John Calvin Commentary Exodus 1

These are the names. It is the intention of Moses to describe the miraculous deliverance of the people (from which 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 descendants 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 beginning 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 regarding 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-six souls in the first catalogue.

For it is a far-fetched addition of the Rabbis⁶ to count 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 counted 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.⁷ That he from whom the others sprang is not excluded, we gather from the words of Moses (Deuteronomy 10:22):

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 a 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).

And the children of Israel were fruitful.⁸ Moses relates in the twelfth chapter the extent to which they increased, namely, to the number of 600,000, besides women and children. This was certainly an incredible increase for such a short time. For, though 430 years are 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. Consequently, the Israelites sojourned in that land only 200 years, or little more—say ten years more. How then could it happen that in such a short 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.

Therefore, certain skeptics, perceiving that Moses' account surpasses the ordinary rate of human reproduction, and judging God's power by their own perception and experience, completely refuse to believe it. For such is the perversity of people, that they always seek opportunities to despise or reject the works of God. Such, too, is their audacity and insolence that they shamelessly apply all the intellect they possess to diminish His glory. If their reason assures them that what is described as a miracle is possible, they attribute it to natural causes—thus God is robbed and deprived of the praise His power deserves. If it is incomprehensible to them, they reject it as a marvel.⁹

But if they can only acknowledge God's intervention in matters whose sheer size astonishes them, why do they not then accept the truth of whatever common sense rejects? They ask how this can be, as if it were reasonable for God's hand to be so restricted that He cannot do anything beyond human understanding. On the contrary, because we are naturally so slow to benefit from His ordinary works, it is all the more necessary that we should be awakened to admiration by extraordinary acts.

Let us conclude, then, that since Moses does not here speak of the natural course of human procreation, but celebrates a miracle previously unheard of, by which God confirmed the truth of His promise, we would judge it perversely and maliciously if we measure it by our own feeble reason, instead of reverently contemplating what far transcends all our senses. Let us rather remember how God reproves His unbelieving people by the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 51:1). For, to prove that it would not be difficult for Him, despite the small number to which the Israelites were reduced, to produce a great multitude, He tells them to look into the hole of the pit from whence they were digged—namely, to Abraham, and Sarah who bore them, whom He multiplied though they were alone and childless.

Certain Rabbis, according to their custom, imagine that four infants were produced at a birth. For whenever they encounter any point that perplexes them, they freely invent whatever suits them and then impose their imaginations as unquestionable facts, proceeding foolishly and inappropriately to argue that this is physically probable. Some Christians, too, with little consideration, have imitated them here, contending that what Moses describes is in accordance with experience because the fertility of certain nations has been almost as great.

Indeed, we sometimes see confirmed by remarkable examples what the Psalmist says (Psalms 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. We also see that He turneth a fruitful land into barrenness and strips it of inhabitants. However, Moses' design is to show that there was never any fertility that was not less than the increase of the people of Israel.

This is why he compares the seventy souls with the multitude that proceeded from them, so that this special blessing of God might be distinguished from ordinary cases. This is also why there are accumulated expressions, undoubtedly meant for amplification: 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 fish, but I do not know if it is very sound, since the word is generally used for any multiplication.

Now there arose a new king. After more than one hundred years had happily passed in freedom and rest, the condition of the chosen people began to change. Moses relates that the beginning of their troubles stemmed from jealousy and the groundless fear of the Egyptians, because they thought that danger might arise from this foreign nation unless they hurried to oppress it. But before he comes to this, he first states that the memory of the benefits received from Joseph had faded, because it might have somewhat lessened their cruelty if it had still been intact.

It is probable that this forgetfulness of the gratitude owed to him arose from Joseph's moderation. For if he had demanded great privileges for his people, and exemption from tributes and burdens, the memory of the country's salvation by an Israelite would have been famous for many ages. But it appears he was content with the kind hospitality given to them, so that his brothers might live comfortably and without disturbance in the land of Goshen, because he wished them to be temporary residents there until the time of their deliverance came.

In this way, he best provided for their safety, to prevent them from being ensnared and falling into the nets of destruction. However, to the extent that the holy man's moderation did not expose them to jealousy and complaint, the ingratitude of the Egyptians was all the more inexcusable in forgetting, after little more than a century, that remarkable benefit. This benefit should have been preserved everywhere in their public monuments, so that Joseph's name would never perish.

Their unkindness, therefore, was intolerable in refusing to let his relatives and descendants live temporarily among them, since they should have attributed the safety of themselves and their country, under God, to him—or rather, under God's hand and with His blessing.

But this sickness has always been rampant in the world. And certainly, it is good for us that we often receive evil from people as a reward for our kindnesses, so that we may learn in performing our duty to look to God alone. Otherwise, we are too inclined to win favor and applause for ourselves or to seek more earthly advantages.

Still, it was no small return that the Israelites had generously received for more than 100 years for Joseph's sake: they lived comfortably in a proud, greedy, and cruel nation. Nevertheless, whatever happens, even if we are not only cheated out of all payment, but even if many to whom we have shown kindness conspire to destroy us, let us never regret having done what is right. In the meantime, let us learn that nothing is more effective in restraining the desire to do wrong than the bonds of mutual connection by which God has bound us together.¹²

However, although the favor Joseph conferred had been forgotten by all, the shame and sin of ingratitude clings especially to the king. For him, it was worse than shameful to forget through whose industry and care he received such a rich annual income. For the holy Patriarch, by buying up the land, had secured a fifth of the produce as an annual tribute for the king. But tyrants are accustomed to swallow up whatever is paid to them, without considering by what right it is acquired.

And he said unto his people. This means it was said in a public assembly, the kind kings usually hold for consultation on public affairs. It is as if Moses had said that this matter was proposed by the king for deliberation by his counselors: namely, that because it was feared the Israelites, trusting in their numbers and strength, might rise in rebellion or take advantage of any public disturbance to shake off the yoke and leave Egypt, they should be preempted. They were to be oppressed with heavy burdens to prevent them from making any such attempt.

Pharaoh calls¹³ this “dealing wisely with them.” For though the word חכם, chakam, is often taken in a bad sense to mean “to overreach with cunning,” yet in this case, he concealed the injury he intended to inflict on them under an honest pretext. He alleged that prudent advice should be taken so that the Egyptians would not suffer great loss through their own carelessness and delay.

It was common for heathen nations to profess in their deliberations that what is right should be preferred to what is profitable. However, when it comes to the point, covetousness generally so blinds everyone that they lose their respect for what is right and are hurried headlong toward their own advantage. They also maintain that what is advantageous is necessary, and so they persuade themselves that whatever they are compelled to do is right.

For that specious yet fallacious pretext—that when any danger is feared, it must be confronted—readily occurs and easily deceives. Indeed, by the tragic poets, that detestable sentiment, occupandum esse scelus—“that we should be beforehand in crime”—is attributed to wicked and desperate characters. This is because our nature convinces us that it is unjust and absurd. Yet, it is commonly considered the best mode of precaution, so that only those are considered prudent who provide for their own security by injuring others, if occasion requires it.

From this source, almost all wars proceed. Because, while 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, among private individuals, arises the license for deceit, murder, plunder, and lying, because they think that injuries would be repelled too late unless they preempted them.

But this is a wicked kind of cunning—however it may be varnished over with the specious name of foresight—to unjustly harm others for our own security. One might reason: “I fear this or that person, because he has both the means to injure me, and I am uncertain of his disposition toward me. Therefore, so that I may be safe from harm, I will endeavor by every possible means to oppress him.” In this way, the most contemptible and feeble person, if inclined to mischief, will be armed for our hurt, and so we shall distrust the greater part of mankind. If everyone were thus to indulge their own distrust, while each devises how to harm their potential enemies, there will be no end to iniquities.

Therefore, we must oppose the providence of God to these excessive cares and anxieties that withdraw us from the course of justice. Resting on this, no fear of danger will ever impel us to unjust deeds or devious plans. In the words of Pharaoh, however, it is entirely different. For, having warned that the Israelites could, if they wished, be harmful, 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, tranquility, or safety, we do not ask whether we are doing right or wrong.

Behold, the people. It often happens that the minds of the wicked are aroused to jealousy by God’s mercies, which act like fans to light up their wrath. Nevertheless, the slightest proof of His favor should not for that reason be less welcome to us, even though it becomes an occasion for the wicked to deal more cruelly with us. In fact, God thus moderates His generosity toward us, so that we are not too absorbed by earthly prosperity.

For example, the blessing on which all Jacob’s happiness depended banished him from his father’s home and from his promised inheritance; yet he eased his sorrow with this single consolation: that he knew God was reconciled to him. So also his descendants, the more they experienced God’s goodness toward them, the more they were exposed to the enmity of the Egyptians.

But Pharaoh, to make them hated or suspected, refers to their power and accuses them of disaffection, of which they had given no sign. Yet he does not accuse them of rebellion, as if they would take armed possession of the kingdom, but rather that they would depart elsewhere. From this we may conjecture that they made no secret of the hope God had given them of their return.

However, this seemed a plausible enough excuse for Pharaoh’s actions: that it was entirely unjust for those who had voluntarily sought the king’s protection to be freely allowed to leave. And thus¹⁴ Isaiah speaks of it (Isaiah 52:4).