Exodus 1

Exodus 1

Exodus 1

Exodus 1:1-7

1. Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt: every man and his household came with Jacob.

1. Haec sunt nomina filiorum Israel qui venerunt in Aegyptum cum Jahacob: quisque cum familia sua venit.

2. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah,

2. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, et Jehudah,

3. Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin,

3. Issachar, Zabulon, et Benjamin,

4. Dan, Nephthali, Gad, and Asher.

4. Dan and Naphtali, Gad et Asher.

5. And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already

5. Fuerunt autem omnes animae egressae ex femore Jahacob, septuaginta animae, Joseph autem erat in Aegypto.

6. And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.

6. Mortuus vero est Joseph, et omnes fratres eius, et tota aetas illa.

7. And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.

7. Porto creverunt filii Israel, et aucti sunt, et multiplicati et roborati quamplurimum; adeo ut plena ipsis esset terra.

1. These are the names It is the intention of Moses to describe the miraculous deliverance of the people, (from whence the Greeks gave the name to the book;) but, before he comes to that, he briefly reminds us that the promise given to Abraham was not ineffectual, that his seed should be multiplied

“as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore.” (Genesis 22:17.)

This, then, is the commencement of the book, — that although their going down from the land of Canaan into Egypt might have seemed at the time as it were the end and abolition of God’s covenant, yet in his own time he abundantly accomplished what he had promised to his servant as to the increase of his descendants. However, he only mentions by name the twelve patriarchs who went down with their father Jacob, and then sums up the whole number of persons, as in two other passages. (Genesis 46:27, and Deuteronomy 10:22.) The calculation is perfectly accurate, if Jacob is counted among the thirty and six souls in the first catalogue. For it is a far-fetched addition of the Rabbins to count in Jochebed the mother of Moses, to complete the number; and it is not probable that a woman, who was afterwards born in Egypt, should be reckoned among the men whom Jacob brought with him. If any object that the seventy are said to have “come out of the loins of Jacob,” the discrepancy is easily explained by the common scriptural use of the figure synecdoche. That he from whom the others sprung is not excluded, we gather from the words of Moses, (Deuteronomy 10:22,)

Note 6. It may be noticed, once for all, that Calvin’s references to Rabbinical expositions of supposed difficulties are generally references to what Sebastian Munster had inserted at the close of each chapter of his version of the Old Testament, which is described as follows in the title-page to its second edition, Basle, 1546: — “En tibi Lector Hebraica Biblia, Latina planeque nova Sebast. Munsteri tralatione, post omnes omnium hactenus ubivis gentium editiones evulgata, et quoad fieri potuit Hebraicae veritati conformata: adjectis insuper e Rabbinorum commentariis annotationibus.” The notion that Jochebed was included in the enumeration, is mentioned by S.M. in the annotations on Genesis 46:27. In that verse, as given in our authorized version, which came must be understood to agree with house, the Hebrew being הכאה. The persons of that house properly of Jacob’s own blood were seventy in number, as appears from the enumeration in that chapter, including a daughter (v. 15) and a granddaughter, (v. 17.) The number in Stephen’s speech is supposed by many to be taken from the Septuagint, which says that nine souls were born to Joseph in Egypt, and so makes the whole amount seventy-five, both in Genesis 46 and in Exodus 1. But Stephen spoke of the number of his kindred whom Joseph sent for, and may reasonably be supposed to have meant thereby Jacob and his eleven sons, with their wives and fifty-three male children, which would amount to seventy-five souls. — W

Note 7. The French translation thus explains this figure: “de prendre le tout pour une partie, ou une partie pour le tout,” — to take the whole for a part, or a part for the whole.

“Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the Lord thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.”

But there is no reason to add five more, as we read in the address of Stephen recorded by Luke, (Acts 7:14;) for we cannot be surprised that in this mode of expressing numbers this error should have occurred by the introduction of a single letter. Should any objector make this an handle for controversy, we should remember that the Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, does not warn us without purpose

“not to give heed to genealogies.” (1 Timothy 1:4.)

6. And Joseph died. The Rabbins ignorantly conclude from this expression that Joseph died first of his brethren, whereas it is evident that the others were passed over, and his name was expressly mentioned to do him honor, as being the only one then in authority. How long they survived their father, Moses does not say, but only marks the beginning of the change, — as much as to say, the Israelites were humanely treated for a considerable space of time; so that the condition of those who went down with Jacob was tolerable, since, free from all injustice and tyranny, they tranquilly enjoyed the hospitality accorded to them. At the same time, he gives us to understand that, when all that generation was gone, the desire and the memory of the land of Canaan, which they had never seen, might have died out of the minds of their descendants, if they had not been forcibly aroused to seek after it. And unquestionably, since that people were forgetful and careless of meditating on God’s mercies, God could not have better provided for their salvation than by allowing them to be cruelly tried and afflicted; otherwise, as though their origin had been in Egypt, they might have preferred to have remained for ever in their nest, and by that indifference the hope of the promised heritage would have been effaced from their hearts.

7. And the children of Israel were fruitful. To what an extent they increased Moses relates in the 12th chapter, viz., to the number of 600,000, besides women and children; which was certainly an incredible increase for so short a time. For, though 430 years be counted from the date of the covenant with Abraham to the departure of the people, it is clear that half of them had elapsed before Jacob went down into Egypt; so that the Israelites sojourned in that land only 200 years, or little more — say ten years more. How then could it come to pass that in so short a time a single family could have grown into so many myriads? It would have been an immense and extraordinary increase if 10,000 had sprung from every tribe; but this more than quadruples that number. Wherefore certain sceptics, perceiving that the relation of Moses surpasses the ordinary ratio of human propagation, and estimating the power of God by their own sense and experience, altogether refuse to credit it. For such is the perverseness of men, that they always seek for opportunities of despising or disallowing the works of God; such, too, is their audacity and insolence that they shamelessly apply all the acuteness they possess to detract from his glory. If their reason assures them that what is related as a miracle is possible, they attribute it to natural causes, — so is God robbed and defrauded of the praise his power deserves; if it is incomprehensible to them, they reject it as a prodigy. But if they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the interference of God except in matters by the magnitude of which they are struck with astonishment, why do they not persuade themselves of the truth of whatever common sense repudiates? They ask how this can be, as if it were reasonable that the hand of God should be so restrained as to be unable to do anything which exceeds the bounds of human comprehension. Whereas, because we are naturally so slow to profit by his ordinary operations, it is rather necessary that we should be awakened into admiration by extraordinary dealings.

Note 8. שרף, rendered in A V increased abundantly, — occurs first in Genesis 1:20, where it is rendered bring forth abundantly As a noun it signifies reptiles. מאד, meod; in A V exceeding is repeated twice after עצמו, they waxed mighty; but may properly be considered as augmenting the force of each of the preceding verbs. — W

Note 9. French, “un monstre incroyable:” an incredible prodigy.

Let us conclude, then, that since Moses does not here speak of the natural course of human procreation, but celebrates a miracle unheard of before, by which God ratified the truth of his promise, we should judge of it perversely, and maliciously, if we measure it by our own feeble reason, instead of meditating with reverence upon what far transcends all our senses. Let us rather remember how God reproves his unbelieving people by the Prophet Isaiah. (Isaiah 51:1) For, in order to prove that it would not be difficult for Him, in spite of the small number to which the Israelites were reduced, to produce a great multitude, He bids them look into “the hole of the pit from whence they were digged,” viz., to Abraham, and Sarah that bare them, whom he multiplied though alone, and childless. Certain Rabbins, after their custom, imagine that four infants were produced at a birth; for as often as they meet with any point which perplexes them, they gratuitously invent whatever suits them, and then obtrude their imaginations as indubitable facts; and proceed foolishly, and unseasonably, to discuss that this is physically probable. There are Christians, too, who, with little consideration, have imitated them here, contending that what Moses describes is in accordance with experience, because the fecundity of certain nations has been almost as great. We indeed sometimes see confirmed by remarkable examples what the Psalmist says, (Psalm 107:36,) that God “maketh the hungry to dwell” in the wilderness, “that they may prepare a city for habitation, and sow the fields, and plant vineyards, which may yield fruits of increase; and he blesseth them also, so that they are multiplied greatly;” as also, that “He turneth a fruitful land into barrenness,” and strips it of inhabitants; but the design of Moses is to shew, that there never was any fecundity, which was not inferior to the increase of the people of Israel. Hence his comparison between the seventy souls, and the multitude which proceeded from them, that this special blessing of God might be distinguished from ordinary cases; hence too the accumulated expressions, which undoubtedly are meant for amplification, that “they were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them,” for the repetition of the adverb, Meod, Meod, marks an unusual abundance. Nor do I reject the conjecture of some, that in the word שרף, sharatz, there is a metaphor taken from fishes, but I know not whether it is very sound, since the word is used generally for any multiplication.

Exodus 1:8-11

8. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

8. Surrexit autem rex novus super Aegyptum, qui non noverat Joseph.

9. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:

9. Dixitque ad populum suum, Ecce, populus filiorum Israel multus et robustus prae nobis.

10. Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

10. Agedum, prudenter nos geramus erga illum, ne multiplicetur; ne accidat, si obvenerit bellum, jungatur ipse quoque hostibus nostris, et pugnet contra nos, ascendatque e terra.

11. Therefore they did set over them task-masters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses.

11. Constituerunt igitur super illum praefectos vectigalium, ut affligerent illum oneribus suis: extruxeruntque urbes munitas Pharaoni Pithom et Rhameses.

Note 10. שרי סמים S M., Buxtorf, and most of the modern lexicographers, agree with C. in rendering these words officers over the tributes; though the LXX., and the V., and the 21. A V., render מסם here labors, or tasks — W

Note 11. Vel recondendae annonae, C., or for storing corn.

8. Now there arose a new king. When more than one hundred years had been happily passed in freedom and repose, the condition of the elect people began to be changed. Moses relates that the commencement of their troubles proceeded from jealousy, and from the groundless fear of the Egyptians, because they conceived that danger might arise from this strange nation, unless they hastened to oppress it. But before he comes to this, he premises that the remembrance of the benefits received from Joseph had departed, because it might have in some measure mitigated their cruelty, had it still been unimpaired. It is probable that this oblivion of the gratitude due to him arose from the moderation of Joseph; for if he had demanded great privileges for his people, and immunity from tributes and burdens, the remembrances of the saving of the country by an Israelite would have been famous for many ages; but it appears that he was content with the kind hospitality afforded them, that his brethren might dwell comfortably, and without molestation in the land of Goshen, because he wished them to be sojourners there until the time of deliverance arrived. And in this way he best provided for their safety, lest being thus ensnared, they might have fallen into the nets of destruction. But in proportion as the moderation of the holy man exposed them not to jealousy and complaint, so was the ingratitude of the Egyptians less excusable in forgetting, after little more than a single century, that remarkable benefit, which should have been everywhere preserved in their public monuments, lest the name of Joseph should ever perish. Their unkindness, then, was intolerable, in refusing that his kindred and descendants should sojourn with them, since they ought to have ascribed the safety of themselves and their country, after God, to him, or rather under the hand and with the blessing of God. But this disease has always been flagrant in the world; and certainly it is good for us that evil should ever be our reward from men for our kindnesses, that we may learn in the performance of our duty to look to God alone, since otherwise we are unduly addicted to conciliate favor and applause for ourselves, or to seek after more earthly advantages. Still it was no common return which the Israelites had liberally received during more than 100 years for Joseph’s sake, that they lived comfortably in a proud, avaricious, and cruel nation. Nevertheless, whatever happens, although we are not only defrauded of all recompense, but even although many of whom we have deserved well conspire for our destruction, let us never regret having done rightly; and, in the meantime, let us learn that nothing is more effective to restrain the desire of doing wrong, than those ties of mutual connection, by which God has bound us together. But, although the favor conferred by Joseph had been forgotten by all, the shame and sin of ingratitude cleaves especially to the king; in whom it was more than base to forget by whose industry and care he received so rich a yearly revenue. For the holy Patriarch, by buying up the land, had obtained a fifth part of the produce as a yearly tribute for the king. But so are tyrants accustomed to engulf whatever is paid them, without considering by what right it is acquired.

Note 12. “Nous faisant servir les uns aux autres;” causing us to serve one another. — French.

9. And he said unto his people. That is to say, in a public assembly, such as kings are wont to hold for consultation on public affairs. As if Moses had said that this point was proposed by the king for deliberation by his estates; viz., that because it was to be apprehended that the Israelites, trusting in their multitude and strength, might rise in rebellion, or might take advantage of any public disturbance to shake off the yoke and to leave Egypt, they should be anticipated, and afflicted with heavy burdens, to prevent their making any such attempt. This Pharaoh calls “dealing wisely with them;” for though the word חכם, chakam, is often taken, in a bad sense, to mean “to overreach with cunning,” still in this case he concealed under an honest pretext the injury which he proposed to do them, alleging that prudent advice should be taken lest the Egyptians might suffer great loss through their carelessness and delay. This was common with heathen nations, to profess in their counsels, that what was right should be preferred to what was profitable; but, when it comes to the point, covetousness generally so blinds everybody, that they lose their respect for what is right, and are hurried away headlong to their own advantage. They make out too that what is advantageous is necessary; and so persuade themselves that whatever they are compelled to do is right. For that specious yet fallacious pretext readily occurs, and easily deceives, that, when any danger is apprehended, it ought to be met. By the tragic poets, indeed, that detestable sentiment, occupandum esse scelus, “that we should be beforehand in crime,” is attributed to wicked and desperate characters; because our nature convinces us that it is unjust and absurd; and yet is it commonly considered the best mode of precaution, so that only those are accounted provident who consult for their own security by injuring others, if occasion requires it. From this source almost all wars proceed; because, whilst every prince fears his neighbor, this fear so fills him with apprehension, that he does not hesitate to cover the earth with human blood. Hence, too, amongst private individuals, arises the license for deceit, murder, rapine, and lying, because they think that injuries would be repelled too late, unless they respectively anticipated them. But this is a wicked kind of cunning, (however it may be varnished over with the specious name of foresight,) unjustly to molest others for our own security. I fear this or that person, because he both has the means of injuring me, and I am uncertain of his disposition towards me; therefore, in order that I may be safe from harm, I will endeavor by every possible means to oppress him. In this way the most contemptible, and imbecile, if he be inclined to mischief, will be armed for our hurt, and so we shall stand in doubt of the greater part of mankind. If thus every one should indulge his own distrust, while each will be devising to do some injury to his possible enemies, there will be no end to iniquities. Wherefore we must oppose the providence of God to these immoderate cares and anxieties which withdraw us from the course of justice. Reposing on this, no fear of danger will ever impel us to unjust deeds or crooked counsels. In the words of Pharaoh, all is otherwise; for, having given warning that the Israelites might, if they would, be injurious, he advises that their strength should in some way or other be broken. For, when we have once determined to provide for our own advantage, or quiet, or safety, we ask not the question whether we are doing right or wrong.

Note 13. נתחכמה. In A V., Let us deal wisely If C. be justified in saying that חכם if often employed for the wisdom which is evil, it is very much more often used for wisdom in a favorable sense. — W

Behold, the people. It not unfrequently happens that the minds of the wicked are aroused to jealousy by the mercies of God, acting like fans to light up their wrath. Nevertheless, the very least proof of his favor ought not on that account to be less agreeable to us, because it is made an occasion to the wicked of dealing more cruelly with us. In fact, God thus attempers his bounty towards us, lest we should be too much taken up with earthly prosperity. Thus the blessing on which all his happiness depended banished Jacob from the home of his father, and from his promised inheritance; but yet he assuaged his grief with this single consolation, that he knew God to be reconciled to him. So also his posterity, the more they experienced of God’s goodness towards them, the more they were exposed to the enmity of the Egyptians. But Pharaoh, to render them hated, or suspected, refers to their power, and accuses them of disaffection, whereof they had given no token. Yet he does not accuse them of rebellion, as if they would take armed possession of the kingdom, but that they would depart elsewhere; whence we may conjecture, that they made no secret of the hope which God had given them of their return. But this seemed a plausible excuse enough, that it was anything but just for those, who had of their own accord sought the protection of the king, to be freely sent away; and thus Isaiah speaks of it. (Isaiah 52:4.)

Note 14. “Comme de faict Isaie dit que les Egyptiens ont eu plus de couleur de tenir le peuple de Dieu en servitude, que les Assyriens, qui les sont venus molester sans titre;” as, in fact, Isaiah says that the Egyptians had more excuse for keeping God’s people in servitude than the Assyrians, who came to molest them without pretext. — Fr.

11. Therefore they did set over them. The Egyptians devised this remedy for gradually diminishing the children of Israel. Since they are subjects, they may afflict them with burdens, to depress them; and this slavery will weaken and decrease them. But their power over them as subjects should not have been carried so far as to impose upon inoffensive persons, to whom they had granted free permission to reside among them, these new tributes; for they ought first to have considered upon what conditions they had been admitted. The exaction, then, by which Pharaoh broke faith with them, was in itself unjust; but the crime to which he proceeded was still greater, because he did not simply seek for pecuniary advantage, but desired to afflict the wretched people by the heaviness of their burdens. For the Israelites were not only compelled to pay tribute, but were put to servile labor, as Moses immediately adds. As to the two cities, it is doubtful in what sense they were called miscenoth This word is sometimes taken for cellars and granaries, or repositories of all things necessary as provision; but, as it sometimes signifies “fortresses,” it will not be an unsuitable meaning, that they were commanded to build with their own hands the prisons, which might prevent them from departing. For it is clear from many passages (Genesis 47:11; Exodus 12:37; Numbers 33:3) that Rhameses was situated in that part of the country, and we shall presently see that the children of Israel went out from Rhameses.

Note 15. מסכנות, miscenoth The LXX. alone gives some countenance to C.’s last interpretation of this word, by rendering it πόλεις ὀχυρὰς. — W