 3 sqq. Pharaoh asked them about their occupation, and according to Joseph's instructions they replied that they were herdsmen (I^*^ njn, the singular of the predicate, see Ges. § 147c), who had come to sojourn in the land (ym, 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 empowei'ed Joseph to give his father and his brethren a dwelling (TtJnn) 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. — Vers. 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 lifers years, and have not reached (the perfect in the presentiment of his approaching end) the days of the lifers years of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimaged Jacob called his own life and that of his fathers a pilgrimage (D''"i^3D), 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. Ps. xxxix. 13, cxix. 19, 54; 1 Chron. xxix. 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. xi. 13-16). So also Jacob's life was little (pV)^) 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.
Ver. 10. After this probably short interview, of which, however, only the leading incidents are given, Jacob left the king with a blessing. — ^Ver. 11. Joseph assigned to his father and his brethren, according to Pharaoh's command, a possession (n;tnx) for a dwelling-place in the best part of Egypt, the land of Raemses, 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. 73?3 with a double accusative {Ges. § 139). The settlement of the Israelites is called the land of Raemses (Dppri, in pause DDpjn Ex. i. 11), instead of Goshen, either because the province of Goshen (Fecrifi, LXX.) is indicated by the name of its former capital Raemses (i.e. Heroopolis, on the site or in the immediate neighbourhood of the modern Abu Keisheib, in Wady Tumilat (vid. Ex. i. 11), or because Israel settled in the vicinity of Raemses. The district of Goshen is to be soujrht 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 Petrsea, which stretches away to Philistia (Ex. xiii. 17, cf. 1 Chron. vii. 21) and is called Feaefi ^Apa^ia<; in the Septuagint in consequence (chap. xlv. 10, xlvi. 34), and must have extended westwards to the Nile, since the Israelites had an abundance of fish (Num. xi. 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 (Ps. Ixxviii. 12, 43, cf. Num. xiii. 22). In this province Joseph assigned his relations settlements near to himself (xlv. 10), from which they could quickly and easily communicate with one another (xlvi. 28, xlviii. 1 sqq.). Whether he lived at Raemses or not, cannot be determined, just because the residence of the Pharaoh of that time is not known, smd the notion that it was at Memphis is only based upon utterly uncertain combinations relating to the Hyksos.
Vers. 13-27. 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. — ^Ver. 13. The land of Egypt and the land of Canaan were exhausted with hunger. — npril: from T]Tb = ns?, to languish, to be exhausted, only occurring again in Prov. xxvi. 18, Hithp. in a secondary sense. — Yer. 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. — Vers. 15 sqq. When the money was exhausted, the Egyptians all came to Joseph with the petition: '' Give us bread, why should ice 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 their herds, in return for which he provided them that year with bread. ''Hi: Piel to lead, with the secondary meaning, to care for (Ps. xxiii. 2; Isa. xl. 11, etc.); hence the signification here, "to maintain." — Vers. 18, 19. When that year had passed (Qi^Jp, as in Ps. cii. 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 h C^ins, a title similar to your majesty), hut the money is all gone, and the cattle have come to my lord; we have nothing left to offer ' to my lord hut our hodies and our land." 2^5 *'? is an intensified '3 following a negation (" but," as in chap, xxxii. 29, etc.), and is to be understood elliptically; lit. " for if," sc. we would speak openly; not " that because," for the causal signification of DK is. not established. QJ? with?>? is constructio prcegnans: " completed l| to my lord," i.e. completely handed over to my lord. ''3B7 "iNB'i is the same: " left before my lord," i.e. for us to lay before, or offer to my lord. " Why should toe die hefore thine eyes, we and our land! Buy ws 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 ri^OJ is transferred per zeugma to the land; in the last, the word DK'ri is used to describe the destruction of the land. The form DK'ri is the same as?i?J;n in chap. xvi. 4. — Vers. 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" '^''"ly?, not from one city to another, but " according to (= Kara) the cities;" so that he distributed the population of the whole land according to the cities in which | the com was housed, placing them partly in the cities them-. | selves, and partly in the immediate neighbourhood. — Ver. 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." p'n a *• fixed allowance of food, as in Prov. xxx. 8; Ezek. xvi. 27. This t 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, "j since, according to Diod. Sic. i. 73, the priests provided the sacri-, fices and the support of both themselves and their servants from, the revenue of their lands; and with this Herodotus also agrees j (2, 37). — ^Vers. 23 sqq. Then Joseph said to the people: " Behold I havehought you this day and your land for Pharaoh; there have ye (xn only found in Ezek. xvi. 43 and Dan. ii. 43) seed, and sow the land; and of the produce ye shall give the fifth for Pharaoh, and four parts (H'T, as in chap, xliii. 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 (ver. 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 (^KXTJpov), 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 l^ded 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 aiTangement. According to Herod. 2, 168, every warrior had received from former kings, as an honourable payment, twelve choice fields (apovpai) 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 vofioi, 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 Hengstenherg 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. xxv. 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 ver. 27, not only did Joseph preserve the lives of the Egyptians, for which they expressed their acknowledgments (ver. 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 (tnw as in chap, xxxiv. 10), and to become fruitful and multiply.
Vers. 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. 257) 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 (1 Kings i. 47, 48). The Vulgate rendering is correct: adoravit Deum conversus ad lectuli caput. That of the LXX., on the contrary, is irpocreKvv'qtTev 'IcrparfK IrrX to aKpov t^9 pd^Bov avrov (i.e. '"'^?'!}); and the Si/riac and Itala have the same (cf. Heb. xi. 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 avrov therefore in the sense of avrov, 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 noon ^Vd remains a strange one; so that unquestionably this rendering arose from a false reading of riDcn, and is not proved to be correct by the quotation in Heb. xi. 21. "Adduxit enim LXX. Interpr. versionem Apostolus, quod ea turn usitata esset, non quod lectionem illam prceferendam judicaret (Calovii Bibl. illustr. ad h.l.).
Chap, xlviii. 1-7. Adoption of Joseph's sons. — Vers. 1, 2. After these events, i.e. not long after Jacob's arrangements for his burial, it was told to Joseph ("i^^^'l "one said," cf. ver. 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 chap. xlv. 27, 28. Jacob, enfeebled with ago, gathered up his strengtli for a work, which he was about to perform as Israel, the hearer of the grace of the promise. — Vers. 3 sqq. Referring to the promise which the Almighty God had given him at Bethel (xxxv. 10 sqq, cf. xxviii. 13 sqq.), Israel said to Joseph (ver. 5): "A7id now thy two sons, which were born to thee in the land of Egypt, until (before) I came to thee into Egypt... let them he mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, like Reuben and Simeon (my first and second born), let them he 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 ver. 6, " which thou hast begotten since them, shall be thine; by the name of their brethren shall they he called in their inheritance;" i.e. they shall not form tribes of their own with & 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. xxvi. 28-37; 1 Chron. vii. 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 (1 Chron V. 2). Joseph's mother, who had died so early, was ' also honoured thereby. And this explains the allusion made by Jacob in ver. 7 to his beloved Rachel, the wife of his affections, and to her death — how she died by his side ("•^V), on his return from Padan (for Padan-Aram, the only place in which it is so called, cf. xxv. 20), without living to see her first-bom exalted to the position of a saviour to the whole house of Israel. '"
Vers. 8-22. The blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh*' — ^Vers. 8 sqq. 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 7iot see well " (ver. 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 me here," he replied, "Bring them to me then (W"Dni?), 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, nkn for nixn, like ib*I{ (xxxi. 28). <^S: to decide; here, to judge, to think. — Vers. 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. — Vers. 14, 15. 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. xxvii. 18, 23; Deut. xxxiv. 9; Matt. xix. 13; Acts vi. 6, viii. 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, Ps. xxiii. 1, xxviii. 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" (Tsa. Ixiii. 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 Testam.ent, o 0eo? and 0 X0709, Shepherd and Redeemer. By the singular ^nn^ (bless, lenedicat) the triple mention of God is resolved into the unity of the divine nature. Non dicit (Jakob) henedicant, pinraliter, nee repetit sed conjungit in uno opere henedicendi tres per— sonas, Deum Patrem, Deum pastorem et Angelum. Sunt igitur Jii tres unus Deris 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 gi'eat nation, and the possession of Canaan. Hence Jacob proceeds: " and let them increase into a multitude in the midst of the land.'' njT; air, \ey., " to increase," from which the name J"^, a fish, is derived, on account of the remarkable rapidity with which they multiply. — ^Vers. 17-19. 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, " / know, my son, I know: he also (Manasseh) will become a nation, and loill become great, yet (D^^^l as in xxviii. 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 tiibes, and its name acquired equal importance with tlie name Israel, whereas tinder Moses, Manasseh had numbered 20,000 more than Ephraim (Num. xxvi. 34 and 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 ver. 20 the writer sums up the entire act of blessing in the words of the patriarch: " In thee {i.e. Joseph) icill Israel (as a nation) hless, 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 3Ianasseh," viz. in the position of his hands and the terms of the blessing. Lastly, (ver. 21) Israel expressed to Joseph his firm faith in the promise, that God would brins 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 boio" (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 ''^^2^ IK'X 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.^ The words cannot refer to the purchase of the piece of ground at Shechem (xxxiii. 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 (xxxiv. 25 sqq.), for Jacob could not
^ 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 iu ver. 6, and the very opposite in ver. 15, viz. that Jacob blessed Joseph iu Ephraim and Manasseh. Ileim'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.
possibly have attributed to himself a deed for which he had pronounced a curse upon Simeon and Levi (xlix. 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 " {DelitzscK). The land, which the patriarchs desired to obtain in Canaan, they procured not by force of arms, but by legal purchase (cf. chap. xxiv. and xxxiii. 19). It was to be very different in the future, when the iniquity of the Amorites was full (xv. 16). But Jacob called the inheritance, which Joseph was to have in excess of his brethren, D^K* (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 (Josh. xxiv. 32); and this was understood in future times, as though Jacob had presented the piece of ground to Joseph {yid. John iv. 5).
Vers. 1-28. The blessing. — Vers. 1, 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 (K"ii?^ for T^'']\>\ as in chap. xlii. 4, 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 (ver. 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 (chap, xxvii.) 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 Uneamenta 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 " (ctt' ia-'^a- T(ov Twv rjiiep5)v, LXX.), and not merely at some future time. ^''"!n'!?j the opposite of n'C'N'ij signifies the end in contrast with the beginning (Deut. xi. 12; Isa. xlvi. 10); hence n''»\n IT'IDK in prophetic language denoted, not the future generally, but the last future (see Hengstenherg' s History of Balaam, pp. 465-467, transl.), the Messianic age of consummation (Isa. ii, 2; Ezek. xxxviii. 8, 16; Jer. xxx..24, xlviii. 47, xlix. 39, etc.: so also Num. xxiv. 14; Deut. iv. 30), like ctt' ia-'^drov roiv rjjjbepoiv (2 Pet. iii. 3; Heb. i. 2), or kv Tai<i ia-')(aTat<; rj^iepaa (Acts ii. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 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 regrlated 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, tlie 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 (xlvi. 3, 4). To 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 poM'erful 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.
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.
Vers. 3, 4. Reuben, my jirst-hom thou, my might and jflrstfi'uit of my strength; pre-eminence in dignity and pre-eminence in jyower. — 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 (xxvii. 29; Deut. xxi. 17). (J^^"^: elevation, the dignity of the chieftainship; TV, the earlier mode of pronouncing t'y, the authority of the first-bom.) 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" tna: lit. the boiling over of water, figuratively, the excitement of lust; hence the verb is used in Judg. ix. 4, Zeph. iii. 4, for frivolity and insolent pride. With this predicate Jacob describes the moral character of Reuben; and the noun is stronger than the verb nrna of the Samaritan, and Djnns or nymx efferbuistij cestuasti of the Sara. Vers., e^v^picra<; of the LXX., and vTrep^a-at; of Sr/mm. "Vnn is to be explained by "VP: have no pre-eminence. His crime was, lying with Bilhab, his father's concubine (xxxv. 22). R^n is used absolutely: desecrated hast thou, 8C. what should have been sacred to thee (cf. Lev. xviii. 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-bom, Eeuben lost the leadership in Israel; so that his tribe attained to no position of influence in the nation (compare the blessing of Moses in Dent, xxxiii. 6). The leadership was transferred to Judah, the double portion to Joseph (1 Chron. v. 1, 2), by which, so far as the inheritance was concerned, the first-bom of the beloved Eachei took the place of the first-bom of the slighted Leah; not, however, according to the subjective will of the father, which is condemned in Dent. xxi. 15 sqq., but according to the leading of God, by which Joseph had been raised above his brethren, but without the chieftainship being accorded to him.,,
Vers. 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. " Tl'^apons of wickedness are their swords" The utto^ Xey. ^'^^^ is rendered by Luther, etc., weapons or swords, from ■>53=nn3j to dig, dig through, pierce: not connected with fidxaipa. L. de Dieu and others follow the Arabic and -3^thiopic versions: "plans;" but DOn ^73^ utensils, or instruments, of wickedness, does not accord with this. Such wickedness had the two brothers committed upon the inhabitants of Shechem (xxxiv. 25 sqq.), that Jacob would have no fellowship with it. " Into their counsel come not, my soul; with their assembly let not my honour unite" TiD, a councU, or deHberative consessus. nnw, imperf. of nrr; ^nina, like Ps. vii. 6, xvi. 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 C^K and "W, 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 E^N, only in Ps. cxh. 4, Prov. viii. 4, and Isa. liii. 3; of nie^nnjE?, only in Hos. xii. 12. jiyi: inclination, here in a bad sense, wantonness. l^V • vevpoKOTreip, 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. Josh. xi. G, 9; 2 Sam. viii. 4). In chap, xxxiv. 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 Jierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I shall divide them ill 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. xxvi. 14); in Moses' blessing (Dent, xxxiii.) 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 (Josh. xix. 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 (1 Chron. iv. 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 (1 Chron. iv. 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. xxi. 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 (Deut. xxxiii. 8 sqq.)! 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 (ver. 28).
Vers. 8-12. Judah, the fourth son, was the first to receive a rich and unmixed blessing, the blessing of inalienable supremacy and power. ^^ Judah tJioUf thee will thy brethren praise! thy hand in the neck of thy foes! to thee will thy father^ s sons hoiv down!'^ nPiK^ thou, is placed first as an absolute noun, like ''3K in chap. xvii. 4, xxiv. 27; 'l^li'* is a play upon nniin"; like ITiix in chap. xxix. 35. Judah, according to chap. xxix. 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. xxvii. 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 (xxxvii. 26 seq.); 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 (xliii. 9, 10, xliv. 16 sqq.); 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 xvi. 12, cf. Ex. xxiii. 27, Ps. xviii. 41). Therefore his brethren would do homage to him: not merely the sons of his mother, who are mentioned in other places (xxvii. 29; Judg. viii. 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 (2 Sam. v. 1, 2, cf. 1 Sam. xviii. 6, 7, and 16). This princely power Judah acquired through his lion-like nature. — Ver. 9. "J. young lion is Judah; from the prey, my son, art thou gone up: he has lain down; like a lion there he liethy and like a lioness, who can rouse Jiim 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. Song of Sol. iv. 8), and there lies in majestic quiet, no one daring to disturb it. To in tensify 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 n?y 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 some thing 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 ver. 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, II. 2, 46, 101); and when he sat upon his throne he rested it between his feet, inclining towards himself (see the representation of a Persian king in the ruins of Persepolis, Niehuhr Reisebeschr. ii. 145). Pi?.nD the determining person or thing, hence a commander, legislator, and a commander's or ruler's staff (Num. xxi. 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 onh' then that it would attain to dominion over the nations. ""S Tiy has not an exclusive signification here, but merely abstracts what precedes from what follows the given terminus ad quern, as in chap. xxvi. 13, or like "•5^'^ IV chap, xxviii. 15, Ps. cxii. 8, or iy Ps. ex. 1, and ew? Matt, v, 18.
But the more precise determination of the thought contained in ver. 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 h^^ JiHus with the suffix ri = i ^'his son,'' since such a noun as ^^ is never met with in Hebrew, and neither its existence nor the meaning attributed to it can be inferred from ^l?^, afterbirth, in Deut. xxviii. 57. Nor can the paraphrases of Onkelos (donee veniat Messias cujus est regnum), of the Greek versions (ea)9 eav ekdr} ra airoKeifieva avrw; or & aTTOKeiTat, as Aquila and Symmachus appear to have rendered it), or of the Syriac, etc., afford any real proof, that the defective form npB'j which occurs in 20 MSS., was the original form of the word, and is to be pointed rh^ for i^' = ii' iti'S. For apart from the fact, that ^ for IK'X would be unmeaning here, and that no such abbreviation can be found in the Pentateuch, it ought in any case to read K^n i?B' " to whom it (the sceptre) is due," since i??^' alone could not express this, and an ellipsis of \X\i\ in such a case would be unparalleled. It only remains therefore to follow Luther, and trace n"p''ti> to TUf^^ to be quiet, ta enjoy rest, security. But from this root Shiloh cannot be explained according to the analogy of such forms as "li"'"'?, 5J'D''f>. For these forms constitute no peculiar species, but are merely derived from the reduplicated forms, as C^i?, which occurs as' well as ^D'^\>, clearly shows; moreover they are none of thera formed from roots of n"?. r\y\i} points to |i?"'K^, to the formation of nouns with the termination on, in which the liquids are eliminated, and the remaining vowel "i is expressed by n (Eiv. § 84); as for example in the names of places, I'ibp or 'h^, also i^''^^ ( Judg. xxi. 21; Jer. vii. 12) and lihi (Josh. xv. 51), with their derivatives "-jV (1 Kings xi. 29, xii. 15) and ^jSa (2 Sam. xv. 12), also '"•'■^^K (Prov. xxvii. 20) for|i^?K (Prov. xv. 11, etc.), clearly prove. Hence fi^'^p either arose from \V^^ {^^^), or was formed directly from b^^=r6\^, like fi^^ from ^^2. ' But if fh^p is the original form of the word, rip''^ 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 on loses its n after o only in proper names, like nbV, i^io by the side of li-niD (Zech. xii. 11) and ^^^ (Judg. X. 1). nM3S forms no exception to this; for when used in Prov. xxvii. 20 as a personification of hell, it is really a proper name. An appellative noun like n^''^', in the sense of rest, or place of rest, " would be unparalleled in the Hebrew thesaurus; the nouns used in this sense are 'h^, nij''^, USbfy nrWD." For these reasons even Delitzscli 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 modem times still bear the name of Seilun. 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 (Judg. xviii. 31; 1 Sam. i. 3, ii. 12 sqq.), 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 1 Sam. iv. 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 Hofmann, 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 are confirmed by histoiy. It is true we read in Josh, xviii. 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. ii. 3-9, x. 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 (Josh, xviii. 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 Phihstines (1 Sam. iv.), with which the " tabernacle of Joseph" was also rejected, that God selected the tribe of Judah and chose David (Ps. Ixxviii. 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 ("'''^3) 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 (iv. 17), and Shechem (xxxiv. 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 nb'^tJ'" (Hofmann). 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 dehverer 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 tlicm) were chosen as the personal bearers of that salvation, which was to be conveyed by them through tlieir 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 twelvetribed nation, the question natui-ally 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 tlie promise to his fourth son Judah, having already, by the adoptiou 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 tribe$ 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 beloncj. i?1 refers back to n?''E'. nnji)^, which only occurs again in Prov. xxx. 17, from i^[}P\ with dagesh forte euphon., denotes the obedience of a son, willing obedience; and D"'py 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 lionnature of Judali is transferred to Israel as a nation (Num. xxiii. 24, xxiv. 9), but the figure of the sceptre from Israel, i.e. the ruler or king proceeding from Israel, who will smite all his foes (xxiv. 17), is taken verbatim from vers. 9, 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. ii. 2, 3, vii. 12, x. 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 (Judg. i. 1 sqq.), and also the war against Benjamin (Judg. xx. 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 (Judg. iii. 9 sqq.). 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 (1 Chron. xxviii. 4). In David, Judah grew strong (1 Chron. v. 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 (2 Sam. vii. 13 sqq.). " Behold, a son shall be bom 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 hia house, and therefore not from Judah; so the commencement of the coming of SUloh 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 nb'pB' and nVa' when compared with the explanation given of the name Solomon in 1 Chron. xxii. 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 (Josh. xi. 23, xiv. 15, xxi. 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. Ixxii.); 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. ix. 5, 6, xi. 1-10); and lastly, Ezekiel, when predicting the downfall of the Davidic kingdom, prophesied that this overthrow would last until He shduld come to whom the right belonged, and to whom Jehovah would give it (Ezek. xxi. 27). Since Ezekiel in his words, " till He come to whom the right belongs," takes up, as is generally admitted, our prophecy " till Shiloh come," and expands it still further in harmony with the purpose of his announcement, more especially from Ps. Ixxii. 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 sins of the elect, and yet, notwithstanding that punishment, assuredly and completely attain to their ultimate fulfilment. And thus did the kingdom of J
Judah arise from its temporary overthrow to a new and imperishable glory in Jesus Christ (Heb. vii. 14), who conquers all foes as the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. v. 5), and reigns as the true Prince of Peace, as " our peace " (Eph. ii. 14), for ever and ever.
In vers. 11 and 12 Jacob finishes his blessing on Judah bydepicting 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 ""ipi* has the old connecting vowel, i, before a word with a preposition (like Isa. xxii. 16; Mic. vii. 14, etc.); and ^3 in the construct state, as in chap. xxxi. 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 Hofmanns 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 Zech. ix. 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 (xxii. 3 cf. Ex. iv. 20, Num. xxii. 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 (Judg. i. 14, x. 4, xii. 14; 2 Sam. xix. 27). Lastly, even in vers. 9 and 10 Judah is not depicted as a lion eager for prey, or as loving war and engaged in constant strife, but, according to Hofmaniis own words, " as having attained, even before the coming of Shiloh, to a rest acquired by victoryover surrounding foes, and as seated in his place with the insignia of his dominion." Now, when Judah's conflicts are