On Genesis, Part 57: The Double Portion

On Genesis, Part 57: The Double Portion

Where we had left off with our commentary at the end of Genesis chapter 47, it had been determined that the sons of Israel would dwell in the land of Goshen, and it was also evident that the famine had, at least for the most part, run its course, so that Joseph was renting the land of Egypt back to the people so long as they paid pharaoh the fifth part of their annual yields. Seeing that, we remarked that a twenty-percent levy was far more equitable than the oppressive taxes which men in a supposedly “free” world are forced to pay to their respective governments today. But home ownership in this “free” world is a separate issue from today’s taxes, and people do not get it from the government. Instead, they acquire their homes from Jewish usurers, and the typical rental or mortgage rates are far higher than a fifth of the median income. Therefore by comparison, Joseph’s management of Egypt actually sounds quite appealing, and so does the medieval feudal system which it resembles.

At the end of that last presentation, we had a lengthy discussion about the wife of Joseph, Asenath, and we were obliged to discredit the assertions made by Howard Rand and others, that she, as well as Joseph’s pharaoh, were of the house of Shem. There is no proof of that assertion, and Rand did not provide any conclusive proofs in the articles where he had made it. Rather, we demonstrated that the evidence which he did offer as proof doesn’t actually support his assertions at all. The reference to a shepherd named Philitis which was made by Herodotus had described him as a common shepherd, and certainly not as a king. The Hyksos which were described differently as either “shepherd kings” or “captive shepherds” in the copies of the writings of Manetho which had been employed by Flavius Josephus were only one and the same group which was described in two different ways in two different copies of the manuscripts of those writings which Josephus had possessed. They were clearly not two different groups, as Rand had insisted, but one group which was associated with the late 15th Dynasty of Egypt, and according to our chronology, Joseph had received Asenath as a wife not long after he was thirty years old, which is at least forty years before that dynasty had taken control of Lower Egypt.

So with our refutation of Howard Rand’s evidence, it must be admitted that Asenath was very likely an Egyptian, as Joseph’s pharaoh was also an Egyptian. While there may indeed have been Shemites in Egypt at an early time, there are no substantial records by which we may prove that Asenath was a Shemite. While it seems to be contrary to the Will of Yahweh that the chosen line would come through Ham, on account of his sin, the descendants of Ham through his sons other than the accursed Canaan were certainly Adamic, originally, and there is no concrete reason to despise them. The law itself had commanded the children of Israel not to despise the Egyptians, in Deuteronomy chapter 23. So it is acceptable that the line of Joseph had come through a daughter of Mizraim, and that too is a prophetic type for the later fact that Yahweh Himself would take Israel His bride out of Egypt. But the royal and Messianic line would descend through Tamar, and not through Asenath, and the precise identification of the tribe from which Tamar had originated is even far more obscure. We can only know that Yahweh had rejected the Canaanites and all of the Nephilim, while He had accepted and blessed both Tamar and Asenath.

Now, once the children of Israel are settled in Goshen, Jacob is attested to have been a hundred and thirty years old, and according to our chronology the year is about 1665 BC. But now as Genesis chapter 48 begins, Jacob is near death, and he died at the age of a hundred and forty-seven years, so at this point as many as seventeen years have elapsed since Jacob stood before the pharaoh, the events of which the Scriptures are silent. So it is now around 1648 BC. According to the popular chronologies of ancient Egypt, the Asiatic Hyksos had invaded Lower Egypt and had gained control of the Delta by 1650 BC, but no mention at all is made of that circumstance in Scripture. Since the chronologies must be close, but do not necessarily agree, either or both of them may be off from one another by several years. In any event, both our own chronology, and all of the various chronologies of Egyptian history which have been pieced together by the scant evidence which has been found in archaeological discoveries, are mostly only estimates based on generalizations and circumstances revealed in manuscripts and monuments.

So now, as Genesis chapter 48 opens, once Joseph had heard of the illness of his father, he is recorded as having come to Goshen to see him. Therefore it is evident that Joseph himself was not in Goshen, and apparently he may have still held the office with which the pharaoh who released him from captivity had rewarded him. That pharaoh was the same pharaoh to whom Joseph had answered throughout the famine, and that period covered at least fourteen years. Since, as we have discussed, the longest-ruling pharaoh of record during this entire period of Egyptian history had ruled Egypt for only twenty-three years, the pharaoh of the famine must now be dead, since it is at least thirty-one years since Joseph has been released from prison and elevated into a position in the government.

The records here do not inform us as to whether any other government had already occupied the area of the Delta, at the time of the death of Jacob, and they do not tell us whether the government of Joseph’s pharaoh had been upset in any way. Through chapter 46 of Genesis, it is evident that the pharaoh of Joseph continued to sit in Itjtawy, near to Goshen, which was the seat of government of the 13th Dynasty in Lower Egypt. But evidently, Merneferre Ay, the only pharaoh of the period who ruled long enough to have been the pharaoh of Joseph’s famine, is also the last pharaoh of the dynasty of whom records have been found in Lower Egypt. All the subsequent pharaohs of the dynasty are attested only in records which have been discovered at Thebes in upper Egypt. After him, the next five pharaohs of the dynasty had evidently ruled for a combined period of only about sixteen years, and the records are highly fragmented after that time. Subsequent to this period in Genesis, various portions of Egypt were ruled by kings of as many as four different dynasties at the same time, a situation which lasted until about 1550 BC and the rise of the pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty who had expelled the Hyksos and successfully unified Egypt once again. [1]

So in these closing chapters of Genesis, the only historical events which are recorded are the deaths of Jacob and Joseph, and there is no certain indication of any other historical circumstances. Therefore once Jacob fell ill, it is unclear as to whether Joseph had come to see him from Itjtawy, or from Thebes, the ancient site of which is over 300 miles south of Goshen. In our opinion, it is not likely that Joseph, an Egyptian official, would even have been able to travel to see his father if the territory of Goshen had been occupied by the Hyksos. But one challenge which is hopefully evident in this commentary is that Egyptian chronologies are not reliable, and vary quite widely among the archaeologists and historians.

When we had last mentioned the possibility that Merneferre Ay was the pharaoh of Joseph, in Part 51 of this Commentary, we had explained that by some chronologies he is said to have ruled Egypt for twenty-three years from about 1695 BC, so if that was the case, he would have died about 1672 BC, which is still at least seven years too early for him to have been the pharaoh of Joseph, since according to our chronology Jacob went to Egypt in 1665 BC. Other chronologies have Merneferre Ay as having ruled from 1701 to 1677 BC, which is at least twelve years too early. But at least one archaeologist, Thomas Schneider in his book Ancient Egyptian Chronology, dates Merneferre Ay to have ruled from 1684 to 1661 BC, which is perfectly in line with our Genesis chronology. [2]

The chronology of Egypt is so replete with problems, that we would rather gauge the history of Egypt according to our Biblical chronology, rather than assessing Biblical history according to the unreliable Egyptian chronology. The pharaoh of Joseph had with all certainty ruled over all of Egypt, and the last pharaoh to do that at this time was Merneferre Ay. But none of his successors ruled for any significant period of time which even comes close to that required to agree with the account of Joseph. Perhaps the Hyksos came into Egypt a little later than the time generally assigned by the same archaeologists. If there are no records of Merneferre’s successors in Lower Egypt, the lack thereof may be attributed to various other reasons, including the fact that none of them had ruled for very long. The archaeologists often reach conclusions too quickly, and just as often they are compelled to change their minds. But archaeology should never be used to write, or especially to rewrite history, it should only be used to help understand the things which were written.

So in summary, at this point in Scripture it is not yet apparent that the Hyksos had gained control of Lower Egypt, Joseph is still sitting in his office in Itjtawy, and Jacob is about to die sometime around 1648 BC, where we shall now commence with our commentary and Genesis chapter 48:

1 And it came to pass after these things, that one told Joseph, Behold, thy father is sick: and he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. 2 And one told Jacob, and said, Behold, thy son Joseph cometh unto thee: and Israel strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed.

Evidently, a man of Jacob’s household had sent a messenger to Joseph, and then shortly before Joseph had arrived, he received word back that Joseph was coming. But here we are informed that Joseph took the messenger with him, rather than having answered and sending him back. Therefore Joseph could not have been far away in Thebes, as it would be risky to send messengers, and to travel at all, from the occupied territory to Egypt and back, if the territory were occupied and Joseph were in Thebes. If Joseph were far away in Thebes, he would have needed time to make arrangements for the long journey, which he could have taken by land or by boat on the Nile River. So the circumstances certainly seem to suggest that Joseph was still sitting in Itjtawy, and that he was also still participating in the government of Egypt. Joseph would still be a relatively young man, at the age of fifty-seven years.

As for the names of the sons of Joseph, the Hebrew word מנשׁה or manaseh (# 4519) is derived from the word נשׁה or naseh (# 5382), which means forget or neglect. The מ or m, the letter mem, as a prefix functions as a preposition which generally means from in Hebrew. So the name Manasseh is interpreted to mean “one who forgets” by Gesenius [3], or, if it is interpreted causatively, as “causing to forget”, as it is in Strong’s Concordance. This meaning is evident where Manasseh was born, and having seen that as a blessing, Joseph was recorded as having said that God “hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house.” So Manasseh, the firstborn, had brought comfort to Joseph, who had evidently longed for his father’s house while he was a servant and a prisoner in Egypt.

The Hebrew word אפרים or ephrim (# 669) which is Ephraim here, is said to be a dual form of a noun, אפרת or ephrath (# 672) which means fruitfulness. The word אפרת or ephrath is also the name of the city which the people of Judah had later renamed Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ. So the name Ephraim means double fruit, as it is in Strong’s Concordance. However Gesenius left אפרת or ephrath undefined, and he defined אפרים or ephrim only tentatively as “perhaps ‘double land,’ ‘twin land’”. [4] The Brown, Driver and Briggs lexicon had neglected to define either of these words. [5]

Yet Joseph himself had defined the name Ephraim where he is recorded as having said at his birth that “God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction.” There the word for fruitful is פרה or perah (# 6509), and to attain the Hebrew form of Ephraim the letter א or aleph is added as a prefix, which represents a pronoun, I or me, and a suffix is also added, which is ים or im, the letters yodh and mem, which represent a plural masculine form of the word. Therefore the definition found in Strong’s Concordance is sound, in spite of the failures of the other lexicographers. Likewise, the word אפרת or ephrath is similar, but with a feminine suffix. As the name of a city, it represents a woman declaring that “I am fruitful”. Where the word פרה or perah was translated in the Septuagint version of Genesis 41:52, where Joseph had spoken concerning the birth of Ephraim, it was rendered figuratively with a form of the Greek verb αὐξάνω, which means to increase or augment, and that is how the word fruitful is often employed in English.

The name Manasseh meaning one who forgets, and Ephraim meaning increase or fruitfulness, these names alone serve as a prophecy of the conditions of the future of the children of Israel. For example, in Hosea chapter 6, where Ephraim is being addressed as the leader of the ten tribes, we read in part: “6 According to their pasture, so were they filled; they were filled, and their heart was exalted; therefore have they forgotten me.” Then, a little further on, because they had forgotten Yahweh their God, we read: “12 The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid. 13 The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son; for he should not stay long in the place of the breaking forth of children. 14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. 15 Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels.”

The children of Israel would be put away in captivity where they would forget their God, but they would nevertheless be fruitful in captivity, and ultimately be reconciled to Him. This is also evident, in part, in Isaiah chapter 49: “14 But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me. 15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. 16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me. 17 Thy children shall make haste; thy destroyers and they that made thee waste shall go forth of thee. 18 Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold: all these gather themselves together, and come to thee. As I live, saith the LORD, thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament, and bind them on thee, as a bride doeth. 19 For thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away. 20 The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell.”

So continuing that same theme in Isaiah chapter 54 another example is found, only this time the children of Israel are promised that they would forget the period of their punishment: “1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate [Israel in captivity] than the children of the married wife [Israel in the ancient kingdom], saith the LORD. 2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; 3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the [Nations], and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. 4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. 5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.”

Now Joseph must have arrived, and where Genesis chapter 48 continues Jacob is already addressing him:

3 And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, 4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.

While we cannot be absolutely certain, it seems that Joseph must have heard these words in the past, as Joseph was about sixteen years old when, soon before his brother Benjamin had been born, Yahweh had appeared to Jacob in Luz, which is also called Bethel, as it is recorded in Genesis chapter 35. In the opening verse of that chapter, Yahweh had told Jacob to move from Salem which was near Shechem and to go to Bethel, so Jacob prepared his household for that move where he told them to “Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments”, in verse 2 of the chapter. In any event, the promises to Jacob were also made at an even earlier time, when he first passed through Bethel on his way to Haran, which is recorded in Genesis chapter 28, in the vision of Jacob’s ladder.

Now Jacob adopts Joseph’s sons as his own:

5 And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.

Reuben and Simeon were Jacob’s two oldest sons in the order of the births of all of his sons. But here it is apparent that he is setting Ephraim and Manasseh in their place. Furthermore, Ephraim is mentioned first here, before his elder brother, so perhaps that is an indication of what is to follow. But this does not mean that Reuben and Simeon would be excluded from the promises of Yahweh God made to Abraham, which were inclusive of all of his seed, of the children of Israel. Here it is evident that even the disowned of the sons of Israel had nevertheless belonged to Yahweh, because although Jacob had replaced his eldest sons with the sons of Joseph, his eldest sons were nevertheless granted something of an inheritance in the Kingdom, even if it was a diminished inheritance.

So in Joshua chapter 4, the children of Reuben had received an inheritance east of the River Jordan, along with those of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh. Then in Joshua chapter 19, Simeon had an inheritance within that of the tribe of Judah, for reasons which are partly evident in Jacob’s blessing of Simeon in Genesis chapter 49. But in Revelation chapter 7, both tribes have a more certain assurance, as they were both represented among their brethren who had been sealed by Christ Himself.

Jacob continues speaking in reference to Ephraim and Manasseh:

6 And thy issue, which thou begettest after them, shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance.

In other words, if Joseph had any subsequent sons, they would have had to share in the inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh, rather than having their own share. Perhaps in that manner, Jacob was assured that his inheritance would only be divided thirteen times, and not any further. All of this to this point is further assurance that Joseph is being rewarded as the eldest son of his father, since he would receive the double portion of the inheritance in the names of his sons.

Later, the double portion is written into the law, in a manner which seems contrary to Jacob’s actions here, in Deuteronomy chapter 21: “15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”

However this does not quite reflect Jacob’s situation, since he had valid reasons for excluding Reuben, and, at least from his own perspective, Simeon and Levi also. Where Jacob later blesses his sons, in Genesis chapter 48, none of these are promised anything good from him. So perhaps Jacob awarded the double portion to the son of his own choice, not because he loved Rachel more than Leah, as the law explains, but only because these first three eldest sons of Leah had disappointed him, but Joseph was always his most-loved son. In any event, the later books of Scripture demonstrate that Yahweh Himself had upheld Jacob’s decision in reference to Joseph, for example where the ten tribes are called after Ephraim throughout the prophecy of Hosea.

Now Jacob recalls more of his past experiences, which happened shortly after he had seen the vision and promises from God which he had just described in verses 3 and 4:

7 And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem.

The words “the same is Bethlehem” seem to have been a parenthetical remark, either by Moses or by the hand of a later copyist, since they are an anachronism in the mouth of Jacob so they most likely did not belong to him. Bethlehem is also mentioned in Genesis chapter 35, but the use there is part of the narrative, and not attributed to any of its subjects. The name Bethlehem does not appear again in Scripture until Joshua chapter 19, which is set in the time to which it properly belongs.

Here Jacob says “when I came from Padan”, meaning Haran in Padanaram, although it had been about fifteen or sixteen years, during which time Jacob had long sojourns in Succoth and in Salem the village of Shechem, before the death of Rachel near Ephrath. Of course, Joseph must of also known this, since he was fifteen or sixteen when his mother Rachel had died, but perhaps Jacob is only reminiscing. This is the only place in Genesis where Padanaram is mentioned, but only by the word פדן or padan, which is a plain or field.

The Septuagint has some seeming novelties in verse 7, where Brenton’s translation reads: “7 And as for me, when I came out of Mesopotamia of Syria, Rachel, thy mother, died in the land of Chanaan, as I drew night to the horse-course of Chabratha of the land of Chanaan, so as to come to Ephratha; and I buried her in the road of the course; this is Bethlehem.”

There the translation of Padan to Mesopotamia may be acceptable, since Padanaram was considered to have been in Mesopotamia, but it is not entirely accurate. The Hebrew phrase פדן ארם or Padan-Aram means field or plain of Aram, and it was only a small portion of north-western Mesopotamia. But the novelties are found in the phrases “horse-course of Chabratha” and “in the road of the course”, which contain words that are not found in the Hebrew of either the Masoretic Text or the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Greek of both of those phrases is the word ἱππόδρομος or hippodromos, which was specifically a racetracks for chariots, but also any pasture where horses were kept and could run. It is also unlikely that Jacob had buried his wife in the road, but rather, she was more likely buried by the road.

Now Jacob asks a question which we may think is unexpected:

8 And Israel beheld Joseph's sons, and said, Who are these?

Jacob knew that Joseph’s sons were Ephraim and Manasseh, however he must not have recognized them here as they stood near their father. Therefore it is likely that he had not seen them in quite some time. So that situation indicates that it may have been some time since Joseph had seen his father, having been busy with his administration in Egypt. Yet these sons were no mere boys at this time.

As it is recorded in Genesis chapter 41, with all certainty the sons of Joseph were both born before the seven years of plenty had ended in Egypt. Their births are recorded precisely in this fashion in Genesis chapter 41: “49 And Joseph gathered corn as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering; for it was without number. 50 And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. 51 And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. 52 And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction. 53 And the seven years of plenteousness, that was in the land of Egypt, were ended.”

So with the assumption that Manasseh must have been at least two years old when the years of plenty had ended, and Ephraim was at least a year old, although we cannot be certain that they were not a little younger, and they were more likely a little older, then when Jacob had come to Egypt after the first two years of famine which had followed, Manasseh was at least four years old, and Ephraim may have been about three. However at that time Jacob was a hundred and thirty, and now it is seventeen years later, where Jacob is about to die at the age of a hundred and forty-seven, so Manasseh is about twenty-one years old, and Ephraim perhaps twenty. This is a low estimate for their respective ages. If the two young men were born early in the period of plenty, they may have been as old as eight and seven years by the time that Jacob had come to Egypt, and twenty-five and twenty-four years of age respectively here where Jacob is about to die. So it is understandable, that Jacob did not recognize them, especially as we shall read in verse 10 that his eyesight was also failing.

9 And Joseph said unto his father, They are my sons, whom God hath given me in this place. And he said, Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them.

Jacob had already suggested that he would give them his first blessings, the blessings of the eldest son, in verse 5 where he told Joseph that “now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh … are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.” Here, having given them his first blessings, he set them in precedence ahead of both Reuben and Simeon. This is also why it was important to Rebekah that the younger Jacob was blessed first, before his brother Esau. Furthermore, blessing Ephraim and Manasseh in this manner, Jacob was actually blessing Joseph.

10 Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. And he brought them near unto him; and he kissed them, and embraced them. 11 And Israel said unto Joseph, I had not thought to see thy face: and, lo, God hath shewed me also thy seed.

Here Jacob expressed the fact that he thought Joseph was dead, that he would never see him again, and now the fact that he was even more blessed because he was able not only to see Joseph once again, but also to see his sons. For at least twenty-three years of his life, from the time when Joseph was taken at age seventeen until when he was forty, Jacob could not have ever imagined that this would be possible.

12 And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth.

The verses from 12 through 14 are wanting in the surviving manuscripts of Genesis found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The boys having been at least twenty years old, and having already been embraced by Jacob, they could not have literally come out from between Joseph’s knees, but rather, the expression seems to have been an idiom for the introduction of a child by a father. Where it says that Joseph then “bowed himself with his face to the earth”, that seems to have been an act indicating that Joseph was awaiting the approval of his own father, for those sons whom he had presented.

13 And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near unto him.

Here it is evident that there must have been some sort of custom that the older son should be counted in precedence from the right hand to the left, as Jacob’s blessings would be given from right to left. But for some reason which is not explicitly revealed in Scripture, Jacob had preferred the younger brother, Ephraim, so he crossed his arms. There is much speculation as to why Jacob had next crossed his arms, but we would assert that the reason can only be found within the confines of what Jacob could have known at the time when he had chosen to do so.

14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.

So in spite of the precedence in which Joseph had set his sons, Israel had esteemed Ephraim above Manasseh, and he did this wittingly, so he knew what he was doing. When Manasseh was born, Joseph thought a family of his own could help him forget his father’s house, and move on with his own life. When he did that, he could not have imagined that he would have seen and would have even been reunited with his brethren and his father once again. Then when Ephraim was born, Joseph had thanked God for His having made him fruitful. In the culture of the time, Jacob understood that names had significance, and the meanings of these names could not possibly have escaped Jacob, so while he may not have known why Joseph had given his sons such names, he had nevertheless purposely chosen to bless fruitfulness over forgetfulness. So in the end, Joseph’s desire to forget did not prevail, and that should also be a lesson for Christians today.

The underlying message can only be that Israel would be fruitful even in spite of their own prevailing forgetfulness, on account of the promises of God. Yahshua Christ Himself had reinforced that message in the purpose of His coming, which was explicitly stated as having been on account of the promises to the fathers, and as having been only for the benefit of the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Before blessing his sons, Jacob would bless Joseph himself, but he must have still had his hands on the heads of Joseph’s sons:

15 And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

The reference to the angel must have been to the angel with whom he had struggled near the River Jabbok, which is recorded at the end of Genesis chapter 32. It was that angel who had first told him, as it is in the King James Version, that “28 … Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” Jacob must have associated those words of the angel with the God of Abraham who had appeared to him in visions, as that God had also called him Israel, at Bethel in Genesis chapter 35, informing him that he would overcome evils: “10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. 11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; 12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.” Jacob had already repeated portions of these promises earlier in this chapter, in verse 3.

The word for fruitful there is also פרה or perah (# 6509), the root of the name Ephraim. Now Joseph noticed that his father’s arms were crossed, and attempted to correct him according to the precedence of the ages of his sons, and by this it is certain that Joseph had expected the son which he had placed on Jacob’s right side to have had precedence:

17 And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head. 18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.

For no apparent reason beyond what we have already asserted, Jacob insisted that his actions were indeed according to what he had intentionally desired:

19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. 20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.

By blessing the sons of Joseph in this manner, Jacob had essentially prayed that the seed of Joseph would become the most fruitful of all Israel. However Jacob did not neglect his other sons, and would also bless Judah with a dominant role, in Genesis chapter 49. Perhaps this made inevitable a historic rivalry between Ephraim, representing Israel, and Judah, which was reflected in the time of David and Solomon, and had manifested itself significantly after their passing, in the form of the divided kingdom. But it had become fully evident towards the end of the Kingdom period.

Writing some time around 740 BC, in Isaiah chapters 8 and 9 the words of the prophet explain that Israel would be broken and taken into captivity in spite of a confederacy which they had made with Damascus, to protect themselves from the encroaching Assyrrians. So we read in chapter 9: “8 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel. 9 And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart, 10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars. 11 Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together; 12 The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” Rezin, the king of Syria at Damascus at that time, was hostile to Judah. So the prophecy indicates that Israel will be hurt by their own associations, against which there was an explicit warning in Isaiah chapter 8. Then at the end of chapter 9, we read: “21 Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.”

Apparently, this enmity between Ephraim and Judah would endure for the age. So in a Messianic prophecy which is yet to be completely fulfilled, we read in Isaiah chapter 11: “10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the [Nations] seek: and his rest shall be glorious. [The “root of Jesse” is Christ Himself, as Paul professed in Romans chapter 15, and to which Christ Himself alluded in Revelation chapters 5 and 22.] 11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. 13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim. 14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them. 15 And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod. 16 And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.”

While it is not our endeavor here to comment on Isaiah at length, it is clearly certain in this Messianic prophecy that Ephraim and Judah would once again be cooperative with one another at the time of His coming, when Christ destroys all of His enemies, and Israel has a role in that destruction.

Concerning the tribes of Israel, and especially the tribes of Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh, many Identity Christians over the past several centuries have sought to identify these tribes with particular modern European nations. There is serious folly in that endeavor which we hope to discuss at length when we discuss Jacob’s blessings of all of his sons, in Genesis chapter 49. However here we must discuss where it was said of Jacob that: “20 … he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.”

Later, when Moses was ready to depart this world, he also had blessed the tribes of Israel, and concerning Joseph, we read in Deuteronomy chapter 33: “13 And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, 14 And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, 15 And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, 16 And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. 17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”

If the tribes of Israel are to issue their blessings “in thee”, which in the context in which Jacob had spoken those words means in Joseph, that indicates that the other tribes of Israel would ultimately be within the great nation and multitude of nations which are promised to Ephraim and Manasseh, at least to some significant degree. The blessing of Moses upon them also seems to indicate as much, where it says of Joseph: “17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” There, where it says “the people”, the phrase is a reference to all of Israel, and not merely to Ephraim and Manasseh alone. Jacobs words began to become manifest in the divided kingdom, which was often called after Ephraim in the prophets, but also must have been manifested abroad, and it would be known if it were not for the fact that Israel was nearly as forgetful as they were fruitful.

As we have said, we shall discuss this topic at greater length, but here we shall move on to conclude this chapter:

21 And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers.

It is likely Jacob had been informed of the promise which Yahweh had given to Abraham, in Genesis chapter 15 where we read: “13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. ” But in any event, as Jacob had repeated here earlier, in verse 3, in Genesis chapter 28 (28:13) where Jacob was on his way to Padanaram and had stopped in Bethel, Yahweh had told him that “the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed”, so he had confidence that those words were true. Then, having once again been in Bethel, in chapter 35 Yahweh had reassured him and told him “12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.” So Jacob knew with certainty that he would die, but that Israel, his seed, would indeed return to Canaan.

Now, Jacob’s final words to Joseph in relation to these blessings:

22 Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.

This is how we are certain that Joseph received the double portion of the blessing in place of the eldest son, because Reuben had forfeited his worthiness when he had violated Jacob’s concubine. So this must have been a custom among the people, and as we have also already explained, the double portion was later codified in the law, in Deuteronomy chapter 21.

However in the Genesis account, there is never any record of Jacob’s having taken up the sword or the bow. So while we should not reject this statement, we must bear with the fact that no such action is recorded. However to consider the reality of life in ancient Canaan, which is manifest in some of the accounts of the lives of Abraham and Isaac, it is quite unlikely that Jacob could have lived in Canaan for 70 years up to the time when he went to Haran, and not have had to take up either sword or bow. It is further unlikely, that Jacob could have lived in Canaan for forty more years, from the time when he was ninety until he went to Egypt at the age of a hundred and thirty, and not have had to take up any weapons. Jacob was evidently able to hold on to his wealth, his sons, and his servants for all those years, and must have had to fight to do so on at least one occasion or another. But it simply is not recorded.

It seems that the Amorites were the dominant tribe of Canaanites within the closest proximity to both ancient Egypt and the regions of Shechem and Hebron. In later inscriptions, the Assyrians had called the inhabitants of northern Canaan by the general term Amurru, after the Amorites. [6] By the time of the Judges period of Israel, the Amorites had fallen subject to the Hittites, but the Hittite empire had crumbled by about 1200 BC. Their name may also have been the origin of Aamu, an Egyptian word which is generally translated as Asiatic. However some sources assert that Aamu may have instead been derived from Aramu, or Aramaeans.

Yahweh willing, we shall return to discuss Genesis chapter 49 in the near future. Our commentary on Genesis is nearly complete.

Footnotes

1 Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Dynasty_of_Egypt, accessed May 16th, 2024.

2 Merneferre Ay, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneferre_Ay, accessed May 16th, 2024.

3 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, p. 488.

4 ibid., p. 73.

5 The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishers, 2021, p. 68.

6 Amurru Kingdom, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amurru_kingdom, accessed May 17th, 2024.