Genesis 47:21

21. he removed them] Better, as Samar., Sept. and Vulg., he made bondmen of them, from &c. The reading in the text, followed by the R.V., in all probability is due to the recollection of Joseph’s policy of storing the grain in the cities, Gen_41:35; Gen_41:48. The reading of R.V. marg., which is that of the versions, differs extremely slightly from that of the Massoretic text. The verb “he removed” only differs from the verb “he enslaved” by one letter; the former having “R” (ר) and the latter “D” (ד); cf. Gen_10:3-4. The latter gives a distinctly better sense. Gen_47:20 has already described the sale of the land, and now Gen_47:21 describes how the people became servants, or serfs, to Pharaoh. Thus Gen_47:20-21 describe the carrying out of both parts of the people’s proposal in Gen_47:19.

to the cities] R. V. marg. according to their cities. The rendering “to the cities” agrees with the verb “he removed.” But, with the preferable reading “he made bondmen,” we should here read “for slaves or serfs,” as LXX εἰς παῖδας. The difference in the Hebrew text, between “to the cities” and “for slaves,” is very slight.

There would have been no advantage to be derived from the redistribution of the people in the cities except for convenience in feeding them. They were needed to work the soil which now belonged to Pharaoh.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 47:21 And as for the people, he removed them to cities from [one] end of the borders of Egypt even to the [other] end thereof.

Ver. 21. And as for the people, he removed them.] So to alter tim propriety of their land, and to settle it upon Pharaoh; who with his own money had bought it. See his prudence and policy for his lord and master. So Daniel, though sick, did the king’s business with all his might. These were, as the philosopher saith, πεπραγωνοι ολοκληροι; few such now-a-days. Great need we have all to flee to Christ who "dwells with prudence"; {Pro 8:12} as Agur did, when he found his own foolishness. It was he that made Aholiab wise-hearted.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 47:21. He removed them, &c. — He transplanted them, to show Pharaoh’s sovereign power over them, and that they might, in time, forget their titles to their lands, and be the more easily reconciled to their new condition of servitude. How hard soever this seems to have been upon them, they themselves were sensible of it as a great kindness, and were thankful they were not worse used.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

47:21 he made them all slaves: In Hebrew script, the difference is very slight between slaves (Hebrew ‘abadim) and towns (Hebrew ‘arim). Moving the people into the towns doesn’t fit the context very well, so most translations select slaves as the reading that makes the most sense (cp. 47:20).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Hebrew, end of the border.

By this changing they signified that they had nothing of their own, but received all of the king’s liberality.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

as for the people, he removed them to cities--obviously for the convenience of the country people, who were doing nothing, to the cities where the corn stores were situated.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 21. And as for the people, he removed them to cities] It is very likely that Joseph was influenced by no political motive in removing the people to the cities, but merely by a motive of humanity and prudence. As the corn was laid up in the cities he found it more convenient to bring them to the place where they might be conveniently fed; each being within the reach of an easy distribution. Thus then the country which could afford no sustenance was abandoned for the time being, that the people might be fed in those places where the provision was deposited.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

21. And as for the people, he removed them to cities. This removal was, indeed, severe; but if we reflect how much better it was to depart to another place; in order that they might be free cultivators of the land, than to be attached to the soil, and employed as slaves in servile work; no one will deny that this was a tolerable, and even a humane exercise of authority. Had each person cultivated his field, as he had been accustomed to do, the exaction of tribute would have seemed to be grievous. Joseph, therefore, contrived a middle course, which might mitigate the new and unwonted burden, by assigning new lands to each, with a tribute attached to them. The passage may, however, be differently expounded; namely, that Joseph caused all the farmers to go to the cities to receive the provisions, and to settle their public accounts. If this sense is approved, the fact that Egypt was divided into provinces, afterwards called nomes, may probably hence have received its origin. This removing from place to place would, however, have been alike injurious to the king and to the people at large, because they would not be able to make their skill and practice applicable to new situations. Yet, since the matter is not of great moment, and the signification of the word is ambiguous, I leave the question undecided.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(21) He removed them to cities.—Joseph’s object in this measure was most merciful. As the corn was stored up in the cities, the people would be sure of nourishment only if they were in the immediate neighbourhood of the food. As a consequence, possibly, of Joseph’s policy, the number of cities in the Valley of the Nile became so enormous that Herodotus computes them at 20,000. Thus the people would not dwell at any distance from their lands, while it would be impossible for them to reside actually on their plots of ground, as these every year are overflowed by the Nile.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Only the land of the priests bought he not,.... Not from any special affection for them, or any superstitious veneration of them, which can never be thought of so good a man, but for a reason following, which shows they had no need to sell them:

for the priests had a portion assigned them, by Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them; they had a certain allowance by the day of provision granted them, on which they lived; so Herodotus says (i) of the priests of Egypt, that they spend nothing of their own, but sacred food is provided for them, and great plenty of the flesh of geese and oxen is given daily to everyone of them. And this was a delicate affair, which Joseph could not intermeddle with, but in prudence must leave it as he found it, and do as had been used to be done; this depending on the will and pleasure of Pharaoh, if not upon the constitution of the land, as it seems to be from Diodorus Siculus (k), who divides Egypt into three parts; and the first part he assigns to the priests, who, according to him, were maintained out of their own revenues. Some understand this of "princes" (l), the word sometimes being used of them, and interpret it of the officers and courtiers of Pharaoh, his nobles, that dwelt in his palace, and had their portion of food from him; but the former sense seems best:

wherefore they sold not their lands; they were not obliged to it, having provision from the king's table, or by his appointment.

(i) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 37. (k) Ut supra, (Bibliothec. l. 1.) p. 66. (l) "agros praesidum", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

People, "he transplanted" from, &c., as the Hebrew, Arabic, &c., now read, by the change of one letter. Herodotus, ii. 108, says, the same person has never a field there two years together. Didorus 1, also attests, that individuals have no property in Egypt, the land being divided among the priests, the king, and the military. Tradesmen always follow their father’s profession, which makes them very skilful.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Under the cities are here comprehended the villages and lands belonging to the territory and government of each city; for the seed which he gave them was not to be sown in cities, but in the country: but the

cities only are here mentioned, because they were sent thither first, either for the conveniency of nourishing them during this famine out of the public storehouses which were there; or that they might all profess their subjection to the governments of the several cities, which was convenient for the management of that numerous and tumultuous people; or that the cities might be first and most replenished with inhabitants, as being the principal honour, and strength, and security of a kingdom, and that arts, and trades, and merchandise might flourish, without which the commodities of the country would have been of less price and use. But the cities being first supplied, the residue, which doubtless was vast, were dispersed in the country.

From one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof; far from their native soil and ancient patrimonies, that none of them might plead prescription, but that all might be forced to acknowledge that they owed their estates not to their own wit and industry, nor to their parents’ gift, but wholly to the king’s favour; and that the remembrance of their patrimonial lands might be worn out, and therewith the grief which would arise from their resentment of their loss of them, which probably would be matter of tumults and seditions, to which that people were very prone. And it is probable that he so disposed of this affair, that those who were apt, and likely, and used to unite together in seditious insurrections, whether kindred or others, should be separated one from another as far as might be. If any think that Joseph dealt hardly with them, and made an ill use of their necessity, he will see how moderately and mercifully he deals with them, Gen 47:24.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

21. Removed them to cities — For greater convenience in supplying them with food; for he had stored the grain in the cities. Gen_41:48.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And as for the people, he removed them not enslaved them, converted them into serfs and bondmen to Pharaoh (LXX, Vulgate), but simply transferred them, caused them to pass overto cities not from cities to cities, as if changing their populations (Onkelos, Rosenm Kalisch), but either from the country districts to the towns (Targums Jonathan and Jerusalem, Lange, Schumann, Gerlach, Murphy), or according to the cities, i.e. in which the grain had been previously collected (Keil)from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. Not that the people were transported from one side of the country to the other as a high stroke of policy to complete their subjugation (Jarchi, Grotius, Rosenm Kalisch, and others), but that throughout the land they were moved into the nearest cities, as a considerate and even merciful arrangement for the more efficiently supplying them with food (Calvin, Keil, Lange, Wordsworth, Speaker"s Commentary).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He removed them to cities - He transplanted them, to shew Pharaoh's sovereign power over them, and that they might, in time, forget their titles to their lands, and be the easier reconciled to their new condition of servitude. How hard soever this seems to have been upon them, they themselves were sensible of it as a great kindness, and were thankful they were not worse used.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

ואת העם העביר AND AS FOR THE PEOPLE HE CAUSED THEM TO PASS — Joseph caused them to pass from one city to another city that they might be reminded that they now had no claim to the land. He settled the people of one city in another. There was no need for Scripture to state this except for the purpose of telling you something to Joseph’s credit — that he intended thereby to remove a reproach from his brothers because, since the Egyptians were themselves strangers in the various cities where they then dwelt, they could not call them (Joseph’s brethren) strangers (Chullin 60b).

'מקצה גבול מצרים וגו means thus did he to all the cities of the realm of Egypt FROM ONE EXTREMITY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF EGYPT EVEN TO THE OTHER EXTREMITY THEREOF).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ואת העם העביר אותו לערים. He did not want the people to get too attached to the land they would be working on, not as the attachment they had felt for their land in the past which they had owned outright. He did give them the land as something they could transfer by inheritance to their children, but he made sure that they would remain aware that they had received it by the largesse of Pharaoh who had been the true owner and who could therefore claim a tax of 20% of their harvests.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.