Charles Ellicott Commentary Exodus 1

THE MULTIPLICATION OF THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT, AND THEIR OPPRESSION BY A NEW KING.

Now these are the names. — The divisions between the “books” of the Pentateuch are not arbitrary. Genesis ends naturally, and Exodus begins at the point where the history of the individuals who founded the Israelite nation ceases and that of the nation itself is entered upon. That history properly commences with Exodus 1:7. Exodus 1:1–6 form the connecting link between the two books. These verses would not have been needed unless Exodus had been introduced as a distinct work, since they are little more than a recapitulation of what had already been stated, and stated more fully, in Genesis. Compare Exodus 1:1-5 with Genesis 46:8-27, and Exodus 1:6 with Genesis 1:26.

Every man and his household. — “A household,” in the language of the East, includes not only children and grandchildren, but retainers also—servants born in the house—like those of Abraham (Genesis 14:14). The number of each “household” may thus have been very considerable.

Reuben ... — The sons of the legitimate wives are placed first, then those of the concubines. Leah has precedence over Rachel; Bilhah over Zilpah. The children of each wife and concubine are given in order of seniority. The omission of Joseph from the list is explained in the last clause of Exodus 1:5.

All the souls ... were seventy souls. . The number is made up as follows:

• Jacob himself: 1
• His sons: 12
• His daughter, Dinah: 1
• His grandsons: 51
• His granddaughter, Serah: 1
• His great-grandsons: 4
• Total: 70

His daughters (except Dinah) and his sons’ daughters (except Serah), spoken of in Genesis 46:7, are not included.

If his female descendants were, at the time of his descent into Egypt, as numerous as the males, the entire number of those who came out of his loins must have been 132.

To form a calculation of the number of persons who entered Egypt with him, we must add the wives of his sons and grandsons, and the husbands of his daughters and granddaughters. A further liberal allowance must also be made for retainers. (See the comment on Exodus 1:1.)

It is not perhaps surprising that Kurtz, taking all these classes into account, should calculate that those who entered Egypt with Jacob amounted to “several thousands” (History of The Old Covenant, vol. ii. p. 149, E.T.).

The children of Israel were fruitful. —A great multiplication is evidently intended.

Egypt was a particularly healthy country, and both men and animals were abnormally prolific there. Grain was so plentiful that want, which is the ordinary check on population, was almost unknown.

The Egyptian kings for many years would look favorably on the growth of the Hebrew people, which strengthened their eastern frontier, the direction from which they were most open to attack.

God’s blessing was, moreover, upon the people, whom He had promised to make as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore, for multitude .

On the actual extent of the multiplication and the time that it occupied, see the comment on Exodus 12:37-41.

The land—that is, where they lived—Goshen (Genesis 47:4–6)—which seems to have been the more eastern portion of the Delta.

There arose up a new king. — A king of a new dynasty might seem to be intended. Some suppose him to be Aahmes I., the founder of the eighteenth dynasty of Manetho; others suggest Rameses II., one of the greatest monarchs of the nineteenth. The present writer inclines to regard him as Seti I., the father of this Rameses, and the son of Rameses I. Seti, though not the actual founder of the nineteenth dynasty, was the originator of its greatness. (See Excursus I. “On Egyptian History, as connected with the Book of Exodus,” at the end of this Book.)

Which knew not Joseph. — It seems to be implied that, for some considerable time after his death, the memory of the benefits conferred by Joseph upon Egypt had protected his kinsfolk. But, in the shifts and changes incident to politics—especially to Oriental politics—this condition of things had passed away. The “new king” felt under no obligation to him, perhaps was even ignorant of his name. He viewed the political situation apart from all personal predilections, and saw a danger in it.