Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

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 (Hiinp) 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 (pVI] applied to a journey from the interior to the desert or Canaan), and '^showed himself to him there {lit. he appeared to him; ^^?., 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 7ieck, continuing (liy) upon his neck (i.e. in his embrace) weeping.''^ — Ver. 30. Then Israel said to Joseph: " Now (QVSn Ut. 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 Pharaoh (nPV here used of going to the court, as an ideal ascent), to announce the arrival of his relations, who were npipp ^K^'pK " keepers of flocks," and had brought their sheep and oxen and all their possessions wuth 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 ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination of the Egyptians." This last remark formed part of Joseph's words, and contained the reason why his brethren should describe themselves to Pharaoh as shepherds from of old, namely, that they might receive Goshen as their 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 Hengstenhcg (Dissertations) and Kurtz (History of the Old. Covenant).

not be endangered by too close an intercourse with the Egyptians. The disHke 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 (^ovkoXoc) in the seven castes of the Eg}'ptians (Herod. 2, 164), so that Diodorus Siculus (1, 74) includes all herdsmen in one caste; according to which the word fiovKoXoL 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 (^""^^^ '^•fi??; 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 (1&<^ nyiy the singular of the predicate, see Ges. § 147c), who had come to sojourn in the land (1^5, i.e. to stay for a time), because the pasture for their flocks had failed in the land of Canaan on account of the famine. The king then empowered Joseph to give his father and his brethren a dwelling (2^tJ^n) 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 life's years, and have not reached (the perfect in the presentiment of his approaching end) the days of the life's years of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage'' Jacob called his own life and that of his fathers a pilgrimage (on^jp), because they had not come into actual possession of the promised land, but had been obliged all their life lono- 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 blessed ness 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 ij^]^^) for a d\v-iling-place in the best part of Egypt, the land of Baemses, 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. ^3^3 with a double accusative {Ges. § 139). The settlement of the Israelites is called the land of Eaemses (op^VI, in pause DDDin Ex. i. 11), instead of Goshen, either because the province of Goshen {Tece^i, LXX.) is indicated by the name of its former capital Baemses {i.e. Heroopolis, on the site or in the immediate neighbourhood of the modem Ahu Keisheih, in Wady Tumilat {vid. Ex. i. 11), or because Israel settled in the vicinity of Raemses. The district of Goshen is to be sought in the modern province of el Sharkii/eh (i.e. the eastern), on the east side of the Nile, towards Arabia, still the most fertile and productive province of Egypt (cf. Robinson, Pal. i. 78, 79). For Goshen was bounded on the east by the desert of Arabia Petraea, which stretches away to Philistia (Ex. xiii. 17, cf. 1 Chron. vii. 21) and is called Pecre/x ^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. Tunis, 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 Baemses or not, cannot be determined, just because the residence of the Pharaoh of that time is not known, and the notion that it was at Memphis is only based upon utterly uncertain combinations relatmg 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^[f? = HN?, to languish, to be exhausted, only occurring again in Prov. xxvi. 18, Hithp. in a secondary sense. — Ver. 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 we die before thee'' (i.e. so that thou shouldst see us die, when in reality thou canst support us)? Joseph then offered to accept their cattle in payment; and they brought him their herds, in return for which he provided them that year with bread. S")J: 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 (^^^, 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 lord (••Jinx, a title similar to your majesty), but the money is all gone, and the cattle have come to my lord; we have nothing left to offer to my lord but our bodies and our land'' t3« ^3 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 D« is not established. Dfl with i'K is constructio proegnans: " completed to my lord," Le, completely handed over to my lord. ''?B? "^^^^'^ is the same: " left before my lord," Le. for us to lay before, or offer to my lord. " Why should we die before thine eyes, we and our land! Buy us and oar 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 rwD3 is transferred per zeugma to the land; in the last, the word ^^^ is used to describe the destruction of the land. The form DK^n is the same as ^pn 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.'' D'lV^, 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 corn was housed, placing them partly in the cities themselves, 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'' ph a fixed allowance of food, as in Prov. xxx. 8; Ezek. xvi. 27. This allowance was granted by Pharaoh probably only during the years of famine; in any case it was an arrangement which ceased when the possessions of the priests sufficed for their need, since, according to Diod. Sic. \. 73, the priests provided the sacrifices and the support of both themselves and their servants from the revenue of their lands; and with this Herodotus also agrees (2, 37)._Yers. 23 sqq. Then Joseph said to the people: " Behold I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh; there have ye {^\] 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 (KXrjpov), and derived his own revenue from a yearly tax upon them. Diod. Sic. (1, 73), again, says that all the land in Egypt belonged either to the priests, to the king, or to the warriors; and Strabo (xvii. p. 787), that the farmers and traders held rateable land, so that the peasants were not landowners. On the monuments, too, the kings, priests, and warriors only are represented as having landed property (cf. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs i. 263). The biblical account says nothing about the exemption of the warriors from taxation and their possession of land, for that was a later arrangement. According to Herod. 2, 1 68, 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 Hephsesto-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 z^oftot, 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 posi tion 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 ci*ops 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 (ins^ 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 hed^s headP lie 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 Trpoae/cvvrjaev ^laparfK kirl to aKpov Trj<; pdfiBov avrov (i.e, *^^'^*])'i and the Syriac 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 nroion ^in remains a strange one; so that unquestionably this rendering arose from a false reading of ni2Dn, 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. 1.).

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 ("'^^<*1 "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 age, gathered up his strength for a work, which he was about to perform as Israel, the bearer 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. of. xxviii. 13 sqq.), Israel said to Joseph (ver. 5): ''And now thy two sons, which were born to thee in the land of Egypt, mitil (before) I came to thee into Egypt,,. let them be mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, like Reuben and Simeon (my first and second born), let them be mine.^^ The promise which Jacob had received empowered the patriarch to adopt the sons of Joseph in the place of children. Since the Almighty God had promised him the increase of his seed into a multitude of peoples, and Canaan as an eternal possession to that seed, he could so incorporate into the number of his descendants the two sons of Joseph who were bom 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 be called in their inheritance;^^ i.e. they shall not form tribes of their own with a separate inheritance, but shall be reckoned as belonging to Ephraim and Manasseh, and receive their possessions among these tribes, and in their inheritance. These other sons of Joseph are not mentioned anywhere; but their descendants are at any rate included in the families of Ephraim and Manasseh mentioned in Num. 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 (vV), 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 not see weir* (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, "Jiy sons whom God hath given me here,** he replied, '^ Bring them to me then (NJ'Dnp), 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, nxi for nixi, like ''\\^V (xxxi. 28). <?3: 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" (Isa. 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 Testament, o ©eo? and 0 \6yo(;, Shepherd and Redeemer. By the singular ^i?' (bless, benedicat) the triple mention of God is resolved into the unity of the divine nature. Non dicit (Jakob) benedicant, pluraliter, nee repetit sed conjungit in uno opere benedlcendi tres personas, Deum Patrem^ Deinn pastorem et Angelum, Sunt igitur hi tres unus Deus et uiiub bened'ictor. 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 Jilii mei et patrum jneorum^ licet ex te ndti 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 mi/ fathers Abraham and Isaac,** are still less suitable as a periphrasis for adoption. The thought is rather: the true nature of the patriarchs shall be discerned and acknowledged in Ephraim and Manasseh; in them shall those blessings of grace and salvation be renewed, which Jacob and his fathers Isaac and Abraham received from God. The name expressed the nature, and " being called" is equivalent to " being, and being recognised by what one is." The salvation promised to the patriarchs related primarily to the multiplication into a great nation, and the possession of Canaan. Hence Jacob proceeds: " and let them increase into a multitude in the midst of the land.^* nj"n: air. \€y., " to increase," from which the name i^, 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 will 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 tribes, and its name acquired equal importance with the name Israel, whereas under 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) will Israel (as a nation) hiessy saying: God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh " (i,e. Joseph shall be so blessed in his two sons, that their blessing will become a standing form of benediction in Israel); ^' and thus he placed Ephraim before Manasseh,^^ viz. in the position of his hands and the terms of the blessing. Lastly, (ver. 21) Israel expressed to Joseph his firm faith in the promise, that God would bring back his descendants after his death into the land of their fathers (Canaan), and assigned to him a double portion in the promised land, the conquest of which passed before his prophetic glance as already accomplished, in order to insure for the future the inheritance of the adopted sons of Joseph. " I give thee one ridge of land above thy brethren " (i.e. above what thy brethren receive, each as a single tribe), " which I take from the hand of the Amorites with my sword andbow^' (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 ^^nj^p ii^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 in ver. 6, and the very opposite in ver. 15, viz. that Jacob blessed Joseph in Ephraim and Manasseh. Heim*s conjecture, which Kurtz approves, that by the land given to Joseph we are to understand the high land of Gilead, which Jacob had conquered from the Amorites, needs no refutation » for it is purely imaginary.

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" (JDelitzsch), 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, D3C' {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 (vid. 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 (N"ip: for r\-^p\ 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 r 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 Ufe 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 revelation 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 lineamenta of the future history of the future nation " (Ziegler), The groundwork of his prophecy was supplied partly by the natural character of his twelve sons, and partly by the divine promise which had been given by the Lord to him and to his fathers Abraham and Isaac, and that not merely in these two points, the numerous increase of their seed and the possession of Canaan, but in its entire scope, by which Israel had been appointed to be the recipient and medium of salvation for all nations. On this foundation the Spirit of God revealed to the dying patriarch Israel the future history of his seed, so that he discerned in the characters of his sons the future development of the tribes proceeding from them, and with prophetic clearness assigned to each of them its position and importance in the nation into which they were to expand in the promised inheritance. Thus he predicted to the sons what would happen to them " in the last days," lit. " at the end of the days " (eV ic^o^ Twv TOiv T^fjbepwv, LXX.), and not merely at some future time. '^nn^j the opposite of n*C^K"ij signifies the end in contrast with the beginning (Deut. xi. 12; Isa. xlvi. 10); hence d^dm nnrifc^ in prophetic language denoted, not the future generally, but the last future (see Hengstenberg's History of Balaam, pp. 465-467, transl.), the Messianic age of consummation (Isa. ii, 2; Ezek. xxxviii. 8, 16; Jer. xxx. 24, xlviii. 47, xlix. 39, etc.: so also Num. xxiv. 14; Deut. iv. 30), like eV ecr^arou rcov rj/xepcov (2 Pet. iii. 3; Heb. i. 2), or kv ral^ ea')(aTaL^ r^fiepat^ (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 regi^lated by it" (DelitzscK),

For the patriarch, who, with his pilgrim-life, had been obliged in the very evening of his days to leave the soil of the promised land and seek a refuge for himself and his house in Egypt, the final future, with its realization of the promises of God, commenced as soon as the promised land was in the possession of the twelve tribes descended from his sons. He had already before his eyes, in his twelve sons with their children and children's children, the first beginnings of the multiplication of his seed into a great nation. Moreover, on his departure from Canaan he had received the promise, that the God of his fathers would make him into a great nation, and lead him up again to Canaan (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 ihcrease of his sons into powerful tribes, but also the conquest of Canaan, as already fulfilled; foretells to his sons, whom he sees in spirit as populous tribes, growth and prosperity on the soil in their possession; and dilates upon their relation to one another in Canaan and to the nations round about, even to the time of their final subjection to the peaceful sway of Him, from whom the sceptre of Judah shall never depart. The ultimate future of the patriarchal blessing, therefore, extends to the ultimate fulfilment of the divine promises — that is to say, to the completion of the kingdom of God. The enlightened seer's-eye of the patriarch surveyed, " as though upon a canvas painted without perspective," the entire development of Israel from its first foundation as the nation and kingdom of God till its completion under the rule of the Prince of Peace, whom the nations would serve in willing obedience; and beheld the twelve tribes spreading themselves out, each in his inheritance, successfully resisting their enemies, and finding rest and full satisfaction in the enjoyment of the blessings of Canaan.

growu 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 eventUy 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 Hengstenher^ 8 Christology i. p. 76 (transl.) by copious citations from the history of the early Arabic poetry.

Vers. 3, 4. Reuben, my first-horn thouy my might and firstfruit of my strength; pre-eminetice in dignity and pre-eminence in power, — As the first-born, the first sprout of the full virile power of Jacob, Reuben, according to natural right, was entitled to the first rank among his brethren, the leadership of the tribes, and a double share of the inheritance (xxvii. 29; Deut. xxi. 17). (^^^^: elevation, the dignity of the chieftainship; ty, the earlier mode of pronouncing tV? the authority of the first-born.) But Reuben had forfeited this prerogative. " Effervescence like water — thou shalt have no preference; for thou didst ascend thy father s marriage-bed: then hast thou desecrated; my couch has he ascended.^* tns: 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 ntriQ of the Samaritan, and nV"ir)K or nymx efferbuistif cestuasti of the Sam. Vers., i^vj3pto-a^ of the LXX., and uTrepfeo-a? of Symm, "triin is to be explained by "in^.: have no pre-eminence. His crime was, lying with Bilhah, his father s concubine (xxxv. 22). wpn is used absolutely: desecrated hast thou, sc. 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-born, Reuben lost the leadership in Israel; so that his tribe attained to no position of influence in the nation (compare the blessing of Moses in Deut. 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-born of the beloved Kachei took the place of the first-born of the slighted Leah; not, however, according to the subjective will of the father, which is condemned in Deut. 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. " Weapons of wickedness are their swordsT The aira^ \ey. i^^?p is rendered by Luther^ etc., weapons or swords, from "i^3=ni3, to dig, dig through, pierce: not connected with /jud'^acpa. L, de Dieu and others follow the Arabic and -<3Ethiopic versions: "plans;" but DDn ^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 united liD, a council, or deliberative consessus. ^nn^ imperf. of *^n); ^T^3j 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 oxenV The singular nouns ^^ 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 ^^^, only in Ps. cxli. 4, Prov. viii. 4, and Isa. liii. 3; of ni^— Dn^:^, only in Hos. xii. 12. p^: inclination, here in a bad sense, wantonness. "li^V ' vevpoKOTrelv, to sever the houghs (tendons of the hind feet), — a process by which animals were not merely lamed, but rendered useless, sincf 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. 6, 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 he their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I shall divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in IsraeW 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 (Deut. 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 thou^ thee will thy brethren praise I thy hand in the neck of thy foes! to thee will thy father s sons how downT^ nnt^, thou, is placed first as an absolute noun, like ^^X in chap. xvii. 4, xxiv. 27; ^^"IV is a play upon ni^n^ like n*ii« 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 onieuj 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 w^as 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. ''A young lion is Judah; from the prey, my son, art thou gone up: he has lain down; like a lion there he lieth, and like a lioness, who can rouse him upT* 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 npy 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 himJ'^ 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, 4l5, 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, Niebuhr Beisebeschr. ii. 145). PipHD 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 only then that it would attain to dominion over the nations. ''? ^V 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 '^^^, '^V chap, xxviii. 15, Ps. cxii. 8, or ni; Ps. ex. 1, and eco? 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 ^p jilius with the suffix n=i ''his son,'^ since such a noun as i'^^ is never met with in Hebrew, and neither its existence nor the meaning attributed to it can be inferred from ^]^^, afterbirth, in Deut. xxviii. 57. Nor can the paraphrases of Onkelos (donee veniat Messias cujus est regnum), of the Greek versions (eo)? iav eXOij ra airoKei^va avrS; or « cLTTOKeiraLj as Aquila and Symmachus appear to have rendered it), or of the Si/riac, etc., afford any real proof, that the defective form n?^, which occurs in 20 MSS., was the original form of the word, and is to be pointed nl^K^ for %' = Sb IC^K. For apart from the fact, that ^ for "IK^K would be unmeaning here, and that no such abbreviation can be found in the Pentateuch, it ought in any case to read i<^n w " to whom it (the sceptre) is due," since i?^ alone could not express this, and an ellipsis of K^n in such a case would be unparalleled. It only remains therefore to follow Luther, and trace <^y^ to np^, to be quiet, to enjoy rest, security. But from this root Shiloh cannot be explained according to the analogy of such forms as "i^"'^?, J^"*?, For these forms constitute no peculiar species, but are merely derived from the reduplicated forms, as tJ^p, which occurs as well as W^\)y clearly shows; moreover they are none of them formed from roots of n"7, r\y\^ points to p^^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 (JEw, § 84); as for example in the names of places, np^ or V^, also v**^ ( Judg. xxi. 21; Jer. vii. 12) and n'pa (Josh. xv. 51), with their derivatives ""iV (1 Kings xi. 29, xii. 15) and ^jl^a (2 Sam. xv. 12), also n*"iax (Prov. xxvii. 20) for p^3&< (Prov. xv. 11, etc.), clearly prove. Hence fo^^ either arose from p vK^ (^^^)j oi' was formed directly from br^* = fih^, like P^a from ^'"'2. But if ffp^^ is the original form of the word, n'p"'^ 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 r\b^^, HiD by the side of f^-^^r^ (Zech. xii. 11) and ni"n (Judg. X. 1). iT'nnK 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 np^K^j in the sense of rest, or place of rest, " would be unparalleled in the Hebrew thesaurus; the nouns used in this sense are W, njp*^, DVK^, nm:D." For these reasons even Delitzsch pronounces the appellative rendering, " till rest comes," or till " he comes to a place of rest," grammatically impossible. Shiloh or Shilo is a proper name in every other instance in which it is used in the Old Testament, and was in fact the name of a city belonging to the tribe of Ephraim, which stood in the midst of the land of Canaan, upon an eminence above the village of Turmus Aya, in an elevated valley surrounded by hills, where ruins belonging both to ancient and modern times still bear the name of 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 history. 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 tummg 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 Philistines (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 0^^5) ^^^^ 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 tVdh^^^ {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 supematurally unfettered character of prophecy, and from a one-sided view of the patriarchal age and history, how much the patriarch Jacob ought to have been able to prophesy. The expectation of a personal Saviour did not arise for the first time with Moses, Joshua, and David, or first obtain its definite form after one man had risen up as the deliverer and redeemer, the leader and ruler of the whole nation, but was contained in the germ in the promise of the seed of the woman, and in the blessing of Noah upon Shem. It was then still further expanded in the promises of God to the patriarchs — " I will bless thee; be a blessing, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed," — by which Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob (not merely the nation to descend from them) were chosen as the personal bearers of that salvation, which was to be conveyed by them through their seed to all nations. When the patriarchal monad was expanded into a dodekad, and Jacob had before him in his twelve sons the founders of the twelvetribed nation, the question naturally arose, from which of the twelve tribes would the promised Saviour proceed? Reuben had forfeited the right of primogeniture by his incest, and it could not pass over to either Simeon or Levi on account of their crime against the Shechemites. Consequently the dying patriarch transferred, both by his blessing and prophecy, the chieftainship which belonged to the first-born and the blessing of the promise to his fourth son Judah, having already, by the adoption of Joseph's sons, transferred to Joseph the double inheritance associated with the birthright. Judah was to bear the sceptre with victorious lion-courage, until in the future Shiloh the obedience of the nations came to him, and his rule over the tribes was widened into the peaceful government of the world. It is true that it is not expressly stated that Shiloh was to descend from Judah; but this follows as a matter of course from the context, i.e. from the fact, that after the description of Judah as an invincible lion, the cessation of his rule, or the transference of it to another tribe, could not be imagined as possible, and the thought lies upon the surface, that the dominion of Judah was to be perfected in the appearance of Shiloh,

Thus the personal interpretation of Shiloh stands in the most beautiful harmony with the constant progress of the same revelation. To Shiloh will the nations belong. v1 refers back to n>C^'. nnip^, which only occurs again in Prov. xxx. 17, from nr\\>] 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

Btands next, where not only Jacob's proclamation of the lionnature of Judah 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 born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I (Jehovah) will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for Solomon (i,e, Friederich, Frederick, the peaceful one) shall be his name, and I will give peace and rest unto Israel in his days... and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever." Just as Jacob's prophecy was so far fulfilled in David, that Judah had received the sceptre over the tribes of Israel, and had led them to victory over all their foes; and David upon the basis of this first fulfilment received through Nathan the divine promise, that the sceptre should not depart from hi« house, and therefore not from Judah; so the commencement of the coming of Shiloh received its first fulfilment in the peaceful sway of Solomon, even if David did not give his son the name Solomon with an allusion to the predicted Shiloh, which one might infer from the sameness in the meaning of ^b^^ and n>K^ 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 should 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

Judali 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 by depicting the abundance of his possessions in the promised land. " Binding his she-ass to the vine^ and to the choice vine his ass^s colt; he washes his garment in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape: dull are the eyes with wine, and white the teeth with milk,^^ The participle ''1P^5 has the old connecting vowel, i, before a word with a preposition (like Isa. xxii. 16; Mic. vii. 14, etc.); and ""^S 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 HofmanrCs own words, " as having attained, even before the coming of Shiloh, to a rest acquired by victory over surrounding foes, and as seated in his place with the insignia of his dominion." Now, when Judah's conflicts are over, and he has come to rest, he also may bind his ass to the vine and enjoy in peaceful repose the abundance of his inheritance. Of wine and milk, the most valuable productions of his land, he will have such a superabundance, that, as Jacob hyperbolically expresses it, he may wash his clothes in the blood of the grape, and enjoy them so plentifully, that his eyes shall be inflamed with wine, and his teeth become white with milk.^ The soil of Judah produced the best wine in Canaan, near Hebron and Engedi (Num. xiii. 23, 24; Song of Sol. i. 14; 2 Chron. xxvi. 10 cf. Joel i. 7 sqq.), and had excellent pasture land iu the desert by Tekoah and Carmel, to the south of Hebron (1 Sam. xxv. 2; Amos i. 1; 2 Chron. xxvi. 10), nfwD: contracted from nhllp^ from njD to envelope, synonymous with nipD a veil (Ex. xxxiv. 33).

Ver. 13. Zebulun, to the shore of the ocean will he dwell, and indeed (}^'^^\ isque) towards the coast of shipsy and his side towards Zidon (directed up to Zidon)." This blessing on Leah's sixth son interprets the name Zebulun (i.e. dwelling) as an omeny not so much to show the tribe its dwelling-place in Canaan, as to point out the blessing which it would receive from the situation of its inheritance (compare Deut. xxxiii. 19). So far as the territory allotted to the tribe of Zebulun under Joshua can be ascertained from the boundaries and towns mentioned in Josh. xix. 10—16, it neither reached to the Mediterranean, nor touched directly upon Zidon (see my Comm. on Joshua). It really lay between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean, near to both, but separated from the former by Naphtali, from the latter by Asher. So far was this announcement, therefore, from being a vaticinium ex everitu taken from the geographical position of the tribe, that it contains a decided testimony to the fact that Jacob's blessing was not written after the time of Joshua. ^^^l denotes, not the two seas mentioned above, but, as Judg,

^ Jam de situ regionis loquitur^ quae sorte Jiliis Judas ohtigit. Significat autem tantam illic fore vitium copiam, ut passim obvias prostent non secug atque alibi vepres vel infrugifera arbusta. Nam quum ad sepes ligari soleant asini, vites ad hunc contemptibilem usum aeputat. Eodem pertinet qux sequuntur hyperbolicas loquendi formal^ quod Judas lavabit vestem suam in vino^ et oculis erit rubicundus. Tantam enim vini abundantiam fore intelligit^ ut promiscue ad lotiones^ perinde ut aqua effundi queat sine magna dispendio; assiduo autem largioreque illiuspotu rubedinem coniracturi sint oculi. Calvin.

V. 17 proves, the Mediterranean, as a great ocean (chap. i. 10). " The coast of ships: " i.e. where ships are unloaded, and land the treasures of the distant parts of the world for the inhabitants of the maritime and inland provmces (Deut. xxxiii. 19). Zidouy as the old capital, stands for Phoenicia itself.

Vers. 14 and 15. " Issachar is a bony ass, lying between the hurdles. He saw that rest was a good (2iO subst.), and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute^ The foundation of this award also lies in the name "^9?^ ^^j which is probably interpreted with reference to the character of Issachar, and with an allusion to the relation between "^9?^ and *^^?^, a daily labourer, as an indication of the character and fate of his tribe. " Ease at the cost of liberty will be the characteristic of the tribe of Issachar" {Delitzsch). The simile of a bony, i,e. strongly-built ass, particularly adapted for carrying burdens, pointed to the fact that this tribe would content itself with material good, devote itself to the labour and burden of agriculture, and not strive after political power and rule. The figure also indicated " that Issachar would become a robust, powerful race of men, and receive a pleasant inheritance which would invite to comfortable repose." (According to Jos. de bell. jud. iii. 3, 2, Lower Galilee, with the fruitful table land of Jezreel, was attractive even to rov rJKiara 7^? (f>iX6Trovop), Hence, even if the simile of a bony ass contained nothing contemptible, it did not contribute to Issachar's glory. Like ajn idle beast of burden, he would rather submit to the yoke and be forced to do the work of a slave, than risk his possessions and his peace in the struggle for liberty. To bend the shoulder to the yoke, to come down to carrying burdens and become a mere serf, was unworthy of Israel, the nation of God that was called to rule, however it might befit its foes, especially the Canaanites upon whom the curse of slavery rested (Deut. xx. 11; Josh. xvi. 10; 1 Kings ix. 20, 21; Isa. X. 27). This was probably also the reason why Issachar was noticed last among the sons of Leah. In the time of the Judges, however, Issachar acquired renown for heroic bravery in connection with Zebulun (Judg. v. 14, 15, 18). The sons of Leah are followed by the four sons of the two maids, arranged, not according to their mothers or their ages, but accord ing to the blessing pronounced upon them, so that the two warlike tribes stand first.

Vers. 16 and 17. ''Dan will procure his people justice as one of the tribes of Israel. Let Dan become a serpent by the v^ay^ a horned adder in the path^ that biteth the horse s heels, so that its rider falls back" Although only the son of a maid-servant, Dan would not be behind the other tribes of Israel, but act according to his name (H^^ PJ), and as much as any other of the tribes procure justice to his people (i.e, to the people of Israel; not to his own tribe, as Diestel supposes). There is no allusion in these words to the office of judge which was held by Samson; they merely describe the character of the tribe, although this character came out in the expedition of a portion of the Danites to Laish in the north of Canaan, a description of which is given in Judg. xviii., as well as in the " romantic chivalry of the brave, gigantic Samson, when with the cunning of the serpent he overthrew the mightiest foes" {Del). |Q"'EiK^: Kepda-rrj^;, the very poisonous homed serpent, which is of the colour of the sand, and as it lies upon the ground, merely stretching out its feelers, inflicts a fatal wound upon any who may tread upon it unawares {Diod, Sic. 3, 49; Pliny, 8, 23).

Ver. 18. But this manifestation of strength, which Jacob expected from Dan and promised prophetically, presupposed that severe conflicts awaited the Israelites. For these conflicts Jacob furnished his sons with both shield and sword in the ejaculatory prayer, ''I wait for Thy salvation, 0 Jehovah /" which was not a prayer for his own soul and its speedy redemption from all evil, but in which, as Calvin has strikingly shown, he expressed his confidence that his descendants would receive the help of his God. Accordingly, the later Targums (Jerusalem and Jonathan) interpret these words as Messianic, but with a special reference to Samson, and paraphrase ver. 18 thus: " Not for the deliverance of Gideon, the son of Joash, does my soul wait, for that is temporary; and not for the redemption of Samson, for that is transitory; but for the redemption of the Messiah, the Son of David, which Thou through Thy word hast promised to bring to Thy people the children of Israel: for this Thy redemption my soul waits." ^

* Tliis is the reading according to the text of the Jerusalem Targum, in the London Polyglot as corrected from the extracts of Fagius Id the CritU

Ver. 19. " Gad — a press presses Aim, hut he presses the heel'* The name Gad reminds the patriarch of 1^3 to press, and l^"iii the pressing host, warHke host, which invades the land. The attacks of such hosts Gad will bravely withstand, and press their heel, i.e. put them to flight and bravely pursue them, not smite their rear-guard; for ^pV does not signify the rear-guard even in Josh. viii. 13, but only the reserves (see my commentary on the passage). The blessing, which is fonned from a triple alliteration of the name Gad, contains no such special allusions to historical events as to enable us to interpret it historically, although the account in 1 Chron. v. 18 sqq. proves that the Gadites displayed, wherever it was needed, the bravery promised them by Jacob. Compare with this 1 Chron. xii. 8—15, where the Gadites who come to David are compared to lions, and their swiftness to that of roes.

Ver. 20. " Out of Asher (cometh) fat, his bread, and he yieldeth royal daintiest i^np is in apposition to '"^JP^, and the suffix is to be emphasized: the fat, which comes from him, is his bread, his own food. The saying indicates a very fruitful soil. Asher received as his inheritance the lowlands of Carmel on the Mediterranean as far as the territory of Tyre, one of the most fertile parts of Canaan, abounding in wheat and oil, with which Solomon supplied the household of king Hiram (1 Kings V. 11).

Ver. 21. "Naphtali is a hind let loose, who giveth goodly wordsr The hind or gazelle is a simile of a warrior who is skilful and swift in his movements (2 Sam. ii. 18; 1 Chron. xii. 8, cf. Ps. xviii. 33; Hab. iii. 19). "T^r^ bere is neither hunted, nor stretched out or grown slim; but let loose, running freely about (Job xxxix. 5). The meaning and allusion are obscure, since nothing further is known of the history of the tribe of Naphtali, than that Naphtali obtained a great victory under

Sacr.^ to which the Targum Jonathan also adds, " for Thy redemption, 0 Jehovah, is an everlasting redemption." But whilst the Targumists and several fathers connect the serpent in the way with Samson, by many others +he serpent in the way is supposed to be Antichrist. On this interpretation Luther remarks: Puto Diaholum hujus fdbulx auctorem fuisse etfinxisse hanc glossam^ ut nostras cogitationes a vero et praesente Antichristo dbduceret.

Barak in association with Zebulun over the Canaanitish king Jabin, which the prophetess Deborah commemorated in her celebrated song (Judg. iv. and v.). If the first half of the verse be understood as referring to the independent possession of a tract of land, upon which Naphtali moved like a hind in perfect freedom, the interpretation of Masius (on Josh, xix.) is certainly the correct one: " Sicut cervus emissus et liber in herbosa et fertili terra exultim ludiL ita et in sua fertili sorte ludet et excultabit Nephtalir But the second half of the verse can hardly refer to " beautiful sayings and songs, in which the beauty and fertility of their home were displayed." It is far better to keep, as Vatablius does, to the general thought: tribus Naphtali eiit fortissima, elegantissima et agillima et erit facundissima.

Vers. 22-26. Turning to Joseph, the patriarch's heart swelled with grateful love, and in the richest words and figures he implored the greatest abundance of blessings upon his head. — Ver. 22. " Son of a fruit-tree is Joseph, son of a fruit-tree at the well, daughters run over the walV^ Joseph is compared to the branch of a fruit-tree planted by a well (Ps. i. 3), which sends its shoots over the wall, and by which, according to Ps. Ixxx.,- we are probably to understand a vine. 13 an unusual form of the construct state for |3, and hYb equivalent to nns with the old feminine termination ath, like niDT, Ex. xv. 2. — rii:3 are the twigs and branches, formed by the young fruit-tree. The singular niinf is to be regarded as distributive, describing poetically the moving forward, i.e. the rising up of the different branches above the wall (^Ges. § 146, 4). vV, a poetical form, as in ver. 17. — Vers. 23, 24. " Archers provoke him, and shoot and hate him; but his bow abides in strength, and the arms of his hands remain pliant, from the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, from thence, from the Shepherd, the Stone of Israeli From the simile of the fruit-tree Jacob passed to a warlike figure, and described the mighty and victorious unfolding of the tribe of Joseph in conflict with all its foes, describing with prophetic intuition the future as already come (yid, the perf, consec). The words are not to be referred to the personal history of Joseph himself, to persecutions received by him from his brethren, or to his sufferings in Egypt; still less to any warlike deeds of his in Egypt (Diestel): they merely pointed to the conflicts awaiting his descendants, in which they would constantly overcome all hostile attacks, l"}^ ' Piel, to embitter, provoke, lacessere. ^nn: per/. 0 from 2?"^ to shoot, j^^^^: " in a strong, unyielding position" (Del.), TTQ: to be active, flexible; only found here, and in 2 Sam. vi. 16 of a brisk movement, skipping or jumping. ^jfiT: the arms, " without whose elasticity the hands could not hold or direct the arrow." The words which follow, " from the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob," are not to be linked to what follows, in opposition to the Masoretic division of the verses; they rather form one sentence with what precedes: " pliant remain the arms of his hands from the hands of God," i.e. through the hands of God supporting them. "The Mighty One of Jacob," He who had proved Himself to be the Mighty One by the powerful defence afforded to Jacob; a title which is copied from this passage in Isa. i. 24, etc. "From thence," an emphatic reference to Him, from whom all perfection comes — "from the Shepherd (xlviii. 15) and Stone of Israel." God is called " the Stone," and elsewhere " the Rock" (Deut. xxxii. 4, 18, etc.), as the immoveable foundation upon which Israel might trust, might stand firm and impregnably secure.

Vers. 25, 26. " From the God of thy father, may He help thee, and with the help of the Almighty, may He bless thee, (may there come) blessings of heaven from above, blessings of the deep, that lieth beneath, blessings of the breast and of the womb. The blessing of thy father surpass the blessings of my progenitors to the border of the everlasting hills, may they come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the illustiious among his brethren^ From the form of a description the blessing passes in ver. 25 into the form of a desire, in which the "from" of the previous clause is still retained. The words " and -may He help thee," " may He bless thee," form parentheses, for " who will help and bless thee." T\^\ is neither to be altered into Pfc<^ (and from God), as Ewald suggests, in accordance with the LXX., Sam., Syr., and Vulg., nor into HKD as Knobel proposes; and even the supplying of |p before rix from the parallel clause (^Ges. § 154, 4) is scarcely allowable, since the repetition of IP before another preposition cannot be supported by any analogous case; but ri5^ maybe understood here, as in chap. iv. 1, V. 24, in the sense of helpful communion: " and with," i.e. with (in) the fellowship of, " the Almighty, may He bless thee, let there be (or come) blessings," etc. The verb ^r."."?^ follows in ver. 26 after the whole subject, which is formed of many parallel members. The blessings were to come from heaven above and from the earth beneath. From the God of Jacob and by the help of the Almighty should the rain and dew of heaven (xxvii. 28), and fountains and brooks which spring from the great deep or the abyss of the earth, pour their fertilizing waters over Joseph's land, " so that everything that had womb and breast should become pregnant, bring forth, and suckle." ^ D^■]^l from •"TJv' signifies parentes (Chald., Vulg.); and njxn signifies not desiderium from njx^ but boundary from nKn, Num. xxxiv. 7, 8, = nirij 1 Sam. xxi. 14, Ezek. ix. 4, to mark or bound off, as most of the Rabbins explain it. pV "»33 to be strong above, Le. to surpass. The blessings which the patriarch implored for Joseph were to surpass the blessings which his parents transmitted to him, to the boundary of the everlasting hills, i.e. surpass them as far as the primary mountains tower above the earth, or so that they should reach to the summits of the primeval mountains. Theie is no allusion to the lofty and magnificent mountain-ranges of Ephraim, Bashan, and Gilead, which fell to the house of Joseph, either here or in Deut. xxxiii. 15. These blessings were to descend upon the head of Joseph, the "i^i among his brethren, i.e. " the separated one," from "iW separavit. Joseph is so designated, both here and Deut. xxxiii. 16, not on account of his virtue and the preservation of his chastity and piety in Egypt, but propter dignitatem, qua excellit, ah omnibus sit segregatus (^Calv.), on account of the eminence to which he attained in Egypt. For this meaning see Lam. iv. 7; whereas no example can be found of the transference of the idea of Nasir to the sphere of morality.

Ver. 27. " Benjamin — a wolf, which tears in pieces; in the morning he devours prey, and in the evening he divides spoiV^ Morning and evening together suggest the idea of incessant and victorious capture of booty {Del.). The warlike character which the patriarch here attributes to Benjamin, was manifested

^ " Thus is the whole composed in pictorial words. Whatever of man and cattle can be fruitful shall multiply and have enough. Childbearing, and the increase of cattle, and of the corn in the field, are not our affair, but the mercy and blessing of God." — Luther.

by that tribe, not only in the war which he waged with all the tribes on account of their wickedness in Gibeah (Judg. xx.), but on other occasions also (Judg. v. 14), in its distinguished archers and sliugers (Judg. xx. 16; 1 Chron. viii. 40, xii.; 2 Chron. xiv. 8, xvii. 17), and also in the fact that the judge Ehud (Judg. iii. 15 sqq.), and Saul, with his heroic son Jonathan, sprang from this tribe (1 Sam. xi. and xiii. sqq.; 2 Sam. i. 19 sqq.).

The concluding words in ver. 28, " All these are the tribes of Israel, twelve^^ contain the thought, that in his twelve sons Jacob blessed the future tribes. " Every one with that which was his blessing^ he blessed them,'' i.e, every one with his appropriate blessing ("i?^^ accus, dependent upon "^7^1 which is construed with a double accusative); since, as has already been observed, even Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, though put down through their own fault, received a share in the promised blessing.

Vers. 29-33. Death of Jacob. — After the blessing, Jacob?igain expressed to his twelve sons his desire to be buried in the sepulchre of his fathers (chap, xxiv.), where Isaac and Kebekah and his own wife Leah lay by the side of Abraham and Sarah, which Joseph had already promised on oath to perform (xlvii, 29-31). He then drew his feet into the bed to lie down, for he had been sitting upright while blessing his sons, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered to his people (yid, xxv. 8). J^^^*!l instead of Tim indicates that the patriarch departed from this earthly life without a struggle. His age is not given here, because that has already been done at chap, xlvii. 28.

Vers. 1-14. Burial of Jacob. — Vers. 1-3. When Jacob died, Joseph fell upon the face of his beloved father, wept over him, and kissed him. He then gave the body to the physicia-ns to be embalmed, according to the usual custom in Egypt. The physicians are called his servants, because the reference is to the regular physicians in the service of Joseph, the eminent minister of state; and according to Herod. 2, 84, there were special physicians in Egypt for every description of disease, among whom the Taricheuta, who superintended the embalming, were included.

as a special but subordinate class. The process of embalnung lasted 40 days, and the solemn mourning 70 (ver. 3). This is in harmony with the statements of Herodotus and Diodorus when rightly understood (see Hengstenherg^ Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 67 sqq). — Vers. 4, 5. At the end of this period of mourning, Joseph requested " the house of Pharaoh," i.e, the attendants upon the king, to obtain Pharaoh's permission for him to go to Canaan and bury his father, according to his last will, in the cave prepared by him there. n"j3 (ver. 5) signifies " to dig" (used, as in 2 Ohron. xvi. 14, for the preparation of a tomb), not "to buy." In the expression v ''^l^'^^ Jacob attributes to himself as patriarch what had really been done by Abraham (chap. xxiv.). Joseph required the royal permission, because he wished to go beyond the border with his family and a large procession. But he did not apply directly to Pharaoh, because his deep mourning (unshaven and unadorned) prevented him from appearing in the presence of the king.

Vers. 6-9. After the king's permission had been obtained, the corpse w^as carried to Canaan, attended by a large company. With Joseph there went up " all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, ^^ i.e, the leading officers of the court and state, ^' and all the house of Josephj and his brethren, and his father^s house,^^ i.e. all the members of the families of Joseph, of his brethren, and of his deceased father, ^^ excepting only their children and flocks; also chariots and horsemen,^'' as an escort for the journey through the desert, " a vejy large army^ The splendid retinue of Egyptian officers may be explained, in part from the esteem in which Joseph was held in Egypt, and in part from the fondness of the Egyptians for such funeral processions (cf. Hengst. pp. 70, 71). — Vers. 10 sqq. Thus they came to Goren Atad beyond the Jordan, as the procession did not take the shortest route by Gaza through the country of the Philistines, probably because so large a procession with a military escort was likely to meet with difficulties there, but -went round by the Dead Sea. There, on the border of Canaan, a great mourning and funeral ceremony was kept up for seven days, from which the Canaanites, who watched it from Canaan, gave the place the name of Ahel-Mizraim^ i.e. meadow (i'llij with a play upon ^?^ mourning) of the Egyptians. The situation of Goren Atad (the buck-thorn floor), or Abel-

Mizraim^ has not been discovered. According to ver. 11, it was on the other side, Le, the eastern side, of the Jordan. This is put beyond all doubt by ver. 12, where the sons of Jacob are said to have carried the corpse into the land of Canaan (the land on this side) after the mourning at Goren Atad.^ — Vers. 12, 13. There the Egyptian procession probably stopped short; for in ver. 12 the sons of Jacob only are mentioned as having carried their father to Canaan according to his last request, and buried him in the cave of Machpelah. — Ver. 14. After performing this filial duty, Joseph returned to Egypt with his brethren and all their attendants.

Vers. 15-21. After their father's death, Joseph's brethren were filled with alarm, and said, " If Joseph now should punish us and requite all the evil that we have done to him" sc. what would become of us! The sentence contains an aposiopesis, like Ps. xxvii. 13; and ^^ with the imperfect presupposes a condition, being used " in cases which are not desired, and for the present not real, though perhaps possible" (Ew. § 358). The brethren therefore deputed one of their number (possibly Benjamin) to Joseph, and instructed him to appeal to the wish expressed by their father before his death, and to implore forgiveness: " 0 pardon the misdeed of thy brethren and their sin^ that they have done thee evil; and now grant forgiveness to the misdeed of the servants of the God of thy father," The ground of their plea is contained in nrijn " and now," sc. as we request it by the desire and direction of our father, and in the epithet applied to themselves, " servants of the God of thy father." There is no reason whatever for regarding the appeal to their father's wish as a mere pretence. The fact that no reference was made by Jacob

^ Consequently the statement of Jerome in the Onom. s. v. Area Atad — " locus trans Jordanem, in quo planxerunt quondam Jacob, tertio ab Jerico lapide, duobus millibus ab Jordane, qui nunc vocatur Bethagla, quod interpretatur locus gyri, eo quod ibi more plangentium circumierint in funere Jacob" — ^is wrong. Beth Agla cannot be the same as Goren Atad, if only because of the distances given by Jerome from Jericho and the Jordan. They do not harmonize at all with his trans Jordanem, which is probably taken from this passage, but point to a place on this side of the Jordan; but still more, because Beth Hagla was on the frontier of Benjamin towards Judah (Josh. XV. 6, xviii. 19), and its name has been retained in the fountain and tower of Hajla, an hour and a quarter to the S.E. of Riha (Jericho), and three-quarters of an hour from the Jordan, by which the site of the ancient Beth Hagla is certainly determined. ( Vid. Robinson, Pa., ii. p. 268 sqq.)

in his blessing to their sin against Joseph, merely proved that he as their father had forgiven the sin of his sons, since the grace of God had made their misdeed the means of Israel's salvation; but it by no means proves that he could not have instructed his sons humbly to beg for forgiveness from Joseph, even though Joseph had hitherto shown them only goodness ana love. How far Joseph was from thinking of ultimate retribution and revenge, is evident from the reception which he gave to their request (ver. 17): " Joseph wept at their address to him^^ viz. at the fact that they could impute anything so bad to him; and when they came themselves, and threw themselves as servants at his feet, he said to them (ver. 19), " Fear not, for am I in the place of God V^ Le. am I in a position to interfere of my own accord with the purposes of God, and not rather bound to submit to them myself? " Ye had indeed evil against me in your mind, but God had it in mind for good (to turn this evil into good), to do (nb'^ like nxT xlviii. 11), as is now evident {lit, as has occurred this day, cf. Deut. ii. 30, iv. 20, etc.), to preserve alive a great nation (cf. xlv. 7). And now fear not, I shall provide for you and your familiesT Thus he quieted them by his affectionate words.

Vers. 22-26. Death of Joseph. — Joseph lived to see the commencement of the fulfilment of his father's blessing. Having reached the age of 110, he saw Ephraim's D^ty?K^ ^J2i " sons of the third link" i.e. of great-grandsons, consequently great-great-grandsons, t^^^p^ descendants in the third generation are expressly distinguished from "children's children" or grandsons in Ex. xxxiv. 7. There is no practical difficulty in the way of this explanation, the only one which the language will allow. As Joseph's two sons were born before he was 37 years old (chap. xli. 50), and Ephraim therefore was born, at the latest, in his 36th year, and possibly in his 34th, since Joseph was married in his 31st year, he might have had grandsons by the time he was 56 or 60 years old, and great-grandsons when he was from 78 to 85, so that great-greatgrandsons might have been bom when he was 100 or 110 years old. To regard the " sons of the third generation" as children in the third generation (great-grandsons of Joseph and grandsons of Ephraim), as many commentators do, as though the construct ^3 stood for the absolute, is evidently opposed to the context, since it is stated immediately afterwards, that sons of Machir, the son of Manasseh, i.e. great-grandsons, were also born upon his knees, i.e. so that he could take them also upon his knees and show them his paternal love. There is no reason for thinking of adoption in connection with these words. And if Joseph lived to see only the great-grandsons of Ephraim as well as of Manasseh, it is difficult to imagine why the same expression should not be applied to the grandchildren of Manasseh, as to the descendants of Ephraim. — Ver. 24. When Joseph saw his death approaching, he expressed to his brethren his firm belief in the fulfilment of the divine promise (xlvi. 4, 5, of. xv. 16, 18 sqq.), and made them take an oath, that if God should bring them into the promised land, they would carry his bones with them from Egypt. This last desire of his was carried out. When he died, they embalmed him, and laid him (D^^l from DK^, like xxiv. 33 in the chethib) " in the coffin," i.e. the ordinary coffin, constructed of sycamore-wood (see Hengstenberg, pp. 71, 72), which was then deposited in a room, according to Egyptian custom (Herod. 2, 86), and remained in Egypt for 360 years, until they carried it away with them at the time of the exodus, when it was eventually buried in Shechem, in the piece of land which had been bought by Jacob there (chap, xxxiii. 19; Josh, xxiv. 32).

Thus the account of the pilgrim-life of the patriarchs terminates with an act of faith on the part of the dying Joseph; and after his death, in consequence of his instructions, the coffin with his bones became a standing exhortation to Israel, to turn its eyes away from Egypt to Canaan, the land promised to its fathers, and to wait in the patience of faith for the fulfilment of the promise.

Arranged according to the Hebrew Text, as a continuation of the Chronological Table at p. 122, with an additional calculation of the year before Christ.

Promotion of Joseph in Egypt, Removal of Israel to Egypt, Death of Jacob,.... Death of Joseph,....

The calculation of the years B.C. is based upon the fact, that the termination of the 70 years' captivity coincided with the first year of the sole government of Cyrus, and fell in the year 536 B.C.; consequently the captivity commenced in the year 606 B.C., and, according to the chronological data of the books of Kings, Judah was carried into captivity 406 years after the building of Solomon's temple commenced, whilst the temple was built 480 years after the exodus from Egypt (1 Kings vi. 1).

HE second book of Moses is called nilDt5^ n^j^l in the Hebrew Codex from the opening words; but in the Septuagint and Vulgate it has received the name ''JE|o8o9, Exodus, from the first half of its contents. It gives an account of the first stage in the fulfilment of the promises given to the patriarchs, with reference to the growth of the children of Israel into a numerous people, their deliverance from Egypt, and their adoption at Sinai as the people of God. It embraces a period of 360 years, extending from the death of Joseph, with which the book of Genesis closes, to the building of the tabernacle, at the commencement of the second year after the departure from Egypt. During this period the rapid increase of the children of Israel, which is described in chap, i., and which caused such anxiety to the new sovereigns of Egypt who had ascended the throne after the death of Joseph, that they adopted measures for the enslaving and suppression of the ever increasing nation, continued without interruption. With the exception of this fact, and the birth, preservation, and education of Moses, who was destined by God to be the deliverer of His people, which are circumstantially related in chap, ii., the entire book from chap. iii. to chap. xl. is occupied with an elaborate account of the events of two years, viz. the last year before the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and the first year of their journey. This mode of treating the long period in ques tion, which seems out of all proportion when judged by a merely outward standard, may be easily explained from the nature and design of the sacred history. The 430 years of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt were the period during which the immigrant family was to increase and multiply, under the blessing and protection of God, in the way of natural development; until it had grown into a nation, and was ripe for that covenant which Jehovah had made with Abraham, to be completed with the nation into which his seed had grown. During the whole of this period the direct revelations from God to Israel were entirely suspended; so that, with the exception of what is related in chap, i and ii., no event occurred of any importance to the kingdom of God. It was not till the expiration of these 400 years, that the execution of the divine plan of salvation commenced with the call of Moses (chap, iii.) accompanied by the founding of the kingdom of God in Israel. To this end Israel was liberated from the power of Egypt, and, as a nation rescued from human bondage, was adopted by God, the Lord of the whole earth, as the people of His possession.