John Calvin Commentary Genesis 47:22

"Only the land of the priests bought he not: for the priests had a portion from Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them; wherefore they sold not their land." — Genesis 47:22 (ASV)

Only the land of the priests. The priests were exempted from the common law because the king granted them maintenance. It is, indeed, doubtful whether this was a supply for their present necessity or whether he was accustomed to nourish them at his own expense. But since Moses mentions their lands, I rather incline to the conjecture that, since they had previously been rich and this dearth had deprived them of their income, the king conferred this privilege upon them; and this is why their lands remained to them free. The ancient historians, however, injudiciously invent many fables concerning the state of that land.

I do not know whether the statement that the farmers, content with small wages, sow and reap for the king and the priests, is to be traced to this regulation of Joseph or not. But, setting these things aside, it is more relevant to observe what Moses clearly wished to testify: namely, that a heathen king paid particular attention to Divine worship, in supporting the priests freely, in order to spare their lands and their property.

Truly, this is placed before our eyes as a mirror, in which we may discern that a sentiment of piety, which they cannot completely erase, is implanted in the minds of men. It was characteristic of foolish, as well as wicked superstition, that Pharaoh nourished such priests as these, who deluded the people by their deceptions. Yet this was, in itself, an intention worthy of commendation: that he did not allow the worship of God to fall into decay, which, in a short time, must have happened if the priests had perished in the famine.

From this we infer how diligently we should be on our guard not to undertake anything with unwise zeal, because nothing is easier, in such a corrupt human nature, than for religion to degenerate into frivolous trifles. Nevertheless, because this thoughtless devotion (as it may be called) stemmed from a correct principle, what should be the conduct of our princes who desire to be considered Christians?

If Pharaoh was so solicitous about his priests that he nourished them to his own destruction and that of his whole kingdom, so that he might not be guilty of impiety against false gods, what sacrilege is it for Christian princes to neglect the lawful and sincere ministers of holy things, whose work they know is approved by God and salutary to themselves?

But one may ask whether it was lawful for holy Joseph to undertake this office, since by doing so, he employed his labor in cherishing impious superstitions. Though I can readily grant that in such great, arduous, and manifold offices of trust, it was easy for him to slide into various faults, yet I dare not absolutely condemn this act. Nor can I, however, deny that he may have erred in not resisting these superstitions with sufficient boldness.

But since he was required by no law to destroy the priests by hunger, and was not entirely permitted to distribute the king’s grain at his own discretion, if the king wished that food should be supplied freely to the priests, he was no more free to deny it to them than to the nobles at court. Therefore, though he did not willingly take charge of such dependents, yet when the king imposed the duty upon him, he could not refuse it, even though he knew them to be unworthy to be fed on the dirt of oxen.