John Calvin Commentary Genesis 46:8

"And these are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob`s first-born." — Genesis 46:8 (ASV)

These are the names of the children of Israel. He recounts the sons and grandsons of Jacob until he arrives at their full number. The statement that there were only seventy souls, while Stephen (Acts 7:14) adds five more, is, I do not doubt, due to an error by the transcribers.

For Augustine's solution—that Stephen, by a prolepsis, also enumerates three who were later born in Egypt—is weak, because he would then have had to form a much longer list. Furthermore, this interpretation is contrary to the intention of the Holy Spirit, as we will see later. This is because the subject being discussed here is not about the number of children Jacob left behind at his death, but about the number of his family on the day he went down into Egypt.

He is said to have brought with him, or to have found there, seventy souls born to him, so that the comparison of this very small number with that immense multitude which the Lord later led out might more fully illustrate His wonderful blessing. But that the error should be attributed to the transcribers is clear from the fact that, among the Greek interpreters, it has crept into only one passage, while elsewhere they agree with the Hebrew reckoning.

And it was easy for a passage to be corrupted when numerals were represented by symbols. I also suspect that this happened for the following reason: those who dealt with the Scripture were generally ignorant of the Hebrew language. Therefore, believing the passage in Acts to be corrupted, they rashly changed the true number.

If anyone, however, prefers to suppose that Luke, in this instance, accommodated himself to the unlearned and illiterate, who were accustomed to the Greek version, I do not argue with them. Indeed, in the words of Moses there is no ambiguity, nor is there any reason why such a small matter, which contains no absurdity, should cause us any trouble. For it is not surprising that, in this method of notation, one letter might have been substituted for another.

It is more relevant to examine why this small number of people is recorded by Moses. For the more improbable it seems that seventy men, in a relatively short period, could have grown into such a multitude, the more clearly the grace of God shines out.

And this is also the reason why he so frequently mentions this number. For, from a human perspective, it was by no means a likely method of propagating the Church: that Abraham should live childless until old age; that after Isaac's death, Jacob alone should remain; that Jacob, having increased to a moderate family, should be confined to a corner of Egypt; and that an incredible number of people should spring up from this dry fountain.

When Moses declares that Shaul, one of the sons of Simeon, was born of a Canaanitish woman, while he does not even mention the mothers of the other sons, his intention, I do not doubt, is to mark his lineage with dishonor.

For the holy patriarchs were on their guard not to intermarry with that nation, from which they were separated by God's decree. When Moses, after listing the names of Leah’s sons, says there were thirty-three souls, even though he has mentioned only thirty-two, I understand that Jacob himself is to be counted as the first in order.

The statement that he had that number of sons or daughters by Leah does not contradict this conclusion. For although, strictly speaking, his discussion is about sons, he nevertheless begins with the head of the family. I reject the interpretation of the Hebrews, who suppose Jochebed, the mother of Moses, is included, as being far-fetched.

A question arises concerning the daughters: were there more than two? If Dinah alone were named, it might be said that she was specifically mentioned because of the notorious event that had happened to her. But since Moses lists another female among the descendants of Asher, I am rather inclined to think that these daughters had remained unmarried, or single, because no mention is made of those who were wives.