John Calvin Commentary Genesis 50

And Joseph fell upon his father’s face. In this chapter, what happened after the death of Jacob is briefly related. Moses, however, states that Jacob’s death was honored with a double mourning—natural (so to speak) and ceremonial. That Joseph falls upon his father’s face and sheds tears flows from true and pure affection; that the Egyptians mourn for him seventy days, since it is done for the sake of honor and in compliance with custom, is more from ostentation and vain pomp than from true grief: and yet the dead are generally mourned over in this manner, that the last debt due to them may be discharged.

From this the proverb has also originated: that the mourning of the heir is laughter under a mask. And although minds are sometimes penetrated with real grief, yet something is added to it by the affectation of making a show of pious sorrow, so that they indulge largely in tears in the presence of others, who would weep more sparingly if there were no witnesses to their grief. Hence, those friends who meet together under the pretext of administering consolation often pursue such a different course that they call forth more abundant weeping.

And although the ceremony of mourning over the dead arose from a good principle, namely, that the living should meditate on the curse entailed by sin upon the human race, yet it has always been tarnished by many evils; because it has been neither directed to its true end nor regulated by due moderation.

With respect to genuine grief which is not unnaturally elicited, but which breaks forth from the depth of our hearts, it is not, in itself, to be censured, if it is kept within due bounds. For Joseph is not reproved here because he manifests his grief by weeping; but his filial piety is rather commended.

We have, however, need of the rein, and of self-government, lest, through intemperate grief, we are hurried, by a blind impulse, to murmur against God: for excessive grief always precipitates us into rebellion. Moreover, the mitigation of sorrow is chiefly to be sought in the hope of a future life, according to the doctrine of Paul.

And Joseph commanded his servants. Although previously more labor was spent on funerals, even without superstition, than has been deemed right after the proof of the resurrection demonstrated by Christ, yet we know that among the Egyptians there was greater expense and pomp than among the Jews.

Even the ancient historians record this among the most memorable customs of that nation. Indeed, undoubtedly (as we have said elsewhere), the sacred rite of burial descended from the holy fathers as a kind of mirror of the future resurrection. But since hypocrites are always more diligent in performing ceremonies than those who possess the solid substance of things, it happens that those who have departed from the true faith assume a far more ostentatious appearance than the faithful, to whom the truth and the right use of the symbol pertain.

If we compare the Jews with ourselves, these shadowy ceremonies, with which God required them to be occupied, would, today, appear intolerable, though compared with those of other nations, they were moderate and easy to bear. But the Gentiles hardly knew why they incurred so much labor and expense.

Therefore, we infer how empty and trivial a matter it is to attend only to external signs when the pure doctrine that shows their true origin and their legitimate end does not flourish. It is an act of piety to bury the dead. To embalm corpses with aromatic spices was, in former times, no fault, since it was done as a public symbol of future incorruption.

For the sight of a dead man inevitably affects us grievously, as if one common end, without distinction, awaited both us and the beasts that perish. Today, the resurrection of Christ is a sufficient support for us against yielding to this temptation.

But the ancients, on whom the full light of day had not yet shone, were aided by symbols. Those, however, whose minds were not raised to the hope of a better life did nothing but trifle and foolishly imitate the holy fathers. Finally, where faith has not so breathed its fragrance as to make people know that something remains for them after death, all embalming will be meaningless.

Indeed, if death is to them the eternal destruction of the body, it would be an impious profanation of a sacred and useful ceremony to attempt to place what had perished under such costly custody.

It is probable that Joseph, in conforming to the Egyptians—whose excessive care was not free from absurdity—acted more from fear than from judgment or approval of their method. Perhaps he improperly imitated the Egyptians so that his father’s condition would not be worse than that of other men. But it would have been better if he had confined himself to the frugal practice of his fathers.

Nevertheless, although he might be excusable, the same practice is not lawful for us now. For unless we wish to undermine the glory of Christ, we must cultivate greater moderation.

And forty days were fulfilled for him. We have already shown that Moses is speaking of a ceremonial mourning; therefore, he does not prescribe it as a law or present it as an example that we should follow. For, by the laws, certain days were appointed so that time could be given for moderating grief to some degree; yet something was also conceded to ambition.

Another rule, however, for restraining grief is given to us by the Lord. And Joseph stooped, more than he should have, to the corrupt customs of the Egyptians; for the world affects to believe that whatever is customary is lawful, so that what generally prevails sweeps along everything it meets, like a violent flood.

The seventy days that Moses sets apart for solemn mourning, Herodotus, in his second book, assigns to the embalming. But Diodorus writes that the preservation of the body was completed in thirty days. Both authors diligently describe the method of embalming. And though I will not deny that, over time, the skill and diligence in practicing this art increased, yet it seems probable to me that this method was handed down from their ancestors.

Joseph spake unto the house of Pharaoh. A brief account is inserted here about the permission Joseph obtained, so that, with the king's goodwill and permission, he could transport his father’s remains to the tomb of the double cave. Now, although he himself enjoyed a significant degree of favor, he still used the courtiers as his intercessors.

Why did he act this way, if not because the matter was in itself offensive to the people? For nothing (as we have said before) was less tolerable to the Egyptians than for their land, whose sanctity they especially boasted about, to be despised. Therefore, to shift the offense from himself to another, Joseph pleaded necessity, as if to say that burying his father was not left to his own choice, because Jacob had obligated him to this manner of burial by an oath.

Therefore, we see that he was oppressed by slavish fear, so that he did not dare to profess his own faith frankly and boldly, since he was compelled to play a role in order to transfer to the deceased whatever offense might accompany the action. Now, since a more straightforward and upright confession of faith is required of the sons of God, let none of us seek refuge in such excuses. Instead, let us learn to ask the Lord for the spirit of fortitude and constancy that will direct us to bear our testimony to true religion.

Yet if people allow us the free profession of religion, let us give thanks for it. Now, since Joseph did not dare to take a step without the king's permission, we infer from this that he was bound by his splendid fortune, as if by golden fetters. And indeed, such is the condition of all who are promoted to honor and favor in royal courts, so that there is nothing better for people of sound mind than to be content with a private station in life.

Joseph also lessened the offense he feared he was causing by another point, explaining that the desire to be buried in the land of Canaan was not something that had recently entered his father’s mind, because he had dug his grave there long before. From this it follows that he had not been led to do so by any dislike of the land of Egypt.

And Pharaoh said. We have seen that Joseph adopts a middle course. For he was not willing completely to fail in his duty; yet, by using a pretext founded on the command of his father, he did not conduct himself with sufficient firmness. It is possible that Pharaoh was inclined, by the modesty of his manner, more easily to assent to his requests.

Yet this cowardice is not, for this reason, so sanctioned that the sons of God are at liberty to indulge themselves in it: for if they intrepidly follow where duty calls, the Lord will give the desired outcome, beyond all expectation. For, although, humanly speaking, Joseph’s bland submission succeeded prosperously, it is nevertheless certain that the proud mind of the king was influenced by God to graciously concede what had been desired. It should also be noted what great respect for an oath prevailed among unbelievers. For, though Pharaoh himself had not sworn, he still deemed it unlawful for him to violate, by his own authority, the pledge given by another. But today, reverence for God has become so greatly diminished that people commonly regard it as a mere trifle to deceive, in one way or another, in the name of God. But such unbridled license, which even Pharaoh himself denounces, will not escape God's judgment unpunished.